A roundabout story about little boys and little girls

Note: this is actually a very old post that didn't get quite finished or published at the time. I'm publishing it now because I think ... well, mostly because I think the links are cool and anyone who hasn't seen them should check them out right away.

Part one: ...one boy at a time

Image from the Achilles Effect. Girls words.
Read the article for an explanation,

I've been thinking about angles on this for a while, and reading this Huffington blog by Lisa Bloom about rescuing one girl at a time, made it clearer to me what I wanted to say. Bloom talks about taking little girls seriously. This is excellent. It's also sexist and blind - not in the way society at large is, but in a different way. It misses a point that I believe is the key to finding a society that lets everyone as far as possible feel that they're making headway in their pursuit of happiness. On one level, the Huffington blog is excellent and you should read it. In my opinion it examplifies exactly how one might approach girls. Now I'm going to state something I don't usually say: In this context, boys are exactly like girls. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that you should do exactly the same thinking when dealing with future men as with future women. Those future women will share the world with those future men, and if one of those groups aren't equal and free, neither is the other.

If you talk to a 5 year old boy, are you really going to address him in a more sane way than that you'd use toward a girl? I think not. You're probably going to use the idioms and topics that little boys are showered with, at least if you want to connect with him. Cause you think that's all he knows and it's what you think he expects. Like these graphics.

Image from the Achilles Effect. Boy words.

It's like how you talk about the weather when you're chatting with someone you don't know.

Perhaps grown-ups really are more likely to treat a little boy seriously than they are to do so with a girl. I would claim that this is not very true or valid, but perhaps there are relevant cultural differences or something about social strata or unusual personal experiences. Whatever the case, I believe the point valid. Boys need intelligent nurturing just as girls do.

Part two: Being valued for what you do, or for what you are

Now let's switch topic for a moment. I recently came across Glickman's box (I know it's not all his but that's how I think about it), read The Performance of Masculinity if you haven't (there a sequel too, you know the drill). I'm not big on gender stuff but this revealed something to me, about how my self is formed. One thing in particular stood out to me: Manhood is defined by people as achievement and position. This is in complete contrast to me with what love and value mean. Love is something that will survive failure, value is intrinsic in the being, not in how you perform or conform.

Now, I want to go back to the Huffington blog. The statement that Maya should strive to be valued for what she does, perfectly reasonable on the surface, is, in a way, a trap.

I'm 100% meritocratic (that is a word, isn't it?) in almost every context. The contexts where achievement is not crucial is within relationships, family and friendship - every place where I'm first and foremost a person. Achievement is relevant outside that private sphere, and only outside. My value as a person does not rely on success or performance. Cogs, objects perform. People don't need to perform to be lovable.

That's not to say one shouldn't strive to perform, it's just not what you base personal life on. If personal relations are based on achievement, they're business relationships, not love or family. You don't have to perform to be worthy of love. It might help with the salary though.