This ontological question of what being a man is, is something I struggle with as a 28-year-old "man". This video, and the one regarding masculinity being fake, are both comforting and a tad disturbing. It would seem I am doomed to hold this belief, and play this part of "being man" - Even though in many ways I would prefer not to. But is there any alternative? Guess not; perhaps just more self-awareness and humility. On another note - I have been following your lectures and videos for a bit Julian, which I truly appreciate and am extremely grateful for, and I have to say that you are have become ever so precise and articulate, without falling in to obscurism or taking yourself too seriously. These video lectures feel like I am listening to a very knowledgeable, enthusiastic friend. You've always been great in presenting these complex ideas, but these current works I feel rival world-class uni lectures. Thank you!
I have rejected the label of “man” and choose to just be. From a young age I had felt uncomfortable performing the acts of manliness. I grew up and moved out and no longer had a need to perform so I don’t
After having attempted to be more masculine for 20 years, having been mocked during childhood, it's finally something i can embrace publicly by having given up on attaining security: I'm a man-ish person who is mostly attracted to woman-ish persons, while being neither, sometimes feeling more as a man, sometimes more as a not-not-woman. When i stopped performing man, stopped restricting everyday unavoidable performance, I've become an almost-in-betweener. I have manly and less manly passions, i appear as from not-man, not-not-man to almost a woman with a beard. I dont feel not-man, i don't feel female but i don't feel not-female. Most of all, i just ended up liminal because i stopped resisting how i always was. I got jaded and exhausted intellectually as well as socially and started focusing on other things when i hit late thirties, and ended up being someone somewhere. I find it more comforting to perform identity when it's not motivated directly but comes by default because of other needs and interests. I like those clothes because they feel like they fit according to my activities, and they end up signifying something for others. I like this hair style because it makes me feel joyous when its lines go this or that way and because i like to not have it regularly remodelled, which ends up making me look a certain way. I find people's perceptions are an uncontrollable game, when my urges dont align with the restricted performances.
What I take away from this is something that seems quite obvious in real life: An attractive man, therefore a "manly" man, is somebody who doesn't try to hard. Relaxed, comfortable, stable, being kind because you can, unphased by what others think of ones fashion or actions. And so on and so on. In other words - an apparent lack of performance. That's why Jeff Bridges in Big Lebowski became an Archetype - he doesn't try. Grinding teeth and shouting and pumping iron and expensive shirts may betray your insecurities. So the more you are in tune with yourself the less you perform - and the more manly you become. You don't have to wear a bathrobe, though. Cheers.
@@j.m.w.5064 Nah, the less you perform, the less manly or womanly or the less of any identity you become. Because identities are performances. If you say that anyone who doesn't perform is automatically a real man, then you would have to say that every person in the world is a man at their core behind the mask. And that would be an absurd thing to say which defies all meaning of the word.
I'm curious where a woman who doesn't have that reflexive performance of femininity sits, or a tomboy? Or for a man, someone that doesn't perform or attempt to perform masculinity, or engages (or performs?) in more feminine modes without it being necessarily a slip of the unconscious? I have this maybe weird notion that when I see womens' dating profiles and they present themselves as hyper-feminine, there can almost be a sense of more trans than trans, or like they are female to female trans.
I think that's why Zizek says that trans people dont escape the heteronormativity of society because they are also compelled so be hyper femenine (obviously not all of them) and I think it's cause they think hyperfemininity is the signal for a woman but in fact even us women who at times can be super femenine, we still feel someone else is "THE woman", and not us. If you feel like a woman, why do you need to decorate and adorn yourself to signal your femeninity in a extreme way? Becaude we women we are still not sure whether we are real women. That's of cause because of the phallic nature of society, where more is better. The bigger the better. The more femenine, the better you are as a woman. Which of course is not true. But society compels us to believe so. If you are a tomboy you are still a woman. In fact I kind of think some tomboys are the more femenine out there because they inhabit their femininity in a natural way, without forcing it. I think that's actually very femenine. Same for men, men who inhabit their masculinity in a natural way, without forcing it are the most masculine out there in my opinion. Without trying to be extra masculine. To me, those are the most attractive.
Well, after all the drag queens did go for the big-haired Dallas- chic, ,,look,, that is immediately, if not as blatantly apparent when one visits that city. And now the crazy eyelashes women are wearing.. that has to be straight out of drag.
Hence the famous quote by the internet's famous philosopher: "Bodybuilding is gay", and there is truth to this. 'True' masculinity is functional and pragmatic, ignoring how it is perceived, a type of idiocy that trust itself because it needs it for physical violence. The feminine is based on appearance because its different masks allow for her safety, considering she is a product of castration and non physical violence. Men become feminine when competing for the image of status, like bodybuilding, money, cars, but are truly masculine when actually make the radical choice of acting as a way of crushing each other. That is the testosterone peak. Now, of course people have both feminine and masculine aspects in them, but if we judge by the extremes, that should create a valid stereotype (which does not exist but is entertaining).
Hi Julian, Great video. I was wondering if you could tackle the topic of the ontological and epistemological status of transgenderism given the context of these discussions on gender being performative/dominating. How can one move between the constructs of gender based on a seemingly natural or primordial imperative? Thanks
I highly appreciate your work - philosophy as a cognitive relief is sadly lost throughout education. We need to reinstate it to reinvigorate our societal critique… Off topic: To me (iPad YT app), your videos are in mirrored mode - as you show us books and other sources, I obviously need to read mirrored text. If this is a feature and not a bug, I may have missed the point, though… 😅👍
Perhaps the issue lies with me, but I think too much was packed/condensed in 10 minutes; I didn't understand much and frankly I thought it a bit incoherent. I think this calls for a lecture of its own.
Can a Lacanian/Zizekian translate what (s)he wants to say into ordinary language. I listened to a Lacanian on the Sean Carroll's podcast. She was speaking Lacanian English.
Here is a question: Is woman representing this womanly uncastrated position? Aren't they the one who seems pretty sure what others tell or show them? Man sure belives his manhood. But isn't that girls like man, also believes "the Other". Or for Julian's terms: Isn't that the today's woman actually believes that woman exist? May be more than man.
1:54 Uncastrated equal? Castration is a prohibition of desire and is not something particular to a certain gender, but a persons development. In fact even such simple matters as adopting a symbolic and using language is a prohibition in a lacanian sense. Considering femininity is fake, thus should be masculinity as it follows similar conditioning of prohibition. But this is a rather naive way to put it. If all behavior would be fraud that is solely based on a persons approval, would it not include all behavior at some point? Isn't it the feature of performative behaviour? In this sense, is non essentialism as an identity in of itself a performative behavior according to it? @julianphilosophy
Yea but what hes arguing is the existence of women as like a concept philosopher Simone De Beauvoir once said females arent born women, they have to become women
@@Llamasondeck the premise it’s not acted out it just chooses to name things differently for smart pompous jackasses🤣 also the story he tells are you mad
The story it’s hypothetical feelings led by psychology and a philosophy that begs a denial of evolutionary biology for female brains, it just seems to me that trying to say women acting a way is in some way pretentious but it gave us the most humans ever and made the species the most successful on the planet is kind of pretentious to say and backward reasoning
@@Llamasondeck the story, think about it no name no real backstory, seems hypocritical, for a woman to question what sums up to evolutionary biology, we are the most successful species on the planet and to think the way we got here is pretentious then I say like Friedrich would no I’m sorry that is pretentious, there is no evidence to prove that her story is appropriate for the human species it’s like a Seinfeld joke very very insignificant but funny and worth a laugh but not to be taken as anything then an arrogant person pointing things out in error but too prideful to push on the thought, and ultimately I think women act appropriately most of them according to their instincts it hasn’t proven incorrect our species keeps growing so they are exceptionally successful by every measure it’s only the smartie pants that try to explain away woman when it’s the most successful thing by all measure of a species and dna
@@bugsythetwin3022Ok I think ur talking about the excerpt from "Womanliness as masquerade" by Joan Riviere? In philosophy the details to stories like that are irrelevant to the points being made, a good example is Platos allegory of the cave. Plato didnt actually observe people chained up watching shadows, its an allegory for the process of belief. Nonetheless I dont see any reason to doubt Riviere's story, but the point is the female character who lectures men is performing a gender masquerade. Also the critiques against gender here arent being made on biologically scientific grounds, they are being formed more on psychoanalytical or ontological grounds. No one's denying the existence of the feminine within our species, the argument is that many ideas we have about femininity are fluid social constructs that society makes into rigid constructs via phenomena such as indoctrination and oppression
I’ve always loved Chesterton’s quote: “Men are men, but Man is a woman.”
????
This ontological question of what being a man is, is something I struggle with as a 28-year-old "man".
This video, and the one regarding masculinity being fake, are both comforting and a tad disturbing. It would seem I am doomed to hold this belief, and play this part of "being man" - Even though in many ways I would prefer not to. But is there any alternative? Guess not; perhaps just more self-awareness and humility.
On another note - I have been following your lectures and videos for a bit Julian, which I truly appreciate and am extremely grateful for, and I have to say that you are have become ever so precise and articulate, without falling in to obscurism or taking yourself too seriously. These video lectures feel like I am listening to a very knowledgeable, enthusiastic friend.
You've always been great in presenting these complex ideas, but these current works I feel rival world-class uni lectures.
Thank you!
I have rejected the label of “man” and choose to just be. From a young age I had felt uncomfortable performing the acts of manliness. I grew up and moved out and no longer had a need to perform so I don’t
After having attempted to be more masculine for 20 years, having been mocked during childhood, it's finally something i can embrace publicly by having given up on attaining security: I'm a man-ish person who is mostly attracted to woman-ish persons, while being neither, sometimes feeling more as a man, sometimes more as a not-not-woman. When i stopped performing man, stopped restricting everyday unavoidable performance, I've become an almost-in-betweener. I have manly and less manly passions, i appear as from not-man, not-not-man to almost a woman with a beard. I dont feel not-man, i don't feel female but i don't feel not-female. Most of all, i just ended up liminal because i stopped resisting how i always was. I got jaded and exhausted intellectually as well as socially and started focusing on other things when i hit late thirties, and ended up being someone somewhere. I find it more comforting to perform identity when it's not motivated directly but comes by default because of other needs and interests. I like those clothes because they feel like they fit according to my activities, and they end up signifying something for others. I like this hair style because it makes me feel joyous when its lines go this or that way and because i like to not have it regularly remodelled, which ends up making me look a certain way. I find people's perceptions are an uncontrollable game, when my urges dont align with the restricted performances.
What I take away from this is something that seems quite obvious in real life: An attractive man, therefore a "manly" man, is somebody who doesn't try to hard. Relaxed, comfortable, stable, being kind because you can, unphased by what others think of ones fashion or actions. And so on and so on.
In other words - an apparent lack of performance. That's why Jeff Bridges in Big Lebowski became an Archetype - he doesn't try.
Grinding teeth and shouting and pumping iron and expensive shirts may betray your insecurities.
So the more you are in tune with yourself the less you perform - and the more manly you become.
You don't have to wear a bathrobe, though.
Cheers.
@@j.m.w.5064 but why keep the label? It’s got too much social baggage. I reject most things the label stands for
@@j.m.w.5064 Nah, the less you perform, the less manly or womanly or the less of any identity you become. Because identities are performances. If you say that anyone who doesn't perform is automatically a real man, then you would have to say that every person in the world is a man at their core behind the mask. And that would be an absurd thing to say which defies all meaning of the word.
I'm curious where a woman who doesn't have that reflexive performance of femininity sits, or a tomboy? Or for a man, someone that doesn't perform or attempt to perform masculinity, or engages (or performs?) in more feminine modes without it being necessarily a slip of the unconscious?
I have this maybe weird notion that when I see womens' dating profiles and they present themselves as hyper-feminine, there can almost be a sense of more trans than trans, or like they are female to female trans.
I think that's why Zizek says that trans people dont escape the heteronormativity of society because they are also compelled so be hyper femenine (obviously not all of them) and I think it's cause they think hyperfemininity is the signal for a woman but in fact even us women who at times can be super femenine, we still feel someone else is "THE woman", and not us. If you feel like a woman, why do you need to decorate and adorn yourself to signal your femeninity in a extreme way? Becaude we women we are still not sure whether we are real women. That's of cause because of the phallic nature of society, where more is better. The bigger the better. The more femenine, the better you are as a woman. Which of course is not true. But society compels us to believe so. If you are a tomboy you are still a woman. In fact I kind of think some tomboys are the more femenine out there because they inhabit their femininity in a natural way, without forcing it. I think that's actually very femenine. Same for men, men who inhabit their masculinity in a natural way, without forcing it are the most masculine out there in my opinion. Without trying to be extra masculine. To me, those are the most attractive.
Well, after all the drag queens did go for the big-haired Dallas- chic, ,,look,, that is immediately, if not as blatantly apparent when one visits that city.
And now the crazy eyelashes women are wearing.. that has to be straight out of drag.
this woman is so crazy smart
Hence the famous quote by the internet's famous philosopher: "Bodybuilding is gay", and there is truth to this. 'True' masculinity is functional and pragmatic, ignoring how it is perceived, a type of idiocy that trust itself because it needs it for physical violence. The feminine is based on appearance because its different masks allow for her safety, considering she is a product of castration and non physical violence. Men become feminine when competing for the image of status, like bodybuilding, money, cars, but are truly masculine when actually make the radical choice of acting as a way of crushing each other. That is the testosterone peak. Now, of course people have both feminine and masculine aspects in them, but if we judge by the extremes, that should create a valid stereotype (which does not exist but is entertaining).
Hi Julian,
Great video. I was wondering if you could tackle the topic of the ontological and epistemological status of transgenderism given the context of these discussions on gender being performative/dominating. How can one move between the constructs of gender based on a seemingly natural or primordial imperative? Thanks
I highly appreciate your work - philosophy as a cognitive relief is sadly lost throughout education. We need to reinstate it to reinvigorate our societal critique…
Off topic: To me (iPad YT app), your videos are in mirrored mode - as you show us books and other sources, I obviously need to read mirrored text. If this is a feature and not a bug, I may have missed the point, though… 😅👍
Perhaps the issue lies with me, but I think too much was packed/condensed in 10 minutes; I didn't understand much and frankly I thought it a bit incoherent. I think this calls for a lecture of its own.
Yeah I agree. There were a couple of points that made sense from my own experience, but I couldn't follow the arguments from point to point.
Can a Lacanian/Zizekian translate what (s)he wants to say into ordinary language. I listened to a Lacanian on the Sean Carroll's podcast. She was speaking Lacanian English.
thank you julian, you opened my eyes
My ex-wife sure does
This is brilliant!
Julian "à propos" de Medeiros
Everything is decoherent, nothings consistent
What happened with the pajamas?
Here is a question: Is woman representing this womanly uncastrated position? Aren't they the one who seems pretty sure what others tell or show them? Man sure belives his manhood. But isn't that girls like man, also believes "the Other". Or for Julian's terms: Isn't that the today's woman actually believes that woman exist? May be more than man.
1:54 Uncastrated equal? Castration is a prohibition of desire and is not something particular to a certain gender, but a persons development. In fact even such simple matters as adopting a symbolic and using language is a prohibition in a lacanian sense. Considering femininity is fake, thus should be masculinity as it follows similar conditioning of prohibition.
But this is a rather naive way to put it. If all behavior would be fraud that is solely based on a persons approval, would it not include all behavior at some point? Isn't it the feature of performative behaviour? In this sense, is non essentialism as an identity in of itself a performative behavior according to it?
@julianphilosophy
All your base are belong to us
Naw adult human females exist bruh
Nah
Yea but what hes arguing is the existence of women as like a concept
philosopher Simone De Beauvoir once said females arent born women, they have to become women
nah
Nah
🇵🇰🇵🇰
Padosi
The fuck we need Friedrich Nietzsche to come back and destroy this hypothetical non sense
what's hypothetical about what Julian's saying?
@@Llamasondeck the premise it’s not acted out it just chooses to name things differently for smart pompous jackasses🤣 also the story he tells are you mad
The story it’s hypothetical feelings led by psychology and a philosophy that begs a denial of evolutionary biology for female brains, it just seems to me that trying to say women acting a way is in some way pretentious but it gave us the most humans ever and made the species the most successful on the planet is kind of pretentious to say and backward reasoning
@@Llamasondeck the story, think about it no name no real backstory, seems hypocritical, for a woman to question what sums up to evolutionary biology, we are the most successful species on the planet and to think the way we got here is pretentious then I say like Friedrich would no I’m sorry that is pretentious, there is no evidence to prove that her story is appropriate for the human species it’s like a Seinfeld joke very very insignificant but funny and worth a laugh but not to be taken as anything then an arrogant person pointing things out in error but too prideful to push on the thought, and ultimately I think women act appropriately most of them according to their instincts it hasn’t proven incorrect our species keeps growing so they are exceptionally successful by every measure it’s only the smartie pants that try to explain away woman when it’s the most successful thing by all measure of a species and dna
@@bugsythetwin3022Ok I think ur talking about the excerpt from "Womanliness as masquerade" by Joan Riviere? In philosophy the details to stories like that are irrelevant to the points being made, a good example is Platos allegory of the cave. Plato didnt actually observe people chained up watching shadows, its an allegory for the process of belief. Nonetheless I dont see any reason to doubt Riviere's story, but the point is the female character who lectures men is performing a gender masquerade. Also the critiques against gender here arent being made on biologically scientific grounds, they are being formed more on psychoanalytical or ontological grounds. No one's denying the existence of the feminine within our species, the argument is that many ideas we have about femininity are fluid social constructs that society makes into rigid constructs via phenomena such as indoctrination and oppression