Value Shift

The concept that masculine and feminine things are a long-standing aspect of sex roles, which have value in themselves outside the sex role class system is a false one. Nothing’s privileged based on it being traditionally masculine outside of its presence in males. Women have never gain privilege by having strength or drive, all that happens is society tries to beat it out of them. These things are tools that only men are permitted to use, and once that rule is removed the things lose value. Whatever is associated with men gains status, when men of high status wore elaborate clothes and heels, those things held status and were considered masculine long before most of the things around today were. When men have cooked they have been chiefs as its considered a high status job, and one that women never did until recently despite cooking being assigned to them. This is because anything that was considered a trade was allocated to men regardless of what the task itself was, because men were traditionally allocated the role of provider. Any job in the workforce that requires a higher amount of skill and study was allocated to men, because women were seen as already having a full-time role in the home. In the past women spun and men weaved, because weaving required more time and skill and produced the finished product that could be sold. When weaving became a job to be done on mass by machines women filled those low paid jobs. These were working class women who worked bc they could not afford to live on one wage, and who by working represented a threat to working class male masculinity. It was seen as a symbol of them not being able to fully fill the provider role, and a reason to be ashamed rather than proud of working women. Women would be told they made their man look small by doing certain things.

The reason why strength is only allowed in men is because it allows someone to maintain dominance, outside that it will always be needed to do things. Many of these things have been jobs that pay well and which patriarchy does not want women accessing, lack of strength was an excuse to pay women less and over valuing strength was part of this. None of this explained why the most valued jobs are not manual jobs requiring strength, or why women were kept out of these too. Strength is not universally valued as a thing, it’s subject to rules based around sex roles like everything else. The occasional woman getting a pat on the back for being strong after lifting something is nothing compared to the lifetime of discouragement she will have had. It’s this that makes it impressive more than the act of her being strong, the fact she has retained it in a society that has done its best to ensure she doesn’t.

Things like interaction and communication are considered feminine but still are valued more when done by men, in public men speak more than women and women speak more in private. There simply are no masculine or feminine things, just things put in the two baskets and what gives them status is the power structure. Men have more status so whatever they adopt as a class gets put in the masculine box and given status, what goes in there can change at any time. Whatever skills are valued at the time go in the male box, whats valued is determined by what needs doing in the world at the time. The masculine and feminine boxes originally came from the divide between public sphere life and home.

By deciding to reduce the value of things coded masculine you just further alienate women who do those things, and leave the main problem intact. There is a constant push to keep women out of the things allocated to men, and this is because those things are part of a class system and once women enter them the things lose value and men move onto something else. The reason so many men care about women playing football is more to do with the change in how the game will be seen, rather than just caring about women playing sport. Once something is not exclusively male a certain manclub status goes from it. Once everything becomes unisex then the mechanism by which some things are valued more than others is gone.

Other examples apart from gendered things can be seen in society. Things associated with the middle or higher classes are  valued more until they get associated with people considered lower class, after that they are dropped. One example of this is how branded clothing has got devalued in the UK, certain brands associated with working class people and visible logos went away for a while. No matter how expensive they still lost social value in higher society, as they became associated with people who lived in council houses. Wearing a lot of gold jewelry became lower value than wearing discrete costume jewelry from a clothing store despite the difference in real value. This was a reversal on how it was before, where it was costume jewelry associated with lower status bc it was seen as all the lower classes could afford. Once affordability is removed a value system is still in place and this shows that redistributing wealth won’t fix poverty, because a system exists which is there to keep some poor and workable. The system just finds ways to get the wealth back, often buy getting people to waste their money on things that will quickly lose value. This can be done bc the ones running it have the power to decide what will lose value. Diamonds are abundant enough to render them valueless but value is maintained by keeping most of them out of circulation. Once the lower classes could afford gold and started wearing lots of it, the status aspect of it was lost so middle class people opted for style over value and took to degrading how clothes were worn rather than the price of them.  Style is another tool of the class system because its a subjective value system that soon can be changed when oppressed classes acquire it.

Most things have no real value outside the reason they are valued in the first place and much of this is because of it belonging to people at a certain social position. When people at a lower social position aspire to acquire the things, they find owning the things does not bring them more status, once they have them they mean nothing and the original power structure stays in place. Tanned complexion is another example, when working people had one from working outdoors, the higher classes did not want to be tanned. As soon as working people were stuffed indoors in factories and mills, they too were pale and tan’s soon represented time outdoors and leisure rather than work. A lot of what’s a status symbol depends on where you live and how much the various classes in those areas can access these things. A general rule is higher classes tend to mock any display of wealth by lower classes, and class status is retained even with loss of wealth. Middle class people who opt to live traveller like lifestyles still remain middle class and poor and working class people who come into money may still find themselves getting backlash when spending that money at venues catered to the higher classes. This is a dynamic similar to gender in many ways, and it represents how women who take on the things in the male class box are treated while doing these things, they have skills to spend but no one wants to serve them, and may look for a reason not to.

Gender Construction.

There have historically been two views on gender that could be considered social constructionist. The original one said sex roles were natural but sexed bodies, mostly genitals determined if  sex role development went “normally” or not. Simply having a penis meant that a male was predetermined to develop an instrumental personality and lack of one predispositioned someone to to develop an expressive personality. Having a vagina was not required for this, just simply the lack of a penis defaulted someone to female in outlook. Instrumental traits make someone take a systemizing view of the world, object focused and driven to explore the world, build and construct things.

The reason for male dominance according to this theory was down to genitals, later they started linking it to hormones, either way it was viewed as natural. Much of it was taken from freud’s view on sexual development where the phallus was seen as external to oneself, stretching out into the world and teaching the boy to look outside and explore.   This social constructionist take on gender is one used by the right, where sex roles are viewed as arising from normal development and they think this can be disrupted if children are not given the correct sex role behaviour or are exposed to homosexual content or cross sex behaviour. This is why the right are threatened by homosexual content or anything that breaks sex role codes being seen by children they believe it can disrupt their development. Transsexuals were seen as a product of failed development under this theory and intersex people are seen as people who can be fitted into either sex role just as long as the genitals are “normalized”. Anyone assigned male must have sufficient length to penetrate and the ability to urinate standing up as both these things are important for the male to develop the traits that are seen as developing in response to the phallus. This is because the basis of masculinity is the focus on the outer world, and dominance of it and in pursuit of women all of which is centred around the possession of a penis under this theory. This theory lead to them believing they could assign intersex people any gender they wanted and all would turn out fine(i.e masculine men or feminine women and het) as long as the child sees a complete set of genitals and can get a subjective view of the world via that lens. Under this model the traits of femininity develop in the absence of a penis, rather than in the presence of a complete female set of genitals. Anyone who did not have a functional set of male genitals or what’s needed to construct some will be assigned female and a vagina  made. In the past intersex people’s medical history  was kept secret for them because it was essential they did not know if they were to become adjusted sex role aligned adults.

The other social constructionist view on gender was radfems theory of sex roles being a product of the sex based power structure. It was not the lack of a penis that made girls take up less space in the world or less likely to want to go out and explore it, instead they were actively being prevented from doing so by sex role expectations. The reason men are socialized into having an instrumental role is because they as a class control the world and its resources and act to prevent women being self sufficient. Women do not develop less of the traits required to be independent from men as a result of their anatomy, but in response to being denied the opportunity to do so. This was all in a time when women did not pay bills or have many of the skills to survive on their own without an husband. Women were restricted to domestic spheres and kept out of public life and decision making, not bc they were incapable of doing it but because men wanted to dominate those things and keep women on a leach. The personality traits labeled masculine and feminine are believed by feminists to be naturally variable regardless of sex and via sex roles they become part of gender, the sexes are forced into modes of behaving which will ensure they fall inline with sex role expectations. According to feminist the main thing that makes women take up less space in the world is male dominance and violence, this can include stares, gestures, verbal abuse or discouragement or physical violence whenever a woman crosses over into what men consider male sex role behaviour. This acts to restrict the development and expression of instrumental traits in females and expressive ones in males. Those who manage to break through all the social discouragement will be considered masculine women or feminine men and this still acts to relink these traits and behaviour to sex removing these individuals from being examples of why sex stereotypes are wrong and just re stereotyping them.

Today brain sex theory is relinking all the sex role behaviours to sex and trying to say masculinity and femininity is innate as part of gender identity, what makes it different from the old naturalist theory on gender is the idea it comes ready packaged in the brain regardless of genitals and is so binding it will defy any social conditioning and emerge fully intact anyway. The denial of brain sex theory via social constructionist ideas via the naturalist gender theory or the gender critical one leads to one being labeled cissexist or even biological essentialist. The reason people get labeled biological essentialist is because all gender critical theory is viewed as the same as the original naturalist theory which insisted sex roles were a natural product of biological sex. This theory labeled trans people as products of failed sex role conditioning, rather than unbroken products of a unnatural sex role system. Gender critical social constructionist theory sees those who don’t fit sex role expectations as resistors or escapees rather than malformed  individuals who failed to identify with their sexed anatomy and pass through the natural stages of development.

The main problem with today’s brain sex theory is that it fails to separate masculinity and femininity from sex identity and by doing so it replaces one type of biological essentialism with another, and for this reason objecting to brain sex theory is not essentialist its the opposite. What brain sex theory needs to do is no longer include the instrumental and expressive personality traits, it needs to stop saying women are more nurturing and men are more aggressive due to the traits being wired in the brain. It instead needs to stick to the brain hormone and body receptor mapping stuff and leave personality out of it. Otherwise it just erases all the work of feminism by giving patriarchy another reason to continue upholding sex based expectations.

Instrumental and Expressive Traits, Patriarchal Sex Roles and the Harassment of Women.

Sex discrimination refers to unfair treatment aimed at a person because of their sex.  It can include not being able to apply for jobs or access goods and services because of a person’s sex, or being paid less because of one’s sex. Sexual harassment is part of sex discrimination and is  itself a form of sex discrimination, but it’s legally classed different due to it being directed at one person and of a sexual nature. Sex discrimination laws protect both sexes from harassment based on sex in theory, but in practice most cases of sexual harassment and most institutional sexism is aimed at women.

There’s  several theories as to why sexual harassment occurs, radical feminism and gender critical feminism views sexual harassment and sex discrimination as all part of the wider patriarchal gender system,  and say it’s a tool used to police the borders of sex roles. A recent study in 2012 (1) shows evidence this may be the case. It highlights  women who have personalities, traits and working styles which are instrumental are more likely to be sexually harassed. Instrumental traits are culturally coded as masculine, and include the traits needed for leadership and task orientated  jobs like science and engineering. Expressive traits are culturally coded as feminine, and include interactional and nurturing traits needed by those in traditional female roles centred around service and care of others. Women with instrumental personalities are viewed as a threat to men as a class being the ones in leadership and decision making jobs, and to men as a class having greater economic power. They are a threat to the concept of it being the male who should be at the forefront of building society and discovering new things, while women remain the ones who nurture society without having an objective view on how that society should be structured. This is because its the instrumental traits that are required to do many of these things.

Two other articles (2 & 3) give examples of how sexual harassment and harassment in general are used to police sex role allocated borders. One is about how women in israel are harassed on public transport for sitting in seats at the front of busses, which have traditionally been viewed as first class seats reserved for men. Women who wont accept second class place are referred to as uppity, the same language used to describe ladder climbing women in the workplace who violate sex roles by trespassing on personality traits and behaviours men have claimed as theirs and theirs only. In reality the personality traits towards the instrumental end of the spectrum are no more naturally male then any seat on a bus, they are just simply socially coded as masculine. Its comparable to seats being coded pink and blue and reserved for people based on biological sex. It could be claimed other social issues also exist in israel, but the same situation in a different form is taking place in france despite the drastic difference in living conditions, religion and culture. Sexual harassment on public transport in france has affected 100% of women. This  gives a clear message,  men view public transport and most other public spaces as their space and feel free to give women the message that they don’t have the right to occupy them without a man with them. In today’s equality era it’s easy for many to forget that not all that long ago women in the west were not allowed to travel freely on public transport, gaining the freedom to move around in public without men apart from regular shopping trips etc was a gain of feminism. There are still countries where women are not allowed to drive, ride bicycles or on horseback. Reasons given for this range from modesty to the possibility of harming a womans fertility. Women must depend on a male chaperone for transport, and in some cases must ask a male permission to leave their  homes. It was not all that long ago these things applied in the west, women were not allowed eat out alone (without a man) or get served at the bar in a pub. Its clear to anyone who wants to see, women as a class are oppressed by men as a class all over the world. In the west post feminist, women are still oppressed and the  nature of that oppression is being masked by other things.

Gender Harassment is a recent term used to describe the same power dynamics at play in sex discrimination and harassment of all kinds (4). Only it masks the power dynamics and reduces the harassment down to things that feed into identity based thinking. It also makes it look like sex discrimination and sexual harassment are two distinct things, when in fact they are related to the same thing. Its a case of anything using the word sex has to refer to something of a sexual nature, otherwise its gender. Sex discrimination was case of patriarchy first telling women they were not able to perform in certain jobs or it was unnatural for them to do so, and then following up by singling out women who go ahead and do so anyway for sexual harassment or other forms of harassment. The fact that some males get harassed by some women just shows that individuals are capable of that behaviour regardless of sex, it does not remove the fact that a behaviour is used as a weapon by one class against another. The fact that males are not favoured in the roles that men as a class have decided are just for women,  does not mean sex roles are an equal binary where power is equal on both sides. Patterns are more important than numbers when looking at how men use violence on any level to keep women in their assigned sex roles. It may be  in most cases men are violent to other men, for purpose of settling disputes or committing a crime to acquire property. This does not remove how targeted aggression is used against women to stop them doing certain behaviours or make them do others.

The other explanation for sexual harassment is that men are wired to seek out women who would make good mates. The same theory list these women as being the ones with traits socially classified as feminine.  The fact sex role nonconforming women more likely to be sexually harassed, despite having traits  they were told are not sexy or attractive in women clearly shows harassment is a weapon. Not simply something men can’t help due to their biological program driving them to select mates. If it was then these results should be the reverse, males would seek out and uncontrollably harass women with the so called “ideal” traits assigned to their sex. The fact sex role nonconforming women are targeted throws evidence in favour of the radical feminist argument, sex roles held in place by male domination rather than by naturally programmed desire. This also points to   Sexuality used as a weapon rather than an uncontrollable thing men have. women’s oppression being deliberate rather than just a product of sex difference. This means men have a choice in how they behave and can be made to change this behaviour and should be forced to do so. Its important gender abolitionists and feminists dont get distracted by all the rebranding and fragmenting of the behaviours of male domination, this can be achieved by still looking at patterns rather than labels or statistics.

How egalitarian men’s views are also influences their view on women in terms of personality traits and what context those traits should be expressed in (5). Men with more traditional views on sex roles favour women with expressive traits as partners and those with egalitarian view  don’t hold this preference and are tolerant of women with more instrumental traits as partners. What’s important here is this study shows men’s views on women in terms of sex role associated traits is related to cultural factors, not hardwired.

Examples of patterns.

What i’ve noticed one woman who is gender nonconforming can do things alongside men, and they will include her as one of the lads. More so if those things are recreational and dont give her access to much social power. A problem will arise if she out performs males publically in any of them.  In the past there was space for younger girls to be tomboys without receiving much social backlash, just as long as the grew out of it in time to get married and have children. Several years ago an article in the guardian asked where today’s tomboys had gone, and it’s sounds very much the same as the answer given to where all the butches went (6).  The answer is that today women when they grow up have more options to get out of sex roles, for this reason sex role conditioning must get stricter in childhood. As  result of this many who would have been left alone to live as tomboy or butch in the past bump against the backlash and their sex role behaviour becomes a focus point, many try to conform and others end up grouped as trans.
It’s only when more women want to join that male space becomes threatened, that’s because one woman can be opted into some form of masculinity and explained away, like the old day tomboy or butch. today women as a class have passed that point and now collectively are moving into male sex role territory. Just wanting to control one’s own body and provide for oneself without a male is considered trespassing on masculine territory because men as a class view womens bodies as theirs to own and control.  Lots of women can’t be explained away as tomboys or butch because if they are then the gender structure falls apart because it removes masses of women from doing the tasks men expect of them.

This may explain why before feminism it’s possible to look through history and find token women who were seen as anomalies but allowed to be that, the occasional woman scientist or warrior etc. They presented no threat to most women continuing to be wives and mothers, largely because most women were economically forced to marry and after they did there was no option to avoid pregnancy. Women could not refuse sex in marriage and this is proven by the fact laws against marital rape or domestic violence did not exist. Token women of the times were often women who had the option to still take part in education or work, either with money to pay for childcare or somehow avoid marriage and family by living celibate lives. Today token women have to be shows as exceptional in some way, or defective in some way. Whatever it is it must be outside what most women can achieve or would want to. An example is implying that to be president or prime minister one has to be able to rule with an iron thist, while also making it clear that any woman who can is not a real woman or is cold and sub human. Another is implying that any woman who excels in a male assigned area is somehow masculine, resulting in her being set apart from other women.

This is happening today with gender, if some females can be explained away as masculine/genderqueer or even trans male and given their rights and left to get on, then they can be opted in without them causing the rest of women to challenge their place in the system. An example is  a women who excel at maths or science can be fitted into the modern brain sex model and celebrated for having a more male wired brain, regardless of if they identify as trans or not. This in itself will allow that individual woman a route to explore he ambition, while at the same time giving a reason to the masses of women as to why most women can’t do something similar or why they should not want to. This reason becomes brain sex variation and works by leading most to believe that all the discouragement they have had has not played a part, instead their inborn brain has, It must have done because that other person got there despite all that. The same thing can be applied to lots of things, until the same sex role system as always is put in place via a different method. This is achieved by invisibilization of role models, once some women are classified or explained away as more masculine, further along a gender spectrum etc then all they do does not act to tell other women they too are capable of aspiring to be whatever it is. Instead it says this is me and im here bc of how my brain was built, one of those things etc. Often the othering of women as masculine is coupled with the othering of them as unattractive to most men. In a culture where women are told their sexual desirability to men is one of their most important traits, most needed traits to survive, it’s unlikely they will view anyone culturally defined outside that as a role model. It also leaves scope to question the sexual orientation of women who are sex role nonconforming. The idea is that young girls and women don’t question sex roles on mass,  at least not until they become politically aware and at a stage where they are more secure in themselves. By this time many will have already given most of their personal power over to the patriarchal system.

The othering of sex role nonconforming women and the placing of them in an undesirable box can only be done when there is only a few of them. When there’s lots of them men as a class move on to sexualize them. This pattern occurs whenever a great number of women break out of a sex role norm together, an example is the increased objectification of women after each wave of feminism.  In reality its the manifestation of mass sexual harassment of women as a class by men as a class, and it plays out in the form of violent degrading porn, street harassment and workplace harassment including sexist dress codes.

Its important politics does not follow the line of agreeing that certain things are masculine and women interested in them are masculine too. Its important that the term gender harassment does not result in a reinterpretation of things . An interpretation that what’s really happening as discrimination against different gender expressions,  rather than the policing of sex role territory by men as a class against women as a class would further act to invisibilized women’s oppression and reduce it to an individual identity struggle.

The fact that women with instrumental traits and personalities coded as masculine are harassed because of sex role violation does point to the possibility those who identify with gender definitions outside their assigned sex role will get caught up in this political struggle and receive more harassment, for a reason to do with sex roles rather than how they identify. This policing of sex roles via harassment is likely the route of what many genderists and identity based thinkers are up against and refer to as the gender binary or cissexism. Thats because it is the core reason why the spotlight is on biological sex and sex role behaviour.

Screaming Queens is a film about transgender and gay history which highlights police hostile and sexual harassment of drag queens (possible transsexual women as many transitioned) and also highlights how the movements of these people were restricted(7). It was sex role nonconforming males who were prevented from leaving the locality where they worked, as prostitutes and female impersonators. This is an extreme version of how women’s movements have been restricted and it was only applied to people who were considered sex role non conforming in appearance. Gay men who were associated with the same scene were not prevented from leaving, unless they were physically considered “effeminate” or were cross dressing. Most were economically disadvantaged  because they broke masculinity codes, and that’s likely because if males who had personality traits socially coded as like womens could do certain jobs, then maybe women could too.

1 http://www.psycholawlogy.com/2012/07/05/uppity-womenprimary-targets-for-sexual-harassment/

2
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Insult-embarrass-harass-uppity-women

3
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11545643/100-per-cent-of-Frenchwomen-victims-of-sexual-harassment-on-public-transport.html

4
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-gender-harassment.htm

5
http://www.academia.edu/2897533/Instrumental_or_Expressive_Heterosexual_Men_s_Expectations_of_Women_in_Two_Contexts

6
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/dec/27/tomboys-girls-family

7

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

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/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.