Heterosexual? Laziness

The obstacle to feminism

A man who today wants to defend the condition of women, always unequal, has as his main enemy the feminist activists. Paradox? It is that some have played egalitarianism so well that they have transformed… in macha, perfect female equivalent of macho. Same blindness, same radicalization of thought, actions that discredit the desired goal. Excesses on personal life? It is no longer a suspicion but the daily reality when the authors indulge with an open heart. Who wants a macha? A badly weaned boy, yes. He is looking for a mother-child relationship. But an adult? Not. A balanced adult avoids the neighborhood of both macho and macha. Heterosexual opportunities are shrinking for the latter.

The undeniable power of militant feminism is well in its ability to transform a woman with a well-arranged cortex into a simple service. In our example, the landslide hits Victorine de Oliveira, a philosopher usually a wonderful speaker on Philomag. Reading ‘Reinventing Love’ she sees confirmed “what she had the intuition for a while [patriarchy sabotages heterosexual relationships]“. Intuition or thread for a psychoanalyst? Victorine indulges unvarnished.

A laziness for the heterosexual relationship

Women are encouraged by patriarchal society “to make themselves smaller.” See M. Sarkozy and Mrs. Bruni on a cover of Paris Match, which reverses their size ratios. But Victorine, do you differentiate between the appearance that everyone chooses for the collective and the self-image? Are all women with high makeup racoleur chickens? By wearing makeup, aren’t you validating a patriarchal code? This photo says nothing to me about the intimate relationship between Sarkozy and Bruni, only that they wish to show a conformist image of their couple to the public.

Victorine “counts the times she has painfully experienced [female inferiority].” Contemptuous belligerents, worried by her castrating erudition. She feels a “laziness” for the heterosexual relationship. But Victorine, if you still haven’t found your fusional couple at forty, who do you think you’re meeting? Sensitive, intelligent, funny, considerate boys, so sincerely in love that they feel valued rather than threatened by your qualities? Not. These rare pearls have been cased for a long time, probably since high school. There remain the stubborn individualists, those who seek in the woman of encounter a cackling mirror “You are beautiful, powerful, brilliant”. In the mouth of an awakened woman it sounds fake. We avoid its frequentation. These men hide behind a muscular breastplate a terrifying fragility, an assurance so infantile that it can not bear any self-examination.

The third guy

We will discuss on this blog what the couple means, as a ‘third guy‘ superimposed on the egos of the two companions. This guy is rarely shared fairly. Reason for the imbalance lurking the majority of households. Living as a couple is not making oneself indispensable to the other. This, only your ego benefits. To make the third guy attractive to the other is that it too be valued. So, Victorine, if you want to interest a companion other than as a pair of buttocks, is it wise to talk only about your expectations? Isn’t that doing the same thing as the macho opposite? Egotism little concerned with any collectivism in this relationship…

I come to the definitions of masculine and feminine, which will also be the subject of an independent article. I disconnect them from biological sex, to make them the individualizing and collectivising parts of our personality. It becomes easy to talk about female men and macha women. It should be noted that femininity has nothing to do with feminism. Activists are models of machismo with XX genetics. I don’t make friends of them? Let them answer this: If femininity is collectivism towards others, where is yours when it excludes half of humanity?

The Observer chained at macha and macho

Victorine never observes in a woman this propensity to inferior the other. She didn’t have to frequent big companies very much. The unequal tendency does not exist among homosexuals. Here you are? On the contrary, I see in them the reproduction of the same exacerbated feminine and masculine postures, as in heterosexuals. If the couple is a place of exchange, what passes in both directions is obviously not the same thing. It does not matter, as long as both directorates are beneficiaries. A fusional couple is two stars that gravitate very close to each other, not a single identity, not a double of its own ego.

Victorine, what if instead of building theories about lonely stars like yourself, you examined close-knit couples? Those who managed to escape the 50-50 conflict by triangulating their vote with that of the third guy?

And why are the males who attract you systematically these machos as the outside as fragile in their inner self-assurance? Does the outside seduce your desire for security or the inside that of motherhood?

*

Synthesis on gender/sex/feminism

Leave a Comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.