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?

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 is central, though, isn't it? When people's actions are determined by social expectations of their gender, those expectations are deeply affecting their lives.

Damsilli, you said I'd add, though, that a great many people certainly don't agree that the heirarchy is just the natural order of things. Societies may once have done, and in certain cultures they may still, but we should be cogniscent of the fact that it's not a universal truth.

So I asked you for the proof of the pudding - where is the place where people disagree with gender? Where is the society in which people reject masculinity and femininity? Where is the country/society that is not male dominated?

Are you going to answer the question?

I'm not convinced that you are discussing this in good faith. I think you are 'debating' female oppression with the laydees for the lolz and the gotchas. Which is something feminists encounter a lot. And it is probably why you are being asked if you are a man - because if you are, it can be all lolz and jolly debating fun and toying with the silly wimminz for you. For us women it is our lives and it matters to us and many of us find it offensive to have female oppression treated as a sixth form debating topic.

Bella

I seem to recall an experiment that measured the testosterone levels in men and found that a man with a high level would see it reduced by placing him in a gentle, calming enviromment. The opposite would also be true.

I also think that it's generally thought by the military that the inclusion of women in units has had a 'civilising' effect.

If we reached a gender-neutral point, I wonder if some of those chemical elements might naturally reduce.

This assumes that there would also be a reduction of some of the behavioural elements where people acting in accordance with a learnt role rather than chemical impulse.

This would actually be an interesting study between two cultures. Anyone aware of anything like this?

So DS are you saying, for example:

Women focus more on appearance than men
Society expects that and judges them against that standard
But as they do perform against that standard, then they should not be surprised that they are judged against that standard, and people shouldn't be blamed for judging on that standard, because it's reasonable in current society to do so.

Is that what you meant?

There are a lot of posters trying in good faith to understand you - it would be nice if you didn't conclude that misunderstandings were wilful.

I absolutely agree that would happen, dam. There are some good videos on YouTube about how adopting a "male stance" - an expansive body position, basically - reduces stress hormone (cortisol) and increases confidence hormone (testosterone.)

There have also been many successful experiments using oxytocin to calm down stressed-out, fighty people and make them all lurve one another!

" I think you are 'debating' female oppression with the laydees for the lolz and the gotchas. "

yup this. The airy, non-committal tone of the OP has this all over it.

"hey - entertain me"

• there is no POV here, other than a general ok-ness with the status quo. It's all over the place. Usually when women are conservative about gender, they are more focused and direct, or even irritated, when expressing it - they have something to lose on the matter -they have been forced to think about it, something has brought them to the point of feeling the need to express it.

Look Damsili, in a nutshell, in answer to your OP, yes, there are feminists who are more essentialist, a bit more all about The Essential Woman than many of yer average MN-er tends to be as a general rule. They often have a sort of Eco-feminism bent. They do talk about better treatment for women while preserving their innate woman-ness. There are strands of this in lots of other less obviously essentialist feminist thought. They write books, articles, and blogs. You can read them. None of them are secret.

Is that what you wanted?

Now, are you a man?

Beachcomber You are being unfair. I do understand why you would say that, but hopefully you'll understand why I might consider it rather a rude allegation.

With regard to your utopia question, I think we are at cross-purposes. You said this: "Gender is a mechanism which is used to present and explain the oppression of human females by human males, as the natural order."

... I said that, whilst that may be true, I didn't think all people agreed that "the oppression of human females by human males, (is) the natural order"

You are now asking me where it is that people don't believe in gender. I am not sure how you got to that point.

DS You seem somewhat over invested in the spurious theory that women 'dress as women'.

Who cares what the natural order is, and what has that to do with the sentence

"Gender is a mechanism which is used to present and explain the oppression of human females by human males, as the natural order."

?

Men (in this society, as a class) oppress women (as a class)
They use gender to systematise and explain it "It's natural you will be paid less than a binman, dear"

The "natural order" bit is as bogus as the gender bit

What don't you get?

Yonic

So DS are you saying, for example:

Women focus more on appearance than men
Society expects that and judges them against that standard
But as they do perform against that standard, then they should not be surprised that they are judged against that standard, and people shouldn't be blamed for judging on that standard, because it's reasonable in current society to do so.

Is that what you meant?

There are a lot of posters trying in good faith to understand you - it would be nice if you didn't conclude that misunderstandings were wilful.

Yes Thank you (not sarcastic). I'm sorry Yonic You and I have talked a bit and I accept that you are acting in good faith. I don't for a second think this is true of everyone. I'm trying not to, but I get massively frustrated because I think I'm clear and, whilst I accept I may not be (internets, after all) people don't say they don't understand; they pick up the wrong understanding and run with it ignoring all the protestations I make to the contrary. It's infuriating. And, yes, I think it's motivated by their perception that I am a male poster that has come on to cause trouble. I understand that too - I've read some of the MRAs that come on here, but even so.. there's a limit. You know?

Your question isn't exactly as I'd phrase it, but it's close enough.

He was selectively quoting, Ros.

Garlic

^I absolutely agree that would happen, dam. There are some good videos on YouTube about how adopting a "male stance" - an expansive body position, basically - reduces stress hormone (cortisol) and increases confidence hormone (testosterone.)

There have also been many successful experiments using oxytocin to calm down stressed-out, fighty people and make them all lurve one another!^

Thanks. I may google some later.

DS, if ten people (or so) misunderstand you then it's possible they've misunderstood you. You accept me saying that you weren't clear - can't you believe it of them, too?

I don't think you are knowingly on here to cause trouble, I just think you are behaving in an annoyingly arrogant way

Of course not everybody thinks men having higher status than women is the natural order. But quite obviously enough people are happy enough with the idea or benefit enough from it or oppressed enough by it or invested enough in it or socialized enough by it , etc , etc for society to be organised as though it is true.

This is called patriarchy. Feminists are against it. All this is basic politics. None of it is very complicated.

Now, I've had a go at answering your questions, how about you have a go at answering mine and rosdearg's?

Right, back to your question (as phrased by me!)

To an extent, I agree, but on its own that gets us nowhere. It's a Right, So Now What question.

Hence consciousness raising, Huff Po articles about fatherhood, Let Toys be Toys etc - making people aware that what seems like common practice (Lego friends or whatever ) is reinforcing gender and is counter productive. Shared parental leave, outlawing rape within marriage - it was "common sense" once that a man had a right to sex with his wife and couldn't rape her, now it's illegal and socially much less acceptable.

OK, well I disagree with that statement. I don't agree that women as a class focus on appearance more than men. I think that there is a subset of women as a class that does this, skewed young (and probably skewed pretty too) but I do not agree that this is true of even the majority of women let alone the whole class.

I also don't agree that men as a class don't focus on appearance. There is a subset of gay men who focus on appearance a great deal. And a subset of straight men (skewed young, with an intersection with those who are interested in fitness) who also focus on appearance. And these men are 'judged' (not really the right word) differently than women. In some cases it's a more harsh judgement, I don't think women are necessarily the losers in this particular equation.

I would also dispute the idea that for women focussing on appearance=dressing as a woman. Many women who focus on appearance are actually focussing on their body characteristics (weight and size) rather than couture or cosmetics.

I would also chuck in the issue over acceptable dress policies in the workplace which often force women who would otherwise not give a flying fuck into clothing that they do not wish to wear but have no choice. Most of these policies are formulated by men and favour men (at least in terms of ease of compliance. 'A suit' is an easier code to understand and comply with than anything women have to cope with). As an example, in connection with my job I have to attend several formal 'black tie' events a year. I do not want to attend these events and I am often successful in dodging the column but sometimes my strategies fail and attend I must. This means wearing a posh frock. This year's posh frock actually cost me a tenner (John Lewis sale, small size, discontinued line) so I'm delighted about that. It looks like it cost a lot more (original price was more than 10x what I paid) and it displays unexpected flesh (it's one of those body con cut-out jobs). For a tenner, I'm perfectly happy to wear it and style it out (I'm small so the cut outs aren't a problem for me). But it probably looks like I'm wearing a 'sexy' dress to 'dress like a woman' when in fact I'm wearing the cheapest dress I could find to not piss off the (male) powers that be. I did make a point of practically taking out an advert to inform everyone it only cost a tenner and that's why I'm wearing it, but I suspect some idiots still 'judged' me for wearing 'that sort of dress'.

people don't say they don't understand; they pick up the wrong understanding and run with it ignoring all the protestations I make to the contrary

Maybe they don't realise they've misunderstood you because you seem to be saying something else quite clearly. If a number of people are misunderstanding you, maybe it's you.

You do seem to be quite arrogant about your objectivity, understanding and ability to express yourself clearly. Accusing people of wilfully misunderstanding you is annoying.

And I also don't think you are here to cause trouble.

But I have seen plenty male posters come on here and post in a similar style to you and I sometimes prefer to know whether I'm discussing feminism/female oppression with a person that it really matters to (women who do not 'have sex privilege'), or someone who can treat it as just a subject to 'debate' because they are in a position of being able to do so due to their being in the 'has sex privilege' group.

Thanks Rabbit, thoughtful post.

If I'd used leg shaving instead of appearance in my attempt to interpret DS, I still think (hope) my reply made sense - which is we can't stop at not blaming people for judging on societal norms; we need to take the next step (or three)

I think a lot of what we have going on here is similar to some of the other feminist threads where posters are at cross purposes thus:

"if you don't accept x, then - then - then EVERYTHING has to change! This is how we do things! This is how things are done! Things are done, in this way! Often! In the World!"

Feminists: "I know. We want to change things."

Finally....

"OH! you want to CHANGE things?!"

rosdearg

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

Oh fgd. It was and is conservative with a small c, not cool, not trendy.