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?

"It gets very hard to communicate with all these caveats and rabbit-holes"

No. It gets very hard to rely on accepted "common sense" thoughts and assumptions when they are being effectively challenged. That's a good thing.

Let me try demonstrating this from a slightly different perspective, if you were to compare people from different races you would see some physical differences.

The argument used to be that these differences translated to different races having inherently different personality traits.

Because of this view people were then socialised differently, from birth, depending on their race. And because of that socialisation there was pressure put on the different races to exhibit the "correct" behaviour for their race, which meant many of them would take on these characteristics - some to avoid hassle for not conforming, and some because they'd internalised what they'd been taught since they were born.

There has never been a reliable scientific study which shows that a personality/behavioural difference can be traced back to physical differences rather than socialisation.

Is the answer there to say, well it's just a hypothesis that there are no personality differences? And anyway even if it isn't based in biology people do show a difference so it's not unreasonable to treat them differently.

Or is it maybe better to say, there's no proof, and it's proved harmful to people to keep propping up whis illogical system, let's just do away with it?

Sorry " equally female"

However, I accept that those real tangible reasons may well have developed because of social reasons rather than through hard biological wiring. However, that is something that can be neither proved nor disproved.

Well there have been many studies on the insidious effect of socialisation and how powerful it can be, so the scales are weighted towards it being socialisation. So while it hasn't been outright proved, it has more evidence on it's side than biological reasons.

Bella, good analogy.

I also think they the OP is

That's a very helpful example bella

We don't say " black men are naturally more violent than White men, because more black men are arrested in area x " or

" there are biological reasons why black men are more violent "

We say -it's not that simple . We need to consider

The ethnic make up of each area
The behaviour of the police
Levels of poverty and deprivation
Socialisation of men in different cultures
Unemployment levels

Etc etc .

Sorry didn't mean to post that one!

Many of the posters on FWR freely admit that they enjoy dressing as women - heels, make up etc etc.

Firstly: This type of visual display is only 'dressing as women' in our particular time & culture. There have been long periods in our own culture when men wore higher heels, frillier clothes and bigger hair than women.
You are confusing sex/gender with fashion!

Secondly: High heels, makeup, etc, etc, are sexual displays. In our current culture we like women to wiggle when they walk, have enormous eyes and prominent breasts, and so on because these are currently considered signs of sexual availability.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with signalling sexual availability. In a genderless society, we will still make it clear we're sexually available when we want to.
The differences are: We'll choose when & how to signal it. We won't feel that one sex has to go around constantly advertising, while the other doesn't.

Female brain, male brain

There isn't even a smidgeon of evidence that male & female brains are inherently different. The differences which have been observed, like a bigger 'map area', have also been observed to correct when women get the same training as men (this was tested with black cab drivers doing The Knowledge.)

With current science it's impossible to evaluate whether male/female brains are different at birth, because a newborn's brain is pretty much neural soup. The soup forms into a recognisable brain in response to the experiences of the baby.

That's an oversimplification - but hopefully a brain scientist will pop in to confirm my basic point, which is that the 'conscious' parts of the brain gain their shapes after birth, meaning the world around a baby forms its brain. This is why gendered treatment of babies is a concern: when you treat a child 'like a girl', you make it develop 'lady brain'.

Here are some fashion pictures from our own history :)

The dressing 'as women' thing HUGELY infuriates me. There is no such thing as 'dressing as a woman'. It's an insulting thing to say. If I choose to wear jeans and a hoody or big woolly jumper, does that make me 'not a woman'? If I swap the jeans for knitted trousers, which men don't typically wear (although I have a sartorially adventurous gay male friend who does have a pair) does that mean I've magically changed back into a woman? I often wear clothes sold as children's clothes because (a) no VAT and (b) they fit. Does that make me a child? I'm 47. My shoes and boots tend to come form the kids section too (small feet).

I do not have a problem with people - of all sexes - who want to wear pretty clothes. I accept the orthodoxy that some clothes are prettier than others. I personally prioritise warmth and comfort above anything else. I don't accept that this makes me not a woman because oh look, my kids haven't vanished out of existence and I still have womanly bits.

Phaedra, thank you so much for this!

"I was born in 1959 and I don't recognise many, many of the posts on FWR as representing the world I grew up in and live in. And we're talking about a fairly ordinary part of initially rural Scotland, not somewhere cool and hip.

"That's what I meant about setting up statements as incontrovertible facts about how women are constrained by gender."

Damsili, you are a man, right?

The dressing 'as women' thing HUGELY infuriates me. There is no such thing as 'dressing as a woman'. It's an insulting thing to say. If I choose to wear jeans and a hoody or big woolly jumper, does that make me 'not a woman'? If I swap the jeans for knitted trousers, which men don't typically wear (although I have a sartorially adventurous gay male friend who does have a pair) does that mean I've magically changed back into a woman? I often wear clothes sold as children's clothes because (a) no VAT and (b) they fit. Does that make me a child? I'm 47. My shoes and boots tend to come form the kids section too (small feet).

Yes yes and yes.

Rural Scotland is not most people's definition of ordinary, though...

It's extraordinary to see the strength of belief in inherent gender differences, which have only arisen during our lifetimes! Were we and our brothers born as different types of gender than those born 20 years later? Surely not

It must be obvious I lost myself in my wonderful fashion archive, so am behind the thread. I'll catch up later.

rosdearg that's what I'm thinking too. Maybe I only know sensible people but no woman I know - even the ones who completely do the fashion hair and makeup thing some of the time (nobody does it 100% of the time) - would refer to 'dressing as a woman'.

With regard to fashion and appearance, I think I've made it relatively clear that my question relates to:-

• a difference between male and female activity now and *within a

western culture*.

• that I am not suggesting any biological or psychological reasons for why this might be.

To that end, and with respect, I'm going to ignore the post that have suggested I have claimed otherwise.

The question should have been relatively simple. Women dress more decoratively; can we then claim it's unfair when society focusses more on their appearance?

When I say caveats and rabbit-holes, I am referring to the common habit of not taking things at face-value and instead going off at tangents with associated issues. I'm kind of saying RTFQ.

That's one conversation Kristina

Damsili - "I'm going to ignore the post that have suggested I have claimed otherwise"

WTF?

Actually.

The whole of your last post.

W.T.F.?

"When I say caveats and rabbit-holes, I am referring to the common habit of not taking things at face-value and instead going off at tangents with associated issues."

face value is useless. Either you are interested in analysis, or you just want to spout faux-reasonable common sense. A lot, for a long time, with a cosy air of fake authority.

You are a man, right?

Damsilli - Women dress more decoratively; can we then claim it's unfair when society focusses more on their appearance?

Yes, if that society censures women who don't dress decoratively, or offers different opportunities to women based on their level of sexual display.

Yes, if the same society censures men who do dress decoratively, or offers different opportunities to men based on their type of self-display.

Yes, if the society offers different opportunities to men and women based on their respective gender display.

And, Damsili, given your reaction to some of what I cackhandedly posted, when you didn't take what I said at face value, and went off on a tangent with associated issues, it's a bit rich to read what you wrote up there.

Smacks a bit of dishes it out but can't take it. And a nice healthy helping of double standards.

The question should have been relatively simple. Women dress more decoratively; can we then claim it's unfair when society focusses more on their appearance?

Tbf you haven't phrased it like this. So we've all been trying to answer a more vague question.

And the answer ia yes, we can, because the pressure for women to dress that way comes from society. Pretending it is fair to judge them is basically punishing them for doing what they are pressured to do, when there are consequences for not following what society expects of them. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Giving up GENDER differences doesn't mean giving up SEX differences.

It simply means looking at people as PEOPLE, leaving their sex completely out of it except for actual sex & reproduction.

I am baffled that people don't seem to see the difference.

erm yes because

• women are forced to dress more decoratively by a society that punishes them in every sphere for not being nice enough to look at
• they are also punished for being too nice to look at as well.
• they are sneered at for bothering to do the things that will gain them a modicum of acceptance, eg, a job;
• they are sneered at even more if they don't bother

so yes it is extremely unfair

this line of questioning is so stupid I am going away.

You are a man, right?