Posted Saturday, February 7, 2026
29d
INTP
6I don't feel like a girl because I don't know what it is like to be one. People assign gender roles, they call it “nature because We evolved to be like that”. Hmm. It's a bit silly to me, to hear “men are territorial, they're logical, women are emotional”. Even when I see my contemporaries growing up, retrospecting their teenage years and accounting how they embrace “femininity” now, as they disliked being “feminine” in the past, they wanted to be a tomboy. What stings my ears here is the idea of femininity and masculinity. For the first statement, I've always thought, is it not restrictive to the nature of consciousness? To think that such highly evolved creatures like humans would only work on instinct and what their hormones require them to? If hunting and gathering is all nature and what we evolve for, if the baseline is purely instinctive and primitive, why do we think? Why do we do ineffective and mundane things like art? Why exist the cave paintings? Why do we have societies? Why are we, or even many lower organisms not purely primitive? I don't have all the answers, but I have a question or an observation, and. We have a brain. It's too complex. Yes, dimorphism exists, yes there is an endocrinal influence, yes there are primitive instincts but there is also consciousness. A thought. And it's natural for us to surpass this baseline. The Tomboy thing, it stings me, as I said. Because the implication becomes that previously they were trying to be a “man”. Are tomboy characteristics “manly”? I don't think so. I understand what they're trying to say: the “traditional or perceived femininity is so looked down upon that they wanted to be what is expected for a superior gender to be, a man, logical, rational, less emotional, assertive, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, but now they embrace the traditional femininity.” Nothing wrong with that. What irks me a bit is, probably because I'm being not picky, is the implication that being a tomboy means wanting to embody “masculine characteristics" , but these characteristics aren't masculine. Or at least, in my perspective they aren't. As I said, we are above baseline. Even if it still influences us, we are still more conscious. Anyone can be logical, rational, emotionally expressive, empathetic, intuitive, etcetera. It's more human than masculine or feminine. If a man dances, dance is masculine. If a woman dances, dance is feminine. If a man picks STEM subjects and goes on to build a career in them, it's his preference. Same with the woman. If a man is emotionally expressive, it's masculine because it's exhibited by a man. If a woman is emotionally expressive, it's feminine because it's exhibited by a woman. I think our perception is shaped because of necessity. There is resemblance of certain characteristics with the result of our primitive self. People require these because they don't want systems to collapse. Constructs are heuristics but they've hardened into roles and expectations. I don't think simplification is that bad but it eats nuance, and when other categories can be exploited, so people are tied in ideological shackles, it takes generations. What I believe, and it's subjective, is that it's more human. Again, someone would come at me, screaming “testosterone, estrogen and evolution”, I never denied that they don't work, but again, I've been clear about consciousness and structures. (edited)
16
11
Philosophy Community
The philosophy community, chat, and discussion.
1.6M SOULS
S𖹭úLFrïénD
29d
INTP
Pisces
1That is a deeply introspective and articulate reflection on the tension between biological essentialism and human consciousness...You’re essentially describing the friction between Prakriti (nature/matter) and Purusha (pure consciousness)—a core pillar of Vedic philosophy. Your observation that it's more human than masculine or feminine aligns beautifully with how ancient texts describe the soul's journey through various "layers" Prakriti & Purusha...The "Baseline" & The Observer In the Vedic view (specifically Samkhya philosophy)..everything you described as "baseline"...hormones...evolution...sexual dimorphism...and social heuristics...falls under Prakriti. Prakriti is the field of action... It is governed by the three Gunas energies...Sattva (balance/light)...Rajas (activity/passion)...and Tamas (inertia/stability)....Gender roles often emerge from how society tries to categorize these energies. Purusha is the "Consciousness" you mentioned.It is genderless...eternal...and beyond attributes (Nirguna). Modern/Scientific Parallel...Think of Prakriti as the hardware and operating system of a computer (your biology and neural pathways) and Purusha as the user....While the hardware has specific specs (estrogen, testosterone, physical strength)...the user’s intent and creativity are not limited by those specs...You can create art on a gaming laptop or a workstation...the art is a function of the consciousness using the tool...not the tool itself. Dharma over Gender Roles...You mentioned that if a woman is logical...it’s simply her nature...not "masculinity" Vedic philosophy supports this through the concept of Svadharma one’s own inherent nature or calling. The Vedas suggest that every individual has a unique mix of qualities regardless of their physical form. The "Tomboy" Paradox...If a girl prefers being assertive or logical traits often mislabeled as masculine...Vedic thought wouldn't see her as...trying to be a man...It would see her as expressing her Vāsanās (latent tendencies) and Samskaras (past impressions). Authenticity....Forcing someone into a feminine role when their Svadharma is "warrior-like" (Kshatriya energy) creates Adharma disharmony. In genetics...we see Phenotypic Plasticity... A single genotype can produce different behaviors or physical traits based on environmental interaction...Your consciousness is the ultimate environment...Just as a seed’s destiny is to grow...its specific shape is determined by the light it seeks...not just the shell it started in. The "Heuristics" and Social Shackles You noted that constructs are hardened into roles In the Vedas...this is called Maya (illusion/construct)...We mistake the temporary "mask" (the social role) for the face(the soul). Society uses labels like "men are logical" as a heuristic....a mental shortcut to manage large populations....But as you rightly pointed out...these shortcuts eat nuance. If a man dances....dance is masculine... if a woman is logical...it's her preference. This is a very Advaita (Non-dualist) perspective. You are identifying that the action doesn't have a gender...the actor is simply a vehicle for consciousness. Why do we have Art and Societies 🤔 You asked...If we are just primitive...why do we think? Why the cave paintings? 🤔 Vedic philosophy answers this through the concept of Ananda (Bliss). We are not just biological survival machines...we are expressions of a consciousness that seeks to know itself...Art...logic...and philosophy are the ways the "Complex Brain"the Manas (mind)and Buddhi (intellect)...tries to reconnect with its source. Scientific Perspective...Evolutionary biology often struggles to explain excessive creativity. Some call it Spandrelism....traits that are byproducts of other evolved systems...But from your perspective and the Vedic one..these aren't accidents...they are the surpassing of the baseline....that happens when a nervous system becomes complex enough to host self aware consciousness. Your observation🤔 A)above the Baseline B)Traits are not gendered they are human C)Roles are ideologicalShackles D)Logic Empathy belong to Everyone Vedic Concept 🧘♀️ A) Budhhi high intellect B) atman soul Genderless soul C) Maya illusion of labels D) Gunas qualities universal Energies Scientific View 🧐 A) Prefrontal Cortex dominance over the Amygdala B) Neuroplasticity brain exist on a mosaic spectrum C) Social Constructivism & Cognitive biases D) personality psychology Big five traits Your feeling of "not feeling like a girl" because you don't fit the "role" is actually a sign of a very high level of Viveka (discernment)...You are seeing through the social Maya to the human reality underneath 🧘♀️
4
2
Jatin
29d
INTP
Aries
4This is such a refreshing perspective that cuts through the usual noise about gender roles and gets straight to the human element. That point about consciousness surpassing the 'baseline' is really strong. To add to what you said—it’s interesting when people claim biology dictates these strict roles, because one of the most defining human traits is actually adaptability, not rigidity. Unlike other animals that run on strict instinctual loops, the human brain is designed to be flexible. We survived as a species precisely because we could switch behaviors—being logical when we needed to solve a problem, and emotional when we needed to build social bonds. If we were strictly hardwired as just 'hunters' or 'gatherers,' we wouldn't be able to function in the modern world at all. So you’re right—labeling logic or emotion as exclusively 'male' or 'female' actually contradicts our evolutionary advantage. It limits the full range of the human toolkit that we all have access to.
2
0
Mihai
29d
ENTJ
Libra
5This is not at all a trivial matter and it's true that at our current level as a society, the chemical explanation simply won't suffice. I tend to keep my distance from this kind of debates and thought exercises since there is a certain polarization across cultures that makes this especially hard to boil down to a clean and readable conclusion.
1
0
Wilhelm
29d
INTP
Cancer
The traditional gender roles and norms are made up nonsense by men who wanted to own other people. It was never based on anything substantial. Like most of history directly related to Christian and Muslim relgion, it usually involved out right control and disregard for reality in favor of upholding pretend rules. (edited)
1
0
Ash 🐶🐱🦝🐝🐢🦜🐑
29d
ISTJ
Capricorn
1Agreed. Out of mud and swamp blooms a lotus, out of base blooms sentient intelligence, but development can be hampered, perhaps even purposely and cannivingly planned. With no influence perhaps wed all become beautiful minds, but society puts us in camps based on gender and status sometimes depending where and when u are. Im guessing but i think the canniving indoctrination of the masses started in the 1880s, people were stereotyped and equal oppurtunity even for those in the ingrouos was inverted woman were no longer allowed to be educated or even play sport, just ridiculous patriotic stuff. Perbaps these camps even today influence peoples interest, setting people apart in predictable determined ways, who knows, maybe its just so they can point and say look how theyre different, maybe that was always the plan, forced difference to create the 'appearance of difference' just so they can turn us on ourselves after theyve made us seem different to caused the very divisions they use to make us feelbother than ourselves. Thats would be a conspiracy theory but there is evidence that powerful people did want and did succeed in some respects in doing just that, wherther it was intended or just mysogeny. Or maybe nature would do this anyway, maybe its actually imbalanced, even if it werent though, the lqnguage, the camps, our acting like it is imbalanced, has us treating people like it is, so even if it wasnt, we are are perpetuating it. Amazing that while we dont have a one world government, everyone does a variation of the same system. Everywhere, people assuming it must be the best and most true system because its everywhere, rather than recognising its everywhere just so we dont try other systems. Personally i think tomboys are the coolest, i think its a pity peoole are told who they are, who they should be, how they are meant to be and all this before they even have a chance to find out what they like and what their own interests are.
0
0
Mark
22d
INTP
Pisces
5I completely understand what you are thinking. My personal belief to rectify this is not the deconstruction of gender, but instead the idea that masculinity and femininity is a spectrum we have divided into binaries. Now, the existence of a binary is true, but for the sake of this argument I will elaborate upon the former thesis. 2 things to look at is how limited our language is. There are multiple words for "love" in the greek language and we often reference 3 when talking about dating: philia, eros, and agape. There are other words that are defined by with whom the love is between such as family, yet we do not give the same treatment towards the idea of "gender expression." In the area of philosophy, Aristotle argued that virtue is a happy medium between 2 extremes of any characteristic. For example, arrogance is the opposite of weak/meek (I forgot the word) and the ideal is to be a balance between the 2. I believe that masculinity and femininity exist on a scale similar to this and, no matter how accurate these correlations may be, lead to unnecessary categorization for certain actions and preferences. Now I don't necessarily believe that the person that performs the action determines what is masculine and what is feminine. It may very well depend on the context and how it is done. It's similar to how you can tell a man is gay by stereotypes. It's because he conducts himself in stereotypically feminine ways. I think the problem today is that the degradation of gender roles (for better or for worse) has skewed our perception of what is masculine and what is feminine. Also because we have trained ourselves not to lean into those traits nor expect them from others. We still exhibit them in statistics, but it is very hard to perceive them with our society on a day to day level. Don't know if I answered you properly, but that is my perspective.
0
0
Mishka
29d
ENFJ
Get help 🙏
0
0
Meet New People
50,000,000+
DOWNLOADS
