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?

That's a difficult one actually, isn't it. On the one hand, why should being 'like a girl' (literally what girly means) be seen as a bad thing? Or indeed a good thing? (It's popularly used in both ways as pointed out above). On the other hand - WTF does 'like a girl' actually mean? It's meaningless. Like which girl? Like DD1? Or her sister (quite different but not radically so)? Or, like the girl down the road? (completely different). Or like a girl in a different European country, or from a different continent? Possibly different in many ways but really, who knows? The fact is, there is no such thing as 'like a girl'. There is no such thing as girly, there is only 'like stuff I approve of' or 'like stuff I don't approve of'.

Not by my friends, I hasten to add

I expect we all use it from time to time. I certainly sometimes talk about girl shoes and girl clothes even though I know I'm talking bollocks - but it's commonly understood bollocks and if I say 'girl shoes' the person to whom I'm talking knows I mean something...that isn't like the biker boots or plimsolls I usually wear (depending on time of year). But my plimmies are obviously girl shoes too since girls wear plimmies. And biker boots. And she I say girl clothes I mean something pretty and not warm (possibly but not definitely a dress) rather than something that wouldn't look out of place on nanook of the north (which is what I usually wear). It's sloppy and probably bd on many levels but I do it. Mea culpa. :(

I am going to start using "womanly night out" instead of "girly night out" - I will report back on the reaction

Why not just night out? Why does it have to be genderised? (Is that even a word?)

In the only context I use it, i do so to DH to make it clear it's "wives of couples we know", not the full couples (meaning that he is NFI - not invited )

I like the picture. Sex is biology, gender is personality. Simple.

I'm not sure if you mean the picture I posted Uri. Gender isn't personality. It is the idea that sex and personality are linked.

The World Health Organisation says:

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

"Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women

Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

"XX-chromosomed night out" sounds rather edgy actually.

Damsili Still reading the thread, just wanted to reassure that I'm not offended in the least that my comment started this thread. I was tempted to start this thread myself but worried that I'd look a bit obsessive on the subject

Off to read the thread now.

Bella!!

< fires off party poppers and does small dance >

Just off to put the toddler to bed and then I'll answer your OP :)

"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?"

Wouldn't say "ultimate goal", more A goal of A type of feminism, and one I personally feel extremely strongly about. So one of the main things I would like to see happen, mostly because I think be removing gender from the occasion that would go quite a long way to tackling a lot of the oppressions women face.

Obviously we'd still come across some resisitance just because our biology is at the root of a lot of oppression, but if there was no gender stereotyping muddying the waters I think we'd find more support from others who, right now, think there are innate differences between the sexes which justify some of the ill treatment. Eg. women being seen to want highly paid jobs less would be nonsensical to many more people in a world where gender was not a part of the equation.

"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 accept it exists as a view, but I disagree with it. Though I would never demean the efforts of those who are fighting for better treatment for women, even if they are approaching it from a different angle.

I am also aware that to many people the idea of abolishing gender is so pie in the sky, so unlikely to happen, that it seems pointless to fight for it. And better to fight within the current system. I can see that point of view, and I guess my answer to it is to fight within the current system, but with the aim of eventually treating gender as a bizarre quirk like believing in fairies.

Wrt the use of the word abolitionist, I started off with saying gender critical, but saw a few people point out that gender critical could sound like you are critical of it, but not too bothered about it existing. And I'm really bothered by it.

When I say I want it abolished I don't actually mean I want it legislated against, more people educated about it having no basis in fact or science, and kind of going the way religion is. Where people are allowed to believe in what they like, but it's not seen as acceptable to force other people to live to it's guidelines.

I don't want to abolish gender, but I would like it to be relaxed and I would like there to be less inequality.

Thanks Bella.

This has turned out eventually to be really interesting....

That's all :) as you were.

This makes me think about something I saw once about androgynous fashion and behaviour in Japan. These people would dress and act in a way that ensured that their gender/sex wasn't immediately obvious, even going so far as to refuse titles.

I don't remember a great deal about it to be honest, but at the time it made me think, these people were ensuring that they were viewed and judged on merit alone and isn't that ultimately what we want out of gender abolition?

Sorry if that is unclear, it just got me thinking...

Thanks Bella. I'm glad you don't feel put on the spot!

I never got the chance to reflect on this much today - or to do anything other than despair at the way it set off this morning... but you've got us back on track. Thanks.

One thing I did ponder, however, was the extent to which gender actually exists. Or, maybe, how it exists. Unrefined thoughts:

Firstly, even if there's no biological reason for gender (I am personally skeptical of this view, but I know a lot of feminists subscribe), the construct is still a real thing, in a sense. The character, behaviours, attitudes, skills etc etc developed the way they developed.

Secondly, it exists in our perception. ie If two people were identical except for physical sex, we might still perceive them as a man and a woman. Indeed many men have personalities that fit closer to a female gender stereotype and vice versa, but they would still identify as a man and a woman and we would identify them as such too.

My suspicion is that there has always been more in the way of similarities than differences and that overlap is greater than ever. I'm still very much talking about Western culture though.

That said, there are a great many people that enjoy being the stereotypical type and having the opposite sex behave accordingly too (both ways, before anyone says anything!). We shouldn't tell them they're wrong and they mustn't should we?

Damsili - would we not perceive them as a man and a woman because of the physical differences of their sex? Rather than the societal differences of gender? I'm sure I've seen a TV prog where small babies were dressed identically in blue and pink and adults could still pick out the boys and girls.

Glad you turned up, Bella I'm not all distressed by being quoted, damsilli, and am interested in discussing the 'abolition' of gender. Oddly enough, I suspect there's strong support for it throughout our society - though one might have to rename it, as gender abolition sounds a bit like killing girls & boys (not sure why!)

Something peculiar's happened in the past 25 years or so. Well, a lot of peculiar things have ... I'm thinking about the pink for girls rule, the fact that Let Toys Be Toys even has to be a campaign, and that people seem almost frightened to say "What's wrong with Conchita wearing a beard and a dress?"

The other thread's worn me out, though, and I'm too tired to even think clearly, let alone type.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/behaviour_development/953248-A-little-experiment-can-you-identify-the-sex-of-a/AllOnOnePage

i actually found a mn thread when I googled it

"I'm sure I've seen a TV prog where small babies were dressed identically in blue and pink and adults could still pick out the boys and girls."

On the contrary, there were two recent mainstream programmes (one on "Bang Goes The Theory" and the Horizon one - IIRC- with Mosley and Alice Roberts) which showed the following experiment:

Adults were placed in a room with a variety of toys and given a baby. In each case they were lied to about the gender of the baby. Eg. Baby Oliver was presented as baby Olivia and vice versa. In every single case the adult encouraged the baby to play with the toys traditionally associated with the perceived gender: boys with trains and balls, girls with dolls etc. The reaction of the babies to the toys given was balanced, ranging from positive to negative. What wasn't balanced was the adults' treatment of the babies based on biological sex.

We could argue till the cows come home over what the real innate differences between boys and girls are. But what we know for certain is that boys and girls are treated differently from the moment they're born. That's gender, the social construct of gender, and that's what needs to go.

This makes me think about something I saw once about androgynous fashion and behaviour in Japan. These people would dress and act in a way that ensured that their gender/sex wasn't immediately obvious, even going so far as to refuse titles.

I like this, and used to want to go down this route when I was younger, I had a very androgynous figure so could have pulled it off too. But didn't in the end because I realised that while it was a solution, it was also a bit like cutting my nose off to spite my face. I don't want to have to hide my femaleness, just to be treated without gender bias.

I'm sure I've seen a TV prog where small babies were dressed identically in blue and pink and adults could still pick out the boys and girls.

Would be interested to see whether that happened any more than would happen through sheer chance. Anecdotally, when dressed in the same outfit, my son was routinely mistaken for a girl and my daughter for a boy. The two even look identical, so it's not like my son has more feminine features.

The way I see it there are two ways the word gender is used, one is innate genderwhich is the idea that gender is something born with rather than taught. This idea suggests that there are male and female brains, which are independant of sex, "male brain" and "lady brain".

Then there's socialised gender which is not a physical thing like sex but it is just as real, and virtually impossible to avoid. Everyone is subject to this one. It’s both overt and subtle ideas of what men and women should be like, it dictates anything from personality traits, to mannerisms, to interests and preferences.

Socialised gender is taught from such a young age that it is completely normal to internalise it, and I think this is where people can confuse it with being innate. While people are able to move away from it to one degree or another, it is often difficult and can leave people vulnerable to ill treatment from society at large. Sometimes violence if they are seen to be too transgressive, eg. crossdressers and outspoken women.

So, IMO, innate gender does not exist.
Socialised gender does, but is a manufactured thing with no benefits.

That said, there are a great many people that enjoy being the stereotypical type and having the opposite sex behave accordingly too (both ways, before anyone says anything!). We shouldn't tell them they're wrong and they mustn't should we?

That is the last thing I'd want, and imagine most other "gender abolitionists" feel the same. Personally I adore a lot of "feminine" things (high heels, makeup, being treated like a glamourous 40's film star by a partner etc) so wouldn't want a world devoid of them. What I would like is a world where everyone is free to enjoy them without being told it isn't right for their sex. I'd like people not to have to change gender in order to enjoy them without justifying their decisions

A genderless society wouldn't take that away, in fact it would open it up to more people.

Something peculiar's happened in the past 25 years or so. Well, a lot of peculiar things have ... I'm thinking about the pink for girls rule, the fact that Let Toys Be Toys even has to be a campaign, and that people seem almost frightened to say "What's wrong with Conchita wearing a beard and a dress?"

It's wonderful isn't it? Gives me hope!