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?

Helga, there have only been four people on this thread other than you since you brought up your theory. Two are positive about it and two haven't mentioned it at all. I know that everyone has felt a bit bashed after two threads of bashing, but I don't see how you can take it as a criticism!

We are having a theoretical discussion about abolition of gender.

I'm new to FWR so I ask a lot of questions, show my ignorance, contribute, make an effort.

I share of myself. I share stories, experiences.

Then the thread moves to something I do understand and something I CAN theorise on.

The Op of the thread then says

"the veil doesn't - and can't - exist, other than a theoretical tool."

Which just sounds like a great big fuck off to me. After a whole ton of snipy passive aggressive posts (including describing me as a pig - nice)

And you know what - I think what is the fucking point.

You might mean me, but I wasn't being critical; I thought it was a really interesting addition to the debate and I looked at the wiki references you posted. It is a theoretical tool though, no?

Cross post. Ok, you did mean me.

No, that's not what I meant.

Oh, okay Helga. I'm sorry. I didn't realise that was an insult, probably because of my literal rather than theoretical ignorance!

Why are you continuing to do that "garner agreement in the form of a question" style of posting Damsili when a number of posters have told you it's patronising and irritating?

The theorists would call it a pseudo-rhetorical complex question fallacy.

And now I worry that apology sounded sarcastic, which it wasn't.

In a nutshell.

It's a theoretical debate. I put forward a theory. And the OP told me that "it's only a theory"

yes, it is, in a theoretical debate.

I'm not Helga ... It feels, to me, as if you're saying "But if we ignore gender, how will people know what to be? How can we decide if anyone's Good or Bad, if we don't recognise gender?" And I can't even work out where to start answering that. It feels like you're unwilling to see people as just people - which, since I'm unwilling to see people as genders on legs, suggests we're continents apart.

I hope this is all just a silly misunderstanding, but I'm off for that early night anyway. I only got 1 blind up as I spent so long faffing around on here!

I put forward a theory. And the OP told me that "it's only a theory"

Ahhh hahahahahaha!!

NO, Garlic, people are people and just people - I don't give a stuff what gender or race or colour or creed - I do my absolute level best at all times to see people just as people.

Sorry if I've said anything that contradicts that - it's not at all what I meant.

Helga I am genuinely sorry I have upset you. I appreciated the Rawl addition (as I have said) and wasn't criticizing it. The post you have taken umbrage at was meant as an addendum to my previous post which was this:

You: "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.

---

I understand that you have not read it in context with that bit. I simply meant that we aren't able to BE in the way Original Position suggested.

I haven't read it in context because YOU DIDN'T PUT IT IN CONTEXT. You didn't say "oh sorry = meant to add this to my last post" or "sorry for double post but ..."

Can't you see what you are doing? Nothing you ever do is wrong, you are subtly always passing the blame onto someone else.

Own your mistakes. Admit your ignorance.

Otherwise you're just going to continue to piss people right off.

Oh, I didn't mean you, Helga, I'm sorry. It was Damsili's and Almondcake's replies giving me cognitive difficulty.

I deffo need that sleep now (todream of a rational society ...)

Garlic and Helga, I wasn't talking about your theory at all. I was responding to Flora and you two jumped on my point. As far as I am concerned, your discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which is why I didn't join in with it. I am not judging who is good or bad at all.

We currently have two groups of people who are encouraged to be risk taking/competitive/dominant/active/loud OR cautious/submissive/passive/nurturing collective. Those are the two value sets.

And gender permeates everything - reading is coded girl not boy.

If you take away gender values, people will then have one value set not two, unless you believe that bookreading, competitiveness and everything else is innate to some and not others.

So in Scandinavian countries, book reading is extremely high in number of books read. Here that is

To continue...

Here bookreading is feminine coded. Is that a value to be given to everyone, are we having more or lessof that? What about risk taking? Does gender abolition world want more or less of that?

Because unless people actually specify what it is to be human, then we seem to be walking into UK masculinity lite as the average value, or discussing a veil over natural degrees of intellect or art ability. And I'm not a believer in natural abilities and it is not connected to what I am saying. It is not a criticism of anyone for me not to discuss it.

I am enjoying all contributions, thanks sisters!

So unless feminists state what value system of human behaviours they want in the new society, how can I have an opinion on it?

And it isn't some obtuse point. Countries nearer to gender equality have developed a particular value system to promote. They don't just go - be yourselves! to small kids.

The whole time I was thinking, I bet Yonic is still here with that cocktail.

Two cocktails and hAlf a bottle of wine, sister!

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

Sorry but to me seems more straw arguments. Liking butterflies is a seen as a woman's thing? Since when? Gardeners like butterflies Have you been in a garden centre recently? They are actively promoting wild flowers/butterfly friendly/bee friendly plants. Must tell my husband and my( male) gardener this one.

And as for cats- have you seen any of the recent Cat watch programmes? Cat mad person seemed pretty evenly mixed.

Oh and I see "girly" is still being used in a derogatory way.

Almond - I don't agree that reading is coded boy. Certainly not for all social classes.

It's a very interesting discussion though...

Sorry - NOT coded boy. I don't agree that reading is not coded boy - or, coded not boy.

The apprentice has shredded my brain.

Neither do I. Reading is not coded for either sex.