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?

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 would make sense. I think that non-participation has bugger all to do with girls being inherrently less sporty. There does seem to be far greater motivation for promoting female role models in sport though, which is good.

Liking dinosaurs is not an exclusively male trait.

Liking butterflies is probably not an exclusively female trait. I grant you, there's less obviously available empirical evidence of this but there are or have been plenty of famous male lepidopterists.

I don't think anybody wants to stop anyone else liking anything they want - dismantling gender differences is about removing barriers not creating them. My DD2 adores butterflies too. If loving butterflies was seen as a person thing rather than as a girl thing that wouldn't stop her loving them. DS adores our cats. Absolutely adores them. That doesn't make him any less of a boy even though cats are often seen as something women rather than men like...

Yes, the difference is in the amount of approval - verbal or tacit - that people get for having certain likes & dislikes. Gender-free means that both girls and boys are told they look great in dinosaur or butterfly prints, praised for noticing details about them, and encouraged to learn more about them.

Our 9year old did a school project where they had to chose a sporting hero and give a presentation on that person. He was the only child in the class who chose a female athlete, the other 25 chose male footballers or managers .

Even though at least two of the girls in the class participate in sport ( gymnastics and judo) at a regional level

Yes, I never disputed any of that. What I am saying is that gender equality could be reached (or be near to being reached) while still coding butterflies as mostly a feminine motif. That doesn't mean boys can't like them too.

People tend to push back if they have to change a vast amount of their socialisation. If it is possible to make great leaps forward without making people eradicate all previous cultural differences, we should go for that.

That's a sad story, Kristina - though not for you or DS! I wonder whether the teacher commented on the bias?

True enough, almond, though I guess even thinking about a gender-free society is a great leap forward for many.

But why on earth would anybody want to 'code butterflies as mostly a feminine motif'??

We might I suppose ask ourselves the question 'if butterflies are so feminine why are the most celebrated lepidopterists mainly male'?

We might want to code butterflies as a feminine motif because such motifs are currently coded as feminine and lots of people want to keep the trappings of gender.

As Bobby pointed out, and I posted on!

And most of the people who bring up children within these little gender rules still want the big types of equality, and may find gender abolition unpleasant.

And in answer to your question, science specialists are usually male because women have been kept out of science, which most people now disagree with. But I'm sure you know this.

But it's the 'little' things that build the mindsets that enable the big inequalities. Why does it threaten you to view liking butterflies as sex neutral? Especially given that as I pointed out, the more famous lepidopterists are male? If we say 'anyone can like butterflies' that doesn't stop girls from liking them and it doesn't force boys to like them. Dinosaurs are pretty sex neutral these days (always have been, really) and the world hasn't ended.

Abolishing gender (or, removing gender coding) isn't about saying 'you can't...'. It's al; about saying 'anyone can...'. How can anyone view this as negative?

It doesn't threaten me.

I don't believe the little inequalities build up into big equalities, anymore than I am more associated with tea drinking than my non British neighbours means we are unequal and can't all care for others or like sciences.

Many people do not want to be gender neutral. They want some little things that are mainly associated with males or with females. It is possible to still be a butterfly motif person and a tea drinker without also saying a. nobody else may ever drink tea or b. I am no good at science.

Sorry, little inequalities into big inequalities.

Many people do not want to be gender neutral. They want some little things that are mainly associated with males or with females.

Why though? And what about boys who want to wear butterflies? Why not let them?

I get that you don't think it's a big issue but I don't get why anyone would want to keep it while also removing the big inequalities.

It's a free world (well, we'd like it to be anyway) so I agree you are completely entitled to your view, even though I disagree with the actual view.

I never suggested there should be a ban on boys wearing butterflies.

People want to keep the trappings of gender because they like identifying as male or female and want some little trivial things to be associated with that in culture. without wishing to deny anybody rights or major opportunities.

And many such people consider themselves to be feminists. That was the topic of the OP wasn't it? Do all feminists want gender abolition and how do they feel about the concept.

Rabbit, yes you are entitled to your view of course. Nobody has a gun to your head. I don't think anybody was disputing that.

As long as many people do not want to be gender neutral, and want some little things that are mainly associated with males or with females, I'm never gonna get my dream am I?

they like identifying as male or female - Why? Are they afraid their genitals will fall off if they can't advertise their sex?

I'm being facetious. But still asking ... why?

I went on a date last night (have I mentioned it? He was lovely )

I had a shower, put some perfume on, wore a nice top, jeans and a pair of converse. I dried my hair, but didn't put any make up on.

He had had a shower, smelt nicely of aftershave or similar, was wearing a nice shirt, jeans, and a pair of converse. He didn't appear to have any make up on either.

Which is about as close as we are going to get, in today's society, isn't it?

Well, apart from the fact that as a result of this thread I'm going to wear a full kilt to any formal occasions from now on. Skirt and can be reused and will even continue to fit as I get older and fatter. Win Win.

Oooh, hope it continues to go well, Helga :)

(The bloke and the kilt, obv!)

thank you

They are very warm too. The last formal dinner I had to go to I went with a colleague (we were at a conference in Berlin, our spouses were at home with our kids - we always try to get seated together at these infernal things because it thwarts the evil plans of the organisers to make people mix with people they don't know, he gets my booze (I don't drink) and he fends off unwelcome 'but WHY are you a vegan questions from idiots for me) and he reckons that kilts are TOASTY (he's Scottish and always wears the full regalia because he is too tight to buy a black tie outfit. I was shivering the whole time but he thought it was uncomfortably warm.

Because people with any kind of identity usually have culture around it.

Added to which, the cultures around male and female are already in existence, so you are asking people to give something up which they are already emotionally invested in.

And it is okay to ask people to give something up as being mainly identified with them if the thing is an extremely important field of human fulfillment and/or endeavour that we want equal participation in. But some elements of gender really aren't that.