I'm anonymous.

/end hijack

---

headful of bees

Sean wrote:
[I mean, society is such that labels are needed (quite unfortunately!) and so that others can recognize people who are like them, they need to use stereotypes. If most gay guys "acted sterotypicall straight" it might be hard to form a community.]

I really must disagree with this (naturally). I think it's the human mind that structures it's social environnement almost automatically and that's what causes stereotypes to save the mind from too much and too complex cognitive processing (time-consuming and energy expensive task). Such things are no social structures but cognitive heuristics, and certainly not needed at all to form a community.

[I almost must say that this applies even more fiercely with guys than with woman, perhaps because the standard male gender role can be so limiting and confining. It is almost as though a rigid masculinity and heterosexuality are bound and interwoven. It is socially constructed but has gotten to the point where the connection seems innate. Any deviation from the gender role of masculinity implies a deviation from heterosexuality.]

I must disagree with this as well, the ideal human being of modern society is actually androgenous: this ideal has the best traits of both men and women (culturallly defined of course, cause everybody can have every trait).

Blablablablabla Spikey

But aren't cognitive heuristics by products of society? I really don't think you can reduce anything (let alone everything) to biology. Besides the very concept of androgeny is a social construct as well. While you do concede of the cultural role involved with the enactment of traits, you stated, traits of "both men and women" which is so polarizing because it implies essentialism - that there are distinct and innate perhaps traits that are particiular to one's biologically assigned.

Any thoughts? SPikey - perhaps we could continue this over email?

Sean

I wasn't reducing to biology, but to psychology. Cognitive heuristics are the products of...well...cognition. Research tells us that androgeny really is a certain combination of personality traits, so that's psychological as well.

With traits of both men and women, I meant the more positive traits that are wanted in the androgenous ideal of modern culture, but all seperately labled as "more masculine" or "more feminine" traditionally. I was not implying that those traits are more masculine or feminine by nature, but that only culture defines it like that and......uhm...well yeah we could continue over e-mail I guess

Spikes.

Spikes,
I appreciate your response. Psychology is quite reductionistic nowadays unfortunately I think because of the influence of biology or cognitive therapy. Believe it or not I am in psychology graduate school. I hope to work with (LGBTQ perhaps?) teenagers in a school-clinical setting someday. I find cognitive heuristics to be too reductionistic, too devoid of the social construction that feeds into them. I do see your point in part though. Perhaps sometimes these disagreements boil down to semantics. Different readings of different language. I don't know. I apologize for misunderstanding about the trait comment.

Sean

"People are more than just people." - A wise soul I never met said that.

P.S. What's your email address?

Spikey010@hotmail.com

(it's in my profile)

u guys are deep. no, all jokes aside, *I mean it!!*, you are deep like a really deep river, or even better, deep like the Pacific Ocean. I've always found that my favorite ocean.

me, on the other hand, my girlfriend's favorite observation was (and I quote) "shallow, childish, and self-absorbed'..she really was a fan, now I think about it!! :-)

In fact I often think I am the shallowest and least serious person on this board. I need to build up my serious cred, because I really do love SV's music!!! I am working on my SV section of www.futuredave.com as we speak.

But O how I long to be Deep.

Oh, crap! Was I supposed to pick a favorite ocean too? Either I forgot something (again), or I'm behind the curve (again).

What I DO know is that my favorite ocean is NOT the Atlantic because it's separating me from my family in Florida (that bastard ocean). Also not my favorite ocean is the one that seems to be separating my ears. That one really sucks.

Manic(al)ly,
Bill

What made you say that we're deep?

Sean

Sean said:
"What made you say that we're deep?"


Hmmm... maybe it had something to do with "cognitive heuristics" being too "reductionistic"?

We are talking about sexuality here. You hide behind $20.00 words the way Adam hid behind a fig leaf.

Those words popped up in the part about stereotyping. Was Adam hiding that behind a fig leaf? I never knew that.

Spikey

Patrick wrote;
"Hmmm... maybe it had something to do with "cognitive heuristics" being too "reductionistic"? We are talking about sexuality here. You hide behind $20.00 words the way Adam hid behind a fig leaf."

I was just rereading this discussion. Patrick, that was very unnice of you to type 6 months ago

Spikey

Hi Spikey and everyone on this thread. I've been "inactive" for a while but now I'm jazzed 'cause I'm going to see Suzanne in Austin next month! And I can't let Spikey have the last word on this thread! Since I started it to begin with!
Brady

I guess this whole list of posts speaks to how personal a song can be that is written and produced for the masses. This song is intensely important and personal to me, because I'm a post-op transsexual. (I'm not sure if that's the near side or the far side of the knife.) I never thought of it as a "gay" song... I always heard it as about me, but I guess that's the way music is. It's just nice to have a song other than f**king "Lola" (puke)! It's nice to hear a non-pejorative song about gender roles, I guess. I adopted this as my own personal anthem long ago and play it for any friends I make. If they get it, they stay. (J/K!) I just want Suzanne to know that, above and beyond being an incredible singer and songwriter, her songs can be personal statements for her listeners. I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks.

I'm sorry to see that this discussion was "taken elsewhere", as I think it was a perfect and fitting conversation for the song. I think Suzanne is a natural observer who notices things others do not, wonders why they don't, and writes about them to help her listeners see through her very open eyes. If she is anything like the way I imagine her, I think she would be tickled to have spurred an in-depth exploration of gender identification and attraction.

My favorite lines in the song are "If I could pull this off", with both the obvious meaning and the hidden "If I could accomplish this", and "To make you more girls than girls are", in which I sometimes hear a note of near jealousy.

What I get from this song is...if this woman who has created herself can be so beautiful and vivacious, could I, who was born with the appropriate physical attributes, possess that feminine mystique if I studied and applied myself?

As others have pointed out, Suzanne's songs are as much about what we bring to them as they are about what she puts into them (because she puts in so much). I guess what I bring to this song is the knowledge that I don't make a terribly good girl myself, and I am intensely fascinated by anyone who does.

Deseray
(mediocre girl)