V

That would explain the broken guitar avatar.

Exactly. We just tend to classify them and have realized more recently that our classifications were too simple.

Ah ok. Yeah that's a bit confusing. The idea is basically that genders are collections of behaviors that we observe in our surroundings and which we imitate in order to fit into sexual classifications. This can come from simple socialization, advertizing, film, books, basically anything that represents social interaction. What is "natural" is the gravitation towards a set of behaviors that seems to fit your personality, life experience, the way you want to be sexual, etc.

To clarify, I don't think a gender is necessarily confined to a sex either. I find I am more attracted to gender expressions that are similar to my own (and I suspect many people are as well across all sexual orientations) but I am not sexually attracted to men.

Alright. If you want my opinion, gender and sexuality are two different issues. Sexuality is distinct from gender in that gender and sexual orientation are not necessarily linked by direct consistent relationship. It is therefore more fruitful to consider them as separate entities. "Straight female" is not a gender. "Straight female" is a very broad and imprecise term specifying which sex a female finds sexually attractive. It does not necessarily describe which gender a female finds attractive. Gender is far more diverse than the five or six basic sexualities people commonly associate with it (straight/gay/bi sexual male/female). Gender describes the activities one undertakes to express their sex and very often (but not always) sexual orientation. For example, I would not say that a male who is inclined to express his sexuality and gender through poetry but is attracted to females (of a particular female gender typically, rather than all female genders) is the same gender as, for example, an mma fighter who is also attracted to women. Those are disparate expressions of what could be the same sexual orientation.

However, I do not think sexual orientation is as simple as an individual being attracted to a specific sex, but is rather also descriptive of what type of gender that specific sex displays. For example, I am more attracted to artistic women, nerdy/scholarly women, and not stereotypically "girly" women than I am to atheltic women, "pretty" women, or women who are most interested in being subordinate to a strong and dominant male.

This is because my own gender is not the same as the gender those sorts of women might be interested in, partially, but also because I find it distasteful to become so invested in masculinity as to act the way I am "supposed to" act as a male. I have little interest in being the same gender as the "car guy" or the "sports guy" or the "bar guy." Those are not my natural genders. I express my sexuality through being the academic or the musician and this affects who I interact with sexually as well as the manner in which that interaction takes place.

So to say that "patriarchy" perpetuates a specific gender in women is not wrong. All gender is learned. However, to say that all or even most men have the same gender as the one associated with the patriarchal is inaccurate. All women do not, by the same token, succeed at or wish to express their gender or sexuality through the stereotypical straight female gender as defined in opposition to the typical straight male gender. I think, however, in the past the pressure to attempt to shoehorn one's behavior into only a few genders was even more prevalent and detrimental than it is today, but the problem of gender simplification is far from gone.

I dunno, actually. I guess I am just surprised because most people, I find, have a terribly outdated view of gender.

Now if Player 99 starts demonstrating fluency with Judith Butler I will really be surprised.

I happen to have a background in gender theory...

Surprisingly echo is the best gender theorist in this thread. Myself excluded of course.

Someone kiss Player 99 pls

Gweneth Paltrow is {censored}ing cute as hell with or without makeup, apparently.

but it'll keep it from snapping in 2 at least when some clumsy UPS/Fedex/USPS workers toss it from the plane/step on it/play football with it. also, why doesnt phil just unban you already?? or just ban allybella too since youre breaching the terms of harmony central forums??

I suppose. Have you ever actually tried to break a piece of maple lie that, though? It's difficult even with a chainsaw.

On second thought, I could totally make a drum out of the PVC later lol.

White PVC pipe is really cheap at any hardware store, wrap the neck in bubblewrap and stuff it in an appropriate length of 4". DW

Yeah, but that stuff is also pretty heavy. Like...heavier than the neck.

Anyway, I've never shipped just a neck before but I have had them arrive safely in long triangular boxes (basically a tube but triangular) filled with bubble wrap. I guess those people made them out of cardboard and a lot of tape?

Or I guess these: http://www.packagingsupplies.com/Triangular_Mailers.html

If you think about it, structurally, a tube is very strong from the top and bottom and very weak from the sides so something like that might be a bit sturdier?

What the {censored} is dubstep anyway? It sounds stupid.