Gender Essentialism

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:52 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:23 pm I C
I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
First of all don’t confuse being a feminist with being a woman.
I did not say such a thing. I did not even imply such a thing. And it was totally irrelevant to the question posed. A man can answer, a woman can answer. No big deal.

Just answer the question: do you believe there is anything at all unique or special in being a woman? Yes or no? And if yes, what do you think it is?
There has to be. Every individual thing in creatipn is a conductor of one of the three forces of creation. The essence of woman is a conductor of the force normally called yin (passive force? as opposed to the yang (active force) of male. Each individual essence and in this case the essence of a woman has its unique blend of talents making them all special by definition.

Woman has an essence. Feminism has no essence. It is simply a reaction created by social forces. I believe it is important to make the distinction clear.
Last edited by Nick_A on Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Nick_A »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:30 am Perhaps it's such a stupid, meaningless question that it doesn't warrant an answer?
It is a very meaningful question. The fact that you don't know why is nothing to celebrate
Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Walker »

The masculine is the driver. The feminine is the vehicle.

Feminine Shakti is the energy of the moving dance. Masculine Shiva is still, conscious awareness forming the steps of the dance.

Consider Shiva/Shakti in light of boxing. The masculine principle of Shiva is the leverage and physics of the science. The feminine principle of Shakti is the raw, animal energy/aggression. Each requires and compliments the other for boxing/boxer to exist. The energy empowers, the awareness of science directs the energy into proper movement for the purpose.

Masculine distinguishes.
Feminine is the boogie, bop, or boogaloo.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1133&p=430994#p430994
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:26 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:52 pm ...do you believe there is anything at all unique or special in being a woman? Yes or no? And if yes, what do you think it is?
There has to be. Every individual thing in creatipn is a conductor of one of the three forces of creation. The essence of woman is a conductor of the force normally called yin (passive force? as opposed to the yang (active force) of male. Each individual essence and in this case the essence of a woman has its unique blend of talents making them all special by definition.

Woman has an essence. Feminism has no essence. It is simply a reaction created by social forces. I believe it is important to make the distinction clear.
Great. A courageous and straightforward answer. That's what I was hoping for. I can see you're on the "uniqueness" side.

I haven't heard a single voice for the "equality" view yet. That's interesting...
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Walker wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:15 am The masculine is the driver. The feminine is the vehicle.
Another straightforward and bold answer. Thank you.

And another vote for the "uniqueness" view.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Dachshund »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:18 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:15 am The masculine is the driver. The feminine is the vehicle.
Another straightforward and bold answer. Thank you.

And another vote for the "uniqueness" view.

Dear IC,


The truth is that men and women are all EQUAL (all human beings are created equal. Right, IC (?) All created in God's image !), but this does not mean that they are, on average, the SAME. 2+3 = 10-5, but these expressions are not the same. And, in fact, if two groups - e.g. males and females - really are different on average in some respects, but they are being treated the SAME, then they are not being treated equally on average. There in a nutshell is how ideological feminist stupidity shot itself in the foot :D

Regards


Dachshund
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:32 pm Dear IC,

The truth is that men and women are all EQUAL (all human beings are created equal. Right, IC (?) All created in God's image !),
Well, I believe that. But I'm a Theist, so it makes sense, for exactly the reason you identify.
but this does not mean that they are, on average, the SAME. 2+3 = 10-5, but these expressions are not the same.

I also think this is true. However, I am asking for other's free opinions, at the moment, rather than constraining anyone to mine.
There in a nutshell is how ideological feminist stupidity shot itself in the foot :D
I think we can all see there are some very obvious and significant impacts for Feminism, whichever view one adopts. But my real concern of the moment goes well beyond mere Feminism, to some larger connected issues.

A few more opinions registered, and I shall be happy to explain where I think this goes. But I don't want to constrain anyone to take one view or another. I just want them to be honest, at the moment.

You are one of the straightforward folks. Thank you for that. I continue to wonder at the unbelievable reticence of the general masses here, though. I thought practically everyone today had a view of women's rights and roles.

Apparently, if they do, they're afraid of something, and won't say.
Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Walker »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:30 am Perhaps it's such a stupid, meaningless question that it doesn't warrant an answer?
The lingam shapes the chaotic yoni.
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Nick_A »

D
The truth is that men and women are all EQUAL (all human beings are created equal. Right, IC (?) All created in God's image !)
This is a popular misconception which is responsible for so much confusion about the essence of men and women.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. NASB
If you know of anyone familiar with how "him" became "them" and the significance of the transition, I'd appreciate talking to them.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:54 pm D
The truth is that men and women are all EQUAL (all human beings are created equal. Right, IC (?) All created in God's image !)
This is a popular misconception which is responsible for so much confusion about the essence of men and women.
Actually, it is a value judgment. It does not preclude, or even say anything about, differences that are physical, social, cognitive, genetic, aesthetic, or anything else. It's purely the claim that all human beings have an irreducible value derived from the Creator.

No more.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. NASB
If you know of anyone familiar with how "him" became "them" and the significance of the transition, I'd appreciate talking to them.
Theologians understand it to be a statement about the value-equivalency of male and female humans. Both are defined here as "man[-kind]".

The repetition is common in Hebrew poetry -- the first phrase of a parallel phrasing (red, above) is, so to speak, "one way of saying it," and the second, repetitive phrasing (blue) is "another way of saying the same thing," an expansion or illumination of the first phrasing.

As for a singular pronoun for the race of mankind in general, historically there's nothing unusual about such usage. In fact, the singular used to be used, as recently as a few decades ago, as a collective noun for the whole species. So, for example, when Darwin talked about "The Descent of Man," he was not attempting to exclude or denigrate women. And when the Bible talks about God making "man," he does not mean, as the 'triggered' Feminist may think, that women don't get included in that.

In short: it's "him" collectively, and "them" when gender is being affirmed for some specific purpose.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

337 views so far, for only a half-dozen respondents.

Again, very interesting.
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:06 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:54 pm D
The truth is that men and women are all EQUAL (all human beings are created equal. Right, IC (?) All created in God's image !)
This is a popular misconception which is responsible for so much confusion about the essence of men and women.
Actually, it is a value judgment. It does not preclude, or even say anything about, differences that are physical, social, cognitive, genetic, aesthetic, or anything else. It's purely the claim that all human beings have an irreducible value derived from the Creator.

No more.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. NASB
If you know of anyone familiar with how "him" became "them" and the significance of the transition, I'd appreciate talking to them.
Theologians understand it to be a statement about the value-equivalency of male and female humans. Both are defined here as "man[-kind]".

The repetition is common in Hebrew poetry -- the first phrase of a parallel phrasing (red, above) is, so to speak, "one way of saying it," and the second, repetitive phrasing (blue) is "another way of saying the same thing," an expansion or illumination of the first phrasing.

As for a singular pronoun for the race of mankind in general, historically there's nothing unusual about such usage. In fact, the singular used to be used, as recently as a few decades ago, as a collective noun for the whole species. So, for example, when Darwin talked about "The Descent of Man," he was not attempting to exclude or denigrate women. And when the Bible talks about God making "man," he does not mean, as the 'triggered' Feminist may think, that women don't get included in that.

In short: it's "him" collectively, and "them" when gender is being affirmed for some specific purpose.
Naturally I disagree but that would be for another thread. But just consider that there was no reason why sexual reproduction should appear by accident. The earth was doing nicely with asexual reproduction. Why the dramatic shift from asexual to sexual reproduction? Is it related to Man as a conductor of active force dividing into yin and yang. Eve came from Adam's rib.

A am just suggesting that him and them have a greater meaning than the experts who wrote the NIV have any idea of. Look at how they translated the same passage. It has become meaningless
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
This whole phenomenon of gender equality replacing gender compatibility has compelled these experts in theology to destroy a very important question which is the origin of sexual reproduction, its purpose, and what it means for our species. Now the question can only be discussed politically and it is up to sincere and talented students to find people with understanding they can learn from. They won't get any help from the experts.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Age »

Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:11 pm Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.
One conditional vote for the Equality Feminists, and a half dozen for the Uniqueness Feminists so far.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Okay, now. I've left it long enough for people to weigh in if they want to.

There are a lot of points that need to be made here. The first, and most important, is to realize that the Equality Feminist explanation and the Uniqueness Feminist explanation are rationally totally mutually-excluding, totally mutually contradictory.

This can be seen because if there is ANY feature that is essential in women that is not also present in men, then it is not true that there is NO such feature. There is no alternate view rationally possible. One or the other is true; not both, and not neither.

So far, so good?

Now, this obviously has massive implications for Feminism itself, and for sex-roles in society. But I don't want to bark up that tree right now, and will let others do it if they wish.

My real question is about transsexualism, not Feminism.

It seems to me that this realization makes clear that transsexualism cannot be made rational.

Let's start out by identifying the two polarities of transsexualism. There is the base gender (BG) and the target gender (TG). The transsexual has been born or raised in the BG, but claims he/she needs to become the TG.

But if the "equality of genders" hypothesis is true, then this is wrong. There IS no TG. And there IS no BG. All there is, is two "false" genders, which hide the deep fact that men and women are not essentially different, all apparent differences have been socially constructed, resulting in oppression and false thinking. So what we all ought to be is unisex, undifferentiated by gender, or commonly just "human."

In that case, the best advice to an allegedly transgender person is to forget gender altogether, and become unisex. There would be no merit in encouraging him/her to leave his/her BG, which is an illusion anyway, and make the effort to take on the TG, which is also another illusion. Mental health would lie in the direction of everyone being unisex.

That's argument 1, consistent with Equality Feminism.

On the other hand, let us suppose that gender essentialism is correct.

If this is so, the transgender person CANNOT move from the BG to the TG, because some set of completely unobtainable features, from the BG starting point, will inhere in the TG. The BG will have essential qualities. So will the TG. And someone with the essential qualities of the BG will simply find it impossible to reach the TG.

In that case, mental health lies in the direction of encouraging the allegedly transgendering person to recognize that he/she is mentally ill or deluded in some way. Only when he/she gives up the aspiration to have the essence of what he/she simply can never have will he/she be able to be healthy.

That's argument 2, consistent with Uniqueness Feminism, and with Gender Essentialism, which seems to be the view that the majority here thinks is also right.

Conclusion
So either way -- whether we believe in Gender Essentialism or refuse to believe in it, the rationally compassionate decision regarding transpeople is to help them to see that it's not rational or healthy for them to continue to attempt to become the TG -- for Equality Feminism says it's a false goal, and Uniqueness Feminism says it's impossible.
Post Reply