>>27 I mean, genders are archetypes. Quite explicitly, though of course shifting ones. it's a clustered set of behaviours, aesthetics and affects meant to invoke group membership and thus the assumption of some of those remaining attributes not directly demonstrated. It's the same as "jock", though more culturally powerful. some parts are personality, but which bits you possess is less significant than which bits you foreground in order to engage in this signalling. Of course that breeds stereotypes. That's hardly avoidable without dismantling the whole framework of vying for tribal belonging. Good luck trying to get pack-critters to stop being pack-critters, though i suppose n1x has ideas on that front
I mean, genders are archetypes. Quite explicitly, though of course shifting ones. it's a clustered set of behaviours, aesthetics and affects meant to invoke group membership and thus the assumption of some of those remaining attributes not directly demonstrated. It's the same as "jock", though more culturally powerful. some parts are personality, but which bits you possess is less significant than which bits you foreground in order to engage in this signalling. Of course that breeds stereotypes. That's hardly avoidable without dismantling the whole framework of vying for tribal belonging. Good luck trying to get pack-critters to stop being pack-critters, though i suppose n1x has ideas on that front