The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[Mr. Tea]

@malelesbian You do realise that you've forced me to make points that @mixed_biscuits agrees with, so now I have no choice but to hunt you down and kill you, right?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

The anti-essentialism = property-Platonism(?): that properties exist prior to the things that might have those properties eg. 'grassiness' is out there waiting to be assigned to eg. shredded paper, Mr Tea's hair or even grass (rather, we call it 'grass' because it has most 'grassiness')

 

[ghost]

If we agree with you, and refuse to affirm any qualities as definitive of femininity, then we can no longer even identify people as women or even feminine at all. Gender categories, on your view, become useless. To say that we can ascribe no qualities to a gender category is to say that we can't define gender categories, meaning we can't understand them, thus they basically don't exist. But we've already discussed how denying the existence of genders is an obscurantist non-starter. You explain to me how we can understand what femininity is without describing any qualities it has.

The argument you've been making is predicated on the existence not just of feminine qualities, but feminine values or virtues.

I'm not arguing that you can't have a sculpture that feels feminine, or a tonality, or a feminine vibe. Those do quite the nice job of defining femininity. We're not trying to abolish the existence of gender, and we have quite the explanation of where a conceptual mapping of these qualities would originate.

The problem is that you want to have values that are gendered, which implies some kind of gendered cleft in moral philosophy that you've never quite gotten around to explaining. You also seem to value these values as inequal in value, but it's absolutely unclear how you're getting there, other than a third system of value-valuation that you haven't exposed. And finally, we don't understand why you think these values are feminine or masculine other than the basest of stereotypes.

 

[malelesbian]

But then what in God's name makes them "feminine values" in the first place?

Society makes them feminine values. Communities accept certain qualities as feminine.

What does "feminine" mean if not "of, pertaining to, possessed by, or produced by women"?

First off, if all "feminine" means to you is "of pertaining to, possessed or produced by women", then you are an essentialist. Full stop. Only essentialist views assert a necessary connection between women and femininity.

Second, as I have said many times before, "feminine" just means non-phallic, in other words, related to the other person rather than one's own selfish desires

How can you possibly claim to be "anti-essentialist" when your entire ideology is that some ways of thinking, feeling and being are inherently "masculine" (and, in your view, bad), while others are inherently "feminine" (and, in your view, good)?

All theories of gender say that some behaviors are masculine and some feminine. This is unavoidable. Again, to say that anti-essentialism forbids classifying any behaviors as gendered is just to deny the existence of gender.

Also, both femininity and masculinity involve good and bad qualities. The problem is that the good feminine qualities are underrepresented in our society.

 

[malelesbian]

The argument you've been making is predicated on the existence not just of feminine qualities, but feminine values or virtues.

I'm not arguing that you can't have a sculpture that feels feminine, or a tonality, or a feminine vibe. Those do quite the nice job of defining femininity. We're not trying to abolish the existence of gender, and we have quite the explanation of where a conceptual mapping of these qualities would originate.

What is that explanation? You've never given it.

The problem is that you want to have values that are gendered, which implies some kind of gendered cleft in moral philosophy that you've never quite gotten around to explaining.

Not really. All I have said is that there are good feminine qualities. It's good to help other people. And altruism counts as feminine because, following Simone De Beauvoir, society codes feminine people as the other and it codes masculine people as the self.

You also seem to value these values as inequal in value, but it's absolutely unclear how you're getting there, other than a third system of value-valuation that you haven't exposed.

There is no need for a third system. Femininity is not better than masculinity, it's just that good feminine qualities are ignored in our culture. Few people promote feminine culture. Do you? How?

And finally, we don't understand why you think these values are feminine or masculine other than the basest of stereotypes.

My explanation for why certain qualities are masculine or feminine is simple: because masculinity symbolizes the self and femininity symboolizes the other. This is no stereotype.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Why are you so keen on trying to be 'anti-essentialist', @malelesbian? You could make all the arguments you're making in an essentialist frame, with the bonus that people who are keen on essentialism - like scientists - wouldn't be rolling their eyes.

 

[malelesbian]

You could make all the arguments you're making in an essentialist frame, with the bonus that people who are keen on essentialism - like scientists - wouldn't be rolling their eyes.

No I couldn't. The whole point is that people can be masculine or feminine independent of their body type, and that is anti-essentialism

 

[mixed_biscuits]

No I couldn't. The whole point is that people can be masculine or feminine independent of their body type, and that is anti-essentialism

Yes, you could; you've just got to rephrase it.

 

[malelesbian]

Yes, you could; you've just got to rephrase it.

I have no idea how I could do that. You want to try? Go ahead.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@malelesbian Say something like, "The behaviours that women typically exhibit, when exhibited by men, shouldn't be discouraged merely because they're less commonly exhibited by men."

 

[malelesbian]

@malelesbian Say something like, "The behaviours that women typically exhibit, when exhibited by men, shouldn't be discouraged merely because they're less commonly exhibited by men."

Look, a key claim of essentialism is that men have to be masculine and women have to be feminine. I deny that. How could I remain an essentialist while denying that? How can I be an essentialist while maintaining as I do that no person needs to have masculine or feminine qualities?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Look, a key claim of essentialism is that men have to be masculine and women have to be feminine. I deny that. How could I remain an essentialist while denying that?

Men=masculine and women=feminine by definition because those are corresponding adjectives, like grass is 'grassy' by definition

 

[malelesbian]

Men=masculine and women=feminine by definition because those are corresponding adjectives, like grass is 'grassy' by definition

Right and I deny that. You conflate sex and gender, and I distinguish them. A man is just a person who has a certain body type, and the same for women. But masculine means phallic and selfish and feminine means anti-phallic and altruistic. If I identify masculinity with maleness, then it's impossible to be a feminine man, which is a non-starter for me.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Right and I deny that. You conflate sex and gender, and I distinguish them. A man is just a person who has a certain body type, and the same for women. But masculine means phallic and selfish and feminine means anti-phallic and altruistic.

Yes, that's where you're going wrong, because you're trying to remove the grassiness from the grass.

If you want separate terms that aren't essentially linked, just make two terms up like 'grommel' means phallic and selfish and 'phelma' means anti-phallic and altruistic; you would be able to make exactly the same points eg. men should be less grommel and more phelma, while not being confusing.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But obv that would still be more confusing than necessary because all that you want to say is that the male behaviours that are more commonly found in women be given a higher status

 

[malelesbian]

Yes, that's where you're going wrong, because you're trying to remove the grassiness from the grass.

Well I won't stop distinguishing sex from gender, so I guess I need to remain an anti-essentialist.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Well I won't stop distinguishing sex from gender, so I guess I need to remain an anti-essentialist.

Ok but anti-essentialism is relativistic and anti-science so obv you're going to be far less persuasive when it would be morally better to choose the more persuasive option and actually change things as a result.

And surely you're being essentialist when you're identifying the men who should display more feminine-gendered behaviours?

 

[malelesbian]

But obv that would still be more confusing than necessary because all that you want to say is that the male behaviours that are more commonly found in women be given a higher status

But look how confusing you've gotten in trying to describe male femininity. You can't even say that men act feminine, you have to say that they perform masculine behaviors that resemble women's actions.

 

[malelesbian]

Ok but anti-essentialism is relativistic and anti-science so obv you're going to be far less persuasive when it would be morally better to choose the more persuasive option and actually change things as a result.

And surely you're being essentialist when you're identifying the men who should display more feminine-gendered behaviours?

My anti-essentialism is universalistic, not relativistic. And as far as I know, scientists agree with me that gender is a socially constructed spectrum. Social scientists sure do.

I'm not being essentialist in giving men a new option to fight the patriarchy. If anything I'm looking at the men who already act feminine and saying that they deserve better cultural representation. If men want to use femininity to fight phallocentrism they can, but it's their choice. There are many ways to fight the patriarchy and male femininity is just one.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But look how confusing you've gotten in trying to describe male femininity. You can't even say that men act feminine, you have to say that they perform masculine behaviors that resemble women's actions.

A 'feminine' male is merely a man who does more things that women also do, than most men do....but everything he does is literally 'male' by virtue of being a man