Reply to comment

In Sherry Ordiner's essay "Is Female to Nature as Male to  culture", she talked about the idea that women are closer to nature because we have these sort of innate bodily functions that are not necessarily necessary for the health of stability of an individual, but are there and bothersome. I agree with this; however to a certain extent. Although we have these innate functions as women, that somehow in the eyes of others make us closer to nature than the y do men, that does NOT mean that our inner selves feel this so called connection as a part of who they are. For example there have been stories in which women have babies but feel no "mother's intuition". In other words, instead of feeling the "appropriate" joy. pride, and excitement, they feel nothing at all. How are these women put into categories?

There was an instance in my performance and self class in where, the conclusion to a discussion came down to this idea that we cannot perform something that we did not feel was a part of us already. In terms of women hood, this is absolutely true. Women have the ability to portray a motherly figure, because we have been exposed to it and that is the leeway through which we put together the puzzle pieces and say "oh so this is how you do it". Exposure however, although a part of the body's mind, it is still not a part of the soul. Furthermore, if this exposure is similar to both female and male "bodies", can it not be that males can also portray the act of being a mother?