Sex Role Scripts and the currency of Time, Space and Energy

Time, space and energy are the original currency and under patriarchy women’s is taken from them and they are paid less in return for it.

Masculinity & Femininity are two socially shaped directions attached to biological sex. They are both shaped around the format each sex is expected to live, work and reproduce under patriarchy. All things we do as human beings are done within time and space and all require energy, but the results of all we do are not equally valuable for reasons beyond human control. Not all use of resources results in an outcome that adds greater functionality to life, so is wasted. Through the gender system and the class system other peoples time, space and energy is siphoned off, the ones at the top get most of the productive results and the person exploited gets less for their currency. A person could build ten houses but not get the money to afford any of them, so in reality their energy is taken.

Most of the space around us is claimed to be owned by someone, even on public trains and buses and that someone is more often then not male. We are born into a system where we have to give up our time by default to live due to the fact most of the space and the energy it contains is owned, and we have to give our time in return for the energy we need to live and to get a small amount of space in the world to live in.

Men as a class are allocated more space in the world,  women’s bodies were historically viewed as space in the world and as goods. Today women are still treated like the space their body occupies in the world is not their own. The patriarchal entitlement of ownership of all matter on earth including all living creatures is extended to women because women are not seen fully human in the way men are, for this reason women are looked at as a resource. The view of women as a resource results in them being looked at as potential along the lines of what can be extracted from them, and the three main things are time, space and energy. Women are given the space they need to remain alive until someone sees fit to dispose of them, and in many parts of the world the penalty for killing a woman is lower and sometimes similar to what one gets for destroying property. In the UK several hundred years ago the charge for rape was trespassing and the crime was viewed as a crime against the woman’s husband or farther or other male owner. Its said by some that rape is made easier by how women are forced to dress, and by the fact women are socialized into a non confrontational way of being and the solution to rape is for women to become more equip to fight back. Its true women should be able to be more assertive and wear clothing that allows a greater range of activity, but so they can shout across open fields and hike in mountains or run for a train and not have sore feet, not for the purpose of avoiding rape because it won’t work and they shouldn’t have to structure there life around the treat of male violence.

The reason why it won’t work is because if your bodily space is viewed as a resource and men by default feel able to access it they will fight for it no matter how much you object. Men as a class have built armies to fight for things made difficult to get to and they do the same to women’s bodies, women in the army are still raped despite being trained as well as the men and wearing clothes that are the same as the men’s. A mans neck tie could easily be used to strangle him, and in the days when men wore high heels to show social status they did not give them up because they felt in danger wearing them, they gave them up for greater functionality and because the times and meanings attached to them passed. The main reason to give up high heels and restrictive clothing is because they take from you your time, space and energy and the proceeds of doing so may not be worth it. The decision of whether it is should not rest on an obligation based on someone’s sex. If a person is so into fashion and style they decide it is worth all of there time, space and energy then what they choose to wear should not be scripted around sex and they should not receive backlash when they stop doing it. Its clear women do and this is why its not a choice and will never be a choice for as long as sex role scripts exist.

Women’s time, space and energy is looked at another resource like land or water, and like land and water patriarchy tries to shape and purify it in accordance with what it wants.  The first thing that must be removed from the female commodity is any resistance to its use. The socialization of girls into femininity achieves this while also adding invitations for its use. Women are not only taught to not use there own time, space and energy for themselves but they are taught to actively give it away and to learn to enjoy being used. Women’s sense of being useful is to be rooted around how usable they are to others, not the things they can usefully do themselves. A man may be seen as useful for putting up a pair of shelves, a woman will be seen as useful based on how young, fertile and fuckable she is and how much she is willing to cook, clean and service while asking little in return. The useful tasks given to women are the ones where her time, space and energy are used for a lower return rate for her. Some insist that the solution is to raise the value of the work women do, rather then change the work women do or change the value of women. Problem is that women are allocated jobs that are already low in value, even if they are jobs that have once been done by men and the reason for this is because women’s time, space and energy is already viewed as worth less because women are viewed as worth less or in some cases nothing outside of the value men place on them. The tendency to pay women less for the very same job will not be solved by equally valuing all tasks, all which happens, is men move into the higher positions in upward moving industries regardless of the sex the task is associated with.

The masculinity and femininity system both have an high currency cost and most of the results go to benefit men, this means most of human time, space and energy is flowing in the direction of men as a class and this is why men more then women actively backlash against those viewed as gender non conforming and homophobia is included in this too.

The core rules of the femininity script are that women must be decorative and as inline with the beauty template as possible. They must have a personality that is not objectionable, and be able to fit around the plans or interests of men and because all men are free to have different plans and interests as full individuals of society women must be able to fit like a universal key. The only way to achieve this is if women don’t have as many plans or interests outside of the universal things most men want from a woman, and can only create individuality out of the things men don’t notice as much or things that don’t take away from what men expect of women. It’s for this reason women’s clothes have lots of choice but they are all fundamentally the same in the sense they lack the simple functionality of menswear and are made for a look over function. The reason women notice the subtle colour differences, is because the way they present as an object can be done in many ways, but the fact they have to present as an object does not change so women can get back some sense of individuality by simple details that men don’t care about. If a woman is wearing the wrong type of earrings for the occasion or the fashion has past it will likely be another woman who spots it and gives her backlash of some kind but if she steps out of the mould as object completely and dresses in a way that is not as much about being looked at, then men will notice they are not getting the full measure of what they feel entitled to from a woman. Women as a class collectively know they are not allowed to be full individuals and through this they develop other ways of trying to get a sense of individuality, normally by trying to get some sense of control over the things they have to do anyways. Unfortunately this depletes women’s time, space and energy further and results in women feeling a great sense of freedom at all the choices they have in clothing and of fashion and not addressing the fact they have little choice outside of it.

A lot of the worlds time, space and energy goes into making women into objects, all the clothing, cosmetics and effort it takes women to organise themselves into them tends to all come at the cost of all women the world over (just as men’s clothes do or all clothes). The things made for women dont even serve a function for her, there for the onlooker and they are increasingly high priced for quality and time they can be worn. All the time women put into shopping and dressing is for short lived results, they can’t buy something that will serve them years in the way men can and women are not allowed to wear clothes and have them show signs of wear like men can. This is because only subjects wear clothes, worn patches show signs of life and objects that show signs of wear are usually discarded and this is what happens to women as they show signs of wear. In this sense women’s bodies are inseparable from the clothes hung on them, and women are coat hangers not wearers of clothes and those who make women’s clothes make them from that angle. This is why women’s clothes can come with non functional pockets, can be any shape and why shoes even when flat can have soles millimetres thick. Inside pockets are rare on women’s clothes, because no one can see the inside so there is less reason to put it there. The reason women are not to sweat, age or show wear and tear in their clothes is all the same thing, they are all the signs the person is a living subject independent of how patriarchal society views them. Living subjects are ones that do work and have it recognised. They are the ones that are allowed to object to their use and to have ambitions of their own. They are the ones who by default are seen as owning their own time, space and energy and who will be given a fairer price in return for it and who will be highly rewarded and noticed when they are giving it up because they are not expected to do so by default. They are the ones who are still seen as looking good when showing the signs of life, as opposed to looking tarnished.

Women’s energy is not viewed as potent as men’s, and a lot of this is because women are never valued for what they do, and the energy cost of reproduction to women is greater but this fact is not socially recognised. When women are active in sports or in ways outside their sex role scripts, what they do is immediately recognised and attempts are made to shut it down. When women are active in their service roles, they are often expected to do it in shoes less suited to the job, and on occasions where men get to wear shoes more suited to the job. Women working in banks, schools and offices can be on their feet as much or more then men, but are expected to wear shoes that put a bigger strain on their feet just simply as a default based on sex. This is because women’s feet are seen as there to be displayed to the onlooker not for use of the woman herself, much like the rest of her. The second a woman puts on a pair of trainers and starts jogging people are concerned about the harm she may do to her body, but no one cares when the risk of harm is in doing something pleasing to men, it’s only when she is doing something tied up in her own ambitions. This is how all objects are treated, the wear and tear on them during their normal use is a risk that comes with using it, but when the object is used out of normal use then the chance of damage is a risk less worth taking. If a woman is to have wear and tear it must be a product of her expected use and if it is then its ok, but it cant be a result of her using her body for herself as with that comes another risk far greater, the risk she may benefit herself and that some of human time, space and energy may flow in the direction of a woman.

Men are subjects in the world are trained how to be the best users of time, space and energy. They are taught through masculinity script training that their time, space and energy are to be used to capitalize on that of others (more so women’s). The one thing both sex role scripts fail to tell everyone is that their time, space and energy is not to be spent exploiting everyone else’s regardless of sex everyone’s is worth the same. If sex role scripts said this there would be no reason for sex role scripts to exist, they are there to sort out territory based on sex and this territory is time, space and energy. This territorial divide that results from sex role scripts is what gives us a gender system and its where the backlash directed to those who cross over it comes from. Playing with gender is crossing territory and threatening to the fundamental structure of patriarchy, but incapable of changing it because no one really gets over unless they become fully able to pass as the opposite sex. When they do their past use of their time, space and energy and where its results went remain part of them. For the minority of people who transition, and the ones who live close to the line there are thousands of others living directly from the script and holding the territorial markers in place. What’s at stake here is not who can be a man or a woman, its what is socially expected for every new person born and entering that category, that’s what is remaining unchanged when individuals transgress. The abolition of the gender system is not about what we call ourselves, its the difference between being born to live and born to serve, born to use or born to be used and sometimes if we are even born at all.

Freedom is not found in the enjoyment of the things you are obligated to do anyways. Liberation is not found in breaking the rules of your oppression, it’s found in abolishing them.


The relay channel

Sex roles create a need to separate action from primary drives towards those actions, if for some reason there is a mismatch between the two sex roles will be more intolerable for some than others but they are still exploitative for all. How at ease we can do the tasks the exploiter expects of us is not a marker of how exploited we are. Girls are socialized out of instrumental behaviours and are to use their instrumental traits to carry out sex role specific actions, not their own ambitions. The relay channel is a short cut that girls learn to take over putting thoughts and resulting ideas into actions and finding out the results and this has to be learned because girls are discouraged from experimentation and risk taking. It’s for this reason that girls learn from a young age that its better to ask permission of test the water before they go ahead and act, for girls mistakes or the evidence of experimentation (mess or dirt) is punished harder, for them forgiveness is less obtainable. This teaches girls to not learn directly from their own actions, and to instead get their sense of certainty from others responses rather than finding out through trial and error what works and building direct security. Girls are punished more for getting their clothes torn or dirty, for making a mess and taking risks so for them failed projects are not worth the hassle as the reactions of other outweigh the experience even if the project is a success the responses of others will take from any task based reward.

Everyone naturally runs ideas past others to some degree, but sex role expectations greatly change the degree its done for females and it is a habit that opens them up to lots of unwanted advice and trains them to ruminate. It’s necessary for everyone to ask permission before carrying out things that will impact others, but the degree the female sex role demand one do so is greater than the male one because women’s time and space is not viewed as their own to structure or waste and their body space not there’s to risk.

Women’s time and space is always there to be filled up by sex role expectations, and women learn to fill up their own time with sex role obligations by taking on lots and leaving no time free. Women’s time is to be full in service to others, and when it’s not others will step in to ensure it is, if women are seen alone not occupied they tend not to be left to it in the way men are, the expectation the woman justify the use of her time to others still remains despite claims of equality.

Women’s space within themselves and their space in the outer world is all filled up by sex role expectations. Women are not allowed private inner space where their own thoughts, feelings, tastes and interests can flourish to form plans that can be manifested in the outside world to the full extent that men are.  Women are forced into emotional expression and have their mood scrutinized by others, they are told how to feel. Women are interrupted in the street and asked their thoughts, they are told what to think and how to feel and told what is appropriate for their sex. It could be argued we are all controlled by sex role expectations, but its only women who receive scrutiny before their inner  thoughts or feelings have being turned into actions and only women who are taught they must reveal all and are not allowed their own thoughts and feelings independent of others.

The inner space                      Outer space

-Thoughts                               -Actions
-Feelings                                -Expressions
-Interests                               -Activities

Over time women can get as if they don’t think for themselves, constantly asking others opinions on small things, and have their originality stifled so end up following the crowd. Men on average get more individual with age and women get more similar, due to a life time of being an uniformed commodity aimed at men. The reality is women are socialized to become objects that serve, not people with their own thought, feelings and interests and who live there life and fulfil them. The inner space of women has to be stuffed full of other people’s thoughts, feelings and interests and there actions, expressions and activities must be rooted around others and there wants and needs.

The relay results in women’s minds working in a way that separates them from their own wishes as default. The relay is held in place because over time it causes women to base most of their self-worth and ego structure in serving others, and social penalties for women’s mistakes are higher so the willingness to take risks socially is lower and this situation will worsen. The process of adverse social backlash will continue the more a woman starts to think for herself outside of whats expected, if she happens to be thinking for herself and aligned with expectations no one will notice it as much and she will remain unaware any expectations are on her. An example of this is that all women are scrutinized for what they wear and that demand women be always inline with fashion is down to how women are punished for showing originality(regardless of how it turns out). Women who like keeping up with the fashions and dressing as they are expected to dress inline with sex role expectations may not notice getting scrutinized as much, but when the time comes where she can no longer keep up or wants to move onto other things she may notice some form of backlash about how she dresses now. In reality she never had the freedom she thought she had, because true freedom does not have a punishment for not taking it. If women have freedom to wear heels, freedom to wear make up or freedom to follow a wide range of fashions there would be no social penalty for not doing so, the fact there is shows these things are an obligation. Enjoying doing a task that someone demands you do does not make that demand any less oppressive, that energy put into it has still been taken.

Some argue having to take less risks, getting more help and not having to think for one’s self as much is a form of privilege, but true privileges don’t come with punishments to those who give them up. Only women get told they have privileges and then punished for giving them up, women don’t get to say no to the help and then walk away, women are not praised for giving up there privileges because those privileges are really not privileges at all.

Its time to close the relay, to stop asking permission to act outside the sex role script, to stop assessing what people will do or think and put more of your own thought directly into action. Its time to decide when you want to smile, what you want to express and to find your own primary interests. Its time for women as a class to take back there own time and space as individuals and to re establish there own boundaries. Actions need to be judged by outcome not by the person doing them, and opinions need to have value outside the sex of the person holding them, activities need to be open based on interest not based on a persons sex.

The natural feedback one receive while doing an action in there sexed body needs to be separated from the social created feedback one receives while doing an action in there sexed body.

Swapping manhood for masculinity, patriarchy’s currency exchange system.

Feminism tends to be equated with ball busting and viewed as the ultimate threat to manhood. The reality is the social system of masculinity is the biggest threat to men, and because of it men are made into the biggest real threat to each other. Those who champion traditional masculinity and war also champion young men going off to be killed, they champion men getting their balls blown off in combat and they champion men as agents of instrumentality to be foot soldiers in a system that benefits men as a class over women as a class but is a cost to many men as individuals as they are the ones who pay the high price of masculinity.

Don’t look to the woman who wont lick your wounds, be them psychological or physical, look to the man who inflected them and to the system that made him doing so the norm. Ask why masculinity has to be achieved, and note that by the time it does the male body you came with it well past its youthful prime, infact the act of achieving masculine social status will siphon off your energy and give you credit in the form of wealth. Looking to women and saying it’s their fault, they evolved this way to look for accomplished men is pointless because we live in a system that separates the male youthful energy from its evolved goal by several years. Even if it true that women evolved to look for certain traits in a male so he can build things for her and find food while she reproduces and nurtures the young, it still does not translate to the modern day idea of women seeking out today’s idea of success in men. Today the actual traits and behaviours that lead to men building things or finding food are used up in a work system where people get paid very little in return, so take years to become successful and save up money. In the natural evolved environment all that work would go directly from a man to the resources and back home to the cave, and as he aged he would be less able to be accomplished because without money he cannot save the proceeds of the work he does today for the future. He may have got a social standing as an elder in the group, but only through exploitation would this give him access to women. Today a man age 18 will have hiss time and energy siphoned off for 20 years, then he may have saved enough or worked his way up enough to be considered today’s version of accomplished. There is no way that the more primitive part of the brain would suddenly switch to women finding older rich men attractive because it evolved in a more early time, a time when many did not survive to old age and where storing wealth was not a thing, your wealth was in what you could achieve in the now and still is really. This system steals everyone’s true wealth, energy is richness, skills are richness and your own creative potential is richness and we are forced to trade them all for less then they are worth.

The system is designed so only a few men do become accomplished, most become labour factories that won’t get all the things in return for being socialized into masculinity that’s promised, so today they give free internet porn and soon they will produce all kinds of sex machines via robotics. If there is a war the decision will be made by older men and those who fight it will be young men and some women, those who appose it will be more likely feminists. War is a symptom of instrumentality being directed against others, and it assumes the thing fraught over matters more then the cost of the war, it assumes ideas created by older men long dead matter more then the lives of the young. There were times in evolutionary past where people fought for the limited resources needed to live, they fought to live and that’s justifiable. But when war reaches the stage where the resources we all need to live are destroyed in the process of maintaining power and domination over other and over how they think or live it’s not justifiable. To kill to get resources that make your life easier or to get resources for people who will be your decedents and don’t exist yet is not justifiable.

Patriarchy’s gender system acts to separate men from their emotions and natural connection with others, all the things that would get in the way of them wanting to both rule and kill others. Men are not born masculine, they are made to do so and in the process their true humanity is destroyed. And it’s replaced with an illusion of individuality and independence that comes at the cost of women. Men who are seen as too soft due to retaining many of their expressive traits which make them more connected and caring towards others are bullied until they become hardened and withdrawn by other men. They are made to feel like they are not a real man or even made to think that somewhere along the line some feminist stole their masculinity, they are set up as an example of what will happen to all men if feminism reaches its goals.

Patriarchy created a world where we have to fight to be free, have strength to navigate the world; because it created a system where no one has the freedom they are born with. It created a world where having once been dependant on a female body for life is a reality that has to be forgotten and replaced by a story of a male god who made us all.

Men as a class know the cost of the masculinity system, and they have been willing to pay it. Having control over women as a class and over their reproduction and labour is something they are not going to give up without a fight. Feminism has made women less accessible on men’s terms, and it has made the pay off of the masculinity system less rewarding for more men, but it has not fully reached the men higher up the social system yet. They are the ones that benefit from the exploitation of all women and men economically below them.
Feminism cannot destroy the original essence a man was born with, but patriarchy can and does and masculinity is a symptom of this destruction, a sign a separation in self has been achieved. it’s a bit like weight vs. mass, mass stays the same, gravity determines weight and the patriarchy is the gravity and the gender system the scales, masculinity a measure of how much you weight under patriarchy. Your mass will remain the same when the gravity adjusts, when the measure of the scales are removed, if your strong you will still be strong, the essence of what you think makes you a man still remains, what changes is you don’t get to be more or less of a man based on what traits you have and what you do. Any capability you have in yourself will not be destroyed by feminism, what will is its use to further the current system or to exploit women. The exploitation of others should not be needed for anyone to maintain your sense of self, strength only in contrast to someone made weaker is not true strength. Power only because you have social permission to tell other how to use their own power is not true power as true power can only exist in the self and rest in the ability to be in full control of the self. True power cannot exist in a system where people don’t know the boundaries between self and others, where connection is used to control and people don’t know the difference between being effective and using other peoples power. Winning that depends on someone else losing, success based on another failing are only comparative forms of success that exist as a measure on patriarchy’s scales. True success or accomplishment is in creating something that stands in its own right regardless to what someone else does, and where how rich you feel is not based on how poor someone else is. None comparative value is hard to imagine, because we live in a hierarchical system where things have value outside their actual properties and also where that value is tied up in competition with others.

Youth vs. Money.

If everyone was young, youth would still have value, and it brings with it the possibility of more energy, less chance of disease, longer life. Most people would rather be 20 then 80 no matter how many other people are 20.

If everyone had the same amount of money and lots of it then money would lose all its value. If everyone had all the food and water and shelter money could buy then food water and shelter does not lose its value because it’s still needed. Others having it do not make you want it less or make it less appealing.

If everyone had the same social status, then social status would not exist at all. Power over others could not exist at all. Exchange could exist because everyone’s mass in the world would still consist of different things, some strong, some nurturing, some creative some adventurous, people would not be weighted based on the traits they contain and assigned a value as a man or a woman. The things achieved would be valued for their use, not who made them.

Patriarchy produces a system where one is expected to trade the things that have true value for the things that have false value (social status and money). Men under this system are socialized to get these things directly, and women are to get them through men after being forced to trade reproduction.

This is a system that had to end.

Masculinity Revisited

Gender critical feminists and gender abolitionists view masculinity as male dominance or the role allocated to men to maintain their dominance over women as a class. Masculinity as a social system has to be destroyed to liberate women from male domination, but does that mean we have to give up wearing blue, watching football or having muscles? Does it mean we can say that all the traits associated with masculinity are destructive, and can’t exist outside of male power or any form of power? As general rule, most instrumental personality traits (Individualistic, Proactive, Motivated, Active, Analytical, Systemizing, Directional, Opinionated, Self Motivated, Aggressive, Strength, both physical and of will, Directness, Humour, Leadership, Competitiveness, Drive, Practicality,) are coded as masculine and encouraged in males/ discouraged in females but naturally can occur in most people. Besides being allocated this trait set and the skills and interests that go with them, males are also allocated more social power which persists in the absence of these traits and interests.


The colours pink and blue have both been associated with masculinity at different times in history, and have nothing innately in them that attaches them to sex, so its likely this will be more about personal taste in the future. The problem lies in making things blue to point out it’s for boys, or with making things that serve a function that has been associated with a task allocated to males in the past blue to mark it out as not for girls. Outside blue and pink the issue of making things aimed at men in deeper colours and things aimed at women in pastels to imply a link with the personality traits expected of the sexes (strong vs. delicate etc or that the women’s clothes will be worn more indoors) or insisting things that are unrelated to the needs of the sexed body be made based on sex at all. Even delicate fabrics imply women will spend more time caring for the clothing, and favour look over function and not do activities that would tear them.
Physical strength

Physical strength is greater on average for males vs. females and because of this tasks that require greater physical strength are allocated to males and coded as masculine and in many cases paid more simply bc male are seen as first class citizens and expect more. When women with the strength to do these jobs appear they face barriers to accessing them and the pay that comes with them and women tend to be demonised for physical strength as opposed to society’s greater value for it passing over to women when it comes to something that will lead them to greater pay. So in reality actively trying to devalue physical strength its self because it’s associated with men is only indirectly hitting the problem because males are valued more when doing other things, if jobs requiring strength paid less they would be passed over to women and done in smaller amounts. There is no reason women could not build houses out of smaller parts and spend longer doing it… In reality physical strength is as needed as the things you want to do with it, and how much you value it depends on how much you need it and it’s not inseparable from stamina. There is no evidence that stamina is sex specific, and this is why jobs requiring it don’t get a pay hike, and in a sense it’s more important then strength. Humans as a group need to make best use of physical strength in ways that achieve shared goals, regardless of physical sex.

Leadership is something that is linked to masculinity and only valued when done by men, if done by women it’s always viewed in a negative light regardless of how it’s done. It’s assumed that because men have deeper voices, don’t have babies and are seen as more naturally aggressive they are more suited to this role. Under patriarchy leadership is power, and those who work under it are seen as below and in service to it. But in reality leadership is a task, the boss and the admin worker both provide a similar service, both are about structure and organization and both are needed for things to work and for the main workforce to know what they are doing, both jobs are instrumental but only one gets to make decisions and to hire and fire and only one is not seen as a servant, and that’s the boss (unless they are only a manager and then they are seen as serving the boss, never the workers). Without social hierarchy the manager and the worker are both in service to each other and on the same level, but management is still a needed task and someone has to make decisions and these decisions cant always be voted on because workers may only be working on one sector of the project and the manager has the full template of the whole thing. Without a structure like this big projects could not be completed if everyone had to work and keep the full plan in their head, so the need for managers will always remain, but the difference will be that they are not paid more, valued more have more power or be expected to be male.
Individuality and Autonomy

Individuality and being autonomous is expected more of men then of women and this is related to ideas that by biological design the male can go off and do his own thing as he takes a smaller role in physical reproduction, is more capable of looking after himself and is by nature more capable of getting to know the world and has less need for emotional connectedness. Being a man is about rolling on in life making your own decisions and facing the consequences directly and under patriarchy women are seen as part of that world and to be used. Men being individualistic and autonomous under patriarchy is not really a reality, its only possible to the extent it is when women as a class are making it possible, by doing all the childcare, cooking for them and doing many of the everyday tasks including managing men’s emotions and connections for them and even acting as a peacemaker among men to mop up when the competitive drive goes overboard. True individuality and autonomy would exist in a way that generates something that sustains the self and leaves some for others rather then depending on others to sustain it for you. It would mean being able to truly know and deal with the consequences of your decisions, on all levels including the emotional. Under patriarchy true individuality can never exist, because it separates the instrumental from the expressive and it means that individuality results in freedom at others expense rather then freedom that has a neutral or plus side impact on others. The question of if any human is capable of being fully individual and autonomous remains, because all humans are social animals with needs, but this does vary.

People by default should not be seen as owing others anything, but the line has to be drawn if the things they want to do under a stage of extreme separation affect others. At present men as a class when expressing individuality under the masculinity construct are not made to see the impact of their choices on women, and are actively preventing women from being individualistic and autonomous. There is one thing clear, no matter what path you are on if you are willing to obstruct another following a similar path something is wrong, if your going to do your own thing then others must be able to do so too and if they cant due to you needing them to do something else so you can be on your path, then it means your not truly on your own path. Its a bit like going out for a long walk, deciding where your going to go and also what your going to eat, whatever your going to eat has to be organized by you and cant be acquired by someone else having to stay at home and you angering at the fact they went out for a walk too, when you get home you must clean your own boots otherwise your walk was not an independent walk at all.
Clothing and Functionality

Clothing allocated to men or coded as masculine is usually thing that have a greater deal of functionality as opposed to just being things that have an absence of things that are ornament. Many womanswear items don’t have much about them that’s ornament but have little functionality built into them, and some menswear has ornament with no loss of functionality. Clothing also has things added to it to enhance features of the sexed body along side its functionality and ornament. It’s possible to find clothing that is highly ornament and fine like silk or high grade cotton in various colours but still retain the functionality associated with men’s clothing and if made to fit the male body in a way that plays up certain features the clothing will still be seen as masculine. The less functional it gets and the more the colours and patterns crossover in to current womenswear ones the more it gets coded as feminine. Womenswear which lacks ornament and is highly functional will still be seen as masculine even if cut to the shape of the female body, and this can be retained even if the clothing has some ornament added depending on how inline the ornament is with styles currently coded as feminine. Another factor apart from functionality that adds to clothing being viewed as masculine is things that indicate authority like ties or things that look like a suit or uniform of some kind, for this clothing to have that impact it must be in formal colours otherwise it won’t work. Often this clothing have things on them that have no function other then showing status, the embellishments are not there for ornament and because of that they serve an instrumental function as opposed to an expressive one. These could be stripes to indicate a rank, a tie of a certain colour or design and even colours used to indicate rank. Blue and pink when used to mark out children’s ties are used instrumentally and do act to mark out rank. When logos or fashions are used to mean something rather then for style they become instrumental and more associated with masculinity.

A lot of the clothing associated with masculinity now has a function outside the power dynamic and because of that will remain, there will always be people who want to dress more for function then ornament or any combination of both, and people who wear symbols to indicate meaning or ideas. What will change is how the clothing interacts, some things may remain for style like a full suit and tie would likely become a fashion item removed from its formal power association and made to fit who wears it in many fabrics and colours, it may become a small scale custom made item or it may vanish completely. What’s functional depends on what you are doing, what you need to put in the pockets etc and what you want it to fit you like. It’s likely a range of different ideas will emerge all with varying level of function and ornament. The function will serve the tasks of the time and the ornament the styles of the time, and not be linked to sex but clothing will still be made to fit the sexed body because of anatomy reasons, it just wont have sex based rules as to function and ornament. The concept of looking powerful socially through clothing will be gone, clothing that widens the shoulders will be just that, and exposed muscles will be just that, and there will be no way of showing social rank or status by clothing. In work colours and uniforms will persist for instrumental reasons of knowing who is who, and they will be wearer tailored and could consist of just a colour on the arm and then of whatever is needed to do the job leaving room for people to add ornament or extra functionality based on individual preference. Its likely rugged work wear will live on long after formal office suits because real world hands on tasks will always need doing and require certain clothing, many office tasks would be served better in a light weight cotton gown or some other fabric not made yet but not related to power over others because no hierarchy will exist .

Aggression and Competition

Aggression and competition can be grouped together when talked about as traits associated with masculinity because they are inter related and stem from each other. Both things exist as traits in humans to varying degrees, but having a social system where these traits are ideal and the driver forward is a product of patriarchy, without it these traits would take a back seat. This does not mean some people would not get angry any more or that people wont take part in races or contests, it means a social system that makes doing so necessary to survive would be gone.

At present most of the instrumental traits and tasks are to be done competitively as we live under an hierarchical social system, getting more then someone else is to be the life goal and its a result of a money system and patriarchal domination of resources. Women are seen as a resource so aggression and competition to acquire them towards women themselves or other men becomes part of the male sex role. It’s claimed women are punished for aggression and competition but in reality it depends on the direction it’s going in. Women who fight on the sides of men, or over men are not punished in the same way as women who fight men off. Women may should if they are shouting the tune of the patriarchy, but not if they are shouting for its destruction. Women may compete for marriage and men but not for tasks or jobs they want to do.

None conformity to patriarchy’s gender is a pattern of trait expression, not just simply expressing the traits in isolation outside context. A woman competing for social reward via a man vs. a woman competing for social reward in her own name and with aim of not needing a man will all be seen different. A woman who tries to bake a better cake then another woman is not viewed the way a woman who builds a bigger shed then a man next door would be, because competition is recognised more when its done in areas coded as masculine and its because the instrumental tasks are ones with more money attached to them and are to be done more competitively.
Gender non conforming in the land of no gender system.

Female gender non conformity always gets associated with masculinity because one has to cross over into territory coded as male only before they are seen as gender non conforming so from this a concept of female masculinity arises. The question of what it really is can never be fully answered but it’s clear it arises in many cultures, under many names and is related to the cultural construct of gender along with a tenancy to not want to follow the female allocated role. How its expressed is not universal, some women may identify as butch and be at their ideal when wearing a suit and tie and others will be at their best in utility hiking gear out in the woods and see themselves as a tomboy and its not clear which comes first the identity or what’s behind it. In the past when sex roles were more tighter then they are today it was more clear who was butch and who was not and there was more space to get labelled butch because women did not fix cars, women did not own there own car as often as men, women did not wear trousers or go hiking alone or watch football. There was a lot more things then just not liking pink or too much ornament in style of dress or liking functional clothing (functional in things coded as male activity which was most things) that women could not do as women and a lot more active things that could make up a butch sense of self, a lot more ways to feel useful outside the female role by doing things for other women that they would have depended on men for. The butch did not exist to do those things though, the orientation towards certain interests took her in that direction, and as a result of this it became part of who she was. Many of us don’t realize how much of who we think we are exists in interactive loops with the outside, we get feedback for functions we serve in society and these become part of our identity and social feedback reward system. Opening doors and carrying bags could become a part of the self we link with our sex or concept of gendered self if these things in society are coded by sex, and having the drive to do certain things outside of our sex role expectation could lead to getting no positive feedback and to a feeling of a pull to give something you don’t have instead. In this case the only option is to go off and focus on what you want to do, and except you will never be valued for the set of skills you have and over time they will go rusty or end up used for the wrong things or things.

Today there is less room for women to be butch in the way they could be several decades ago, but more room for women to fix cars without being called butch and more places women can wear pants without being called butch, but still many of those pants are without pockets. If a woman wore mans pants bc they did not make as many options for women several decades ago, today she may be wearing women’s pants but if it was for another reason like deep pockets, price or quality she may still be drawn to men’s pants because these things still have not changed, they may have worsened. Its likely that when clothing no longer display ornament, quality or function based on sex they will still have shape differences due to anatomy and you will still get some who for whatever reason want to cross over still and get the male shape because they want to, so a shadow of gender non conformity could still be seen in individuals but it wont mean nothing to others only to the wearer and it wont be recognized as gender. How much it’s possible to see some as more like the opposite sex will have to move onto physical features and when hairstyles and clothing are not as uniformed it will be hard to spot which females can be profiled this way, whatever natural patterns form will form. Women will still have babies and periods and breasts and have to accommodate this factor in terms of how these directly limit certain activities, but society won’t impose limits on women because of them. A woman may decide she wants to fix her breasts in a way that will allow her to run faster, to reject reproduction and to wear the squarer cut of clothing but it will not matter. You could push the limits of biological sex and it would be your body and unrelated to your social position, there would be no trait link up like now. So you could be really strong and muscled but not seen as ready to fight or less nurturing or even expected to be nurturing, because these are all traits that are used for different tasks and we don’t need to be bound to the same task all the time. Being able to do one thing does not mean you can’t do other thing.

At present gendered traits do a minus and women are seen as one dimensional, some people are one dimensional and naturally have a few strong straits and interests and focus on them, and are punished for the ones they lack in relation to their sex role more then what they are celebrated for the ones they have in relation to their sex role. Without the gender system and its sex roles it would be harder to be gender non conforming based on traits or interests.


Could Trans men exist in these times? And what would Trans masculinity be then? I think its possible, and if it did it would not require the same social transition, and its likely the changes in the body would be seen no different to the changed of going from child to adult, or young to old, the place the person is plugged into the social grid would not change, their value as a person would remain the same. They would just be changing their biological direction. People still may confuse sexuality with what’s left of sense of sexed self and any identity around it, maybe in these times we will find out what Trans really is when all the social baggage has been removed. Many gender critical people say Trans will no longer exist past this point, but im keeping the possibility open. All the traits I have talked about can all exist together with trait currently coded as feminine, the way forward is to look in the pink and blue boxes as there are things in each that are needed to make the complete picture. Building a post patriarchy will be as instrumental as it’s expressive and to do it all the tools need to be taken back from its sex role constructs.

The here and now

Things that are coded masculine or things that only men do need to be looked at what is achieved by doing them, the aim should not be to bring these things down to being worth nothing, some things are in the blue box because they are important and allocated to men as a result of that because women are seen as not capable of doing them. Power needs to be redefined as something that is not used against others more as an energy used to achieve a goal and goals have to be things that don’t involve subjecting others to things that are in conflict with their goals, or trying to convince them there goals are to be subjected to things that disadvantage them. True achievement is not something that looks like progress just because someone else has been held back, strength is shown in what you can do with it, not in relation to someone else who has less otherwise its meaningless outside power dynamics. The properties of something remain, but its value is subjective and this is how the traits that make up masculinity will exist post patriarchy.