spidergoat: Not much in your last message was worth attention, so pardon the lack of quotes. You say - that my argument is invalidated by "natural feminine" traits such as nurturing and cooperation. On the contrary, my argument is strengthened by them, since they occur in both sexes. If (and I do not stipulate that it is) "nurturing" is more common in females, it is simply because females are by definition those who bear young. Other so called feminine traits occur frequently in males - such as cooperation - thus what you think invalidates my argument simply strengthens my case. You did not understand my argument, being too focused on "bringing Xev down". You say "femininity" exists in nature. Possibly, but it's not confined to females. Exhibit A: the peacock. wesmorris: Can the Deepak-Chopra-cum-wannabe-Immanual-Kant bullshit. You reek of the bourgeois. 15ofthe19: Developed when post-ag revolution? What makes you think they developed that late? I'm not sure of your challenge.
I'm not really offering a challenge. You're probably right in that those roles were being developed pre-revolution, but the jury is still out on that verdict. Bottom line: Man and woman developed distinct behaviors as a result of their distinct roles within pre-historic tribal cultures. Germans bomb Pearl Harbor.
Xev: A state of continual artifice indeed and should I point out the culprits? Those Romantics and thier midieval conceptions- that is what started this long process of degrading what a human is, and I will not be one to blame her since it isn't her fault, as much as I hate her sometimes. She could not escape this conception since it was elegant and amusing for the leasure class at first but little by little like all other social constructs did this idealism trickle down to the lower classes- that's where, to me, a social 'truth' is established, not higher up since their voices are small and few. And so its not until the peasent girls curl their hair that feminity is officialized. And it really is a sham come to think of it. Never thought of it that way- naked, one is female. But not feminine. You're beastly, like an animal. Know what eats me though? The pattern- at first its a new phase to establish elegance and distinction, then an innovative way for the commoner to detach himself from any notions of barbarism- he can only rebel through artifice (and it was not only the females doing this- lotsa dick had tights on), but then somewhere around the 19th century commercial possibilities were perceived, entrepeneurs got sneaky and then the twentieth century finally arrived to exploit it with televion and radio. THIS, to me, is malice. They needed mass consumers, so they needed and image and what better way than to feed on her insecurity? Romance. You must never be allowed to forget your sex if you shoot for normalcy. You must always be reminded that you're nothing without a man, albeit through hints here and there and not said outright to your face. You must never be allowed to be anyting other than your sex if you don't want to be singled out as eccentric. And even myself- how odd that I find I think better when shrouded? As in rough and unkempt? Even I negate myself in feeling more human when 'masucline'. Evreything has to have a fucking femine angle. Romance is in everything- from the clothes on must wear, to the books one must read, to how one must walk and talk, carry that handbag. Ever seen those 5O's commericials? Even kitchens and vaccums were glamorized and romanticized, for crying out loud. Yes and no. Blood and gore, nautral living- thrilling. But I'm a sucker for techonolgy and art....stuff. Nasor: Caching! Took you this long to figure out women are not all psychopathic fucks, huh? Schizo, I gather, is a description- a neat little way to describe how the female is forced to split herself from her true humanity by nailpolish and facepowder. Illusions. Spidergoat: A myth? You're kidding right? So we're sitting here in warmly lit room in front of computers because men have always played nice with the climate, yes? We're all so civil here, my, its a wonder we ever find anything to talk about. Bells: Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. Think how silly this is: the modern world is liberal and freely grants her her rights. She's allowed to do what he does and just as loudly but she gets her eccentricites socially rubbed in her face. She's subject to having her birthright taken from her unless she's married. Its like in mothers- she'll hold the daughter who's engaged in higher esteem than the rebellious one even though she loves them both. She'll never voice her resentment towards the free one but unkowingly treat her cruelly by forced kindness. What the mother has bought into is a social agreement based on intimidation and she does not know how far she is degrading her free daughter becauae she thinks of it only as helpless, harmless Romance- the stuff of babies and family. Follow?
Conflict. Right. I have to do it enough that I don't seek it, so I'll just leave. Good point about the tribes and such there 15.
Xev: and, later in your post... Along with Oliver, you are falling prey to the <b>naturalistic fallacy</b>. Even if nature is "red in tooth and claw", that does not mean that human beings <b>ought</b> to act that way. Most people would disagree stridently with you that violence is good. No commonly-accepted human moral system asserts that violence, in and of itself, is good. It sounds like you want women to be the same as men. Is that true? If not, what do you want from women? In what ways should they be different from men, do you think? Surely, femininity is simply a label for a set of traits commonly shared by females. If the traits exist, so does the label. That doesn't mean, of course, that all women have all the traits, or that no men have any of those traits, or that these traits are fixed and invariable for all time in all people. Fair comment, though not everybody would agree with you.
gendanken: Ever notice the peasent girls curl their hair more? Hell yeah. Primal and wild and powerful as hell. You're not feminine when you're being. You're simply being. Precisely there. The commoner gets his home and his yard of grass with no cow. Then he gets his useless whore to fluff her hair and primp. Then he becomes the cow, and starts primping himself. Then he'll start demanding that she act more like his hysterical creation in order that he feel virile. Ever notice it's the weakest men who seek the feminine? Water seeks its own level. Odd? Free. We're the designated negative. Keeping with the schitzophrenia metaphor - it's a double bind. The parents of schitzophrenic children were thought to be verbally affectionate, body cold. Here's Bateson: Same fucking shit. Constant words about how great it is that you're just the way you are - then the interminable shit about why you aren't a proper girl. Why I hate men. "How great that you're not like other women!" and then the constant attempts to get you to be their idea of some airheaded fluffbucket. 'Course if you resist that, you're just so cute and wanting to be tamed. 15ofthe19: Your point being....? wesmorris: No, you're an idiot so leave James R: Appeal to popular prejudice. I don't argue as Oliver does. I do, however, see value in that quote. The funny thing is, I just stumbled on that looking up some random Hellenic NSBM band and they had it quoted. Far be it from me to be so awfully unpleasant. Why, if we were the same, where would there be love and snuggles and cuddly cuddly teddy bears? No James, I'm talking about a self-artist. I'm talking about a nihilist. I'm talking about a master moralist. I'm talking about someone who has the literal or metaphorical balls to break their conditioning and see things as they really are. Think I care if Betty Sue Who wears tights or pantyhose and fucks so her date will pick up the tab? Think again. I'm not a feminist - I despise women. I want what Morbid Angel puts it as "clense this world for those who deserve". That's all. Not my call, is it? The truth - is worth seeking on its own, and if "femininity" falls by the wayside I'm going to be laughing at its death. Don't see this as social engineering. No, my argument is in part that it's not. My desired audience is not "everybody". It's gendanken and the few who share her mental agility.
Sorry. I thought it was obvious. I believe that male/female behavior can be attributed to the ancient roles established 10,000 years ago. That point has always seemed obvious to me, but I don't peddle it as natural law. Tis only my opinion.
*sniffle* I didn't realize you wanted me to stay. I suppose you couldn't have just asked. I'd consider it Xev, but you're really just looking for a whipping boy and there are plenty of people who would volunteer, though I realize the unwilling prey is so much sweeter to you. I don't seek conflict, but I admit it's difficult to walk away from it once someone starts sticking their chest out. You're man enough Xev, it's okay. *pats Xev on the head* It is sometimes difficult to be a good parent.
Xev: It seems you think <b>you've</b> noticed this. Would you care to elaborate? In what sense do you think that a man who "seeks the feminine" is weak? So, let me get this straight. You hate men, and even more than that you hate women. It seems to me you have a lot of unresolved issues. Yes, I did appeal to popular prejudice, but at least I have a reason for saying what I say. All you have given us by way of justification for your argument so far is <b>your own</b> prejudice. Doesn't appeal to popular prejudice trump that? How can one be a master moralist and a nihilist at the same time? That would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Like you, you mean? Who deserves? People who care nothing for others? Why? Preaching to the converted?
I'm not sure about this one Xev. There are identifiable feminine and masculine attributes but they are not necessarily gender based, the identifiable terms are based on culture or society but I do think they have some commonality one would find in every human society. If you question whether those qualities are natural or set by society why does the answer have to be either or? Why not a melange? Havent you ever seen a picture of a young man and thought how 'effeminite' he looked? When I take off my clothes I see a female but I also see a feminine female (its the curves and the softness that make the image so). One can look at anything and ascribe to it masculine and feminine qualities, society reinforces those qualities...but I do find them to be basically innate; of the thing itself. Some women will never look masculine no matter what attire you dress them. Gay men who display distinct feminine behaviour are not considered masculine no matter how imposing their bodies; to the point where women even forget about their masculinity altogether in their presence. Its late I should probably read your opening again, maybe I just don't see what you are getting at. Though I have some masculine 'attitudes' or qualities they still do not dominate or even counter-balance what most would characterize as an overriding femininity; and it wouldn't matter what I am wearing either; it is innate to who I am, but I do not perceive this as a weakness. Specific activities can have masculine and feminine qualities as society shades them but that doesn't mean they are gender specific. I do agree that women within certain societies are forced into a sort of 'artifice' but it would only seem unwelcome if one doesn't perceive that as part of their identity; if they are not naturally drawn to it for example. I mean no one has to convince me to buy a pretty dress or buy perfumed soap. On the other hand nothing would possess me to force my feet into a pair of needle-pointed high heeled shoes and I don't feel less feminine in my Doc martens. I do think society creates a schizophrenic 'image' or 'identity' problem for women but that doesn't mean natural masculine or feminine qualities don't exist. Sleepy now. Goodnight.
James R: Yes, it's a matter of personal observation. No, I con't care to elaborate - people are boring. Ideas are interesting. People are interesting to the extent which they incorperate ideas. *Chuckles* James R, do you really think I am Xev? Xev is a mirror. Everyone takes from my words what they please. Do I hate people? Maybe in a Sartrean sense, but it really depends on my mood. But who cares? No, I cited example in nature. I'm expressing skepticism, James. I don't necessarily have to give a reason to be skeptical - I only have to show the bankrupcy of the thing I am skeptical of. Annoying, isn't it? I've given reasons to be skeptical of the "feminine". I have not, yet, absolutely decided on its nonexistence. I might even decide to revaluate things by the standards of some noble society like the Norse. And no - popular prejudice is almost an indication of the ugliness of an idea. You're a hysterical little Christian, James. You take this more seriously than I do. Where on earth did I say "people who care nothing for others"? No - those who deserve are the genius, the creators, the scientists and researchers. The rest are all fodder. Lucysnow: They're gender linked, yes? That's rather what I was getting at when I mentioned spiritual hermaphrodism. What I'm bouncing around on (when I actually think of this, I've seen my muse elsewhere and I'm running after him) is whether they're properties of the thing in itself or attributes. As I said elsewhere, society doesn't pull these things out of its ass entirely. Gendanken gave a good geneology of the concept. I mean we live, always, outside our essence. If this is true, then asking whence our self-apprehension as feminine or masculine beings comes from is irrelevent. If, however, we have actual self known from self, then the question is of utmost relevence.
*Xev* I'll have to look for the gendys geneology because i was really too tired to absorb everything early this morning. Quote:I mean we live, always, outside our essence. If this is true, then asking whence our self-apprehension as feminine or masculine beings comes from is irrelevent. If, however, we have actual self known from self, then the question is of utmost relevence. Live outside our essence how? If the self is known from self then it would naturally revolt against that which does not represent its actual self or 'essence' and there would be no conflict. Conflict only arises is the 'split' exists which outlined in your essay or the essence can conflict with the external ie: society or culture. You, we all, have both masculine and feminine qualities many times one aspect being more dominant than the other, the dominant characteristic does not always coincide with the designated gender it is assumed to be assigned to, but this doesnt mean the generalizations concerning gender and their prescribed characteristics aren't correct. Exceptions only serve to reinforce the 'rule'. One idea I definitely disagree with is feminine men seeking feminine females. I have noticed the opposite phenomenon ie:the very masculine seeking its opposite and vice versa. Even among lesbians one can notice the butch female choosing a 'fem' female partner, I notice the same with homosexual men. I would describe myself as feminine but men who predominantly display those qualities are repulsive to me as lovers or partners. Also I do not think feminine connotates 'weakness'. You chose an interesting topic Xev. Much to consider here.
*Gendy* Quote:Those Romantics and thier midieval conceptions- that is what started this long process of degrading what a human is... Could you delineate this further please? And what was the state of the human before Romanticism? Quote:They needed mass consumers, so they needed and image and what better way than to feed on her insecurity? Romance. Absolutely. I think you're dead on.
Xev: Of course- its symptomatic of the lower class to exaggerate in the scraps that are thrown down from below- everyone suddenly wants a Luis Vuitton (sp?) bag and so they carry one everywhere and run it quickly out of fashion since their ignorance and lack of grace kills it, even though the artifice of fashion never wears off. I ask myself why this is- why is it that those peasent girls would curl their hair more? Do everthing to extremes? A difference in quality perhaps- imagine competing with ideal beauty when all one could afford is cheap pharmacy makeup and plastic, you'll never get it right and and fear of banishment will keep you from seeing that you don't have to do anything. A heartless exploitation of the weaker willed majority insisting on romantic absolutism, I say. Peasent girls will never get their curls to bounce like those curls in the magazines, that's why they'll curl it more. Stood buttnaked last night after logging off and noticed something- if you stand upright with your chest out, hands at your side its beastly and primal. But move one foot out and front and point it, then shift to the side like women do to look slimmer- and watch all that beastiality shatter. Its as if that one gesture alone is a blemish on the power of human command, its recepitve and naive. One gesture- screw the lipstick. I'm going to have to part with you in thinking this artifice only comes from external objects. Unless we can call this an external influence- I have yet to find one Zoe woman buttnaked looking as stupid as one does just by her gesture. Well, due to .................recent ~unpleasentness~....... I'd have to say there are some, of the lowest caliber, weak, insecure little worms that seek out women far from feminine. Yes, what to say of those seeking fortitude elsewhere for lack of spine? Hmm.....tis a paradox, yes? Yes, odd. It..disturbed me to notice my value systems. I enjoy others taking me for a male around here- what does that say about me? Nothing beats scientific analogy- ditto. I'm sure you remember the wire monkey experiments, yes? "The same results are obtained when infant monkeys are placed in a strange test room with unfamiliar toys present. Quoting from Bowlby: "So long as its cloth model (for touch) is present, the young monkey explores the toys, using the model as a base to which to return from time to time. In the absence of the model, however (which means "no touch"), the infants would rush across the test room and throw themselves, face downward, clutching their heads and bodies and screaming their distress.. The presence of the wire mother (also "no touch") provided no more reassurance than no mother at all. Control tests on monkeys that from birth had known only a wire nursing mother revealed that even these infants showed no affection for her and obtained no comfort from her presence" Source: http://www.eabp.org/sc.ans-append2.htm All one has to do is replace the word "touch" that I've bolded up there with "membership" and its easy to see why it is romantic idealism has been running us dry and splitting us up for years. Ignorance despises alienation. James: Of course they don't- but watch how fast they stop wagging that finger and looking their nose down on "depravity" as soon as they're no longer comfortable. Let the heat get just a little too hot and watch them strike back with all the 'wickedness', hate, and bloody vengenace everyone is so quick to put away as 'vile' and non productive. You're beginning to sound like Tiassa, and you have *no* clue what that does to me. Negetive. Feminity is simply a label for a set of traits commonly demanded of women. LucySnow: Precicely. I saw it in the gesture last night, there's something inherently female one can never escape- its in the voice, the face, the hands, the frame. I've said it before and will say it again: no matter how loud she cried, how big her weapons and armor were or how vehemently she took up her cause on the battlefield, Joan or Arc was probably still sexy. You can hide it but its always there- if you're toned down and bold, they make you a lazy muse with girl power. Made up and bold, one's a either sexy or 'cute when pissy'. And then you have those irritable bunch of proles who praise your independence but then shun you for not "wearing pink." Fuck them all. Never do they fear your persona or respect it as they would a man's. Correct me if wrong, but weren't women just as filthy and ragged in nomadic days? I'm picturing a Visigoth village- women are just as unkempt as the men and when done up both were neithter flamboyant or flashy. Both are nurturing, civil, cooperative, no? 15of19: Intersting. So- according to you, primitive animalism is only a 10, 0000 year old story...........?
Gendy it's not that I would attempt to exclusively limit behavioral patterns to a narrow time frame like 10,000 years, but I use that number because that seems to be the accepted time frame of the agricultural revolution, which occured simultaneously at different points around the globe. You must understand, I haven't had an anthropology class in ten years, so I'm going from memory, but didn't the revolution quickly alter the roles of the male and female in the tribe? I thought that within a a thousand years or so that we had evolved to a point where the men almost exclusively did the hunting, and the women stayed close to the settlements. This gave rise to differences in the way men view men and women view women. It's probably bullshit, but that's my current theory on why women are so nasty towards other women that they feel are competing against them. 10,000 years of viewing your fellow woman as competition for your man has got to have its lasting consequences, right?
!5of19: But even if so, this is beyond the point of this thread. Consider: the world keeps going around for the rest of the world- other mammals, the fish and insects, unicelled slime and the platypus- "traditional" male and female roles propogating each spieces. None of these glomorize their sexuality- and if you throw me some bower bird bullshit I'll throw it right back. In any of these speices, how many do you see clumsily strutting around as someting they're not just to embrace an ideal?
I'm waiting for the punchline here Gendy? You're not trying to equate humans to animals are you? My post is totally on point in this thread. Your response is a non-sequiter.
And children, don't forget that. Although she doesn't immediately welcome the advances, not to the untrained eye anyway, she'll play hard to get by attacking him for a while. As will many animals. And I personally love this myself in real life. Like everyone says they want a nympho begging them for sex, I've come to believe the fantasy is alot more appealing than the reality. In truth i like the girls that punch me when I touch their leg, and tell me to "fuck off! jesus", untill i have provided the adequate amount of harrassment. Its a courting ritual you'll see everywhere in the natural world, and it feels right to me. I know this is frowned upon but- frankly, if a girl acts too keen for sex she seems like a slut and it turns me off. Its not a sign that a girl likes you alot, girls I've just met have acted like this and girls I knew really liked me would resist my advances. It depends on the kind of girl, and I prefer the latter. There's something so phony about a girl desperate for sex, like yeah right, show some class whore. Perhaps it could be argued that what society asks of women is unnatural, but obviously femininity in its raw form is natural. The word means female characteristics or something right? All social animals have clearly defined roles for each gender, and I'm afraid it is usually the males that provide the muscle. Yes female lions do the bulk of the hunting, but you better believe if they need a home run hitter to pull down a girraffe or save them from a pack of hyenas the male is called upon. Speaking of hyenas, there's an odd case, very masculine females in hyena society, and guess what? They have high levels of testosterone, an elongated clitoris and bumps that resemble testicles. It seems its not 100% necessarry to be a male in order to be masculine, but you at least need a penis. The level of patheticness paris hilton displays obviously transcends femininity and goes into the realms of being an incomplete incompetent living organism, but girls are basically supposed to be girlie, how girlie I'm not sure, I generally tend to believe in the "men were hunters, women gathered fruit and kept the cave clean", it might not be very flattering but thats what is seen in most primitive tribes remaining on earth. There are exceptions, australian aborginal women run down wild cats in the desert and beat them to death with sticks for food, but usually the men hunt, have wars and controll everything while the women look after the children and cook etc. I'm not saying this is how we should be, but thats how unspoiled populations of humans naturally are. Hmmm, I'm starting to understand this whole "womens revolution" thing. But here's an interesting thought for you to play with xev; What if female humans naturally are pathetic? yes female lions and crocodiles do all righteous cool tough things but what if thats not what the animal humans are. What if YOU are the anomoly? What if as a female human all you are supposed to act like is that stereotype you despise so much? Perhaps the feminist movement only occurred after human breeding had escaped natural selection for some time, allowing billions of experimental variations to pop up, and inevitably some of these variations were less-feminine-females? Not saying this is the case, just entertain the concept, when you think about it its not that far fetched. Who says females used to be more masculine? There is no historical record of this, it seems if anything women used to be much more feminine, I understand historical literature doesn't go back far enough to tell us of the behaviour of early man, but why are you so sure that women were more masculine then? Looking to lions and crocodiles might be misleading, how about chimps and gorrillas? Have you seen a series called "chimpanzee diaries"? Its like a reality show but with a clan of chimps in the wild. The gender line is thick and blindingly apparent. The males run around loudly acting all tough pulling branches off trees and making a raquet, while the females litterally quietly watch them with a sheepish little smile. Frankly, the word "demure" describes them quite well. The males do the hunting, if the females are well liked(ie a good fuck) they might be given a scrap of the meat. This is the reality, i'm not trying to prove a point as much as tell you how it is. But which is a more reasonable assumption? That we were like chimpanzees in our early days or like crocodiles or lions? Out of those options I think chimpanzees would be the ones we most closely resemble. I'm beginning to really think women have become more masculine if anything. You are correct to consider the current state of how females 'need' to be a certain way as pathetic, and I don't see a problem with not joining them in being pathetic, that is definately a good thing, but I don't know if your focus is on the correct evil. I suspect you might be rebelling a little too hard in the wrong direction, instead of trying to be masculine, why not create a new kind of feminine where beating hobo's to death with hammers is the norm.... oh god, please do that, that would be so hot. Physical competence should not be mistaken for masculinity, it can be very feminine. It seems it often is mistaken for masculinity though, and gross incompetence(paris hilton) is seen as the height of femininity. And you are correct to have a beef with that xev, I certainly would feel insulted by that if I was a girl. But I think all hetero-sexual females should be feminine, they're females so as far as I'm concerned thats what follows- being feminine. BUT I think they should challenge what they've been told feminine is, i think they should be free to wear hessian bags and murder hobo's, while retaining their feminine-image perfectly. Masculine to me is looking like a guy, sounding like a guy, smelling like a guy etc, thats the "uprisal" from women I don't want to see. Wrestling bears or whatever would be fine, arousing even.
