Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

intrigued by this post.

Posted March 8th, 2010 by okaasannokodomo
In Reference to:
Feminine, Masculine, Female, and Male in the Integral Space

I really liked this article.  It made me really think about why we associate certain attributes with certain genders.  A lot of what I consider feminine and masculine is just thought structure.  I see the UR differences obviously.  Also it's understood why the sexes had historically different roles.  Gender seems to be the thought structure that those roles are made out of.  This article showed that there is a good possibility there is no biological basis to attribute a lot of qualities to either sex.  It's like guys have big muscles (this quality does have a biological basis) so they'll go work the fields which leaves the women to take care of the house.  Or if most the women die the whole tribe dies but not so when most the men die so have the men do the deadly work (soldiering).  At lower levels of development it would seem that men are better farmers and soldiers and women are better house cleaners.  With the advent of technology and worldcentric understanding though, there is no truth to that statement.  Just put a woman in a modern tractor and she'll do just as well as a man in the tractor.  Lose a bunch a women in your tribe doesn't matter because we're all human and there are other women out there.  Anyway it just showed how gender is built out of historic necessity not out of pre-given structures.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

pre-given structures

Posted March 8th, 2010 by Ambo Suno

Hi, Okaasannokodomo. I like your summary - you reinforce the case for historical and situational context accounting for a lot of gender behavior, and I'm guessing plenty of inner experience as well.

"Anyway it just showed how gender is built out of historic necessity not out of pre-given structures." You didn't say all gender expression and characteristics, but there is a little inference or sense when I read that following counterposed "not out of pre-given structures" that it is all.

I'm guessing though that you acknowledge that there are, or at least might be, some aspects of feminine gender that persist in some form regardless of contexts where women are acting effectively in traditionally men done tasks. That the inner experience and perhaps some outer expression of all feminine gender qualities, which are not unrelated to, are interactive with female hormones and biology, are not eradicated by historical context. Does this addition to or clarification of what you said make sense?

ambo