FEMINITY by Sigmund Freud

I agree with Freud's premise that we cannoassume that "masculine" means active and "feminine" means passive. He points out tht in the animal kingdom many females have very active and aggressive behavior while males are passive and sometimes are solely devoted to caring for offsping. Freud indicates that the passivity associated with women's feminity comes from social impositions on women's behavior. He explains that in general terms the behavior of young girls and boys are basically the same, "Analysis of children's play has shown our women that the aggressive impulses of little girls leave nothing to be desired in the way of abundance and violence." Freud, "FEMINITY", p.4. Freud labels this early stage of girls' development, in which there are not marked differences in girls' behavior when compared with boys' behavior, the "masculine phase" of the girls' development. So although Freud disagrees with the inference that "masculine" means active and "feminine" means passive he validates this inference by his choice of language in his study.

I strongly disagree with Freud's statement that the development of "femininity" may have its psychological roots in the girls' envy for the boy's penis. He does not present any examples or arguments supporting this statement with regards to studies with children in environments where they carry on their regular daily living experiences. Freud knows the weakness of his report when he declares, "Accordingly we are on within our rights if we study the residues and consequences of this emotional world in retrospect, in people in whom these processes of development had attained a specially clear and even excessive degree of expansion." "FEMINITY", p.6. The subjects of his studies are people undergoing psychoanalysis and this population is obviously going to give skewed results since they are a special population limited by their own traits and circumstances. Based on the "penis envy" theory Freud goes on to make insulting inferences about women such as; "The wish to get the longed-for penis ... may contribute to the motives that drive a mature woman to analysis, and what she may reasonably expect from analysis-a capacity to carry on an intellectual profession- may often be recognized as a sublimated modification of this repressed wish." "FEMINITY", p.9; and "The effect of penis-envy has a share, further, in the physical vanity of women, since they are bound to value their charms more highly as a late compensation for their original sexual inferiority." "FEMINITY", p.13.

I cannot imagine the terrible impact that some of these assumptions may have had on women in need of treatment because of mental health problems at that time, since this may have been a good example of the theories used as the basis to provide such women with diagnosis and medical treatment.

Much of Freud's analysis and inferences come from the framework of the typical nuclear family at the time, mother, father and child. I wonder if he would have been able to develop this theory of femininity with the same conclusions he reached at that time in today's society where the nuclear family and the roles of mother and father are definitely different from those at the time he conducted his analysis.

Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and Threatened Identities, Patrick D. Hopkins.

I do not think that this essay gives enough of an explanation of the connection between masculinity and homophobia to persuasive as to its thesis that homophobia comes about as a result of the masculine identity feeling threatened at the individual level. The essay states that much of our identity, our "personhood" as Mr. Hopkins puts it, is based on gender notions, and I agree with this point. But then Hopkins goes on to say that anything that does not clearly fit within the "binary" categories created by the two gender classification system is viewed as a threat to a man's developed identity. However he does not explain why a behavior that does not fit into the binary categories becomes a threat, why and how having a third category threatens the concept of masculinity. Hopkins does explain that the binary gender classification has an effect on many other categories in society, "They affect-if not determine-labor, reproduction-associated responsibilities, childrearing roles, distribution of political power,....", but he fails to make a convincing argument as to why having only two categories is the magical solution for having this societal order, as opposed to a society that may have three or more categories with respect to gender, or no categories at all.

Hopkins touches a little bit on the definition of masculinity, as mostly a definition as to what a male person is not, a negative definition. " For a man to qualify as a man, he must possess a certain (or worse, uncertain) number of demonstrable characteristics that make it clear that he is not a women, ... ". Hopkins does not clearly state how the definition of what a homosexual is- which he does not define in this essay-infringes on the definition of masculinity in such a way that it becomes a threat to it. It seems to me that the threat to masculinity comes from being an alternative, a third category, to the established categories, and not because the definition of masculinity as such. I found the essay kind of confusing because, as I understand it, Hopkins' arguments support the argument that homophobia is the result of a binary system, and not the result of preconceived definitions or roles. That seems to suggest that homophobia is a structural problem in society which may be more difficult to deal with rather than merely dealing with it at an individual personality level. Yet the title of the essay suggests the author's theory is that homophobia is the result of the definition of masculinity and potential personal identity crises, as opposed to society's reaction to a threat to its stable classification system based on only two genders.

Newsweek Magazine "Don't Judge Me By My Tights"

I just read an article in Newsweek magazine, the March 17, 2008 edition on the internet, written by Sascha Radetsky, an American male ballet dancer. I though this article presents a gender conflict of male versus male. I though of this when Radetsky explains the struggle he has had since he was a boy interested in ballet, an art form that society has earmarked for women. He gives the example that when he was at school and the other school children learned that he was taking ballet lessons the boys would make fun of him. He was involved in several fights at school because of his interest in an activity the society has determined is a classic female activity. Radetsky also explains how parents play a role in maintaining society's choices for gender when parents will buy ballet outfits and pay for ballet lessons for little girls but will not do so for boys. He praises his parents for being open minded and for exposing him, a hyperactive five year old boy, to the art of ballet dancing.

An interesting point I believe he made is how the Russian society has given the world great male ballet dancers because they love ballet as art and have not imposed gender based limitations to the practice of ballet. Perhaps Americans have not produced world renowned male ballet dancers of the caliber of a Baryshnikov because American society has imposed gender roles on the practice of ballet. In the United States is you are a man it is okay to be a great quaterback, if you are a women it is okay to be a great soprano, but when you as a person have an interest in a field that society has determined is not appropriate for your gender then you are in conflict with society as a whole. This can be seen when Radetsky explains how uneasy he feels when he describes what he does for a living to people.

Newsweek Internet Version March 17, 2008("Don't Judge by my Tights")

Based on an article on Time, "Why Girls Need Gym Class March 24, 2008 pp 14-15

Reading "Why Girls Need Gym Class" in the Time magazine this week, I thought of the article by Christina Hoff Sommers "The War Against Boys" and her thesis that radical feminists and the government are in some sort of concerted action to blame boys for girls' under-performance in certain aspects of education. The article briefly summarizes the results of a study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that reveals that girls from Kindergarten to Fifth grade that during the week have exercised for more than one hour and up to five hours, do "consistently higher on standardized tests". The article indicates that the study revealed that for boys there is no correlation between "gym class and test scores". The rationale is that perhaps since boys are generally more physically active than girls gym class does not represent a difference in boy's testing performance.

After reading this article I thought how easily this study could be used to claim that there exists " a war against boys" since this study was paid for with public funds and it seems to indicate that funding for gym class is necessary for girls, but not for boys because by the way boys play they really do not need gym class. Maybe what the study is telling us is that the difference in the way girls and boys play are causing a difference in performance and that we as a society need to review the way we socialize boys and girls so that we do not cause this disparate impact on children's future performance.

"What Would Meg Do?" by Erika Brown Forbes Magazine May 21, 2007

This is an article that I believe is evidence that, contrary to Christina Hoff Sommer's argument that it is just feminists like Carol Gilligan who holds the idea that there is a "distinct male and female moral orientation..." Hoff Sommers, "The War Against Boys", page 6, other people in the media and in business/economics power circles also seem to believe that such dichotomy exists. The article in Forbes profiles the best performing bosses for the year 2006-2007 and the top performer was the CEO of Ebay, Margaret (Meg) Whitman. The author of the article profiles Meg Whitman in a way she does not profile the rest of the top performers, who all happen to be males. She describes how Ms. Whitman took personal care in securing medical services and a safe return home for one of her top executives who became ill during a a business trip they did to Tehran. The article then draws the conclusion from this one example that with women top executives it is not all about the bottom line, it is about caring about the company's human resources . It is a different style of management. Although this type of article is just an anecdotal account, and may not provide the empirical raw data that some studious of the matter in academia would need in order to accept as valid supporting evidence, it is still good food for thought. It also reveals that it is not only merely certain feminist groups that have embraced some of Professor Gilligan's thesis, but other people in the media and the business world have also had the opportunity to document behavior of females that is different from other male performers in the field.

Review of "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers

I really did not like this article - "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers- because I believe she depended to much on bashing the author of "In a Different Voice", Carol Gilligan, as the basis of Hoff Sommer's thesis that boys have been abandoned by the educational system and that boys have been blamed for girls allegedly falling behind in achievement in the school system. I do not believe that Hoff Sommers proves her point that there is a "war against boys" by just calling into question the empirical data, or lack thereof, which is the basis of the report written by Gilligan that allegedly claims that "... girls undergo trauma as they enter adolescence,..." See Hoff Sommers, "The War Against Boys" at page 10, and by offering some statistical data that supports Hoff Sommer's argument that nowadays boys have fallen behind girls in some of the factors used to measure educational engagement of students. Although that argument a sufficient basis to prove the thesis of "The War Against Boys". The author of this article is too negative in her tone. For example, the title of her article, to begin with, is negative and definitely a hyperbole. She does not point out who has declared the war against boys, but claims there is one. I guess that from the article the reader could infer that the war was declared by the "feminist radicals" or the government influenced by the feminist radicals, but as a rational person, you must ask the question, does it really make sense that society will declare war against close to half of its future adult population ?

Gender Conflict and Money

"Life", Time, February 11, 2008. Page 59-60.

This article caught my attention because it is about making money out of some of the personal circumstances we sometimes face due to gender conflict. Specifically this article is about an industry which is being developed that specializes in selling items reflecting our feelings when we face divorce or a break-up in a relationship. Companies are now selling such novelty items as a "wedding-ring coffin", "voodoo dolls" of one's past partners and a "wheel of wisdom". I thought the article was pretty funny. Capitalism knows no limits, you can make a buck even out of personal pain. The article shows "divorce cakes" and talks of parties which include even going so far as to rent a hearse to celebrate the death of a marriage or other relationship. I guess that somehow it is not enough that gender conflict may drive you to use psychological and/or psychiatric services, support groups and / or to a need for medication. You may also have to mark the event with a "celebration" to achieve some catharsis or to buy a gadget that will be visual material reminder that the relationship is over and that it is time to move on.

Women Looking Like A Man

"The notion that a contemporary women must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. This is America, not Saudia Arabia." Time Magazine, page 18, February 4, 2008, quoting Ann Wintour, Vogue Magazine editor, reacting to Senator Hillary Clinton's supposed reasons for refusing to appear in Vogue because allegedly she would look to feminine.

I take issue with the interpretation that Ms. Wintour is taking as to Senator's Clinton's alleged reasons for not appearing in the magazine. Ms. Wintour seems to believe that if you do not want to look "too feminine" then you must look "mannish". This is a simplistic interpretation, since there are other "looks" that Senator Clinton may have wanted to project besides "mannish" , but that because of cultural interpretations of what feminine means, the posibility of projecting these other "looks" might have been excluded by adopting "Vogue"s "feminine" look. For example, having the look of an intellectual, an innocent, or a working class woman may not be related to the "feminine" image attributed to "Vogue". I believe that what Senator Clinton was trying to avoid by not appearing in Vogue was to project a "feminine" image that some people may interpret as frivolous, egocentric and/or cold, which regretfully are some of the negative interpretations that our culture gives to the word "feminine". Our culture provides enough negative interpretations of the word "feminine" that trying to avoid some of those interpretations by not appearing in a magazine does not necessarily mean "mannish".