Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must be getting old, because I am not sure exactly what we mean here. Are we talking about people who do not outwardly appear to identify with a typical gender role in their behavior, dress, actions, decisions, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Just those who tend not to conform as much to mainstream gender roles, behaviours, socio-political views.
Nothing to do with liberal/conservative either. You can have folk you have liberal views who are quite conventional, depending on the political climate.
Well it kind of goes without saying that those who don't conform to mainstream gender roles are by default singled out as being non-mainstream people.
As I think I've mentioned before in another thread about non-mainstream people, the thing with "non-mainstream" is that it isn't really a category and they don't share anything in common other than what they are not -- it's a ragtag, miscellaneous category where "other" belongs. It's like saying "people who aren't from the northeast" or "people other than those who eat three square meals a day".
That tends to go with labels like that in general. When you say someone or something is not ordinary, not typical, not normal etc., that only really tells you about what your normal is (it doesn't tell you about all the possible myriad ways you can deviate from normal, all of which have nothing in common other than standing out).
The people I meet in my grad school classes (writing) and professors seem to be much more open (understanding) of not wanting to get married or have kids, being gay/bisexual, choosing not to be a stay-at-home mom and working instead, open to turning gender roles on their head etc. then say my co-workers (more mainstream). On top of it, I feel they are much more open to discussing these topics and always up for a debate or discussion.
I've read that support for/insistence on strict gender-norm conformity does decrease with education (whether you want to chalk it down to "liberal brainwashing" like some people claim, or the idea that being more open to learning about the world makes you more likely to question, analyze and judge things we take for granted, globally and locally, such as gender norms and roles).
Then again, if you're specifically talking about academia, I'm sure there you've heard of some well-known discussion about the difficulty for women to juggle work/career and having kids (hot topic especially with women who have to face their 20s and 30s working to build their academic career, right when many feel like they'd like to have a family) and how academia should better accommodate that.
Well it kind of goes without saying that those who don't conform to mainstream gender roles are by default singled out as being non-mainstream people.
As I think I've mentioned before in another thread about non-mainstream people, the thing with "non-mainstream" is that it isn't really a category and they don't share anything in common other than what they are not -- it's a ragtag, miscellaneous category where "other" belongs. It's like saying "people who aren't from the northeast" or "people other than those who eat three square meals a day".
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if I agree. Is the non-mainstream really big enough to exist as disparate parts?
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if I agree. Is the non-mainstream really big enough to exist as disparate parts?
Well it doesn't have to be big in terms of population (wasn't really my point), just miscellaneous. It's just that non-mainstream is what you get after you take away the "mainstream", and what's left unaccounted for (the remainder who disagree with that single large cluster -- whether they agree on anything who knows).
The rest just gets lumped together because they don't fit the majority, not because they match each other in any meaningful way.
To draw an analogy, putting aside even people or cultures, subcultures etc., if you went to a grocery store, and there you had all your typical produce and foods and products, and then you came across a small aisle called "specialty/rare/novelty products".
The specialty products don't have anything in common with each other.
The only thing they have in common is, well not being common, well-known or mainstream.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,054,732 times
Reputation: 11862
True, 'non-mainstream' is a broad term: an Amish peasant or a goth into Satanism are both 'non-mainstream' in different ways.
I guess I have a somewhat more specific idea of the 'non-mainstream' type I'm thinking of, probably socially more liberal, open-minded, unconventional. Perhaps either a hippie or one of those dressed in leather who is into weird sexual fetishes.
Well it doesn't have to be big in terms of population (wasn't really my point), just miscellaneous. It's just that non-mainstream is what you get after you take away the "mainstream", and what's left unaccounted for (the remainder who disagree with that single large cluster -- whether they agree on anything who knows).
The rest just gets lumped together because they don't fit the majority, not because they match each other in any meaningful way.
To draw an analogy, putting aside even people or cultures, subcultures etc., if you went to a grocery store, and there you had all your typical produce and foods and products, and then you came across a small aisle called "specialty/rare/novelty products".
The specialty products don't have anything in common with each other.
The only thing they have in common is, well not being common, well-known or mainstream.
Great analogy, but I think being outside the mainstream can provide enough commonality on its own. Or at least some times. Through out my late teens and 20s, in the US, I bobbed and weaved between dead heads, rainbows, punks, ravers, rennies, communes, a couple of religious cults (to be found on tour back in the day- krishna's and yoshuas), street performers/buskers/artists, and rasta's (seem to embrace gender roles ime). People all living off the grid to one degree or another. So, sure, the philosophies were different. The mantras were different. But, to me, it all had the same rhythm. Sprung from the same earth to follow your produce analogy. There are some strange things that go on off the grid, outside mainstream. Maybe I'm projecting my perspective with it, but I don't think the flavor of non-mainstream really matters so much when comparing the two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
