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?

Garlic Thanks for replying. Yes - completely agree about gender as a constraint.

I have been in sub-cultures that have been relatively blind towards colour

I meant that within the environment I was in, we didn't really notice race after a while; I was projecting to a scenario where people might not notice sex in quite such a marked way as they do now. Presumably that would be part of the gender challenge?

sexual attraction I don't know, I'm thinking more about the behavioural aspects of sexual attraction; attraction would remain and would that attraction affect behavioiur?

Sorry, you must have felt bombarded by questions :) I'm trying to improve my phrasing approach.

Yes, I have great long periods of pessimistic misanthropy. But I hope so too.

Oh I get that. What I don't get is who appointed the judges to decide whether I'm expressing myself or conforming to narrow ideals of beauty.

What judges?? WHo mentioned anyone playing judge?

The idea is that in a genderless society people would, without the constraints of what society says they should and shouldn't wear, be able to decide for themselves.

We want to remove the judges, not replace them.

Right i know I said I was leaving, but for the record, I just want to state some aspects about all this that make me very uncomfortable

• OP won't say whether he is male or female (although others are upfront about that and posting very honestly "of themselves")

• OP has a particular interest in the fact that women present themselves as sexually desirable, and what that "reasonably" suggests is ok for men to do vis a vis this
• OP keeps using this awful fake objectivity which is a tone that is usually cover for something nasty
• OP has now got onto "not seeing race" which is a line almost exclusively used by creepy arseholes

From now on I will not talk to him and will be very uncomfortable whenever he is around; I won't post again but I am just putting that information out there

^ Beyond comment really.

rosdearg I think it is fairly clear OP is a man. It's so weird to be so reluctant to answer the question.

damsili why do you think it is important to tell me you liked my first post? I think it shows your male socialisation that you need to tell me that and you think I would care. I expect you liked my post because I was defending you against another poster who seemed determined to cast your OP in a particular light which fitted with an FWR-critical view consistent with recent threads. That doesn't mean I'm generally endorsing your views.

What? Because I was indicating I agreed with it?! I was trying to illustrate my views on the subject of gender. You were actually rather rude about me in that post, so no it has bugger all to do with you defending me.

You think it's weird not to engage with a poster that is persistently rude, but you're absolutely fine with that poster calling someone a nasty and creepy arsehole and suggesting they have dubious reasons for wanting to talk about sex? I haven't talked about sex!

Again, these aren't actually questions. I thought we were getting back on topic, but that clearly isn't your agenda.

I'm just gobsmacked at the way this has gone.

I'm not gobsmacked. Posters like you show up here all the time.

I don't know what that means and I'm unsure why you're still talking to me.

It's not that hard to figure out really.

We want to remove the judges, not replace them.
Really? Then why are there so many posts here and in other threads so dismissive of make up/heels/dresses/pink etc? Unless of course it's a man wearing them when it's fine.

No there isn't. There are posts critical of the performance and construct of 'femininity' and how it limits women, taking up their time, potentially damaging their bodies etc and that same expectation is not placed on men. How it's considered lesser because it is women doing these things. Women can perform/display elements of 'masculinity' e.g. wear trousers, play with boys toys but the opposite is not tolerated in anything like the same manner - one of the reasons trans women are subject to more violence, for example. So if men do perform some level of typical femininity it is a big deal, it does help bust the gender stereotypes and in a small way helps women.

However judgements on women performing femininity (and all the women on this thread will probably perform some level of femininity) has not taken place.

At least not by those who recognise femininity as a construct and the pressures that the patriarchy puts on women.

Bothered are posts dismissive of the idea that makeup/heels/dresses constitute 'dressing as a woman'. There are posts dismissive of the idea that all women 'decorate themselves' (let's face it the man wasn't talking about tatts or piercings there). No posts dismissive of makeup qua makeup or heels qua heels. You yourself were dismissive (and downright rude) about people who wear jeans and trousers though. And jumpers.

Bothered? Damn iPad. THERE.

It isn't about being dismissive of these things it's much more analytical than that. IMO women can't afford to be dismissive of them. Although I agree that often feminists snort at the notion that these things make a woman.

I call such things "the trappings of femininity" - and I agree with the view that they are "markers". They signal which sex and gender group we belong to and thereby signal our status.

And generally we are rewarded for compliance with cultural practices and customs which signal our position in the gender hierarchy. Just look at what RabbitofNegativeEuphoria said upthread about having to wear a posh frock to work dos. The posh frock is a very gendered item of clothing.

As posters have mentioned, humankind has always found ways of decorating itself and it's clear that the nature of that decoration can be gendered. Interestingly, there have been times and cultures when men have been the more decorative sex. However, it is clear that within today's Western society this issue remains divided. As a class, Women spend more on cosmetics, more on surgery and more on clothes. Crucially, more time is also required in order to conform to the expectation of society as to what a woman looks like. Obviously, women can rebel against this, but this is easier in some contexts than others, and it is clear from the fashion magazines and media representation that a 'policing' of women's appearance goes on, not just by men, but also by other women.

This increased pressure for decoration remains one of the modern mechanisms for constrainting women, espescially when one considers the nature of the 'fashion' shoes and skirts in reducing a woman's ability to move with freedom.

I absolutely agree with the posters that have said that to reject "ugly" clothes and dress "prettily" should remain a choice. But it should be exactly that; a choice and not a pressure. That would be a step forward in the 'breaking' of the gender chain between sex and personality.

Damsili - I am a woman. I choose not to wear make up and wore a tux when I had to go to "formal" events.

But. Hypothetically. If I was on a thread where the majority of posters were men, and the thread was about how socialized they were around the notion that penis size made them less of a man, and how there was pressure on them to use some device to make their penis bigger, then, as a woman, because I don't experience that in the same way that they do, I'd STFU and listen to what the men were saying.

I wouldn't keep on with a tone that lots of the men were telling me they were finding patronising and rude. I wouldn't try to trip the men up to make my point - because, fundamentally, my point means fuck all and all I could possibly have is an outsiders interest.

(I know it's not a fantastic analogy and has it's flaws - I'm trying my best to find something that will illustrate my point without being rude)

Beach - but if it only cost a tenner, it's ok.

I imagine it's torture for people whose bodies don't 'conform' though. (in this context being short and wee isn't really a problem).

. Just look at what RabbitofNegativeEuphoria said upthread about having to wear a posh frock to work dos. The posh frock is a very gendered item of clothing.

And the point is exactly? Posh frocks are evil? Oppressive? I'm tòo thick to understand I'm being oppressed by the patriarchy because I like wearing them?

Yes I was dismissive about what I consider dull and unimaginative clothes. Every post on here saying it's fine to wear what you like is subtly qualified by statements like the one I've quoted and Damsli's post above.

None of you have addressed how you will determine whether I'm expressing myself or simply being constrained by the patriarchy.

It's quite difficult to police tone or attempt to silence and not come across as ride. The fact is that these issues are central to the ideas of gender and central to how people fell they ought to behave in order to conform to a notion of gender AND also how people judge others' behaviour in how they conform. I would welcome men's participation in any discussion because they are part of the policing of women's behaviours.

Damsili - I didn't say I wouldn't participate in the discussion. I said

"I wouldn't keep on with a tone that lots of the men were telling me they were finding patronising and rude. I wouldn't try to trip the men up to make my point - because, fundamentally, my point means fuck all and all I could possibly have is an outsiders interest."

And I'm not in the least bit interested in policing your tone. I am pointing out how your tone comes across. And trying not to be rude about it.

Tbh I haven't forgotten damsilli's tone when they first started posting in this section. It was out and out rude, personally so, and made very clear the assumptions and generalisations that had been made about regular posters here. You have to work harder than that to overcome such a first impression

PhaedraIsMyName - the point is that IMO feminists are not dismissive of high heels/make up/feminine clothing.

You said there are lots of threads on here dismissing those things.

I'm saying that I don't think they are dismissed by a lot of feminists - I think we analyse cultural practices and customs, and, how people dress/adorn themselves is included in that.

That's all.

". I would welcome men's participation in any discussion because they are part of the policing of women's behaviours."

As a man, DS, what part do you think you play in the policing of women's behaviours?

Well, it is pretty thick to dismiss out of hand the concepts of warmth and comfort. It's not thick to like wearing posh frocks. It is thick to realise that nobody should be forced to wear one if they don't want to. Nobody is suggested people should be forbidden from wearing them. I have friends who would wear posh frocks all the time if they could. Nothing wrong with that.

It's also pretty rude to describe other peoples' taste as dull and unimaginative. Especially if one's own taste consists of conforming and nothing else.