What Is The Value of Viewing The Category "Woman" As Having A Universal Status
Having “women” as a well known status also helps people to understand and differentiate between who is a female and who is a different gender that simply possess feminine characteristics. Such as a gay man, or a transgender person, these people are also considered to be feminine in some way depending on the personality traits and preferences they choose to showcase to the pubic. A woman seems to be more of an idea than just a physical representation, although I mentioned the physical traits that a woman typically possesses earlier. A woman is considered to be nurturing, loving, caring, and receiving in contrast to a man who is tough, giving, protecting, and providing. With this in mind it is possible to consider anyone a woman as long as they display these qualities and traits that correspond to what is accepted and considered as feminine globally.
If one loves dressing up, (and by this I don’t mean groomed), and one loves to decorate themselves such as females do, and possesses feminine energy that is also considered a woman. The value of having a woman as a universal status is that we can all universally be on the same page about what and who is considered a “woman” and there is no confusion about it. Women are obsessed over everywhere we look, whether it is in media, literature, TV shows, magazines, music, movies, and so much more. A woman cannot be mistaken for anything else and has her own identity and status in the world-people are able to acknowledge her being and give her the appropriate respect and addresses

Hi Runa,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that in this post you give a few different accounts of what it means to be a woman, but these accounts aren't all consistent with one another. For instance, in your first paragraph you characterize a woman who "is biologically meant to reproduce and has feminine characteristics", and clarify that the characteristics can be physical and behavioral. (By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "biologically meant to reproduce"--does this not apply to men too?) Then in the second paragraph of your post, you write that we could "consider anyone a woman as long as they display these qualities and traits that correspond to what is accepted and considered as feminine globally", where the qualities you have in mind are being "nurturing, loving, caring, and receiving". On this second characterization of what it means to be a woman, someone who is infertile and has no breasts or ovaries could still be a woman if that person was nurturing, loving, caring, and receiving (what do you mean by "receiving" in this context exactly?). How will you reconcile this internal tension in your view?
From what you've written it seems like the main reason that you think that viewing the category of "woman" as having universal status is valuable is that it will help us to avoid confusion about who is a woman and who is not a woman. But I'm still left wondering: what is the value in *that*? Why would we want to cleanly sort people in this way, if we could?