I suppose it is my tendency towards the factual and logical that, in part at least, has steered me away from the subject of gender. After all, - men and women are equally capable of more or less the same feats (with the exception of the obvious biological barriers) aren't they? The only other considerations seemed to me to be cultural, aesthetic or social ones (historical/legal/political/religious). I have always considered that my gender was irrelevant, in all but the most fundamental sense.
Of course, I am aware of the existence of gender bias, cultural and historical prerequisites, and of the tendency of recent years for people to self-label themselves on the 'gender spectrum'... However, because I have never found gender to be an important factor in practically any decision I have ever made, that doesn't mean that there aren't important issues to consider. (I am sure that others have made plenty of decisions about me based on exactly this.) I should explain that I hold social concepts such as race and religion in similar disdain. I can only consider them in terms of variation and the complexity of experience they bring with them. I cannot imagine using such broad and subjective terms to make a judgement about a person. It simply would not occur to me to favour these considerations over the specific merits of someone's suitability (for a job, a spouse, a conversation, a friend...) What possible difference would it make if an engineer wears makeup or or has a beard?
I must admit my view appears somewhat simplistic when I read it back. Am I at fault, or is my simplistic view what we should all be aiming for?
To clarify what 'gender' means to me personally, as a woman with Asperger's: An assignation which only has meaning in terms of anticipating situations when bias might occur with regard to social, historical or cultural norms, and in practical considerations. For example, the issue of a man working in a women's shelter or wearing appropriate clothing for dangerous jobs.
I have come to see that many people hold their gender identity very dear, some to the extent that it seems to define their very persona. They celebrate their place on the spectrum of gender. I struggle to see where I would fit on such a spectrum. I suppose most see me as quite 'male' - I always wear trousers, but because they are practical and warm, and stop my skin burning in the summer. (I am particularly aware of how much cheaper men's clothing is, and how much better quality the materials usually are!) However, I do wear minimal makeup and brush my hair (long - because I cannot bear the idea of visiting the hairdressers) when I go out, mainly because I don't want to attract unpleasant comment about 'not making an effort'. (I don't really associate this with any particular gender - I just accept that I have female attributes, so I do things to fit in to that social expectation, particularly because it is a preference that my (NT) husband shares.) Of course practical considerations outrank any of these other expectations! (I am amazed by people who will maintain their gender identity beyond all consideration of the practical - high heels on cobbled streets, a 3-piece trouser suit on stiflingly hot day, coiffured hair and eye makeup in a swimming pool etc... what dedication!)
Of course, it's not all about what you wear. A huge amount of research has been done in this area, and it continues to be a popular discussion subject in many ways: Does your environment determine gender? Or is it your biology, your genes...or your brain?
I have been aware for some time of the apparent correlation between being a fairly strong systemiser (47 on Baron-Cohen's AQ scale) and my tendency towards the 'left brain' and the male stereotype: I wear trousers, hate chatting and shopping and talking about handbags and 'celebrities'. I was never interested in things other girls were interested in at school. I didn't like soft toys, ponies or kittens. Later, I even preferred beer and spirits (straight) to sweet wines and cocktails. Even now, I like talking about aviation, space, physics and swordfighting, and have absolutely no interest in 'Nailbars', Love Island or small fluffy dogs which appear to have no practical purpose. I have always preferred the company of men to women. Even when I was in school I chose only male company. I preferred the simpler interactions - we talked about things (bugs, films, cars) not people, or relationships. Conversations were all about the subject, practicalities, statements and physical or visual jokes. It was much easier to follow. At college I would dread the inevitable 'girls' nights out, and avoid them wherever possible. Relationships, fashion, pets, gossip were all alien to me. I am aware of how stereotypical this sounds, but this was my experience. Perhaps we were all responding to the same stereotypes....
Much has been made in recent years, of the apparent oversight of diagnosing girls and women with Asperger's due to their skill at social mimicking among other things. To clarify: Girls don't fit in better, but they are better at 'appearing to fit in'. Boys are more likely to 'act out' and are therefore more visible for diagnosis. Or so the theory goes. I don't think this is true in my case. I acted out. I truanted, got into fights and consequently spent the vast majority of the time on my own. I loved dinosaurs and ancient Greek mythology and drawing scary monsters. I was visible, but my behaviour was dismissed as boredom or eccentricity, due to my academic ability.
I have been aware for some time of the apparent correlation between being a fairly strong systemiser (47 on Baron-Cohen's AQ scale) and my tendency towards the 'left brain' and the male stereotype: I wear trousers, hate chatting and shopping and talking about handbags and 'celebrities'. I was never interested in things other girls were interested in at school. I didn't like soft toys, ponies or kittens. Later, I even preferred beer and spirits (straight) to sweet wines and cocktails. Even now, I like talking about aviation, space, physics and swordfighting, and have absolutely no interest in 'Nailbars', Love Island or small fluffy dogs which appear to have no practical purpose. I have always preferred the company of men to women. Even when I was in school I chose only male company. I preferred the simpler interactions - we talked about things (bugs, films, cars) not people, or relationships. Conversations were all about the subject, practicalities, statements and physical or visual jokes. It was much easier to follow. At college I would dread the inevitable 'girls' nights out, and avoid them wherever possible. Relationships, fashion, pets, gossip were all alien to me. I am aware of how stereotypical this sounds, but this was my experience. Perhaps we were all responding to the same stereotypes....
Much has been made in recent years, of the apparent oversight of diagnosing girls and women with Asperger's due to their skill at social mimicking among other things. To clarify: Girls don't fit in better, but they are better at 'appearing to fit in'. Boys are more likely to 'act out' and are therefore more visible for diagnosis. Or so the theory goes. I don't think this is true in my case. I acted out. I truanted, got into fights and consequently spent the vast majority of the time on my own. I loved dinosaurs and ancient Greek mythology and drawing scary monsters. I was visible, but my behaviour was dismissed as boredom or eccentricity, due to my academic ability.
But does favouring the left-brain (the slower, more logical thinking brain) mean that you are more 'male'? And does that mean you are 'less female'? (I can't help thinking of Temple Grandin here, with her wonderful deadpan delivery and shapeless country cowboy shirts.) After all, I am a loving mother and teacher, and creative to boot. (All seen as more right brain.) I thought my view might change when I met other Aspie women, but I have met none like me - they seemed more able, socially, and conversation inevitably got around to hobbies and interests like crafts, and pets. Is this because of a tendency for women to be more 'right brain'? Maybe. It seems quite neat but, of all people, I know appearances can be deceptive... The roles that my husband and I have assumed within our relationship are not the usual 'stereotypical' gender roles: He does the cooking, I do the DIY. He does the vehicle maintenance, I do the gardening. He is the keeper of the social diary, I do the school correspondence and homework help. We share all other responsibilities depending on the circumstances at the time. Any type of brain can see the sense in this arrangement, surely? It certainly works.
I think, ultimately, that gender should not and need not matter. I see it as a useful creative tool. It can open doors, stimulate debate and provide an identity, but it is yours to do with as you wish, so make it work for you...
The Sheephead Wrasse (Semicossyphus reticulatus) Looks aren't everything, when needs must...
Simon Baron-Cohen's article on the extreme male brain and autism.
http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/bc.pdf
I think, ultimately, that gender should not and need not matter. I see it as a useful creative tool. It can open doors, stimulate debate and provide an identity, but it is yours to do with as you wish, so make it work for you...
The Sheephead Wrasse (Semicossyphus reticulatus) Looks aren't everything, when needs must...
Simon Baron-Cohen's article on the extreme male brain and autism.
http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/bc.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment