KMO wrote:
>Zloduska quoted someone who wrote:
>
>> >>Of course, we all possess a certain amount of masculinity and femininity
>> >>within us. Yet it is plain (to me at least) that the amount of
masculinity
>> >>in women is very small, and that they are almost entirely feminine. (I
>> >>grant there may be exceptions.) Men are also very feminine, but
there is
>> >>enough masculinity inside them to make a significance difference to their
>> >>personalities and lives. The presence of this extra smidgeon of
masculinity
>> >>is the primary reason why men are the ones who create, sustain and
influence
>> >>civilization, create the new technologies and artistic masterpieces, and
>> >>continue to dominate and rule in most areas of society to this very day.
>
>Who wrote that?
I'm not sure.
>You think so? I take this person to be saying that every woman has a
>guardian angel who reminds her to be sweet, while every man has one of
>those same guardian angels plus a gang of arch-angels who remind him to
>be brave, trustworthy, strong, and brilliant. At least that's the
>interpretation that my exegetical arch-angel, Bruno prescribes, and the
>wisdom juice bubbling up from my Y chromosome indicates that Bruno
>speaks the truth. My sweetness angel is just cooing in my ear. She never
>says anything of much weight.
You realize that you sound like a fruit? ;-). I hope you're kidding. "Guardian angel" sounds like the stuff that fairy tales are made of.
Yes, I think that man's definitions were absurd. I meant that he asserts, 'feminine=bad / masculine=good'. This is like purple=orange and yellow=blue, because it just ain't right.
>> I could easily say: "Femininity means being caring, thoughtful, emotional,
>> nurturing, affectionate, non-violent, etc...and masculinity means being
>> brute, dangerous, coarse, and uncivilized. Women possess mostly feminine
>> traits, and men, masculine. Therefore, since I am a woman, I am inherently
>> superior." Oh, but only *I* would sound like a fucking moron for stating
>> the same thing in opposite terms, right?
>
>Well, if you were to make an argument of that quality we could only
>assume that you're a man posing as a women for pedigogical effect.
A misogynist male posing as a sexist woman would has some serious issues, I would think.
>> You know what really saddens me?
>
>Your previous paragraph and my sarcasm, I hope.
*Phew*!
I bet I appear touchy on this subject. Well, you sure bet I am. If you lived my life, you would be too. (*"Cookie, I bet your whole life is one 'dreaded chore' .." echoes in my ears*)
~kjs