The Revolutionary Reformists of Gender, Part 1
Throught the modernist and post-modernist periods of historical development very few social issues have been as intense arenas of “intellectual” debate as gender, both the relations between genders as well as the nature of gender within the individual itself have been thrown into the spotlight since women began an active campaign to be included in the machinery of wider civil society, becoming ever more relevant as more rights were achieved and more of those women were heard, bringing us in this modern era of feminist and conservative discussion and a fight around “female power”. While this is seen as progress since these developments have brought about more agency for an eternally marginalized group of people, that is hardly the case. -the progress part of course, the agency given inside civil society is as true as “agency” and “civil society”-.
The supposed progress achieved through feminism is nothing else but a false idea of agency that serves only to paint in different colors the existing alienation present in the structures inherent to the idea of gender itself, as “women” gained more rights it was only “women” that gained rights as “women”, while the individual remained trapped within this very concept, specially as the ideas so attached to womanhood and manhood, femininity and masculinity, remained not only in place but as asserted and forced into individuals as before, only changed and further reformed to be tamed and molded into the weak liberal structure of society.
Far from liberating, feminism has only recontextualized pre-existing oppression, has not destroyed the present state of things insofar as masculinity and femininity are concerned, but simply changed what to call feminine and masculine, therefore keeping the oppressive alienation of the gendered super structure. It came about in a world where biggoted assumptions of biology would put one group of people into the necessity of taking the role of a male, strong and independent, and another group of people into the one of the female, weak and servile, and it brought about a world where moralist demands everyone to take the role of the male, and those who don’t are cast down as the weak and servile females. Feminism is revolutionary, and thus, a failure.
Adam and his Rib
Gender can only come about as a force, societies in which gender does not play a role and does not force itself do not actually have gender in them at all, not as a social force, as there is no force, no structure, no alienation over the individual, and thus it doesn’t exist as it gets negated by individual free creation, though perharps it exists aesthetically, so when analyzing gender in societies we can see that when applied they seem to bring about one of two systems, both of them based on domination of one gender over the other, Patriarchy and Matriarchy, the reason for the inseperable link between gender and oppression can easily be explained by the anthropological origin of gender itself.
Though there have been inumerable interpretations and social roles of gender, spread throughout time and space, there is one fundamental part of this social construction that serves as evidence for an evolutionary link between all of them, the common ancestor that brought gender into being in the first place: the separation of social subject and personal object, that is to say, the cause of effect of gender and oppression does not come about with gender blooming as a cultural manifestation and then getting welded into a tool for othering and justification of oppression and hierarchy, but rather that gender comes about from this process of othering and hierarchy as a form to justify itself, something which becomes clear when we look exactly at what characterizes masculinity and feminity in a patriarchical society -Which will be what we will be looking at as matriarchy is long gone- and how that’s simply the differentiation of human and unhuman, individual and property.
Ancient human societies operated under the assumption of the role of men as Man, that is to say, that those gendered as males were “Man”, that classification permitted them participation in society as society that was made for and of Man, from Athens to the times of Rome the word “Man” and “men” were basically indistinguishable, and Man just meant human, Mankind, and so while today we say a democracy that only allows men to vote is contradictory for the ancients it was the same thing as the current democracy that only allows humans to vote, with this its clear to see where women stood, not as equal participants of society, but as objects, from practices such as arranged marriages, to bride kidnappings, to the overall view of women in those times we can see how women weren’t treated as people, not to the same degree as men, they were seen as objects and treaded as so. Such an organization of society not only allows us to see what the muddled terms of masculinity and feminity are, but their origin and place as definitions.
Masculinity and the role of men itself was the one of the human, the independent actor in society and individual, from this the strong characterizations of the masculine become clear, as the masculine was the human itself and as such took on the traits of the independent human, heroicness, independence, industriousness, leadership, wisdom and so on. While on the other hand feminity came to embody the characteristics of the tamed and enslaved self-admited subhuman; weakness, collectivism, frailness, purity, submission, and an enslaved dedication to sacredness and being a follower. These traits are so engrained into the structure of gender that they exist to this day as reformist movements only recontextualized these beliefs, showing a strong resilience present because of the fact that they exist not as symptom of an oppressive interpretation of gender, but as gender itself.
They show another thing though, which is the significance of Man, and how the view of gender as being both Masculinity and Feminity, and a duality or shared origin between the two are contraditory to the nature of gendering, because at the time of nature, before the alienating structures of society, we are all part of Mankind, all in the species of Man, as at that very primitive stage of Man we were all without such social phantasms and creations, Man was devoid of women, of course there were those that would be considered of the female sex back then, but they were “Man”, because Man and “masculinity” really only describes those that have an active and independent part to play in the mutual organizing of humans, only when structurization came about and we started creating society did there come about a need for such a social phenomenom as gender, that is why men take on the characteristics of the human in the patriarchical gendered society, because before women there was only Man, “and from his ribs did he create women”. Feminity came about as an invention to contrast the humaness of Man, and Masculinity was the word used to define such a thing, with this we finally see the differences of the two, the individualist Masculinity and the objectifying Femininity.
The World’s a Stage, the Role’s your Life
As widely condeming towards femininity this is to the free and heroic iconoclast it is hardly a deplorable role for society, a fundamental one even, as femininity is nevertheless a pillar of society, of family and the present system, its viewed as sacred, just as masculinity and their mutual partnership, however this sacredness is only a prison, indeed, for those that dare not thread on sacredness such wide envolving concepts as gender are coffins to them, sealing the unsacred queer with a rose above their chest. This ideology, the classic and well explored alienating ideology of society over the individual is the primary tool of the maintenance of gender, as any defiling of the sacredness of gender is a great and condemning sin done by the transgressor, once you’re assigned your role, your gender, it is sacred and set in stone, you better sacrifice yourself for it lest you be cast down as the born devil you are. And its under this creed that gender is maintained, that the feminine are made to accept their position and that the heroic attributes are made into slaveshness once attributed by masculinity, when gender is sacred, which is when gender is something beyond aesthetics, is when its oppression and harm is crushing towards life itself.
Femininity is a concept unseperable from submission, as we explored above its very origins are set in a process of making the feminine the property of the masculine, and so as the thinkers set about creating their world so did femininity gain all the qualities required for a slave, recounting the establish qualities of a feminine person is recounting the qualities of an objective, of something weak and submissive, something made to be threaded on, even as christianity, in it’s weakness, elevated many of these qualities the female still remained inferior, women were weak, meek and pure yes, but even if they were closer to ideal christians in these terms they weren’t men, and as such much lesser. Women are given the role of feminine, and to not trespass in its sacredness must play the role as precisely as possible as submissive and weak property.
A good example of this is the character of Conceição from Machado de Assis’ “Missa do Galo”, as her supposed attempt in the tale of seducing Nogueira and cheating on her husband is meant to contrast with her initial characterization as a christian and feminine woman, though important for the point being made here is that that piece of characterization is given by her being meek and submissive by staying silent towards her husband’s own adultery, clearly showing that, despite catholic teaching being very much against adultery, a woman remaining subservient towards her husband and not prostesting his own sinning is very much ennobling and feminine, because such things are the business of society, and women are to be only present in the business of subservients members of the family. In this case the feminine aspect of submission is seen as more sacred than any attempts at participating in wider society.
And while femininity is the role of subservience towards masculinity and the representation of submission and weakness masculinity is the role of the slave of society, of the rejection of individual heroism, and of brutishness, but such a description should come in contradiction with the individual free spirit, and that’s rightfully so, while masculinity did take the characteristics of the self-asserting and life-affirming individual it is by its nature contraditory to such a concept, as what makes one self-asserting and life-affirming is iconoclasm and insurrection, and any attempt of making such things a required role for ennobling is but the perversion and weaking of such things, and thats where masculinity gains its traits that makes it an insult to an ass.
Despite what the dedicated prophets of masculinity might say, masculinity is fake strength, fake independence, fake power, because the reality of these things rests unreachable for someone who is alienated, and masculinity as a role is like any other phantasm, alienating, as long as people are molded and made to be masculine, forced to embraced it they will remain alienating, as no achievements gained from such a thing are theirs, wanted by them and gotten by them, but given by masculinity, by chasing masculinity one foregoes themselves and becomes unable to take anything it promises, creating miserable and broken people, as what they see as accomplishment is hollow and impossible, and what is possible is unwanted by masculinity, this is the “crisis of masculinity” of today, individuals being driven into stupidity by the phantasm of masculinity and feeling broken once they get tired of chasing the hollow nothing.
It isn’t necessary keen observation to see such a phenomenom as something endemic to society itself, and to any chasing of phantasms, this isn’t just because masculinity is one of the phantasms, but the phantasm of society itself, its Man, and as Man it is ever present in the structures of society, the role of men has always been to participate in society, and thus endulge in all the alienation it provides, be it through work, religion, politics and so on. Masculinity is inherently tied to participation in society itself and thus inherently alienating, it is the job of the man to provide for the house, its the job of the man to participate in politics, to preach and so on, and so the masculine values of strength aren’t the only harmful characteristics of masculinity, but also its strict relation to the organization of society itself remains a strictly alienating force, one that crushes life beneath the weight of this invented society.
The Revolutionary Reformists of Gender, Part 2
And so this brings us back to the great revolutionary feminists, oh such exalted bringers of emancipation, who upon seeing such a dauting oppressive structure raised their voice in protest in order to bring about an end to it and create a new heaven, one where such structures are no more, where gender equality is reached and women are seen as equal to men, and in the end the final result was not much different from the starting point, as is the case with every revolution and reform itself. Despite the great strides in liberal politics and the guaranteeing of rights in such institutions, as a liberation movement feminism is a failure.
In the end the name of the movement itself is ironic considering its strategy that lead it to such a failure, as despite being called feminism it sought only the masculinization of the female sex, it didn’t ennoble femininity or enshrine it, it only made women includable under masculinity, and masculinity as a higher norm for every sex to strive for, such can be seen in all of its main objectives, which is equal political participation and same rights within society as men. As established before such things are characteristics of masculinity, something which remained the case following femininist movements as they still contrasted “traditional” femininity, which remained despised for its submissivines and weakness.
The established roles of gender weren’t destroyed, or even really changed, only reapplied, now we all ought to be masculine, all the characteristic traits of masculinity are something that we all should strive for, look at “empowered female characters” in media for example, hardly written or structured much different from traditional masculine characters in media, this is on purpose as masculinity itself is empowering for a society that still worships it, and feminine characteristics as well remained in their lesser position, with women that decide to live traditional lives being despised by proponents of “liberation” in many cases, all of this is the result not of liberation but of a wider integration of people under the liberal system and its necessities, we’ve changed the bodies, but not the wounds.
And so the hollow achievements of femininism are the result of the hollowness of liberal society as a whole, since femininist movements aimed to reform and restructure gender they only fell in the pit of maintaining gender, thus maintaining its inherent role as a pillar of an alienating society.
An Ode to La Maupin and Iconoclastic Queerness
Julie D’Aubigny, what an awe inspiring person she is, though her heroic deeds are the most characteristic of an iconoclast antichristian hero and her life story a great tale of queerness, her popular image gets soiled by one thing, and that’s the constant corrupting grasp of framing her as some sort of icon of femininity. This is very far from being the case, look at the time she lived, the roles given to her! no, had she been an icon of femininity, a real representation of womanhood, she would not have done the things she did, because every action we sing high praises of have been of total iconoclasm.
She defiled God as she burned that nunnery so she can live with and endulge in her sapphic love, she threaded on the state with every noblemen she left on the ground, she annihilated every shred of masculinity with her aristocratic love of art and aesthetics, she rebelled against the good norms with every man and woman she dated, and most present in all her life, she broke free from the shackles of femininity with everything she did, Julie D’Aubigny was no icon of femininity, she was a real iconoclastic and queer hero.
And as many queers today understand -certainly they do for their increase in numbers is proof of this- these actions by Mademoiselle Maupin are what true liberation is, the true and unmitigated spring of life that is inherent to queerness, to breaking free from all sacredness, such a life is something beyond what femininity and masculinity can provide, its living.