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?

Phaedra if you were reading the thread instead of just jumping on my posts every now and then, in isolation, you would know that another poster posited that butterflies were 'coded girl'. It was never my suggestion and in fact I have, several times, pointed out that there are many famous male lepidopterists which seems to run counter to the other person's assertion that butterflies are coded girl.

There are vast numbers of discussions of why boys don't read, expensive schemes encouraging boys to be seen as for them, and plenty of studies showing boys on average read less.

Yes, there is no broad activity that is only for boys or girls. But if we are then saying from that that nothing is broadly coded m or f , then we have abolished gender already and can stop debating how or if to do it.

And I mentioned butterflies in clothing motifs, not any butterfly interest ever, and so posters responded in those terms.

Girly is being used as broadly synonymous with macho, Phaedra.

Look, we can say that butterfly motifs are a good:bad example? Or reading? But the point is - how do we get from the gendered today where "typically" masculine things/traits/interests are on the whole (or as a class!) seen as more valuable than typical feminine, to the ungendered tomorrow. Which traits and interests do we value more in the ungendered tomorrow, given we can't hatch into gender free utopia.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant Yonic.

I think I must be coming at this gender thing from a different angle.

For me gender is a hierarchy and it is the hierarchy that I want to get rid off. There are also some of the things on the hierarchy that I want rid of but if those things were no longer on a hierarchy they would be meaningless or considered inhumane/unjust and they would die out.

I bet that was as clear as mud! I'll try and give an example.

In my feminism, men and women are not the same. How similar or different we actually are is an unknown because we are all socialized and this skews things enormously. Perhaps the differences are only really reproductive. Perhaps not.

What we do know is that this reproductive difference (which patently does exist) has been taken to divide all humanity into two groups. And one group has higher status, more power and more privilege than the other. And this group seeks ways to control, dominate and exploit the other group.

One of the tools to achieve this is status and that status is where you are placed on the gender hierarchy - the actual gender criteria itself is often irrelevant. What is important is that if girls and women do it, it is low status and if boys and men do it it is high status.

So when a woman argues her point she is aggressive, when a man does it, he is assertive. When a woman has casual sex, she is a slut, a man is a player or a stud, etc, etc. This to me is gender.

I'm having trouble articulating this well. What I mean is the "criteria" in this Dworkin quote. For me gender is the arbitrariness of the criteria.

The essence of oppression is that one is defined from the outside by those who define themselves as superior by criteria of their own choice.

And that is what I want rid off when I say I want rid of gender.

The fact that many famous lepidopterists are male (although honestly, famous lepidopterist? Did I miss that edition of Grazia? (Don't answer, I'm being facetious, it's a failing of mine)) isn't really very relevant to the status of butterflies in culture. You might as well say that pink is not a colour associated with girls because many famous optometrists have been male. I wish I could remember what point Almondcakes was making because everything seems to have got a little bit sidetracked.

In a vain attempt to drag things back to something like a topic, I'd say that the point about reading being a thing for girls not boys is actually a really interesting example of gendering in action.

Almondcakes is absolutely right that there are problems with getting boys to read, but I'm not sure that has actually translated into reading being a gendered activity. It's possible that it might happen in the future, but I don't think that at this point people assume that males - men and boys - don't read. If over the next few years it becomes much more well-known that women read much more than men do, then there is a possibility that reading will be seen as a gendered activity.

Now I think that's pretty interesting because reading is valued very highly in our culture. There are some genres of fiction that are generally assumed to be 'for men' like SF and thrillers, although more women than men buy and read books in every single genre including these.

Does anyone think that something so fundamental to intellectual activity could be ceded to women by the patriarchy? Do we think that reading would become less valued if it was 'for women'? Or could women become more valued if reading was a female thing?

Beach - I think I agree with you, to a certain extent. I think arguing or worrying about which behaviours will be valued more or seen as better if detached from gender coding is missing the point a bit Broadly identical behaviours are currently valued differently depending on whether they are displayed by men or women, that's the problem. So a boy may be hardworking while a girl is a swot. A boy may like a drink while a girl is a borderline alcoholic. A man may be working really hard (in his job) while a woman is career obsessed. A man may miss a deadline because he had too much to do, a woman may miss a deadline because she can't handle her workload. If a man likes x y or z thing, that's his hobby and its perfectly normal, if a woman likes the same thing she's probably either only pretending or doesn't really understand it or is a bit weird. And so on. There are things that are denied parity of esteem because they are seen as mainly woman things or girl things but I think the other issue is probably more insidious, now you point it out.

For me gender is a hierarchy and it is the hierarchy that I want to get rid of.

Didn't want to quote the rest of your post for space reasons but I think you've got a great way of describing the difference between getting rid of gender and changing the way society works so that gendered activities have the same value, whether or not they are 'for men' or 'for women'.

That's an interesting question BobbyDarin.

Certainly patriarchal society has a history of changing the status or value of an activity depending on who is doing it. This is partly what I'm trying to get at in my above post when I talk about arbitrary criteria.

For example medicine - when women did it it was low status or even considered witchcraft. When men dominated it it became marvellously high status.

Or feeding babies. When women do it with their breasts it is no big deal. When men invent formula it us considered to be far superior and jolly important.

This to me is gender in action.

Nabokov. Was a well known lepidopterist as well as being a writer. Most of the collections at the natural history museum (and other museums as well come to that) were built up by Victorian male lepidopterists. The horn imam museum used to have loads of stuff on this too, don't know if it still does, been 35 years since I was last there. :(

The fiction market has been dominated by women for years. Probably one of the reasons why people are sniffy about popular fiction and 'chick-lit'. However publishers are not stupid and are happy to chase the female pound.

Horniman. Bloody iPad. Although, I'd definitely visit a museum called horn imam. Just to see what it was and in the hope that it was even slightly as interesting as its name promised.

Yes that's what I mean. Thanks Rabbit and Bobby for getting it.

I suspect I'd be somewhat offended by that Grazia comment if I knew what it actually meant (I'm not going to google because I don't actually need to be upset at this time of night).

I was thinking that this was the longest amount of time I'd ever spent in a FWR thread but I suspect my time here is now at an end.

Nabokov. Was a well known lepidopterist as well as being a writer. Most of the collections at the natural history museum (and other museums as well come to that) were built up by Victorian male lepidopterists. The horn imam museum used to have loads of stuff on this too, don't know if it still does, been 35 years since I was last there. sad

Nabokov was fascinated by butterflies? Brilliant. You've got to wonder what the lepidopterist author of Lolita would have made of a Rorschach test.

The fiction market has been dominated by women for years. Probably one of the reasons why people are sniffy about popular fiction and 'chick-lit'. However publishers are not stupid and are happy to chase the female pound.

Yes that's exactly part of it. Chick-lit is denigrated, to the point that the genre is now barely acknowledged to exist, but it's been a sort of lightning conductor for sexism surrounding the book trade, probably a bit like Romantic fiction. Other types of fiction like literary fiction are still valued very highly and probably most people see them as gender-neutral or male-slanted yet they are all read mostly by women.

Rabbit, I don't think bobby was mocking you

Not sure if you are in the UK? Grazia is a weekly women's magazine. I think bobby was saying lepidopterists in general aren't super famous with lots of coverage in the news and stuff, it was a joke about popular coverage of niche scientific areas.

I hope you stay!

I am posting this and leaving the thread.

I have explained already on this thread what I have tried to do.

I cannot shake the feeling that Damsili is a man, toying with us wimmins with an air of detached amusement, much as a cat would toy with a mouse.

I also think what he's trying to get to with the thread is that teenage girls are socialised to wear revealing clothes, but that the notion of gender means that it's ok for the menz to oogle those girls coz they can't help it.

So, on that note, I am leaving the thread. Good luck to the rest of you who stay and engage, but I really see no point.

There are some genres of fiction that are generally assumed to be 'for men' like SF and thrillers

Sorry but that is yet another made up statement. Who assumes that? Apart from whoever posted it?

As is the one below. I find it hard to take this argument seriously when you are frankly inventing things to try to prove how all encompassing gendering is.

Or feeding babies. When women do it with their breasts it is no big deal. When men invent formula it us considered to be far superior and jolly important.

As is

Oh, Rabbit, I meant hope you stay on FWR, obviously leave this thread if that suits

I am sorry you are going Helga. You had lots of great stuff to say. Hopefully you will be on other threads.

Hi Phaedra, is there anything on FWR you've agreed with so far?!

The fiction market has been dominated by women for years. Probably one of the reasons why people are sniffy about popular fiction and 'chick-lit'.

And again more over-egging of the pudding. The first sentence may be true; there are many extremely successful women fiction writers but the second sentence does not logically follow from the first.
People ( including me) are sniffy about "chick lit" because much of it is badly written, opportunistic, production line rubbish.

If Damsli is a man winding you up you're handing him the ammunition.

Yonic I find it difficult to agree when so much of what has been said on this thread relies on exaggerated statements of opinion being presented as incontrovertible facts; the worst examples being the ones I've just quoted.

You may well be right FrauHelga. Hope to see you on other threads.

Hello Phaedra. I was thinking about the book "The Politics of Breastfeeding" when I wrote that. It is a very thought provoking read. You used to see it recommended on MN all the time, usually on breastfeeding discussions or discussions about the actions of formula companies, particularly in developing countries. What makes you think I'm inventing it? Or do you just mean that you disagree? Have you never heard of formula being marketed as being superior to breastmilk? I know currently in the UK the slogan is "breast is best" but it didn't used to be that way. Why do you think we need that slogan nowadays? And in developing countries mothers (who often don't have access to clean water) are told that formula is better for their babies.

Phaedra - the fiction market has been dominated by women (readers - that's what the word market means) for over a decade. Many of my friends are writers and a few are publishers and this is a fact. I too don't like chick lit but I also don't like that Andy McNabb stuff and it isn't excoriated to the same degree as chick lit is - it's another example of rowdy identical behaviours being treated differently - read shit badly written LCD books and if you're a man that's fine, you're reading, this is good, keep it up. If you're a woman then shame on you, go and read something improving instead (I do actually agree with that but I know I shouldn't).

I wasn't the one who made the SF comment but I could have. Because it's kind of true. The writers (most of my writer friends are in the SF field) know it's not true, that more women read SF than men and have done for decades. The female fans do of course. But public perception, and the perception of the male fans, is that it's a male thing. It is specifically this issue that made me a feminist when I was a young girl, as a matter of fact.

Anyway I am going to follow Frau Helga.