Is eliminating/minimizing gender the key to ending gender discrimination?

[Nikia]

I recently read Paradoxes of Gender by Judith Lorber. She asserts that the very social insistute of gender causes gender discrimination. She states that gender discrimination starts from the moment people know the sex of a baby and that gender differences are a societal construct. In order to end gender gender discrimination, we must stop differentiating people by gender and attributing certain non phyiscal,sex based traits to men and women. She states that binanry thinking tends to place men in the privledged, good category and women in the lesser, bad category. Women's work has always and will always be paid less and given less prestigue as long as it is considered women's work and men's work has always and will always be paid more as long as it is considered men's work, for example.
My ideals of feminism tend towards encouraging people to be who they are rather than their gender for both men and women. I disagree with feminists who I met in college, who suggested that I should eliminate all "masculinity" from my psyche and promote "feminiminity" in myself, others, and society. I think that I treat people as individuals rather than a gender. I am not sure that I would go quite as far as she suggests though. I see her points, but perhaps I like being a woman and attatched to the concept of gender. I have seen various minorities suggest similiar things with race and ethnicity, but likewise many people want to be black or Latino/a too.
Her ideals are too radical for society to accept anytime soon, but is she right?

[cheezus]

1. more code

eliminating gender is impossible... unless you're talking about eliminating ONE of the genders

[undergroundpanther]

2. Nope

Eliminating gender would be great step for humankind,it would mean we are all equally valuable PEOPLE,each unique yet all human.
Note: gender in this instance is not one's biological sex, it's a unequal invisible yet tyrannical psychological class system that gives one 'role and idenmtity'to one kind of biolocal sex and one to the other,and the both suck for different reasons..Nothing about a person other than types of bodily plumbing should be based on biological sex I hate gender it's stupid and it's mostly all in your head.

[Swamp Rat]

20. Right

Gender "roles" is the problem.

[Warpy]

16. Exactly, which is how it was dealt with in European cultures

until very recently. Women who married legally died on their wedding day. There was only one legal person in the marriage, and that was the male. Even the Islamic cultures aren't that harsh.

Everything about androgyny breaks down completely in the area of sex and childbirth. The culture is trying as hard as it can to ignore the burdens that women face in this area, but eventually it's got to come to terms with them.

The push so far has been to compete with males on an even field, something that has not happened and can probably never happen. I say this as a member of the generation that found that having it all meant doing it all. Eventually women will have to be accepted on our own terms, instead of "you want equal rights, then pick up that 200 pound sack of crap and hump it down to the loading dock, honey."

I don't know what shape such a culture will take. I do know that we'll have to fight to keep it if we ever achieve it.

[liontamer]

3. gender fluidity is the key

If one can flow freely back and forth and pick what best fits one from a gender role, then there's less discrimination.

It's the very strict "girls do this boys do that" mentality that causes problems.

For example, since I like to do a lot of "boy things" there's a lot of expectation that I can't like "girl things". In fact I used to feel pressure (mostly internal) to reject all trappings of femininity(i love pink but didn't wear it for years) if I wanted to reject some trappings of it(i HATE cooking. with deep passion)

It's taken me a lot of time to learn to accept that so called "girliness" isn't bad if it's something I choose for myself and not something forced upon me.

I think it's not so much as destroying the concept of two worlds, but learning that both can exist inside a single individual.

[WildClarySage]

4. No

eliminating gender as a concept of identification is the wrong step. The answer is to embrace gender. Celebrate it. Celebrate it's diversity and fluidity and wonderfulness. It's like, to me when someone says they are 'color blind'. I hate that term. It means that part of what makes you a unique and special person must be ignored so that you will not be treated differently. Even if differently=celebrated for your uniqueness. I think society is better valuing and enjoying the differences, without using value judgements or coercing gender roles and values on others. I'm a girl. I like girly things, and I like being a girl. I don't want to be anything else; certainly not locked into a role that proscribes what I can and can't do. I want be girly and cute one day wearing a dress and cute shoes, and be able to wear jeans and my hubby's oxford collar shirt the next. I don't mind being judged as a girl. I mind being valued differently because I am one. I think we can do better socially.

[bloom]

5. "promote "femininity" in myself, others, and society"

That seems anti-feminist compared to how I think of feminism. I think society as a whole could be more feminine in some ways - peace and cooperation being promoted. Creativity over destruction - things like that. It seems like our society is becoming less feminine and more anti-women all the time.

But in ones self - I think a balance is good - for both sexes. No one expecting to be all one way or the other.

I also don't relate to the societal - TV - advertising driven feminine concept of being frilly or make-up driven wimps or any of that. I don't know where that comes from. I can't relate to it - at any rate.

As far as jobs/work, etc. I think our society has a long way to go toward non-gender discrimination. It's not one of the things that is getting any encouragement in the current atmosphere. Recently I saw where women have a lot lower pay equity in my (red) state than in Washington, D.C. for example. (Another reason to move).

[Nikia]

6. They were feminist but different how I thought of feminism

And I have seen other feminists like them. Basically these young women and others like them, believe that women and feminitity are superior to men and masculinity. The positive traits that you mentioned are the main traits that they want to promote. Unfortunately, the only way that they seem to be able to do anything for women that way is if they form their own businesses and organizations. It is difficult to promote equal pay while telling women that they should not be agressive or competitive in a business world that is.

[highlonesome]

7. "Male and Female" by Margaret Mead

It's an excellent book on the subject -- written in 1949, but feels like 1999!

One of the things she says is that there's never been a successful society that ignored the differences between the genders. But she also makes some great cases for how to positively adapt changing roles.

Good book, but only about 1/3 of the way through so far. You can get it on Amazon.

[readmoreoften]

8. No, these ideals are not radical, they are reactionary.

Binary gender (masculine and feminine) as fixed to 20th century biological types (male and female) is a problem. There are a plethora of genders in this world and they can attach themselves to a diversity of biologies... including male, female, transsexual, intersexed, and third genders. Third-wave feminism and queer theory handle this nicely.

For example, second wave lesbian feminism 'liberated' women from the traditional lesbian genders of butch and femme in favor of a 'more enlightened' supposedly ungendered lesbianism that was really just a new outwardly androgenous gender. The so-called revolution was viciously classist as well. While upper-class college women were 'freeing themselves' from gender, blue-collar butches were ostracized for 'being oppressors of women' and femmes were considered stupid and brainwashed. It has taken YEARS for us to except that androgeny is a gender in itself and many people are not androgenous. There are women who are butch and men who are femme and it is so deeply part and parcel of who they are that they brave the violence and scorn of the entire world just to express themselves.

What we need is more acceptance of random diversity and not a 'cleansing' of undesirable behaviors.

[SarahB]

9. My parents believed this.

They were both liberals and feminists. I was dressed as a small child in primarily non-gender specific clothes and played with only non-gender specific toys. Thirty plus years later, I still fall under what is a western culture's perception of a stereotypically female appearance and even many choice's in my life. I don't know how much was inborn, how much was culture, and how much was brought about by other factors. I've never had the feeling though that I couldn't do anything because I was 'just a girl'. This stuff is complex and I believe it's not so simple as merely cultural or societal. I think certain differences are inherently inborn, but within a spectrum to varying degrees based upon the individual (both in terms of their own biology and societal influences).

[Heddi]

10. Being a woman is part of who I am

I don't want people to treat me DIFFERENTLY (meaning negatively OR postitively) because I'm a female, but I also don't want them to discount my womanhood either.

As a woman, I've had certain experiences in life that a man will never have. I have certain biological and physiological functions and responses that a man will never have. That's not to say that one is better or one is worse, but it is what it is, and those differences are what makes me who I am.

When I was in college, I had to take a Sociology of Minority Groups class. It was a requirement and I was pretty complacent about the whole class generally. I mean, I'm enlightened, I'm a democrat. I'm liberal--I'm not a racist and I don't treat people differently because of a difference in race, religion, creed, etc.

One thing that we talked about is the need for a "color blind society". All the white people (myself included) were like 'Yeah! Let's see BEYOND race'---but as the teacher pointed out, being colour-blind isn't seeing BEYOND race, it's ignoring race.

A black person is who they are BECAUSE of their blackness. Who am I, as a white person, to say "Well, YOUR race isn't important to ME, so therefore, I'm not going to consider your race when engaging with you as a person"?

Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, Whites---we all have parts of us that make us who we are because of things like race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc.

I don't know if I'm making sense---it's alot easier to talk about this in a 'conversation' than a posting....

I guess that no matter how much we want Race to not be in the equation, we, as humans, can not HELP but to notice if a person is black or white when we interact with them. It's a visual cue. No matter how much I don't treat a black person differently than a white person, I'd be a complete liar if I said "well, you know...I never noticed that Joe was black..." of COURSE I notice he's black.

Equally, people would be lying if they said "You know, all these years I knew heather, it never even occured to me that she was a woman"

Blacks have a right to be black, and as a white person (or any other race), I have NO right to tell them to 'forget' their blackness so that it makes racial issues easier for ME to deal with.

Women have a right to be women, and a man has NO right to tell me to 'disregard' my womanhood so that they don't have to deal with pesky gender or sexuality issues.

Also--how convenient it is for white people--who generally don't have any major cultural ties (not talking about Italians or Irish groups that live in group-specific areas like in NYC, or boston or Whatever---I'm talking about your run of the mill white folks who live down the block and who have no ties to any ethnicity other than being white)---how convenient for white people who generally don't have any major cultural or racial ties to suggest that OTHER groups "lose" their racial and cultural identities so that WE (white people) can get away from pesky race issues.

How convenient for men--who really don't suffer grand-scale sexism---to suggest that women not focus on their femininity--so that they don't have to talk about sex or gender issues.

I'm a woman. I wouldn't be who I was unless I was a woman. I've experienced different things, and had a different life than I would have if I was a male. Being white, I've had different experiences and situations than if I were another race, or another religion.

it's an insult to ME that the way to "equalize" gender relations is to get rid of the idea of gender all together.

Firstly, it'll never happen---men and women are separate and are different. Secondly, how effective would it be (if you could even get people to adhere to it to begin with). Would we move from gender disparity to even more racial disparity? Hair colour disparity?

I do agree, though, that sex traits are ingrained early. In Psych class we saw a study where a baby who was just a few days old (and therefore had no characteristic gender cues (long hair, breasts, facial pattern, etc)) was shown to a group of strangers. The baby was dressed in gender-neutral clothing (no dresses or overalls, no pink or blue). The stranger was told that the baby was a male. Immediately people said things like "oh! you're so strong!" "Oh! what a big man you are!" "I bet you look just like your daddy"

The researchers then took the same baby into another room, changed its clothes (again, to gender neutral apparel) and presented it to the strangers and said that the baby was a girl. Their responses "Oh, you're so pretty" "oh...you look like a little baby doll" "Oh you're so fragile I don't even want to hold you because I don't want to break you"

Same baby---same gender-neutral appearance---TOTALLY different reactions by strangers upon being told what the gender was.

I think the key is to raising our children without placing strong gender-roles upon them.

People think my husband is a freak because he cleans the house, cooks dinner, can sew a button, knows how to use the dishwasher and washing machine.

But his mother taught him to NEVER rely on anyone to do these things for you. Cleaning isn't inherently female. No girl-child is born with the inate ability to remove a stain or use a vaccuum. Equally, no boy-child is born knowing how to change a tire or flush a radiator or install shingles.

We, as a society, and as parents, inforce gender roles in our children. We expect girls to act and do X, and boys to act and do X. I think the key is to raising well-rounded children who don't do something, or do do something based on conventional gender roles. I don't think the answer is to disregard gender (as a biological component) alltogether.

[hfojvt]

13. there is one color and race blind world

the virtual world. It is possible for me to interact with people, as people, without knowing if they are male or female, or black, white, asian, hispanic, or whatever, and without knowing if they are 12 or 92.
Even if I claim to be a 37 year old hispanic male, you do not have immediate evidence as to whether that is true or false.
However, alot of that information does find a way to sneak in the longer we are on this board, we learn who is male, who is Canadian, who is white, and so on. Does finding out, or assuming you have found out, what a person's gender is, change the way you read his/her posts? And sometimes you may not even know, because a spouse could be logged on under a given user name.

[RoeBear]

11. Sounds like a fun world

[Senior citizen]

12. Not "gender" but GENDER ROLES.

The word role is the key. A role is something you do or something you act out, not something you are.

You can be male or female without doing anything whatsoever or acting in any particular way.

Gender roles require that you do or don't do certain things and that you act in particular ways.

Gender roles in patriarchal societies are assigned on the basis of sex, but no matter how comfortable or uncomfortable you feel in your assigned gender role or how much you believe it is or isn't your primary identity, all you have to do is travel a bit and observe how differently people act out gender roles in different societies.

The key to ending sex-based discrimination is eliminating gender roles. The way this would work is that people would dress for the occasion or their mood, rather than their gender roles. The default would no longer be male but universal. By default, I mean whatever is natural and doesn't take any effort. Anything theatrical, such as costumes, hair styles, cosmetics, etc., would be a matter of choice rather than of gender role, available to everyone and required of no one.

[Swamp Rat]

14. I agree Senior citizen

I might need a bra someday. :D

[Hello_Kitty]

15. The mere suggestion of minimizing or even examining gender roles

Will be shouted down by the hordes armed with junk science bunkum about the "innate" differences between males and females. I'm bracing myself for it on this thread now... What the Biology Brigade fails to realize is that the whole purpose of this research industry is to reinforce patriarchy in the wake of the declining influence of religion and tradition. Why else would they be doing it? This in turn props up the military industrial complex. Which is why you'll never get feminists to buy it. Patriarchy is a raw deal for everyone, with the possible exception of the handful of elite males at the top.

There is comfort in rigidly prescribed roles. It's much easier to follow a set script than it is to figure out your own path among the infinite choices in this crazy, confusing world. Plus, it takes a lot less effort to categorize everyone you meet as "man", "woman", "Black", "Asian", etc. than it does to get to know people as individuals and have to devise a more personal strategy for interacting with them. That's hard - Hard work, as someone we all know of likes to say.

[CWebster]

17. No

because the values of the feminine- nurturing and compassion are superior.

It pisses me off to hear Pelosi advocating greater equality with men in the military. Ever notice that it is women soldiers who are widely condemned in the media in the abu ghraib torture?

Ever notice that Martha Steward took the brunt for the corporate scandals?

That's what they get for messing in a man's domain, eh?

Equality with men is NOT in adopting the stupidity of the patriarchy.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Actually, as an

ex-Marine, I agree that we should have equality in the military.
Women who become career soldiers need to be able to compete with men in order to gain rank. By not allowing women to fill the same billets, they are justified in not promoting them alongside their male counterparts.
I was enraged when I found out that I would not be able to work in my MOS after training for six months in the field.
As long as we allow them to discriminate against us we will never be treated as equals.

[lukasahero]

19. I'm not sure I get this

Are you suggesting that Martha deserved to bear the brunt of the corporate scandals because she "played in men's domain"? Are you suggesting that that's acceptable and it's her being there in the first place that's the problem?

For myself, I don't find feminine values "superior", I find them different. Most men and women share both feminine and masculine traits to one degree or another. Nurturing and compassion (although I'm not sure I buy compassion as a strictly feminine "value") are good and decent values to have. So are confidence and courage both generally thought of as "masculine".

Not all women are especially compassionate and not all men are warriors. I wish we could all just stop labeling each other's worth and value based on what's between our legs and start appreciating each other for what's in our heart and head.