Gender abolition

[Damsili]

On another thread a few posters have enthused about the abolition of gender. I wonder how many people see this as the ultimate goal of feminism?

Also, is there room for people who are broadly content with the idea of femininity and masculinity being separate things, but want better treatment of women? Do the abolitionists accept this point of view?

I'd like to see it, I guess or at least like to see a huge decrease of the stereotype of masculinity and femininity as separate types. That isn't to say I think men and women are the same. I'm also personal more interested in social justice rather then equality.

I think liberal feminism is probably reasonably comfortable with gender being as it is but seeking better treatment for women within the current system/framework.

And there is speculation about why posters avoid FWR?

Is it the question or the response that is the issue Arsenic?

It's so profoundly theoretical, and the theory isn't defined or explained at all in the OP, the other thread which might illuminate matters isn't linked.....

Of course I don't know if Dam is concerned about 'widening participation' (as it were) on FWR. The thread just struck me as a perfect example of something that could be seen as quite exclusive, possibly nonsensical - the equivalent of elderly bishops corresponding in the 1920s re the issue of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

I suppose I just mean some elucidation, defining of terms or a link would oil things.

What is the problem with a theoretical discussion in an area that is about a school of thought?
Getting rid of gender is an interesting concept. If I wasn't a regularish poster it's the sort of subject that might actually draw me in.

If the next several weeks are going to be spent discussing how and what can be discussed on FWR and who is included or not it will make the actual discussion pretty freaking crappy.

If you think so.

'Getting rid of gender' (unexplained) seems unlikely to draw in people who have professed themselves intimidated (to me).

It was just a thought.

Can I ask the purpose of you posting on this particular thread?

I'd look extremely odd offering an opinion on the impression uber-theoretical debates re 'Gender Abolition' might give, on any of the other threads currently in Active Convos.

Sorry I mean, what would you like to achieve by posting on this thread?

Opps that is a bit loaded. Because it feels to me like what you would like to do is stop what is a potentially interesting debate.

I think that's fairly clear.

My 5.31 post alone was a fairly straightforward suggestion.

It clearly hasn't been taken in the spirit it was intended but hey ho.

No I don't think it's clear.

if you had question or links to share why not just do that. Why "tell off" a poster for posting a thread on something in the correct area because it may or may not put some people off.

Because it feels to me like what you would like to do is stop what is a potentially interesting debate.

My 5.31 post was a pretty straightforward suggestion.

For how to make the debate accessible to more posters.

I don't know how to be clearer.

I haven't told anyone off Haz. Just posting blearily and straightforwardly

You've been determinedly bristling at me since I started.

It really is going some to interpret me as wanting to stop the debate.

I give up.

Continue without definitions, explanations or links to threads refered to. Have fun.

Your first post is pretty rude.

If you felt that the discussion could use links or definitions why not add them or ask for them. Why decided to "school" two posters in how to have discussion.

Oh your post at 5.31 isn't that clear I had to look up what elucidation means.

But do you actually want to have a discussion about gender? and it's possible removal from society?

Why didn't you ask?

I don't need to ask for links and people who might need links might not want to ask. That is my point.

I'm certainly not awake enough to go ferreting around for links to decorate someone else's thread. I didn't realise I was going to get sucked into a debate with a bristler either. It was just a wry remark and an attempt at a helpful suggestion.

I looked it up. I'm just pointing out the clarity isn't the same thing to everyone.
The OPS post made sense to me. It was clear, I understood it. I answered it. Why should she or I make sure that a thread's first two posts are a complete breakdown of the topic?

I'd happily discuss my thoughts with more detail, share bits I've found interesting but a paragraph or two to start with seams reasonable on a chat site.
It would be unnecessary to do a detailed medical history plus links to studies on while asking a question on the Sleep topic.

What do you think most people understand by 'gender abolition'?

I didn't hear it until I was 35. It wasn't immediately clear to me.

Post the OP in chat and see what happens.

I haven't suggested a 'complete breakdown of the topic' just a link or a quick definition.

I'm beginning to see what the problem is now.

I've tried it, let's see;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2225428-Gender-Abolition

As someone who opened the thread on Monday night that post certainly felt like a shut down comment to me, and I moved on even though conceptually the OP's question did peak my interest (well enough to open the thread anyway).

Yes I can see now that the 'tone' of my first post might be misconstrued (it was meant to be wry humour), but doggedly misunderstanding me across half a dozen posts is a bit different.

To be perfectly honest I wasn't sure if it was a misspelling of abortion. So I thought hang on I should read that thread. I read it. Realized it wasn't about abortion and then thought about the questions and answered them.
You are implying that before anyone posts on on FWR they should give a coda for their topic. Why?
What would you like to get out of this thread?

I haven't doggedly misunderstood you. I haven't understood what you want from posting on this thread.