Apparently This Needs to be Said

[qos]

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.

Comments

[lupagreenwolf.livejournal.com]

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.)

[qos.livejournal.com]

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.

[lupagreenwolf.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I ranted about that a while back. Nice to know I'm not alone in that!

I think something that doesn't revolve around one particular biological system in our bodies would be great--or maybe just abolishing the strict archetypes altogether.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Trying to fit everyone to a single model (biological, archetypal, or whatever) is almost always a Procrustean endeavor, doomed to mangle those whose experiences don't fit the pattern being used.

[oakmouse]

*cheers*

[mankycat.livejournal.com]

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...

[amqu.livejournal.com]

If this is a counterpoint to the position that "men are better because they're generally physically stronger," then I see merit in the argument. If this is a way to make the point that "women's strength is better because it's better suited to the stresses of extreme natures," then I think it's just more sexism.

First you'd have to decide that having strength for extreme stresses is the "better" strength, and then declare women the winner. Like deciding short is better than tall when it comes to height, or heavy is better than light when it comes to weight. There are strengths and weaknesses in each, and pinging the "other" as deficient is silly and counterproductive.

Not that that is necessarily what you are doing. It could very well be you are making the first point, I just couldn't tell from what you had written in these two comments.

[mankycat.livejournal.com]

Actually both comments of mine were based on, "Why try to say one is better than the other? We both have our strengths and weaknesses."

So yeah, first point you mentioned, not second. ;-)