It is just that... what Lord Bucket said takes these, and amplifies them well beyond even that. Which is as I said turning villainy into super villainy.
I cannot think of any examples of a society that honestly believed that a woman's job is to accept terrific abuse for no reason other then it is her job to be abused... Nor many societies, other then possibly a tribal society, where a woman is expected to accept and reciprocate all advances.
I think a miscommunication has occured somewhere. I was not at all suggesting that. In fact, if youread the very next line after the statement of mine you quoted earlier:
But if you hear that and interpret it to mean "this is what LordBucket believes is the
proper role for women" then you're totally missing the point.
I think you are confusing "feminine" with "Pimp Whores"
...no, I think you're confusing "feminine" with "is a woman." They're not the same thing.
Think of it this way: If I am to whittle wood, I require wood with which to whittle. Would you rather whittle wood that easily accepts the shape you intend, or wood that resists you and tries to whittle you back?
It's silly to call the wood a "pimp whore" for accepting what it's given.
If you're an employer who has an employee, you would prefer to be able to tell them what to do and have them accept it and act upon it without arguing. If you're a sculptor working with clay, you would prefer to be able to work the clay and have it easily take the shape you intend. These are all masculine/feminine relationships, and they don't change if the sculptor is biologically female or the employee is biologically male.
When a guy says he wishes his girlfriend would "be more feminine" what does he really mean? Does he means he wants to beat her? No, of course not. Does he mean he wants her to respond to every sexual advance made on her by any random guy? No, of course not. He means that he wants her her to be more receptive to him, more passive, more accepting...more willing to accept what he wants. When a woman says she wishes her boyfriend would "be more manly" does she mean she wants to be beaten? No, of course not. Does she mean she wants to sleep around? No, of course not. She means she wants him to take charge. To not pander to her. To decide where they're going to eat dinner without trying to appease her, to stop caring so much what other people want and to do his own thing so that she can be the woman.
If you look at this basic thing, and separate it from the cultural haze surrounding gender issues...
at its core, the thing that is "masculine" is to act and to do, and the thing that is "feminine" is to be acted upon and to be.
Applying judgement calls to this...talking about "villainy" and " is like trying to suggest that gravity is "unethical" because it can squish you if you jump off a cliff. Gravity pulls masses towards each other. If that has unfortunate consequences, that doesn't doesn't change what gravity is, and unfortunate implications don't change what masculine and feminine are. Human beings are not pure examples of these forces, and I think that even people who disagree with me on this topic will generally agree that men aren't 100% masculine, women aren't 100% feminine...and that's ok.
I thought I'd made it clear that I was distinguishing between "masculine and feminine" and "biologically male and female in my previous post. For example:
Look at people argue over what a man or woman is "supposed to" be or do. That makes sense if you reduce people to nothing but masculine/feminine, but people are more complicated than that.
If we want to talk about biological male and biological female, we can do that. But if we're going to talk about masculine/feminine, let's not be confused and assume that masculine=biologically male and feminine-biologically female. They're different things.
let's remember to distinguish between "male and female" and "masculine and feminine." Biological male/female does not necessarily mean "exclusively masculine/exclusively feminine."
I think if you divorce the concept of masculine/feminine from biology, and think of them as impersonal forces the give/receive, actor/acted upon, dichotomy makes sense.
I think you fell into the very pattern of thought I pointed out:
It's simply popular for people view these things in terms of biology because biology is familiar.
In any case, I will repeat my previous assertions that masculine/feminine duality is not the greatest way of describing relationships, and people tend to get distracted by the habitual argument of "what is proper for man/woman in our society." If we speak of impersonal forces, it's much easier to describe relationships without that baggage. If I say that it's "masculine" to know what you want from life and to set out to make it happen without letting people dissuade you...I think that's not in especially inflammatory idea, and probably a good portion of people would more or less agree with it.
But if, immediately after agreeing with me, I then say that both the person who builds and gives away dog wheelchairs and ignores people who advise him against it, because that's what he wants to do, and the person who clubs baby seals and ignores people who advise against it because that's what he wants to do...if I say they're both acting masculinely...suddenly people aren't so eager to agree. "What do you mean it's masculine to beat baby seals? Are you some kind of sicko?!?!?"
But then if I say that both the guy building dog wheelchairs and the guy beating seals are "acting upon" the world around them...who would disagree?
Let go of the baggage.
Author
Topic: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles (Read 56803 times)