The other day, I was on the huffingtonpost website trying to get my fill of GOP humor, when I found a couple of articles/videos talking about gender neutrality. We had talked a little about them in class, and it was a topic that I found incredibly interesting. (A few years ago, I was in an English class that focused entirely on the works of Ursula K. Le guin. One of her books that we read was titled "The Left Hand of Darkness." This book told the story of a world where people did not define themselves by their gender (at least depending on what time of the month it was), because they were able to switch back and forth between the two. In a world of androgyny, the singular gendered person is alien. "The Left Hand of Darkness" really left an impression on me, and I have since been interested in the subject of androgyny.)

The video that I found was a Fox news report about a preschool in Stockholm that was neither for girls nor boys. It was for 'friends' only. This school was completely gender neutral. Despite the Fox news reporters uncomfortably wriggling in their seats over the concept of such an experiment, it was really informative. But I bring this up not for its content, but for the reaction it elicited from my roommate (I'm not sure if it matters but for the sake of full disclosure, my roommate is gay). I didn't realize that he had been standing behind me while I was watching the report, but when it was over, I turned and saw him there, looking pretty hesitant. He said he wasn't sure he would ever want to put his children through something like that--having them go without gender for the first six, or so, years of their lives.

I tried to explain what the reasoning behind it would be--it would eradicate gender roles--the ones that told him all throughout his own childhood that his love for musicals should not be equal to his love for sports (even though they still are), it would help one realize their identity from a truly personal level, rather than a prescribed level. The benefits, in my opinion, were endless. But he still seemed hesitant. When I asked him why this made him so uncomfortable, he said "well I wouldn't want my kid to be the only one without a sex growing up! That wouldn't get rid of their isolation, that would ensure it."

"But what if it were an entire school that did it? What if your kid wasn't alone in this?" I responded.

"Oh well then that's totally fine." He said, seeming much more comfortable with the whole notion, and then walked away to go watch videos on Youtube.

I sat there thinking for a few minutes after he left about how much easier it is for anyone to do...well anything, if they don't think they're alone. The fear of really standing out is enough to comfort people into submission of fitting in. But after a few minutes of thought, I decided to store this moment away for another time. That time came a bit sooner than I thought, though! After reading Simone de Beauvoir's introduction to her book "The Second Sex," I immediately came back to my conversation with my roommate. When Beauvoir started questioning "where did this submission in women come from?" with the answer: "Refusing to be the Other, refusing complicity with man, would mean renouncing all the advantages an alliance with the superior caste confers on them" (10).

Complicity. Being an accomplice to a crime. We are all so bought in to the 'business as usual' model, that anything else, any notion of change, scares us shitless.  And even beyond the fear, there is the general lack of concrete understanding of what change could look like. For example, the woman, who's name I can't currently recall, who decided the solution to feminism was cyborgs, was completely shutdown in the Gubar article we read. We cannot actually visualize such a world, and so we are incapable of understanding it, committing to it, standing behind it, etc.

I'm not trying to say that feminists don't know what their ultimate goal would look like, I'm saying that there isn't one concrete, or a grouping of concrete goals. This is a huge problem, because it divides the feminist community. Because it seems that feminists have been incapable, or at least not done that great of a job, of working together (across the racial, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc. lines), they cannot have a tangible image or chance at success. In my last blog post I talked about the lack of connection people felt to the movement, because it was disjointed. This time, I bring up the same issue but under a different microscope. It's not because it's purely disjointed, but because it seems the there's a refusal to put the pieces together to create a cohesive front from which to attack--and whether this is out of fear, resentment, ignorance, whatever, the point is--feminism is fighting too many battles at once. The movement cannot expect to move forward into a future of equality, if they aren't exemplifying the equality they seek within themselves.

I think that's a strong enough sentence to end on. Check back soon!