Thoughts on being called a "tomboy"

Watching people for three days straight, which is half the point of going to outdoor festivals, will get a person to thinking. Hopefully such thoughts won't all disappear before I have a chance to commit them to monitor.

Last time I launched off addressing language from the discussions at des femmes and more, I mentioned that it is certainly not the same insult to call a woman a man as it is to call a man a woman. By way of example, I mentioned how it's common enough for the rare women in a group of guys socializing to be called "tomboy" or "one of the guys". I threw that off to point out that calling a woman a man or just masculine can be and often is a compliment, but calling a man a woman never is. An interesting discussion started from there where mythago pointed out that to "compliment" a woman that way is actually an insult, as it still implies that her femaleness is something sort of shameful that she is getting "promoted" from.

That's a hard thing to take, no doubt, as it's certainly meant as a compliment. And it's not so straightforward as to just elevate men over women. (Though that is certainly the assumption it works off, which I'll get to in a minute.) Compliments or other comments directed at a person usually have multiple meanings. To call a woman a "tomboy" is to erase her femaleness a bit to "elevate" her to a masculine role, but it isn't utilized in that way. The person stating it and the person hearing it are more likely to understand that it means that the token difference is irrelevant, and not a difference worth noting.

But of course, if it's not worth noting, then why note it? (And, to be fair, it usually isn't.) I sat in the tub and considered all the people I saw coming and going all weekend long and it hit me--it's about sex, of course it is. Even amongst platonic friends, if you are hanging out with people of the sex that you prefer, there is sexual tension. So it occured to me that the major function of a comment like that was to state in a joking, non-confrontational way, that the speaker is assuring a woman, who naturally might feel a teensy bit objectified, that she isn't just a token sex object. In a culture where women are continually treated as sex objects or not there at all, it's understandable that in a social group whose relations are outside that, there might be some urge to reaffirm that.

But we are constrained by sexist language. Our language is modeled around imagining women only by their sexual roles or their helpmate roles. There are a handful of words that specify a woman who currently is not defined by her sexual or helpmate role, but they are few and far between. And more importantly, they are masculine. Simply put, women are specialized, men are generalized. If a woman cannot be put into a specialized category, she is functioning, linguistically at least, as a man. A "tomboy" is a girl who rejects being pigeonholed, but sadly our language identifies women who are not acting out sexual or helpmate roles as men.

I think this might be one reason that I didn't take offense at the term, and neither did some very on-the-ball feminists like Astarte. Because they aren't so much reaching for a way to "promote" someone to manhood as a word that expresses a relationship between straight men and women that isn't dippy like "platonic".

Still, the term is horribly sexist. For one thing, it still identifies a male/female relationship all through the sexual functions of the female, as the woman and her identity are still what' s put on the line. She is the one who is named, not the men who are still just the guys. No small part of the insulting nature of this term is the way that it seems that it's the woman whose sexuality must be denied, not the man's. Why mustn't the guys be assured that I know a friend from a potential lover?

It's clear that language needs to evolve. The times that a male friend has tried to make me feel comfortable by calling me a tomboy have caused me doubt that was certainly not intended--doubt not just about what the hell that means but also doubt that they remember that I'm a woman, which I like being. Also, it's not really a true statement--they are completely aware of my gender, and they are grasping for words to tell me that gender isn't everything, that friendship isn't about that. But sadly, the words to say that are gendered.

So, the quandrary is put forth. Yes, it would be best if people just hung out and no one said anything about gender, but that's not realistic when most of your friends are heterosexual. How can one distinguish between friends and crushes/lovers/potential lovers without using tired stereotypes? Remembering that even "platonic" friends indulge in flirting now and then, what kind of language would express feelings about opposite sex friends without de-sexing them or belittling them?