On Gender and the Dubious Necessity Thereof

Having thought long and hard on the subject of my own gender identity, I have come to several disparate conclusions, usually (though not always) at different points in time. Approximately thirty percent of my conclusions are that I am or should be agendered, because gender is really much too much trouble for the advantages it allows one. Or is it?

I read a very interesting piece of fiction recently, in which a race of hermaphrodites abandons the concept of gender, despite its members’ possessing common human secondary sexual characteristics. Is this only possible in a species with one sex? Or, in a species with one body type? Humans today have a staggering amount of variety in body type, with weak males and strong females, though the averages do support sexual bias in terms of physical strength. Yet this is completely irrelevant, except culturally.

This leads me to my second, oftener-used conclusion: that I should very much like to be a woman (the “lady” gender). This has less to do with the way society treats women–as objects, with appearance-based favoritism, as deserving extra help–and more with the feminine identity that has struggled through oppression and hatred, and come out stronger ethically and mentally. I do not, I confess, really want to be part of the gender that has committed oppression and hate so systematically, any more than I wish to be part of a race that has done so. For whatever reason, one cannot choose one’s ethnicity, though (it is considered extremely bad form by those whose culture one wishes to borrow, generally, and by those who consider themselves defenders of same), but we do have some freedom to choose gender.

The real reason that caused me to write this post, however, is this thought: that everyone should think carefully before choosing a gender, even if they decide themselves cisgendered. It seems unfair and sad that anyone should have the privilege and the misfortune never to realize that they could be anything other than what Society tells them they are.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “On Gender and the Dubious Necessity Thereof

  1. “… I do not, I confess, really want to be part of the gender that has committed oppression and hate so systematically…”

    That men are to blame for the majority of society’s evils is an interesting and perhaps irresistible conclusion. And yet most evil and oppressive men throughout history had supportive and loving wives or girlfriends who were there by choice – this continues today.

    Women are supposed to be the gender of nurturing, caring, empathy and compassion who prefer to solve problems and disputes using open communication and negotiation rather than brute force. Yet very few women over the last century have openly rejected and condemned (or voted against) the ‘male’ strategy of using extreme violence and mass murder (AKA ‘wars’) to solve all social/ political disputes (or just to exploit weaker nations and generate vast profits).

    In fact the very opposite is true. Not only have women approved of men becoming hired killers (AKA soldiers) they have actually glorified this behaviour and even elevated it to the status of ‘heroic’, ‘macho’ and ‘sexy’.

    Imagine how different society might be if women today *looked down* on any man who resorted to violence, and chose to abandon his supportive role as father/ husband/ boyfriend to run off to some foreign land and start blowing the arms and legs off men, women and children in illegal wars of genocide. Imagine if women treated these contract killers with the same contempt and disapproval as pedophiles or wife beaters. Imagine if men were ashamed (rather than proud) to be seen in public by women wearing a costume which identified him as a contract killer employed by the state.

    Social approval/ social ostracism (especially by the opposite sex) is a powerful force!

    Women have it in their power to put an end to this senseless slaughter of human life – which decimates and traumatises generation after generation. All they have to do is express their fierce feminine disapproval and contempt for thuggish, smelly, sweaty, violence, murder as an acceptable way to solve society’s problems.

    All they have to do is shout “No!” to the drone strikes with their 98% civilian murder rate. “No!” to the senseless wars of genocide which routinely kill millions. “No!” to the government’s insane spending on militarisation of our entire society when there are still babies starving in the world and people losing their homes every day due to the collapsing economy.

    Yet these gentle, nurturing, compassionate, virtuous, empathetic and wise women who speak from the heart and from the womb are conspicuously absent in society. I cannot think of a single woman with a public presence (a politician, celeb, sports star, pop star, actress, charity worker or businesswoman) who actually expresses such womanly sentiments …… nor can I think of a single woman in ordinary life who does either. Can you?

    Instead it is often the women who cheer the loudest for more violence and bloodshed. What woman today doesn’t swoon at the thought of a big tough man smartly dressed up in the special costume of a contract killer employed by government, preferably with a big murder weapon at his side?

    He is heroic. Not like the man who thinks for himself and obeys his intellect and his heart and leaves the army (perhaps illegally) and who returns home to his family, weeping at what he has witnessed and vowing to never get involved in such evil bloodshed again… he is not a hero. No woman wants to pin up a poster of THAT kind of man.

    All wars are paid for by government debt which is to be paid back (plus interest) by future generations via future taxation (ie by force). In this way the wars of empire which currently slaughter men, women, children and babies all across the globe are actually being funded by our future offspring. I don’t see many women campaigning to stop this outrage, do you? Our own children (whether born yet or not) are literally being sold into debt slavery….. and all to pay for mass murder, empire building, persecution, terrorism and environmental destruction.

    Statistically speaking, the single greatest factor which results in children getting involved in crime, violence, unwanted pregnancies, gangs and generally dropping out of society is a fatherless upbringing. If men are so evil and thuggish and if women are so virtuous and lovely why aren’t these female only families turning out ‘nice’, empathetic, compassionate, gentle, civilised boys (and girls)? Why are children with mothers but not fathers turning out to be (statistically speaking) the very opposite of that?

    If post-feminist women are so fed up with lying, brutish, thuggish male behaviour why do they accept government support which is all paid for with money extracted by government using coercion and violence? How can that be more civilised and ‘feminine’ that accepting support from a husband/ boyfriend as part of a TWO WAY relationship where the man actually EARNS his money through peaceful and honest means (rather than steals it at gunpoint)?

    Surely, forming a TWO WAY partnership with a man who LOVES you and is LOYAL to you is more in line with feminine values than accepting money from a group of strangers in government who obtain and distribute all their wealth by force?

    Perhaps this violent, oppressive, brutal, murderous and destructive patriarchy has everything to do with the behaviours, attitudes and actions of women. Far from being helpless victims of it, perhaps women are its main architects.

    • You raise a very interesting point, but there are several flaws in your reasoning: first, that it is entirely the duty of women, who have less power in Western society, to stop wars; and second, that it is entirely the fault of women when they have been raised, as men have, to approve of war. Yes, women have hated and oppressed along with their men, but they are still marginalized as men are not. Western society tells women to be more manly, and who can blame them if, when it also tells them that men kill and dominate, they support and emulate this behavior?

      It is true that social approval and ostracism are powerful forces, but so much of this kind of pressure has already been put on women that they are less able to exercise it themselves, especially in response to a situation of which the people in power approve. If it is the duty of women to be loving and nurturing (and biologically, this is true of females if not women), what, then, is the duty of males if not to protect their fragile mates by going to war? There is a fallacy here, though somewhat unrelated to your main point, and it is that women are required to express “womanly sentiments” or check the mindless violence of men. If we are to check ourselves, everyone in our society must work in concert–for an entire population can exert much more pressure than only the feminine half.

      • I didn’t mean to imply women must do or ‘be’ anything. I am merely pointing out (what I regard as) inconsistencies and flawed logic… and hopefully pointing towards some kind of sense as best I can.

        The feminist movement is based on the idea that women have been living in a patriarchal society which has not served them well (all of which is true). But I think the common mistake is to assume this patriarchal society benefits men. It does not. It only benefits a very few men (and women) who sit at the very top of the pyramid.

        Most men throughout history have been slaves to patriarchy. And this is still true today. Most men today are totally marginalised, with virtually no control over their lives and no voice in society. A few men roar loudly, sure, but most men are totally mute (far more mute than most women). Have you ever seen a TV show where men discuss social issues, relationships, fatherhood, health issues, community issues? Of course not!

        Thanks to decades of propaganda men have been made to feel that they have no useful role to play in communities/ families/ relationships… that they just ‘get in the way’ and that their proper place is in the football stadium, or on the battlefield (both perverted substitutes for men’s natural desire to defend and look after his own family and community).

        And women (particularly those with very strong feminist views) have been trained to organise their communities by partnering with the state, instead of patterning with the men in their community. This only feeds the patriarchal system. The state uses coercion, violence and theft to get things done…. the ordinary men-folk use negotiation and voluntary transactions to get things done.

        This is how (hijacked) feminism actually gets women to help build a more coercive, violent, rigid, unforgiving, hostile patriarchal society. They think they are building a world for themselves which is free of ‘evil men’… but in reality they are building a world for themselves which is controlled by the mot evil men in society – those psychopathic men who end up in positions of political and economic power! (The men who will happily send millions of men-slaves to die in a war for instance, and fund it, and profit from it… and then sleep like babies).

        For most of history both men and women were forced into their respective roles out of a practical need to survive. To survive the men needed to work in the fields or down coal mines. To survive the women needed to raise the young, mend things, source food and cook it and often care for elderly relatives too. Men and women operated as a partnership splitting the labour between them. If a modern couple crashed on a deserted island today they would also split labour to survive.

        Marriage (before sex) was viewed as essential because women (and the community in general) needed to ensure that men committed fully to this relationship BEFORE having sex and (inevitably in those days) producing offspring. The woman (and the community around her) simply could not afford to have a child out of wedlock with an absent father. The man had to fully commit to helping provide for the future offspring before he could be allowed in bed with a woman.

        Looking at our society of absent fathers today and the *devastating* effects this is having on children (as shown by many studies), we have to admit there was a lot of sense to this social convention. We all understand that a building project requires proper legally binding contracts so that the builders don’t just wonder off to some other better paid project half way through……. surely raising a child is slightly more important (and precarious) than building a bridge or tower block? Certainly the first five years of child raising are absolutely critical – get it wrong and you risk damaging the child for life, and if enough people get it wrong together this ensures society will become completely dysfunctional in twenty years time!

        We are taught in this post feminist age that marriage is how men enslave women and chain them to the kitchen sink, but in reality marriage has always been a way for women to ensure the man hangs around and fulfils HIS duty ….. to himself, to her and to the child (and to the future ‘society’).

        As technology evolved this increased productivity and communities grew richer and this excess wealth allowed the state to steal more and more money (taxes) and grow bigger and more powerful and more influential in society. And eventually every relationship had THREE people in it…… man, woman and the state.

        In many ways feminism was (and still is) all about the state trying to usurp men and assume the role of husband and provider to all women. The state sees men as competition, and it sees women as a way to infiltrate society and get access to the children in order to brainwash them.

        Aldous Huxley wrote a book about this called ‘Brave New World’. He was a member of the elitist think tank ‘The Fabian Society’ who’s emblem is (rather fittingly) a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Huxley was not writing fiction, he was letting us know what the elite’s plans were for society – that’s how he was able to accurately predict so many things we see around us today, even as far back as the 1930’s. Huxley also gave many speeches warning us of what was being done to society and what the final goal was….. basically the break up of the family unit and the state assuming the role of ‘god’ or ‘alpha male’ so that the state raised the children and allocated them their role in life. In BNW men and women were both just ‘worker bees’ to the state and sex was seen as just a recreational activity. Neither men or women had any power over their lives, and they had been trained to love their servitude.

        That’s not a million miles from where we are heading today.

        I believe that without the state infiltrating it, feminism would have taken society in a completely different direction. But unfortunately the whole thing was hijacked from the start and as a result women have been tricked into wanting to become EQUAL SLAVES to men. Both now equally enslaved to the state ….to the hierarchy….. to patriarchy.

  2. It is certainly true that the patriarchy harms men as much as women–socially. Economically and politically, all the benefit is for men. To say that men have virtually no voice and cite it as an example of why they are oppressed is to ignore the fact that people as a whole have virtually no voice. You say that women have much more public speaking opportunities on television, but how many talk show hosts are women compared to the men in the same position? How many fiction main characters of shows intended for women are men? How many main characters (who aren’t love interests) of shows intended for men are women?

    I’m not entirely sure of why you’re writing a history of marriage here, but yes, there are reasons for gender roles.They aren’t particularly good reasons, since women can nearly always do what men do and vice versa. They create inequality for no apparent benefit. Your dystopian version of the government is altogether more terrifying, though I’m not sure that government is as malicious as you say. If anyone is brainwashing children, it is our media of news and entertainment. As my friend has just pointed out to me, the government is not really competent enough to organize such a concerted social effort.

    Really, though, it sounds like you’re blaming women for the oppression of men, and the government for their desire to. It’s a terrifying thought, but I don’t believe it.

    • I really, really, really do not want to pit women against men in a ‘who’s the biggest victim’ competition! LOL I’m sorry if I came across that way. I’m just trying to point out a few things which fall under the heading of ‘what is’.

      IMHO the aim should be achieving freedom rather than ‘equal rights’. Equal rights come automatically with freedom…. but freedom does not automatically come with ‘equal rights’. (Slaves can all have ‘equal rights’!)

      My over simplified history lesson was just a reminder that survival itself can often be very ‘unfair’ and most of our culture is still a hangover from previous ages when basic survival was a very real struggle and we were all a lot less enlightened. A lot of these difficult gender issues have only emerged because we have finally liberated ourselves (to some degree at least) from the kind of hand-to-mouth survival of previous centuries. So in that sense it’s all good.

      I do believe that the whole men vs women thing is a distraction from the far more important men + women (+children) vs the state. Men and women rarely point guns at each other… but the state points its guns at everyone. If we don’t want to continue down this road of increasing violence, destruction and social dysfunction then men and women MUST learn to make peace and rely on each other again, because if we don’t the state will just keep growing in power and violence. Again, it’s not about what we ‘should’ be doing. It’s about understanding how different behaviours cause different outcomes for us, our families, our children and for society as a whole.

      It’s fine to not be dependent on a man (or a woman) but if we choose to become dependent on the state instead then we need to remind ourselves that we’re choosing to associate with strangers with guns who steal the money the share with us, instead of loving partners who peacefully earn the money they share with us. Relying on a government instead of a man (or a woman) is not freedom, liberation or independence. It is a kind of ‘social terrorism’.

      Having said that, obviously if circumstances are dire (such as leaving an abusive relationship) I wouldn’t condemn someone for relying on welfare – I’m just saying it’s not a direction we want to be heading in generally.

      This is why I’m wary of this obsession with ‘rights’ and this whole ‘competitive’ thing. We need to stick to cause and effect and most importantly of all WE ALL NEED TO PUT THE CHILDREN FIRST!!!! (as mothers AND fathers)…. and if we aren’t prepared to do that we should not be having them!

      “They (marriages) create inequality for no apparent benefit. ”

      Marriages (or stable partnerships) benefit the children, assuming children are involved. That is the primary function of marriages/ partnerships. Just as children need 9 months in the womb they also need 5 – 10 years of parenting from both men and women if at all possible! Preferably with at least one parent parenting *full time* for the first 5 years (alternating is cool). Again, it’s just what the statistics show (cause and effect). The single biggest factor determining future problems for children (crime, addiction, unwanted pregnancies, dropping out, depression etc) is fatherless homes.

      Marriages also tend to be much more environmentally friendly than living alone (just saying).

      My point about TV was that the very *concept* of men talking about fatherhood, community, relationships, family, feelings and so on simply does not exist in modern western culture! It’s incredible when you think about it.

      Sure, there are far more men on TV but that’s not the point. Most men on TV are just vehicles for government/ corporate propaganda. No man is ever allowed on TV who might say something which actually questions or challenges this government/ corporate propaganda…….or even something which just happens to come from an alternative point of view.

      In family sitcoms and dramas it’s always the man who is the buffoon or the layabout or the abuser or the ‘spare part’. The women is always the virtuous, overworked, mature, organiser who has two kids – but three if you count my husband!!! (ha ha ha).

      In reality many women are (gasp!) abusive, lazy, spongers and it’s the man who does all the work, earns the money, drives the kids around and all for no thanks. You never see sitcoms which reflect that though. If any racial group was negatively stereotyped in the media to the same degree that men are there would be outrage!

      “…If anyone is brainwashing children, it is our media of news and entertainment. As my friend has just pointed out to me, the government is not really competent enough to organize such a concerted social effort….”

      That slogan repeated by your friend (because she heard it somewhere and it’s quite amusing) is literally the product of government propaganda! LOL

      Sorry, but I have to disagree….. propaganda is one of the central strategies used by all governments. Democracy itself is basically based on competing propaganda designed to win votes if you think about it. And that’s just the easy-to-spot propaganda.

      Government propaganda starts when we are age four. The entire government run school system is based on the Prussian Schule system which was designed from its outset to create obedient slaves. It has been indoctrinating children for the last 200 years.

      Hollywood, the music industry, even Disney are all propaganda vehicles. Government and corporate interests are one and the same. The merging of governments and corporations is the essence of fascism.

      The Pentagon even has its own propaganda department linked to Hollywood called the ‘Film Liaison Unit’. They give the movie studios free hire of planes, helicopters and even military personnel in return for being able to ‘advise’ on the movie scripts. That’s why all Hollywood movies are pro military, pro corporations, pro government.

      The propaganda is so slick and sophisticated these days that’s why most people can’t even see it!

      • Oh man, sorry for the wording, I meant that gender roles create inequality and not benefit. In response to the rest, I don’t know how it can be proven either way, so I won’t bother to try. But it’s interesting (and pretty scary!) to think about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s