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?

Imagine for a second you're an alien and you land in the centre of Brent Cross Shopping Centre. You notice the appearances of the people around you. You determine there are two sexes. You notice that that it is possible to make certain general observations about the relative appearances of those two sexes...

Rigtht now yes, it is, because of the way the two sexes have been socialised. But it doesn't have to be this way.

In a genderless society there wouldn't be any "general observations" you could make beyond, women are more likely to have breasts and a less angular figure. Which wouldn't tell you much.

I got jolly excited by the aliens because that's basically my area.

That question - which concerned the current fashions of our current society - had very little to do with the OP. It had nothing to do with the other conversation that was ongoing about the relative development of male and female brains.

Put you put in in this thread then? Of course we are going to answer the question relative to the thread it is in.

we should be cogniscent of the fact that it's not a universal truth.

Really? Where in the world is this utopia?

Beachcomber - you think that the majority of people in this country think that:

"the oppression of human females by human males, (is) the natural order"

All women obsess over their appearance because they are biologically programmed to make themselves sexually attractive to men so they can fulfil their primary purposes of having babies.

Proof please.

Same too Bella and Garlic as I was enjoying our conversation before it got derailed.

Bearing in mind you'd just written "That question - which concerned the current fashions of our current society - had very little to do with the OP.", you do realise it was you that derailed it right?

Seriously confused by what you want from this thread now tbh?

The thing about the aliens is, that they are just ciphers that you project whatever you want onto. We don't know anything about them, so I can just decide that the first question they'd ask themselves on seeing a mass of ALIENS OF TERRA is "Right, which ones are the chaps?" Oh no, that's not what I would decide. That's what you decided.

AND YET! You still won't tell us if you are a chap. So how are we supposed to know whether to suck up to you, or engage in bitchy competition with you?

IF you won't tell us if you are a man, please will you tell us if you are ginger or from Newcastle? Oh go on. Please?

Ignore the "proof please" bit, the formatting meant I missed the prior sentence, my fault for reading quickly.

"I got jolly excited by the aliens because that's basically my area."

Rabbit, back in the now!

ros you need to bone up on the literature. Since time immemorial that's what the aliens have ALWAYS done. Sussed out the chaps as soon as they arrive (preferably in large London shopping centres). No deleting or exterminating or harvesting or zapping or enslaving or mind control or downloading or converting or eating or laying eggs in or trapping under a dome and then observing in some kind of alien 'big brother' way or anything like that. Oh no. Their prime directive is always 'suss out the chaps'...oh. :(

If society was genderless do you think that both men and women would be equally violent? And all violence would be viewed the same?
I believe it would be closer but not equal. I believe men as the stronger class would still pick on women, the weaker class (in the context of physical strength).

We should really have a smiley for Missy's tardis too.

Given that the aliens are highly unlikely to be able to reproduce with us anyway, without the aid of clever sciency wibbly wobbly timey wimey STUFF, why the fuck would they even CARE who is male and who is female? Why would it matter to them?

You're assuming, in your analogy, that the alien has a biological sex imperative and that that imperative is based on a binary sexual model.

That is a fair point.

Did you like ma big words Bella?

King that's an interesting question. I think that the bad and strong would prey on the weak but I don't think that the weak would be exclusively women, or that the bad and strong would be exclusively men. I believe this is the case now actually, man on man, woman on woman and woman on man violence is under reported in some respects and mis attributed in others (e.g. given a context, say 'football related' that consciously or unconsciously 'others' it from other types of violence) but it clearly exists. :(

"sciency wibbly wobbly timey wimey STUFF,"

I knew I liked you, Frau

Frau Oh, I don't know. The literature is divided on that point but it's not set in stone that they can't. We should never forget Spock.

Never and always, Rabbit.

King I'm under no illusion that a genderless society would be some sort of utopia, sadly. Men (in general) would still be physically bigger than women, and would still have the ability to rape, hopefully no socialised gender would reduce the aggresssion that is currently seen as innate though. Plus it should help lose the idea that women are there for the use of men. But there would still be need for work on reducing rape and VAW

And The Doctor himself, of course.

But I did say "highly unlikely", I didn't say "impossible". but I'm having Ronon Dex

All women obsess over their appearance because they are biologically programmed to make themselves sexually attractive to men so they can fulfil their primary purposes of having babies.

This was an example of what I wasn't saying. You need to read the paragraph that preceded it.

The fashion question was vaguely related to the OP and preceded a discussion about brain development. Regrettably, it was interpreted by some to mean that I was suggesting that women's fashion was somehow a consequence of their brain function. I can see why such a suggestion might be infuriating, but am confused as to how they got that impression. Espescially after having explained that they weren't connected. But anyway...

Yes, the question was vaguely connected to the OP, and again, I have said this already. I grant you it's now easy to miss. Apparently.

It is possible to identify with a gender, even if we agree that gender is a construct. I'd suggest that most people do. Clearly trans people do too(although that's a can of worms right there, so shall we just park it?) It may just be a big pile of toss, as Beachcomber has explained so well, but men, for instance, may think they can't multitask, and as a consequence, don't. So I'm talking about inward beliefs that surround gender. Enabling beliefs, limiting beliefs, ways of explaining things that make sense due to notions - even if those notions are fundamentally unsound. So:

• men act as they think men should act.
• women act as they think women should act.
• people judge people on the way they think they should act.

In all of these respects, feminism rightly analyses what's going on and challenges those things that form part of the systematic oppression of women.

What occured to me, and this is where I was going with the question, is that this also happens:

• people judge other people on the way they act.

This is distinct. And I was wondering how much we should accept that people will judge others on how they actually act.

As I've said before, I accept that how people actually act, is influenced by an unfair system of pressures, censure and restrictions. But that's not really central to the question. It's been offered up as an answer and I don't really find it to be so.

Bella -It's a difficult concept to imagine. Do you think that if men weren't socialised to protect women or not to hit women and women were seen as the same that some of the men on men violence would not discriminate and be passed on to all humans (women). A stronger human would attacker a weaker human (doesn't matter if it's a man or woman)

Love your question, King, and it's fairly fundamental. There's not much point in my replying, though, because rabbit and Bella have already said what I would.

I think we're currently socialised to see females as more peaceful, compromising, etc, etc, and I also think it's codswallop. The feminists who adamantly believe a matriarchal world would be nicer can't possibly have lived on the same estates I've lived in, or even have gone to the same pubs & clubs (including upmarket ones!) Women fight, and fight hard.

We already know there are lots of nice, peaceable, reasoning men. So the genderless society will still experience violence. However, it'll be more honest about it and will stop expecting one sex to do all the fighting while the other does all the peacekeeping.

"What occured to me, and this is where I was going with the question, is that this also happens:

• people judge other people on the way they act.

This is distinct. And I was wondering how much we should accept that people will judge others on how they actually act.

As I've said before, I accept that how people actually act, is influenced by an unfair system of pressures, censure and restrictions. But that's not really central to the question. It's been offered up as an answer and I don't really find it to be so."

ERm, what?

People judge others on how they act.... wrt to what? anything? Greggs?

How does that connect with anything?

Are you saying now that the whole thing of evaluating your neighbour according to some social code.....is bad and unfair?

how does that relate to gender? (not that it has to)?