Sigmund Freud even constructed an elaborate theory, based on the female’s discovery of her presumed anatomical deficiencies to explain why females manifest a submissive feminine personality. This theory has proven to be one of the most disposable portions of Freud’s work. As Margaret Mead demonstrated in in her 1935, Sex and Temperament, there is no such thing as innate female or male temperaments.
Studying three New Guinea societies, Mead discovered that in one, the Arapesh, women did indeed exhibit those temperamental traits of passivity, tenderness, and unaggressiveness that Western society has associated with the innately feminine. On the other hand, so did the men. In a neighboring tribe, the Mundugumor, the males exhibited the traits of egotism, boldness, and aggressivity that we have long associated with the innately male. So, however, did the women. In the third society, the Tchambuli, the masculine traits were exhibited by the women and the feminine traits by the men. Mead drew from this a self-evident conclusion: Standardized personality differences between the sexes are… cultural creations to which each generation, male or female, is trained to conform. Read More:http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc1/soc1readings/sex%20and%20temperment_final.pdf a
In addition, the link between mothers and their offspring; the maternal, natural instinct or sense of fulfillment in tending children that explains and justifies the female role within the family can only be described as tenuous. To Mead, there were societies in which hardly a trace of maternal instinct appeared. In one of the New Guinea tribes she studied, the women looked on their maternal role with unconcealed repugnance, and the rare woman who was motherly toward her children was treated with scorn. More striking were the Mbaya, studied by Claude Levi-Strauss. They look with such disfavor on motherhood that they employ a partial substitute for sexual reproduction: Mbaya warriors captured young prisoners and adopt them as children.
There is a universal fact: few human societies have considered the link between females and their offspring so natural or so fulfilling that they have neglected to teach females that motherhood is their duty and their destiny. Indeed, the more civilized and affluent a society becomes, the more insistent this training is likely to become; for the richer the world grows in the range of its activities, the greater is the temptation of females to desert the household sphere.
There is much basis to conclude that males engage in a concerted effort to maintain their dominance. It was Kate Millet who coined the term “sexual politics” which described different designations and contrivances that males use to keep females subordinate under the phrase, novel at the time, of “patriarchal government” , a form of nominal equality- “reformed patriarchal society”- where the female is often a conduit for the transfer of property and other assets to succeeding generations. At the heart of this is the near sacred taboo of family; promoted tirelessly by religious institutions and secular leadership alike. At issue is the abolishment of the family unit and all its legal and moral distinctions which are oriented as economic levers: issues such as fidelity and adultery would cease to have any meaning. The notion of god, or the belief in god which underlies the all, backed by the Federal Reserve bank would be redefined or discarded. All relationships would be replaced by voluntary associations. The limits of reform are indeed very limited. This concept, cooked up by Warren Buffett of “giving” his money away does not advance anything; the ideal would be to remove his money from circulation. To delete it down some rabbit hole so that it disappears. If the white male patriarchal society was destroyed, replaced by a true equality, the conclusions drawn regarding money, banking and economics would differ widely from current practices.
re are two assumptions which are inconclusive. One is the notion that women must have children. An essential attribute of the human world is permanence. Do women need to sacrifice a portion of their individuality for the sake of the human world’s survival? The result would be deflation and a form of economic contraction and collapse. Is that such a bad idea? What are the limits of duty to the species?
Cosey Fanni Tutti:I don’t recognise any of it, I genuinely don’t see male and female in humanity, I just see humanity and everyone is equal. It confuses me that people can actually think one human being is more worthy than another; I can’t figure that out.
From a personal aspect, my artistic criticism and analysis of [working in the sex industry] could go on for years. I’m engaging with it now in a totally different way because when you’re in there you don’t see it the same way as you do when you’re outside.Read More:http://www.wheelmeout.com/4_13.php a
Anita Sarkeesian:Oscar season is a time when members of Hollywood are celebrated and reward for the work that they do. But it is also a time when we see just how male centered the movie industry really is. As Allan G. Johnson points out, “If you want a story about heroism, moral courage, spiritual transformation, endurance, or any of the struggles that give human life its deepest meaning, men and masculinity are usually the terms in which you must see it,” and since the vast majority of Hollywood films are about these narratives then that might explain the overabundance of stories about men’s lives….
…Here are a few simple questions to keep in mind next time you watch a movie, to help you identify whether the story you are watching is male or female centered.
1. Who has the most screen time?
2. Whose perspective do we see the scene from?
3. Whose story arc does the plot revolve around?
4. Do we see them make decisions?
5. Who do we most identify with? Read More: http://www.feministfrequency.com/