On Cissexism: To Not Be Cissexist You Have To Learn To Be Sexist.

3 Examples of Everyday Cissexism

This approach is the article above wrong one, it misses the point of the fact most people are not miss gendered, but are still punished for breaking imposed sex norms. The fact imposed sex norms exist is the problem, what needs to be challenged is imposed sex norms.

For example when a person is doing things social sanctioned as masculine people check to make sure their male, that’s a problem, regardless of if the person born with a female body is actually a trans man or not. Under the cissexism political assumption what should happen is if the person identifies as male they should be allowed to keep on doing the thing they are doing, and the physical sexed features marked female overlooked. This is fine by me, but the whole point is even if they don’t identify as male they should be able to carry on doing what ever it is they are doing anyway, and the sexed features should still be overlooked. The very reason why they want to know peoples sex is so they can check their chart and make sure you are acting inline with sex role scripts. Sex role scripts are enforced by men as a class to control women as a class for reproductive purposes. In other words the eggs and wombs and control of them by the sperm carriers are what the sex role system is built around, and this does not change if you move the definition of who can be called a woman or man off which set of reproductive organs a person has. An identity outside of the usual “cis” line up does not remove you as an individual from the structure everyone has imposed on them, it leaves you stuck in the turbulence of the wind that blows across us all at some stage in our lives and aims to shape us all into sex roles. Masculinity and femininity are the products of that shaping despite these traits being fluid and present in all, people have to aim for the full set.

Cissexism as a theory does not know the difference between biological sex and sex roles, or between sex identity and sex roles. It puts the culturally assigned clothing, behaviours and mannerisms in the same basket as hormone induced biological physical traits. It’s a baseless theory that sounds good on paper but leaves everyone in a limbo of not knowing what markers one is allowed to use to describe sex or gender. It is also a biological essentialist theory that says it’s ok to assume masculinity and femininity is innate and everyone should identify inline with these, but its essentialist to talk about biological sex or use the terms male or female in the context of how they are used biologically to describe reproduction in most other species on the planet. It also pushes most transsexuals off a cliff, despite it being a theory supposedly there to protect trans people. It has no hope of any real political direction because it refuses to name the source of the real problem and that is patriarchy. It refuses to look at biological sex, sex identity and the imposed sex roles and see the reality of what everything is about. Instead it’s gone and put them all in one box and shaken them up then stretched them out on several spectrums’ which are also baseless.

How about we start applying the same language across the board, to trans men and trans women by telling them they don’t need to have dysphoria, and they don’t need to have medical intervention because there’s nothing to be dysphoric about. There’s no female parts or male parts, and no female and male hormones, it’s all a cissexist lie. Tell them if they can’t live their lives free from dysphoria in the body they were born in, they have internalised cissexism because by the act of wanting to transition they are making a link between gender identity(sex identity) and body parts. Every MTF who wishes to have a vagina constructed is by definition saying vaginas are female, and just reinforcing cissexism. The whole of trans as a medical condition is cissexist, and there to ensure that the cissexist binary remains intact. At this point biological sex is meaningless and the only thing that exists is gender identity and gender identity has to be communicated some how. This is where cis turns cissexist on its self by stating cis peoples bodies communicate their gender identity for them, but this only works because we associate certain physical traits with a certain gender box, and if we didn’t then it wouldn’t. If cissexism was abolished then transition would not be a path to communicate gender either because those new parts would not mean anything anymore. To communicate gender identity to others society has to remain cissexist and gender enforcing because it must keep assuming those with breasts, and certain fat distribution are women and it must keep assuming those with broken voices and lack of breasts or features that indicate testosterone driven puberty are men. The only other alternative is a tight sex role system where everyone must dress a certain way and stick within masculine and feminine behaviour codes that way every masculine person is assumed male and every feminine person assumed female regardless of biological features. That means there will be no room for most people to exist, the definition and expectations of each set of people will be tight and if being missgendered causes dysphoria in the way many today claim then we all will be held in a tight box of gender performance just to get gendered correctly. The only way left to communicate gender identity if parts mean nothing, would be through culturally constructed appearance and behaviours that everyone would have to universally agree was for men or women (an extreme version of now with no biological back up). And which by default make being a man or woman a concious effort that no one could really prove or disprove, and everyone would be there constantly comparing everyones gender performance to themselves in a constant state of uncertainty. Meanwhile people can still be grouped into two main biological classes with different needs and bodily functions that wont go away or change, no matter how one acts or dresses.

The good thing about biological sex and anatomy as a marker is no matter how you behave in everyday life, it remains there unchanged, you remain a male or female whatever you do. Despite living in a society that tells everyone who acts outside the expected scripts they are less of a man or woman, are trans, gay or whatever else they can come up with to push you back into compliance. Masculinity and femininity are things dependant on constant performance from a script we are all taught from day one, and for most people performance from this script becomes automatic and is reinforced by subtle backlash all the time to keep people inline. It’s the wind of male domination and a wind you can feel as privilege if you identify with where it wants to blow you and start walking in that direction. When you turn around to face it you feel its full force, in the form of social exclusion, taunts, obstacles in your path, tone arguments, stares that sink into your core, physical aggression and sometimes death. Anyone born with an anatomy reason why they are not physically male or female have to be placed on one side of this wind, and usually the side they predict they will do better at sex role script preformance. Many have had surgeries preformed on them when young who cause them physical problems regardless of if they identify with the sex assigned or not. This is because they want to make them all as suited to heterosexual intercourse as possible as this is the core of what sex role scripts are based on. The expectation all will fall into an heterosexual pattern and all those assigned male will be dominant in the sex act, in the home and in the wider world over all those assigned female. The reason for this is control over reproduction and this is why sexed organs are what sex roles are based on. Asking for it to be based on identity is asking for it to be a choice, its asking for an end to the sex based hierarchy that makes it not a choice. The whole system was not set up to make life fun and so everyone would get the right toys and clothes for their brain type, it goes way back before people has time to think about these things.

Compulsory heterosexuality is one of the key overlooked reasons behind most of what is considered to be gender policing, and the reason for compulsory heterosexuality is maintenance of the sex based power hierarchy. Today’s in the queer community linking of sexuality with how one presents genderwise is taboo and this means a lot of key information is being lost. Gay rights activists long ago made a link between societal expectations of behaviour and appearance along with the need to mark out biological sex as a product of heteronormative society. They went on to reject those expectations in a stand against the social structure not to express an inner gender identity. Many gay men cross dressed for political reasons, and many lesbians rejected the expectations they should look a certain way and the male gaze that came with looking a certain way. Today trans activists are grouping gender non conforming people through history under the trans umbrella as personal expression and erasing its political meaning. This is in a large part out of the need to find an history for trans people, and its having a detrimental effect politically for women as it removes everyone who broke the rules imposed on women from being women.

A good part of what’s considered masculinity is power play with other men and about proving themselves as dominant patriarchs. The end goal is to be with a woman and in times gone by this meant being head of the house, and in full control. Many gay men did not and do not identify with heteromasculinity because they don’t want the end goal, but they still are pressured to comply with it. Other gay men comply with it fully because it’s how they can get ahead in the system that requires men to out do each other with force and dominate and rewards men who do so. Historically the only way women could survive was via a man who did well in the system and she was not allowed to display the behaviours needed to get ahead in the system or do anything other then her sex role. This problem still remains and is reinforced in a different way, today women who display certain behaviours are told they are less attractive to men and this acts as a deterrent for many women. Even if women dont want to be with men they still find men control their acess to resources via employment and are still enforcing compliance with sex roles on them. This is one of the reasons they assume that women displaying certain behaviours are lesbians and its why women who are lesbians or less bothered about pleasing the male gaze for other reasons are more likely to display gender non conforming behaviours but still are aware that doing so disadvantages them in other ways economically. When they do reject imposed sex role standards they get accused of being masculine or butch and today even trans, the underlying message remains the same, and it’s that certain ways of acting are for men only and these ways are normally ones linked with assertiveness or force in any sense. Even the clothing the sexes are meant to wear differs more then in just colours and styles, most of those aimed at women act to obstruct natural body movements and activities and in general make the body less functional and able to get things done. It’s not just about displaying the body of women but about constricting it and even in the days of modesty women’s clothes were about constriction not just covering certain regions. Women’s clothes are about making life more complicated on many levels and to remind women of their place as an object for the male gaze.

What some queer theorists are asking for today is impossible because the fact we mark out people on biological sex is why we have gender rules, and if we stopped doing that there would be no concepts of masculinity or femininity to base gender rules on. All that would remain would be transsexuals and everyone else would just get on with being the way they want without labels like masculine and feminine put on certain traits or behaviours they display, and without punishment of approval for being inline with sex based behavioural expectations. Human personality is restricted by sex based expectations and this contributes to an internal sense of gendered self. People are even expected to use their voices inline with the scripts despite the vocal ranges of most people overlapping regardless of sex. Speaking lower is viewed as dominant and higher as submissive regardless of the natural pitch, or if your voice has been broken by testosterone because fear rises vocal pitch. In a sense women are forced to speak close in pitch to children, throughout history women were treated similar to children and held less power then male children socially. As women gained more power economically definitions of feminine got more pre pubescent and it’s because women are being diminished in another way so they don’t appear a threat to male dominance. When people transition and try to learn female speech patterns they are learning with it all the social scripts there to stifle female speech rather then just learning a vocal range. The hair free image of womens bodies is a construct, along with long hair and certain body shapes being female.

Categorizing behaviours and appearances as masculine or feminine is sexist, it appears that to not be cissexist people have to learn to be sexist. The impact of this is already been felt by butch lesbians who can’t seem to go anywhere under the rainbow without being assumed to be trans or gender queer. The message this gives is a sexist one, because it tells her she has broken the allowed appearance definition for a woman. To avoid coming across cissexist and assuming she is a woman simply by being female(or having certain parts) and not declaring otherwise she is assumed to be a man, by how she presents. This is wrong on all levels because it erases all the work of feminism that aimed to free human females from imposed femininity, and has worked for years to change society and move the definition of woman outside of sex role expectations. Its simply put things back to square 1 and resulted in women being told that being a woman is something they have to work at, to assume biology will do is to be cissexist. It’s no longer ok to like the functionality and style of men’s clothes along with its activity promoting nature and lack of objectifying details. It’s no longer ok to want the short cuts men have and to take part in strength training, because if you happen to be a woman and seek to do all these things together, then you can no longer be seen as a woman and will be assumed a trans man. The female body means nothing and can’t even be called a female body, and the same is true of all others who can no longer mention their female body in connection with being a woman.

Through the back door all women are being forced to identify with femininity once again, but no one is telling men it’s not ok for them to identify their penis with their manhood.

It’s Not OK: Positive Discrimination Has To Go.

(Taking into account needs of groups of people is not positive discrimination. Taking into account womens needs around pregnancy is not positive discrimination. The definition of positive discrimination here mirrors benevolent sexism, not the current manosphere definition of positive discrimination)

-Its not ok to attach stereotypes to groups of people even if those stereotypes are seen as good things.

-Its not ok to say by default of being female people are more caring, nurturing, co operative or evolved.

Its not ok to say female is the default sex and closer to human( I had a trans woman tell me this in person, it stands as an example of positive sexism in gender theory and any female who breaks these codes gets seen not only as less female but as less human).

“Ladies first” is not ok.

It’s not ok to be sexist if you can claim you’re not saying anything against women.

It’s not ok to claim a female brain loaded with desire to perform patriarchal sex roles exists, just because you’re saying it’s superior to the male one in “some areas”, because this is nothing new. Women have always being seen as being better then men in some areas, better suited being co operative with men in their oppression and the oppression of each other. Better suited at nurturing the patriarchal culture and the children of men in it, and more evolved after the dehumanising construct of ladyship has been internalised.

It’s not ok to raise the value of the traits assigned to females and then accuse females who don’t internalise them of devaluing femininity, and being misogynistic. This sums up how sex roles are delivered today and it’s not ok.

It’s not ok to tell a cleaner they should not devalue the tasks they perform when they aspire to be a manager. It’s not ok to say some people are better suited to cleaning toilets and scrubbing floors, because those jobs need to be done by someone so the skill should be as valued as any other and the simple act of refusing to do it is an act of devaluing it. This is what’s being done to females today if they refuse the sex role allocated to them. It’s a common theme for libfems and queer theorists to call gender non conforming females misogynistic, and accuse them of devaluing femininity and this mirrors what patriarchy has always done. Patriarchy has always told women they are manly, self hating or even that they want to be men (have penis envy) for rejecting their allocated sex roles. The female sex role has always being valued by the men who are the beneficiary of it, just as clean toilets have always been valued more then the act of cleaning them, or the person who preformed the act of cleaning them. Under patriarchy a woman’s body is viewed the same as a toilet when it’s in its natural form, it must be decorated, scented, shaven and painted and then its valued more then the person inside it. Men as a class value getting their children cared for fulltime for free, they value a clean house and food on the table much more then they would value actually doing the tasks themselves, and much more then they value the person doing it for them. Today the patriarchy values being able to slot females into certain service roles in the workplace, which are inline with the same sex role expected of women in past decades exclusively in the home.

Naming customer services and other service orientated jobs as being female skill set jobs is not ok. It’s not ok, even if men are taking up those jobs and claiming to have the female skill set. It’s not ok to reinforce the idea females by default are here to serve others, or are born with a skill set to do so.

Its not ok to have a pink collar section of the workforce, because blue collar is not a reference to sex any more then white collar is a reference to race. It may be that many blue collar workers are men, and many white collar workers are white men, but the collars are in reference to social class/status. It comes as no surprise there is a pink one because females have always been put in a class of their own. Pink collar erases all other demographics and just groups females by sex, under the female skill set. Social class under patriarchy was up to recently always measured on the income level of the male, women were always economically neutral and in their own class of woman officially. Women’s social status was always relational, depending on being the daughter or wife of? Today women’s social status rests on the female skill set and how well she performs it, this is no different in today’s workplace to yesterday in the home. Womens earnings contribute to social class status today though, often in a way thats used against them under inter-sectional politics. Now women can be called white, middle class and privileged officially under their own merit and as evidence they are no longer oppressed.

Its not ok to blame feminism for the rise of female skill set worship, because female skill set is only a code for female sex role conforming woman. Feminism wanted to free women, not just from the home and low pay but from the obligation to look, act and behave a certain way based on sex. The response to true feminism from the patriarchy was to say that these women no longer wanted to be women, but what it really meant was these women no longer want to perform the female sex role or in better words these women have found they don’t have to perform the female sex role. See, in the past unlike today most people knew their sex role was something they had to do, most people on the far right today will tell you the same. Those people don’t believe in any gender spectrum because they know sex roles are a social script(this is why they are still anti trans), but at the same time they insist on them being natural, much like getting up in the morning and eating the right foods. They insist the right way of living is in traditional sex roles, but they know humans can live other ways just as they can eat and sleep other ways but the ones seen as more healthy and natural. They view sex role non conformity in a similar way to someone sleeping all day and waking at night and living on burgers, possible but unnatural. They will insist modern living allows humans to stray from what’s natural but doing so is still against nature, and they only apply this to things that suit them. We all know that sleeping through the day and eating junk food makes people feel crap after a while and humans as a group function better when they wake early and eat more natural foods. Going against nature in this way produces health problems for individuals in a way gender non conformity doesn’t, infact the reverse it true. What fails to function when sex roles are broken is patriarchal society. The reason society became more chaotic in some ways as sex roles changed is because patriarchal society is still here along with the expectations people fit those roles. The way resources are distributed is dependant on people forming into those roles to be able to survive. There are jobs and roles aimed at men and jobs and roles aimed at women still in today’s post feminist workforce, and they come under the guise of female skill set “not in it for the money” jobs. Patriarchy has simply made a corner for women, more so middle class women who in past generations found their way into feminism due to having the means. Many of these women think they are free, because benevolent sexism along with positive reinforcement of the female skill set has made it look like the struggle for equality was all about personality traits and gender expression. Talking about economics goes against the female skill set, women are told they are being the thing they want to abolish in society if they talk about economics too much. This is one of the reasons women still struggle to negotiate pay, its outside the female skill set expected and for a rea$on. Its a right wing thing to talk about wealth and resources, not cool to complain the clothes one is expected to wear cost more to buy and expire quicker then the ones men wear in the same setting. Today’s middle class female skill set “lady” is meant to base her identity in those things, and to not value them is equivalent to devaluing being a woman or wanting to be a man. The only thing left to do now is to turn around and say “if i wanted to be a man i could be and there would be nothing wrong with that” but this again is more positive reinforcement on another level. This is part of how so many females end up forming identities around gender, taking the misogyny that is really there to devalue you and putting a positive spin on it. Telling a patriarchal man you could be a better man then him is always tempting but does not solve the problem.

Talking about economics and biology is something you can only get away with if you’re a men’s right activist, and only if you are accusing women of being highly decorated resource traps by nature. Talking about biology as the reason for women’s oppression brings with it accusations of siding with the patriarchy by saying women’s real value is as baby machines, along with those who insist females have never been oppressed but femininity has.

It’s not ok and it will never be ok until patriarchy and its gender has been completely destroyed. Patriarchy is a real physical social structure not a way of thinking or cosmic battle. All the ploys that are here to distract us from physical reality are here to distract us from materiel inequality and oppression in physical reality. Positive thinking wont make it ok, expressing yourself in transgressive ways wont make it ok and pretending its all an illusion wont make it so. We can all imagine a toilet is really a diamond if we could only see it that way, and be happy to polish it but it won’t make it so outside your own head. The notion women are free today is no different, and it’s not ok.

The Eternal Triangle in response to: The Enemy of My Enemy Also Kinda Sucks

The Eternal Triangle

Trans activists condemn radical feminism and patriarchy for equal but opposite positions too. This is like a triangle effect, with all three sides having over lapping things in common, but being very different and having a total different world view. It’s hard to resolve because most things are between two sides, with different and opposing ideologies.

In much the same way as queer theorists and queer activist’s group radfem together with patriarchy, members of radfem group trans activists with patriarchy/conservatism and men’s rights activism. Men’s right activists can be assumed to be the voice of the patriarchy, and they tend to group trans activists and radical feminists together. They see them as being after the same thing, because to them both trans activists and radical feminists want an end to gender as they know and want it. Abolition of the sex role system, or an end to how sex is currently classified, would still bring disruption to traditional sex roles. The patriarchy is not gonna run a system where the category of woman is made up of feminine identified people, and allow people with the capacity to get pregnant to identify out of that class. Men’s right activists are learning to use Trans and radfem against each other whenever they can, while they are at it they can frame any feminist as an anti trans feminist, and it appears to act to shut them down. It appears that wherever one stands on the three sides the other two sides look closer together, and none of them are. It’s just a case of all three ideologies looking like they over lap in some way, and all three having a different idea what the system is or should be.

Below are three examples of what i think a revolution based on the ideals of the three main ideologies would look like.

Example 1: A Radfem Revolution.

No more gender system in terms of masculinity and femininity categories, but biological sex remains. Marriage is abolished, and women get full rights over their body and lives. The sexes are treated the same socially from day one, and females are recognised for their biological bodily needs just as males are. Females get to define from their own subjective angle what those needs are, rather then having them defined by males from an onlooker angle.

To patriarchy this is the end of being able to assign females to a subclass forced to base their mode of living in the world around male desire for access and control of them, and their reproductive capacity. The seat of the patriarchy is with traditional conservative men who want things to go back even more then now, back to the stage where women are wives and mothers only, and in lifetime marriage contracts with one man. A radfem revolution means no hope of that at all, ever again. The main generational chain of the sex role scripts is forever broken, sex roles are no longer passed down from mother to daughter or father to son, and instead evaluated and thrown out. Under patriarchy this is the generational chain, and it depends on sex roles not changing much between each generation. They depend on the survival of the patriarchal family structure, where males are head of the house and pass this role on to their son. Once the generational chains are broken then sex roles are harder to put back in place. When men lose power as a class over women it’s harder to re organise and regain it, because it took generations to establish. A massive revolution now would probably break the chain and the patriarchy knows it, the men’s rights movement along with the rise of the far right is a symptom of this knowing.

For genderists a radfem revolution sounds like a moving around of the power bases, a transition to a new social system that does not leave room for them to identify around gender identity, or out of biological sex categories. It looks like everyone has to live in the bodies they are born with, and no longer able to call themselves men or women (or other) based on self identification because the platform to do so has gone. This looks like a transition from a “gender binary” where more power exists at the male base, to one where power is evenly distributed between the two, and anyone in the middle is still stuck, along with anyone who wishes to move their identification from the one “assigned”.

The problem is the definition of what it means to be assigned a gender is viewed differently by genderists and radfems. Radfems view sex as something that is determined at birth, and gender to be a social system that assigns masculine and feminine roles based on sex. When a baby is born checking to see if it’s male or female is important, because the body has different medical needs and develops differently at different stages, even apes sex their young. Not sexing infants would be failing them, because it would be failing to provide them information about what will happen to their body biologically, regardless of anything they do socially. We look down at our own bodies and sex ourselves, and living in each sexed body is a different experience regardless of culture. Running the same track wearing the same clothes will be a different subjective experience in each sexed body, and growing up is a different physical experience in each body regardless of culture. It’s hard to know how much of that experience would be changed if culture was changed, and people were not treated differently for doing the same thing as the other sex. It’s hard to separate body feedback from social feedback, and see the true source of the dysphoria. The thing that makes this hard is the sex role system, and this is the thing that would be abolished in a radfem revolution. Its possible less people would get sex dysphoria after the gender system is abolished. This is because all the sex based feedback for behaviour would be abolished, and people would find their own individual limitations rather then be told them. It may be the sexed anatomy’s different limited expectations give different feedback, and some people will still not be happy with this and develop a sense of sex dysphoria. These people should be free to make whatever modifications they like, even if that includes transition.

It can appear like the body is a prison and you need to change it to be you, while not be able to see the chains hanging over that body which are put there by the patriarchy and coded pink and blue. When you get close to being you, or doing something outside the rules of the sex role scripts they pull the chains, and it feels like its the body that’s a trap. When the body is changed they stop pulling on the chains because now how you act is inline with what’s expected or a closer fit, it can feel like the new freedom came from transitioning but could be that more gates are open, or they are no longer putting obstacles in the path. If in some people sex dysphoria is a natural fact of human biology and not a result of the chains of sex role scripts, then the only path to addressing it is the destruction of the obstructive sex role system together with recognition of biological sex as real and the basis of that dysphoria in those people.

Most genderists have a different idea as to where the chains are, to them a social system that stops them either medically transitioning, or living in role represents the chains, and from this angle a rafem revolution looks like the chains are intact or tighter.

The radfem argument is that the reason we label out the sexes with names like man or woman and assign them different roles is because of patriarchy, and the “need” to know who is who so the power and oppression flows to the right people for the job. Females are given a code of behaviour that aims to make them more agreeable, and boys are given a code of behaviour to make them become dominant men. Boys learn from men that they are the dominant class and what they must do to retain that power. Some individuals fall by the wayside, but the majority fall into the pattern enough for males to retain dominance over females as a class.

When this system is destroyed social identification of sex in the form of behavioural expectations and roles will go and physical sex differences will remain. The genderist argument is that experience in the sexed body is subjective, along with gender identity and it will remain will when the system is abolished. To a genderist gender itself is not constructed, its boxed off into the two constructed categorises of biological sex, which turn gender from a spectrum into a binary. To a genderist the system is created from an assumption that the natural order is a clear cut male or female, and anything else is an anomaly which must be corrected. Genderists will insist masculine privilege and not male privilege is what holds the system (patriarchy, gender binary) together, and they will insist its femininity itself as a section of the gender spectrum that’s oppressed and not females. Some will insist the reason for female oppression has nothing to do with their reproductive organs, and is because they naturally possess more feminine traits, and these traits that are oppressed on some cosmic level. Genderists fail to see the error of this because if this was true we would be living in a very different “gender binary”, and gender would be assigned in a different way to what it is now, way lot closer to the genderist ideal yet under a system of oppression very much like now. The difference would be that all those assigned to the class of woman would be people with traits and expressions assigned feminine rather then people with a certain set of reproductive organs. If femininity was the oppressed thing they would want to make sure the person was old enough to be screed for signs of it before they were assigned social privilege or power, to avoid risking it being able to hide our and take charge. Oppression is not about suppressing anything, it’s about extracting something and the sexed bodies mark out what’s extractable. Those with bodies marked biologically female are forced to behave in a way that makes access to those bodies easy, and this is ingrained while young. The real truth is the patriarchy wishes to socialize out of females anything that would make them more likely to refuse the subservient role assigned to them based .. yes on their junk. The junk matters because people with vaginas in most cases have wombs attached to them, control of these is the purpose the sex role system was created.

It is highly likely though that after a radfem revolution society will careless about who is a man and who is a woman and what it means for others. People wont be taught they have to do a certain script based on biological sex, so wont be looking out for those braking the rules they are living by. Women bodies wont be subjected to the patriarchal public gaze, so the main reason for enforced visual gender presentation checks will be removed. It is highly likely there will still be a space to identify as whatever you wish, and do with your body what ever you wish. Getting everyone else to except you for it wont be possible, but it likely wont be needed in the way it is now, because society s eye wont be on people based on sex or sexed appearance as a primary thing like now. It will be the same situation with sexuality, when people are not watching or caring, then coming out or staying in the closet will be meaningless from the perspective of others. If gender dysphoria or subjective sense of gender holds any possibility of surviving a radfem revolution, then it will do so free from all the chains.

Example 2 A genderist revolution where the “gender binary” is destroyed.

Here categories of male and female are not automatically assigned, all traits are placed on a spectrum and everyone is understood to be on that spectrum in a way that allows a person to be high on both masculinity and femininity at the same time or low on both regardless of what parts they have or desire to have. All labels in regard to gender are personal and subjective, and people don’t assume peoples gender or pronouns by any method other then asking or waiting to be told. In much the same way we don’t assume peoples name by just looking at them, gender is no longer assumed. People a free to change it at any time, and the organs of their body are no longer seen as sexed, or linked with identity. It just happens that approx 49% of the population have penises, and another 49% have vaginas, most of the people with vaginas have ovaries and a good proportion of those can get pregnant. The hormones and the effects on the body are looked at from the perspective of effects and side effects on other systems, and understood as only factors rather then as sex norms, and even the concept of a sex norm seems barbaric. The idea of a normal level of hormones is as taboo as saying there is a normal way of dressing or acting. It appears like for most of human history people were divided into two groups based on one endocrine gland set in the body, and assumed that outcomes would be similar for people based on the presence of hormones being shared. Any needs individuals have because of having certain body parts are now addressed as an isolated thing as opposed to a sex grouped thing. Its not assumed anyone with a uterus has a pair of breasts(or that breasts go in pairs), or a certain way of looking or going about the world. When a person goes for treatment regarding their uterus, lack of any of the mentioned things does not mean they don’t get what they need for the organ in question. Biological sex is now reduced to a set of traits, not a grouping of two basic plans. How much of this will be a medical disaster or impossible is hard to fully prove, but i suspect it will lead to lots of conditions getting missed.

In society many people are dressing for the activity they are doing while working, no one is given less suitable clothing for the job because of the shape of their genitals. No one is given or excluded from jobs based on any assigned social category based around their genitals or other biological traits. Male power over females cannot exist officially here because no established assigned sex category exists for anyone. Everyone self defines their own gender identification and pronouns, all expectations of people based on biological sexed organs have gone. Society appears to be evolving close to the radfem ideal of society in some ways when it comes to sex roles, the sex class of woman has been abolished along with male power. This is because women have been abolished. Only those with true sex dysphoria medically transition here, and transition is a subjective thing where the person adapts their body to how they want it rather then on the previously abolished concept of what parts go where.

After this revolution it will take a few generations for people to adjust, more so in the sexuality compartment, and the results of this will prove once and for all if sexuality is a construct or if its innate. Will it move along with the new definitions of gender, or will it still continue to look for a set of biologically sex features. In a sense its no surprise genderist theory can appear conservative, its easy to draw a line through being asked to not look at the persons junk when factoring in sexuality, because both traditionalists and genderists have asked this, but from a very different angle. In a sense genderists solve some problems, because in a true genderist world going around the street marking out people as sexy women based on physical attributes will be taboo. Not because its objectifying, but because you did not stop to ask them if they identify as a woman, or even if they are wearing that dress as part of a feminine expression or a masculine one. It will force mysogynists to actually think about the person as a person on some level, rather then a passing target marked out for such treatment.

In this genderist future the patriarchy as a system has been broken, but misogyny has survived the break and is still being directed towards those who can get pregnant. The fact biological sex is no longer grouped as a category of people makes it hard to record how people are living, and covers up the fact most people with the ability to get pregnant are doing all the child care, and are still poorer. Once people know peoples pronouns or what junk they have things change. Most of those with less physical strength also have uterus’s and no allowance for this biological factor is made, so in athletics they very rarely win and are more likely to be the victims of violence regardless of how they dress or what they call themselves. The system is a more advanced version of the equality system we have now, only with more gender options. For every door that closed to misogyny another one opened. Radfem have completely lost the ability to use most of their language, and class analysis is impossible because there is officially no sex class named woman. The genderist system has just made it harder for misogynists to find their target, created more obstacles in the path and made it look like things got better for a while. Until misogyny finds a way around the changes.

Example 3 Return of full control to patriarchy and re-establish traditional sex roles.

Sex roles are recognised as a necessary social system needed for the structuring of society and the welfare of children. Gender conformity is viewed as a moral obligation. Gender non conforming people are viewed as immoral and selfish, a disease that will lead to the downfall of society. How some radfems view trans people is how traditionalists view all those who break out of sex roles, selfish, disordered and going against nature. All those born with male biology are socialized into traditional masculinity with the expectation they become men of the world, and fathers and husbands. All those born with female biology are socialized into traditional modest femininity. They have to remain chaste until marriage, bear children and tend the home. Work outside the home can be done only in the form of charity after marriage, unless she is widowed or has the money to afford childcare. Women prior to marriage may work in low paid sex assigned roles, and must live under the rule of their farther. Contraceptives are only available to married women at the husbands discretion, she cannot use them to refuse to bare him children. Only heterosexuality is legal and no one may change their gender unless undergoing all the surgeries possible at the time, and following a strict social role program. They are not allowed to marry someone assigned the same sex even after transition. There is no equal pay acts; the sexes have strict dress codes. Women cannot stage a divorce, rape within marriage is not recognised and domestic violence is allowed.

This scenario will not suit radfems or genderists, this is how things were not so long ago and still are in many parts of the world. This is what men’s rights activism truly wants, and it’s what the far right wants. Its what we may all go back to if we spend much more time arguing about trans vs radfem issues and defending gender theory at the expense of radfems.

The Trick Patriarchy Used to Disarm Sistership.

If your a patriarchal man and you have a big problem on your hand with a pack of women who are not interested in gaining the approval of men anymore and want to enter the economic world on the same equal terms and even change it to new terms. This group have made some strides, they have an equal pay act and they are pushing to enter fields that were in the past just occupied for men. Everywhere you turn women are favouring each other (yes this was how it was I remember it) and have the ability to put aside competition for men and aim for other things, infact many women at this time have transcended the wish to settle with a man and some are turning to each other. They have freed themselves from caring about the things that have long been used to oppress them, like beauty and fashion, unlike the days when women would fight over wearing the same dress these ones want to wear universal fashions that are functional. These women are not going to hate another woman BC she is in line for the husband of their dreams BC a husband is not in her dreams.

This was some of the motivation and thought behind the second wave, rejection of the system that made women compete for the best home and husband. Middle class women who in the past were kept, wanting to step out and take to the streets along with working class women and fight for shared issues. This was what happened despite what many will claim today.

So how as a patriarch do you destroy this energy, how do you turn them against each other and make them untrusting of each other. How do you get the general consensus on how females interact to move from the co operative tend and befriend which was put as the reason girls were doing better at school a few decades ago, to today’s theory of relational aggression and mean girls as the standard model. How do you get the women who are not motivated towards getting men to join in too, to the point feminism dies and many women don’t want each other around in work places or even bully them. I was only born in 81 and I remember a different era.

The answer is easy,very easy. What you do is create a situation where they once again have to comply with the same impossible standards of beauty and femininity that women were held to in the past to acquire a husband, but this time around it has to be done so it is required even by women who don’t want to seek male approval. For those women it will be an unfortunate side effect, BC as they comply every man on the street will assume it’s for them and  want to be harassed.

What patriarchy does is embrace feminism for a while, set up programs to get women into all the male dominated sectors and feminism feels like it achieved something. All the sisters are happy and they get a buzz every time they see a woman succeed, infact in this area they exceed men who just feel envy at each other. See the class analysis thinking makes every woman’s advancement class advancement. I remember these times when women in groups were happy every time a woman out did a man very much unlike the situation of today’s side glance.

Patriarchy knew it had to destroy the spirit of unity which existed (for real even on the street for a great number of women), a feminist was a good thing to be every woman would smile at the sound of the word, unlike now as now it triggers a source of shame. People look around when someone says the world, almost like you just threatened to blow up the nearest hospital or confessed to being a distant cousin of Hitler. There’s a multitude of reasons why this is the case well beyond the point im making here, but all are related to it in some way.

So what certain blow does patriarchy have to deliver? Easy, start factoring in beauty and femininity when you allow women into all these new positions they have worked to get into. Women will learn that to get any of this new found freedom and not be dependant on a man, they must still aspire to be what men want and they will still have to view other women as a threat even if they don’t want a man or already have one. That’s because now they know they can lose a job they held onto for 20 years because the boss decided he wanted a younger woman to look at. Even worse from that younger womans (probably un political) perspective she is just taking up her new rights and has no idea as to the reality. Now women know any great skills they have cant be used under this new system if they don’t work on their appearance. Women lose pay for weight gain and lose jobs for not wearing heels or make up to the interview. Womens dreams of a non man reliant life is threatened by other women, for things they cannot control. Older woman find they have no economic security despite having years of experience and are close to ending up out in the street because most of the simple jobs are going to younger women.

Women notice the rules don’t apply to men, they’re working in top offices when over weight and covered in acne, women are young and slim or put out of sight. Women in high positions are the ones who could wield most of the feminist power, but now they find  promoting other women risks being displaced themselves. Times were much more easy in this regard when the old misogyny wanted no women in these positions or jobs, because that way women could all be on the same level platform regardless of how appealing they were to men. Now it does not matter if a woman is a sister, if she is inline with the male gaze it will act as a selection method she has no control over and it can lead to women losing in positions where men would not lose to other men. The old sexism told women they were not capable of many things, the new sexism tells them it does not matter all that matters is their looks. Looks are something that goes down over  years, skill improves over years, skill is transferable and looks are limited in how they can be improved.

Now all young girls learn that beauty is more important then ever, yesterday lack of them would reduce ones chances of marrying, and for some that was not the end of the world. Today one cannot even get through high school if they don’t get the appearance thing right regardless of what skill they got. Now the foundation of true sister-ship is destroyed because women cannot step out of being a threat and survive a new way. She goes to get a job BC she needs a job, and she is selected on unfair means which can displace other women who have spent years working hard. In the past a woman could look like a model and have the ability to steel any woman’s economic future by taking their potential husband and refuse to do so, and many did. Today women just don’t have the ability to opt out or even know they are opted into a system where they have become currency and where women know each others value just by looking. The days when the attractive woman in the office was the one who might marry one of the top men and vanish are over, instead she may be the one who gets promoted to the job you want or need. Women are not in a position where they can forgive or except that, because it’s an unacceptable position for any human being to be in. Women even find that as they age the treatment they get accessing goods and services to spend their self earned cash changes. How can they build sister ship when they find other womens get an easier time just going shopping based on how they look. Looks have always mattered for women but not to the degree they do today in everyday life.

A small problem is the fact women may get catcalled on their way to work BC of how they are expected to look to keep their job. For many women this is all they recognise to be misogyny, the rest just appears like normal life.

Patriarchy did it; it once again made it necessary for women to comply to survive, it put women in the way of each others escape and made them forget they are all trying to escape from the same thing. With hyped up evolutionary psychology it can convince us all women are out to get each other, and its all about men. It can sow seeds of mistrust between women, and talk about how women are catty, vain and superficial and it’s in their DNA. Sistership is sure to be long dead and forgotten, never to infest the minds of the young again. Within a generation supporting other women will sound insane, and one sure way to be an idiot. Infact women by this time will be going to men thinking they need protection from other women who are out to destroy them, more so the ones deemed attractive and they will think its all down to the things described in evolutionary theory. Many women who are trying to get economic security without a man will be seen as doing the reverse BC they have to do things to please men to get a job.

A false meme has been created and it’s the meme that women naturally care about what men think to the degree they are willing to destroy other women who get in the way of it. This is not true and it has never been true, and it never will be true no matter what evolutionary psychology says. When it comes to economic security thought, which is actually protection from men things are a lot different. A woman who is seen as a threat to another woman’s economic security no matter what that economic security is will react and do what she needs to do to survive even if that means ensuring the woman is outcaste.

Interestingly enough third wave feminism and the ideas it promoted acted as a direct obstacle to challenging the new sexism, and instead it pained attacks on beauty or concepts of femininity as attacks on women. The reality of the situation though is even if all women abandon beauty practices, some women naturally fall more inline with the male gaze and it’s not realistic to expect every woman to dress similar and downplay things they naturally have. Some women will always be younger and youth is one factor patriarchy plays against women, its not one that can be thrown off. Collective abandonment of fashion and beauty wont stop this approach patriarchy is taking, because it will still select based on naturally occurring factors that all women wont have. Plus sex role socialization and its effect on personality traits becomes ingrained and patriarchy will always select for traits in women which act to stop people getting ahead.

I have no ideas as to how to fix a problem like this, because its one of those things one just can point to and say for sure it happened. Women can never really prove they lost a job or pay for appearance factors to someone else or that someone was promoted over them for such factors. But all women today know it’s a reality on some level, all know that they don’t have the option of doing very much outside the male gaze and that the male gaze has in recent decades seeped into the refuges feminism created away from it.

Patriarchy Was A Decision Not A Need

A question that I have been asked a few times is if gender does not exist naturally then what makes men oppress women, what in them that makes them decide to construct gender. The answer radfems give is it’s a construct based on reproductive biology, and this brings to them accusations of biological essentialism, because it’s seen as saying reproductive anatomy influences how we think. This is not what is being said, what is really being said is how men think about reproductive anatomy influences how they behave, patriarchy is a decision that was made by men as a class in response to the differences in the way the sexes reproduce as opposed to an innately driven consequence of it. Patriarchy is a decision rather then an impulse a bit like the decision to stock your cupboards with food because you know you need to eat. We are not born with an instinct to stock our cupboards with food, that is a learned strategy of dealing with the management of the need to eat, and it’s an alternative to many other things like going out every time you need to eat. We evolved under conditions where we needed to hunt or gather food with little room to store it, but we learned to store it and process it and we pass that information down every generation. If we left a bunch of humans isolated from the modern world and its tools they would have to grow up and relearn how to gather and store food again, including what was safe to eat and not to eat. This information is not innate and neither is the learned strategy to manage the need to reproduce.

Patriarchy was founded on the fact men by biological design are not able to know the parentage of children, women by design are able to know they are theirs and can know for sure they are also someone else’s because left unrestricted they and only they know how they have had sex with. This is a fact of biology and nothing to do with gender, it’s simply because the baby emerges from the woman’s body. The only way males could get this same level of certainty historically was to restrict the woman’s sexuality and movement. It’s a product of males choosing to compete for scarce resources or possibly being forced to do so by the fact they were scarce originally but males as a class founded patriarchy to ensure control of women not to compete with each other. Men ended up having to compete with each other for resources because they needed to have full ownership of all resources to ensure women could not access them. If they were to restrict women’s movements then it was necessary to own land and build roads where movements could be seen and restrict how women could use those roads. This is why rules exist about women riding bikes, driving or riding on horse back now still in some parts of the world and historically in the west.

This is what explains it all, and it does not say men are born pre disposition to make this decision it says they did do and build a system upon it that became ingrained. Sex role scripts are the enforcement of the behaviours needed to maintain that system of limiting female movement and agency and enforcing male domination of resources. The knowledge has to be passed down every generation, only thing innate is the sex instinct and reproduction results from it naturally. Humans have a developed brain that allows them to plan for the natural events like eating and reproducing and because of this they have an advantage over other animals because they are able to ward off the environmental ups and downs that would get in the way of reproducing and eating but how humans do this is a decision that is ongoing. Men as a class always had a choice they could have stopped caring about parentage at any time and started sharing resources, and today more then ever they have a choice and the decision of patriarchy has remained in place. Today men can determine the parentage of children but they still control women to exploit them for wants.

Women’s movements were not restricted because men cared about them so much they did not want them to take risks or be killed, it was to reduce the opportunities women had to have sexual relations with other men or to refuse them with all men or anything that was a threat to men being able to own a woman for their own guaranteed use. One thing that makes the patriarchy confusing is how women are so guarded and also so abused, and this is why. Another thing is how men don’t want women taking space up in public, but when with a man they are given all the space they want its easy to put it down to men wanting all the world to themselves but that is not where its fully at, it boils down to the fact if women are moving about alone then no man has fully certainty as to where the woman is so if in public she must be giving off cues that tell the men her body movements are restricted and she is restricting herself. While she is restricting herself she still must be visually available to males but in a way that says she is still not free and this is why so much of what women are expected to wear display and restrict the woman’s body at the same time. Women’s bodies are meant to be like trays with things on that men take when they want. Historically women have been made to wear shoes that restricted movement in various cultures, ranging from shoes too flimsy to leave the house to foot binding. Walking bare foot is easier then most of the shoes made for women. Heels were made for men first but as women wore them they changed to squash up the feet more.

Basically many things assigned masculine are only masculine because they did not want women doing things that made it hard to keep track of their movements. Women learn to keep track of themselves and each other, and to gossip about transgressions and this serves the patriarchy as both sexes are doing the same thing to women and women disadvantage themselves when they do it.

What exist today as gender is the reminiscent of a dark and oppressive system that is still operating but is not as structured as it once was but is still trying as much as ever. Today’s patriarchy is a roaring wounded animal knowing its unmaking is inevitable and doing all it can to delay or prevent it.

Patriarchy was a decision, a bad decision and one that has to be unmade by women reclaiming their right to be decisive. Women making decisions was always seen as a threat because she had to be stopped from doing so as if she was allowed to do so she may want to make decisions about her own body. The core of radical feminism contains within it a deep truth about the worst decision on the planet and how to unmake it. The gender system is what keeps the decision in place and when the decision is gone something else fill the space of the gender system and its sex roles, probably humanity’s full creative potential.

The Male Gaze and Women’s Space: Transcending The Inner Watcher

Women are socialized to depend or be depended on but they are not to be independent and know how to fill their time and energy for themselves. Women are trapped in a binary of the need to nurture and the need to depend and the foundation of a true strong woman is one free from this binary. A strong woman knows when to ask for help and when to respond to others requests for help. This is key to being able to go in your own direction and not obstruct the direction of others. This is how all get to be individuals without ones individuality being founded in the taking of someone else’s. Compulsive nurturing acts to obstruct another path by giving those help they have not asked for; it prevents others experiencing a lack, giving them no space to step into. Normally the compulsive nurturer does this at the expense of walking her own path and stepping into the empty space in her own life, instead she fills the space of others so they don’t have to experience a lack.

When you go in your own direction you experience aloneness because you make decisions without running them through the relay channel. Women are punished for acting without consulting because the social position of women in society is subordinate and subordinates must consult, they must not act like managers of their own time and energy, this is to be managed by men who view it as a resource they own. The wrath women can face from others for decision making and acting is the wrath similar to the way one who acts above station at work is treated, “how dare she“. How dare she reject the sex role scripts, how dare she recognise aloneness as space with potential, time she can use for herself and how dare she transcend compulsive nurturing and compulsive dependence and embrace her strength. How dare she remove the need for a man in her life, and show other women they can do the same. How dare she make us all see the reality of our oppression, and how dare she try and do something about it with out asking first.

Thinking, deciding and acting and effecting change in the world is instrumental, and women are not to be instrumental without running it past their oppressors. Acting in this way is part of growing up, women are denied full adulthood and are keep childlike in some aspects. Women are taught that when people step away from them they have done something wrong, to feel that space as aloneness and not see it as a call to step out in ones own direction. Women are told their duty is to maintain connections at all costs, through connection women are to tie themselves up, to de instrumentalize themselves, to feel and to not think.

Radfem theory says the male gaze goes beyond the surface of a woman, it is penetrative into her mind and it’s internalised as her inner watcher. How women view independence and individuality is related to internalisation of the male gaze as watcher. The inner watcher that tells you how to feel, it acts as obstructer to knowing the self. The male gaze views a woman who has transcended the compulsive nurturer/compulsive dependant binary as alone, not as an individual. This is because the male gaze sorts women into a mass, all the same to be stereotyped. Internalisation of this stereotype is essential to ensure women act like a de-individualized mass, their wants and needs shaped to reflect what men want and need from them. Their ambition must be to depend (wife) and to nurture (mother) and this is to be the fabric of how women move through the world even if they never actually become wives and mother themselves.

The watcher inside the woman will tell her she is the odd girl out, alone or excluded (normally by the other girls/women) as soon as she starts thinking outside of her social script and risks becoming an individual. Because of this women sabotage their individuality and progress and anything that makes others give her this space. Women are not to take up space in this society, and because of this women retract away from women that do. They retract away from women who are going off the charted course, so they don’t end up going off the charted course too. The woman who is acting out of script will feel rejection because of this, as the other women are unable to support her without taking a risk themselves. This is why a woman must transcend the binary she was socialized into, the binary of compulsive dependence and compulsive nurturing before she can fully reject the sex role script. Otherwise her need to nurture others and to depend on others will always turn the space she is given from potential to aloneness.
Some say strong woman is an insult to women, because all women are strong, this is in part true as all women are born strong and the patriarchy cuts them off from that strength. Strong woman is one who has opened a door patriarchy slammed on her and recaptured what was hers to start with, something that always existed within her and can act to wake up the strength in other women. She does this because she deactivates their internalised script, shows them a new direction. She does not do for them what she can see they are capable of and is not apologetic about it. She does not allow others to do for her what she can do for herself even people who have built their self worth around nurturing others. So she does not reinforce the incapability and self disbelief women are taught. Through this other women can transcend the inadequacy that makes them crave to depend and they can see it’s the same thing that makes them compulsively nurture to gain back the self worth lost in that inadequacy.
Over time the internalised male gaze is rejected, and a woman can for the first time find her own and experience life through her own eyes and look at the world for the first time. Look at the parts she has avoided looking at, knowing she has within the capability to change it and knowing it can be changed. Seeing the patriarchal roots of oppression is painful but it also brings with it potential, they can now destroy the very thing they were raised to both depend on and nurture.

A tale of two sisters.

What she is isn’t good enough, even if she is born female with the fully functioning biological package. Hated for being just that a female and prevented from becoming a woman on her own terms. She is to become an object, constructed and sculpted by the patriarchy and its tools. Put to sleep by constant pressure to be other, and othered by the world if she wakes up to be herself and demands subject status in a man’s world. Her mind is to be filled with inadequacy, her ambition to be tied up in inhibition from constant discouragement every time she shows sign of original thought. The discouragement will come in many forms through her life, in can be in the “let me do that for you love” from a strange man on a train or from the boy who says “you’re just here to look pretty” when turning up to a gaming event she was invited to.

Some girls view it as constant compliments and assistance, and are quick to put others girls down as ungrateful when they show ambition to do it themselves only seeing it as rejection of male wish to do it for them. The discouragement will become more overt, the closer a girl gets to the line created by the sex role scripts. At this stage it’s like a slap in the face “why don’t you start acting like a girl” or “let your brother do it that’s not a girl’s job”. The message is very clear; she will not be rewarded for doing the things boys are rewarded for. Maybe she will want to be a boy, like many girls do at some point. When a girl is placed in the tomboy box a clock begins to tick, in the first few hours while she is still young her parents may just let her be. She is the one who is expected to grow out of herself, she is the one who is expected to abandon all she likes or is good at, whose praise comes together with discouragement. That’s if she’s lucky, if not the clock strikes 12 for her almost straight away and she is forced into femininity and is never even given any time in the tomboy box at all.

As she goes through her teens as a tomboy with more liberal parents she finds society isn’t as tolerant and the onslaught of daily reminders begin, even if it means destroying the will of the person, it is to be done rather then let her become herself unobstructed. Through her teens the clock speeds up, conform now or we will force you. We will force you by making sure most jobs require conformity to gender in some way, by making sure you have no friends, by making you feel like a freak. Or by convincing you that you’re not even a woman if need be, anything but allowing you to reach adulthood as female and without the sex role script installed. If all this fails, someone will come to you directly and tell you to grow up and start acting like a young lady. This maybe your liberal parents at the age of 22, the ones who accepted you believing you would grow out of it as you went through college. This may be a strange man in the street that stops you to tell you how you should be walking and dressing. At that point the clock has struck 12; she can either conform and drink a sudden onslaught of approval from all directions or forever walk the line as other.

The one who changed

The sudden onslaught of approval she will get for giving in will be short lived. For some time you will receive compliments for everything she hates about who she has become, through this she will grow to hate complements. Her new way of being wont suit many of the things she likes to do, she won’t be happy but will be expected to smile more now then ever before as she is not some young tomboy anymore, she is a grown woman in patriarchy’s eyes. She will fall asleep as subject in her own life experience, just as all the other girls did long ago. She will be the one who says “I used to be a tomboy but I grew up” and by this means she became an adult woman on patriarchy’s terms. She may find her way into feminist circles, and be told how empowering femininity can be, especially the pornified version. All the time another like her has chosen to walk the path of other, for not conforming to femininity she is viewed as a failure and not a true woman by society under patriarchy. Here in these feminist circles she learns she did the right thing by changing and giving into the pressure. Here she learns rejection of her sex role is really the rejection of her own sexuality and power. Here she learns that who she really is on the inside is not accepted. Then one day she meets a woman who on the outside is just like her on the in, she is the one who walked the path as other, she never allowed the patriarchal wind of change to shape her. She does not fit in as well in the feminist circles, this is to be expected but what shocks her most is how she is viewed as a failure to feminism.

The one who resisted

They view her as conforming to the stereotype that all feminists dress like lesbians and want to be men. All while they join in with men’s anti second wave feminist and ugly feminist banter. She can walk away from feminism, feeling like her lack of femininity makes her somehow diminished and less powerful, or even under the illusion she is masculine. But everywhere she goes her gender non conformity is viewed in some way political. Despite all the rights women have gained over recent decades the one thing she can’t be is herself. She can be a doctor, a lawyer or a boss but an adult woman outside of the femininity script is still not allowed. Over time she comes to believe she is masculine and falls asleep under a different illusion, one where she thinks she has to become other to be a subject. She may at this point want to change her sex, thinking that’s what’s wrong. If she moves past this point, with a solid sense of masculine identity she may find a place in the world as a she or maybe a he. She has accepted her status as other, and through that she becomes a subject. She will then resist any attempts to tell her she isn’t masculine, as she has worked hard to attain that masculine sense of self. For her learning how her sense of masculinity has been constructed will be a painful one. Mean while her counterpart the one who changed is finding the minefield of femininity swamping her, and as she ages her privilege and status diminishes. Her power was an illusion, resting in her usefulness as an object in the male game. Now she sees what the old feminists (second wave) she met in her early 20’s were talking about. Both of them together went on the same journey, but took different directions and both arrived at the same destination. The journey of life as a woman in a time when all believed the lie of equality and thought they were free, the direction was the compromises they both made to navigate around a structure they both thought had long gone. The structure of women’s oppression through sex role scripts, a structure as hard and inflexible as ever, not a fluid continuum of self expression. The destination is the end of the illusion and the realization that how one dresses or identifies does not give them any real power or freedom to be themselves and it wont until sex role scripts are abolished.

In the end they realized they have both always been resisters, all women are resisters on some level, and all have to juggle being themselves and surviving.

Radical Feminism: De-Constructing Gender vs De-Constructing Sex.

Radical feminism is against the gender system and its sex role enforcement, and it’s completely for women having control over their own body. The way to dismantle patriarchy isn’t by lumping sex roles and sex into one box, and then de-constructing it. Sex roles are the product of  a hierarchy and structured around sex assigned at birth. If sex cannot be determined at birth, it is assigned by modifying individuals to fit the sex binary. Biological sex exists in nature, most humans are physically male or female, and a minority are intersex. The creation of a socially marked out sex binary is part of how the gender system functions, it lays the foundations for sex role scripts to be assigned.

Whats termed the gender binary has nothing inherently to do with biological sex. It’s a power structure, constructed by the patriarchy to assign roles based on sex.  The entire concept of masculine and feminine is based on nothing more than a socially constructed overlay, placed on top of male and female and its grounded in what the sexes are forced to do to keep the patriarchal system intact. Creating more gender options wont bring an end to this system, and they will only bring freedom of identity at best to those who fit them, true freedom of living will never be awarded until sex role scripts end for everyone.

The solution is to strip away the power structure completely, to stop socializing people into gender via sex role scripts. Everyone should be viewed as human first, sex second and sex identity along with all the things considered gendered now will be set free. At present we have a situation where man is one kind of human being, and woman is a different lower kind of human being there to serve man. If someone’s outside the sex binary and people aren’t freaked out simply because what’s in their pants may be different, it’s because they don’t know what’s up stairs in their head and are unable to know how to interact with them as a result. Society does not collectively have a template for seeing someone outside of the social boxes of man or woman. People changing their sex or being born outside the sex binary wont matter post patriarchy, it matters now because they don’t want to make a mistake when allocating someone to one sex class or the other and because people are passing through a socially created class system when doing so and this makes waves. The gender system has made biological sex political and that’s a fact outside individual control.

When radical feminists talk about sex as a class, and woman as a class they are talking about the class of woman created under patriarchy. The ones raised female from birth, and socialized into the subordinate class of woman. When sex role expectations are stripped away, we will be left with biology only. Most humans will still fit a sex binary, and will have different needs because of it, females will still be the ones having children with exception to a few trans and intersex people. The put it better humans with one type of biological system will still be the only ones having children, regardless of words used to describe it. It’s also likely some people will still develop sex dysphoria and wish to transition, but without sex role enforcement less people will develop a concept they have an identity incompatible with their biology. It will be impossible to have a personality incompatible with sex role expectations as there will be none so this layer of struggle will be abolished. This is because under patriarchy female biology and its capability is forced into a narrow box centred around reproduction and the sexed have to be clearly marked out. The patriarchy, its notion of man and woman and what it has to turn both sexes into to maintain the hierarchy, is not natural. Radical feminists are not going to remain silent on the fact that many are transitioning who would never have become dysphoric without the patriarchy. A lot of what is considered cisgender is a constructed illusion where people are living up to layers of expectations that are sex specific.

Pretending the biological sex distinctions themselves are constructed isn’t the way out of the patriarchy or its sex role system. The sexual diamorphic nature of humans very real, but the patriarchy wants everyone to continue to think their sense of self as a man or a woman is grounded in its constructed sex role based masculinity and femininity it continues to hold up as standard. Assigning a title to people based on biological sex distinctions is clearly constructed, and refusing to allow flexibility in this is clearly socially constructed. Its not clear if the human need to identify sex or have a sex identity is a product of this system or a product of human wiring itself. What is clear is there is no need to assign the sex role scripts, there is a difference between being called he or she (or other) and being told what to act like or look like because of it. Sex role scripts are an imposed direction based on sex, an obstruction to one charting their own course in life, ones sex identity, sexual orientation or gendural orientation.  Sex role scripts and the scripting of life based on biological distinctions clearly can go, and has to go.

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.