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?

What pe activities at teenaged level are "boisterous" and "messy" Damsili?

I am the mother of a 16 year old girl who takes part in a lot of sport, pe included, and I discuss various aspects of this with teachers, friends and others. Boisterous and messy are not words I've heard used in this context.

Do you have a teenaged girl? Are you a mother or a father of one?

Frau - Rugby and Hockey. Footy also. Mud city. FlandersAndSwann-tastic.

At my DDs' school, everyone has to do all 3 of those at some point. Nobody has to do (or is allowed to do) dance. I do not know if this is down to lack of facilities (it easily could be) or to the fact that the boys might not be keen. My dancer DD2 is highly amused by what is considered 'strenuous effort' in the PE lessons.

Do you think I'm wrong FrauHelga? Is it the words or the sentiment? If you don't like the words I've used, maybe suggest some less problematic ones, but would you not agree that, through clothing, girls can be socialised against sport?

I know they are muddy sports (DD does hockey, football and x-country and did do rugby) but the words "boisterous" and "messy" just struck me as odd. I'd say "muddy" or "physical" - boisterous and messy to me goes more with toddler games.

Dam, yes I agree with your quoted statement at 13:15. I don't speak for everyone here (we are not borg!) I'm not understanding why you want to provide ongoing summaries of the discussion like a teacher moderating the first-year debating society, but you're welcome to do so if it suits you. What doesn't suit me - or, it seems, several other posters - is your pursuant requests for affirmation. Aside from the slackening effect on this conversation's pace, it makes too much of it about you and your opinions.

It would be more helpful if you tried to make a further observation, now and again, about the topic itself rather than the conversation. I have to say it doesn't bother me that much as I have superb ignoring skills. But I understand why some other posters find it upsetting.

To be quite frank, I think you're pushing some sort of an agenda about sexualisation of clothing, particularly with regards to teenaged girls, Damsili. I haven't figured out what it is yet, but that is how it comes across to me.

My girls are lucky though - my school did lacrosse. Although I didn't after the first time (when I nearly decapitated someone) since I skived off PE for practically my entire school career (with the tacit approval of the teachers - Dyspraxia wasn't a recognised condition in those days but it was easy to see what I was even though it didn't have a name. I was also very active, very thin, and a very 'good girl' and thus could be trusted to spend my skipped PE lessons either in the practise rooms or the library doing actual work not titting about and they clearly felt it was the best outcome scenario for everyone).

Frau - I completely agree. I think it goes with the previously noted agenda of pushing the idea of 'dressing like women' (to be fair they aren't the only poster doing this, aggressively).

I don't know any school that mandates its female pupils to wear inappropriate (or even 'girl cut') sportswear. girls may or may not like sport but the sport they do is usually done in tracksuit bottoms and fairly loose (to get the wear out of them!) polo shirts. Often with hoodies. In hot weather or indoors - fairly baggy (again, to get the wear) shorts. At some point of course both boys and girls find their clothes have been outgrown and they don't necessarily inform their parents about this immediately but then they are just wearing clothes that are too small for them, not clingy or inappropriate clothing. Nothing that would 'put them off' in and of itself.

Damsili -

"FrauHelga Wed 05-Nov-14 13:36:51
I know they are muddy sports (DD does hockey, football and x-country and did do rugby) but the words "boisterous" and "messy" just struck me as odd. I'd say "muddy" or "physical" - boisterous and messy to me goes more with toddler games."

I've answered you.

And, to me, using "boisterous" and "messy" infantilises the girls and belittles them. It derides them, dismisses them.

Oh, I missed all the PE posts! Just as well - my girls' school was big on hockey, lacrosse and cricket, all of which I hated because I'm bad at them (also suspect I'm undiagnosed dyspraxic, or something like it.) Ime, wearing a daft little pleated skirt doesn't inhibit one's ability to half-kill another girl on a field of ice-cold mud.
That's a digression, anyway :)

Sport is more gendered than it needs to be, isn't it? I still feel like cheering when I see a girl in football kit. I shouldn't need to. Do boys play lacrosse, ever? (Leaving aside the fact I don't feel anyone should ever play it!)

Yes, they do. Poor sods.

DD plays a sport. It looks very "gendered" in terms of outfits, if you look from the outside. The boys are in baggy shorts and long baggy t-shirts. The girls are in tight shorts and a crop top.

The boys spend much more time than the girls pulling up shorts, shucking their shoulders to make the tops sit right, adjusting their genitals and generally faffing with their clothes.

I have no idea what that proves

Garlic OK; but you don't think I'm being asked to explain and defend myself? for example, I call sports boisterous and messy and then Frau accuses me of calling girls boisterous and messy. I'm getting awful confused tbh. Maybe it's just easier to stop responding to those posts and then it should be relatively clear where the motivation for making me the subject of the thread is coming from.

I think it's coming from you, to be honest. You aren't engaging with discussion at all.

You ARE being asked to explain yourself. I am quite happy to own that I'm asking you to explain yourself and if you wish to categorise what I said about use of the words "boisterous" and "messy" as being asked to "defend" your use of language, then yeah I'm quite happy to own that too.

Actually, re-reading this, I can see there is some confusion:

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.

When i say immediately, I meant immediately upon birth - ie putting baby girls in pink frills whilst dressing boys in denim etc etc.

This has to be one of the oddest threads I've read on MN.

OP, you are constantly reframing and refocusing the conversation to you and your thoughts. You appear to want to dismiss and belittle anyone who points this out or disagrees with you.

I await your belittling of me, but felt that maybe the viewpoint of someone who hasn't posted on the thread before might be helpful to you. You have, by your own admission, a combative posting style, can I suggest you take a while to read through the thread as a whole? It might be enlightening.

Wasn't there some big study confirming that by their teens, many girls are socialised not to want to participate? I think it is a feminist issue. It comes back to all this crap about "looking nice" and possibly even being delicate ... I'm not so sure about the delicate bit, as plenty of girls do very taxing exercise like dance, martial arts and (er, don't kill me) pole work. All of those are 'graceful' sports with minimal mud contact.

In a genderless society, people would just do the sports they're interested in or best at.

The focus in school PE is on team games, which while many many women excel at these, are often regarded as more 'male'. There are two issues here really - should they be regarded as more male (probably not) and should they be focussed on to the exclusion of things we know girls and women actually like and do in their millions (gym, fitness, dance). The resource issue is probably a key factor but not the sole factor in the range of PE activities on offer.

I'd say the answer to both those questions is NO! Lack of resources is a feeble excuse, except for traditional gym. You only need an empty room and some ceiling joists.

Puffins Ok, I'll take you at your word. I don't feel like that; I feel I've been defending myself from an onslaught of accusations, some of which are pretty nasty tbh. I shall not respond further. I doubt the attempts to provoke me will stop, however.

I'd say (from DSs' and DD's experience) that the biggest factor in playing sport at school is the teacher.

DD plays a niche sport because there is a very keen teacher who goes above and beyond to coach the kids.

Some teacher who is jaded and really not that interested isn't going to enthuse the kids.

DDs is a co-ed school and the girls regularly whup the boys at the sport I'm thinking about. So much so that they do mixed teams in school (even though the sport is generally played along gender lines) to give the boys a chance to be on a the winning side.

Resources doesn't just include equipment, it also includes qualified staff, time etc. :( Individual sports/activities are more staff and time intensive. Team games are more efficient. Sad but true.

Add message | Report | Message poster BobbyDarin Tue 04-Nov-14 11:23:43
But if gender gets in the way of equality, and yet no one wants to give up their gender, then don't we need to find another way? Because if the message is that people can only get equality if they fundamentally change themselves, then you get a lot more resistance than if the message is that we can keep the things that make us ourselves and also have the chance to do things we want to and be treated fairly by other people.'

I wanted to answer this as Bobby made a couple of posts and hasn't got a response, and also because I think it is a very good point.

There are things about gendered clothing I don't like. I'm not keen on babies and small boys in military/combat style items, man made object motifs like cars, tools etc and prints of predators such as sharks, T. Rex etc. Most people wouldn't decorate their house will all these mechanical or aggressive images, so why frequently put them on small boys?

But to some extent, that is personal preference. I don't think people want to make these kind of fundamental changes but do want equality.

So yes, DD has worn a dress with butterflies on it and DS has not. The important thing is that both have had the importance of Science and the (creative) Arts stressed to them, and have been expected to have a competence and understanding of both, and that both value love, caring, the elderly and young children.

I would rather deal with the big and important values and let people keep the smaller differences like butterflies and hair slides. I think that is like small cultural differences between ethnic groups. You can keep them and still have equality on the big things as a goal.