In a gender neutral future Utopia

[tsonlyme]

...would men and women behave in a similar manner?

If we abolished the social construct of gender stereotyping and children were raised with no gender bias in any area would men and women be indistinguishable from each other in their behaviour? Is behaviour nature or nurture? Is its root in socialisation or sex specific hormones/physiology?

Or is this an impossible question to answer unless it happens?

The book The Power has a really interesting take on this. Men are violent and oppress women because they have the physical advantage. Basically because they can. If women suddenly have the ability to hurt and kill men with ease, would they become the violent oppressors and would men become the nurturers?

It's really thought provoking.

I don't think we can see the size or nature of any "essential differences" that may exist because we cant strip away the influence of the environment.

Would it even be possible to create your utopia? Would you take people and isolate them from all of history? On an island, perhaps?

moutonfou, it's impossible to discount the whole of his upbringing since birth and decide that his reaction to emotional events is somehow hard wired and women are somehow more likely to cry. Boys and men are continually exposed to the whole boys don't cry thing, often get praised for being tough, get lots of opprobrium from adults and even peers if they are seen to be too easily upset etc etc. Girls conversely are often praised for being sensitive, etc etc.

Why? Why can't men and women be different? What's so wrong with not being the same? I think a gender neutral 'utopia' sounds like a beige boring one.

It would be a utopia because individuals would be different, in whatever way they wished, without feeling that their preferences or behaviour have to fit into a classification. Everyone wouldn't be the same.

Datun: And it was amazes me how mothers assume their daughters choosing dolls makes them feminine, then completely ignore a boy in bed surrounded by fifteen teddies.

Exactly. And I wish people would actually listen to what their toddlers are doing when they played. DS loved cars, but if you listened, they were his tool for exploring the social world. Two games he particularly liked were at bedtime "giving" his cars to his friends from nursery - he'd line them up on his bed saying "this one's Joe's and this one's Jane's and this one's..." I could always tell which friend was currently his best friend from which name got the best car.

He also used to have tea parties for the cars in my old dolls house. On one memorable occasion, the lorries showed up but wouldn't fit, the cars had a quick discussion and decided to turn the tea party into a barbecue outside so the lorries could join in.

It was brilliant to listen to and a million miles from "little boy plays with cars because insert long list of sex-role stereotypes here"

People would all be different, as they are now. In fact there could be a wider variety as people wouldn't feel judged or inhibited if they like an activity or behave in a way that currently isn't considered typical for their sex.

Oh and Meltor - if there's something that sounds beige to me, it's a world full of borg like woman stereotypes and borg-like man stereotypes. A world full of individuals with varied personalities (bit like the real world in fact) sounds much more fun.

I can't be alone in thinking men and women are meant to be different? In a fair society they should be equal but that doesn't mean the same. There are clear biological differences and good evolutionary reasons we are different. I think the whole gender neutral thing is madness - we should be aiming for gender equal not gender neutral. It is absolutely vital children grow into adults who understand their sexuality and who have been taught (just like sleep or potty training) the good things about being a man or woman and supported towards becoming a healthy adult. I truly believe this ultra acceptance of children's immature wishes as paramount are quite dangerous and results in mental health issues. I mean generally not just in terms of sexuality. Children need parents that help them grow into healthy adults and that means parents who impose reasonable boundaries and uphold reasonable norms. Seems from MN that current view is that very young children should rule the roost whether it be around sleep, food, potty training or what they wear. This is very damaging to their long term mental health.

You're confusing gender with sexuality, Crumbs. And it's not clear to me what you mean by 'imposing reasonable boundaries' -- how does this relate to gendered social conditioning?

I like to think that I do impose boundaries on my daughter. But those boundaries don't include "girls don't play with lego" or "you're playing with those dolls wrong - they're not pirates. Brush their hair."
My "reasonable norms" sound different from your "reasonable norms".

I don't let her "rule the roost" but I do let her play with her toys in the way that she wants (as long as nothing is getting broken etc). What is so unreasonable about that? I think that trying to force young children into a very rigid interpretation of "femininity" or "masculinity" is far more likely to result in mental health issues. I also think it is far more likely to result in confused children who believe they are the wrong gender/sex. eg a gentle, creative boy growing up thinking he must be a girl really because "boys aren't gentle and creative".

Crumbs1

I completely agree there are clear biological differences between men and women. But apart from issues which require that biology, what other behaviour do you think is different because of that biology?

What are the 'good things about being a man or a woman' that are different between the sexes?

Genuine question.

My kids were little 2/3ish. They had a pile of shared toys, including "girl" toys and "boy" toys

Toddler ds pushed cars around, sometimes crashed them. Toddler dd got a piece of kitchen roll and made the cars a little bed and spoke to them in a caring manner. Neither child had been to nursery. Both had spent all their time with me

I could say the same - except mine were both boys. DS1 loved cars and crashes, and lining them up. DS2 like teddies and putting things (including his brother's cars) to bed. If I'm ill, DS1 says 'oh' DS2 proceeds to 'look after me' - TLD: Different kids are different.

The key difference between women and men is that men are bigger and stronger. That is the foundation on which society's equality is built - if one group can control the other group through physical violence and control, they will have the upper hand.

Of course in 'civilised' societies that violence and control is cloaked with moral and religious language. Threats are delivered in the form of concern - eg women shouldn't walk home alone late at night. The constant message is that men can hurt women and will hurt them, so women need to do as their told. It is very effective tactic. When subtle threats don't work men resort to explicit threats and actual violence.

The one way in which women have the upper hand over men is through their ability to refuse to procreate. Hence the absolute obsession on the part of men with controlling women's sexuality and their centring of much of their violence around sex.

As they're told

I still feel like this and the physical differences would define roles

Sure, if you define gender roles as being able to get things from high shelves without using a stool.. or.. err.. lifting and carrying objects heavier than about 25kg - because those are pretty much the only things that DP can do that I can't, and I can grow a baby and breastfeed it and he can't, due to our physical differences.

What else is defined by physical differences?

The one way in which women have the upper hand over men is through their ability to refuse to procreate.

And even then, due to the aforementioned larger size and strength, there's only so much a woman can do to prevent that.

Exactly Spaghetti and men like to remind women of that quite frequently.

I have no sources for this (cause I can't remember where i read it, probably here tbh).
Is it not the case that in primitive societies male/female wasn't as divided. We only think men=hunting and women=home and hearth because the archaeologists projected their beliefs onto the evidence. As in, when they had I completed skeletons or in cases when bones were stored separated (like the tomb of the eagles) they (archaeologists) decided smaller frame with hunting/fighting marks were young men, when actually from a more objective perspective they were women.
I'm not explaining that well but I know what I mean.
I definitely think it's conditioning, some men will always be aggressive and shouty, some women will always be people pleasers but not because if their sex. Come to my house on Christmas Day if you want to see the opposite (with hard hat and trifle)

That reminds me of raging at the radio recently when they were talking about cave painting. It was "he propbably..." and "what we can tell from his hand print is that..." etc. Now, it may be that there was some really clever way to tell the sex of the painter from the hand print. If so, it would have been interesting (and relevant to the program) to explain how this was done. But I suspect not. These were intelligent, educated people with otherwise good critical thinking skills, and yet it never occurred to anyone on the program that the painter may not have been male. Its all so ingrained, and it just gets more and more ingrained like a positive feedback loop if its never challenged.

It's fiction, but Marge Piercy's novel Woman on the Edge of Time (1976) is interesting for how she constructs a 'gender-neutral future utopia' very much along the lines of 1960s/70s counterculture ideals.

The novel has an abused Latina woman committed to a psychiatric hospital in 1970s New York discover she can time travel (although it's also possible she hallucinates her trips to the future). To talk only about the gender and sexuality of the 'future' -- she often can't tell whether people are male and female, because it's an outdoor collective agriculture world where everyone is very fit and muscular and as they don't obey 20thc clothing or behavioural norms, she keeps thinking women are men, because their body language is free and self-confident in a way she associates with men.

Men and women fight on the front lines in war. Rape is a crime of the past and there's no more marriage. The norm seems to be polyamorous and bi. But the key thing is that (it's never explained how it's done) women no longer give birth. All babies are born centrally in a sort of birth tank, and have three parents, who can be of either sex, at least two of whom BF (men are given hormone treatments to allow this) with no genetic link to them. Everyone lives in their own small house, and babies and children are looked after centrally until they are adults at about 14/16, and move to their own living quarters.

It's worth a read, even though it's hugely problematic in lots of ways. (There's also a nightmarish future dystopia in the novel where the world is so polluted the rich live on space platforms and harvest organs from the poor, and everyone is owned by companies -- where women are are surgically modified to look like Barbie dolls.)

One of the things that's interesting is that the woman from the 1970s often views the future Utopians as 'childish' because of their lack of the gendered behaviour, self-presentation and ritual she associates with adulthood.

I've heard of that book Bog and been meaning to read it. Science fiction is really good for exploring social ideas, even if you have to suspend your disbelief to get past some plot points. Ursula K. Le Guin has some interesting ideas too - I recently stumbled across The Dispossessed in a charity shop, and bought it on a whim. That is based on two worlds, which orbit each other as twin planets. The inhabitants on both worlds are human, but the societies are almost complete opposites (in one there is much more gender equality, although there are many other differences). It has some interesting ideas, but it does get a bit bogged down in detail and anthropological exposition sometimes.

I was shocked by some research showing how early we inflict our socialised gender ideas on our babies. I thought I had raised my sons in a gender neutral environment, until I read the research and realised I couldn't have.

Also, some traits are self reinforcing- sex increases the appetite for sex, for example. Testosterone driven behaviour fuels more testosterone driven behaviour, perpetuating the differences.

I'd be thrilled with even some small steps in the right direction, having seen the response to a female doctor, and the BBC salary disparity.

I think that the differences between individuals are probably wider than any male/female differences.

However. I do suspect that our biological experiences would lead to trends. Things like experience of pain or emotion. And pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding are experiences unique to women, so I would think that they would have some impact if we were to look at women and men as groups.

I read the other day that children are born looking more like their fathers to encourage bonding and that they don't reject or kill them.

Fascinating stuff.