I’ve decided to make this thread my first on this board. (Hi all!) There are a couple of reasons for this. My mate wanted me to read the article that kicks off the discussion, which I slogged through to the bitter end only because of my unnaturally strong devotion to her; and (more important), I am really impressed with the tone of the responses the article provoked.
Usually, any discussion of gender roles attracts two kinds of idiot: autocratic, theory-spewing “feminists” of both sexes who want us all to burn the heretics who fail to acknowledge the insidious partriarchal oppression of “history” and “manufacturing” or socially-stunted boys channeling Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson from their parents’ basement, between solo sweaty encounters with digital representations of the opposite sex.
I saw no replies that could be attributed to either group. Congratulations people!
For the record, it puzzles me why the pretentious twit, “Henry Makow, Ph.D” would advertise that he possesses a PhD, thus depriving himself of the only plausible excuse –lack of access to education-- for the drivel he has attached his name to.
I mean c’mon:
“Society is the target of a long-term hate campaign designed to degrade and discredit heterosexuality. Domestic violence and rape are highlighted to make women fear men, reject femininity and become masculine. The destruction of the family has always been the goal of the financial elite in order to control people.”
Of course, Dr. Makow, and genocide and torture are highlighted to makes us fear other people, reject empathy and charity and join PETA.
“Feminism's Marxist principles of "equality" do not apply to loving heterosexual relationships and are in fact toxic. As I often say, heterosexual marriage is based on the exchange of female worldly power for male love. Equal power neuters both sexes. “
Quite. And Fascism’s principles of “obedience to overwhelming force and terror “ are, in fact, the bedrock of life-affirming heterosexual relationships. As I often say, a battered and cowering spouse is a happy one. Absolute power creates just and moral men, while complete humiliation and powerlessness allows women to achieve fulfilling lives
Makow would need a truckload of “smart drugs” just to aspire to the status of “idiot”, so enough about him.
The celebration of femininity that breaks up Makow’s tedious inanities is more interesting.
My own belief is that women are generally more inclined to be “feminine” and men to be “masculine” for reasons rooted in biology. I think those who say that gender is a “social construction” are, at best , misguided and wrong or , at worst, pushing an agenda for ideological reasons and thus, traitors to the ideal of impartial investigation of truth and, frankly, sexist.
What I mean by the last term is “contemptuous of the values implied by “perfect” examples of stereotyped males or females”. To make it simple, idealized males are stoic, assertive, physically robust, intelligent in spatial-physical ways, reserved. Idealized females are empathetic, nuturing, socially intelligent, conciliatory, hospitable.
To imply that either list is superior to the other is sexist in my terminology.
To suggest that real men and women should or do conform to this list is sexist in the conventional sense, is putting arbitrary and stupid limitations on people and I don’t buy it. These are archetypes.
That being said, these archetypes are exceedingly important to us culturally and our mythologies are filled with conflicts and reconciliations of the Masculine and Feminine principles. The former is conventionally the force of destruction and aggression, while the latter is the force of birth and acquiescence. Both impulses are required in balance. Most Tragedies, for example, involve the ascendancy of the Masculine principle over the Feminine, with disastrous results. I’d say modern progress is a result of the Masculine principle, whereas, the great threats to our planet and our species come from ignoring the Feminine principles.
None of this implies that any particular man or woman needs to live in any particular way. Most people are amalgams of “masculine” and “feminine” qualities, up to and including hetero-homosexuality. Personally, I have no problems with feminine men or masculine women.
I do have problems with people who tell me that women shouldn’t be soldiers or men, daycare workers. Or people who tell me that a construction worker is worth more than a nurse. Don’t tell me that homosexuality shouldn’t creep me out or that homosexual marriages deserve less status then childless heterosexual ones.
Heterosexuality in humans is the manifestation of the preferred means by which Life has perpetuated itself for billions of years. Shortly after there were bacteria, these cells evolved to transmit genetic material from one cell to a receiver cell, via a hollow tube called a “pilus”. Algae also share genetic material whereby the “+” mating type produces a tube-like organ to transfer DNA to the receiving “-“ type. And so it goes through the plant and animal kingdom, sexual reproduction as a means of preserving genetic diversity and flexibility in the face of natural selection.
I’m sure homosexuality has a purpose in higher animals, but the perpetuation of the species requires two sexes except in exceptional circumstances.
I like feminine women . I like the way they look. I like the way they smell.
Feminists who dis them are making the same mistake as the knuckle-dragging men who disrespect them. The Masculine Principle has been well-established in human societies now for long enough. We need to balance it by giving less glory to conquest, aggression and thoughtless action. We need to celebrate compassion, co-operation and thoughtfulness.
That means respecting the wisdom of the Feminine, not just the strength of the Masculine.
