Man is the creature of interest and ambition. His nature leads him forth into the struggle and bustle of the world. Love is but the embellishment of his early life, or a song piped in the intervals of the acts. He seeks for fame, for fortune, for space in the world's thought, and dominion over his fellow men. But a woman's whole life is a history of the affections. The heart is her world: it is there her ambition strives for empire; it is there her avarice seeks for hidden treasures. She sends forth her sympathies on adventure; she embarks her whole soul in the traffic of affection; and if shipwrecked, her case is hopeless--for it is a bankruptcy of the heart.
<br>
--Washington Irving (1783-1859): excerpts from "The Broken Heart" in The Sketch Book.
<br>
<br>
This interesting comparison of the two sexes appears to be anachronistic. Progressive change is under way now that man (woman) is gradually 'feminized' ('masculinized').
<br>
However, Irving's desription makes me think over if any immutable elements in the traits of the two sexes exist.
<!-- -->
첫댓글I suppose that there is nothing like immutable traits in the real world. Their structures given, then thier natures exist, If their struture changed, their natures also change. With the development of science, women are gradually changing into a new one who can have an access to power which has
been previosely lack but constantly sought for. No one knows for sure how and how much sciecne will change the shapes and structures of men and women, And their natures will just be up according to thier strutures.
I absolutely agree with Irving, although there are some who go against Irving's words. For man, woman may be just an instant pleasure, but for woman, the proper man is the world. Then, how do we have to define the word 'proper'?
Doesn't it depend on individual? It appears to me that there is no absolute value. Irving seems to have insight as to where woman seeks her happiness, although I don't give him a full endorsement for his writing.
Very interesting topic.. I enjoyed your views all..I guess you all including me are not that serious on the sentences..on light issue and light comments. but this kind of talking topic is interesting and easy to comment on.. please put up one more about M and W , anonym..Because We're men/women, so
Actually I was afraid of commenting on your writing, joker, because you were not joking. You have a materialistic view and eventually debate will go down to creation vs evolution. So taking it lightly as you said, why don't you enter one so that we amuse over it?
(I was joker..) Some time later, anonym, I'll put an interesting one up. Actually, I didn't mean it to be that serious discussion, But thank you much for your concern
첫댓글 I suppose that there is nothing like immutable traits in the real world. Their structures given, then thier natures exist, If their struture changed, their natures also change. With the development of science, women are gradually changing into a new one who can have an access to power which has
been previosely lack but constantly sought for. No one knows for sure how and how much sciecne will change the shapes and structures of men and women, And their natures will just be up according to thier strutures.
I absolutely agree with Irving, although there are some who go against Irving's words. For man, woman may be just an instant pleasure, but for woman, the proper man is the world. Then, how do we have to define the word 'proper'?
Doesn't it depend on individual? It appears to me that there is no absolute value. Irving seems to have insight as to where woman seeks her happiness, although I don't give him a full endorsement for his writing.
Very interesting topic.. I enjoyed your views all..I guess you all including me are not that serious on the sentences..on light issue and light comments. but this kind of talking topic is interesting and easy to comment on.. please put up one more about M and W , anonym..Because We're men/women, so
Actually I was afraid of commenting on your writing, joker, because you were not joking. You have a materialistic view and eventually debate will go down to creation vs evolution. So taking it lightly as you said, why don't you enter one so that we amuse over it?
(I was joker..) Some time later, anonym, I'll put an interesting one up. Actually, I didn't mean it to be that serious discussion, But thank you much for your concern