The essence of Feminity

by Chim

in Completed Works

< 'Bird Boy' by Chim

The essence of Feminity

Then let me tell you that what we call 'typically male' or typically female' today was invented in no earlier age then in the 19th century.

Shakespeare and his fellows only knew soul and body. What we now call ones character was - and they really believed that - only a result of a mixture of 4 different humors in the liver: wether if black gall, yellow gall, blood or slime were dominating in your liver you were born as a melancholic, an apathetic, a choleric or a sanguine type.

In the 18th century there was a new section conceded to the human being: a mental interior room between the mortal body and the immortal soul.
In the course of the general overhaul of their world picture that the human race run through during the era of enlightenment,
the dangerous "passions" and "obsessions" that had made man to a slave of his fate before (in the middle ages, antiquity etc.) were now turned into milder terms: "feeling, sensitivity, compassion". No wonder that rose-colored poems of the romanticist should follow soon after.

Then finally in the 19th century our stereotypes we now know were developed. Almost subtly the soul in her superior role was succeeded by two new instances the intellect and the character.
While the 'cold' intellect and the 'durable' character both were declared as tylpical features of the man (as the strong-willed, and lineally thinking head of the family),
women were made to specialist for emotion and the inner peace of the soul.



In the end all this leads me to the question, if it can be that we all can be intelligent and emotional, thinking and sensing, cold and warm?

And what is even more important - if we weren't a great lot happier if we allowed ouselves to live our full potential, intead of trying to limit us to the stereotypes?
By only prefering sports and big cars or by believing in the clichés put over in the media.
> '.:essence:.' by Chim

Description

Mar 27th 2008
Tags:
educational essence female general historical historical human nature male philosophical romance society stereotypes vs
Views:
96
Comments:
1
Score:
0
Favorites:
0
Same thing as always, hope my English isn't all-too bad,
but this writing really means a lot to me, hope you think a little about it

comments are very appreciated



reference for this: Dietrich Schwanitz: Education. All you need to know, 1999 Frankfurt am Main

Comments

ZiggyPhoto Says:

Hmm, nice ideas, although I'm not sure you're entirely correct.

During Shakespeare's time, women were seen as weak, frivolous and generally inferior to men - in many Western cultures at least. That was to do with the Bible and various things like that. They were also often seen as men's downfall - also to do with both the Bible and Greek mythology.
This continued for centuries.
It wasn't until the late 1700s (in England at least) that a few women decided to put a stop to it, and early feminism was born (notably Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of Mary Shelley).

So, even then there were stereotypes of what was a typical man and woman; they've just changed over time. And I think that's the way it'll always be. In that way, we're completely animalistic. If you look at lions, for example, there's things the female lioness is supposed to do, and things the male lion is supposed to do.

That doesn't mean to say we should stick to stereotypes. No. I don't think we should limit ourselves like that. Live how you want to, basically.


Hope I made sense there...

1 Reply