On the Mommy and Daddy Binary

[this post was originally posted on Shakesville with the title Mommy v. Daddy ]

---

Via Media Matters, I find this gendered analysis of Tuesday’s debate in the LA Times:

The late conservative economist Jude Wanniski once dubbed Republicans the “Daddy Party” and Democrats the “Mommy Party.” On Tuesday, Obama seemed to prove his point by laying out the more expansive government role in caring for middle-class Americans. And he mentioned not only his mother, but his wife and grandmother too.

First, let’s talk about how this is insulting to men, via its implicit contention that men don’t care for other people, and, quite specifically, if one takes this tired metaphor to its logical conclusion, that fathers don’t care for their children. Men are there to provide and discipline; women are there to care. This lie is the foundation for every damnable binary about sex and emotion in our culture—men are rational; woman are emotional—and it is on what we’ve based our pernicious refusal to regard the most destructive versions of emotions like anger, jealousy, possessiveness, vengeance, apathy, and selfishness as not emotions at all, but merely biological evidence of strength, as long as they emanate from men.

On Gendered Language

[this post was originally posted on Shakesville with the title I Write Letters ]

---

Dear English-Speaking World:

Pursuant to yesterday’s letter regarding the cessation of your use of the terms “man’s man” and “ladies’ man,” I would also like to request that you jettison the following from your vocabularies: “He’s all boy” and “She’s all girl.”

These terms are used to refer to children, anywhere from infancy to about 10 years of age, who are regarded as conforming nicely to the sex- and gender stereotypes prescribed by The Patriarchy^TM. Sometimes, their use is only as pernicious as reinforcing an exclusionary narrative like all male humans like sports or all female humans like fashion.

On The Feminine as an insult

[this post was originally posted on Shakesville with the title Seriously, Learn To Equality ]

---

In an uncanny timeliness, given today’s discussion thread, I got an email earlier from Shaker PatC, who provided last night’s QotD. Quoted with permission:

Thank you so much for using that as the QOTD! I’m so excited to have been quoted as “her”! I’m working on a paper on 18thC sexuality right now and so gender bending is topical for me (full disclosure, I am biologically and identify as a man). Regardless, thanks for using my idea. Shakesville kicks ass.

Cheers,
PatC

I had no reason at all to assume PatC was a woman, and I’m frankly not sure why I did; I’ve had female and male friends called Pat, and my email correspondents collectively skew slightly more male. So big wev to me: lol my gender assumptions.

What was more interesting to me was my reaction to PatC’s email: I was surprised, relieved, and grateful that he wasn’t insulted by having been presumed a woman.

And it was sad to me that I found it notable when his response wasn’t aggrieved.