Gender Equality

[BlackShanglan]

Let me move to the near-to-last first. I think it will make more sense of such things.

And I would suggest that seeing masculine/feminine as diametrically opposed, instead of a synergestic blend of energy, is the root issue here. If you allow them to blend, to mix, to settle into their natural polarity, both within and without, there will rarely be a complete 50/50 split. Sometimes it's 60/40, sometimes it's 90/10, there are always shades of grey.

There are two issues here that I think the root of our apparent misunderstanding on this specific topic.

First, I don't personally think that male and female genders are inherently antithetical - but then, I don't think that they exist as anything other than socially constructed ideas rather than empirical reality. My point was that the social construct of gender, whose existence I think unhelpful, frequently does model male and female as antithetical opposites and uses them to define each other around that polarity.

Secondly, I believe that you are using "masculine" and "feminine" in relatively novel ways, which prevented me from grasping your meaning. That is, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that your definition of "masculine" and "feminine" energies is unrelated either to sex or gender. I'm still a bit uncertain of that, which is why I state it - so that you may correct that assumption if it is in error. Because I have not located a source that identifies non-gendered, non-sexed uses of the words that seem to fit your usage, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by them, but take them to mean some sort of general groups of ideas or behaviors that you feel are related. How are they related to each other? What, under your definition, makes something either masculine or feminine?

On the rest ...

I feel like you have a special kind of sensitivity to labels and labeling... that much is clear from your continued response to it especially in regards to gender on the boards (not unlike mine! I happen to find this an interesting, intriguing and important issue on many levels!) My speaking to your possible wounding in this area was simply an acknowledgment of that sensitivity... I wasn't implying that your view was faulty because of it, but perhaps biased in a certain direction (as is mine!)... as you said yourself, often our perspectives say more about us than they do about the thing we are speaking of...

I don't care to speak about specific areas of my life on Literotica - and that, incidentally, is for reasons quite different than you assume. For that reason, I choose not to debate this at length. You are, however, incorrect. You're considerably closer to the truth when you suggest that it is labels and labeling that have my attention, and not simply gender.

But I don't feel that masculine and feminine are antithetical-- or they only are if you are looking at them from that lens. They are also reciprocal and synergistic and necessarily polarized. Without masculine and feminine energies, there would be no sexual attraction at all. Hence my comment that removing them would leave us in a "dead" world. What you see as oppositional, I see as symbiotic. Perhaps, ironically, this is simply the difference between the masculine's (yours) view and the feminine's (mine) view on the issue! <grin> But I imagine you would definitely argue that you are *not* speaking from a primarily masculine place... but I would disagree

I think it intriguing that you intitially assert that masculine and feminine energies are not antithetical, then define our opposed views as masculine and feminine. I think I must wait, however, on a definition of terms.

It's a dance within, and it's a dance without... and it's not just a human dance, it is a priori... masculine and feminine are energies/qualities that *everything* carries... from the pencil to the flower to the most basic cell structure. Strange concept? Maybe. If your only instrument of perception is one of quantification and empiricism (the realm of the "masculine" by the way... not "MALE" but masculine)... of course this is a completely irrelevant and unsupportable position.

I don't believe that I've ever suggested that quantification and empirical observation are the only realms of perception. I mentioned empirical verification only to differentiate sex (empirically verifiable) from gender (non-empirical social construct). I'm curious what you mean by masculine and feminine energies and look forward to a definition.

But my question is, then what? What WILL recognize the range and helpfully categorize the varieties of differentiation?

I'm curious as to why you think that necessary. Some things contain sufficient variety and range that they can't really be categorized in any helpful ways. If I had to go anywhere, I suppose that I would suggest using the wide range of behavioral descriptions that we already possess and ceasing to attempt to lump various behaviors together under broad rubrics unless required for purposes of clinical pathology.

I'm sorry you felt what I said was unpleasant... as for "ungrounded"... well this is my bias, but I feel as if I don't need to "know" you to feel your heart. and you don't need to "know" me either. You, in fact, knew that I wasn't being intentionally hurtful, that my motives were, as you say, "charitable." There is a felt difference between someone who is trying to hurt you and someone who is trying to reach you. We all can feel it, even if we don't say it out loud or prove with an "empirical evidence" that it's possible...

I'm curious how you feel that the mysteries of the human heart, typically difficult for even one's intimates to discern, are opened to you through one's postings on an Internet bulletin board. This seems to me unlikely, more so in this case because I am privy to information that you do not appear to have discerned. As for myself, I am not able to make such judgments, as I cannot say that I thought your motives charitable. One may lack malice and also lack charity, or indeed civility.

You see masc/fem as antithetical in nature. My bias is an essentially neo-platonic one. I see masc/fem as synergistic in nature. It certainly DOES say more about each of us than it does about those inherent energies... !

I think I addressed this above, but wish to be quite clear on the topic. I don't see masculine and feminine as antithetical. In the sense that you mean "masculine" and "feminine," I don't at the moment see them at all because I'm not sure what you mean by them. As for "male" and "female," either as sexes or as genders, I do not see them as antithetical, and the latter I do not see as real in any concrete sense.

I know it's a leap in logic to believe that I can feel your heart without having the "facts" of you or your life... it's wholly unsupportable from that perspective, I get that.

From what perspective is this supportable?

I'm all for expanding our knowledge and understanding... further even than seeing things antithetically...

In this last, I whole-heartedly agree. I think antithesis one of the most tempting and most dangerous of all human mental constructs.

Shanglan

 

[Selena_Kitt]

First, I don't personally think that male and female genders are inherently antithetical - but then, I don't think that they exist as anything other than socially constructed ideas rather than empirical reality.

This is the crux of our perceived difference, you are correct.

My point was that the social construct of gender, whose existence I think unhelpful, frequently does model male and female as antithetical opposites and uses them to define each other around that polarity.

Yes, they do... and my point was, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... just because society or social contruct likes labels, doesn't mean we have to buy into it, but the solution may not be in throwing out the labels, but rather in their interpretation, and more importantly, their differentiation.

Secondly, I believe that you are using "masculine" and "feminine" in relatively novel ways, which prevented me from grasping your meaning. That is, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that your definition of "masculine" and "feminine" energies is unrelated either to sex or gender. I'm still a bit uncertain of that, which is why I state it - so that you may correct that assumption if it is in error.

Your assumption is correct. I suppose they are novel ideas... I forget sometimes... Masculine and feminine are not necessarily related to sex or gender, although they can be and are often reflected there... you can also find them, as the Chinese did, on the sides of a mountain. Yui used the ancient Chinese terminology of yang and yin, and this might be a better terminology, and less charged... and easier for you to take in... yin and yang energies aren't defined in terms of ROLE. Or, even in terms of psychological qualities. Yin and yang are defined by images. Image, as Jung and Hillman both say, is the first language of our psyche. Image, really, IS our psyche, they are the spontaneous production of the soul. “Yang means ‘banners waving in the sun that is, something ‘shone upon’ or bright.” Yang is designated by heaven, the sky, the bright, the creative, the south side of the mountain (where the sun shines) and the north side of the river (which also receives the sunlight). On the other hand, “In its primary meaning yin is ‘the cloudy, the overcast” Yin is designated by the earth, the dark, the moist, the receptive, the north side of the mountain and the south side of the river. Of course the Chinese also speak of yang as the masculine and yin as the feminine, but basically yang and yin represent the two spiritual poles along which all life flows. Yang and yin exist in men and women, but they are also cosmic principles, and their interaction and relationship determine the course of events, as the I Ching shows. Now this is just one example... there are many, in many different cultures, that show that these energies exist outside of the construct of sex and gender...

I have not located a source that identifies non-gendered, non-sexed uses of the words that seem to fit your usage, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by them, but take them to mean some sort of general groups of ideas or behaviors that you feel are related. How are they related to each other? What, under your definition, makes something either masculine or feminine?

Source? Plato, for one. But beyond that, the Jungian theory of archetypes. Jung’s view is that, while undoubtedly the cultural and social expectations and roles greatly influence the ways men and women live their lives, there are nevertheless underlying archetypal psychological patterns. Yui talked about yin and yang... that is it exactly. It isn't a gender or a sex characteristic I'm speaking of. It is the energy that flows between two poles. Basic physics really. Just as electricity flows between a positive and a negative pole, so psychic energy flows between two poles that have been called masculine and feminine. They don't have to be called that... they don't have to be related to our socially constructed ideas of gender and sex... but they exist, as I said, a priori. Before us. Outside of us. We often reflect those energies... in various forms of polarity, within and without... but we do not create them. Now, you probably won't find many people talking about them outside of gender and sex... although some do. Because we DO like to label, we just tend to say "men" when we mean masculine or "women" when we mean feminine. It isn't really so. This is why differentiation is so important.

I think it intriguing that you intitially assert that masculine and feminine energies are not antithetical, then define our opposed views as masculine and feminine. I think I must wait, however, on a definition of terms.

I didn't say they weren't necessarily antithetical... they are, if you are looking at them, through that lens. They are BOTH. Synergistic and antithetical. It's really amazing, and beautiful...

Quote:
But my question is, then what? What WILL recognize the range and helpfully categorize the varieties of differentiation?
I'm curious as to why you think that necessary. Some things contain sufficient variety and range that they can't really be categorized in any helpful ways. If I had to go anywhere, I suppose that I would suggest using the wide range of behavioral descriptions that we already possess and ceasing to attempt to lump various behaviors together under broad rubrics unless required for purposes of clinical pathology.

Ok don't even get me started on clinical pathology!!!

Differentiation is important because to throw out all the labels and live as neutral is anathema to psyche and to soul. Psyche WANTS differentiation, we crave it. Why do you think we label so damned much?? It's a natural tendency, and it's a positive one... it just needs to be taken deeper, instead of staying on superficial levels. If you move past the "male and female" sex/gender-attached view of the masculine and feminine, it allows you greater freedom. The "label" of masculine (as understood as "yang") and feminine (as understood as "yin") in this understanding deepens and strengthens us instead of reducing and boxing us. This can be done with almost any label.

I'm curious how you feel that the mysteries of the human heart, typically difficult for even one's intimates to discern, are opened to you through one's postings on an Internet bulletin board. This seems to me unlikely, more so in this case because I am privy to information that you do not appear to have discerned. As for myself, I am not able to make such judgments, as I cannot say that I thought your motives charitable. One may lack malice and also lack charity, or indeed civility.

My contention would be... they they are not difficult to see at all... although one's intimates might actually have the DISadvantage of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The mysteries of the human heart are only mysteries if we do not know our OWN hearts. If we know our hearts, we know everyone's heart, because my belief (and it is all it is) is that your heart and my heart are one... all our hearts are one. So I can feel your heart as easily as I can feel my own. It isn't a popular view in the world we live in... we like to draw boundaries around ourselves and assert our "personal space" and claim we are all individuals (which is true in a greater sense) and no one can "really know us."

As for knowing through an Internet bulletin board... it seems opposite of what we tend to believe and know, but the perceived boundaries are actually less here, so it may even be MORE possible to feel someone else's heart. There is something about this way of communicating that erases boundaries. When we see a surface, we tend to create a boundary at that surface. We have our "personal space" we don't let people encroach upon in our every day... there is a perceived boundary at our physical bodies, our homes, our cars, everything. When you see someone else's skin you tend to create a boundary between you and them. On the Internet, that disappears... it's actually much easier to feel another's heart this way... we are more open to it...

Quote:
I know it's a leap in logic to believe that I can feel your heart without having the "facts" of you or your life... it's wholly unsupportable from that perspective, I get that. From what perspective is this supportable?

See above

 

[TheEarl]

There are writers who have the ability to nail a character's (or cast of characters) voice perfectly; in Buffyverse, Earl and Mindfiend come readily to mind.

Threadjack: Apologies for the OT, but just wanted to say thank you to the person who sent me feedback as a result of this nudge. Already said thanks to Yui, but this was anonymous, so I thought I'd leave a note here.

You may now return to your scheduled debate.

The Earl

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You may now return to your scheduled debate.

Damn, Earl, that AV is quite a distraction from our regularly scheduled debate! <grin>

btw, I let Mindfiend know his name was positively mentioned as well... made his day