Since the beginning of society, gender and gender expression have been important aspects of human relations and civilization at large. I argue, however, that we are well past the point where gender is deemed obsolete in nearly all aspects of society. Furthermore, the pervasive nature of gendered expectations, roles, stereotypes, and outcomes, all harm the working class and seek to divide it. The only way to solve this contradiction poisoning society is to abolish the patriarchal gender ideals that we are forced to conform to daily. How is gender seen today? How far have we come since the barbaric societies that brutally suppressed non-conformists? Why is liberal feminism a false answer in solving these issues? And most importantly, how does one compensate for the issues seemingly apparent in the prospect of gender abolition? We seek to find these answers, and point a critique at gendered society along the way.
Part 1: How Patriarchy Harms Us All
So why do heteronormative dates feel like a slave auction negotiation? Why do so many people resonate with this funny but relatable tweet? The answer is in the performance.
A typical date involving a straight man and a straight woman is inherently about performance, regardless of beliefs or mannerisms. The very labels “straight man” and “straight woman” are signifiers of social expectations. The man “must” act masculine and fit the social role of the strong, emotionless, capable, independent man. Likewise, and perhaps to a more acute degree, women “must” act perfectly feminine, weak, incapable, pretty (by western, colonialist standards), and otherwise submissive. There are countless more expectations involved, but that’s the gist.
These expectations are constantly placed upon the shoulders of both the man and the woman, not from each other, but from the patriarchal society. The extreme negative externalities of this reality are vast.
For example, many of the issues we see today with men’s mental health fundamentally stem from their feeling of demasculinization given to them from the internet and from other men perpetuating the patriarchy. Their inability to possess so-called “masculine qualities” such as having financial freedom, sexual “dominance” and performance, social confidence, and a certain body image, leads to a feeling that they’re not enough. This causes such a wide scope of violent and otherwise antisocial behaviors, that it is impossible to enumerate concisely.
The list of issues within women’s spaces caused by these expectations is, once again, so incredibly long that it is impossible to fully explain in a short zine. Infantilization, subordination, sexual assault, rape culture, inequality within working class spaces, femicide, and lack of bodily autonomy are just a few to list. The truth is that, in a variety of ways, the patriarchy harms ALL people, certainly to different degrees, regardless of biological sex characteristics (that lead to the social labeling of “men” and “women”).
Considering all of this, one can see how a date might feel like a slave auction. Both people are trying to perform their stereotypical gender identities as convincingly as possible, in hopes of being “bought”, or accepted as “feminine enough” or “masculine enough”, by the other person.
Does anyone truly enjoy this? The labeling of people, subordinated to alter their personalities, interests, and appearances to avoid scrutiny from a patriarchal society? No! We all suffer from this, and we are too scared to step out of line. There is no singular “most masculine man” or “most feminine woman”, because the ideas of masculinity and femininity are made up to justify class division! If you found the most muscular, confident, dominant man, society would surely still have critiques that his voice is not deep enough, his chest not hairy enough, his temperament too kind, and so on.
The truth is that NONE of us fit these arbitrary societal expectations. NONE of us feel we align with pure masculinity or pure femininity. We are ALL nonbinary.
Part 2: Yes, We’re All Nonbinary
To be truly binary is impossible, even in the vague sense. The definition of femininity, for example, is prescribed from the top down, from the patriarchal bourgeoisie to the working class. The very nature of this top-down classification is such that no woman is ever feminine enough, no man is ever masculine enough, and so on. Adhering to gender norms is a fruitless game that only further alienates you from your identity.
Moreover, identifying as nonbinary, simply a label on something clearly observable in all people, benefits ALL people. Attached to masculinity are the ideas of strength and confidence, and attached to femininity are the ideas of submissiveness and softness. Attached to the idea of nonbinary identity, however, is nothing tangible. Nonbinary people are free to be both strong and soft, or both submissive and confident. In the same way Atheism isn’t a religion, but a lack of religion, non-binary identity is a lack of patriarchal gender identity and gender norms. This leads to greater freedom within society for men to act traditionally “feminine” and for women to act traditionally “masculine” as freely as they’d like.
There is no way to “win” gender, but there certainly are many ways to “lose”. There is no way to conform perfectly to western beauty and gender standards, because they are designed to make people feel inferior, and they will serve that purpose by ensuring there is a feeling of insecurity in everyone. What do the bourgeoisie offer to ease this feeling of inferiority they created? They offer the nuclear family, the man providing and the woman nurturing, having children, a mortgage, a white picket fence, and so on.
Through this logic, one can see the true intentions behind these gender roles. Because of this understanding, any logical feminist would reject these patriarchal systems built to hurt the working class, divide the population, and oppress both women and men. This brings us to a critique of Liberal feminism, or any feminism that clings to gender roles and stereotypes, as well as capitalism and imperialism, all of which American society is built on. To claim to be feminist in any sense of the word and still support gender roles pertaining to “A man must do X” or “A woman must do Y” is inherently contradictory, and might I even say, counterproductive to the movement at large.
Part 3: Why Liberal Feminism Is Not The Answer
There is an ever growing trend in both men and women to espouse a sort of “gender norms for thee but not for me” attitude to gendered society. This can manifest in a variety of positions that people take. One example is a man choosing to split the bill at a restaurant, but demand that his date submit to him, wear makeup, etc.. In this instance, the man does not conform to society’s idea of masculinity, yet expects the woman to conform to society’s idea of femininity. When people can simply be seen as people, they can end the generational trend of continuing the subordination of women across all aspects of society, and begin a new era of unlabeled gender expression.
Let me be clear: this example is not mentioned to facilitate an argument in favor of women staying at home, men paying for dinner, and so on, but it is in fact a complete rejection of the patriarchal system itself. The woman is not consciously creating these expectations for the man in the same way that the man is not consciously creating expectations for the woman. They are both advocating for a patriarchal system that harms both of them, because of capitalist conditioning and lifelong propaganda that justifies the patriarchy. The truth is that both of them should WANT to pay for dinner, because both of them should love each other! A man paying for my dinner because he loves me is infinitely more attractive than him doing it because the patriarchy says he ought to.
Some Liberal feminists may argue that women are already oppressed in the patriarchy, therefore men should need to conform to gender norms to repay women. This viewpoint fundamentally does not understand the two definitions of “men”. The first is a systemic, descriptive definition, the CONCEPT of men and their place in the patriarchy. This label “man” is like the label “ruling class”, that is, one defined by what it is not, defined by what it oppresses. The other definition is a prescriptive one, simply referring to all people that society calls “men” based on sex characteristics, as a general group.
The Liberal feminist confuses these groups often. Despite my true hatred for men, I firmly disagree! Each individual working class man is not entirely responsible for the patriarchy and is not representative of “men”, the descriptive definition. This is of course considering, not to infantilize individual men, that they certainly can perpetuate the patriarchy in a variety of ways. Whether they consciously choose to hurt women because they are evil people or if they are raised in an inherently evil system as a blank slate capable of being conditioned in certain ways depends heavily on a variety of external and internal factors.
This Liberal feminism places the blame of the patriarchy not on the, might I add, multi-sexed bourgeoisie that profits from our division and insecurity, but on the working class men that are conditioned all their lives to live according to systems taught to them.
This directly serves the ruling class. Why does it serve the ruling class, you may ask? Because it encourages women and men to stay separate, to define themselves by these labels, to define all women as anti-gender roles and all men as pro-gender roles. When assumed to hold these positions, many men fall into right-wing belief systems that make them feel that traditional gender roles ARE good. This only creates more fascists and misogynists, separates the working class by sex, and makes it easier for the ruling class to manipulate us and kill us off.
If there are no men and no women, there is no system hurting either, there is no system placing one group above another. People are free to express themselves, their personalities, and their interests in a variety of ways, unchained by the bondage of societal expectation controlling how they dress, speak, or act in any particular way. We must understand that gender is a paper tiger of a concept, only flimsily held together by the dwindling bourgeoisie. The only answer is uncompromising liberation for everyone.