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?

Bella , Garlic if you read this, apologies if you didn't want a thread started on something you said! Feel free to berate me.

you feel like you can't win but you have been very critical of the fact that some people feel excluded from FWR threads due to language - you can't object if people call you out on that too

How can I be called out if I thought it was a term familiar to regular posters? It seemed relatively clear to me as a newcomer what gender abolitioist might mean in the context of FWR and flora expands on it in the way I'd have expected it to be understood. (Obviously, I could have done with all the personal digs). Seriously, I asked this in good faith - but I'm even berated for 'not having come back'. Well excuse me if I wasn't posting at six in the flipping morning!! Sheesh

Can we discuss the question now? I don't have a view as yet, I was hoping to read the opinions of people that had already considered it.

you haven't been called out by regulars - you've been called out by one of the very people who you have been supportive of in their criticism of this board as exclusive and unwelcoming

FWIW i wasn't clear on your meaning either, but now you have explained where your question has come from it has become clear

Good morning Petula

you've been called out by one of the very people who you have been supportive of in their criticism of this board as exclusive and unwelcoming

Nope. Not me.

I don't believe I've articulated anything of the sort. I only really read a few scraps of the debate last week and thought to myself I could see how some threads might seem a bit intimidating. But I haven't participated or criticised or taken more than a passing, onlooker's, interest.

The moment I do say something, you are keen to consign me to a 'camp'.

And TBF, Dam isn't the person who was repeatedly defending the notion that explanations shouldn't be given.

You posted a question you don't understand the answer to. And instead of saying "I don't understand" you dressed it up in wanky psychobabbly speak. Well, that's how it read to me. And it made me feel stupid and ill-educated for having to ask the questions I did.

But yes it read like psychobabble.

It's just all too fraught and hair-trigger around here for straightforward communication, I think.

I have no idea who is regular here and who isn't (same as most newcomers).

Yet people are telling me I've previously criticized FWR, that I should have roleplayed someone who hadn't heard of 'gender abolition' before and asked what it was, that my v practical suggestions for making the conversation accessible were attempts to close it down......

Bonkers.

It's just all too fraught and hair-trigger around here for straightforward communication, I think.

Can't you see the irony in this statement given what you've done on this thread and the one on _Chat? The OP says she posted in good faith and you went off like a rocket.

Not at all. Nothing rocket like about it. That's your projection. I was being perfectly good humoured. But everything I said was being determinedly shot down. I just kept answering what was said to me, mainly because it needed correcting.

The absolute insistence (I'm guessing from a regular?) that no definition/link/explanation would be helpful just didn't make sense.

Neither did the other spurious things I was accused of, but I tried to address them. For clarity.

What a baffling place (for those of us not au fait).

I don't think I really understand the first part of your question .

WRT the second part -no , why would I want masculinity and femininity to be separate things ?

I want my children to be free to choose careers, clothes, hobbies, hairstyles, partners, lifestyles and education that THEY are interested in , not ones that someone else has decided is suitable for them .

Why does the world need everything divided up into pink and blue , and you get told which section you can choose from ? How does this benefit me and my children ?

Surely this is a trick question ? Have I misunderstood ?

Arsenic I didn't say there couldn't be explanations and information, it was the being told that I must include those things when at the point I was discussing with one other person and well you who wasn't interested in discussing the topic. When others entered the discussion I have actually tried to provide some further information.

arsenic perhaps your assumptions about the way people post in FWR are your projections?

You described the OP as "quite exclusive, possibly nonsensical" and started a thread in _Chat to try to prove your point. You think this is perfectly good humoured?

It seems like you are holding other people to a standard that you are not meeting yourself. FWR regulars are held to a standard of perfection when it comes to expressing their posts in a way that is understandable and relevant to you and you are quick to judge them to have failed. However you are demanding that people reading your posts see your perfect good humour despite coming across as hostile and not constructive.

This thread pretty much encapsulates up my views about people who make sweeping criticisms of FWR on the basis of one or two posts.

Gender is a social construct. I'm not wildly happy with the idea of feminine and masculine characteristics either - we all know women who are a bit fighty and men who are nurturing, to take two examples of characteristics that are sometimes labelled 'feminine' or 'masculine'. Does being nurturing make a man less of a man? No. Does not being overly nurturing make a woman less of a woman? No. Does being fighty make a fighty man less of an arse than a fighty woman, because fighty is seen as 'masculine' and therefore less unusual for a man? Not as far as I'm concerned.

I would like to live in a society where people are seen as people first and foremost, with no reference to their sex, and where the individual combinations of their various characteristics and personality traits, likes, dislikes, style etc are seen as unique rather than conforming or non conforming. I don't mind what people call themselves, I do mind when a title or name is regarded as a label.

There is currently a lot of discussion on my main internet home around the question of whether we should have a woman/female Doctor in the light of recent events, and it does my head in because there is an assumption from many characters that a woman/female doctor would be somehow 'different' to the previous 12 presumably because either (a) some people might fancy her or (b) lady brain. And that seriously pisses me off. If the discussion was purely framed in terms of equal opportunities for female actors then that would be a different thing. But it isn't. At the heart, it's about lady brain. :(

you dressed it up in wanky psychobabbly speak

Just... wtf?

Ok, can I apologise for anything I need to apologise for? There are a huge variety of 'what's up with FWR' threads available at the moment, so I don't think yet another discussion is required on this thread.

Does anyone actually think I need to request a thread delete on here, or can we agree the rough intention of the question and look at?

Yes, FrauHelga I did indeed ask a question I didn't know the answer to.

Well, if I had posted a thread like this I would have said something like :

"I saw a post from X on Y thread here [ link ] which was discussing the notion of the abolition of gender.

I have never heard of this before and I don't understand exactly what the posters were referencing. Could someone enlighten me."

Your initial post made a lot of assumptions about prior knowledge, well that's how it read to me, and because I don't have that prior knowledge I felt excluded, and more than a bit thick for having to ask what I assumed would be perceived as daft questions.

You described the OP as "quite exclusive, possibly nonsensical" and started a thread in _Chat to try to prove your point. You think this is perfectly good humoured?

No. I said;

The thread just struck me as a perfect example of something that could be seen as quite exclusive, possibly nonsensical

The 'could be seen as' is important.

Damsili welcome to FWR Please note it is not FWR "regulars" schooling you on precisely how you may formulate a question before it is acceptable for this board.

Flora - I'm not schooling the OP, I'm explaining why I personally found it hard to understand.

Maybe I'm just fick.

It's not acceptability to the board is it Flora? It is about accessibility to all. But I can see how much that interests you.

Ah. I see I intruded in a private argument. As so often happens when I post in FWR. Ok. I'll go back where I belong (clearly not here).

I'll come with you Rabbit.

No, please don't.

Well you stay and I'll leave

"Gender is a social construct. I'm not wildly happy with the idea of feminine and masculine characteristics either -"

Rabbit, completely agree.