To be clear in turn, I'm indeed part of the sociologically "interesting" group above. I'm soaking in cultural presuppositions as much as anyone.
As are we all, but that's not the point I was making. "I was following everyone else including you" was trying to say that I had made the conscious effort not to try to channel a conversation which was clearly progressing in a particular direction. Unanimously, even, both in terms of gender specificity and heteronormativity.
I thought this was fascinating. cme's original formulation was "the sensitive, caring, yet emotionally inaccessible guy" (my emphasis, not hers). I truncated it both so it became an adjectival phrase instead of a noun, and to see if the removal of gender specificity would result in a conversation about both genders; it didn't.
I also like to make them explicit when I can as a first step to maybe changing them some day. For the record, I'll note we're presupposing hetero-normative relationships too, at least here on lj.
Sure. I'm glad in retrospect that I decided to truncate her quote, which I did without careful thought, because it made this comment thread possible. If I hadn't ambiguated the original phrase there the gender specificity would have been explicit from the outset, but I think the conversation(s) would not have been as illuminating.
[W]hat got me questioning the original post was that I don't find such people irresistible.
Like many other quick one-liners it's got some underlying resonance for many but isn't expected to be universal. But the fact that it elicited the comment it did does speak to its resonance.
cme does come up with good quips. :)
Backing away from the meta, I do think the type she summed up as "the sensitive, caring, yet emotionally inaccessible guy" evidently pushes a number of buttons in a lot of people. In your case, it pushes some buttons that raise warning flags, which it seems is different from many of the other responses. Do you have any theories as to why your reaction is what it is? And why do you posit it may be damage? From here it looks like it's actually been beneficial.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: sensitive, caring, and emotionally what?
Date: 2011-06-06 09:44 am (UTC)As are we all, but that's not the point I was making. "I was following everyone else including you" was trying to say that I had made the conscious effort not to try to channel a conversation which was clearly progressing in a particular direction. Unanimously, even, both in terms of gender specificity and heteronormativity.
I thought this was fascinating. cme's original formulation was "the sensitive, caring, yet emotionally inaccessible guy" (my emphasis, not hers). I truncated it both so it became an adjectival phrase instead of a noun, and to see if the removal of gender specificity would result in a conversation about both genders; it didn't.
I also like to make them explicit when I can as a first step to maybe changing them some day. For the record, I'll note we're presupposing hetero-normative relationships too, at least here on lj.
Sure. I'm glad in retrospect that I decided to truncate her quote, which I did without careful thought, because it made this comment thread possible. If I hadn't ambiguated the original phrase there the gender specificity would have been explicit from the outset, but I think the conversation(s) would not have been as illuminating.
[W]hat got me questioning the original post was that I don't find such people irresistible.
Like many other quick one-liners it's got some underlying resonance for many but isn't expected to be universal. But the fact that it elicited the comment it did does speak to its resonance.
cme does come up with good quips. :)
Backing away from the meta, I do think the type she summed up as "the sensitive, caring, yet emotionally inaccessible guy" evidently pushes a number of buttons in a lot of people. In your case, it pushes some buttons that raise warning flags, which it seems is different from many of the other responses. Do you have any theories as to why your reaction is what it is? And why do you posit it may be damage? From here it looks like it's actually been beneficial.