Musings on the Genders

A tale of two lovers? Or enemies?

I am not a feminist nor a mens rights advocate, simply because I support the rights of all genders. Too many labels begets too much baggage anyways. And you? I’m sure you’d tell me; but it would be vain to submit that the systems of suppression are not indiscriminate to our superficiality, and putting the rights of one gender aside while we focus on the other sounds like a dreadful task. We who prefer to defend the rights of every individual, regardless of race, class, creed and gender, but according to context itself, should be careful to remain neutral.

But, if gender and not power were to write the story known as history, feminism points out an important fact, a fact that is apparent by looking outside, in the paper, on the television or in the streets: namely, that man buttresses society from both the highest and the lowest echelons of civilization at the same time, being both the poorest and the weakest, but also the most rich and powerful. This generalization is not quite as honest as it might be, because obviously woman has always been in these areas as well, but if numbers are any indication, let’s just say it might be nice to get a little more female support in both these domains. The folly and gain of testosterone, that risky ambition and aggressiveness from which either opportunity or disaster may arise at any moment, hasn’t quite served as a forgiving and padded enough wall to continually bash our head against.

And woman...deemed by man for so long to be too beautiful to go to war, and too natural to engage in the fiction and play-acting of man that we know as politics, statecraft, industry, and religion, have finally been convinced by the peacock masquerade of the male sapiens that she too wants to take part in the farce, and even go so far as to want her delicate touch to be the hand that guides this rudderless ship. Even though a mother already knows that it is her that determines the trajectory upon which every individual shall go forth, and in a sense, woman already is the guiding force behind society, she may perhaps wish to lower herself into the hierarchies of idealistic man. Who knows? Maybe even to be at the top?

So be it in my mind. No cog has a gender and all cogs are equal. What should it matter who runs us into the cliffs? Hell, I’m even for it. Indeed, when I think about the injustice the patriarchal powers inflicted on dear Hypatia, and I shed a tear both for her and Hellenism, I almost wish that there was a more feminine version of tyranny in her time.

I say that “woman”—at least how she is according to her own expression, and not how man has written her into his history and art thus far—is rarely like the symbol man has made of her in his mythology, that she has proven too natural for his sordid metaphors. The real contradicts the mythology in every action, and the metaphor “woman”, that supposed feminine ideal as defined by masculine minds, does little to encompass the reality. It might be time to stop guessing what woman is and to finally ask her—what is “woman” to woman?

What has man confused and confused wrongly? He has confused where he has always confused—biology. The female body…the fact that man has slandered this goddess for so long like he’s done all the pagan gods of old only reveals the fears of his own superstitions in regards to biology. But why? Nature is the greatest misogynist. The female body…thrown haphazardly into an existence where you are under natural order to gestate, birth and rear, you are more primal, you are the last elemental being of the homo genus, always tied to the same earth that man has slandered and built over for so long, so that it is never too far beneath your feet. Not only to give life, but to cultivate it—that has to be the most important task of humankind so far. What else is comparable? It is shame that we venerate deities and idols rather than this earthen goddess. In this respect, man hates only his inadequacy when he hates woman. He knows that in the grand scheme of things, he is damn near disposable. Humanity would get along just fine with a select few majestic men as breeding studs.

But, like most packs and herds, the male still serves a purpose besides rutting. One is vulnerable to the world when she creates and cultivates life. The activity of creating life requires not only fertilization. A defender was once needed during this time—a defender that is perhaps nowadays no longer needed. Indeed man has been defending his broods for so long, that society itself has risen as a monument to this pastime—which when compared to other hominid species, doesn’t sound so strange a notion. The male body…it is easy to say you are no longer wanted, not needed, not required, that your strength, your aggressiveness, are disposable and even dangerous, but woman hates only her own inadequacies when she hates man. Rather, you are still indispensable as the protector. Sure, nowadays woman can live without you and do so splendidly, but to the extent that she still nonetheless requires the society that you built as support and protection, the society built and so far maintained in man’s image, she is never really without you.

I have to remain partial where gender and intellect is concerned, for no science shows that either man or woman is more or less equipped than the other, and I think we can safely infer that this corresponds to stupidity as well. This is another fact we might have to face—stupidity knows no gender. Injudiciousness is a universal human activity.

Perhaps we should be more cautious. If you've become indignant against what I've written thus far, you may have mistakenly assumed I am writing about actual people and not ideas. We might rather be like Sherlock Holmes insofar as we deduce from trifles and reason backwards. The only facts in regards to gender are the biological kind, and since guessing is destructive to the logic faculties, probabilities and maybes are simply not good enough to arrive at any other conclusion about any other individual, and any talk of “man” or “woman” in such generalized terms as I did above, as if they were more than characters in a tale called History, is fantasy. In other words, “man” and “woman” are not arguments. Even so, even if we deduce from the facts of biology, assuming we could know enough of it, it is impossible to make reasonable judgements about someone’s worth based on gender alone; unless of course one is used to, or otherwise not worried about, being continuously wrong. Biology rarely shows the battles, victories and defeats one has been through. Neither vagina nor penis is a prerequisite to our compassion.

What's my point? The whole gender debate is a farce, a fiction. Those who promote a gender operate under the same fictions of those who condemn a gender, under the hyper-generalized context-forgetting rhetoric of historical mythology, rarely touching on or considering the biological facts and reality of each and every individual. When one actually views rather than merely thinks about a fellowing human being suffering under tyranny and subjugation, gender will not even matter to him.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
A tale of two lovers? Or enemies?

Lovers encouraged to be enemies.

I know... stating the obvious. Hi.

a reply to: TrenchRun
Yes I don't quite understand the disconnect between the two. Hello.

We don't ever agree it seems, but I thought this was beautifully written, I'd be hard-pressed not to agree.

I only have one point of contention, and that is the notion I've been impressed with that men's intelligence vary wildly more so than women's. It's been said for example that when it comes to genius level intelligence, 140 in IQ or more, men outnumber women by 8 to 1. This would also be mirrored on the lower end of the scale with low intelligence men outnumbering females similarly.

Star & flag.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Thanks for the kind words.

I suppose our definition of intelligence may differ. I do not trust IQ tests, personally. My own IQ is fairly high but I have been outwitted by those who would be considered less intelligent on this scale. Learning how to take a test is fairly easy; utilizing that intelligence at a meaningful level in the real world I think is where the intelligence lies. I also believe instinct is a higher intelligence than book smarts.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was about to add to the post that I subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences but I didn't bother, I would probably consider IQ meaningful in a sense though, but rather limited and not nearly the be-all end-all when it comes to measuring intelligence.

On another note.
To pre-empt any potential feminist outrage I feel the need to underline that part of my earlier post where it says:
"This would also be mirrored on the lower end of the scale with low intelligence men outnumbering females similarly".

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I would have to agree.

To pre-empt any potential feminist outrage I feel the need to underline that part of my earlier post where it says:
"This would also be mirrored on the lower end of the scale with low intelligence men outnumbering females similarly".

I can't blame you. I wouldn't worry, however. Rational minds would take note. I doubt a genderist would read such a lengthy post anyways.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actuaaaaaaaally ... several genderists have been some of the most wordy people on abovetopsecret! Could direct you to some forum books they've written over the years.

Read much Judith Butler? If you haven't, is probably worth visiting. Writes some on the topic you're discussing.

I could only nod my head at all of that.
I am so sick of being called a feminist around here, though I have stated many times I am not, and I even have my own griefs towards them. My thinking could probably most closely be compared to humanism.

I think the vulnerability that goes with pregnancy and having small children is still a reality, yet in this modern society in which feminists made vulnerability and fragility something to be ashamed of, something to deny, this gets either ignored, or outwardly mocked.

Independance being valued, interdependance being a sin, couples don't have much to keep them together, and maternal influence is de-valued. Most single mothers will claim they don't need a protector- but if you look at the statistics, most of them are working outside the home. Gaining social status, certainly, but when you are doing double duty, you haven't the same emotional force (or time) to invest in the teaching of relationship, which is an important part of being human too.

I step on the soapbox for a second, but then I think "eh.... who cares. There are men out there that see through such cultural movements, and there are women that do too- those people find each other and create their experience together.
Ultimately, none of us are trapped by our culture, it just provides a bit of fences to jump- and who ever said creation should be easy and effortless???"

a reply to: Bluesma

Having followed you on ATS for a while I'm thinking you should write a book, about gender and relationships perhaps.

I would read it. If I'm having relationship troubles sometime I'll be asking you for advice.

a reply to: Pinke

And you Pinke, you're a sassy one, you make me laugh at times. I'm a little confused though, I seem to remember you as more of a feminist, but these days I see you demolishing (some)feminist notions right and left. Have you had a change of heart or am I imagining things?

a reply to: Bluesma

The feminist discussion is the most toxic. I give it a hard time for kicks out of pure boredom, but there is some fairly dirty tactics involved even in its highly contentious discussion. There is also a growing anti-feminist ideology growing to combat it, at least in the media and online. I don't really know what to make of this mess.

I have maybe a personal question. You're a woman and a mother. Do you feel that your motherhood, your woman hood, or essentially, your body, is a burden? Or do you feel that your motherhood, your woman-hood, or essentially, your body, is powerful?

For a man, there has been no other primal force that has offered him so much intoxication, wantonness, inspiration, desire, able to change the flow of his blood. Is this power, or a burden to you?

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
We don't ever agree it seems, but I thought this was beautifully written, I'd be hard-pressed not to agree.

I only have one point of contention, and that is the notion I've been impressed with that men's intelligence vary wildly more so than women's. It's been said for example that when it comes to genius level intelligence, 140 in IQ or more, men outnumber women by 8 to 1. This would also be mirrored on the lower end of the scale with low intelligence men outnumbering females similarly.

Star & flag.

link
An interesting read about race and gender bias as relates to standard Intelligence Quotient testing. Just thought you may find it informative and or helpful in possible explanations for the statistics you posted. And btw, I did understand the underlined portion, but just thought it would be interesting to provide where the discrepancies may lay.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
As usual, and though I don't always agree with what you write and sometimes think it's motivated to, perhaps, seek reaction, this is brilliantly written. You, as well, should write a book, if only of extemporaneous essays….I would read it. We have so few writers these days that are demonstrating such command of the language combined with the force of intellect.

I say that “woman”—at least how she is according to her own expression, and not how man has written her into his history and art thus far—is rarely like the symbol man has made of her in his mythology, that she has proven too natural for his sordid metaphors. The real contradicts the mythology in every action, and the metaphor “woman”, that supposed feminine ideal as defined by masculine minds, does little to encompass the reality. It might be time to stop guessing what woman is and to finally ask her—what is “woman” to woman?

This, actually, made me laugh, as I've often wondered this same, but perhaps in different words, and different situations.
I found a lot of wisdom in your observance that when we hate each other, we are really hating our own inadequacies…..and this, I think, goes beyond gender, even, but into the personal characters involved with one another.

As to your conclusion, there is a saying I am in the habit of speaking, though usually those hearing don't necessarily welcome it because of the circumstances that call for it's being spoken. "You mean I have to have a penis to do that? Why does it matter if I have that or something different?"

Thanks for the good read.
tetra50

a reply to: tetra50

Thank you for reading, tetra.

Is it strange that I am a little disappointed when people agree with me? At ATS, I take pride in having no choir to preach to, and no one to thank for flattery.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: tetra50

Thank you for reading, tetra.

Is it strange that I am a little disappointed when people agree with me? At ATS, I take pride in having no choir to preach to, and no one to thank for flattery.

What made you change your train of thought on the gender issues LesMis? What would males advocating for equal treatment in the courts have to say that their perceived injustices are just fiction?

I would go with 'Gender-less warriors confronting and fighting against a common enemy".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma
I have maybe a personal question. You're a woman and a mother. Do you feel that your motherhood, your woman hood, or essentially, your body, is a burden? Or do you feel that your motherhood, your woman-hood, or essentially, your body, is powerful?

I don't mind personal questions, I appreciate so much more when a man will ask how I feel, rather than tell me how I feel. Dialogue is useful.

I think that power can be a burden, because with power comes an equal amount of responsibility. The ability to grow a human life within is a power, therefore carries responsibility. I like responsibility though- I'm a Capricorn. We're like that.

It seems important to me to include that I do not see that power/responsibility as more valuable than that of the male abilities- to fertilize ovum, to be aggressive, to be possessive (protector).

I suspect that my concern for the "good of the whole", or the social dynamic, is part of my hormonal make up, and that too, is a source of power and responsibility. Just as much as males tendency to be individualistic- that is important too.

How we channel and control these drives is important, I think, for both the whole as a collective, and as individuals.

I don't have to worry about my body and it's drives any more than a man has to!
Yes, I have to worry about being careful in reproduction, and with whom, and when, I choose to give life,
But he too, has to worry about who he chooses to have sex with, who he perceives as a threat to himself and that which is his.

I have to worry about being so receptive I sacrifice myself in contexts in which it is destructive all around,
He has to worry about being so aggressive he sacrifices other in contexts in which it is destructive all around.

I rather appreciate my ability to be "tuned in" with my inner workings, and be able to aid my mate with "tuning in" to his own;

I also appreciate his ability to be really focused on what is happening outside, in an objective manner, and his aiding me to be perceptive of that.

I ramble. I just got off work and am a bit tired, I hope I haven't gone too far off topic.....

I am at an age where menopause is just around the corner, so I think about the subject of my physical 'burden' often. I wouldn't mind getting pregnant again (at this point, I think I'd be an awesome mom, I have learned a lot). But it makes me aware that I have much to offer to others in terms of experience and psychology (that falls well, my daughter is pregnant for the first time). So I focus on what I have to share with her about how to work with her body and all it's instincts, while I watch my mate counsel her on how to not lose herself in all that- I think the genders can be great compliments to each other- if we look at the bigger picture, of course

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: tetra50

Thank you for reading, tetra.

Is it strange that I am a little disappointed when people agree with me? At ATS, I take pride in having no choir to preach to, and no one to thank for flattery.

No, I don't think that's strange at all, given your evocative writings on the site, thus far. I nodded to that in the first sentence of my reply, you'll notice, when I suggested you frequently seem to be writing with the intention and motive of evoking reaction…..so, I don't find it strange if you feel deflated by so many agreeable replies…lol.

However, this is as tiresome as a daily diet of the opposite, seeking gratification of some kind, instead. Rather, you are showing a skill of critical thinking, imho, through an issue and presenting and supporting a definitive conclusion, no matter the reaction. This is necessary if you are to be perceived as well rounded, and truly the thinker that I know you are, rather than the pot stirrer a daily provenance of reactive material would make you.

The material provides a safe conclusion, as well, as any sane, logical mind, regardless of biologic equipment, would reach the conclusion that you have, herein.

Looking forward to future provenance from you, LesMis.
Have a good holiday.
tetra

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
And you Pinke, you're a sassy one, you make me laugh at times.

Blah I'm inflicted with a sense of humor, is troublesome sometimes >.< hope I don't offend much!

Nice to see a person giving out compliments and suchly. Would like to do this more too sometimes, but it always seems massively off topic. :/ Guess I should save them up or something and sneak them in when I have something useful to say haha

I'm a little confused though, I seem to remember you as more of a feminist, but these days I see you demolishing (some)feminist notions right and left. Have you had a change of heart or am I imagining things?

Still have my feminism membership card unless its been pseudo revoked which sometimes happens to persons.

Don't want to bore with some massive off topic story, but had some experiences that have changed how I approach these things. The summary version:

The identity of 'feminist' has become an easy public mantle to assume with zero requirements for effort and an immediate reward for those who want to learn a handful of contested buzz words and phrases. Some of the persons assuming this identity have got saying nothing down to an art form. It takes zero risk to say 'violence bad! equality good!' Others have managed to convince people like yourself (not your fault) that feminism has a very specific list of requirements, that there are various grand theories, narratives and even 'facts' a person must subscribe to else they are a 'bad feminist' or even person. This has branched out to include all equality and civil rights movements as required, and it doesn't just hurt feminism as an idea but it damages gender theory and study in general.

It's one thing when a person humbly claims to be a dictionary definition feminist holding basic beliefs about equality. It's another when a person begins condescendingly quoting overarching theories and narratives without a base understanding of where they come from, what they mean, the problems they might contain, and the exceptions they're supposed to include. Worst thing is, even when they mean well many of these persons seem to think they don't need to explain themselves! These people don't represent myself or many other feminists, but they're often left to do their own thing. In my own view I think this has been a mistake but its way out of hand now.

In summary, critiquing the problematic aspects of a theory doesn't make one less of a scientist, but holding a belief in flat earth theory or becoming an allegedly overnight expert in black holes without ever picking up a book probably does. I don't believe I'm less of a feminist for calling this out, I believe I would be less of a feminist if I just sat and watched people flatten the planet, and I think many of the people that quote these more problematic theories are often feminists in principal only, they fail when it comes to the theory because they often don't have one they've researched.

And I'm not offended by your question, am actually mega grateful you asked! I don't believe you personally cause doubt on my 'feminist' status, I think that's other person's faults. It's the same of LesMisanthrope's exploring of the gender concept. Regardless if its done under the feminist banner or not, it's go-go gadget progress that people actually think and discuss these things.

Disclaimer: is actually pretty had to pack all this together, since I could write waaaaaaaaay more on the subject, so I may not have expressed very well. Apologies for anything that's unclear / awkwards.

a reply to: Pinke

I see. Nice to encounter someone with an advanced understanding of the subject, can't say that applies to me but living in Sweden I'm used to people adopting the label either as a fashion statement or out of conformism so it's a nice change of pace.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Women and men are psychologically different. Evolution has made us so. The nature of nature is polarity, opposites attract. Evolution dictates this psychological disparity and the contrarian nature of our psyches makes us complimentary. Men and women are different, however, equal in dignity.