Saturday, July 17, 2004

***

Masculinity and the Notawoman

I’ve been told I
suffer from a sort of masculinity ..mm.. problem (?) The boy doesn’t
quite describe it as a ‘problem’ per se, but more of a quirk. And I’ve
never really give it much thought until recently, when Mr. Big and I
had this conversation over Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.

That
ended up in me raving, in bed, about how the play was really about
sexual insecurity. Personally, I thought Shakespeare was in effect
challenging, (or mocking) the men of his era and their perception of
women as creatures that are supposed to be all the time filled with
maternal and domestic concerns. (He didn’t say anything to the contrary
because 1) He couldn’t remember much of the play 2) He knew I’d just
carry on arguing until no one would have any libido left to do things
of more importance.)

I can’t imagine being called a feminist,
but I do like feeling like I’m the alpha whatever in any relationship.
But then again, who doesn’t. Maybe, I take it a step too far sometimes
though. I've this idiosyncrasy that causes me to be absolutely
fascinated with a guy shopping for groceries and doing his own laundry.
Partly because I’m female and would naturally pay attention to little
domestic details, but also because it’s just fascinating.

I
grew up with all these funny perceptions of how women should be
subjugated to men –and I can say my mom’s no help, with her funny ideas
that go along the lines of “Oh my god, they’ve had sex. Good on her
that she’s made him marry her now.” And then one day I realize that
that was all bullshit, and felt the need to remedy the years lost
living in that disillusion.

I’ve always wondered why society
(not so much now, as in the past) constantly subjugated women to that
sort of sexual submission that constrained them from what men did all
the time. I.e, fucking around. If you think about it, it makes no
sense. If more women were less restrained by stupid, unstated societal
standards, then a lot more would be fucking around, which is good for
them, as well as the men. (I leave the definition of ‘fucking around’
to your own moral digression. Pertaining to myself, it's definition
would be sex that is good for your body and good for your soul. Which
might also be akin to making love *shrugs* You decide.)

The
whole idea that ‘sluts’ will never inspire genuine love leading to
matrimonial edicts can obviously be held only by misanthropes clearly
against a more libertine society. The view that a girl with an
illustrious sexual history will never wed, (aside from being bullshit,
given that illustrious is not akin to matching up to Annabelle Chong) is also an obvious show of misogyny and inherent sexual insecurity.

Only
notawomen (men who absolutely feel the need to proclaim that they are
men by constantly doing things to prove that they aren’t women. Like
being obsessed with destruction and constantly feeling the need to go
to war) can be capable of such falsity, and I don’t blame them. After
all, the institution of marriage is the last instance to the validation
that they are the superior sex in a world where women can just as
easily treat men as trophies (I do not believe intreating people as
prizes, by the way, this is just to make a point.); and even this is
being denied to them as the purpose of marriage switches from the
protection and support of females, from a time when they were denied
the rights to a good career (no prizes why I think they were denied
that, and by whom) to becoming a tribute to an equal love shared
between two people of comparable independence.

***

All right. That’s enough ranting for an afternoon.

And in the meanwhile, cheers to all the guys who sometimes, perfectly innocently I’m sure and by mistake, slip on their woman’s underpants .

xoxox

posted by Isabella at 11:11 PM