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?

I didn't say "to the board" I said "for the board" ie the standard you consider appropriate for this board.

the standard you consider appropriate for this board.

What I consider appropriate is not remotely the issue.

It was an attempt to offer an outside perspective.

Your reaction is interesting.

Outside of what? Damsili is not an "insider".

It's interesting that both you and Damsili could walk away from this thread with the view that FWR is awful and exclusionary based on the things that two people with "outside perspectives" have said to each other.

I'm walking away from this thread convinced that FWR is awful and exclusionary based on posts like yours, Flora. If you're interested. Which you're not because I don't 'belong' here.

I'm sad to hear that, Rabbit.

I haven't had a conversation with Dam.

I was drawn into discussion with HazChem. I have no idea whether she's a regular/'insider' either.

I'm an outsider in the sense that I don't often come in here or post here; I'm not familiar with names, feuds, themes, factions.

I just wandered in and made an observation. In response various unsupportable accusations are levelled at me. All very strange.

Yonic - can you blame me, though? I made a post based on the first post in the thread, which I felt was on topic, and then discovered that I wandered into a private fight, which is still going on round me. 'Regulars' are fighting with each other and with 'outsiders' and nobody is actually talking about the subject of the thread. what, really is the point? Thank you though, for responding to my post (nice that you agreed with me but it's the fact that you responded that matters really). And - great username. I wonder if missy has the laser model still.

Surely there have to be times when an OP can be made in good faith and pinpointing the audience.

If this had been posted in AIBU then it merited a more detailed OP but it was posted in FWR so presumably there was an assumption that the idea of gender abolition was not entirely unfamiliar and unexplored. Whether the question asked had sufficient clarity for either is debatable but the OP has since identified that they are uncertain as to what gender abolition is themselves.

It's not FWR that's the mind fuck - it's the concept of gender itself when you start to drill down into it. Have you seen how many options there are for gender on some social media sites ? It's hugely topical in the feminist/transactivist discussions that go on online.

Again, it's about holding the FWR boards to higher standards than other boards on MN. There's a level of discussion - do we need to grade threads to make them accessible to all ? Or do we assume that if posters don't understand and wish to know more, they'll simply ask the question. It's a bit unfair to ask FWR posters to pitch every OP so perfectly that it is easily understood by all regardless of their knowledge or understanding. FWR is here as much for the regular posters as everyone else otherwise they're just providing a free and thankless service.

Ok, so what is someone like me, who didn't understand the question in the OP supposed to do? I asked questions, I engaged in the debate.

I am new, this is a CHAT forum within FWR, it's not the theory forum, or the activism forum it's a chat forum.

And you know what? The fact that the OP is certain there is a "party line" in this, or any other board, saddens me. I feel that will not benefit any board.

And the fact that the OP constructed her question in a way that made her seem more knowledgeable about the issue and didn't feel she could construct an "I don't understand" post is also sad.

Frau, tensions are running high on here and it feels like I can't do right for doing wrong. I suspect others are feeling the same and the problem is that discussion from the other still running threads is carrying over.

I started a thread yesterday and deliberately sought to avoid using feminist jargon as much as able. I ended up losing the clarity which I had in my mind and the thread went so far from what I intended that I'd be reluctant to do so again.

For the moment, I think the solution is simply to post your own OP and asking what you want to know. You were asking about gender earlier on and the reason that someone posted a pictogram is because it's the easiest way of providing a starting point. Others see that as patronising.

Sorry, missed the bit about Chat and Theory sections.

So much of the discussion re theory involves real life application or so many real life situations merit theoretical analysis. For me, there's so much cross over and given that I never know where a thread is going, it all tends to go in Chat.

Honestly I've been on plenty of discussions where posters have pointed out that it's gotten very theory heavy and asked for that side of it to be taken on to a new thread and this tends to happen. Someone usually pops up to bring it back to the general discussion level. No reason why that someone can't be you.

Having said all that, I like the theory and respect the time and effort that some posters put into the discussion. I equally like those who quickly post a jumble of thoughts and then try and unpick them.

MyEmpire - I agree that there are biological differences some of which are definitely down to sex and some of which may actually be just more commonly observed in one sex than the other (for example - strength, height - I often moan that the world is made for tall men, because I am short. And I can't reach stuff. :( But actually - I do know short men. And I know tall women. Height probably isn't intrinsically linked to sex and probably strength isn't either). There is probably some interesting debate to be had around how we (people) react to issues with physical/biological characteristics though - do short men react to/cope with being short in the same way that short women do? If not, is this determined by their sex or by their socialisation (I suspect the latter but don't actually know, I've never thought about it till now). There are things like propensity to certain types of disease or condition that also seem, prima facae, to be dictated by sex. Maybe some of them aren't though. Some of the acquired diseases that were almost exclusively male and female in the last century - vibration white finger, black lung - were actually only mainly male because they were workplace acquired diseases that were acquired in typically male workplaces.

But I completely reject the idea of gender, which seems to boil down to 'lady brain' or 'man brain' and I dislike the idea that characteristics can be masculine or feminine - because that immediately imposes a value on them, which might not actually be the right value, depending on who is displaying those characteristics. 'Girly' or 'feminine' characteristics can be seen as being negative when displayed by a man or indeed even by a woman just purely because the word 'girly' is usually seen as an insult. What is actually wrong with wanting to look nice, if that's your thing, or wanting to care for people or liking nice looking things or having gentle hobbies whatever your biological makeup? Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. Equally there is nothing wrong with a woman liking 'male' type things, or displaying male characteristics. Men do not own football, or sic fi or farting.

That's why I prefer to look at people as people and consider them on their individual merits.

"short men react to/cope with being short in the same way that short women do"

I'd never thought of that.

There was an interesting post a couple of months ago from a woman who did martial arts - actually, strength has less to do with it than we think because many strikes made are in fact "bone" driven (ie if you clock someone with your leg, it's the solid object hitting soft flesh that is the main issue, not the muscle strength driving the leg)

It was a helpful perspective (which I've paraphrased badly) that women may be stronger than they think (and of course self belief will drive stronger fight tactics if it comes to it)

This thread

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.

Thanks flora and, yes, noted.

Thank you to those making relevant posts. I look forward to reading / contributing more after work.

Given that Gender abolition appears not to be a known concept after all, apologies for the confusion; it's a shame that the poster that self-identified as such is not here.

My initial thoughts are that a rapid blurring of lines between the traditional gender roles has happened in the last century (UK). This is a process actively encouraged by feminism; how far does it go?

I suspect - but do not know for sure - that a lot of it is about physics or at least mechanics. And torque. And stuff like that. Certainly in fighting effectiveness.

There are many different types of physical strength though and not all of them are viewed as typically male, however I'd be amazed if it wasn't possible for men to display all the different types (perhaps not just embodied in one man) and for women to do likewise.

The thing about height is that as a small woman (in every way, I'm small framed as well as short in height) I have been socialised to 'persuade' others (tall strong capable people basically, don't have to be men) to help me through - I don't know, looking helpless? Looking a bit crap? And I think many men have been socialised to be a white knight in that sort of situation too (which is, don't get me wrong, lovely). Being dyspraxic doesn't help in that respect either. People see me struggling and dropping things and getting flustered and generally nice ones help. Sometimes men sometimes women. Would people be so prepared to help a short small dyspraxic man in similar circumstances? Perhaps not (which is terrible really. I'd try and help but I'd make things worse!). I absolutely do not do a 'poor little me' act - quite the reverse, I tend to be a bit sweaty and frustrated in these situations and I do continue struggling to get my bag in the rack or whatever it is, rather than stand back and expect someone to staff me, but I can't deny that my experience is that people will usually help and they do usually help. I always feel a bit rubbish and ashamed - for something that is clearly not my fault - but I wonder if a man in a similar situation would feel worse? And if so, then surely that is wrong and bad.

In a similar vein, I often notice people looking disapproving when I do something like walk into a door frame (dyspraxia again) and SWEAR. Would they look askance at a man doing the same thing? Perhaps not.

It really is all bonkers, this gender/acceptable behaviour/characteristics thing.

Damsili - I was not trying to school you in how to formulate your thread. I was trying - obviously cackhandedly - to explain why I found your OP difficult to understand.

And I do think it's sad that given that you don't have a clear view of what you were asking, that you couldn't just have posted an "I don't understand" type OP.

Why is that do you think?

Myempire - IME butch is an insult when applied to either men or women. Only acceptable use is for dogs. And even then, they changed Butch to Spike in Tom and Jerry, didn't they? (Or was it the other way round?)

Socialisation. Some men also have a problem with a woman being better than them at an official 'man' thing such as maths or knowing about Dr Who or football trivia. But luckily for me IME most men aren't like that.

I think that it's quite easy though, even as adults, to find ourselves falling into 'self image' traps that don't really...work.

"Girly" isn't always used negatively though. Women describe their daughters as "real girly girls" with pride, and phrases like "girly catch-up" are used positively.