posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:32 PM
a reply to: Hecate666
I find it a bit presumptious to say being gentle and loving are just female traits and being rough, is male. I am 100% female but whilst I can be
loving and gentle, I can be very angry and nasty and rough if the situation demands.
As a psychologically rounded female and human I find it very patronising that I should be gentle and lovely otherwise I might be partially male. I
I can understand what you're saying here. But where do these self-states derive from? You call them "traits", but 'self-states' captures what's
happening in our heads vis-à-vis our interactions with others. "Traits" is just a useful noun for a verb.
In a sense, I agree with what you're saying; but then again, was there ever a time where humans weren't female or male? Or didn't have brains that
categorize the world in terms of similarities and differences (in cognitive science lingo: analogies or disanalogies)? It seems therefore justified to
recognise that femininity has much to do with the trauma of birth, the inspiration of love, and the sensitivity that evolves between these two states.
Conversely, men have historically been a bit more removed; not as isolated and polarized as men are today, but men will probably never have the
sensitive capacities of females, since, from a biological perspective, females produce much more oxytocin than males do; just as males produce much
more testosterone than females do.
The developmental neurosciences have discovered something interesting: male humans are fickle, emotionally sensitive creatures who actually need
than females do. Females thus in a sense more easily possess the hardware for empathy; whereas males have to be consistently and
regularly attended to in order to develop their empathic abilities.
I'm an intensely sensitive person. It came more through suffering than being reared by an emotionally consistent parent. I also wouldn't have survived
without becoming what I am today. We're all a function of our experiences, and hence, our 'developmental landscape'; but our experiences are still
under the control of archetypal patterns like maleness and femaleness.
This makes the present trend interesting, then, as I wouldn't predict it being a stable or durable way of categorizing the world. We're too visual to
ignore gender. We have to be told and reminded and enculturated into what under most other circumstances inevitably evolves into a "male" and "female"
dichotomy. Maybe Capitalisms general tendency towards not responding to realities constraints is the basis of todays belief that gender is neither
real nor relevant.
I have no problem with someone feeling that way;
but to fail to see its emergent nature from our mutual embeddedment in the socioeconomic
reality of capitalism is just plain unimaginative.