I posted these remarks on Jay Bookman’s blog on January 17, 2018:
Here was what my background held per sexuality. Remember I was born in south Georgia in 1942. There were “good” women and “bad” women. That was your choice, women. Just as your career choices were housewife, old maid teacher, or nurse. None of that kind of thinking appealed to me, and I started quietly, in my own mind, to rebel against stereotypical thinking as soon as I was conscious, which was relatively early.
Okay, in that kind of environment, here is what I observed happened to women. (Btw, I think this happened to women throughout the nation, essentially, not just in the South.)
Girls could be who they were innately born to be from the time they were born until they were early adolescents or pre-adolescents. Then, they knew that to attract a man and be considered attractive to others in general, they needed to cast a sexual allure (but not too much) by applying make-up just right, doing their hair in a stylish manner, dressing with sexual allure, but not too much, painting their fingernails and toes, and acting with a soft Southern voice, i.e. Jackie Kennedy, and not be intellectually competitive with men because men do not want to marry (bed) an assertive or aggressive woman. So they lived out this artificial role game-playing for 50 years of their lives (like faking an orgasm) until they were past menopause, somewhere around 60 years of age. At that time, women could again be who they innately were born to be because their romantic lives were pretty much over. So women became more like Katherine Hepburn or JoAnne Woodward, in their old age, wearing comfortable clothes, practical shoes, little make-up, and focused again on those things that truly interested them in life.
All I can think to analyze from this pitiful scenario, is that both men and women have been bamboozled and hoodwinked into buying into silly consciousness of what is sexually alluring. As two other posters have stated, that is an individual call. And, that fact is true within given parameters. However, I am saying that 50 years of the lives of men and women have essentially been wasted when they choose to role play who they are for sexual reasons. Women could not be who they innately were since they were spending so much time in their lives just in trying to look “hot.” Men were not able to discover intimacy in sexual relationships with real women because they had been programmed to get their sexual juices up only when they saw the sexual stereotypes of beauty, such as Marilyn Monroe or Elizabeth Taylor, as a sexual partner. If their real wives were not that sexually beautiful by social norms, often they turned to adultery or pornography. So, pity for the men, too. Both lost so many years chasing stereotypes of sexual images programmed by society for them, and not by being true to who they innately were meant to be and finding a partner who was, likewise, true to who he/she innately was. At least, that is how I saw it and continue to see it. What do you think? The connection to playing out and believing racial stereotypes was just as damaging to human beings. I can elaborate, if anyone desires me to do so.
I am saying that both men and women should become conscious enough to reject racial and sexual stereotyping for themselves. I am saying to be true to yourselves, men and women, and be your best self, as you perceive that to be. Then, some other conscious person will come along and be attracted to the real you, and desire you sexually, as well as like you as a friend and companion for life. These will be individual calls because people are individuals. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals, alike, as I see it. Be yourself, and your relationships will be real, happy, and meaningful.
Bonus: Thoughts on how women are unfairly stereotyped today, esp. Hillary Clinton, by best selling author and “The New Yorker” contributor, Malcolm Gladwell:
TO BE EDITED:
Those who thought that thinker, writer Malcolm Gladwell was saying that people rejected Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman were mistaken. What Gladwell was actually saying was that most people today have been programmed to accept only certain traits in women and that women leaders often do not display those traits, such as assertiveness, ego, ambition, and physical appearances that are not aligned with traditional female beauty. Most people, writes Gladwell, do not yet accept individual women as leaders who do not fit these female stereotypes. This is a discussion of great relevance for today of who/what our future leaders will be. Long accepted (and now transcended) norms of all kinds are now being questioned, for the better, imo, with a higher spiritual understanding of who individuals are.
Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons, but high up there was the fact that she was closely associated with a foreign policy establishment consensus consisting of policies that are increasingly discredited in the eyes of large parts of the electorate (perpetual war, aggressive interventions in foreign conflicts, etc.) and an economic platform based on a similar establishment consensus (trade deals, etc.).
That and the fact that she ran an absolutely terrible campaign with serious tactical miscalculations rooted in complacency and arrogance, such as opting not to campaign hard in states like Wisconsin.
Would you please just give Malcolm Gladwell 12 minutes of your time, today, by viewing the excellent interview he gives in the link I provided above? Scroll down to the bottom to view that interview. If you would do that, I think you would see this situation as involving more women who want to be themselves (just as gays want to be themselves openly in society) than simply Clinton, who was a forerunner in this movement. Who women are able to become will determine the caliber of leaders we have as women in America’s evolving future. Why cut off half of the brain or the limbs of authentic women leaders?