We are trapped between the devil and the dark blue sea

[PackingSoap]

I read this interesting article in the Atlantic this morning. It is very much worth a read for its rather naive, and spectatorial, liberal perspective upon "gender" issues in the wider political sphere.

Why Europe’s Far Right Is Targeting Gender Studies

It reports how the alt-right are launching attacks on "gender studies" across Europe. Basically, anything with the word "gender" in it is being attacked: gender equality, gender studies ... etc.

Now I reckon we can all kinda see how this has happened. The alt-right have latched onto "gender" as emblematic of their enemy the SJW Left and are launching full scale battles against every instance of it, without fully understanding, or caring to, that the way "gender" is being utilised by the SJW Left is very different from the way traditional feminists use the notion of gender.

Reading the article, I just got a sinking feeling of hopelessness. As feminists, we need the concept of gender to explain how expectations of women's (and men's) behaviour, abilities and personality are societally created and reinforced, that such behaviours are not biologically innate.

But it is now clear that we are trapped in the middle of this political war for the soul of Europe. On one side is the conservative and alt-right, whose activism is pushing for biological determinism, and on the other is the SJW Left that demands biological fact is redundant in the face of free-for-all performance.

I mean, is this the dichotomy we are facing? We lose either way. The parameters of this clash fundamentally mean that any GC feminist can be perceived as either a right wing nutter or left wing loon by a politically opposing side.

And I do not know whether our voices are loud enough to punch a hole through this: this is patriarchy at war with itself. When I finished the article, I just kept thinking of the disaster of political factionalism, and how the simplest message always tends to win.

And our message isn't simple, is it?

In a word : yes.

This is why I've started replacing "gender" (in the old fashioned social sciences sense, not the "gendah identity" sense) with "sex stereotypes" "sex discrimination" when I talk to people about feminist issues.

But I agree, devil and the deep blue sea is where we're at

Yup, we are caught in the middle of a shitstorm and ultimately women (cunty variety) will lose out.

When the backlash really gets going women (cunty variety) and gays will be blamed for it all. Woke beards will get away Scot free.

As feminists, we need the concept of gender to explain how expectations of women's (and men's) behaviour, abilities and personality are societally created and reinforced, that such behaviours are not biologically innate.

If we used the words "sex role" "sex stereotypes" "sex expectations" instead of the word "gender" do you not think the house of cards would instantly collapse, leaving us better off?

I do.

Gender is pervasive because it has multiple meanings, is changeable at will, and is at once both conflatable with sex, and also the opposite of sex.

People perpetuate its use because words that have double meanings are infinitely useful to people who wish to deceive and control.

There is no word that exists that cannot be easily replaced by its definition.
And if a word has no definition it must be replaced - because it can only be used to purposefully confuse or deceive.

So many absolutely perfect summaries of this situation. I have some opinions of my own to add. My device is about to die. I need to take a break while it charges. I shall return in a bit. Hopefully at least my post helps bump, what I think could be an interesting discussion up.

barracker

Is there not a danger, though, that the same obfuscation will occur with alternative terms?

The problem is, at heart, that the foundation belief between the two sides is the same: that women innately behave in "women ways" and men innately behave in "men ways".

The only difference is that one side believes that the entire sexed body drives this "truth" while the other believes that only the brain does.

If we talk about "sex roles", do we risk the argument being made that the male individual that performs the sex role of "female" must therefore be a woman?

I don't know.

That's why I find sex stereotypes such a useful phrase - I think you're right that role could connote something neutral, or even imply approval or suggest that it's part of the natural order of things.

The crucial thing to get across is that these stereotypes are made up, arbitrary and typically work to disadvantage women.

Ok got my hands on another device.

I wonder if the frequency of gender being used instead of sex in language could have something to do with extreme religious conservatism? No proof of course, just pondering, because has anyone actually documented when this began? I suspect not because these type of things are introduced slowly and subtly like the frog in the pot analogy.

As someone that’s always been a swinging voter - sounds kinky doesn’t it 😝 - I’ve voted for all major parties and plenty of minor ones (never one nation) at times. I judge on policies (yes I’ll admit sometimes what will benefit me) but I do try to balance. I just don’t understand party loyalty. Leave loyalty to your sports teams. Politicians regardless of affiliation will basically fuck you over.

Yes. Whenever someone uses the word gender you say with a puzzles expression:

'Can I just check what it is you mean by gender because I've heard people use it in different ways and I don't think I really understand what it means.'

And if it becomes clear that they meant 'sex' then you ask them to use the word sex to avoid ambiguity. And if it's clear that they are using 'gender' in some vague essence sort of way you say: 'Okay, I get it, but I think perhaps it would be more useful if we called what you're describing sex stereotypes — because that's what you're talking about, isn't it? You know, women wear skirts and make-up and men have beards, that kind of thing, when of course we know loads of women who have short hair and no make-up and wear trousers, don't we?'

Do this 15, 20, 30 times and others will learn from you and start doing the same and with a bit of luck it won't be long before anyone using the word 'gender' does so carefully.

To address the OP’s point. Yes feminists will be fucked, as will the LGB’s and the old school transsexuals. BUT firstly it will be the women and children.

As someone that, I guess centrist is an apt description, I frequently look at both sides of the debate. I’m sorry to say that at times on the conservative side I see comments like “Where are the feminists?” “Don’t they even care?” Then there’s the MRA types who are taking great pleasure in what’s happening crowing “They’ve reaped what they’ve sown”. The LGB will not get off lightly either “I voted No”. “We warned you of the slippery slope” etc etc. Unfortunately they don’t understand that “slippery slope” is NOT due to LGB people but subversive elements that have infiltrated the movement. Much like what has happened in their own churches. But that’s not up for discussion. Apparently.

Gender studies is a pile of pomo crap though, and I agree with reining it in. It's in part to blame for all this crap we're dealing with now.

Interesting. The far right are attacking both genderism (the ideology of an inbuilt 'gender identity') and feminism (the fight for equality, which includes a re-examination of gender stereotypes). The fact that genderism and feminism aren't the same and are in fact conceptually opposed is lost on most people. This is one reason why genderism is so dangerous.

We do have one thing on our side though. Reality.

So we'll be okay eventually, although none of us may live long enough to see it.

Somebody has to be the giants on whose shoulders the survivors get to stand.