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?

You see how these unwritten rules and conventions can be problematic? Yes, anyone new to a certain environment does well to listen more than they talk, but you have to post at some point. We are talking about normal everyday life and everyone has experience of that and opinions accordingly. I'm skeptical about the anti-academia posts that have arisen as I think academics are the necessary vanguard of thought. But the nature of this board does mean it's academic heavy and a specialist area - and there's a big gap between this and common RL experience. You surely must know this from RL conversations. It's very difficult to engage here when the clumsiness of RL discourse is not tolerated.

To be clear, my response was to your question, not the rest of the thread. I also meant it sardonically given your criticisms of others both in their posts and in their understanding of your posts.

I agree with rosdearg. I also agree with Kristina and Beach that these issues are not academic for women. To be extra clear, I don't agree this board is academic heavy nor a specialist women. The women who post academic or theoretical analysis (and whom I hope will not be put off by the recent academic bashing) do so from a perspective of understanding their lived experience. It is not detached from common RL experience.

Phaedra I get the distinct impression you are trying to get someone to tell you that you are evil for daring to like pretty dresses, that you've been forced at gunpoint to wear them and should instead wear a sack. No one is going to do that.

There is an expectation in society for women to dress a certain way, and I think it's fantastic that you like to dress in a way that society happens to like, me too coincidentally. I've got lucky that my tastes in clothing mesh quite nicely with what society deems appropriate for a woman of my age, body type and ethnicity.

Not everyone is the same though, and those women who defy those expectations then have to face some less than positive reactions. Reactions which society condones as these women have been deemed to dress "innappropriately" and are so seen as "asking for it".

On the other side there are men who would also like to wear pretty dresses and accentuate their features with makeup, but as this is something society deems only suitable for women they put themselves at often very real risk of violence if they dare to follow their preferences.

Imagine if the things you like to wear meant you were at increased risk of violence? Or meant you'd be treated rudely? Or meant you were denied opportunities that were open to others?

Yes, you could decide to just conform and avoid all the repurcussions, but doesn't it seem a shame that you'd have to? Wouldn't it be nice to live in a society where people could dress and look how they felt most comfortable without fearing the reaction?

So while it's great that societies expectations of how you should look mean you are free to follow your preferences, spare a thought for those who aren't.

In a genderless society where there were no gendered expectations you'd still be free to dress how you do, but everyone else would too!

One might easily expect people not to engage in something they thought tiresome.

No, I didn't say anything of the sort as you are very well aware. I said that there was a general consensus on this board that gender was a social construct and a mechanism for the oppression of women. It is reasonable that such a consensus should exist on a feminist discussion board. However, that is not a consensus that one can expect in a wider environment.

You may have missed it, but I also said that I did not see that I should answer aggressive requests for personal information, especially when it has been clearly stated that the answer wouldn't be believed in any case.

I don't agree this board is academic heavy

I'd be interested to know how many chicken-keeper posters are also PhDs in chicken-keeping

Damsili - I just wondered about this particular statement and wondered if you could expound it please : "academics are the necessary vangard of thought"

Especially if one's own taste consists of conforming and nothing else.

Your interpretation. Leaping to conclusions that "I'm conforming" oh but of course I must be because I am kowtowing to societal pressure.

On the other side there are men who would also like to wear pretty dresses and accentuate their features with makeup, but as this is something society deems only suitable for women they put themselves at often very real risk of violence if they dare to follow their preferences.

This is very true; the dynamic varies depending on the context of where the individual as differing levels of tolerance exist within a single society. But that's the key for me: tolerance. There are huge factors at play enforcing these notions of gender behaviour and, even where there are less restrictions, we can still identify them as being restrictions and there being an element of permission and tolerance involved. There shouldn't be tolerance. These are matters that shouldn't be up for acceptance or rejection.

Academics are the necessary vanguard of thought.

I see academia as a realm where people are afforded time and space to reflect on all these issues and make progress with how we, as a species, understand ourselves and the world around us. They do this on behalf of all society.

I think, but don't know from personal experience, that a common complaint from academics is that they increasingly aren't given time and space. Issues of funding etc...

Do you work in an academic setting?

Yes you did Damsili. You even referred us back to the post in which you said it when you were explaining what you were talking about with regards to your statement that; "The gap is in the relative level of discourse regarding gender"

And in the post that you referred us back to you said the following;

But the nature of this board does mean it's academic heavy and a specialist area - and there's a big gap between this and common RL experience. You surely must know this from RL conversations. It's very difficult to engage here when the clumsiness of RL discourse is not tolerated.

You have decided that the discussions on this board are academic, specialist and cut off from real life experience. And you gave this as an answer to KristinaM when she said that stuff like gender is not academic to her and actually means something to her.

Bizarre. It is all there in black and white for us all to read.

rosdearg wasn't aggressive when she asked you if you are a man. I've been back and looked, she said 'you are a man, right?' several times and you ignored/dodged her question. And it is hardly 'personal information' is it, especially when many of us on the thread have either volunteered that information or implied it about ourselves. It's not like we are asking you how much you earn or whether you have a good relationship with your parents or not. It's the sort of information that would be perfectly obvious about you having this discussion down the pub. You have also had it explained to you (more than once) why it can matter to women whether one is discussing women's issues with another women or not. Like we keep saying, this shit matters to us.

Perhaps you find the board academic because none of this matters shit to you??

Beachcomber

Do you disagree that there's a general consensus regarding the oppressive nature of gender on FWR? Or are you disagreeing that that consensus would not be so readily found in RL?

If FWR closely reflects the attitudes of RL then that would indicate that feminist thought is the prevailing attitude. I'm pretty certain that this is not what you're saying.

Can I also make clear that when I say academic I am referring to education. The definition of academic as irrelevant is entirely your own.

I'm also confused by your line of questioning; are you saying that the challenging of gender stereotypes isn't something that we should all give a shit about? Why should men not give a shit? I think they should.

Damsili - education covers a lot of ground, is there a particular area of education you are categorizing as academic?

I'm disagreeing with you claiming that this whole board is academic and cut off from real life as a justification for your detached and academic posting style when you are called on it by people who are good enough to say that they cannot be detached from the subject of this thread (which you started) because it affects their real lives.

Rabbit - I understand that your threats are dogs and cyclists, who probably are not responding to gender stereotypes

I am fortunate enough to run where I experience no threat from bikes, Animals or humans

But my women friends who run in the city are threatened and intimidated by men shouting sexual comments at them . Don't you think this is part of the male entitlement to comment on womens bodies ? Isn't this a gendered behaviour ?

Some women feel they are " too fat to run " , they know they will receive derogatory and unwanted comments. Many curvy women believe that their bodies are unacceptable, they normally dress in concealing and baggy clothes. They try to run in baggy cotton clothes and get sores from the chafing of wet cotton. So they give up

Why isn't this an issue for men?

I'd suggested that men ( as a class) don't get harassed on the street by women (as a class).

And that men( as a class ) feel it's more important to be comfortable when exercising than to look acceptable to the female gaze . And that it's OK to be sweaty when exercising .

I agree that running is much less gendered than many other activities. Although I notice that I'm often given a men's t shirt after a race ( I'm a woman ) . But I've never seen men given womens t shirts . I wonder why that is?

( point of information for non runners -race organisers know the sex of runners well before race day )

I apologise for going on about running . But I wanted to give a real life example amidst the suggestion that this is all justtheory and academic

Oh and I mean definitions 7 and 8 when I refer to your 'academic' posting style . Not that you come across as a learned person of the academy (you don't) but that all this seems very academic to you.

Kristina - I'm not for one moment doubting your experience! :) I just don't think there is a universal experience for women runners in the same way as there is for women who work in e.g. the traditional male dominated professions. I run in a city (actually, I've run in loads of cities, because my job involves a lot of travel) and I really have never had those problems. I actually find running one of those liberating gender dispelling things. Bit like belonging at footy (I know the not-we foot supporter of either sex will feel intimidated and uneasy at a footy match but for those of us who belong, it's liberating, we are fans, not men and women). The too fat to run thing - well, I know women who say they are too fat to do all sorts of things. I know more fat women who do do those things (including running). I also know fat men who feel excluded from activity because of their size, and fat men who do activity anyway. I think it's far more complex than just sex based, that issue. Fat certainly used to be a feminist issue but it seems it's now a human issue (because there's money to be made and more people than just women to make miserable).

On the T shirt thing - the races I've competed in, the T shirts have been standard S, M, L not 'men's' and 'women's'. I actually object to 'girl cut' T shirts on principle (even though they actually fit me better and I do have some because e.g. show T shirts, the designs might be different). A T shirt is a T shirt, a jumper is a jumper, I really don't need or want some clingy 'made for tits' cut on my scruffy clothes. Why would anyone want to mess with a T shirt to emphasise the chest area??? The race for life T shirts are girly and I do not like them at all.

You object to "girl cut " t - shirts despite their being a better fit?

You can't see how loaded your post is?

"girly"= bad.

Choosing a certain style of t-shirt which you don't see the need for its existence= bad.

They're not necessarily a better fit, they are usually smaller and I am very small. I doubt they fit the chunkier form particularly well. However, they're designed to emphasise sexual characteristics which while entirely fair enough for e.g. a posh frock (if that's what you want) isn't appropriate for a running T shirt. Girly fit is the official name for these T shirts, it's not a word I'd use to describe them otherwise since girly should mean anything a girl might choose to wear not just those T shirts but the unisex ones too. By calling not fit for purpose items of clothing 'girly' you immediately consign the well designed functional items to the 'not for girls' zone and that's wrong.

In clarification of what I meant I think this sums it up. Can I take it then that no one disagrees with it?

I said that there was a general consensus on this board that gender was a social construct and a mechanism for the oppression of women. It is reasonable that such a consensus should exist on a feminist discussion board. However, that is not a consensus that one can expect in a wider environment.

I would like to stress that it doesn't "seem academic" to me at all. That sentence is loaded as I'm sure you know. I have also been clear that I think it's to the board's benefit to have academics whose areas of acaedmic interest is Gender Studies.

It's a mechanism which frequently oppresses women. Sometimes it oppresses men. I'm not 100% certain it was designed (to the extent that it was designed at all) in order to oppress women. Although that is the most usual result.

Why are you asking pseudo-rhetorical questions so much?

I really don't understand your need for such a didactic posting style.

Actually, it would be better characterised as a pseudo-rhetorical complex question fallacy.

Why are you feeling the need to do this?

Well, I did say a general consensus Rabbit

This is not my observation, but I was talking with someone about PE in schools at teenage level. They remarked that girls are often immediately dressed in clothes that actively discourage boisterous activity and are betrated more sharply than boys for getting messy. PE, in traditional form (I am aware that various people are trying to address this) traditionally involves activities that are boisterous and messy - and it's perhaps understandable that, by their teens, many girls are socialised not to want to participate.

I do think this is a situation that is improving, however.