Sorry, everyone, I was abducted...

[flyingskull]

... by well-meaning family and forced to go to nan's (Jamaica) to recuperate from what they called: "Your cretinous propention for overwork."

I'm all rested now and very sun-kissed and things and here I am.

So dear baeraad asked me what a strong feminine woman would be like and I got to thinking about that. Fact is I don't know. I think there are two kind of differences in general between males and females of the species Homo Sapiens. One is physiological (different build of body, different hormonal fluxes and so on) and the other is social and cultural, the behavioural brainwashing we all get since birth.

The physiological differences are not immense or many, that's obvious, but they do colour our thoughts and emotions in part and, IMO, can't be dismissed as non-existent, BUT what really complicates things are the learnesd social responses so that it's now quite hard to understand when one's own attitudes and choices are truly one's own and when they are a reaction one way or another (embracing or rejecting) to social gender archetypes and stereotypes.

One woman may be strong because she embraces the cultural gender mores and lives a happy and fulfilled life; another may be strong because she rejects the cultural gender mores and attempts to re-create herself according to her views, thus living a happy and fulfilled life. I could go on for hours. Maybe being 'weak' for a woman could mean wanting to be a man - though, of course, not in the transgender sense - and have the virtues our culture attributes to males... but this sounds awfully like one of the worst clichés in history, after all.

So, yes, there's a bit of me who wants to say a 'strong' woman is one who accepts her physiology and lives as she thinks best, ignoring what other people tell her she should be, but the biggest part of me knows this is as fallacious as they come. Hell, I don't even know if I'm 'strong' or 'weak'. The only thing I can tentatively say is that probably I'm stronger now, after being physically weak and incapacitated for a long time, than I was before. Maybe all I am now is a little more aware of who I am. Maybe that's all the strength that's needed, what say?

Oh, ingriam, I haven't forgotten you and your interesting fics. Not at all. And, as you write Alkanphel TEH PRETTY!!ELEVENTYONE!!!11, look at my pretty in icon. :-D

Comments

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Or at the bluntest she can be one of these very pretty , conventionally feminine women depicted here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y0Gx0sG434

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Heh...

You're quite right. I used to do weight-lifting (not really pro stuff, but I could lift sixty kilos in sets) before my accident. Now, of course, I won't even think of trying for a couple of years.

'What's a strong feminine woman like?' is a VERY hard question to answer without wanking all over the place. Besides I never know exactly if 'woman' is meant to subsume 'girl'. A strong girl and a strong woman are different kind of beasties, IMO. And so on. And so forth.

I'd rather talk about what a strong female character in literature is like. Less of a shaky ground there, though, of course, my numerous biases would be peeking between the lines all the bloody time. :-D

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Ah, there you are. :)

The physiological differences are not immense or many, that's obvious, but they do colour our thoughts and emotions in part and, IMO, can't be dismissed as non-existent

To this I would answer that they're also subject to individual variation. Knowing that someone is male or female tells you very little about them, because they'll never be a "typical" male or female - they'll be themselves, and in all but a few cases have both traits that are stereotypically male and ones that are stereotypically female. Sure, if you look at men and women as groups, you notice statistical inclinations for each one to have certain traits - but that's just not very useful when trying to understand and individual.

Again, I'm the living proof. I have some stereotypical guy traits, but I have a whole lot more stereotypical girl traits. And I don't feel that makes me less of a man - in fact, I will be as bold as to say that since I am, evidently, a man, the definition must be stretched to encompass me. =]

what really complicates things are the learnesd social responses so that it's now quite hard to understand when one's own attitudes and choices are truly one's own and when they are a reaction one way or another (embracing or rejecting) to social gender archetypes and stereotypes.

Agreed.

Actually, I was talking to a very smart person a while back who told me that people need archetypes and stereotypes to function - without some kind of predefined role to step into or at least to work from, we won't build any kind of identity at all - or at least, not a very interesting one. This, she went on to say, is exactly why we need many and varied archetypes, so that everyone can find at least one that suits them.

I think I might agree, though I'm not sure. It's a tricky question.

One woman may be strong because she embraces the cultural gender mores and lives a happy and fulfilled life; another may be strong because she rejects the cultural gender mores and attempts to re-create herself according to her views, thus living a happy and fulfilled life.

And I would again argue that ASOIAF, which started this discussion, has both types of female characters. I mean... how does Catelyn (to take an example that shows up in the first book) not fit the first category?

Maybe being 'weak' for a woman could mean wanting to be a man - though, of course, not in the transgender sense - and have the virtues our culture attributes to males...

What's wrong with having those virtues? They're not too bad, as virtues go. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that they're damn fine virtues all around and that the only reason they're attributed to males is that it's always been the males who have done the attributing. =]

I mean, this is really my point here, my problem with the whole Maureen Murdock thing. Most of the time, things that are "typically female" are things that are weak and which forces the people who ascribe to them to be weak. The archetype/stereotype of Woman is designed to be subservient and powerful. Of course it is. Men designed it.

This calls for some new archetypes, certainly - I'm all for new archetypes anyway, so I don't think women necessarily have to adopt traditionally male ones (though I don't see anything wrong with that per se). But I strongly object to any glorification of traditional femininity. That leads only to the Muhammed version of equality between the sexes - "sure, men and women are worth just as much, but by sheer coincidence, it's natural for men to do all the interesting, empowering things and for women to do all the boring, dead-end drudgery."

Sorry, that was ranty. ^_^; I do kind of feel strongly about it, because I hang out on some communities that are full of women who, according to traditional values and a lot of modern feminists of the Maureen Murdock bent, aren't proper women.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

The archetype/stereotype of Woman is designed to be subservient and powerful.

Powerless, not powerful, obviously. ^_^;

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

You know? Martin has lots of characters with different personalities going and that's nice and proper in a work of literature, but IIRC you were asking what a 'strong feminine woman' is like, not what a 'strong female character' is like, so I went and digressed all over the place blathering about real people in the real world. :P :P :P

Actually, in the Fantasy genre, strong female characters are: Sophie (Howl's Moving Castle, Maree (Deep Secret), Polly (Fire and Hemlock) all DWJ's; Magrat, Sybil, Angua, Annagramma, Agnes (Heh... Pterry)... In other words all women and girls who have to overcome an initial self-image to be. A strong female character doesn't have to be nice or to be fulfilled, IMO. That's weak, from a literary point of view. The courage and ability to question their default values is what makes them strong characters to me.

I'm not a proper woman either, but I tried to embrace some proper masculine virtues and they don't work for me. It's an ongoing process, this constructive self questioning and I don't think people need archetypes, I think people need references (in the OED sense: In extended scientific and technical use denoting an object, property, value, or the like, used as a basis for comparative measurement or standardization).

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Also weak women are utter pants at HMTL on post comments, apparently. *SIGH*

Sorry about the italics orgy.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

The courage and ability to question their default values is what makes them strong characters to me.

Fair enough... but how does this make other female characters "men with breasts"?

I tried to embrace some proper masculine virtues and they don't work for me.

(*scratches head*) You think? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like you're decisive, authorative, independent, has integrity... Traditionally guy things, those. =]

I don't think people need archetypes, I think people need references

Well, it's hard to test emperically (empirically? Impiri... oh, you know what I mean. ^_^; ), since they won't let us raise a thousand children from infancy in the complete absence of archetypes. I can only say that building an identity from scratch is hard work and most people (including myself, I think) aren't up to the challenge. I do know some who defies all kinds of stereotypes, but they're exceptional. Most of us, I think, need a starting point (ie, "I am a socialist - here is what that means to me...").

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Fair enough... but how does this make other female characters "men with breasts"?

Errrm... actualy it doesn't, 'men with tits' are the sass-IN-your-face-I-KEEEEELLL YOU 'tards who litter literature. Women being kick-ass aggressive psychopaths BECAUSE THAT'S SOOOO KEWL. Women whose only concept of strength is to lift a bull. Women who 'd think being the oral unique transmission of info throgh the centuries is BOOORING, DUDE! I WANNA KICK SOME SERIOUS ASS.

Clearer?

*Empirically* ... We live to serve and give info joy. *G*

Love 'starting point' can be anything at all: a picture, a poem, a story, a sound... that's why I used 'reference' and OED-ed you as to hat I meant.

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

That is clearer, yes, thank you. :) And certainly fantasy has a strong tendency to view as "strong" only a character who can wave a sword around well (or throw fireballs, which amounts to the same thing), which I do not like - I do love to see characters who are strong because they're smart and who don't need to be isolated to be independent (nothing wrong with isolated characters per se, but characters with a lot of ties to other characters and to their society makes for more interesting stories).

But again I wish to argue that Martin has a fair number of female characters who do not kick ass and who makes a big difference in the world just by being smart and by talking to people.

Love 'starting point' can be anything at all: a picture, a poem, a story, a sound...

Mmm. I am dubious - your faith in human beings seems to be rather greater than mine. But as I am not entirely sure of myself here, perhaps we should just agree to (tenatively) disagree? :)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Well, High Fantasy bores me to death, not because of the characters because that depends on the author, but because of all the 'manly' (note air quotes gesture) theme of war and mayhem. We talked about that once, didn't we? What Nail calls 'boy stories' as opposed to 'girl stories'. When the best thing that can happen is a righteous war, then the strong girls are all 'In-Your-Face' warriors, to prove they ain't wussies and domestics and what-not.

Again, I'm not talking about Martin here. What's with you and being so defensive of authors you worship, luv? I SAID I liked Game of Thrones and will buy Martin's other books ASAP. :-D I just prefer Pterry, so sue me. :P

It's not my faith in human beings, it's that I think we're really Apes Who Tell Stories and that we can't help telling stories about everything and being triggered to tell stories by everything. You told me Donaldson was an important influence in your life. Of course he was, I mean, books are important because they can influence our life. So is art, music, sport... We make our own legends and create our own personal myths all the time. I think both to fight current archetypes or to make them more palatable.

GRRR

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

'Preview' is my friend, I know... *sigh*

By "Nail" I mean Neil Gaiman, of course.

Re: GRRR

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

I got it. :)

I think Gaiman's definition of boy's stories and girl's stories are wider than that, though. I mean, Seasons of Mist is a boy's story, but it's mostly about diplomacy and soul-searching.

Re: GRRR

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Well, of course, you being all scholarly and things. :-D

Season of Mists (I do love Keats so so much!) is very much a 'boy story': it's all about the POWER. :P

Re: GRRR

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do see how it's a boy story. But it's also not a violent story. Most of it is about powerful men standing around, oozing testosterone, and very deliberately not fighting. =] I'm just saying, boy story != braindead action, yes? :)

Re: GRRR

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Of course Boy Story is not = braindead action, luv! Methinks our Neil does quite correctly defines the difference between Girl and Boy Story - with a lot of tongue in cheeck, actually - as being about the different meaning each ascribes to power.

I love well written and intelligent Boy Stories! HMPH!

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Ahhh... home again. I love being home. I love being away, too. It's the travelling from one to the other that I can't stand. I'm a naturally immobile person, I think - the very laws of the universe object to me in any way, shape or form budging. =]

Again, I'm not talking about Martin here.

Hmmm... okay. I think I must have misunderstood something you said in another post.

What's with you and being so defensive of authors you worship, luv?

I don't know. I really don't. ^_^;;;

I just prefer Pterry, so sue me. :P

So do I, actually. You should see how defensive I get about him. ;)

I think we're really Apes Who Tell Stories and that we can't help telling stories about everything and being triggered to tell stories by everything.

True, but stories, like everything else, get increasingly refined over time. One person tells a story, another person hears it and likes it but thinks it could do with being a bit more elaborate, so when he tells it to a third person he adds his own little twists to it. The third person likes the story too, but thinks that some of the themes should be emphasised a little more... and so on. Completely original stories, I think, are very dull stories indeed that are mostly about eating and mating. Interesting thoughts need time to build.

(okay. Sometimes stories get less interesting over time instead, as cowards remove the parts that disturb them and replace them with something safe and bland. But that is as may be)

Archetypes are old, strong stories, shaped by a lot of different people. People don't need archetypes, as such, but without them, it's back to the eating and the mating again. The civilised person is an archetype too, after all, and one that took a lot of time and a lot of effort - by great thinkers and common people alike - to build.

We make our own legends and create our own personal myths all the time.

Do we? Or do we just discover them? ;)

Then again, maybe it's just me who's a deeply unoriginal person. =]

Open Arms

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Welcome back to your home, luv. And, y'know? (but I think we talked about this too in the past - chatty, ain't we?) I love travelling, I just tolerate places. This is one HUGE ORGY of agreeing to disagree, innit?

Believe me I have NOT ranted against Martin - except for puking at prologue which I SITLL do - not even once in all the bitchfest and things. You're just a lovely person with a somewhat unhealthy need to defend authors you like. :P :P

We make our own legends and create our own personal myths all the time.

Do we? Or do we just discover them? ;)

Possibly both, now I think on it. Prolly we start by discovering stereotypes and then we make our own, some of us, obviously, not all. I mean, if one is satisfied with the stereotype why move on? But if one is not then creating one's own myth seems unavoidable.

AND I've avoided putting gender tags on the above so bow to my sudden and unexpected attack of moderation. :-D

Re: Open Arms

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Welcome back to your home, luv.

Thank you. Glad to be back. :)

I love travelling, I just tolerate places.

One might hope so, since you've made a career out of it. On the other hand, you may notice that I (should the author thing fall through) plan on making a career out of the Internet, which exists mostly to make sure people don't have to move around. =]

Believe me I have NOT ranted against Martin - except for puking at prologue which I SITLL do - not even once in all the bitchfest and things.

Duly noted. I'm very sorry for jumping to conclusions - I guess you mentioned Martin close to the other thing, and I assumed a connection that wasn't there.

And you don't have to like the prologue. Few people do, really. =]

Prolly we start by discovering stereotypes and then we make our own, some of us, obviously, not all.

Aha! ;) But that was exactly what I said - that the archetype is a starting point that one can go to. It's like saying, "okay, I'm sort of like this" before you go on saying "and here are the ways in which I'm not like this."

Admittedly, not everyone does that - I know at least one person who really does seem like she's built her identity from the ground up without applying any labels to herself. But I know that I, personally, make a lot of use of archetypes - if only by breaking them apart for scraps. My current self-image... well, there's a lot of opinionated intellectual, some black-clad, pony-tailed emo poser, mysterious stranger, armchair philosopher, cultured Epicurean... I don't think I contain any original parts at all, but I like to think that the end result is unique. =]

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

So, yes, there's a bit of me who wants to say a 'strong' woman is one who accepts her physiology and lives as she thinks best, ignoring what other people tell her she should be, but the biggest part of me knows this is as fallacious as they come.

I don't know, it sounds like a pretty good definition to me... though "accept" does not have to mean "approve of." We accept what we cannot change. But we don't have to approve of something that was inflicted on us without our consent. I think that's an important distinction - a lot of the evils done by religion are caused by the fact that religion teaches us to approve of things that were inevitable when the religion was founded but are now easily avoidable.

Hell, I don't even know if I'm 'strong' or 'weak'.

You always come off as pretty strong to me, whether I agree with you on the specifics or not. :)

Maybe all I am now is a little more aware of who I am. Maybe that's all the strength that's needed, what say?

Knowing exactly where your limits are does provide a lot of peace of mind, and even power of sorts. :)

Oh, on a final note - despite my outspoken dislike of gender roles, I am, just for fun, plotting a story with a heroine who is very feminine and still strong and independent (that's a sort of reaction against Maureen Murdock too - I want to write a character who doesn't need any "disconnection from the feminine" to be heroic in the first place). Your input would be appreciated... though it always is, of course. :)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

though "accept" does not have to mean "approve of." We accept what we cannot change. But we don't have to approve of something that was inflicted on us without our consent

I think you may have lost me here. Do you mean one should rebel against one's own physiology? Or, as the second part og this para seems to mean, that 'inflicted without consent' relates to social mores? If the sceond, yes, of course. Social mores are here to be questioned, analysed, embraced, ignored or fought against by all human being. I would love it if people deigned to analyse and question before reacting, but then I do have a scientific mind-set.

Also, because of chance, I was born in a atheist family and this makes me view religion-related problems in a very detached manner. I do understand what they are, I see they are there, but I'm not emotionally involved at all.

Well, always glad to bend your ear... Ahem, to give input, luv. First input is: don't write characters in reaction to characters written by other writers unless you write parody. *EG*

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Do you mean one should rebel against one's own physiology?

If you don't like your physiology, then yes, you should rebel against it whenever it's possible to do so (the first example that comes to mind? Menstruation-suppressing drugs, which I understand is the subject of a lot of debate at the moment). When it's not possible, you accept it stoically - but you do not start forcing yourself to like it. You don't start thinking that it's right that your body disregards your wishes. It is your body - it, more than anything else in the world, should obey you, even if it doesn't.

This is a big part of my philosophy, if you're interested. :) Everyone deserves to have everything they want. This is not possible, because the world sucks. And the purpose of technology (and to some extent social reform and philosophy and so forth) is to make it suck a little less - to let the wishes of every human being make a bit more of an impact on the uncaring universe. But that isn't going to happen if people stick to the belief that their wishes shouldn't matter.

As for "inflicted without consent"... well, life itself is inflicted upon us without our consent, isn't it? I most certainly can't recall agreeing to get a body that gains three pounds whenever I have a cookie, but alas, that's what was imposed on me. =] And if there was a safe and reliable way to increase your metabolism, you'd better believe I'd use it... but I assume there isn't one, since my doctor keeps telling me to diet and excercise. I mean, if there's a viable alternative to that and she's been keeping it from me, I may have to strangle her... =]

First input is: don't write characters in reaction to characters written by other writers unless you write parody. *EG*

:P Elric of Melnibone. A favourite of yours, as I recall. Created in reaction to all the musclebound Conans of then-current literature. Okay? ;)

Anyway, let's see if I can change your mind... :) My idea is a character who isn't especially physically powerful, but who's a great diplomat and strategist. She's taken a whole lot of very different heroes, who don't like each other very much, and turned them into a coherent group - mostly by force of personality. She's also very aware that the battle she is fighting isn't only (or even primarily) a military one - the villain (who, yes, is a Satan figure - I freely admit it ;) ) has a never-ending source of recruits in people who live in squalor and will do anything for a chance to get out of their miserable situation, and if she wants to beat him, she's going to have to create some sort of alternative to him. Most people won't sell their souls if they have any kind of hope of making it on their own, so what she needs to do is provide people with some hope.

How does it sound thus far?

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Right, luv, go demanding of the universe to not be born or not to be male and see what the universe answwers you. There's a limit to 'so I think so shall it be' a huge big fucking limit that says:

"You a female of the species, you FUCKING MENSTRUATE! LIVE WITH IT OR HAVE A HYSTERECTOMY, SEE IF I CARE."

Females menstruate, males don't. Fact of life which one could alter (by Hysterectomy or cutting your prick once every 30 days more or less to see it bleed) but one can't fucking DENY. No matter how hard one wishes, biological and physiological reality is NOT NOT NOT going to change.

Oh, and there's surgery for just about everything, now, so I'm told there's an operation that apparently cuts off a bit of intestine so you can't get fatter or eat all that much. Be my guest. I've had umpteeens operations and, believe me, they ain't a bed of roses, but who am I to stand in the path of utter denial? Also, who the fuck cares if you're overweight or not? Obesity is a pathology, a malfunctioning of the body. If you're obese no dieting or exercising will cure you. If you're overweight according to current standards you can A) exercise and eat less or B) ignore the current standards of beauty.

Warrign with reality never seemed a good idea to me. Fighting current social mores by example and commitment seems a good idea to me. There's a difference, see? I am female. I love being female. Being female means I fuckign menstruate. I love it. Some female has dismenorrhea? My total and unending sympathy. Cramps and pains aren't lovely at all. Can it be helped? Some. Can't stand them anymore? Hysterectomy is your friend. What I can't symapthise with now or ever is the WHINGE WOE IS ME I HAVE PERIODS I SUFFER I CAN NOT STAND BEING FEMALE WOEZ WOEZ WOEZ! You were born female, suck it up. No, that's wrong: you are born female, get a hysterectomy, Fuck the monthly cramps to hell.

Also, you're childfree? Have a vesectomy. I mean modern surgery is the answer, innit? Solves so many problem with just a lil lancet cut and there you are! No menses no children. Life is now the mollusc of your choice. [/rant]

BTW your character - she's the princess, right? - rocks hardcore. :-D

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Right, luv, go demanding of the universe to not be born or not to be male and see what the universe answwers you.

Didn't I cover this part already? I know what the universe answers. It answers "you've got to be kidding." I just fail to see why I should take that as the final word on the issue. Who died and left the universe in charge? =]

I mean, if I wanted to be female, there's surgery for that. The universe says no, but human ingenuity says yes. =] See what I mean?

Fact of life which one could alter but one can't fucking DENY.

Oh, you should certainly not deny it - that doesn't solve very much. But as you quite rightly point out, you can alter it, if you want. And why shouldn't you, if you want?

Really, I'm a little confused here. We don't seem to be discussing the same thing. Where does all this stuff about "denying reality" come from? All I've talked about is not making reality out to be better than it is.

Also, who the fuck cares if you're overweight or not?

Me, if I value my health. There are other reasons to lose weight than vanity, you know.

Warrign with reality never seemed a good idea to me.

"It's the perogative of every living creature, Mr Stibbons." ;)

There's a difference, see?

Uhm... I do not really see, I must admit. Unless you're talking about whining endlessly about something you can't do anything about, which is certainly a waste of energy (and no fun for others to listen to =]). But that was never what I was talking about. You can accept something as being a bummer without having to brood endlessly over how much you hate it. =]

Hysterectomy is your friend.

Here I must respectfully point out that there is not a legitimate doctor in the world who will remove a healthy uterus, no matter how much its owner begs and argues and assures him that she won't change her mind.

Also, you're childfree? Have a vesectomy.

Thank you, I would, were there any woman in the world who was willing to touch me with a ten-foot pole. And should such a woman appear in my life, you may rest assured that I would be pestering my doctor about it soon enough. :) Until then... (*sighs and shrugs*) Celibacy is the only form of birth control with a 100% success rate, so I really don't need anything else.

Though, again I must point out that doctors don't really prescribe sterilisation like asprin... okay, doctors don't prescribe asprin at all because it's prescription-free, but I can't think of any treatment that's very easy to get a prescription for. ^_^; My point is, it's damn tricky to get one of them, especially in some backward, barbaric countries. (*coughAmericacough*)

BTW your character - she's the princess, right? - rocks hardcore. :-D

Thank you. :D She is not, however, the character you're thinking about (though there are a lot of similarities, now that you mention it - I guess the idea is one that pops up in my head a lot. =]). Aseena is rather older and wiser than Tianna, and her flaws (I need flaws in a character to like her) tend to be more about letting go too easily than the opposite (which is Tianna's problem).

Apologies and admiration

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

First of all, sorry for the CAPSLOCK OF BITCH (TM). I was either A) not as rested as I thought I was or, B) not as able to sustain a discussion about gender-roles in a civilised manner as I thought I was. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Have heaps of admiration. :-D

What I was trying to say is this:

I hear a lot of women railing against their bodies and the femaleness of their bodies, but I never hear men railing thus. Alright, there may be one or two men tellling women they wished they were taller or thinner, but I've never heard a male whingeing about how irritating balls were or how they wished they wouldn't have erections (transgendered persons excluded, of course, that's a different thing).

This, I think, happens because our culture is based on the unspoken dogma that males have the better body and females the prettier one. This is what irritates me no end. I'm very annoyed by females who belittle their femaleness (I know, ugly neologism). Hence my capslocks.

And now I better stop before I lose my cool again, a thing which I'm far too prone to do, as you know well.

Oh, on a side note, I never - not even once - said that Martin can't write well rounded, different, interesting and 'strong' female characters (or male ones, at that). My problem - if one wants to call it a problem - with Martin is not how he writes characters, it's his penchant for verbosity. :P

Re: Apologies and admiration

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

I think that's the nicest thing anyone could say to me. :D (*HUGS*)

And don't worry about it. There are topics that make my skin crawl, too. ^_^;

I hear a lot of women railing against their bodies and the femaleness of their bodies, but I never hear men railing thus.

Hmm. That's a very good point, actually. There's a whole bunch of drawbacks to being male. Why aren't men complaining? Men should complain. You're right, something's very wrong here. =]

I've read about this, come to think of it. Women in general are much more aware of all the fiddly bits they have that can go wrong. That's why men get blindsided by prostate problems and the likes - they are brought up to think they're invincible. It's stupid.

Okay. I'm with you. Sort of. At least I agree that there should be equal whining. =]

Re: Apologies and admiration

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

I think that's the nicest thing anyone could say to me.

'S nothing nice, 's just the bare truth, so there.

I knew you would see the light once I started to type facts instead of rants.

But still...

Women in general are much more aware of all the fiddly bits they have that can go wrong

Erm... no. They are generally hammered at by TV and papers and radio and the netz with ZOMG! CHECK THAT BREAST CANCER THINGY! ZOMG! DISMENORRHEA MAY BE A SYMPTOM OF DIRE THINGS! GO CHECK THAT THAR OVERIES! etc etc

Do I see a ZOMG! GO CHECK THOSE BALLS! CANCER! GO CHECK THAT PROSTATE! etc? Nope, all I see is 'enlarge your penis make your girlfriend happy', mostly in my mailbox which is funny. Also, that kind of spam is not only offensive - and upsetting if you're 12 (oh alright, males. 12, 20, 40, 50... :P) - to males, it's highly offensive to females as well. We're not ALL size-whores.

But menstruation is not a 'fiddly bit' that goes wrong, my dear friend. Menstruation is a 'fiddly bit' that works right. Just saying, y'know? Nothing to see here. ;)

Re: Apologies and admiration

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

'S nothing nice, 's just the bare truth, so there.

But it was very nice of you to notice. ;)

Do I see a ZOMG! GO CHECK THOSE BALLS! CANCER! GO CHECK THAT PROSTATE! etc?

No, and that's my point. We should see those things, but we aren't. Because men think they're strong. They're not. They're breakable things in a hostile universe. So are women, but at least they're aware of it. =]

I should here point out that I'm completely paranoid about my health and tends to develop all sorts of phantom illnesses that mysteriously fades away once I've had a doctor look at them and proclaim them non-existant... ^_^; My idea about what is a reasonable level of concern for one's health might be somewhat skewed, therefore.

Nope, all I see is 'enlarge your penis make your girlfriend happy', mostly in my mailbox which is funny.

Yeah, those are deeply annoying. Women are under a lot more pressure to look good than men are, but there is one anathomical detail that must be in order or else nothing else about us matters. (*winces*)

We're not ALL size-whores.

I'm happy to hear that. It's my only hope, really. =]

But menstruation is not a 'fiddly bit' that goes wrong, my dear friend.

I know, and I wasn't talking about that. :)

Re: Apologies and admiration

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Hehehe! You see? We DO agree on basics. It's actually nice that we differ in details, makes life spicier.

Sorry for the quick-and-run but am at work.

HUGZ

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

Hmm, never heard of Maureen Murdock; but your icon is very pretty, and I'm starting to wonder who it is. :)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

He's Jonathan Rhys Meyers, an excellent actor and also QUITE dishy. Have another Meyers icon. :-D

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

Oh, niiice. :D He's pretty; here's another of my pretties from Guyver. ;)

And yes, the sentiment is pretty much true. *chuckle*

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

OOh, PRETTEH! Who's he? What's that thing on his face?

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

He is Imakarum Mirabilis; that thing on his face is his visor. Sort of like the sunglasses that his "counterpart" Masaki Murakami wore. I can send you some (more) pictures, if you like. ;)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

AAAAH! Daddy dearest! For a wild unJapanese moment I hoped he was blind or something. :-D Me <--- likes tragedy a LOT.

Yes, I'd like more pics, but, y'know, I don't need pics to appreciate your fics. I'm almost done with the unfinished one and you'll get a verbose review ASAP.

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

I do so love your verbose reviews. <3 <3 <3

And I know you don't really need the pictures, but sometimes sharing the pretty is good, yeah? ;)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Sharing TEH PRETTEH is always always utter goodness. Thankyouverymuch.

Sorry about review, tomorrow, alright? Had a rather tediously heavy day at work.

Now I wish I had more pretty to share with you, but... Mmmmm... maybe I have some. Will send via private email. *G*

[ingriam.livejournal.com]

That's okay. RL can get a little crazy sometimes. I look forward to reading your opinions. :D

[sirena-lune.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in "strong feminine women" I believe in strong people. ; D

And a strong person (to me anyway) is someone who has the capacity to understand their mistakes and faults and to own up to them. Someone who experiences fear but doesn't let that stop them. A person who walks the fine line between reason and emotion.

Or, something like that, anyway... ^^U

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

That's a very good definition, thank you.

I'm not sure it's possible to do more than cross like ships at night for the definition of the word 'strong'. It's got such a lot of personal and cultural referents that I think it's one of those words - there are several in all languages - we all use without actually communicating anything but a very general sense of meaning.

[sirena-lune.livejournal.com]

You're welcome, and that's very true!

Do you mind if I friend you?

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Not at all, it'll be a pleasure. I'll friend you back. :-D