Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Apparently This Needs to be Said

I strongly object to any and all terms which characterize women's bodies and beings as being "less", with being a failure -- especially when explicitly contrasted with warrior culture. I particularly object to women's genitalia being used in this way. Make any case you like criticizing the current state of our culture (or anything else), but do not use women, women's sexuality, or femininity to characterize what you think is wrong.

Criticizing individual women is as valid as criticizing individual men, of course. My objection is using the "idea" of women, of feminininty, as inherently derrogatory.


( 32 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 19th, 2009 01:37 pm (UTC)
What I hate the most is the description of feisty women as "having balls". Like, only macho men can be brave?
Oct. 19th, 2009 01:46 pm (UTC)
Oct. 19th, 2009 02:12 pm (UTC)
Attitude, is what I correct them with...and then point out ovaries can't be cut off or squished.
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 19th, 2009 03:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oakmouse - Oct. 19th, 2009 03:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - druidharper - Oct. 19th, 2009 03:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 19th, 2009 07:05 pm (UTC)
I have a book titled "That Takes Ovaries!" I like that phrase much better in that context.
Oct. 19th, 2009 07:28 pm (UTC)
Especially considerring both genders have... "balls".

Such a moral society we have that degrades sexuality yet is also so controlled by sex. Lol ignorance has created this sexual power drama. Both sex are equal however even as we teach in the eastern mystery schools a woman does not have to become tantric she already is, it is the man whom must become tantric.

The man must allow the female to surface from within themselves to become balanced for the female sexuality is far more potent and powerful then the males. Only from this adrogeny will the man equal a womans sexuality.

Todays male fears the female sex and so they degrade it making themselves feel superior. This is only another display of devolved ignorance.
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 19th, 2009 07:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rravencroft - Oct. 21st, 2009 06:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 21st, 2009 10:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rravencroft - Oct. 23rd, 2009 09:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 24th, 2009 02:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rravencroft - Oct. 25th, 2009 09:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 25th, 2009 10:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rravencroft - Oct. 27th, 2009 09:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 29th, 2009 11:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 19th, 2009 02:42 pm (UTC)
You know I have a thing for war movies, and the kind of machismo soldiers are supposed to display typically involves calling each other by the names of feminine body parts or otherwise making reference to girls, sissies, etc., and I seethe inside every single time. It is a real part of the culture, so I can't really blame the writers for using that kind of language, but I don't use it myself and get upset when people I know use it.
Oct. 19th, 2009 03:05 pm (UTC)
Re: +1
I'm with you on all of this.

In this case, the usage occurred in a personal exchange with me, so I was disinclined to let it go as a general cultural characteristic.

Edited at 2009-10-19 03:06 pm (UTC)
Oct. 19th, 2009 02:43 pm (UTC)
May I add that I object to characterizations which value men's bodies chiefly as instruments of violence and intimidation? (And "protection," by the way, is just a euphemism for "violence and intimidation directed at somebody other than me.")

Not disagreeing with your point at all, of course. But I do want to challenge the notion that we can cleanly separate out "good" warrior culture from "bad" warrior culture and somehow just keep the good bits. I don't know of this ever having been accomplished outside of romantic* fiction. Perhaps the whole enterprise of celebrating violence and intimidation (sometimes euphemized as "strength") is rotten to the core.

* Note: using "romance" in the technical sense -- say, Chanson De Roland or Morte d'Arthur.
Oct. 19th, 2009 02:57 pm (UTC)
You are right, of course -- and it's a position that deserves more awareness. There is an unfortunate tendency by both women and men to characterize men's bodies (including, and sometimes especially, genitals) in terms of violence and coercion, whether implicitly or explicitly.

This post was in response to a particular term used in a comment on a previous post, which is also where the contrast with "warrior culture" was used.

Separating out the noble aspects of warrior culture from the rotten ones is extremely difficult, and it's part of the central work of the Soldier's Heart process. It seems most successful on the individual level -- but I think that could be true of most "shadow" work, since culture is made up of individuals, and it seems that a certain critical mass of individual change has to occur before there is a cultural shift. I don't feel that I'm in a place where I can meaningfully discuss or debate how likely it is that warrior culture can be changed in a meaningful, large scale way in the perceivable future, but I'm not optimistic.

Edited at 2009-10-19 03:03 pm (UTC)
Oct. 19th, 2009 06:00 pm (UTC)
My key point about male vs. female toughness (or genitilial superiority) is giving birth. Seriously! "Weaker sex"... As if!
Oct. 19th, 2009 06:33 pm (UTC)
Of course, that ties female toughness to procreation--which annoys me as someone who is staunchly childfree. I see your point, but other, more universal examples of female physical toughness would be helpful.

(And yes, I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but we are talking about defusing broad assumptions made on physical prowess of various sorts.)
Oct. 19th, 2009 06:39 pm (UTC)
Since you raise this point, Lupa, I'll mention that one of my personal objections to the Maiden-Mother-Crone model is that it makes the procreative cycle the fundamental frame of reference for women's lives. Obviously we all go through menarch and menopause whether or not we have children, but I've never favored systems that define or measure me in terms of my womb.
(no subject) - lupagreenwolf - Oct. 19th, 2009 06:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - qos - Oct. 19th, 2009 06:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oakmouse - Oct. 19th, 2009 09:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 19th, 2009 07:06 pm (UTC)
Actually, that's mainly when comparing the genetilia. Being child free or not doesn't change the fact that a woman's parts (and body) were built to better handle physical and emotional stresses of extreme natures.

For a different sort of example, how about how women tested as more phyically and mentally capable for space exploration in the 1950's? Little known fact that was interesting to find out. Of course, one could say that it's not a fair comparison either because some people can't handle heights... but if we are going to grasp for straws...
(no subject) - amqu - Oct. 22nd, 2009 04:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mankycat - Oct. 22nd, 2009 02:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2009 11:21 am (UTC)
"Dragon Kindred of the Nine Nations and your reference elsewhere to the Annunaki have clinched it"

I do not understand what has caused you issue regarding the above referrences. You must not have issue with the Annunaki when you are a priestess for a Sister of the Annunaki. Innana is a Summerian Goddess. The Summerian Gods/Goddess are the Annunaki.

I came to your site for your interrests magnetized me, and your acknowledgement or announcement that you are a priestess of those that are my kinds Ancestors. Know if you have true issue with my kind that I am not the only one that is watching your threads. I am only one that is verbal in regard to my Watch and I enjoy communicating with those whom show an affinity toward the Ancient ways as you have regarded.

Oct. 31st, 2009 11:23 am (UTC)
Peace to you and Your kind. Back to the Watch!
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )


Queen of Swords

Latest Month

December 2018
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner