What is feminine and masculine?

From frank genetic dualism to gender blurring

We know a frank dualism, female/male, genetic sex. He founded a complex organization leading to the adult human. On this floor the dualism woman / man is more blurred. It may have reversed, or created intermediate categories. Gender has replaced sex. Without being completely independent. So what is the principle linking genetic sex and gender? How to follow him in the path that separates genetics and gender consciousness?

The paradigms of our genes and our consciousnesses are so separate that we must refrain from applying one to the other. Molecular biology does not account for gender, conscious desires do not explain the play of chromosomes. Suppose that these paradigms, if connected, fall under a more fundamental principle that I use constantly in Surimposium: the individual/collective conflict.

The guiding thread of the individual/collective conflict

Let us recall that this conflict is not between ‘me’ and ‘others’, but a dualism present in each individuation, on the one hand “what wants to separate”, on the other “what is part of the rest”, through its relationships. I am ‘me’ and also ‘part of the whole’ formed with the rest. The exact title of this conflict is: soliTary versus soliDary (T <> D).

Let us call ‘masculine’ the solitaire side of this dualism, and ‘feminine’ the soliDary side. Let’s see what emerges from it.

Genetics is a product of evolution. Genes mutate and survive through species selection. The individual is crucial for the species. Each is a new model that can show decisive talents. The collective is just as essential. Talents spread through cooperation and mimicry. Evolution thus tends to exacerbate the two postures, soliTary and soliDary. Individuals form societies. The way they organize it to balance the two antagonistic postures makes the species competitive.

We find this balance in the genes. The dualism of sex marks the exacerbation of the soliTary and soliDary postures. It is the responsibility of each individual, then, to make them dialogue in themselves, then within their congeners.

The soliTary side is ‘masculine’, I applied. Stand out from the rest by its performance. My survival above all. Spread my seed as widely as possible. All these incentives are individualistic. Supported by natural aggressiveness. I impose my choices. The soliDary side is ‘feminine’. Take care of the offspring. Find the companion who knows how to protect. Integrate with others. Make the group the major target of survival. Collectivist incentives, supported by empathy and compassion. I put myself in the other person’s shoes. His sufferings are mine.

Mental maturation of a genetic principle

Here we are equipped from the outset, by genetics, with a dominant side: masculine in the XY, feminine in the XX. The physiology of XY makes him show more aggressiveness, desire to stand out. That of the XX encourages him to work for others, to progress by reducing enmities. Both the masculine and the feminine manage to be admired… because we all have a part of it that is sensitive to them.

What happens to these initial incentives with maturation? A society is an existing culture, that is, the management of male/female relations for generations. Organization long based on the sexual phenotype. A concern, already, for those who do not correspond well to the usual phenotype of their genes. Effeminate boys and girls with a strong build. It is a handicap from an early age. Part of the entourage projects them a classic place. But the rest forms a discordant image. Bullying, disappointment, sexual assault, eventually anger with the gender they want to attribute to us. To the point of feeling alien to our genetic sex. But what is truly proprietary in the complex way this sensation was formed?

I feel more like I’m myself when I’ve rebelled against foreign influence. But if I have become completely different from the self who would not have experienced this encounter, is the new self really my property or that of the stranger? No doubt I must admit at least that I share it with him.

Collectivism loses out in the fight for gender equality

The struggle for gender equality aims at the harmonization of individual rights. What does it forget about fundamental? That it is also essential to harmonize individual duties. In the relationship between our soliTary and soliDary shares, both directions are important. If we strengthen the power of a part of the individuals within the whole, we must find for society an equivalent reinforcement in the face of individuals, otherwise an imbalance is created.

Obviously, this is what happened with the feminist movement. The activists were only concerned with obtaining for women individual benefits equivalent to men. They did not require men to develop their soul of solidarity. How could they have done so, when the process forced them to put theirs on the back burner? No other way. To gain power for oneself is inevitably to recover from the one one has abandoned to others. The trend was accentuated by the elitism of the first militant women. They had to extract themselves from a largely collectivist female mass, that is to say according to the criteria of the time: submissive. Only one way seemed relevant to these intellectuals: to exalt individualistic values in their sisters. Another was possible, a la Gandhi: to encourage a passive and general resistance of women in the face of the abuses of male egotism. Refuse to perform regular family and community tasks. Let the consequent chaos show the scope of collectivism. Let men realize the necessity of this part in each one, not delegable to others.

The Western failure of rebalancing

But Western culture is too based on individual confrontation for this policy to have been chosen. A century of militant struggle has almost elevated women’s individual rights to those of men. At the same time, natural collectivism collapsed, which they supported for the most part. Society today is that of the individual-king, obliged to be reminded of his solidarity duties by prison legislation. Very few of us give or share spontaneously. And those who do have the growing impression of being naïve turkeys, because their efforts are a homeopathic dilution in a vast ocean of indifference. Society is no longer a symbol of empathetic solidarity but a vast administration managing the distribution of individual rights. Because the collective has regressed in our minds, its only material support. Solidarity has no other place than the merger of our solidarity shares.

The masculine has devoured the feminine. He dominated among the XY. Here he is with the same arrogance among the XX. The feminine has become evanescent, we must no longer try to associate it with a phenotype. Gender has this different from sex that it has become a personality trait among others. He is no longer the central character that coordinated the attitudes of previous generations. From now on, let us not be surprised by an abrupt egotism in a woman or an outrageous leniency in a man. Physiological tendencies are erased. To what extent is this scrub an inverse cultural diktat of the previous one? It’s hard to say.

Men are very guilty

More at fault than the feminists in the collapse of collectivism: the men of power, who have also done nothing to encourage the males to amplify their share of solidarity. The machos barricaded themselves. Arguing with a new battalion of individualists in petticoats, they know how to do. Fighting is their domain. But to become more feminine themselves, to cut short the wave of aggressiveness of these ladies? Unthinkable. A denial of oneself. A renunciation of the acquired advantages. Acquired? Not really. Given at birth by a deeply patriarchal society.

The sages have only curbed the general egotistic tendency to let society organize itself accordingly. No one warned that the final equilibrium would have a darker, less human color, that of a consensus between predators. A world where solidarity would be managed and no longer tested. Criticizing the feminist struggle is systematically denounced as anti-feminism when it is, in the way you read, an anti-fight. That women and men come together does not mean turning the former into the latter. It is not a general masculinization of society that is sought.

Where are the saviors?

Who else could have defended collectivism? The role seems to be devolved to the church, the theoretical herald of living together. But the Christian faith quickly ceased, after its creation, to be a stampede. She made deals with the earthly powers, becoming mediator of the conflict between ego(s) and God symbol of the collective. Long patriarchal, she would seem indecent in criticizing women’s efforts to extricate themselves from their gangue of submission. His task was to continually exhort men to be concerned about it. Our sisters are as valuable as our brothers. Why hasn’t this been seen in earthly life for centuries? God seems to be a reflection of His creatures rather than the other way around.

Poor femininity. It no longer has a good reputation among feminists, who define it as an “age-old legacy of sexual availability, maternal devotion and material dependence.” Let’s take a closer look: this is exactly the definition of collectivism, of concern for the other taking precedence over self-care. By repudiating femininity, feminists are also getting rid of solidarity tasks traditionally performed by women, hindering their personal realization. Who will now form the cement of the collective?

Everyday female machismo

The term ‘female machismo’ may seem exaggerated to you. And yet it has become natural in our contemporaries. An example? I quote Gabrielle Suchon, relayed by Philomag: Straight women embrace voluntary celibacy.Can the heterosexual couple be saved? Not sure, answer more and more feminist activists. Does the author realize that her admonition has been the radical discourse of single males for a few decades? It cuts into the wound already opened by the most egotistical of them on life as a couple. Targeting heterosexuals does not spare homosexuals. Shared life is the acceptance of differences. How can we save the idea of companionship if the very principle of otherness is attacked? Feminists and narcissistic machos side by side to decrop and then decapitate the elementary social molecule!

This is not a surprise, since all of them are heralds of the masculine. They attack the elementary circle of the feminine, of the first fusion with the other. This destroyed base, the rest of the social edifice will follow. More collective consciousness to impose its diktats on our ego. More obligatory solidarity imposed on the one we no longer feel.

The couple, an outdated cog?

Let’s take a closer look at this threatened archaism, the couple. As a fundamental cog, it perfectly shows how collectivism works.The couple is a whole formed by the two member spirits. Virtual but no more than these two spirits. I am me and I belong to a couple. Its existence is genuine independence and deserves a third-party name. I call it the “Third Larron“. ‘Larron’, in french, is somebody who is a bit of a thief. Thief? A thief, the couple? Of course. He steals from everyone a part of his independence to constitute his own. We accept a loss of individual power, to gain more, jointly owners of this higher power. Power enhanced by the pooling of resources, and especially their coordination that must be improved by permanent reflection. The Third Larron is an agitator of the mind. Forklift!

At least it plays this role if the couple is well understood as fusion and not appropriation of the other. The couple’s bad reputation comes from their misunderstanding. What awaits me? I’m not buying myself a smartphone or an art object. I am looking for the person who will benefit from the merger as much as I am. For it is his increase in power to her, added to mine, that strengthens the Third Thief. In any association, I strengthen myself with means voluntarily united with my own, not forced slaves. The less pressure I use, the more I strengthen the Third Thief; the more spontaneous applications I see to participate.

There were periods when the number of enlisted was not strictly regulated 😉 Unfortunately for my readers tempted by poly-love, these conjugal communities only work between fundamentally collectivist people. Became difficult with the contemporary rise of the individual-king. Even the classic couple tumbles.

Extricate femininity, master masculinity

Those who think that the couple is not a constraint did not grasped anything of his presence. Or they are so self-assimilated to the Third Larron that the ego is zapped. Case of very fusional couples, recently formed. For others, the couple is a presence that invites themselves in their decisions. Not a tyrant. A higher level of consciousness that they voluntarily share with each other. Beginning of a broader collectivist engagement with the people around us. Are you ready to go further? We can assume that those who refuse to give up power to the couple will not be more enthusiastic to give it to society. Their disengagement from individual duty is disguised as a “struggle for freedoms”. Great words of the masculine intended to crush the feminine. Now we have as many women as men to pronounce them.

Learn to de-incarcerate femininity. Mastering masculinity. Men, because they have long been slaves to it, are today the most numerous to have succeeded. They expect more women to resign and join them.

*