Gender Separation - Positive or Negative?

 

This advertisement on eBay annoyed me and I felt compelled to write to the seller about it. You see, I have grown up, as have many, stereotyped. Girls play with dolls, boys, I dunno, go knock each other about a bit?

Obviously, sometimes it is essential to be gender specific, women have boobs (mostly) and broader hips so expecting us to share the same shaped clothes isn't helpful. Of course, in some garments it totally makes no difference, a baggy jumper is just that and would suffice for both.

We raise kids, too often forcing them to be the stereotype we are happy with. A quick search on Google raises this for girls:

And for Boys:

The differences are stark but, are they real and natural? Which came first, the need of children to split toys into genders or the marketing campaigns which aims toys at genders?

As a child I can recall being told that boys do not play with Barbie, boys should be out there playing football, getting dirty but, if they must stay at home with toys then it should be playing with Action Man or cars, ideally, smashing them together in pretend accidents and confrontation. I was scolded for having an imagination and wanting to drive cars properly, park them up nicely and having interactions between the imagined drivers.

So, clearly, gender bias starts in infancy but, apparently, it continues into adult life too as this advertisement for an aromatherapy candle proves and it is not alone. Is a scented candle masculine or feminine? 

My email to the seller was polite, suggesting that perhaps aiming items specifically at one gender over another might lose them sales. I said that it may come across as sexist to presume women must want such a thing more than perhaps a man.

The reply was shockingly rude and arrogant and, for some reason, I was accused of libel?  Within this reply was one interesting bit of information (whether it be true or not) whereby 'he' (yes, it was a man selling this ironically) whereby he stated that the eBay algorithms sell more if directed at women than they do men. Can there be truth in that? If there is, what does it say about the genders? He wasn't being specific about the candle, I don't think so anyway, he seem to imply that aiming anything specifically at females increases the chances of selling.

Sellers other items of the man selling the candle doesn't show a massive leaning toward the use of 'women' though he does sell this item (may not be work safe) which, strangely, doesn't make much reference to women at all. Now, what this man did mention specifically is 'keywords' and so I searched his site for 'men' which brought up virtually nothing and then, 'women' which brought up just about everything he sells so, clearly, potentially the entire stock is using the keyword 'women' suggesting he really believes that doing so increases his chance of selling this sort of item:

All the above being found by searching for women on his sales page!

Now, I am not saying that women cannot or should not buy such items but, does it make gender sense to target females using keywords and yet, not men? They didn't come up searching men so, perhaps, this seller is concerned less with selling items than he is with false hits on those items? Would a man, having searched for a gift for his female partner really believe these are suitable? That they are, in any way, gender specific?

              

It is interesting to see which items this guy thinks are gender specific. On the left are the first two results for 'girls' with 'boys' on the right. Honestly, I thought I understood eBay but, apparently it's algorithms are full of shit!

Potentially, I am losing the plot here! What I am saying here, and using this unfortunate seller as an example, does gender really sell that much that without mentioning it sellers simply cannot get sales?

Is placing a gender so readily so vital in life generally? 

Is that offensive? I suspect JK Rowling might think so as do many other women. Do men really pose a threat to women if sharing a space where both genders are urinating and pooing? I would argue the answer is no. Let's look at the logistics,women (only some of them) find it threatening for a man to be in 'their' space but, let us look at the real scenario. A woman enters then goes into a cubicle whereby she does what she needs to do in privacy (subject to the cubicle affording that) and, very likely, to do so she walks by the backs of men holding their penis whilst having a pee. Which gender is actually more vulnerable? I would argue that the men are more at risk from the women if, indeed, either is (unlikely). Yet, despite that 'some' women continue to argue that a trans women, someone who has transitioned into a female and has female parts, is a risk to them because 'really' they are still men. The logic there being, a man is going to have his penis chopped about, turned inside out with the end of it converted into a clitoris and take hormones for breast growth ... all that just to see a woman walk into and out of a toilet cubicle, It's as stupid as a woman having part of her leg converted into a penis, having her breasts removed and grow facial hair just so she can go into the gents and see a mans penis!

This is how we are with gender right now and it starts many times, before birth.

Once the gender of the baby is known in the womb, already the gender specifics start. 

In these pictures above we have the boy in blue and even though the girl is in white, the addition of the headband defines her as female for the sake of difference. 

This a very recent thing you understand. Go back a few generations and both genders were dressed much the same with such subtle differences as pink for a boy and blue for a girl where such differences needed to be shown although both would be in a gown. But, in the 21st century we 'must' clearly define the gender at birth.

What does any of this teach us? I believe it explains why we are conditioned to be in a clique. (spend a lot of time together and seem unfriendly toward people who are not in the group). It forces us to see differences and not similarities which would make us more comfortable together. It also encourages segregation, exaggerates stereotypes of what it means to be a boy/girl, man/women. It enables confrontation. For example, the 'natural' parent is the mother and fathers have a lesser role.

Let me tell you some experiences I had to live with raising 4 children as a man alone.

Advertising: 

Mums gone to Iceland - (yes, she just as well of had as she's not raising these kids so, where does dad go to get food?)

Mothercare - Yes, were she around she might, but that is no guarantee in the meantime, why can't I change my baby in the changing room? You mean, because I am a man?

Society:

Mum and toddler group - Yes, of course men can go ... and be treated like some sort of freak show! On entering the room of mothers migrates to one end of the room.

Dear Mrs ... - Always what I got from schools or anywhere my kids went. There was no Mrs, just me and they knew that but, it was just what their computer does (so change it)

I don't think that's appropriate - Being told this by a social worker when 'she' discovered I took my severely disabled eldest son into the mens toilets to change his pads. It was inappropriate, she explained, you know, no offence, but you are gay. So, without realising it she was saying that a woman, also attracted to males, would likewise be inappropriate.

Is the mother available? - To console a child screaming in pain with a major ear infection because, "It's more natural for women" said to me too many times, by women of course.

Of course the mother would be the logical choice - Said to me and many men when discussing legally who the kids should have as their primary carer. The only difference being, she was a woman. We were neither working at this point because she was not up to parenting the kids and I needed to take over but she was still the 'natural' choice.

It is not appropriate for you to be there - at prenatal exams to discuss the health of my child before birth. They were quite clear that these were personal exams exploring ladies bits ... how the hell did they think she got pregnant?

So, you see in this jumble of examples and poorly written dialogue, why gender identity as a compulsory thing, is damaging. Why it is neither good for males or females. Women are expected to be mothers, men are expected to be men. That crossovers of these society gender normalities is not accepted.

It is why women struggle to get on in the workplace more than men and why men struggle as parents. Society expects it. Both genders are to blame. Men guard their territory as it is what they are allowed to have whilst women guard their domain. For a man to allow a women into his working environment is a threat to his gender role. He has been told from birth that his role is as a man, in the workplace whilst a woman, she is the very perfection of being a parent and a man just spends a few seconds getting her pregnant. Both genders keep this going as, in reality,they want to gain territory from the other without giving up their own position so, it's not equality but superiority being sought and it's confrontational.

This doesn't even start to cover those who cannot have children and those who do not want to have children. Society has an expectation that all are required to have children of course as it enforces the gender stereotype. Those breaking from it are outcasts.It's horribly wrong, totally inappropriate but, that's where we are with gender identity.

Then there is lesbian, gay, trans ... statistically, when a women in a marriage with children goes off with a lesbian partner, she is the one who keeps the children as even now the courts prefer the mother. Conversely, if it is the father who goes off with his gay lover, he nearly always loses the children.

Gender bias at work. It's actually nothing to do with which is more suitable on a case by case basis but, which is more socially acceptable.

I will leave it there for you to ponder whether our various countries are fair, or not, and offer true equality.