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?

Hah, almond, now I'm having to restrain myself from getting on my assertiveness soapbox I SO want it to be taught properly in schools!

Petulo Exactly. I have some concerns, even though it won't affect my DDs, that what is happening is, women are being encouraged to fill the low grade technician roles. Not the 'top scientist' roles. Same with the focus on coding. How many low grade technicians does society need, really? Not as many as are currently being churned out by the system I fear. And what then? I think it's also not coincidental that by discouraging women from entering fields where communication and the ability to argue, analyse, debate, persuade etc are paramount, society is weakening us all.

Ok. So what if we were able to postulate a society where the social constructs came from what was similar to behind Rawl's veil of ignorance?

""...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

This I do know about, and I can intellectually masturbate all night on this one.

almond Flora, but who I am is largely the product of the values promoted by society. There can't be a society where people emerge (from an egg) with a set of ways they have already decided to behave in.

I agree with that and different societies might promote different values. They just don't need to be different for girls or boys.

Oooh, I'm just reading the Wikipedia page on that one! Thanks!

I shall await the masturbation of our academically-minded members before trying to remember the school debates on it

I like the idea of the maxim -

Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;
Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle);
attached to positions and offices open to all.

And because of the veil of ignorance no one knows where they sit in society, so they have to choose the maxim.

These are the wikis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Flora, why I was talking about this is that we are at point A, where many values are gendered, and if we are to move to point B, it will need values. Which means we would have to decide which currently feminine values and which currently masculine values we want more or less of, even though we will know longer be calling them masculine or feminine.

Because whether people want to support a gender neutral society is going to depend on whether the average value person will be a spartan warrior or Barbara from the Good Life.

Why do we have to look at it like that, almond, and why do we have to decide which values we 'want more of'? We can't make people be more considerate/decisive/arty/scientific ... can we?

(But if I have to choose, I'm going for Spartan warrior.)

Why can't the average person just be average? Why do they have to be either a spartan warrior or Barbara from the Good Life? Why can't they just BE?

Sorry for triple posting. If I understand Helga's quotes adequately, the 'perfect' choices are made when basic equality of opportunity is observed, and morality is determined for the overall good because nobody knows whether they're going to be on the winning or losing side.
They're tools for setting the 'right' values, with no regard to prevailing mores. Concepts such as masculine & feminine are out the window, along with class, race, age, disability, and so forth.

Yes - why can't they just 'be', Almond?

Exactly Garlic, well, if I'm understand Rawl's theory correctly. Not that I'm in any way an expert

Why can't the average person just be average? Why do they have to be either a spartan warrior or Barbara from the Good Life? Why can't they just BE?

Isn't it the case that life forces us to make decisions though? Without getting into it specifically, there's the whole name-change thing on marriage. I've no doubt that there are better examples and ones that present themselves every day...

Do any of us have the confidence simply to BE? I'd imagined we all navigate life trying to work out how to present ourselves and this is doubly hard for people with a feminist consciousness - or any consciousness that it contrary to the prevailing systems.

Yes of course we can make people more one way or the other. Otherwise how do you explain huge differences between behaviour in different societies, or the huge influence that what parents you have has on who you become as an adult.

If we don't believe that we make people what they are to a pretty large extent, why are we even worrying about whether girls play football or not?

There is no 'average' person naturally. People become what they are based on the society they live in.

Or in other words, the perfect choices of original position are impossible because the veil doesn't - and can't - exist, other than a theoretical tool.

Or are people suggesting that the collective balance of traits that has developed under patriarchy in the UK is absolutely the best possible mix of traits, or at least an adequate one, and we are going to stick with that?

The veil of ignorance is a theoretically precise version of "Do as you would be done by". Do posters here find that an unrealistic maxim on which to base a society?

we all navigate life trying to work out how to present ourselves and this is doubly hard for people with a feminist consciousness - It is, because the feminist has to balance her social inequality with her need to be acceptable to the society that treats her unequally. Stop gendering people, and no-one's got to deal with that any more.

... no-one's got to deal with gender-based inequalities & expectations any more. One would hope similar things would also happen for elderly, disabled, variously coloured people, and everyone, but this is a thread about gender.

Sorry Garlic, who are you talking to? Who mentioned those groups?

the feminist has to balance her social inequality with her need to be acceptable to the society that treats her unequally. Stop gendering people, and no-one's got to deal with that any more.

Yes! (Or one less thing, at least!)

Garlic - "The veil of ignorance is a theoretically precise version of "Do as you would be done by". Do posters here find that an unrealistic maxim on which to base a society?" - no I don't. That's why I posted it I love Rawls, I love the basis of his theory, I love the first principle of justice

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others

Susan Okin does a good criticism of Rawls in Justice Gender and the Family - she believes that for a theory of justice to be true and capable of useful development, it must address the inherent weaknesses in the notion of family.

And I'm trying to debate a theoretical postulation in a theoretical way and now I'm getting criticised for that too by some posters? When it's something I actually do kind of half understand? I. Can't. Win.

Who is criticising you Helga? Is there another thread somewhere about this thread?

Oh Almond it's probably me. I'm just feeling like what's the point of me trying.

I'm kind of with you, Helga :(