Postgenderism

[Flushed]

I think a lot of people would take issue with that/it conflicts with a lot of beliefs.

I don't think the mother-child relationship is the defining difference between man and woman. Albeit, giving birth releases the chemical Oxytocin, and that the mother-to-child relationship may be different than that of a man, ultimately a child will have a different relationship with (both) their parent(s) regardless, be it a man giving birth, a woman giving birth, a gay couple, etc. So I have no problem with men giving birth. The bond between the birther(no clue what the word is haha) and the child is not meant to amount to something that is inherently different from the other parent, it's just natural. So whether man or woman does it should not really matter. I do believe there are men that would like to give birth. And this would just be another instance of crossing gender lines, which I believe should be tolerated more, not something that's eliminated all together.

As for elimination of pregnancy, that brings me back to Huxley's Brave New World. Although in this instance I don't think cloning or artificiality is the mechanism, but it still eliminates something that is a very defining role for women. Obviously I just established myself as a proponent of men giving birth, but the role exists as predominantly female, and I believe some distinction should be kept intact. The only reason I don't think male birthing would eliminate that distinction is that because in this point in time, I would assume a majority of the men would not jump at the opportunity to give birth.

 

[Esper]

What if I said that shining a greater light would cause animosity and reaction? A recent development are men's rights groups, which look at the world in the terms of gender differences and see that men are also a disadvantaged group. Some of these groups perceive that feminism and the elevation of women's social standing play no small role in causing the disadvantage of men. Some women's groups don't take the agenda of men's rights seriously. Both of these groups shine light on the perceived inequality between men and women, but to me it seems like the conflict only deepens. I know there is an argument of some vs. all and as long as not all of these groups are antagonizing it's okay etc. but I find that to be an intellectual dead end. How do we contextualize this conflict? Does it serve or harm the goal of equality between the sexes? Or what if this is simply a "epiphenomenon", a superficial reaction to what is truly the inevitable force of gender equality?

Now, is it true that gender equality cannot be improved without putting extra attention on it? I think one can reasonably argue that cultural phenomenon can self-perpetuate once they enter our collective consciousness - so perhaps the ball of gender equality can keep rolling without anybody pushing it. This begs the question: has gender equality (or the elements that are important to you or enough of it) entered our collective consciousness enough for equality to proceed without (or with lesser) activism? I would argue for the most part yes - regardless of what a conservative religious segment of the population would like for us to think.

(I am probably appropriating the term epiphenomenon from some esoteric discipline but all I mean is that it's literally an epi phenomenon, something that is occurring "on top" and caused by/reacting to a more significant force.)

Edit: a good analogy would be comparing it to a symptom vs a disease.

I look at men's rights groups and I see about 1% genuine reason for them to exist and mostly just a lot of men scared about loosing them dominant place in society. But, sure, they are a problem that perhaps wouldn't exist without the specific thing of the feminist movement, but what they represent, their ideas and opinions, would be here either way. They may be appropriating the language of feminism to the disadvantage of actual equality, but I think that's not as bad having not shone a light on the problems in the first place. At least things as they are mean there's a language that we can use to talk about the problems in the world related to inequality. Men's rights groups may be muddying the waters and causing confusion, but I think the benefit of women having the words to describe their experiences and the knowledge that there are people who sympathize with them, who have had similar experiences, outweighs the costs.

I think a lot of people would take issue with that/it conflicts with a lot of beliefs.

I don't think the mother-child relationship is the defining difference between man and woman. Albeit, giving birth releases the chemical Oxytocin, and that the mother-to-child relationship may be different than that of a man, ultimately a child will have a different relationship with (both) their parent(s) regardless, be it a man giving birth, a woman giving birth, a gay couple, etc. So I have no problem with men giving birth. The bond between the birther(no clue what the word is haha) and the child is not meant to amount to something that is inherently different from the other parent, it's just natural. So whether man or woman does it should not really matter. I do believe there are men that would like to give birth. And this would just be another instance of crossing gender lines, which I believe should be tolerated more, not something that's eliminated all together.

As for elimination of pregnancy, that brings me back to Huxley's Brave New World. Although in this instance I don't think cloning or artificiality is the mechanism, but it still eliminates something that is a very defining role for women. Obviously I just established myself as a proponent of men giving birth, but the role exists as predominantly female, and I believe some distinction should be kept intact. The only reason I don't think male birthing would eliminate that distinction is that because in this point in time, I would assume a majority of the men would not jump at the opportunity to give birth.

I just need to point out that there are women who never have children, by choice or otherwise. It might be better to say that the possibility to give birth to children (or maybe more accurately, having biology provide them with bodies and hormones that are adapted to giving birth) is a defining aspect for women. Sure, for some women having kids is their personal reason for living, but we shouldn't extend that to all women. Some aren't going to be able to because of disease, injury, circumstances of their own personal development, and some will opt not to for whatever reasons. I'm just being nitpicky because I don't like even getting close to the idea that women = having kids, like that's the "purpose" of being a woman. Part of the experience is having people around you assume this, and to, most likely, be confronted with the possibility at some point, but I'm not going to say it's a "role" necessarily.

That said, there's something to the idea of men giving birth as another instance of men appropriating something from women, of intruding into women's space. But I've already gabbed enough so I won't get too much into that idea.

 

[Flushed]

I just need to point out that there are women who never have children, by choice or otherwise. It might be better to say that the possibility to give birth to children (or maybe more accurately, having biology provide them with bodies and hormones that are adapted to giving birth) is a defining aspect for women. Sure, for some women having kids is their personal reason for living, but we shouldn't extend that to all women. Some aren't going to be able to because of disease, injury, circumstances of their own personal development, and some will opt not to for whatever reasons. I'm just being nitpicky because I don't like even getting close to the idea that women = having kids, like that's the "purpose" of being a woman. Part of the experience is having people around you assume this, and to, most likely, be confronted with the possibility at some point, but I'm not going to say it's a "role" necessarily.

That said, there's something to the idea of men giving birth as another instance of men appropriating something from women, of intruding into women's space. But I've already gabbed enough so I won't get too much into that idea.

Yeah definitely. For some reason I seemed to have dismissed that idea knowing full well that it was in play. The ability of childbirth is characteristically female, yet by not engaging in such I'm not saying a woman is an uncharacteristic female. I just meant to establish that a major distinction between man and woman lies in the ability of childbirth, which shouldn't be taken away, yet at the same time wouldn't be too affected by men giving birth.

 

[Rezilia]

I've quit on trying to define all the shapes and forms of equality. For me, I believe in one thing: freedom. I believe that instead of saying we should abolish gender-roles, we should be focusing on acceptance. What I mean is that while many of us dislike gender-roles and want them gone, I don't think that's possible. What is possible, however, is to advertise acceptance, in a sense. We should respect peoples' freedoms and simply accept whatever they want to do.

Whether a certain person wants to abide by the roles society has determined for them or whether they want to take on a whole new life and a whole new set of responsibilities should be their own choice. And whichever choice they make, if people would just learn to accept that, the world would be a much better place.

Now you can argue that this is the essence of removing gender-roles, I'd argue that this method of thought transcends one topic of equality to reign over all of them.

Hate. Hate is the problem. "All you need is love".

I totally agree with you there! ^^

I'm an individualist myself. I won't say gender roles were completely bad (we have TRAPS now, don't we? :D) but as an individualist, I believe each and every person should seek to be WHO they are rather than WHAT they are - like Jack Johnson (fighter) did! :D

--

I fully support a post-gender world. However, neurology and biology have shown (so these are just based on the physical body but still) that men and women work very differently.

Men have more weak points. Women are able to CONTAIN more strength and thus use more agility. Men have greater endurance but all they can do is "stretch out" in response to physical training. Men are able to come to decisions faster but women think over their decisions more.

We have to remember that the world we live in today was created, in the most part, by men. Their rash decision-making may be seen as a weakness to some - but look how far we advanced in all areas (martial, intellectual, spiritual, etc) due to that quick thinking? I love different approaches to all things but certain things in society (like military strategy or political rule) can be handled better, naturally, by one gender than the other. This doesn't mean the roles should be exclusive or that ALL women and ALL men act in the way studies have shown. I just mean that we have to understand the basic natures of each gender if we are to truly merge into a postgender world.

 

[Kanzler]

You know, all this talk of what is "woman" and what should stay as "women's" - women's space, women's experience - as well as fears of losing individuality, doesn't sound very postgender to me. Perhaps in living in a world where gender identity matters, we fear losing it.

 

[Esper]

You know, all this talk of what is "woman" and what should stay as "women's" - women's space, women's experience - as well as fears of losing individuality, doesn't sound very postgender to me. Perhaps in living in a world where gender identity matters, we fear losing it.

I feel like it might be more of a fear of loosing a safe space than anything else. I think it's just an issue of practicality in these pre-postgender (?) times of ours.

 

[Kanzler]

Even if the main reason was the fear of losing a "safe space" (what's a safe space?), would you agree that the result still solidifies gender differences and presents an obstacle to a postgender society?

 

[Esper]

I don't know if I'd agree, no. And this is my thinking:

Take for example (because this is something I was just talking with a friend about so it's fresh in my mind) gay bars. They're a kind of safe space because, typically, you only get gay people and sometimes gay-friendly people there. A gay person doesn't have to worry about being out in the wider heteronormative world where a guy checking out another guy could lead to something awkward/confrontational/disappointing. It's not so much a space that reinforces gayness (though it can) as much as it is a space where people can feel free to be who they are without worrying about the larger culture bearing down on them with their assumptions and media and reminders.

So take idea that and apply it to women. If a group of women get together it's just as likely that they're doing it to get away from some male-centric environment (with its particular gender roles) so that they can just be themselves (whether that means doing traditionally "feminine" things or not) as anything.

So the idea of "safe space" (physical space, or social, or intellectual, or whatever) is about allowing for more than one idea, more than one viewpoint to proliferate.

If men were able to have children (going back to the point which brought us here) then there's the fear that childbirth and childcare would become male-dominated. I don't know if I personally believe that's what would happen, but I can understand the fear (or maybe a less intense word would be annoyance) of there being something which has long been an area where women were the experts suddenly getting an influx of men who then try to take over.

 

[Kanzler]

Isn't this the reverse of women taking over traditionally male pursuits? Education being a big example, many people didn't want to see women educated, but now that it's become a norm, it's ceased to be seen as a "male" thing. Why would it be wrong for males to take over what has been traditionally done by females? Is it because that women are oppressed to begin with? Is a biological function different from a sociological function?

What if men take away "everything" that belong in the realm of female, what would even being female mean? Would there be anything to oppress over? Maybe a solution is for men to "take over" everything that "belongs" to women then - without difference there is no oppression. If men take over everything sociological that "belongs" to women, I can't imagine women being oppressed for having breasts and curves, for that'll be all that's left.

I don't see why biological sociological differences should be inherently different such that equalizing one is okay while equalizing the other isn't. It just seems arbitrary to treat one differently because it's encoded in DNA.

 

[Nymue]

I feel really, really strongly about this issue, which has probably already come across in some of my posts around here.

Yeah, people put too much stake in gender roles. I wish people would spend more time identifying with actual traits rather than groups of cultural associations. It just plays into the whole conventional mindset that keeps people thinking inside the box all their lives.

That said, I'm conflicted about how best to apply this ideology. Sometimes I feel like I should be doing more to subvert female conventions. For example, I've found men's jeans and t-shirts to be more comfortable and more durable in general than women's in the same price range, but I still feel embarrassed taking things from the men's rack to the fitting room in a store. I don't want to be embarrassed, I think it's stupid, but I am.

I worry about how far I take my hormonal periods, if I cut myself too much slack for being whingey or mean or a crybaby, because it's accepted, and not because I'm really that much more prone to it.

I often think about how I'd like to spend a while in "boy-mode", dressing like a boy, taking male pronouns, identifying with the male gender to solidify my ideas about gender-continuity. And yet I'm scared that if I did, I'd make a farce of it, I wouldn't be able to "get" it, I'd be a pretentious imposter.

I guess, in practice, it's a really personal problem, and really hard to separate rational opinions from all kinds of cultural biases and internalised conventions. These questions really eat at me, and they look like they should be so simple.

 

[Magic Christmas Lights]

I identify very strongly with a post-gender world. Gender roles as it is irrevocably change entire lives - women go into nursing rather than pursue being a MD due to role congruency, women are discriminated against in STEM careers, men are pushed out of "communal" jobs such as preschool teacher and nursing.

I lived full time as male for a year when I was 17. I was a pretty hot dude. At the time, I thought I was transgender. It turned out that being abused by my mother left me with shame for being a woman, which is what was really going on. Having had that experience made me realize just how illusionary gender and gender roles are. Since then, I am no longer ashamed of being biologically female, though I now no longer identify as a gender. I am neither, I am both. I dress up in a mix of men and women's clothes and use mixed mannerisms. I act and present myself the way I feel like being.

I once read that people who have both masculine and feminine-identified traits have better psychological well-being.