Shadow thoughts

Among the books suggested on this form as having formed someone’s view on femininity, there were some books from Romanian authors. The literature ones, I have read. There was also, one from a Romanian philosopher, which I dreaded even more because she was a woman. I thought, she would (low key) reinforce some patriarchal view.

I was so wrong, I feel like writing to her to apologize for my bias. More than this, I found in Mihaela Miroiu’s book, “Gandul umbrei” (in the light of my last post, the fact that is book is called “Shadow’ s thought” is hilarious), ideas I also came to on my own and through a quite different way. Ideas, I feel very much alone with in my generation. Ideas I mostly share with younger people. She is my mother’s generation. I have read some philosophy during university, but apart Wittgenstein, I found most of what I read words that sounded (more or less) well together, but which were devoid of substance. In time, I concluded that philosophy is usless. She might have changed my mind about that to some extent.

Miroiu stated in this book published in ’95 that “normality” is a cultural product and I am pretty sure she didn’t read Gabor Mate before. She said that social studies are used to normalize behaviours that are produced by a certain social context instead of being just observation of a current state subject to change. This! This! This is why we have stereotypes which are harmful like girl marriage or weponizing the veil, being sold to us as culture and people, including sociologists who should know better, buying into it.

Miroiu also states in this ’95 book that humans are part of nature, not only in relation to nature. She also seems to agree that people may exist in a multitude of ways depending on the context they are coming from/ in. She also mentioned scientific studies that showed the ovaries as not bring passive as the ovule chooses the sperm inseminate it. I thought is was a XXI century descovery.

What I appreciate the most is that Miroiu says a feminist social perspective should consider the personal experience, lived directly. That is what I realized last year and I applied it to my art.

In this book, Miroiu mentions the classic (male ofc) philosopers’ views that women cannot be subjects, but only objects. For them the symbol was more important than what it refered to. Someone should have feed them words instead of food. We have a fairytale in Romania called “Ca sarea-n bucate” (Like salt in food) where the younger daugther of a king told him that she loves him “like salt in food” and he got upset because he was expecting a “love like honey” as his other daughters proclaimed. He finally ended up eating food with honey instead of salt and was disgusted, so he understood what she meant. Reading through this part of the book, I had to marvel at men’s hipocrisy of calling women inferior because they gave birth because it perpetuated the suffering of life only cognitive endavours (mistakenly atributed by them to spirituality) could free men from, while conditioning and forcing women to give birth. Like, dudes a great number of women wouldn’t have children if they have a choice. They wouldn’t marry either even is they wanted children since that is not a requirement for the later.

The object/subject made me think of a conference I have been to recently, held by an Indidan philosopher at the university in Timisoara. He claimed that there are three levels for the object/subject realtion: the eye (or any other sensory organ) is the subject and the exterior world (including your own body) is the object, than the mind is the subject and the eye is the object and, lastly, the witness (I prefer the being) is the subject and the mind is the object. He said that the witness in never the object and that is the esence of who one is. I would dare say that the subject at any level cannot be the object. The mind does not observe the eye, but the product of the eye. The witness does not observe the mind, but the product of the mind. The subject cannot observe themselves, but they can observe their products. Essentialy, the witness is a part of the mind observing herself. If there is thought, that is the product of the mind. In the form mention in the begining, I also asked how one feels about femininity at the three levels (body, mind and being). Regarding the feeling at the being level, some answered “nothing”, but I’m not sure if they weren’t rather confused by the question, but someone said “I cannot acces that”, and now I realize that was the only valid answer. Clearly, I didn’t understand what I was asking either. It happens. You can access the being though meditation, but what you remain with afterwards are impressions, traces left by that transcendence. Apparently, this gives Derrida vibes which is a classic performative white male before it was cool. He posed as a feminist and used the conclusion I just arrived at to convince some women that they should not look to define themselves. It also gives yoga vibes, but yoga as all popularized spiritual practices was designed for men. Ego dissolution is a male thing. However, Derrida postulated there is no absolut and no dichotomy, only differences and their traces. Sounds appealing and very much in tune with what I think, but that view isn’t helpful. Soon into my spiritual practice, I realized two things: those practices increase (most) men’s egos and can be used as a control for women (or any vulnerable person), who do not have a strong ego. We are who we are told we need to be in this society, even when it feels painfully wrong. That is not ego. It behaves like one, but to disipate it you only need to step out of patriarchy (drop the andrcentric view if you will) for a tiny second. A good psycho therapist can help. Unfortunately, psychology has also been used against women and still is a tool of complience rather than wellbeing. The later has also been turned into a comodity by capitalism, along spirituality. But there are ways out. However, you cannot be without a ego in here. If you do not define who you are someone else will do it for you (white men usually). So, Derrida can shove his posturing up his ass.

On the other hand, Miroiu’s book might have convinced me not to read de Bouvoir’s “Second sex” although I’ve seen it repeatedly praised by feminists. I started reading it last year, but didn’t get far into it. When I am documenting a project, I tend to read several books at the same time, so the reason was surely that I found something else more inspiring and didn’t get back to it. I left of Gimbutas’ “The civilisation of the Godess” half way through, even if her ideas were very much what I was looking for in this documentation, but “The language of the Goddess” had already satisfied my project’s needs and even if I find that read relaxing, I had to prioritize other books from the tens I have on the list. However, “if you want to be equal to a man, you must be a man” misses the point of the equality in chances and in self-determination saphic people and not only are looking for. However, the separation of humans from nature through the separation of sex and gender as biology and culture, is also something I do not agree with. I understand that this separation seems to have given people a means to identify outside the male/female dichotomy, but biologicaly there aren’t two sexes and hormons play a major role in sexuality and they can fluctuate more in certain organism than others. I am sure, if scientists will it, allllll the genders can be biologically explained, even furries. Just go back to nature*. Be curious instead of afraid.

But yes, for now this will do. Better than nothing. Much better the the previous restrictivness. Science will catch up, I’m sure. Also, reading about the feminist view on eliminating gender, I see so many problems because if you cannot define who you are someone else will do it for you. Apparently, we have an example of that in Romania’s communism. Regarding the spiritual view of deconstructing ego, in order to deconstruct something you have to know what it is. Otherwise, you might break it… a broken ego cannot get you anywhere joyfull.

In this talk about sex vs gender, I find Miroiu’s view queerfobic, or at least transfobic. It might just be the ignorance of 1995. I will probably read more from her, not necesarly to clear this up**. However, in her care for women as a living, anatomical being, she does not consider that not all women are born in female bodies. Even if her take of the body as a neutral entity is appealing as she states the body isn’t good or bad, it just is. Yes and some people would feel better in a different body. This experience is valid and should be allowed its space.

Something else I would like to point out is that Miroiu puts the blame on Medieval ages for the atrocities on women done by the church, but it was Reneissance. It started in the XIV century with the rediscovery of the Greek shit people still call the founding phisolosphy which was profusely misoginistic unlike Jesus’ sayings which were also perverted in time as he himself didn’t write anything. So, Christianity was rather a context than a cause. Also, it took almost 1500 years for the church to take over societies in the West of Europe and their final obstacle were women healers which were hunted as witches. However, the idea that Middles Ages were under church rule was wrong. We have at least 1000 years of a no man’s land in terms of spirituality in Europe where a laic power was rather enforced brutaly with armies rather than theologically. Spiritually, different traditions coexisted and Christianity took over a lot of those to get a foot in the door. I keep seeing people defend Christianity against this acusation but the only proofs they provide are written by monks which should be invalid from the start. The oral stories belong to the pagans (women). Miroiu seems to treat Reneissance and Medieval times as the same, but she only provides proofs from the first.

After, she jumps to Nietzche/ Hegel and all I have to say about men in philosophy is this talk I had with one:

Him trying to prove envy and gelousy are different things by describing two different behaviours.

Me: Envy and gelousy*** can look the same in terms of behaviour.

Him: Yes, but can you imagine that I am right?

Me: Sure, dude. Go wild 😆

I find myself taking a more and more radical view as I progress in this documentation, and I like that Miroiu subtly equates radical feminism with misoginy by underlying that division between saphic people and the others can only serve men. We can only build a better society for all together.

However, I feel like I have to read some radical feminism just to burn through it because I do share a lot of ideas from there, though I ended up to those conclusions …differently? Maybe. I need to find out. However, radical feminists sound like Derrida when they claim femininty is irrelevant as it is a patriarchal construct. Yes and it still needs to be defined and reclaimed by saphic people before we let it go. These feminists propose “female self” instead of “feminine self”. Tometo, tomato. Though, I must say that “female self” brings a stronger reconection with nature which I like, but excludes saphic people who aren’t female from birth. Also, it would work for destigmatizing “female” and “male” and bring us close to animals which we might maybe see as valuable as ourselves one day. Yet, in Romanian, “woman” (femeie) seems like an offensive word. I have a hard time using it. Usually, we refer to other women as “girls” if they are familiar or “Ms” if not. Woman is used mostly in negative contexts, I feel. For me words are very important. I work with French people and the way they use reflexive verbs like “je me suis fait attaque” (I got myself attacked) makes me cringe. There is an inbread placement of the blame of the victim in French language. I appreciated a lot when Miroiu mentions how words are used in Romanian, gramatically, in a mysoginistic way like “m-am nascut” (I was born myself) which negates the labour of the mother entierly.

I am not in danger of becoming radical anything, but I find uselful to experience and understand these perspectives as they tend to be the loudest or the go to for counter arguments.

I am in agreement with the quotes from Wittgenstein saying that there is no absolute meaning to a word and those who look for the essence in words are chasing ghosts. Seeing how a lot of words which were positive for women got turned against them, I appreciate someone leaving space for reclaiming and redifining them. Trivia and gossip refered to the tree of life through the trinity of Godesses: Hecate, Artemis and Diana**** and a gathering of women to support each other and exchange information, respectively. Because women exchanging information is dangerous for men.

One ideea I seem to have in common with “radical” feminists is that most of humanity was “matriarchal”, except I don’t believe women ruled anything. I do not think women want to or that is organic to us. Ruling menas controling and that is an action out of fear. I believe men are afraid of death and afraid to live. Men need hierarchy. Women need cooperation and community and even Miroiu reluctantly admits that there was a form of gynomorphysm where societies were community based and gender roles were more unified and there was sexual equity. And my question is: what else do you want? To rule next to men? Rule who?

There is so much to this book. Ideas keep floading my brain. Miroiu insists patriarchy is a thing of the past refering to our current context as androcentric, meaning centered around men, but not as a father figures. I don’t think it yet describes the context globally, but it made me realize something I’ve been struggeling with since January. Most cultures before Classical Greece weren’t that adverse towards women or that centered on men owning everything. Women could inherit in Archaic Greece and before and even after like the Othoman Empire or Medieval time in Europe ffs. A war driven civilization is androcentric, but not necessarily patriarchal. We’ve been sold this patriarchy equals culture, but it isn’t necesarily true. Or that patriarchy has always been the norm. Not, or at least not with the same manifrstation. Obviously, a concept is fluid. This is new to me, but quite interested in seeing if it will fit better with what I know. Miroiu places the start of patriarchy when men realized they were involved in having children, but I think people were aware of that since at least Neolithic times. We like to believe so badly that lack of written word means people are stupid, but it isn’t true. Most of our knowledge is not written or even worded. Think about it.

It is the second book in two weeks written by a Romanian with which I resonate deeply. I feel fortunate and slightly overwhelemed by this since it opened yet again a great deal of paths this documentation can go …but for now I do want to go back to folklore and myths…

*I honestly don’t think I can make it in nature, but I would definitely do better than most. I mean, when people tell me “there’s an insect on you”, I’m like “it’s ok. It will go away eventually”. Even mosquitos do not bother me though there is an issue with diseases that can be transmited by them, but otherwise draining a little bit of blood from time to time is actually healthy. I do know a person, Alina Usurelu, whom embodies femininity through this direct conection to nature. I am so gelous of her. Something she said yesterday stuck with me “I entered in a waterfall to see the inside and what kept me safe was the knowledge that I belong there“. We belong to nature. I do not understand that experientially, yet. One day, I hope.

** Miroiu cleared it up on the note on page 179 which she made during the reedition of 2020 where she states that intersectionality threatens women gaining their rights because it disipates the issue. This view is reinforcing the racist and discriminatory view of early feminists while profiting from the work done by the “others”. I have read somewhere that she also fights for Roma women rights. A look into if this is posturing or not is unecessary. You can’t say ethnicity is not relevant and then care about that. 😮‍💨 It may be ignorance still, as she describes all colonized societies as oppresive to women ignoring the matriarchal Asian, Oceanian and African tribes which were or still are matriarchal. An opressed entity will in time, for survival, take on the characteristics of the opressor. Working with Roma women, she should have understood that, if simply by being a woman she didn’t…

On page 190 she presents lesbians as a cultural movement and a radical solution to women’s liberation. I don’t know if Adrienne Rich whom Miroiu quotes meant to show lesbians as a choice against the “tiranny of men” as presented in this book, or she simply stated a reality of many lesbians who started their sexual life or ended up dating men at some point due to social pressure or coditioning. A reality I also experienced and which has led to forcing myself in situations which weren’t suitable for me before I could understand I wasn’t supposed to live that way. It wasn’t a choice and the realisation that I was lesbian didn’t come from a dissapointment in men since it came while I still had internalised misoginy so much so that my attraction to women made me relate more to the male experience and stereotypes of women. Yes, Miroiu wrote this in ’95 when being gay was a crime in Romania and, if I remember correctly, it was the year the last woman was imprisoned for being gay until 2001 when it was decriminalized. However, she didn’t feel to add a note in 2020, when in other situations where the situation has changed she did make a remark.

** We agreed on the deifference between the two feelings in terms of intention – envious when you aren’t willing to do the work, gelous otherwise.

***Dyhana is the meditative practice that requires deep mental concentration in Yoga. I always wondered through which mental gymnastics did this sound masculine to men. Wait, they didn’t bother with any explanation. Just stated shit and therefore is true… see, that’s why I resonate with the radical feminists haha