this, i think, would involve an identification with resistance;
i mean, as any knowledge is applied to the process of interaction,
a 'self' -activated engagement takes place and even as this might be
a work of resisting, it is still a work of co-constructing the self into
the activity -
it's like being given sewing needles in embroidery class
and performing acupuncture - the mis-use of the tool is a kind of
appropriation
and to do that, resist, an identification is enacted...perhaps?
>>
>> yikes. YIKES. you make it sound as if gender roles are conscious
>options,
>> when we live in a misogynist world, and when any gender digression of
>> female-feminine or female-masculine or female-male is a subject of
>> discovery,
>
>I don't think they are conscious options perse, but American culture in
>specific spends alot of time keeping gender roles rather limited. If its
>how we tend to buy girls dolls year after year, or keep the doll and block
>area segregated, or even how the blocks tends to promote building while
>the
>doll area is fully assembled I think there is a certain appropriation of
>gender roles involved.
again, as you speak of resistance there are innumerable contexts of
appropriating a gender, where say the dolls are used for surgery (i 've
seen
boys use the doll centre for such purposes) - the internalization of
appropriate
behaviours can take place at the same time that kinds of resistance
are being structured into that - indeed identities are fabulously complex
because of these functions of resistance that are built into
identity - queer kids might learn to conform in practice and activity
but what is constructed in identity can become a skill in "passing" -
isn't it possible that gender roles can be mastered,
but not necessarily appropriated?
>
>> and yet the male=queer equations are noticeable in their absence.
>> appropriating a gender identity involves a cultural context of approval
>-
>> any gender identity that resists misogyny is the work of
>> internalizing a gender identity and invariably involves a context of
>> resistance.
>
>I hope not. I am curious though how you felt they were noticable in their
>absence. I do think the picture would have been a little different if it
>was a boy playing with the doll. The question of "did you kiss the baby"
>probally would not have been asked. The boys probally were not given
>"dolls" as objects which was sort of my point. My experience is the boy
>would be seen as needing to be fixed. The rationale would be how to find
>activities so he could appropriate the "right" gender roles. There would
>of
>course be a level of appropriation on the part of the child. The boys
>don't want to play with him, the girls think he's weird. I was looking at
>the other end, in how the teacher would create opportunities so he could
>appropriate the "correct" gender roles. He would probally be sent to a
>psychiatrist.
>
this is what i mean - if the girls play with boy's toys, there is less
concern
for their gender-appropriateness;
but when boys play with girls' toys, there is overt reaction - i recall a
boy who leapt to the costumes during freeplay because it was the only time
he could wear gauzy dresses and dance
around the room - the teacher's discomfort exceeded any of the other
children's concerns;
but then how this plays out in later years would, no doubt change.
thanks nate.
diane
>
>
' 'We have destroyed something by our presence,' said Bernard, 'a
world perhaps.'
(Virginia Woolf, "The Waves")
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, vancouver / university of colorado, denver
Diane_Hodges who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu