untitled

When comparing sexual and creativity, the book says the new entity is further transformed at birth. Is birth beig paralleled to the outlet in which we express creativity? and if it is, doesn't that bring up the question of does creativity have to be expressed to be creativity? Or does it do the opposite by saying that because birth isn't the result of all sexual encounters there isn't a product everytime there is a creative thought?



I found it strange that women weren't thought of as creative (or they weren't really known for arts) because stereotypically, women are more emotional. Doesn't some if not most/all art have some sort of emotion that inspires or drives it? I know that is seriously stereotyping, but stereotypes had to be based on truth (or perceived truth) once otherwise the stereotype wouldn't work.



Also, I am a little uncertain about the explanation given by Nancy Chodorow about where male violence arises from. Shes says that it is because girls automatically identify with their mothers, but boys have to identify himself with his mother, then seperate himself from her in an attempt to find his own identity. First don't boys have fathers? I know not everyone has a present father (as a matter of fact I didn't), but come on, if girls automatically identify with their mother, wouldn't that logic go to say that boys identify themselves with their fathers. My youngest brother is eleven and I know that from a very early age he identified with my oldest brother (who is 14 years older than him) and my stepfather (his biologic father). Also, even without a male figure in the picture, why does forming your own identity cause male violence? I just don't understand it.