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?

RTFT

Physically there are differences in sex, not gender -

Take a look at flora's picture, it puts it really neatly.

Can't figure out if I'm weird (OK, yes, but ) or it's just an effect of being born in 1955, but this doesn't look common-sense to me. In my childhood, both sexes learned to cook and to mend a bike. We all climbed high things, jumped off them, fought, baked mud pies and played shopkeeping. In my late teens/twenties, gender bending was the fashionable thing

Garlic I agree. I was born in 1959 and I don't recognise many, many of the posts on FWR as representing the world I grew up in and live in. And we're talking about a fairly ordinary part of initially rural Scotland, not somewhere cool and hip.

That's what I meant about setting up statements as incontrovertible facts about how women are constrained by gender.

Okay, sorry, when I was younger, I was told in High School I couldn't refer to gender as "sex" because is was a sexist term. This was by my Social Studies teacher (who was female). Clearly I'm confused by what exactly gender and sex entail.

Olivia could you clarify your definition of gender, as opposed to sex?

I view gender as a social construct which encompasses views of what it means to be 'masculine' or 'feminine.' Concepts of what it means to be male or female vary between cultures and time periods, and some cultures recognize more than two genders. Gender is usually, but not always, linked to biological sex.

So I personally don't beleive their are any innate gender differences, only physical sex differences (genitals and reproductive organs, body shape, difference in average height). For me, gender is a learnt behaviour (e.g. girls liking pink and wearing skirts, boys playing more roughly).

I think posters who support gender abolition are using a definition that means gender could be eradicated without men needing to be castrated. Its more about getting rid of gender stereotypes.

Sorry, x post!

Schools are rubbish at explaining the difference between sex and gender. I thought gender was just the pc term for biological sex until I went to uni and had the difference drummed into me. And that was only because it was relevant to the classes in question (both cultural and forensic anthropology).

LittleBlueHermit - I apologize, my understanding of gender and "sex" was wrong, apparently. This is how I was taught growing up though. I assumed you guys were meaning men and women should be literally the same.

And no, I'm not an idiot, I'm educated, I just didn't get the word difference. I was not brought up in a feminist-friendly society. Though I consider myself to be one compared to many people I know.

I studied English Language & Linguistics at college, so there wasn't a huge emphasis on feminist viewpoints :P

I agree with pretty much everything you've posted BellaSolanum.

But I don't think that it's possible to keep gender and achieve equality of the sexes. As soon as we accept that one set of people is associated with a particular thing - skirts or DIY or childcare or ties - then we automatically accept that other people are not entitled to them in the same way. That has to create and sustain inequality, because those things are linked to everything else in society.

I can't see how, for example, men and women can enjoy outfits worn by the other sex without that reinforcing a whole lot of other values at the same time. Take high heels - you can't separate the symbolism of sexiness and glamour from the practical effects of increasing vulnerability because it's hard to run in them, or the likely pain of wearing them for a long time or the impact on posture. And all those have knock-on effects, so things like foot massages and pedicures become something women value more than men do.

Clothes are really interesting in analysing gender because they change and the symbolism changes too. Both men and women have worn high heels through history - but they signified something quite different in the past, wealth. If men regularly wore heels now, they would lose their power as something to signify female glamour, just as jeans no longer signify rugged masculine cowboys.

On the bright side with enemies like these gender doesn't have to fork out on expensive bodyguards just yet.

Are we going to castrate men or make everyone a hermaphrodite?

Um no. No desire to banish biological sex, it's kind of important for survival of the human race.

As soon as we accept that one set of people is associated with a particular thing - skirts or DIY or childcare or ties - then we automatically accept that other people are not entitled to them in the same way.

I agree, gender is a huge barrier to equality.

ps. My answer wasn't directed at you Olivia, I had seen your later posts. But I have been accused of that before so just wanted to answer the point anyway. Just realised it might come across as if I was getting at you, and that wasn't my intention at all!

That's okay Bella, I made an ass of myself with the whole Gender/Sex confusion. I'm fully aware of my stupidity in this thread :-/

If we accept that there will always be an element of identity associated with sex, it seems reasonable that people's behaviour will always differ slightly in the way they react to the sexes. For example, if an element of femininity is the increased decorative aspects to appearance, can we expect there not to be a different reaction to women's appearance than to men's?

Decorative may not be the best word to have used - I'm
Just trying to convey the extra bits of fashion and so on.

Ds, I'm not clear what you mean? Do you mean each sex dressing to highlight the different sexual characteristics (hairy chests v breasts or something)? Like the peacock's tail, in miniature?

Gender does not physically exist. It's an entirely social construct. Sex exists. There is no such thing as lady brain.

Olivia Don't feel stupid, iif you've never been told it then how were you meant to know?

if an element of femininity is the increased decorative aspects to appearance, can we expect there not to be a different reaction to women's appearance than to men's

There is nothing inherently more decorative about women's appearance, so in a genderless society there would be no increased decorative aspects to women. Both sexes would be free to be as decorative (or not) as they like.

Do you know what Yonic, I suspected when I wrote that that it may not be right. I'm trying to be a bit more careful with language and have ended up making less sense

The thing is that, whilst posters like rabbit may say gender doesn't physically exist - with the conviction that one might say the earth goes around the sun - as far as I'm aware this is merely a hopeful bit of speculation. I am no expert, but I'm relatively sure that there are distinct chemical and hormonal differences that affect behaviour (character) and there are differences in the brain's structure and processes. Now the thing is, that - and I tried to make this point before - even if these things are caused by the different social development of men and women, the bell curves of masculinity and femininity may overlap considerably, but do remain distinct. Those distinctions are what drive most of class analysis as far as I can see. However, I'm struggling to get around to my question here!!!

Most of us do define ourselves by our sexuality to a degree. We identify as men or as women and, amongst other behaviours, dress differently. Many of the posters on FWR freely admit that they enjoy dressing as women - heels, make up etc etc. The question was, that if part of the identity of femininity is this increased focus on appearance, is it reasonable to expect there not to be a different reaction to that?

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a limit to that or that objectification isn't a thing btw!

There is nothing inherently more decorative about women's appearance

Not inherrently, as in 'naturally' - but we have made it so.

Frau - girls often wear hand-me-downs from boys. Particularly girls who are say under 10. In 2006 Next did some jeans with Daleks on - just for boys (fucking outrageous that was). DD1 and DS both had a pair, when DD1 got too big for hers, DS inherited them and DD2 inherited his and later Dd1's pair. (she still wears them). Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has called SS. My kids all share jumpers, hoodies, T shirts etc and now DD1 and DS are bigger than me, they share my T shirts too (the game of thrones, trek, Dr who, cabin pressure ones. Not the Kate Bush ones).

Damsili - you are speaking for yourself here. I certainly haven't 'made it so'.

I don't identify as a woman, I am a woman. I have womanly bits. But mainly, I'm a person. Im not defined by my bits. I do not wear heels, I rarely wear make up.

There is no such thing as lady brain.

We'll actually, for me the one and only thing that us making men and women different is the ability if women to give birth.
Of course you can argue 'most' men are stronger or taller but does it have any influence on our life nowadays?
The rest IMO is just social construct.
However, I would be uncomfortable by a system where all gender differences are erased because if that. I think it's only fair to leave some ML of a new mum to recover from giving birth and allow time for bfing (6months?) after which there should be no discrimination as to who can care for the child.