Femininty is a state of continual artiface. Not only must one's clothing and coiffere be subject to obsessive self-scrutiny, but every mannerism, belief and action must be examined in the light of whatever the current ideal of a woman is. Before, a woman was coy and demure – thus every woman tried desperately to be coy and demure. The horror was in being thought easy. The current ideal is the liberated (i.e sexually) woman who is bold and has no hang-ups. The horror is in being thought a prude. One must always be up with the fashion of being. Watch your diet, flatten your tummy, are you going out wearing that? Why don't you show more leg/less leg/more cleavage/less cleavage and for god's sake, why aren't you smiling? To conform to the ideal, one resorts to various tricks: fake smiles, fake faces, fake breasts, fake eyelashes and fake orgasms should the subterfuge pay off. To put it simply, a woman is a fake. Why does femininity require such effort? Women are often criticised as shallow and overly fashion oriented, generally by the men who demand this from them economically or as a payment for their tepid affections. Ignored is the cardinal fact that continual artiface takes a continual expenditure of energy – femininity is difficult to maintain. Why should femininity be difficult to maintain? Adornment is common to every known culture, but a modern woman's adornments consume her. The answer is simple – femininity is a myth. Nothing analogous occurs in nature. Rather than fainting, crying or making appeals to virtue, a lioness welcomes the advances of the lion who has just killed her mate. A female crocodile tears apart a capybara without compunction or delicacy, and has this really cute strategy of carrying her little babies around in her mouth. The feminine qualities – passivity, supplience, helplessness and general disgustingness – do not occur in nature and are quickly wiped out when they do. The masculine does – but we'll get to this. In other words, femininity is unnatural. The woman is a social construction – and as such a rather strange creature. Cracks often appear in her mask – occasionally, as in the case of Medea, it shatters completely and her “evil” horrifies. The common criticism is that women are disingenuous. This barely touches the surface: women are schitzophrenic. Women are angels – but hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Women are sexually pure – but women are all whores (the sexual insatiability of women was a common theme of comedy in the middle ages). Women are selfless and devoted – but women are stunningly mercenary in their sexual negotiations with men. Women are obedient – but women are inherently insubordinate, our present sufferings being the fault of one rebellious woman. Or as Milton had it, rebellious because we are too stupid to be obedient. The causes of schitzophrenia are not simply in the female psyche but rather in the social expectation of a woman. The definition of a woman is always precarious and subject to flippant social trends, as well as sexual double standards. A woman is a sexual being primarily – a virgin is not quite a woman, while a slut is so fully a woman (i.e fucked) that she ceases to be even a person, bearing all the stigma of her despised class. One is always – only a woman. Should one try to be more than a woman one is – not even a woman. It would seem, then, that the primary characteristic of being a woman is being unable to win. To be expected – a woman is above all defined by her not being a man. Being a negative by definition, her social role is negative by default. One of course notes that there is no such thing as a “man” - his status as a thing-in-itself is based on the slightly less arbitrary criteria of being ruthless, strong and fit. As I've noted, nature encompasses the masculine in its female creatures – nature encompasses the “masculine” in all it's creatures. Being “masculine” is thus an easy thing to achieve (though difficult to attain) – yet woe to the woman who is masculine in any sense outside the cutesy “oh look, she likes baseball” way. The natural course of her personality must be rerouted in order to maintain the illusion of femininity – just as a male's more nurturing, gentle side must be crushed in order to maintain the illusion of masculinity. Schitzophrenia sets in – healthy nihilism and a honest evaluation of gender (analogous to Nietzsche's work in Geneology of Morals) is the only cure. Oh fuck nihilism, just disagree with me 'cause I crave conflict.
Sorry Xev, but I agree with you. Women must have many faces if they are to get what they desire. If she wants to make it in the world, she must act like a man, and then be called a 'ball breaker', and only then will she be deemed to have succeeded and gain respect in her desired profession. If she wants to find a man to mate with, she must act like the so called 'typical female' and become a feminine beast by acting and being just what the man is looking for so that she can attract his attention. Women appear to have so many disguises that in the end, the true self of the individual woman is lost and rarely shown.
Bells - Precisely. Masking isn't limited to women of course, men mask and need to mask on a daily basis. For him it's generally the supression of the 'feminine' (or the exploitation of that side in order to seem caring, loving or concerned) - for her it's trickier. One cannot get things done without acting as a man, but one cannot get things done by acting like a man. An aggressive woman is (as you mentioned) a ballbreaker or marginalized as dominatrix-mommy, every man's fantasy. Society controls by having a prerogative on definition - above all things.
Makey sensey andy-roid. Your writing style is pretty but I have no idea what you're saying - to my eyes, it could be something ingenious or a recipie for bloody marys. I should think that the homosexual is in the same damned if you do damned if you don't category. You're screwed if you're gay and yet you can't effectively fake straight-ness. Hence the development of schitzophrenia. Anyways, the difficulty in making it in a male world isn't my concern - schitzophrenia is. 'False self' has been treated in a bizillion different ways (Dorien Gray anyone?) but I think the explanation is simply that we live in a human society rather than a natural one.
Up until the time I got to 8th grade in a Junior High in NYC, I didn't care how I was or who. Then, I was told by each teacher: "Just be yourself!" So I was myself, up until I turned 18 and my bf said I don't act like a girl nor look like one. Whoopsie. A woman is, in reality, a little masculine, a little feminine in old-fashioned way, a little feminine in a modern way.... Bah, scratch that! It is easier to not classify "men" and "women" and simply say "individuals;" the boundaries are really hazy. I also must add that whoever follows fashion in detail will turn, if not schizofrenic (sp), then definitely neurotic.
Men and women have approximately equal rates of schizophrenia. If you're talking about schizophrenia in the clinical sense, any way.
guthrie: It has been - schitzophrenia seems to be 'caused' by an inbalence in the brain's ability to uptake dopamine. However, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I'm not referring to clinical schitzophrenia. However, you'd have to be slightly more intelligent than a retarded hamster in order to grasp this fine point Nasor: See response to guthrie.
So what exactly do you mean by 'schizophrenia'? You seem to be describing some sort of internal conflict over self-image.
Xev, while you make some interesting points about the contradictions in our society regarding the role of women, you have misunderstood what schizophrenia is and how it is caused. It is not multiple personality disorder. A "split personality", is called a dissociative disorder. It is much less common than schizophrenia, occurs almost exclusively in women, and is thought in most cases to be a reaction to sexual or physical abuse in childhood. You equate feminine qualities with helplessness and disgustingness? Did you just get dumped or something? What about nuturing and cooperation? This happens in nature at least as often as violence. You are making a huge mistake and taking a very small part of what it means to be feminine, namely current culturally induced stereotypes, and thinking they represent femininity in its full natural context. Our present male dominated hierarchy has set us up as territorial apes with thermonuclear weapons and a chip on our shoulder, you want to blame it all on Eve? Try again.
spidergoat: Did you miss everything I wrote, plus my explanation to guthrie? I do not refer to clinical schitzophrenia. The word is origionally meant to refer the state of having a "split mind", which is the sense in which I meant it. Actually, many psychiatrists are skeptical of the existence of dissociative disorders. No - modern culture does. Do you not observe? Did you just lobotomize yourself with a pencil, is that why you're so stupid? What about them? Violence is good. It keeps morons from propegating. I'm far from advocating some wussy neo-feminist version of a "return to matriarchy". I want a return to nature "red in tooth and claw". Femininity is not necessarily bad because it "oppresses women" - it's degenerate. "When the veil of fiction was rent, man shuddered before "Nature, red in tooth and claw." Nature had always been that and always will be, and the hands of man, even when he fashions and defends the noblest civilization, must forever be bloody hands, for this is a world in which only the strong and resolute nations survive, while the weak, especially the morally weak, who babble about brotherhood and peace, are biologically degenerate and doomed to extinction." -Prof. Revilo P. Oliver No, my entire point is that current culturally induced sterotypes are based on myth. You fail to comprehend even the basics of my argument and you tell me I'm making a huge mistake? Let me spell this out - Femininity has no "full natural context". It does not exist, except in the neurotic evaluations of contemporary culture No moron, I'm referring to the Jewish myth of the "fall from Eden". I can't believe you're not even conversent in one of the most common myths of our society. Read the third book of Genesis - or Milton - or just refer to any one of the numerous cultural monuments dealing with the tale. Jesus christ, are you American or something? I'll clarify again - I was referring to a specific instance of schitzophrenic valuation: obedience versus the innate rebelliousness of Eve, thought to exemplify female nature. Do you know nothing about western cultural history? I mean christ, I dropped out of high school and I know this shit. But then, you're not really criticising me, are you? You're simply trying to appear "smart" by disputing whatever I have to say. Unfortunately for you, it simply shows your ignorence. Nasor: Internal conflict as caused by the attempt to live up to a nonexistent ideal. The mind is split between mask and nature, between one value and another. Not to repeat what others have said so much better, but modern culture is sick because of this constant splitting. Why? Because we emphasize the value of weakness. Femininity is based on a lie about nature, and the nature of women. To maintain that lie, the personality fractures into the gentle, sweet, always kind self and the true self, which is honest and fit. Thus - splitting - schitzophrenia. But I am not referring to clinical psychiatric disorders. If I describe anything, it's a disease of the soul.
Spidergoat, can you tell us what it means to be feminine? Because there is no true meaning to the word. The dictionary equates it to being a state of womanliness. Now what would that be exactly? We are women and we know what our sex is. Yet society defines femininity as being what can only be described as the weaker sex. A woman acts aggressively while protecting her children, she is seen to be maternal. But that same woman acts aggressively protecting her position of employment, and she is seen to be a 'ball breaker'. Your question about nurturing and and co-operation is a state that has been predetermined by society. Why is it that to be feminine one has to be nurturing? Just because we are women does not mean that we have such tendencies. If a man is deemed to be nurturing, he would be put down by society as being weak. Males can also be nurturing and caring, yet it is only equated to women. Why is that? Why are men seen to be weak if they act in a way that society has determined to be 'feminine', yet it is accepted and expected as being the woman's role or personality trait.
I believe Xev is trying to say that femininity, or femininity as it is described by modern culture, is a sign of a general degeneration of the species and that it is based on a sham. The more masculine human attributes are being weeded out from both men and women making both more feminine and indistinguishable and raising homosexuality or asexuality as the next evolutionary stage. We are slowly tuning ourselves into biological machines with no free-will, no personality, no character, and no resistance. Just simple machines running or software and harmoniously becoming non-distinct. Feminization of man, as I put it. I think what she’s saying is that in nature females aren’t as demure and passive as they are expected to be in our modern society but are far more independent and vicious. But this softening of humanity can be seen in both sexes. It’s interesting that homosexuality is now becoming acceptable behaviour and the masses are being acclimatized to sexual deviance through pop culture [T.V., movies, music, art]. In a few generations it won’t matter if you are male or female and sexual organs will be simple details of ones being, like hair color or height, and humanity will be a mass of nothingness that uses sex as entertainment, since it has lost its procreative significance through technology, and affection. But I may be wrong.
O.k. I guess we can overlook the redefinition and misspelling of schizophrenia. What about nuturing and cooperation? This happens in nature at least as often as violence. Violence can be useful, but so can nuturing and cooperation. Witness the ants caring for mites and harvesting nutrient fluids from them. I submit to you that it is the "tooth and claw" view of nature that is the myth. Certainly, violent interactions are the easiest to observe in nature, but the cooperation happens quietly. Hmm... What other facinating observations has this racist dickwad Oliver made? As might be expected of someone of Oliver’s ultraright background, he had some very strong beliefs. Here are some of them. · The Holocaust was a hoax. · The white race is more intelligent that the black. · JFK was assassinated by a Communist plot in cooperation with the CIA. · JFK was a Communist agent who was assassinated because he was about to "turn American". · Karl Marx wrote “idiotic mumbo-jumbo.” · All children are born unequal. · We must encourage intelligent people to reproduce and inhibit those of lesser intelligence from doing so. · Most “intellectuals” are just “frightened zombies.” · The United Nations is a bunch of subhumans in a glass cage. · Franklin D. Roosevelt was a “diseased creature” who surrounded himself in the White House with an “appalling gang of degenerates, traitors, and alien subversives.” You get the point. Need I go on? Read more here on the evolution of cooperation.
Wanderer: My point is ultimately that femininity is a sham. To illustrate: Naked, I look female. But I don't look at all feminine when naked. Only when I clothe myself in a feminine way and spend a prodigious effort looking, speaking and walking feminine do I seem feminine. I think we're more or less hermaphrodites already. Society simply forces us to be one gender and exaggerate that choice. What you're saying is - part of my point - but I see it even more a question of whether femininity does exist at all. If one could return to nature, one would see male and female organisms. I don't think one would see masculine or feminine organisms. I mentioned the lioness - what most people don't realize is that the "macho" lion does little hunting. Hunting is usually a cooperative effort between a group of lionesses. Cooperation being a feminine trait, hunting being a masculine action, why bother dubbing the lionesses as either? A group of lionesses is hunting gazelles. That's a clear statement. Masculine, cruel females are being feminine in order to preform a masculine action. How ridden with value judgements the latter statement is. You're fond of self-analysis, make a list of your attributes and then compare them to what is socially thought to be masculine and feminine. While you're quite male - more so than most men - you'll likely find that many of those attributes are generally defined as "feminine". Hell, even self-analysis is feminine. Or is it masculine because it is analytical rather than intuitive? At this point - why bother with gender at all? Which is where my skepticism has led me. However, gender is a natural phenomena, so I am not sure of the solution. We're spiritual hermaphrodites. I am not sure whether to use this observation to make love to myself or to do away with the concept of gender. I am not, however, simply male and female halves. I am not halves - I am at least quintuplets. Is the secret to self-acceptance literally to cause one's pluralities to make love to each other? Bells: As I said - femininity is defined as the opposite of masculinity. Since it is by definition negative, the feminine is by function oppressed. You're forced into the standard I described - one is "only a woman", but one who is, by inclination or circumstance, more than that, is "not even a woman" On the converse, women are also supposed to implicitly accept the ugliness of being a woman - such things as "you're not like other women" and "you think like a man" are supposed to be taken as compliments. Femininity is placed upon a pedestal, any woman who does not conform to it is hounded to death. But any woman who does take her place on that pedestal is continually reminded of what a humiliating position she is in. For example - the pedestal is, "protect and cherish". But why should she be protected? She'll never be allowed to forget that the only reason she is "protected and cherished" is because she is weak, too stupid to protect herself. Seahorse mothers will eat their children (yum!) if it wasn't for the father's protection. I do believe the "feminine" has some backing in nature - humans don't pull these things out of their asses entirely - however the "feminine" as it stands now does not exist in nature. For me the revalation was personal. (I know, anecedotal evidence has little merit). I found that traditional 'feminine' pursuits like clothing, makeup, and gossip bored me to tears, and the female role models I was presented with (Snow White, Princess Diana, Barbie) were people I would never want to be. Wheras traditionally masculine pursuits like science, exploration, conflict and intellectual life were what drew me. And it hurt to be an outsider in the things I loved. Yet I always accepted the validity of my status as an outsider. Internally I knew what I was, but I also accepted that I wasn't supposed to be that. It wasn't until I started reading Nietzsche that I really accepted the idea that it was society that was wrong and I right. The odd thing is, I've always seen myself as a woman. Others - when I actually start expounding or acting - don't see me as such. That's schitzophrenia in a nutshell. android: Well now. You responded to my "lobster" thread. I appreciated that. I don't mean to. I like your style - there's an internal structure to it. I can just see you thinking, which I love. I accept that, but I'm saying that society does damn you. I've never been ashamed of my peculiarity in terms of gender - I'm actually quite convinced that I'm more lovely than one who is traditionally feminine. But I know it places me at a disadvantage socially. I have my doubts about "gender". Humans are primarily sexual beings - our way of relating to others is rooted first and formost in our sexuality, and so is our way of relating to ourselves (when you think about it, the way we deal with ourselves is a way of dealing with an "other" person who just happens to be us) But gender - even on the biological level, gender is a rather fluid thing. A very small percentage of children are born chromosomally female and genitally male - or vice versa - or with the sexual characteristics of both sexes. Generally they're unhappy if raised if male or female. On the other hand, there have been instances of boys surgically reassigned as females right after birth, growing up raised as female and always feeling like a "man in a woman's body" - essentally what they are. Exactly. No self is "male" or "female" because no self is inherently one thing or the other. I am at least three different people - and even those people are different people. What we call "self" is simply an overlapping matrix of organized and reacting selves. If the woman of me is attracted to aesthetics, but analyzes them as the male of me, which gender is doing the analysis? It is unfortunate that our society is so prosaic and focused on maintaining simple categories of being, however, it could not function otherwise. It is rather unfortunate that our society functions, but it has its benefits.
spidergoat: It has not been "redefined" The word is of Greek etymology, like many medical words. "Mind" in classic Greek is sometimes denoted as "Phrenos" or "phren" and "schiz" denotes "split" or "fractured". I am using the word in a way true to it's definition, you illiterate douchebag. Do not pick upon my spelling when you don't even know what words fucking mean. Who says nurturing and cooperation don't occur? Nobody. Who brought them up? You (synonmous with "nobody"). Cooperation often happens for the sake of violence (hunting) Nobody disputes cooperation or nurturing. You're trying to argue a point which nobody disputes. Ad hominem. I quoted him because I like the way he wrote that. That doesn't make me wrong, and it doesn't really have any relevence to anything. Shut the fuck up if you can't contribute. Here's another quote (have fun with the source) "It is different with the second type of morality, slave morality. Suppose the violated, oppressed, suffering, unfree, who are uncertain of themselves and weary, moralize: what will their moral valuations have in common? Probably pessimistic suspicion about the whole condition of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man along with his condition. The slave's eye is not favorable to the virtues of the powerful: he is skeptical and suspicious, subtly suspicious, of all the 'good' that is honored there - he would like to persuade himself that even their happiness is not genuine. Conversely, those qualities are brought out and flooded with light which serve to ease existence for those who suffer: here pity, the complaisant and obliging hand, the warm heart, patience, industry, humility, and friendliness are honored - for here these are the most useful qualities and almost the only means for enduring the pressure of existence. Slave morality is essentially and morality of utility." -Nietzsche Suck it.
Let me spell this out for you too, I got your argument, and I disagree, cultural stereotypes are not based on myth, but are exaggerations of natural feminine qualities, such as cooperation and nurturing, as opposed to territoriality and aggression. I know full well what the word means. In the context of science/human science, which is the title of this forum, using that word was misleading. The dictionary definition of schizophrenic is also misleading, reflecting a historical misunderstanding of the phenomenon. You did, ...quoting well known racist and professor of classical philology, Spanish, and Italian, Revilo P. Oliver. I guess he would know all about how things work in nature! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I say... and you reply... Oh, ok THAT myth, not the one about Adam and Eve. Did you even notice the word EVE? Or were you too focused on being incensed and self-rightous? Do you think quoting Nietzsche makes you smart? This only confirms my argument that qualities associated with the feminine- both in nature and society, are useful, not "quickly wiped out". Yes, your's.
"And it hurt to be an outsider in the things I loved." Hey what do you know.. you are a girl. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why do you concern yourself with such trivialities as gender roles? You is what you is, fuck whatever you like... but be mindful of the potential downside eh? Do you really expect that anyone can "live up" to the role placed on them by society? Ultimately, society doesn't 'do' anything. If you take a role someone gives you, it's really you who chooses to play that part. Some people are okay with that, YOU are not. You are strong and choose your own role. I suppose I can see that part of doing so is the examination of the role you are offered, or that you percieve to be expected from you... but now you realize, live up to the role you choose for yourself and you will kick ass and you will be respected by those who you would want to respect you. Maybe that was too quick and shallow. If so, pardon - seemed pertinent. EDIT - oh, and I meant to mention: I think that most of the reason that roles as such are there is because the majority of people need them, as they are likely unable to find a role for themselves. Basically, if you are sucker enough to buy the bait, then being trapped is what is right for you... ya know?
""""Do you really expect that anyone can "live up" to the role placed on them by society? Ultimately, society doesn't 'do' anything."""" Yes, culture is not your friend, it is that which resists change, and should be regarded with suspicion.
Good point. Xev. Can you deny that the roles of man and woman that developed post-ag revolution are still apparent today in behavior?
