Keep in mind I am a feminist, of the stripe that believes
that nothing really separates the genders other than their junk; there may be a
bell curve of certain characteristics for each gender (males on average might
be more assertive than females, for example), but there’s no way of determining
if cultural conditioning is the cause or effect, and there’s enough exceptions
to the bell curves that they’re pretty pointless anyways. And the whole concept of saying “you’re born
with this set of genitals, you should be like this; you were born with that set
of genitals, so act like that” is so retarded I don’t even… Most people don’t
work like that- everybody has a mix of things society put in the girl box and
guy box (a female can be a total jock and have a green thumb; a male can like
shooter games and be a talented artist; etc.). Feminists have made a lot of
progress in making it socially acceptable for females to explore “masculine”
aspects of their personality, but unfortunately there’s still a lot of work to
be done to make it allowable for males to explore their “feminine” sides.
Segue: You know how in the yin and yang concept, traits are grouped together?
Like, Yin contains receptive, femininity, lunar, darkness, while Yang contains
active, masculine, solar, day energies? This has never made sense to me. It’s
like saying cats are the opposite of dogs, and orange is the opposite of blue,
so cats and the color orange are related while dogs and the color blue are
related. What? This idea is very pervasive throughout American culture’s
dealings with gender, though- art and science are opposites, therefore males
should have one and females should have the other. Logic and emotion are
opposites, therefore one should be a feminine trait and one should be a
masculine trait. Service jobs (nurses, secretaries, etc) and active jobs
(construction, professional sports, etc) are pretty much opposites, so one
should be the domain of males and one should be the domain of females. Etc,
etc. Can you see the problem with this? Actually, there are multiple problems,
see how many you can spot…
So the whole concept that there are a set of energies
that consist of female traits (lunar, earth, sea, depth, receptive, passive,
delicate, emotional), and a set of energies composed of male traits (solar, air,
fire, height, active, giving, robust, intellectual), just annoys me! And
strikes me as completely wrong… Until I figured out that me and these books
were just speaking different languages. What I would call an active energy,
they label masculine; what I call receptive, they would call feminine. They
seem to be subscribing a little bit to the yin/yang concept as well, but for
the most part it seems to just translate as either masculine=active (giving)
and feminine=passive (receiving) energies. I’m thinking this is all their doing
because they will name specific energies, and talk about the multiple energies
within something (they do think it’s possible for masculine earth energies to
exist within a working, or to work a solar feminine spell), so… Yeah, I can
live with this. Hopefully this reasoning might help one of you dear imaginaries
having a similar issue with wording ^.^
No comments:
Post a Comment
Even if the post is a gazillion years old, feel free to comment ^.^