Is sexism prolonged psychological latency?

Sexism isn't really something I've read much about. Off the top of my head I can think of two kinds, which I would call informational and spiteful.

Informational is similar to many other areas where people come to false conclusions because of how we infer generalized statements from minimal data. People come to false conclusions about women or men in the same way they come to false conclusions about socialism, the weather, the best kind of soap etc. I think that people who are passionate about gender issues react too harshly about this sort of sexism.

Spiteful would seem to come from the naturally emotion laden interaction between the sexes. Like when people who have been rejected a lot, or feel they don't meet what they perceive as the standards of the opposite sex, react defensively.

I don't know much about Freud so I can't really respond to your theory, but this popped into my head when I read it.

Sex is a form, and a form of relationship...But, it is also a persistent state of identity that is often used as a pat explanation for all sorts of behavior... I wish I could agree with Anni Defranco that women learn to be women and men learn to be men; but there seems to be some sense of it almost from birth... So in some sense it holds the place in peoples minds as an idea explaning all sorts of things, and also that of a form directing and structuring human behavior... of what you say... I am not sure I agree, but i will think of it...

So I think both forms of sexism that you propose: the spiteful and the informational could both be attributed to the latency stage in some round about way.

...the battle of the sexes began in grade-school ...and some are still fighting it. But saying that understates the trauma of puberty...but how much more difficult that trauma of puberty is if the lessons of latency have not been learned.

Does this conflict necessarily result in females being seen as sub-human? Do we always see an enemy as inferior?

And how would we figure in social change? Would condemnation of sexism represent a profound alteration in the way humans develop psychologically?

Or is sexism hard-wired so that it will eventually return as the accepted norm?

I think the only way to see what female humans really are is to separate femininity from female. Femininity is a collection of human traits that the sexes actually share. A female human is just that: a human. I wonder at what stage of development the ability to recognize humanity appears... to see the living person behind the sex. Or is that actually a primal state which we eventually lose?

Does this conflict necessarily result in females being seen as sub-human? Do we always see an enemy as inferior?

And how would we figure in social change? Would condemnation of sexism represent a profound alteration in the way humans develop psychologically?

Or is sexism hard-wired so that it will eventually return as the accepted norm?

I think the only way to see what female humans really are is to separate femininity from female. Femininity is a collection of human traits that the sexes actually share. A female human is just that: a human. I wonder at what stage of development the ability to recognize humanity appears... to see the living person behind the sex. Or is that actually a primal state which we eventually lose?

Freud said there is a latency period, a period of libidinal dormancy, during which the boy resolves the Oedipal complex and the girl resolves the Electra complex. This is a period of time when the boy and the girl are choosing sides in the family drama. Resolution means the boy chooses the Dad over his Mom and the girl chooses her Mom over her Dad. It makes some sense that during this time the child will seem to despise the opposite sex. Boys will say "girls are yucky!" and girls will say "Boys are yucky!" but really this is fall out from the resolving complex...there are unstated and unconscious premises. For the boys the unconscious logic is "Mom is a girl (and I'm choosing Dad and therefor all girls are yucky!)" and for girls the logic is as follows "Dad is a girl (and I'm choosing Mom and therefor all boys are yucky!)"

It makes sense to me that sexism, whether it be in the male or the female, is a sort of prolonged latency perhaps due to an unresolved Oedipus complex. Now puberty kicks in whether one is ready for it or not so when the hormones start pumping those who are still struggling to resolve the complex will still start having sexual feelings. Perhaps "latency" isn't really the right term to use but I am speaking of a purely psychological latency lagging behind the inevitable biological programming that ends the libidinal latency. After puberty and in later life "girls are yucky!" becomes "women are *****es!" and "boys are yucky!" becomes "Men are pigs!"

I wince a little at the thought about separating femininity from the female as that femininity is perhaps what I find the most attractive at the instinctual level. I wince in the same way that I wince when someone tells me that a "1" is a "0". Femininity as weakness and dependence is a different thing but femininity qua femininity? No I think that is a difference that we want to keep around.

The menstruation cycle I think is very important here. Most other mammals the females only ovulate once or a few times a year.

I also believe there is difference.. although I might be out on a different limb. The image that looms in my mind is of a Catholic saint... don't remember his name right off.. but he's always depicted with a baby in his arms... almost Virgin Mary-like. The image is deeply meaningful to me. It means that men have the same basic ability to nurture that we associate with females. Going Jung on it: this saint has made friends with the anima to the point that it appears on the surface.

I've been reading Dickens lately. Bleak House. Wow. It's affecting my outlook to the point that I've found myself talking like a Dickens character. Anyway... it points to the way that culture shapes our expectations of the sexes. What we call sexism, our forebears called common sense. That's why I'm saying that this question you've raised is profoundly important to our generation. Old roles and rules have faded leaving us with a mess. The old rules are still present as ghosts. We delve deep to see what's real.
Yes... my own "limb" involves the idea that menstruation is a sort of biological introversion. A woman is tied to a cycle. It's the same cycle the day and year goes through... it's the same cycle everything goes through... it's the primal event arc: birth... youth... adult.. age... death. To balance a connection to a cosmic cycle, would it be normal for a woman to be psychologically extroverted?

And testosterone is biological extroversion... binding a man to the here and now with a drive to own and manipulate the plastic world of things. Would this strong tie to this moment allow men to become psychologically introverted for the sake of balance?

I use this to explain why extreme introversion in women can be precarious, just as extreme extroversion can be for men. Hey... I said it was a limb.


The difference between one and zero is the foundation of the intellect. Defining oneself requires seeing what you're not. One facet of this is sex. What you are physically obviously bears on how you define yourself. Does this definition result in the driving down of part of one's potential to the realm of the shadow?

Before exploring the image of Anthony and the Christ child, however, we should look at one of the popular stories explaining the origin of the custom. A good number of Franciscan historians, I believe, would advise us to approach the story as legend rather than as solid historical fact.
According to one version of the legend-and there are many-there was a Count Tiso who had a castle about 11 miles from Padua, Italy. On the grounds of the castle the count had provided a chapel and a hermitage for the friars.
Anthony often went there toward the end of his life and spent time praying in one of the hermit cells. One night, his little cell suddenly filled up with light. Jesus appeared to Anthony in the form of a tiny child. Passing by the hermitage, the count saw the light shining from the room and St. Anthony holding and communicating with the infant.
The count fell to his knees upon seeing this wondrous sight. And when the vision ended, Anthony saw the count kneeling at the open door. Anthony begged Count Tiso not to reveal what he had seen until after his death.
Whether this story be legend or fact, the image of Anthony with the child Jesus has important truths to teach us.

It is interesting, but to tell you the truth I question how much time and energy we should really be spending dwelling and meditating on this image of Saint Anthony as Jungian archetype and pondering its meaning as a representation of the anima. The webpage I linked to manages to say quite a lot about the symbol without once mentioning Jung.

I'm sure you're right.