can we reject gender and still be pro female?

What you have described is stereotypical roles and behaviours, isn't it?

It is a stereotypical role that pregnant women are oppressed by society.

It is stereotypical behaviour that in some societies women have their genitals mutilated.

It is a stereotypical behaviour that men take away women's access to resources.

I thought gender what about stereotypical expectations of masculinity and femininity - roles and behaviours expected by society as a result of your sex?

I don't have a definition, I haven't studied feminism, it's just my understanding of the term.

Hermione, yes, I agree. What I am saying is...

Men are usually stronger than women. Women can usually get pregnant and men cannot.

That is sex.

'For many millennia men have used their greater strength and women's role as child bearers to assume and control power and resources.'

That is gender.

Sexism has its roots in biology - that doesn't mean it's inevitable, but that for many millennia men have used their greater strength and women's role as child bearers to assume and control power and resources. Gender stereotypes are one of the ways this is maintained.

Way back in pre-history, but probably still comparatively recently we took a complete human being, split them in half assigned one half male, the other female and then compounded the sin by denigrating the feminine half, and exalting the male

I'm really not following this. Any chance you could explain what you mean.

I'm still working on an idea that masculinity/femininity are expressions of a complete, well-rounded and balanced individual. Why wouldn't an individual wish to embody what has been traditionally seen as the best of either men or women?

Way back in pre-history, but probably still comparatively recently we took a complete human being, split them in half assigned one half male, the other female and then compounded the sin by denigrating the feminine half, and exalting the male.

Both in terms of society, but perhaps also crucially as individuals we to heal and become whole again. Being pro female is to be pro human.

I don't think any kind of sexism is the direct result of biological sex, because I would take that to mean there is something inevitable about sexism always being the dominant model in society.

I don't think I am interpreting the word gender. I am using it in a specific way that it has been used by feminists for pretty much my entire life.

I can use the word sex role instead of gender, if that is easier to understand?

FGM is a sex role. It is a socially constructed role forced on to women (women meaning people who are biologically female).

That is what I mean by gendered.

If you say that FGM is "gendered", is there ANY sexism you think is a direct result of biological sex?

"FGM is gendered"

I disagree. You and I clearly have very different interpretations of the word gender.

I'd disagree there.

Rigid enforcement of certain imaginative playthings as being for girls, when none of those things are anything other than stifling roles that keep women poor seems to me to be more than merely highlighting a possible link.

I may be explaining it badly.

Whenshewas, yes, I think I agree with you.

As I already said...

'I agree that gender covers all the non biological differences between men and women as a group, and that some of those differences need to be abolished.'

I don't mean choicy postmodern gender identity nonsense when I say gender or gendered. I mean socially constructed differences between men and women.

FGM is gendered. Of course lots of gendered treatment of women is done in ways that involve their biological sex, and is done because they are women (a biological sex!) but the name of that social construction is gender.

Gendered nature of poverty means that because of social constructions, most of the poor are female, a biological sex.

I think I'd be happy to know that people understood that both a and b are fabrications and that while a is more obviously oppressive, b is linked to and increasingly seems to lead to some of a. It would be a start at least, don't you think

But surely it's an easier arguement to tackle the a issues (eg girls being told some careers are not for them)
Rather than highlighting the b issues (liking makeup etc)

I'm not really sure what is to be gained from highlighting a possible link between type a and type b stuff rather than just challenging the type astuff.

Agree that it's the rigid expectations of behaviour in gender that is so damaging to men and women. I don't think it's possible to be a feminist if you buy into those stereotypes that have absolutely no basis in fact, for example: "female" brains (women inherently aren't good at science, maths, map reading etc, born to be nurturing and caring), ladylike behaviour, expectation you'll like certain things.

It's not a stereotype to say that women give birth and breastfeed, and that has consequences for us (mostly negative). If we want to use the talents of half our population, we need to find a way to overcome both the gender stereotypes and the biological barriers (for example, in many countries lacking access to sanitary protection, girls miss school during their period or stop attending altogether when they start menstruating) that stop women and girls participating fully.

There is no way to be a woman other than the biological, lived reality.

Coupled with women being the majority of the world's farmers and often tied to land.

And, for the hat trick, global poverty impacts women more because pregnancy, birth and child rearing, along with aforementioned sexism in educational provision AND employer sexism, decreases opportunity for economic mobility.

I don't find gender a problem, but attributing stereotypes to a gender is the problem.

Good points both Woman.

Access to education (in developing countries) is again based on sex - a girl who likes knitting and a girl who likes climbing trees will be equally excluded from school if they are on their periods (biology) and there are no sanitation facilities or their parents have chosen to spend limited resources sending a son to school.

I'm not sure that getting rid of b is what I'm aiming for.

I think I'd be happy to know that people understood that both a and b are fabrications and that while a is more obviously oppressive, b is linked to and increasingly seems to lead to some of a. It would be a start at least, don't you think?

"FGM is oppressive and gendered."

No. FGM has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with biological sex.

If gender is all the differences between men and women, then some aspects of gender are, in themselves, oppressive.

FGM is oppressive and gendered.

The gendered nature of poverty is oppressive.

The gendered nature of access to education is oppressive.

Those are intrinsically oppressive things. Wearing a different colour isn't.

So there must at least be two categories - a. things that are oppressive and b. things that put people into different categories which may or may not make the oppressive things more likely to happen, with some grey areas in between the two.

People are more likely to agree with getting rid of a than b.

Absolutely Empress. And not just reinforcing them, but claiming them as their own, so even if women wanted to settle into their appointed roles, they can't.

For my part, I used the example of pinkification for simplicity.

There are better and more insidious examples of how gender helps to keep women oppressed, I'll grant you. Although, looked at as part of the bigger picture, I'd argue pinkification of things that are viewed as for girls is making gender role identification stronger and easier to enforce.

So, I suppose that, while it's the most common example of it, it could also be seen as being merely the tip of the iceberg.

But it seems, and the posts on this thread kind of illustrate that, that when we talk about gender it is often things like girls wearing pink that they're talking about

Yes I think gender can mean a variety of different things.