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?

Yonic

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.

I agree - and I think general consciousness is raising isn't it? I also thought Buffy spoke well on common sense as referred to earlier in this thread. What I suppose I was getting at is the difference between those that wilfully and knowlingly oppress and those that are simply obeying convention. For example, can we draw a line somewhere with regards to the exploitation of women's bodies. (This, btw, was were I was really going with the fashion thing) Is there a point at which we can excuse men's appreciation of women's bodies because, after all, women's bodies are so often put forward for appreciation? I'm talking about admiring the way a woman might dress here - not leering over a pornographic magazine. To me, it is absolutely right that we challenge things like Page 3. However, it seems to me that in a world where women do wear clothes that accentuate the bust, bum or legs, that there's a certain extent to which people are going to observe that.

Also, I'm not asking because I want you to entertain me!! There's a rather prejudiced view that if someone says what they think, they're arrogant, and if they ask rather than tells, they're goading! Can't bloody win!

*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;*

No they aren't. More blanket, sweeping statements presented as incontrovertible fact.

" For example, can we draw a line somewhere with regards to the exploitation of women's bodies."

Or, "can I know my rights please? Surely I have some, to ogle. I need to think I am good, but I can't stop doing this, which is after all, only reasonable, considering"

Find your own way, you aren't getting permission from me to engage in only reasonable ogling.

It's hard, but you know, life is hard if you want to be a good person.

"the difference between those that wilfully and knowlingly oppress and those that are simply obeying convention."

ok this is another thing that makes me think you are a man. It is disproportionately the case - and since I started noticing it, I see it everywhere - that men think their intentions justify what they actually did.

sometimes it doesn't matter what your intentions are. What matters is the effect that what you do, has on other individuals, and society.

Men are always saying things like "I wasn't patronising you, I was only suggesting that maybe Toby could handle this"
Or in other words: I want the convenience of behaving as if you are inferior, without having to accept that this results in you being belittled or patronised.

This is what equal opportunities is all about - people examining what happens, what they are doing and what the outcomes are, as entirely separate from their motives. It's hard, and it makes people get defensive, but not having a consciously racist thought in your head at the moment you did x, does not make you not a racist

DS, I'm pretty tired now. I think you've now conveyed the questions you wanted to convey and I'll leave it to other posters to answer.

Damsili, I'm off. I think to the extent that you do have good intentions, I am too jaded to care because I don't think you are acting in good faith without telling us whether you are a man or a woman esp. when you write stuff like in your last post about the "conventions" of ogling women and where to draw the line. If you came out and fessed up to being a man now I would feel a bit more invested in talking some stuff through but I don't like this dynamic at all and it is making me very grumpy and aggressive.

I think you are speaking with more privilege than you are admitting to and I think this is unfair.

Bye rosdearg

after all, women's bodies are so often put forward for appreciation

Oh, dear.

One of the less desirable aspects of a gendered society under patriarchy is the way it treats women's bodies as objects for sexual consumption. In some societies, it expresses this by making women stay hidden from male eyes; in others, by encouraging women to exaggerate gendered physical characteristics.

Such societies tend to teach girls & women their primary value is as objects for sexual consumption and teaches them, too, how they're expected to package themselves. In some societies they're told to value 'modesty'. In others, they're required to be covered in public but displayed in private. In ours, currently, we're expected to display our gendered physical attributes - legs, bust, eyes, etc - to a given degree. This is not a free choice but we are 'sold' it as such, just like women in Iran are 'sold' modesty. The fact is that we're rewarded for getting the display level just right at any given moment. We're condemned for not performing self-packaging duties exactly as required.

Lots of other posters have already described this, and I do believe you understand it Dam. In pretending that you think women package themselves up for the male gaze for no other reason than desperation to be assessed by you as sexual objects, you're trying to kill off what ought to be an interesting discussion about a genderless society.

Against the tiny possibility that you really are that big-headed, let me clarify: women don't 'decorate' themselves out of a desire to be ogled, appreciated, coveted, or anything like that. We do it because it's what our society wants us to do. And it is not the same for the menz.

There is, though, an innate desire amongst humans (and other primates) to self-decorate. This isn't gendered. There are plenty of societies where males self-decorate as much as, or more than, females. In a genderless society I could be as well-received by any group, wearing a trouser suit & no make-up, as a woman in full slap, skirt & heels. And you could be as well-received in slap, skirt & heels as you are in your suit.

If I wanted to get off with one of the men in the group, I would flirt with him. I don't need lip gloss and heels to do that.

Garlic

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.

Oh absolutely! I only meant if there was an 'ignorance is not an excuse' kind of thing going on.

My thoughts are that the majority of people get on with their lives without really analysing and questioning the norms and values of society. I think most people would support women's rights, but still behave unwittingly in a way that is 'normal' in a social system that is identified by feminists as oppressive. I don't think many people question gender.

So, we can agree here on FWR that gender is a sexist mechanism. But in challenging sexist attitudes and behaviours out there in RL, I think it's important to be aware that most people won't have considered that it might be. If the common definition of sexism is the detrimental treatment of a woman on account of her sex, many people would look for the unfair treatment and not take account of the fact that the gender was detrimental in itself.

Garlic

Re your latest post, you have completely the wrong end of the stick. Yes, I do understand it and I am not pretending anything.

Take the Victoria's Secret billboard discussion also ongoing at the moment. Double life-size models strutt down a catwalk in lingerie on an huge screen in the middle of a shopping centre. That's what I mean when I say they are put forward for appreciation.

When you watch F1, there are hotpant and bikini models on the catwalk. That's what I mean.

Is this now clear? I assume you are well aware of the many examples of the exploitation of women's bodies and I don't need to go on?

Can we have a bit more of this good faith I read about earlier?

We cross-posted. I agree with what you're saying about the sexist mechanics of gender passing largely unremarked, outside of gender politics. Perhaps not as unremarked as you think, though - women are aware that they're complying with oppressive patriarchal norms. They make little jokes about it all the time, not using words like 'oppressive' and 'patriarchal', but very much with that awareness.

Does this mean we're basically agreed on why a genderless society would be better for everyone??

In a genderless society, full slap, skirt and heels would mean nothing and would have no effect other than a practical one.

Yeah, I find all that stuff as depressing as hell!

To an extent, I'll go along with the idea that a pretty young woman can brighten up a bloke's rainy day - just as a beautiful young man can brighten mine! But the constant pushing of women's bodies as consumables is nothing less than brainwashing. OK, I don't think a Board Of Partiarchy has sat down and passed a motion that 'women and men need reminding of their respective places, gender-wise'. But there's a self-confirming set of values going on there, which has the required effect.

And little children are seeing these images all the time! If you want girls to grow up thinking of themselves as sexual commodities, and boys to grow up expecting it of women, that's the way to go.

I guess our genderless society might choose to present a smorgasbord of nearly-naked young adults on screens all over the place: commodifying bodies in an ungendered way. That would be pretty naff (and seems to occur in 90% of sci-fi!) but it would be more equal.

Garlic

Yes.

I can't expect everybody to have read everything, I know. But I thought I'd written in more general terms on this thread already (which I flipping-well started btw!) about positive progress and socialisation. As someone else said on the 'why don't people post to FWR' thread, you can't do right for doing wrong sometimes. Actually, lots of people wrote lots of things on those thread and it seems that some of the complaints that women made about FWR haven't really been heard. Which I think is a shame, because we have to know the audience. If we want people to convert, there's no point preaching to the choir and casting out sinners is there?

The actual heels/skirt/slap combo probably would die out, Bobby, but I believe people would still choose to tart themselves up one way an another.

At our society's current state, those items have taken on a significance all of their own - like a fetish. It amuses me greatly when men respond to what I'm wearing as if I were sexually commodified, paying no regard to the fact that I'm a saggy 60, so not the commodity they were after really ... !

And little children are seeing these images all the time! If you want girls to grow up thinking of themselves as sexual commodities, and boys to grow up expecting it of women, that's the way to go.

yy, this.

PS I think yy means yes; does it??

If we want people to convert ??

If you think that's the aim of this board, you have a different opinion from most posters on here. Which might explain some of the difficulties you are encountering.

Don't you think it's worth examining why you've had such a rocky start ?

I'm hiding this thread now as it is pretty upsetting.

Garlic, Ros, beach et al - thanks.

Blistory

Feminism wants change. 'Convert' was a contextual reference to churches, preaching and choir.

Do you think it's worth examining why so many people find FWR a difficult place to post? I know the prevailing rationale is that it challenges their beliefs - but that's a little convenient isn't it? Especially when some of the people saying they don't like to post here are lifelong feminists.

Actually, ignore that. We don't need another 'what's wrong with FWR' thread.

Any thoughts on the OP?

In case I haven't spelt it out clearly, I am leaving the thread because YOU are making it a very difficult place to post, DS.

And since you were on FWR before the recent threads and agreed you had a combative style, and posters who were on the 'why not post on FWR threads' who have subsequently started posting are also on this thread AND are amongst those disagreeing with you, I don't know why you are attempting to cite them as some kind of support.

Good night.

You know what, Damsili, I'm prepared to take a deletion or two for the sisterhood so here goes.

Your posts are offensive, inflammatory, upsetting and quite frankly, patronising. It's not specific to FWR that women don't like that attitude and it's not because new posters are expected to bow down and be thankful for the wisdom imparted by the regulars.

It's precisely because FWR regulars go out of their way time and time again to engage even when they know the boards are being trolled, that the criticism aimed at them in the last few days is unwarranted.

You have taken that criticism as a green light to make constant digs, to imply superiority, to be confrontational as if to show all new posters that this is how to play the game and how to play the nasty women on here.

I find your motives questionable and in stark contrast to other new posters who have engaged willingly and in good spirit. It highlights your position for possibly just what it really is.

If I am in error then I am sure that you are robust enough to dismiss this with nary a thought but poster after poster has disengaged with you and yet, you still don't think to look to yourself.

Who is "we" here? You haven't exactly nailed your colours to the mast.

Sorry that last was to Damsili.

Agree Blistory

Did you actually read the last few pages??? One rule for one...