Table of contents:
Video: Gender Formula: On The Nature Of Feminism And Machism - Society
Psychologist Dmitry Olshansky talks about patriarchy and femininity, about machismo and feminism. The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editorial board. Do you agree with this interpretation of the problem of gender relations?
Patriarchy is a social system based on the authority of the father. This system can be represented in the form of the formula: F (x, y), where x are men, y are women, and F is the father's function. Men and women are derivatives of the patriarchal system, the connection between them is possible only through the function of the father. Remove the father function from the formula, and you have the perverse male-female relationship that exists between primates.
Dad can
You cannot equate a man and patriarchy or a woman and patriarchy. Both sexes are variables within the paternal function and are subordinate. The patriarchy created the division of the sexes and the connection between them. Both the ideology of machismo and the ideology of feminism fall into the mistake of identifying men and patriarchy, who think they are fighting the patriarchal system. To say that "men subjugate women and put them on the sidelines" is just as wrong as to say that "women make men work for themselves, posing as weaker."
Read macho resources, look at feminist materials, and you will see that they copy each other, swapping only the words "man" and "woman". Some are engaged in the fight against female manipulation, others - with male domination. This is the same as, by influencing x, trying to change F. If y is aware of its place and wants to become x, nothing happens to the father function. If macho and feminists are not satisfied with something in the structure of society, it is necessary to work not with variables, but with function.
Equal but different
You can change the derivatives in places, the function will not suffer from this: F (x, y) = F (y, x). If you just swap the places of women and men, replacing their social roles, patriarchy will not change in any way. Remember the movie "Jackie in the Kingdom of Women": women there run the state, serve in the army, and men guard the hearth and wear a burqa. But the system that regulates relations between the sexes remains rigidly patriarchal. The function does not change from the change of places of the derivatives, but this simple mathematical truth, unfortunately, remains unknown to both macho and feminists. They are still fighting each other for first place.
Now let's turn our attention to the concept of gender equality. Anyone familiar with mathematics knows that equality and identity are not the same thing. For example, the fact that twice two equals four is not the same as twice two equals four. When it comes to men and women, the concept of equality is often replaced by identity. If a man drives a bus and a woman has to get behind the wheel, if a man is a miner, a woman will go down the mine. All these are attempts to make us not equal, but identical. The attempt to turn a woman into a man is not a struggle for equality, but a logical mistake. It is foolish to believe that if all women begin to serve in the army and engage in politics, and men paint their lips and wear skirts, social justice will immediately come.
Aunt like uncle
Why do feminists want to make women look like men? Why do they want to deprive women of their own ontological status and identify with men? Feminism refuses to recognize the otherness of women in relation to men and strives to erase the difference between them. Hence the struggle for primacy, and mimicry, and attempts to compete, and take away the phallus from them.
Femininity is as unacceptable for feminism as it is for machismo. Femininity is reduced to the phallus: either to the kitchen and children, that is, to serving the phallus (in the ideology of machismo), or to attempts to acquire the phallus itself (in the ideology of feminism). Both of them refuse to admit that a man and a woman are radically different in relation to each other, they do not have a common denominator, a common phallus, which can be fought for as a passing banner of socialist competition. Trying to force women to live in masculine logic and play by masculine rules is the same as forcing men to become pregnant, carry and bear children. However, no one is doing this: there are plenty of attempts to make men out of women, but few out of men.
You can't find a half
Masculinity and femininity are not two sides of the coin, not two halves that find each other, as Aristophanes believed. Man and woman are not opposites, they are different, outside of each other. It is naive to look for something from another that you yourself lack. A man and a woman have as much in common as the "X" and the "game". If it seems to you that "X" and "Yigrek" are created for each other, that they can find true harmony and reveal themselves as individuals only in union, you are a real ancient Greek who believes in patriarchal myths.
There is no common denominator between a man and a woman. Masculinity can be expressed in number and even designated with a specific symbol, which is what obsessive neurotics do. Masculinity can be reduced to a single trait, the phallus. But femininity is fundamentally not covered by sign systems, it is impossible to fully calculate and designate it, it contains infinity.
Lacan tells us of femininity as incalculable, that is, incalculable. Since numerical expressions of femininity are impossible, an attempt to call women a “second sex” is not only a gross mathematical error, but also a total disregard for femininity. Answer the question, do you think the expression: F → ∞ = 2 is true? This will be your attitude to the theory of women as a second sex.
The ideologies of machismo and feminism try to destroy femininity by reducing infinity to number. Both do not see, do not recognize and deny femininity. Infinity is unbearable for them. Both those and others struggle with femininity, but do it in different ways.
Feminism Formula: F → ∞ = 2
Machisma formula: F → ∞ = 0
The difference is that the number "zero" is a condition of any calculus, for machismo the suppression of femininity is a condition for the existence of the masculine. They also think of a man as a creature devoid of all feminine. Pay attention to how they like to emphasize their muzhishness even in small things: “you have to sleep like a real man”, “you have to ride the bus like a real man”. The condition for his peasant identity is zero woman.
