Jane

Hi, new here. [though I have read off and on]

I come from that Radical Feminist camp [years of study/and I still advocate on women’s rights issues] so I’d like to address some things here. Because there is some error. First of all, feminism has so many different schools and waves that is it really an overstatement to suggest that feminism means unisex. There are segments that are more of the ‘degender’ or unisex however, they are I would say, more the minority than the mainstream. You have to also take into consideration the huge disparity between class and race and how all those factor into feminist thought.

The issue with the whole ‘unisex’ argument, I would say has more to do with the Debate within feminism of just HOW much gender is a learned construct opposed to biological determinism. And the fact is, they have some valid and Proven points because many differences [and this applies to males too] are in fact, Learned behaviors, they are NOT biological. The problem with the over dependence of the biological argument, i.e. that women are emotionally different and so forth is that it gives more weight to the comp justifications.
There has been too many studies proving that differences are in fact, learned by how children observe the world around them. Now, does that mean that there isn’t any biological differences?
No, I don’t believe it does [though many feminists would not concur] however, here’s another problem with the whole biological determinism.

And its not in addressing patriarchy but addressing the truth that women can be abusers. There ARE women who abuse including sexually their children, there ARE women who do NOT bond with their children and who are more masculine in that they tend to be more masculine in their thinking. One of the issues I had with the whole biological determinism while Working among feminists was over this very issue because Radical Feminists [of the more goddess mother] absolutely Refuse to see that there are yes, women who are just as evil and who are not maternal by Nature. This causes a lot of problems for women [and men] who are survivors of female violence including sexual and not only that, we are seeing this issue cropping up a lot in domestic violence in lesbian relationships. Many who are biological determinists will claim that their violence is only a ‘transfer’ of patriarchal mores,
I strongly disagree. Being a survivor my self of female abuse [mother] and my brother is also a survivor I can Assure you, this fantasy of the biological ‘nurture’ weak woman Madonna image is complete bull.

Not every woman is that way, just as not ever man is born a rapist and a blood thirsty machismo killer. The problem with the biological ‘differences’ argument is that it reinforces patriarchal ideas.

On the other hand, yes, you are correct, the whole insistence that we are all neutral and gender is ONLY a construct leads to in fact, I would insist, to a more sinister misogyny because it appears to me that the ‘unisex’ that is more desired is in fact, the male sex. We have seen this in forced de-gender policies in communism and other eugenics/fascist porgrams.

Forgive my poor writing on this issue, its been a LONG time since I’ve written on it and my use of terminology is rather poor, that and its late, but when I was working on research for a thesis on this, I noticed a couple of flaws within both arguments. I tend to be of the both nurture and environment school rather than an either or. Also I think, that the gender tends to be more in ‘stages’ rather than preset from birth, allow me to clarify.
We know that childbirth, for the most part, but NOT always, does change women’s emotional state. They yes, are more vulnerable, etc., this is nature’s way of assuring protection for the child, etc. But a woman is not this way prior to birth, and even prior to puberty we see that boys and girls really do not differ that much Unless there are strict gender roles being taught/or are in the culture. After children are grown women tend to tap more into the neutral side again [my observation] and in older age, more like to the way they were as children, where gender is concerned. I have seen this in men as well, again, I believe a lot of it does have to do with mores and gender constructs here.
While I do not agree with the whole anti-biological and therefore we should deconstruct all roles [which is by far usually anything to do with feminine and is another form of misogyny–and I have a theory on this in regards to the whole GLBT lifestyle, that it really is the final completion of misogyny and that patriarchy/comps have really more in common with the misogyny ‘male favored’ traits/norms within the GLBT community.]

Anyway while I strongly disagree with the whole deconstruct gender ideologies I do have to say we shouldn’t dismiss either the role that constructs do play in gender.
To do so is to actually reinforce the justifications used to perpetuate female inferiority and male dominance.

In my studies on violence, male violence included to mob violence I have noticed that those traits are learned, that the whole argument of males having more testerone (sic) therefore they are just by nature prone to violence to be false. I believe that has more to do with culture than anything. Boys Learn violence and male power [where many feminists disagree with me] and girls learn passivity. One evidence of this is that we are seeing far more youth crime among females. Or is it, that we are paying more notice to it?
There has always been female madames and females who abuse so this rise of female violence can’t be something new, due to culture. I believe its always been there, just like in men,

but that gender constructs have made it possible for those facts to be hidden or dismissed as mere anamolies. (sic) The Bible too goes into this in the curses for disobedience in the OT where it says that with the fruition of iniquity men will abuse their women and women will eat their young. Is it that environment causes this or is it that those traits are Already there and as sin is passed down and laws eroded [lawlessness] the true nature of humans comes out, and that nature is more surely, not gender specific or biologically different because of gender.
And I believe we really should look further into this because the fact is many women are violent, there were women in Israel who were trafficking other women and having them gang raped/and used in sex slavery; there are women who pay to rape via prostitution [fact]; there are women who abuse and rape children, including their own [fact]; there are women who are just as violent and heartless as many men [fact],

and there are men who are very sensitive and nurturing [fact]; there are many men who are passive and who do not like violence nor war [fact] but they are not efeminate. (sic) There are men who are better mothers than women [fact].

BY nature, not because they learn to be. So my point is that there are some truths to the arguments that the way we Define gender can be bias based on preconceived gender mores or roles. In many countries men cry and are not in any way hesitant to show it. In many countries women do all the work and are stronger physically.

While I do not believe that humanity and most surely government should dictate gender or degender by force, etc., that doesn’t mean that we should continue to perpetuate these beliefs that put gender into a box.

As for God, I have questioned Him a lot on this matter, and the OT does say, He is not a man. However, I believe that in both scripture and in Nature, His creation, does reflect a lot of who He is, and I do see both male and female traits, and in nature the females often defy our so called biological gender roles and males too. The seahorse, males give birth, the females in many animal kingdoms are the matriarchs and the strongest, and the dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it is the male, who bows to the female. I know, I have six of them and I hear/watch them all the time.

In the parrot kingdom the females are the more aggressive and they literally rule the roost, in most of the parrot kingdoms except for a few. In other words, in nature there isn’t any ‘gender box’ or biological box, in fact, many plants and one animal [a lizard] that I know of, create offspring by Themselves, they are some that are genderless.

So I think we overstate when we say that we are biologically different emotionally and so forth when we may not be as different as we think. We may have different functions, but those too vary according to the age/phase in our lives. And those vary according to the Individual.
One good thing [well several good things I took] from the schools of feminism [and other ideologies and yes, I am Christian] is that maybe its not so important as to sameness and difference and equality, in putting genders into boxes of us and them or classes of people, etc. Because those tend to make us a bit narrow and it opens the door to all kinds of superiority beliefs and oppression and prejudices.

Maybe, its more about the Individual and where androgenous (sic) is concerned, I think we can be more androgenous that we think…maybe not all the time but at times in our lives. And if we can understand that we can work to bridge those differences that are learned and work yes, to an equality based on individual differences based on gifts and talents rather than gender, skin color and class.

Sorry for all the typos and I could have written this so much better but I’ve not written in a formal way in some time, skills a bit lazy there. But I hope, I have at least, encouraged some thinking on this.
Jane