So I didn’t intend to get into a debate, but this kinda ended up happening. Putting it on this site just in case the comments get removed for some reason (anything is possible). Started in the comments thread of this video, starting with MakiPCR’s response to Comic Book Girl 19’s review:
MakiPcr Look, I know you mean well, but for the Goddess sake! Stop. Trying. To. Make. It. Straight. Every time you go on about the “Divine Masculine” and “Divine Feminine”, it always comes with the implication of heterosexuality. I know you don’t mean it, but this whole “man and woman need each other”…… No. No they don’t, there are many women who don’t need men and men who don’t need women; not even for procreation because transgender people exist. So stop with the Divine Masculine and the Divine Feminine, those things aren’t even real! Femininity and Masculinity are completely made up concepts. There is not one single thing in this planet that is “masculine” nor “feminine”; we assigned labels because that’s how humans interpret reality, but it’s all in our heads
ouicertes The thing is, in our society, we confined women into the Feminine realm and men in the Masculine realm. In other religions/spiritualities, those opposite principles or ideas (like yin and yang, active and passive, creation and destruction…) don’t necessarily correspond to men and women. But to be a complete person, you have to be both, masculine and feminine to some degree (Jesus said it too, interestingly, “welcome both into yourself to be a true/complete person”, or sth like that). And in patriarcal societies, you are not free to embrace the opposite principle, or it’s a transgression of an established order. And as the Feminine is seen as inferior to the Masculine, men whose self image (and place in the societal hierarchy) depends on the implementation of rigorously masculine behavior can not be full persons and embrace the feminine. Otherwise they loose their “man card” (“sissy, little girl, fag, …” if they have Feminine behavior they are no longer men). The same is true but to a lesser extent for women who want to transgress their role and adopt masculine behaviors, because as masculine is more valued than feminine, they are seen as trying to obtain a better place in society, and such behavior is somewhat rewarded (and way less frowned upon than a man wanting to “downgrad” to women status). What I’m (badly) trying to say is; “Divine Feminine and Masculine” are just opposing concepts, a way to theorize and talk about the forces that make our world. BUT in wanting to create a hierarchical society, we placed one principle ABOVE the other and assigned one gender to one principle, with the interdiction for individuals to transgress the limits of acceptable behavior they were given. Because to justify the fact that a man is worth more than a woman (and thus has more privileges), you have to differenciate their behaviors and say that one is superior to the other. That’s how you recognize that someone is a man ; he doesn’t behave like a woman. Basically, gender hierarchy (aka sexism) makes us not full beings but merely archetypes. I personally think that it’s not “men” and “women” that need to work together, but the feminine and masculine in everyone of us, and especially in our society. There’s a too big imbalance and we as a species are commiting suicide as the result.
MakiPcr You’re right about all these stuff, but you’re missing the point. The point is that Gender, Femininity and Masculinity are made up concepts to create and maintain that hierarchy. Here’s the thing, there’s nothing feminine about compassion and kindness and there’s nothing masculine about strength and dominance; they’re all traits that exist in all human beings and must be balanced to have a healthy life. Assigning genders to this characteristics IS the problem, declaring that caregiving is “feminine”, belonging to women, inherent to women; or that aggressiveness is “masculine” belonging to men, inherent to men; not their fucking not, naming them like that you’re only elevating gender roles to the Divine and that’s not how the world works. Not to mention that when you name human characteristics “male” and “female” and declare that they’re “complementary”, you’re implying heterosexuality whether you want it or not.
Anomalous Host But generally speaking, having masculinity being a label on men and femininity being a label on women tends to be accurate much of the time. Obviously not in every case, there are exceptions. There are women with more masculine attributes than feminine, and men with more feminine attributes than masculine. But they are in the minority of cases, not the majority. Same thing with transgenders (though the idea is being promoted nowadays that transgender should be made to be common, which isn’t a healthy idea to promote). The hierarchy exists for a reason, as it does in nature, among probably every animal species in existence, especially the mammals. Insects tend to be the exception in some cases, like Black Widows and the Praying Mantis. Anyway, you may want to carefully consider the definition of masculine and feminine, as I think you’re reaching a little too far with it. I mean, even looking in past films (among other things) there are men who are compassionate and kind, and women who are not. Granted, it was extremely rare to see a woman with masculine features (one of those rarities is the film Faster Pussycat! Kill Kill!), but there were definitely those who used their femininity as a way to gain dominance over man. Which usually ends up being more successful than trying to use masculine attributes to gain dominance over man.
MakiPcr No, no no no. Please no, stop, just stop. *deep breath* No. Gender roles are not natural, they are the result of upbringing; girls are discouraged from being assertive or aggressive, and boys are discouraged from being caring and emotional, phrases like “ladies don’t run” “boys don’t cry” “close your legs” (if your a girl) “man up”, etc, etc. “Masculine” and “Feminine” behaviors are the result of being raised to act a certain way; not of biology. Second, animals aren’t actually patriarchal. Wolves aren’t ruled by an “Alpha Male” who submits the others, they are governed by an Alpha Couple and the rest of the pack are their children. Many monkeys and apes are matriarchal; female buffaloes lead the groups; hyenas are highly matriarchal and oppress the males, male marmosets care for their children; whales are matriarchal. So not only the patriarchal hierarchy does not respond to nature, a Matriarchy is more likely to be the Natural form of organization
Anomalous Host Doesn’t sound so bad. And it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. I never said anything about man ruling over women or women ruling over man, I was just talking about their general personalities/characteristics among the human race, and how similar systems can be viewed among animals. Now granted, each species has their own hierarchy in this regard, and as you’ve said this tends to be a matriarchy among many (if not all) mammal species. And thus there is a pattern to it all. Not to mention this “alpha couple” found in nature tends to support heterosexuality. Thus, you contradict yourself by stating gender roles are not natural, yet proceed to try and defend your position by providing examples of gender roles in nature. There is another hierarchy linked to these things, and that would be the dominance hierarchy. Basically stating that the strongest rules, and the strongest usually ends up being labeled the Alpha, whether it’s one alpha or an alpha couple. In the case of humans, men are generally stronger than women, and this is often natural, not as a result of being encouraged or discouraged (though there is the chance that a man or woman can be encouraged/discouraged from working out). Because their biology makes them physically stronger than women on average, that tends to make them fit for the “alpha” position found in nature. Because of this they are often taught to be strong and to hide their emotions. As for the women, well, I’ll agree that they shouldn’t be encouraged to be wimps and servants and pure subservient to the opposite sex (as was done in the past), but they are encouraged to be intelligent and appealing, because they are naturally intelligent (assuming they don’t let their emotions rule them) and appealing (assuming they don’t chow down and become fat and bloated, though in all fairness some men dig that). Because women are definitely capable of being more intelligent than men, and more than capable of being just as appealing. Men are encouraged to have good looks too. Competition for the best man and the best woman. That being said, I’m all for tomboys.
MakiPcr Nature has plentiful examples of homosexual behaviors too; my favorite example being the Bonobos, which share 99% of our DNA and engage in sexual relations of all kinds, including orgies. But they’re far from the only ones. And leaders aren’t always the strongest, bonobos (again) dominate with sex, not strength. And of course, you’re still missing the point that Gender Roles are 100% culturally created. And even if you don’t agree with that, your standards are still kinda ridiculous. Your demanding women to be “appealing” aka, be valued by their looks (and don’t bring out the men, you included men almost as an afterthought), and you expect them not to be fat unless men find that attractive. And you expect humans to compete to be “the best man and woman” (whatever that’s supposed to mean); even thought fighting for superiority always leads to strife among humans. Listen, no matter how hard you try to justify the current social system with Nature, it’s not gonna work; because the current social system is not Natural, it’s all a social creation
Anomalous Host “Nature has plentiful examples of homosexual behaviors too” Never said they didn’t. I’ve seen male dogs lick each others dicks and hump each other. Doesn’t mean they don’t know that the other is male, let alone which is a female.
“And leaders aren’t always the strongest, bonobos (again) dominate with sex, not strength.” Heh, ok.
“Your demanding women to be “appealing”” I demand nothing, I’m only stating what I and the average male fine appealing. Don’t try to bullshit me that women don’t do the same. Looks may be in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn’t stop Hustler and Playboy magazines from selling which display models who meet those “appealing” conditions 99% of the time. Try asking anyone who watches porn what they think (that’s almost everyone in existence, have fun). Besides, you seem set on having looks dictated by your standards as well judging by your previous comment. At least I have the porn industry on my side in the “looks” department, both the amateur and professional. What you have is the minority opinion on your side. And make no mistake, I know there are people who exist who find people attractive who don’t fit my description of “appealing”, and there’s individuals and porn videos that exist that suit their tastes. Just don’t try to tell me what I can and can’t find attractive. That being said, looks aren’t the only thing to a woman (or to a man afterwards, just to include that as an afterthought).
“even thought fighting for superiority always leads to strife among humans” Doesn’t have to, considering competition is our entertainment, with sports and mixed martial arts and game shows and whatnot.
“no matter how hard you try to justify the current social system with Nature, it’s not gonna work” Doesn’t seem like your arguments are working out that much either. It may be a social creation, but it’s a social creation that came about through natural means. Besides, who are you to argue? You started this whole thing using “transgender people” as one of the basis’ for your argument against heterosexuality, and that’s something born out of a more bona-fide social construct than anything else I’ve been arguing for in this thread.
You’re arguing as if there can’t be both straight and queer. You argue as if there can’t be women who have personality traits and a lifestyle that follow the definition of “feminine” to a T, and vice-versa for men and masculine. Because it’s a social construct? And your position isn’t? Please. Why can’t it be as real as whatever the hell you’re arguing for since what you’re arguing for is in of itself a social construct? You assume that gays and transgenders can’t exist in this hierarchy even though they can (they just bitch and moan about it because the news and politicians say they should).