| | Forgive me,
but this courtesan has just noticed this thread and some subjects very close to her and cannot help speak a bit in some especial (if somewhat troubled) surety.
On intelligence and women. Sadly, for whatever the cause, this is simply factually true. In my former life as a heterosexual guy before transitioning, I remember in lancing pains of agony that I saw very few women of intelligence; at the time, my Enlightenment universalism just stared in confusion. I remember reading of the concept of the courtesan, and by economic the rarity (scarcity) of a combination of intelligence and sexuality in females, and thinking with extreme unease that our society, with all of its relative freedom for talent, is little different than than of ancient Athens or Sidon in this regard... the reason I regard Jennifer's claim as proven, ultimate causes aside, is simply my own empiricism. When I found myself in an attractive female body, with, at least by American standards, an extremely good education, it did occur to me the existence of a crying demand for intelligent sex partners among men of intelligence; as I learn more as a courtesan, I am more and more convinced I have read the market correctly. Simply put, economics proves intelligent female companionship is not in great supply.
Why this is complicated. I'm a feminist and do not believe in 'female values', in politics or in sex. I do not believe females are less intelligent than men, nor do I accept the positivist principles of our society's science that try to draw narrow bell curves and such. Nevertheless, the experience of being in a female body had shown vividly how different the experienced sensations are, sexuality being very central to this. This isn't a question of free will, but one free choice in different situations, different economies of physical and emotional sensation. This matters, and I am more and more uncomfortably drawn to the conclusions that the typical male/female investments in intelligence, sexuality, achievement, sentiment, empathy make a lot of sense.
I suspect masculinity and feminity could be best be defines as something like, the two most common patterns in ways of living that translate from the two most common patterns of inner and outer sensory biological rewards. I can't say this is a myth. What I can say is that this equilibrium is a balance of all known passions of given or found value, and the biologic ones are only part of this; if you discover a passion in philosophy (which BTW, doesn't work ideally with either the common male or female settings), it's worth not using as much the more innate rewards. And this balance changes with every change in social technology, social and political structure, individual knowledge, experience, and inspiration. I seriously think that our basic model of sexual 'drives' is a disaster; I think a better metaphor would be that our biology provides an echo chamber; it does not determine what notes we sing, it does not teach us songs, it can be changed, but does determine if all else is constant which notes come back clearly and beautifully.
As for what the particular echo chambers are like and the consequences thereof, I have my suspicions, but I prefer to reserve my intuitions; partially because they approach the wisdom of my religious traditions, and I do not trust claims to truth from such a source... but also because the answers I hesitate to conclude will not be likely be any side of this society. My views probably end up somewhere between Rand and Camille Paglia, or Camille Paglia's sources....
Which brings to the the Brunnhilde Principle. Oh dear, oh dear. Here I am very torn. On the one hand, I know too many innumerable varieties of exceptions to hold to any strong Principle here intellectually; I know people who are comfortably sexually androgynous, bisexuals who respond the same, top or bottom, to women and men, dominatrixes, receptive men, lesbians who wear strap ons, etc. etc. I know people who have changed their desires in this regard, and transgenders come out as every possible combination of desires here. Professionally, the most obvious counter to the Brunnhilde Principle is the large market for pro-domme services; an incredible amount of men are dying, just once in their life, to let go, lose responsibility, and become the object, not subject of intentions. And here, as someone who has had it both ways, I can say that society generally puts upon women a serious price for taking control in social and sexual affairs, while exacting men a severe price both in demanding the taking of control and setting them up for disaster upon failure; the psyches here I do think are the product of patriarchy, or specifically the synthesis of patriarchy, atomism, a functionalist society such as America's which sidelines art, and a feminism that had both cynically tried and been coopted to control men rather than liberating them along with women. So I think a large part of male/female dominance/submission (let's call things by their real names, shall we?) lies in cultural constraints.
But beyond that.. again, I hesitate in discomfort on what to say. I know that personally, in a body kept drenched in female hormones, and an incomplete one at that, my own sexuality has moved from troubled/conflicted to the very stereotype of the sexualized version of femininity. I hesitate... philosophy and politics dissent from my emotions here, but the truth is I hear a phrase as 'contoured for invasion' and... and I have to throw myself in the bedroom and practise my talents.... oh, Hell, I wish I was up to working! BRB!
OK, anyway.
Yes. I can't believe in my mind that there is something essentially female in "the diamond band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained." But such describes my own desires; indeed, Rand's fiction contains captivating erotic symbols that drive me mad in precisely this way... I will simply say here than I understand completely about the fur coat and the platinum gown. 'Contoured for invasion' does seem to be what my incomplete transgendered body falls towards, hard, though it certainly not an expression of powerlessness, even if that is part of the experience. Well, I will simply say that Jennifer has likened a potential relationship with her with having a woman in a harem; within a year, I probably will have spent time in one.
Nevertheless, this is all very politically disturbing, not in terms of libertarianism, but in terms of the fact that an ideal erotic social context of naturally skewed sexual pluralism is not on the table. Socially, the alternatives are a tolerant modernity, unisexual by default, and a hypocritical patriarchy which exacts a very steep price for sexual 'immorality'. If the truth is that there are all kinds of beautiful erotic exceptions, that a conscious person can change their sexuality, but without exceptional effort masculine and feminine sexual psychologies will exist as broad default clusters... well, the result is that the most benevolent forms of patriarchy are very sexually rewarding to those on its good side and who get a good deal, whereas modernity demands as the price of peace and toleration that sexual enthusiasm be kept down below certain level, and marginalizes the rest. Of course, following Strauss, this was what the Enlightenment consciously did to spiritual and ethical passion, and vs. the locked society of status, modernity wins in my book with no contest.
But as a defender of the Enlightenment, I find it very disturbing that I found a niche where I play mostly by premodern rules, and pay mostly premodern prices... and in a situation where you can choose your ideal premodernity, I am happier living an as anachronistic woman than a liberal, universal person. i stress I would be undoubtably dead if I had not had the choice (and economics and technology) that modernity makes possible. It's much like fantasy fiction writers who glamourize premodern cultures... they kind of forget about the slavery and plagues and forced childbirth, drudgery, poverty and war. But it's easy to say all that; sometimes it is harder to admit when reading Tolkien that such stories do present real good and longings today's world sometimes in fact does lack or undervalue.
As a final note, on Sylvia Plath. The context of 'every woman adores a fascist' is meant to be extremely troubling; the context is her speaker blurring images her emotional wounds from her father and her husband with scenes from the eastern Nazi concentration camps, creating an image of an emotionally mutilating patriarch against which, helpless and Medea-like, she vents her fury, which hitting a social brick war turns to suicide. The line is meant to capture her feeling of sexualized dependency along with contempt for herself and revulsion at her father/husband/Nazi for inspiring such feelings; her generalization is her (not unreasonable) equation of her situation with the same psychosexual complex in women generally. I don't think it matters in the context of the poetry whether these feelings are thought of as essential or not; the point is that they are there and they are the state of revulsed desire she finds inseparable from herself, and by extension a magnified society written ever in the same script.
Oh dear, I confess I am myself attracted to Plath's poetry. And Shelley and Blake, if that will shut up the malevolent universe activities commitee.
Dying is an art,
like everything else
I do it exceptionally well
I do it so it feels like Hell
I do it so it feels real.
I am Lady Lazarus,
back from the dead
I rise from the ash
in my red hair.
and I eat men like air.
("Lady Lazarus", Sylvia Plath)
my regards,
Jeanine Shiris Ring ))(*)((
P.S. apologies for not replying to some private email messages from members of this forum; I have been simply horrible with correspondence this week. Mea culpa.
(Edited by Jeanine Ring on 11/01, 12:01am)
|
|
