Its 3014, and we have achieved gender equality…

[Thistledew]

Men and women are seen as true equals. They are equally represented in positions of power; there is no pay gap; there is no differentiation or stigma in terms of job roles, hobbies or in respect of domestic responsibilities. Men and women are seen as equally capable of and responsible for all aspects of child-raising (apart from breast feeding). The way people choose to dress and behave is completely fluid, with things like clothing, personal grooming and wearing of makeup seen as being solely the choice of the individual. Gender based violence is seen as primitive behaviour, beyond which the human race has now evolved.

Do we still have a need for gender designation?

The biological function of reproduction still throws up obvious gender differentials. Assuming that we still largely operate in a pair-bonding system, both expectant parents would have the same rights to take time off work to attend ante-natal appointments, to take time off after the birth to care for the post-natal care, and to flexibility in employment for care for children, the disabled and the elderly.

However, it does not make sense for all employment rights to be equal. For example, the right to be able to avoid heavy lifting, long hours standing up, exposure to chemicals etc only applies to those people who are actually pregnant with the child, and not the non-pregnant partner. Is it still therefore useful to designate people as ‘men’ and ‘women’, as a short hand to saying “women are entitled to additional pregnancy-related employment rights”, or would it be sufficient to say “these employment rights apply to anyone with medical proof of pregnancy”?

Could we do away with male/female designation altogether, on birth certificates, employment records and other official documents?

Is competitive sport the only time at which it would be unfair not to differentiate?

NB I’m not saying that doing away with gender designation would bring about proper equality, which I think has to come first before we can be truly gender neutral. This may be a completely pointless musing, but I thought it might be a fresh way to consider gender and what it actually is.

NB ii. It may be 3014, but we still don’t have hover boards. Sorry.

If in 1000 years time we have 100% effective contraception and women aren't subjected to the conditioning that wanting children is an essential part of being a woman maybe there will be fewer accidental pregnancies (1/3 of all pregnancies at the moment) and so pregnancy will inevitably be planned and part of a pair bond.

Single parents would be male and female since there would be no social expectation for women to do the bulk of the childcare, male and female violence levels would be equivalent (don't know if it would reduce overall, maybe female violence would increase while male violence decreased? But whichever, those parents who society decided shouldn't be allowed access to their children would be equally likely to be male or female), and women would be as likely to die or abandon their children as men.

Oh yes guilt is a totally conditioned feeling. I don't imagine that animals ever feel guilt, though they clearly feel happy, sad, scared, surprise, excitement etc.

Even with 100% failsafe contraception that every single person has access to and no moral problem with using, the planned, pair-bonding theory doesn't apply to relationships which turn abusive after the pregnancy (I'm assuming that there will still be relationship abuse but hopefully it will be less gendered and less accepted or thought of as some kind of milestone to be got over) or some other reason that the relationship breaks down.

Also, some people may choose to have children alone or in a same sex relationship necessitating an extra biological parent (assuming we haven't figured out asexual/homosexual reproduction - maybe we will have and so that would be moot!) or have a co-parenting relationship which is not a romantic relationship, where you share childcare but don't necessarily live together. I always think that that would be a great setup - perhaps that will be more popular in the future once we've got away from this idea that children are magically better off in a two-parent household with married parents. I find that having another adult to share childcare with is much better and preferable for those adults, provided they support each other but it doesn't matter to the children as long as they are loved and their parent(s) isn't/aren't overwhelmed by having to care for them.

Agree there will probably be some relationship abuse, or just relationships breaking down naturally, but I was trying to suggest the resident parent wouldn't predominantly be female if there was gender equality.

Same sex parents I think there's already some evidence that they have more equal relationships than hetero couples, and we already have a model of sperm and egg donors that gay couples make work for them, although I guess being an egg donor is always going to be rarer than being a sperm donor because it's a harder process to put your body through.

I'm not convinced there will be many women who will choose to be lone parents (I mean become pregnant as a single person, not those who start off in a couple) in a world that doesn't hold motherhood up as the epitomy of femininity. It's such hard work, I think fewer people overall will choose it as an option if its easier to avoid (just think about the percentages of female graduates in their 40s who now don't have kids). Maybe that view says more about me and my lack of broodiness!

So women without partners get pregnant because they are brainwashed by ideas of Feminity? But pair bonding - being someone's wife, that is 'inevitable'?

So the MRA idea basically. There is something wrong and unnatural with women who want to reproduce without a male owner.

This is a really interesting discussion. Has anyone read A Woman on the edge of time? Some of the ideas on here are visualised in the book. There the 'Utopia' has three parents per child who volunteered. Any one person could be parents of a number of children with a number of different combinations of parents. The child is created and born in an incubator (not something I am putting forward btw. It was the only part of the utopia I didn't agree with). Another big thing was sexuality. It was very very fluid. Lots of same sex relationships as well heteronormative ones. It was also difficult to tell men and women apart visually because everyone wore all types of clothes and had all types of hairstyles.

" They far outnumber the women who get pregnant and give the baby away (although I know some of them too). "

Abortion surely plays a part here?