Freud: Femininity Response

what defines femininity according to Freud? Of what does femininity consist? Support
your argument with examples from the text.

All the while I am preparing to talk to you I am struggling with an internal difficulty. I

feel uncertain, so to speak, of the extent of my licence.

“From the very beginning of his discourse, Freud states plainly that he himself genuinely

questions his own professional credibility when it comes to the subject of Femininity. In

light of this statement, once having read the prescribed the text in full, it is clear to the

reader that this strongly expressed sentiment of uncertainty, permeates itself throughout

Freud’s discourse on femininity. In this paper I will highlight what Freud describes as the

constituents of Femininity as well as his own uncertain version of what defines

Femininity. A definition which is not reached through a thorough examination of females

and the female experience, but through creating a cross section of uncertainty based on

rhetorical compassions between the male and female sex, in order to establish a basis of

their supposed physical and psychological characteristics.

“It regards to their occurrence as indications of bisexuality, as though an individual is not

a man or a woman but always both—merely a certain amount more the one than the

other.”

This quotation marks what I would consider an unambiguous full expression of Freud’s
attempts to express and validate his uncertainty on the subject of Femininity. As result of

the above quotation as well as the aforementioned opening statement, Freud is seen

attempting to spread out the veil of uncertainty by espousing, purely rhetorical claims as

to his personal supposition of males and females being characteristic of both sexes at any

given time, however being predominantly predisposed to a particular sex as a result of

their genitalia. One may question Freud’s claims and their validity because firstly, his self

acknowledged reservations regarding his authority on the subject as well as secondly, the

lack of any scientific data as means for support to his claims, especially given that in

regards to the above quotation, his claims are rooted in observable (and therefore

examinable) physical characteristics.

“The distinction is not a psychological one; when you say 'masculine', you usually mean

'active', and when you say 'feminine', you usually mean 'passive'. Now it is true that a

relation of the kind exists. The male sex-cell is actively mobile and searches out the

female one, and the latter, the ovum, is immobile and waits passively. In quite high

species we find that the sexes share the task of caring for the young between them or

even that the male alone devotes

himself to it.

Even in the sphere of human sexual life you soon see how inadequate it is to make

masculine behaviour coincide with activity and feminine with passivity.”

At this avenue Freud proceeds once more to create a space of intellectual uncertainty, this
time regarding the characteristics of Femininity and Masculinity in relation and

comparison to animals species.

His statements here are to my observation, contrived to support his overall theory of

uncertainty, because he establishes an opinion of masculinity and femininity as active and

passive, with the pre-conceived intent of using animal examples in order to shatter that

logic such that his argument may align itself with what he had previously mentioned

regarding male and female “bisexuality”. The above statement marks Freud’s wish to

round up his over arching theme of ambiguity, by offering his reasoning on the physical

and psychological comparisons/similarities between the male and female sexes, all in the

name of attempting to delineate the nature of femininity. His argument is very limited in

regards to the consideration of genuinely delineating femininity in and of itself.

“You may well doubt whether you have gained

any real advantage from this when you reflect that in some classes

of animals the females are the stronger and more aggressive and

the male is active only in the single act of sexual union.”

The above is another example of Freud reasserting himself rhetorically for his own ends,

while also discussing femininity in relation to masculinity. Increasingly it becomes clear

to an objectionable reader that his interests are not rooted in femininity but somewhere in

between, as his rhetoric suggests.

“If you now tell me that these facts go to prove precisely that both
men and women are bisexual in the psychological sense, I shall

conclude that you have decided in your own minds to make

'active' coincide with 'masculine' and 'passive' with 'feminine'.

But I advise you against it.”

Freud leaves very little space for opinion to a listener or reader for an opinion outside of

his own. Throughout the length of his discourse he goes to a great effort to stay away

from conclusions, but at a point which is convenient to him personally, he suggests that

he may himself offer conclusion regarding an opinion outside his own. Furthermore, in

the above, he wishes to speak of facts without having provided evidence scientifically for

any of his previous claims, however in light of previous claims it is objectionably clear

that, his intent in this regard is to once more to reassert himself on a purely rhetorical

basis.

“We(males), on the other hand, standing

on the ground of bisexuality, had no difficulty in avoiding

impoliteness. We had only to say(in regard to female obejection): 'This doesn't apply to

you. You're the exception; on this point you're more masculine than

feminine.

“Freud makes the above statement in reference to any potential objections from Female

counterparts. The quote above re-establishes the notion that Freud has a great interest in

asserting himself purely on a rhetorical basis, as he uses his already established

unscientific logic of uncertainty, regarding the intermingling of the male and female

sexes, to dismiss any queries, framing the questioner as being either masculine or

feminine in the given context depending on what best suites his own opinion. The mere

notion that he should dismiss queries on something he himself has claimed to be

uncertain of is troublesome, and brings his credibility into question.

In conclusion, as a result of reading the text, it is clearer to myself as a reader that Freud

will go to great lengths to attempt to validate his own arguments, which in and of itself is

not a reprehensible quality, however, for him to do so within the context of attempting to

justify the nature of his own uncertainty, while leaving little to no room for others to

question it, is dubious on his part. Secondly is the question of Femininity, which I

mention second because in spite of it being the proposed subject of his discourse, Freud

fails in my opinion to treat it as primary; this is a result of him consistently attempting to

describe females in comparative terms as well as attempting to establish a notion of

physical Bisexuality amongst males and females, only adding to the over arching theme

of ambiguity on his part in relation to actual femininity. An ambiguity he seeks to justify

in what becomes a broad relation to males and females, and even more obscure relation to

females. As my use of quotations has shown, the text is increasingly directed towards

Freud’s own aims, Freud’s conclusions in the mist of his own uncertainty. Clear

examples of sexism are not offered in my own examination of the text, however the

simple way in which Freud consistently attempts to justify and assert his own opinions,

without scientific or objectionable justification, or making any reference to females in

and of themselves and their experience, highlights a disregard for the female sex and
femininity on their own ground, purely on the basis that the text is insensitive to any

consideration other than those it approves of. What defines Femininity and what it

consists of for Freud can never be certain because according to him, foundationally male

and female interact, physiologically and psychologically, he is thus uncertain himself.