Yonic
Yes, that’s the case – book planning stage, and the effect gender plays in the way we think and behave, as individuals and society, and the feedback loops between the various layers of systems that lead to stereotyping. The human brain / mind and how it interacts with other people, with ideas and with people as a whole has always been of great interest to me. Feminism has always played a part in my thinking, as I’m third-generation feminist (old skool) and hope my daughter will be fourth-generation. However, my ideas have wandered far and wide. I’ve gone from blank-slate communism through genetic determinism (along with a brief flirtation with evolutionary psychology), was temporarily caught up by the illusory wonders of neuroimaging, but have now reached the point where I believe we have a genetic ability to wipe the slate clean, providing we’re brought up free from too much social conditioning. That’s the jumping-off point for my novel.
Posting what I did here is a way of trying to clarify things in my head. I used to post on Guardian CiF before it became crap, but have now found MN! Internal discourse only gets you so far because it tends to be very one-sided, and as anyone who writes will know, it helps formulate ideas when you put them down and gives others the chance to point out the stupid bits and the bits that don’t make sense. The trans-woman debate is one I still haven’t managed to form a coherent position on as my libertarian ideals get rather mixed up with the fact that many trans women promote a negative gender stereotype of women. However, I do have ideas on the way rights are split up.
Obviously, only women have abortions. However, the woman’s right to abortion is the same right as my right to get my ears pierced, or the right to not have my foreskin removed, or to not have my hand cut off if I steal, or to wear a condom, smoke, have sex with another man or whatever it is I want to do to my own body or prevent others doing to mine without my permission. The physical act of abortions apply only to women, and it makes sense that women control this, but the principle of the right to abortions is an expression of a set of fundamental, universal human rights. If any one of us want to defend universal human rights we don’t get to pick and choose which particular application of those rights we defend. We defend them all, and that makes abortion everyone’s issue.
Of course, the last thing women need is the patriarchy seizing hold of issues they’ve fought hard to gain control of. That is the risk of removing the “women’s issue” label. However, the way I see it the history of feminism is filled with women fighting to get “women’s issues” to be issues that have to be actively addressed by men too. There have always been “women’s issues” and these issues have usually been swept to one side by men - men are quite happy to have issues divided by gender, as long as they get to decide which sex gets to control which ones. Let women worry about their silly hormones and reproductive organs, let the men worry about the big stuff. In fact, let’s actively denigrate the importance of what matters to women, which we can safely do because these things don’t apply to men.
It seems to me that not that much has actually changed. Women have abortion, rape, maternity leave and men (overwhelmingly) have war, climate change, religious extremism, monetary policy etc. Women are allowed to have control over the reproductive stuff (which most men don’t want to have to think about that anyway) the stuff which means they can cook nice dinners and have the kids clean for when dad gets home, but are largely shut out of stuff that directly effects the “important” parts of the lives of men. Where inroads have been made into the largely male-exclusive areas of life it’s been through the assertion of equality and the elimination of gender barriers, not through hiving off bits of the patriarchy.
Feminism should (to me) be about achieving joint and equal rights, freedoms and responsibility for both men and women at the same time. Men need to think less about how abortion and policy regarding rape is for women and more about how pro-abortion legislation and anti-rape policing derive from rights that directly benefit them as well. Not only this, but if we can get the patriarchy to think of “women’s issues” as universal issues, it helps break the cycle of: “women’s issues” aren’t important because women aren’t important. How do we know women aren’t important? Because they’re overly concerned with women’s issues!".
Women are different from men, but really not that much different at all. The last thing we should be doing is highlighting the differences between the genders, and should instead be focusing on the commonalities.
As for the roots of gender inequality? Hmmm. At a guess I'd say its about controlling resources. I suppose that is about biology, because the resource in question is the woman's reproductive system. And, yes, the greater physical strength of men has given them the ability to enforce the patriarchy. However, these things are matters of circumstance and aren't necessarily linked to the way the male or female brains work. Does this sort of society act as an evolutionary pressure on men to adapt with a specific set of genes that promote "male" behaviour? Possibly. But there are other counter-pressures, such as the need for men to not be violent towards women in general because they'll be killed for raping or beating another man's wife. And in a violent society, the ability to get what you want (as a man) without having to use violence is probably going to lead to genetic success. A gene for keeping wives in line, then? Maybe, but we have lots of other genes that invite us to co-operate with kinsfolk, to protect our assets, to respect those we love and so forth. Some of those are potentially male-only too.