Femininity and schitzophrenia

gendanken:

Good point.
I was thinking maybe there's more. If she's pretty enough, she thinks, she can snare the prince and better her economic situation.
I was thinking about this today, reading Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche was a sexy beast) and you know, "love" is just another slave-revolt in morals.

Love is a form of parasitism in which the weaker seeks to dominate the stronger by inspiring love, that tenderness and desire to protect. Instead of being understood as vile, the loved turns aesthetics on its head and insists that vulnerability, stupidity and helplessness are things that should be honored. They find that center in the Other and force the other to protect them in order that they not be harmed by them.

You mean like that study Da Vinci did - hands out, feet out? It is.

It's not external. That's what I meant when I talked about behaviour and false smiles.
Put Xev in a frilly white dress and you'd have Xev in a frilly white dress. Put Brooke Sheilds in my torn jeans and Morbid Angel t-shirt and she'd still be girly.

It is.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The miserable little fucks won't ever realize that you're just what you are.
Armor. Problem is when they get you to loosen it.

*Shrugs*
I came to the same realization once when I realized how much I disliked women, and not just my normal dislike for people, but it was as women that they were disgusting and slavish.
You show some of the traits of schitzophrenia - it's unavoidable really. I mean deep down you don't hate yourself, but you do end up splitting to distance yourself from that.

And knowledge gets fucking lonely.
Which'll cause another split. You can't deal with that need as a woman - they'll fuck you over before you can bat your eyes. You deal with it as a man and you're lying to yourself about what you are.
God help you if they ever figure out that you've got a soft side, you're royally fucked then.
Schitzophrenia.

Lucysnow:

What makes you think "self" exists?

No, they don't. Exceptions may reinforce the rule for the herd, but any human is an exception. They're a rule onto themselves - to those that see them, an exception.

Well yeah, they may outwardly appear "tuff" but they're complete fucking pussies. I had a discussion about this with a friend today - men who buy those 4 by 4's? We're talking about how any man with an SUV just might as well put a decal that says "overcompensating" on it.
Speaking of myself, I tend to attract predominantly "masculine" males. Speaking of my friends, they tend to end up with people who are roughly their equal or superiour when it comes to strength. Maybe it's something more common to gen-x and gen-y.

Femininity means weakness in our culture. If you've redefined it and taken it onto yourself - good for you. But to others it means that.
It's a form of slave morality, really.

15ofthe19:

Isn't it funny how the men who remark on how competitive women are are never the sort of men one would compete for?

No, your post is based on the most boring literal reading of the thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Gendy*

Quote: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.

Tis true Gendankan. The girls who curl their hair more do not understand the amount of time, expertise and money that went into the model to begin with. The average model begins her career in her teens and is considered ancient by 25. That's the shelf-life. Perpetual youth. In short they take those who have near perfect features and embodies a certain style or attitude for photoshoots (not necessarily the most beautiful but the most photogenic) and then they apply the best hair stylist, make up artists, designers, products, photographers, light and location. When this is all done they then go about air brushing the slightest blemish so what we see in the end is a beautifully manufactured fiction. A model waking up in the morning isn't allowed to do anything except wash herself before showing up for a shoot because everything will be done for them. No one can reproduce this. But if one has money one can approximate the 'look' and it takes a hell of a lot of time. For all these reasons a poor woman cannot keep up with these ideals; pity she doesn't know that no makeup is far more attractive and healthier for the skin, and teasing, coloring, bleaching, perming ones hair over time will only damage it. In short natural low maintenance is high maintenance. Fashion is selling myth, its an art form really in the higher echelons of the industry. They sell an image of perfection, a dream one would like to emulate. Who wouldn't want to be that oh so perfect image with the oh so perfect body and hair wearing that just right outfit on the beach in the Seychelles, or Paris, or whatever location they choose? Looking oh so 'happy' or serenly content I may add! Though interestingly enough 'smiling' in most photographs is considered a faux pas. One must exude a cool aura of 'entitlement'. Ever notice how important the location is in the shoot? The grand apartments or mansion courtyards, perfect beach etc. that is used as backdrop? Notice how runway designers create clothes that are too impractical for the everyday woman? Well they are not meant for the everyday woman! Hello!! They are meant for those who live a certain 'lifestyle', a lifestyle affordable by so few it is laughable. Its Fredrico Fellini's La Dolce Vita. Rent it if you have never seen it Gendy its all about that lifestyle, those who live it and the artifice necessary to it and those who can only gaze at it longingly.

Quote

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ne gesture- screw the lipstick. I'm going to have to part with you in thinking this artifice only comes from external objects

Absolutely. Kate Moss became famous from a set of black and white photographs where makeup wasn't even required. She symbolized a new type of youth that didn't glam themselves like those in the 80's (remember calvin klein's grunge faze?). The irony about modeling is that not every one, even the most beautiful photogenic woman can pull it off. What they look for is a face and body that can transmit those 'gestures' NATURALLY! Artifice on the part of a model showing through would kill a picture. Its a natural talent like acting, you know where the best are those who make something look effortless and one cannot see the process or sense artificiality.

Quote: 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?

I wasn't opposing you just looking for a more detailed explanation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe you just wanted to use the word non-sequitor?
This whole thread, I think, is a focus on idealism that has women-not men- sacrificing their humanity for the sake of membership.

I say again: In any of these species, how many do you see clumsily strutting around as something they're not just to embrace an ideal?


You said this:

.....And fail to realize that the roles have always been established- show me a Caveman 100, 000 years ago and I'll show you his woman inside breastfeeding her child. Show me a Neanderthral or a Neolithic man and I'll bet there's a woman behind them nursing the children.


We're talking, I think, of the unnecessary flamboyance required in being a woman and I believe we can safely put the blame on propoganda- not nature. Yes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what gets me is that you really have to buy into it for that to be true, in which case you are endorsing what you loath. the most impressive people i've seen (in this regard at least), men or women, have all had a common trait: they may recognize that many people are flawed in the way that you complain about.. the way that causes them to see you as that piece of meat and nothing more (for example, amongst the other perceived injustices)... but those impressive people I mention, they show people what it's like to live outside that type of system because they, while still interacting on whatever level they need to.... remove themselves from that system by simply refusing its burden. you can see it in someone's eyes I think. it's fucking beautiful. knowing confidence? something.

it's not denial, it's a power to simply crush offers (to interact) that are less than dignified. IMO, the best do it such that people tend to realize "why the fuck was I acting like that, this person rocks". that kind of thing is infectious. perhaps it's grace? i suppose some prefer blood and conflict, or simply haven't seen how to move past it. I'd guess that to some blood and conflict are the only things that make them feel alive.

i can't really find the words to explain it. anyone know what I mean?

 

Xev, you're going to have to get better than that. I would submit that I apparently know more about women than you do if you can't see the obvious truth in what I said. I could give a squirt of piss if you like me or not, that's not the point. I'm talking about observed behavior. Good luck with your theories.

 

Xev:

And all the while these relations between humans thrive saying love, compassion, caring, sacrifice, commitment... all the words in the dictionary without using the real one: slave. If she's pretty enough she can dream of a king's ransom in slaves.

Not saying all relations are this way- only those established in need reinforce this ugly practice in humanity.

This "brand" of love comes a dime a dozen. What's.....dangerous is one based on behavioral psychology- the kind where with sleight of hand positive reinforcement you can be duped into thinking you still have free will.

Always beware of the power hungry, says I. I know, I know I'm guilty of this shit myself but I'm working on it.

Its beautiful.

Yes- now you see why LucySnow made a good point? Joan of Arc, no matter what she wore or how loud she bitched was probably still sexy and waifish.

Lying to myself indeed- which is why I found it odd that I had to question my value systems. Like a burnt slab of meat on the outside but pink in the middle .............meh.

Whatever.


Lucy:

EEEK!

Good lord, woman!. How durst you speak such blasphemies?! 25? Ancien???

(please take it back)

 

gendanken:

Ha ha. Control.

And it's just about being that stupid.
The sad part is that you fucking know better and yet you don't want to feel that knowledge.

Hell Gendanken, I'm power hungry myself. Otherwise I could accept that suppling through kindness.
It's the dishonest about their hunger - those are the ones you fear.

Yeah - it never stops. And no way to stop it but seperating completely.

Dr. Lou:
Nice post.
I'm not saying that sex roles are just some social shit. I'm saying that our sex roles are dysgenic. Sorry - when you're elevating weakness to a pedestal, your society is fucked.

15ofthe19:

Boring. Fucking. Shit.
Sorry dude, but I'm beginning to think that any man who opines on "women" deserves to be sentanced to three months hard labor in the tampon factories. Observed behaviour my ass - I've never competed for a man and I've never seen two women fighting over a man who weren't fighting each other using him as a pawn.

 

*Xev*

Quote:What makes you think "self" exists?

What makes you? Look back at your post, the words were yours not mine. I was simply using your words to ask a question.

Quote:No, they don't. Exceptions may reinforce the rule for the herd, but any human is an exception. They're a rule onto themselves - to those that see them, an exception

That was not my meaning. Just because there are 'exceptions' in the display of gender and its feminine or masculine characteristics does not lesson the general rule of how those characteristics present themselves.

Quote:Well yeah, they may outwardly appear "tuff" but they're complete fucking pussies. I had a discussion about this with a friend today - men who buy those 4 by 4's? We're talking about how any man with an SUV just might as well put a decal that says "overcompensating" on it.Speaking of myself, I tend to attract predominantly "masculine" males. Speaking of my friends, they tend to end up with people who are roughly their equal or superiour when it comes to strength. Maybe it's something more common to gen-x and gen-y.

But I am not referring to the appearances of being tough or rather the 'toys' people employ. I am speaking of opposites attracting, of balance. It is why I used the butch female who generally seeks what is called a 'fem' or 'lipstick lesbian'. The equal or superior strength you speak of is intellectual or ideological I imagine and not physical? I am referring not just to the physical but also the 'attitude'. One can find their equal or a superior in another who does not display masculine qualities, one can find it in the effeminate male, masculine male, masculine or feminine female but that doesn't mean one will be attracted physically/emotionally/psychologically.

Quote:Femininity means weakness in our culture. If you've redefined it and taken it onto yourself - good for you. But to others it means that.
It's a form of slave morality, really.

As I have noted in another thread I belong to long legacy of matriarchs so no feminity doesn't connotate weakness from my point of view. Anyone can display weakness even the 'masculine'. What society 'thinks' of the feminine is not as important as how the feminine perceive of it. In other words it is not the responsibility of the feminine to react in rebellion from it, that would be a weakness. Women who are not feminine because 'that is who they are' are not in rebellion, they do not need to feel scorn for what is feminine. Those who are feminine simply because 'that is what they are' are not in conflict with their feminity. I don't wear makeup just because I don't feel the need for it, not because I am rebelling against the fashion industries notion of beauty.

This discussion has made me think of this little controversy concerning female soccer players and their uniforms:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...t.soccer.womens.blatter.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

 

Wes:

Of course. Confidence- men wear it well, don't you think? He looks like Mufasa. You respect him and almost deify his dignity in the pigsty, so to speak.

But what of the liberated women just as confident as he- she's got her head just as high but she's more like Cleopatra, a thing to woo down from her throne until you've tired of her and move elsewhere. The respect in that is where, exactly?

People are so quick to question the freedom before them if its got tits, my friend. She's either a prude, posing, lacking, or hiding something . They can't just be what they are

What makes you think so?

 

Perhaps it is a magnification of what humans naturally are though. When a species becomes social wierd things can happen.
Like obviously it makes no sense for a solitary animal to be weak or helpless in any way, but in a social species an adaption could concievably happen where one sex becomes less independent and the other finds this charming and is urged to protect such individuals.

Similarly to how babies are made cute to inspire over-protective tendencies.
Maybe the human species was headed in this direction, where females are prized for requiring a knight in shining armour, in a way your observations could be looked at as evidence for this.
Perhaps it was the dysgenics that saved the females from becoming nothing more than possessions.

With natural selection in process perhaps the competent females would gradually be plucked out of the gene-pool, their tribe might be less likely to come to their aid than they would the clutz who exudes helplessness.
Whether or not you think this is what has happened, can you picture how this could happen to a species?

I never thought about it before but maybe the human species has never been admirable in its essence. I'd always taken the dysgenics of modern humans into account and then assumed one of the better strains of human would be the natural one, but maybe the helpless fragile bimbo and the insecure loser who feels validated by playing the role of hero are THE female and male respectively, with all the other types of people we see today being the offshoots produced by dysgenics.

As depressing as it is, its not out of the question. Because a clan comprised of males and females of this type could be successful.
Maybe the females weren't AS exagerratedly useless as what is prized today,(and there is no denying they are- in this aspect you are correct), nature might not have let that slide(nature would have forced them to say "ewwwww" too many times for them to not get a little used to it), but as I said, today's society might be a magnification of the rough outline of what the wild homo-sapien is, the relationship of the fragile flower and the knight in shining armour that you so rightly decree as pathetic.

 

*Gendy*

Quote:But what of the liberated women just as confident as he- she's got her head just as high but she's more like Cleopatra, a thing to woo down from her throne until you've tired of her and move elsewhere. The respect in that is where, exactly?

One would have to establish motive. I mean if the motive is to woo someone off the throne just to move elsewhere then there isn't any respect, but what if one is in earnest?

 

*an.droid*

Quote:So she went on to describe how a lion and a gazelle will merge together during a chase as in a communion, and that the kill itself will be experienced by both as a sort of orgasm.

How is that any different from what the German cannibal and his willing victim chose to experience together?

 

I've tried to think of a tactful way to say this, but I'm coming up blank, so here it is: Your friend is full of shit. I totally agree that watching a predator hunt down a prey is not violent act in a natural context, but to suggest that the hunted is experiencing a pleasurable sensation while being suffocated is ridiculous. I've witnessed a lot of killing in the wild, and the shrieks and screams emanating from the prey are not happy sounds. Sounds like the kind of thing someone would say when they were high.

 

You people make my sex life look normal and healthy.

android:

I agree.
Man seeks to dominate not only the physical world but the moral world, and the physical world through the moral world. Nice effort, but it ends up ugly.
The naturalist of the Ragnar Redbeard variety sees nature as something cruel and savage, and sees this as a confirmation of his values.
The Christian sees nature as something in which mommy lions lick their baby lions clean, and sees this as a confirmation of his values.

In truth, nature simply is and those judgements are simply interpretations at best. As Immanuel Kant says:

"Undoubtedly, I should say, that the representation of space is not only perfectly conformable to the relation which our sensibility has to objects-that I have said-but that it is quite similar to the object,- an assertion in which I can find as little meaning as if I said that the sensation of red has a similarity to the property of vermilion, which in me excites this sensation."

 

gendanken:

They'll question anything if it has tits, yes?
Makes me remember something. I talked to someone way back long ago who said that he felt more sexual - not horny, but just sexually free and hungry - when he was alone. Started recognizing the feeling now. You're just more *anything* while alone.

Lucysnow:

That may be, but I'm dealing with the way society percieves, manipulates and perhaps even creates it.

Dr. Lou:

Urged - no. Forced, I see that happening. If one is moved to protect the "cute" that one owns, one's genes have a better chance of surviving through that "cute" thing. A man has fairly little need to take care of his children, he can have others, but on the whole (given that chances for procreation would be limited by mobility and the high infant mortality rate) he's better off making the extra effort. Which could well be where we get the "family".

There's another impetus - an incompetent organism is an organism that has fewer choices. The female we describe may be desireable for the additional reason that she's less likely to screw around. She can't upset the gravy train, right?

Maybe I'm weird, but I think that's conditioning. I never thought of babies as cute - they're cool, in a weird way, but they're not cute. Nothing that can't control it's bowel movements and has a lumpy head is cute.

But they *were* nothing more than possessions. Dysgenics might have spared them death from incompetence.

I don't know, Dr. Lou.
I used to think of man as a rather successful animal, but he's rarely an aesthetically pleasing animal. For every Da Vinci there are thousands of morons who drool and think Thomas Kinkaid paintings are "purty"
One suspects that man is too smart, and wasn't sufficiantly refined through natural selection because he too soon discovered dysgenic solutions to his problems. But you may be right and the race is rotten at the core.

 

Gendy:

Do you think this little girl isn't confident because she's a girl?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you see it in her eyes?

Shit maybe it's just me.

You think she's gonna have to sacrifice her humanity to participate? I don't think she has to. I think it's a matter of her refusing to in a manner that basically disallows anything but dignity.

I'd swear I can see it in people's eyes... feel it in their presence. It seems to me that utter comfort with one's self and self-assigned purpose pretty much dissallows the idea that "i have to pay more of a price than the other person". You pay what you pay and get what you get. I can't help but think that gender, if thought of as an obstacle or burden, will be so.

Maybe it's just that all these issues are so far behind me that I just don't give them much credence anymore. At some point I think I let it go because I realized I was focusing on bullshit. I wonder if what I said above is where I left it the last time I thought about it, or if it's just part of a solution to a set of problems that seem alike to me and so I just bust it out when I hear it. Oh well. Hey I do mean well. It's mostly that I'm a happycentric individual and don't like to see pain in the people I enjoy. I have a hard time accepting that some people seek that pain. It's easy for me to understand why they are that way, but difficult for me to relate to it and relations generally take precedent in my dealings with people, since I don't dig what I think of as unnecessary drama (excepting for like, x-files and movies and such).

I guess I'm just trying to say that I think: Once you know about "your humanity" as you put it in the first place, you can no longer sacrifice it unwillingly.

 

Wes

Quote:It seems to me that utter comfort with one's self and self-assigned purpose pretty much dissallows the idea that "i have to pay more of a price than the other person". You pay what you pay and get what you get. I can't help but think that gender, if thought of as an obstacle or burden, will be so.

I agree with you Wes. Its like some minorities complaining that they are thwarted by the 'white man' or by the 'system', that their 'humanity' is being sacrificed etc., when really the civil rights movement is over and they are just as free or fucked as any other minority who struggled and received their just rewards for their struggles. I can honestly say that being a female hasn't hindered me one bit and I don't receive any 'weird' messages from the society. Society don't just oppress one group but everyone within it if we want to really look at it. If women have to 'pay a price' so do men. So what if it want's women to dress in frilly pink dresses? We are free to buy them or not. Curl thy tresses if you want to. If not don't and get on with what is important...and this certainly isn't important.

 

Having just read this entire thread I'd have to say Wes and Lucys last posts sum it up for me.

I would have posted more but I just ended up getting confused over who I'm supposed to be argueing against...

It doesn't matter. Just be. For fucks sake.

 

How. Utterly. Incurious.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what seperates a superiour mind from an ordinary mind. Did Kant ever say "you know, the question of whether pure mathematics is possible is really boring, I'm just going to go out and pick up chicks"?
Did Foucault ever say "you know, who cares about the development of sexuality, I'm gay and I'm proud, I'm going to go out and pick up guys"?
Why not? Curiousity

Like, whatever man. Let's just get high and watch MTV.