I suppose I take a more evolutionary psychology approach to defining femininity and masculinity, so you can probably figure out where I’m going with this, thou I’m not entirely sold on everything science has to say about human origins, I think it’s generally the safest bet.
Women are like men, but with a womb, and all that entails.
You can’t really understand women without understanding children.
Women typically develop a much more intimate bond with children.
Not only do they carry them in their wombs for 8 or 9 months, but they were, and typically still are responsible for nursing them, and for looking after them, especially during their formative years.
In the past, many children died within the first year or two of life, infant morality rate was far higher than it is today, because children were especially susceptible to disease, injury and malnutrition, which were more rampant only centuries ago.
Of course there was no contraception either, so women had a lot of children, and they had to have a lot of children or the human race would not survive.
Consequently their lives, along with their physiology, neurology and typically their psychology revolved around children, where as men’s lives revolved around other things.
In addition to children, women represent the hearth and the home, all that was domestic and domesticated, everything safe, sound and secure, familiar, everything anthropomorphic, soft and social, where as men had to venture out into nature.
While women tended to children and perhaps gathered tinder or some berries nearby, men had to deal with change and otherness, with the mysterious, the unknown and the inhuman.
They had to go on adventures, take chances and confront dangers, wild beasts, trade and go to war with other clans who might try to steal their women, or flocks.
And so as far as intelligence goes, women are a little more social, they tend to be better with verbal, and nonverbal articulation, and expression, and listening.
They’re more likely to talk things out, or use tact, their wiles, deception rather than resorting to overt aggression.
They’re passive aggressive, manipulative and indirect.
They can be more submissive, at least overtly, again their aggression is often hidden, you probably won’t even notice you’ve been had until long after the fact, if ever.
They are less daring, risk averse.
They’re not as good with objective things, like logic, maths, and visual spatial intelligence.
They’re better with the psychological, the subjective, the emotive and the irrational.
A lot more women seem to have religious or spiritual inclinations, but yet they tend not to be the leaders of these institutions, or of institutions in general, but of course this trait will be attributed to patriarchy.
They’re not as good at improvising, imagining or innovating, they prefer order and regularity, the familiar, to play it safe, to not wander too far off the beaten track, physically, mentally, artistically and intellectually.
It’s sort of a paradox men tend to be both more objective on the one hand, and unruly on the other, and women subjective, yet also more organized, punctual.
They’re better at taking care of children, especially girls of course, but boys too during their early years, after which boys tend to drift further apart from their mothers and gravitate more towards their fathers, during adolescence, but also they’re better at take care of the lame, sick, infirm and elderly.
It’s a cliche, but men are more protective, and women more nurturing.
Being dependent was part of what made females female, so it a loss to some extent, however, it doesn’t have to be total.
Women can still be independent, but take on more traditional jobs or roles in relationships, not because they’re forced to, but because they realize their physiology and psychology is more adapted, more suitable to these jobs and roles, it’s easier, more natural…where their strengths lie.
Women don’t have to be exactly like men or totally unlike a traditional woman in order to be fully independent, is what I was saying.
I’m not suggesting independence itself necessitates the eradication of femininity, by/large it does not, but it’s how feminists interpret the implications of this newfound freedom, that diminishes femininity, how they wish to control for their own purposes, according to their own ideals, or the ideals of the puppet master.
Women were more dependent on men than they are now, althou for better/worse we’re all more dependent on the state and big business, some more than others, which equally dominate, exploit, yet cultivate and protect both men and women, women more in some ways and men more in others.
However this dependence of yore wasn’t absolute, women were always free to be themselves to some extent, their families had to allow them to be themselves, develop what was already there down certain channels, rather than impose something completely alien and foreign onto them, because it wouldn’t work, so I think it’s wrong to say women were completely repressed and not really themselves, they were basically themselves, and could only ever function as themselves, but yes some of these energies were manipulated and directed for male interests/the interests of the family, the tribe.
This makes it sound as thou women were born a blank slate, with no nature, which I contest.
Women had a nature, and while men sometimes tried to manipulate it in ways they thought was good for the family, or for themselves, if they pushed too far in one direction, the woman would break, or couldn’t help but resist.
Women already were what they were, basically fully formed, and then women themselves and men came along and worked with the abilities, instincts and energies already present.
Men did not conjure femininity out of the aether or program women like a robot or computer from scratch, althou I’m sure some men tried, *laughs.
And so what is it to you, whatever you wish it to be?
An unsolvable mystery?
Or is their an objective femininity, and it’s just I’ve gotten female nature wrong, you tell me.
And so what is masculinity or humanity to you?
An empty vessel we can pour anything we want into?
A roll of the dye?
Things are usually a combination of nature, nurture, experience, interpretation and decision, don’t you think?
