Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Starman
Altair, Now I will contradict myself and agree, why have all the categories. But I do not see masculine and feminine as categories, rather I see them as a particular flow of energy; one is protrusive and the other is receptive.
I concur about categories and feel like we have taken the one presence and fragmented it in our mind into millions of this and that, and then placed a label on each this and that. Even labeling the flow of energy is a mental construct.
|
They are all constructs yes.
It is very easy for us to reassert certain myths and find validation for our belief systems about gender. For instance, the idea that women aren't as competitive, but clearly they can be, but may express it in different ways than men. The same is true for an emotion such as anger. The same is true for being calculative and rational. The same is true for being skilled at communication. But reasserting myths happens almost instantly without pause. Parents seem to do it quickly with little kids, dads wanting to 'recognize' themselves in their sons and mothers wanting to 'recognize' themselves in their daughters.
But the closer I look, the less sense these commonly held beliefs about ''masculinity'' and ''femininity'' make. It is true for competitiveness, being calculative and analytical, introverted or extroverted, compassion, being theoretical or practical. If there are differences, it has often more to do with how they are expressed, and this is context dependent and to an extend, cultural.
First of all, we are all experiencing our life as individual human beings. And as human beings we all have the same potential characteristics in us. When observed closely, the ideals about masculinity and femininity become kinda irrelevant, although we may become very attached to what it means to be 'masculine' or 'feminine'. But what really matters, in my opinion, is to view another person as a human being first, to view them as an individual. This contains a higher degree of neutrality and therefore openness in our interactions, then to view them primarily as a man or a woman with preconceived expected characteristics.
I know that to a certain degree I am also 'wrong', because biology plays a part too, but I think that degree of importance is not as great as imagined. Likewise, viewing masculinity and femininity as objective 'energies' is presented as equally deterministic. More so, it is validated an reasserted by conscious individuals choosing this in order to continue making sense of their carefully crafted orderly worlds.