Man, Woman, angel, demon, beast. Part Two

Thus Begins Part Two.
Looking back at my previous post, missing from both misogynist approaches to the female nature, valuing the male above all, and misandrist approaches to the male nature, valuing the female above all, is the appreciation of nuanced readings of human nature.

A basic Modern Western tendency is to, in ideology, deny nature. This is because it offends us. Nature offends our ideals, our ideas of what should be. The world as we think it should be.

This is essential in any progressive worldview, a progressive and optimistic ideal of the world as it should be, according to our own high ideals.

But here, you murder the world. The world does not exist, as it does in our ideal ideas, it exists as it is, and this disappoints and wounds us. So we have to evolve it, make it better.

We struggle, therefore, to remake the world according to our idealized vision. But who is to say that our ideal of how the world should be really is as the world should be. After all, it existed for millions of years without our approval.

We do not realize that we are not gods, nor goddesses. It is possible that in much of what we see, that seems as less than ideal, there may actually be good reasons for being.

Someone once said that “Feminism is the proposition that women are human beings.”

No one denies a woman’s innate humanity, historically and currently. A few extreme screeds by a few rapidly woman hating misogynists aside, in general throughout history the blindingly obvious facts of a woman’s humanity have been noticed.

There are man hating misandrists who hold the inverse opinion, that the masculine is diseased, inhuman, bestial.

What both misandrists and misogynists deny is the critical positive aspect of each other’s unique humanity. We are all human, and many aspects of our sexual and gender identity often are negative. There are a negative aspects of masculinity that, for example, are overweening in a lust for power, brutal domination, and control, in the same way there is a negative femininity that is overweening in its vegetative (to quote Simone) settling and narrow vision of all from the perspective of home, hearth, birthing, or aspects that cloying and manipulative in their lust for control.

There is also a positive masculinity, and a positive femininity, that can be, and should be, complementary to each other and have built much of what is good, beautiful, and sound in human nature.

Is it not possible that the negative aspects of each gender and sex creates a dynamic tension in interacting with the negative and positive aspects of the other?

It is possible that both the feminists and misogynists, the misandrists and the anti-feminists, are right? Utterly correct; but only in half of the equation.

Is it not true that many manifestations of female behavior are typically shallow, short sighted, manipulative, narrow and particular, and frankly stupid. But on the same token, is it not true that many manifestations of female behavior are compassionate, gentle, nurturing, wise, and enlightened?

If many aspects of male behavior are domineering, cruel, narrow minded, short sighted, shallow, and violent, it remains true that many aspects of male behavior are enlightened, forward thinking, just, ordered, and focused. Our virtues are inverses of our vices, often.

What men see as moral and just, many women may see as rigid, and hierarchical. What women see as moral and ethical, many men see as flagrantly amoral and capricious.

Society, and at its “higher” form Civilization, is more complex than a narrow reading of history is concerned.

It is possible that the balance between male and female, with a predominance of typically male ways of seeing and doing, but not denying the validity and rightness of female ways, generated a dynamic tension in our history that enabled civilization to occur, emerge, develop, while at the same time limiting the destructive potential in this.

This is the whole yarn that if women ruled the world we would still live in grass huts. Some women bristle at this suggestion, I’ve heard some women agree with it. And say this is a good thing. And hence we arrive at an impasse.

Where in definite periods of history one principle or the other sought an advantage, it usually led to a hyper-development of some sort, at the expense of other possibilities.

Ideology views these periods as normative, missing a more nuanced vision of history. Western history has experienced a short (300) year burst of a particularly concentrated patriarchal regime, a sort of post-Elizabethan backlash against a nascent feminism in the age of the Renaissance, Queen Elizabeth and Shakespeare. in some ways this backlash led civilization to heights it was incapable of before.

But in other ways this murdered other possibilities, and was at the expense of many other good things, at the expense of damn near poisoning half the planet and enslaving huge numbers of humanity at an early stage.

While a more decidedly matriarchal bent could have accomplished some other things, it also would have been equally problematic, but simply in different ways, leading to other problems. Problems that modern conservative anti-feminists think they notice now, but really haven’t in full.

The point is that there appears to be a positive and negative type of masculinity, and positive and negative type of femininity. A good father and an evil father, a good mother and an evil mother.

It is possible to argue that feminism emerged out of discontent with the state of middle class and upper middle class male/female relations and roles.

It emerged in people with legitimate grievances and complaints but who were, initially, often myopic to extremes due to their class and privileges. Privileges they may deny, cover up, or acknowledge out of guilt. This myopia exists to the degree that such people rarely reflect upon the vast differences between their privileges (and early feminists were quite privileged) and their disadvantages (which they protested) with those of their more humble sisters from the working and lower classes.

When middle class white women wanted the “right” to work, my grandmothers had been working women for generations and simply wanted the right not to work, the right to be able to not have to go out and get the bacon, to rest. The right to only be a house wife. My great grandmothers didn’t have this right.

Where some white women, in particular middle and upper middle class, state that they were decidedly dominated by their men in many ways, at a certain point of history (and to some degree, this was a recent matter, simply read Shakespeare, women and men often had much different balances of power than in moralistic Victorian Anglo-American polite society) some of my female ancestors were henpecking, beating with brooms and physical slaps, dominating some of my distant male ancestors. Notoriously. One often did so in drunken fits, so the family history goes, and in some cases this was accompanied by somewhat scandalous caravanning around town thereafter.

Interestingly when I once explained the power dynamics in some of my ancestors’ relationships to a friend, who is quite intelligent, extremely educated, and very sensitive, she found herself pleasantly surprised at how “equal” their gender dynamics were. Her background, white, socially upper middle class, and educated at Smith.

I found myself amusingly shocked at how she could construe my description of the constant henpecking interspersed with verbal and physical violence and other manifestations of domination, on the part of some of my female ancestors, as gender balance and equality.
There was some equality, a great great grandpa would get drunk and her back as she beat him over the head with a broom. Often these fights were give it as good as you get it back. But no, this is not positive gender equality, some of my female ancestors simply half castrated some of my male ancestors.

The humor in such points to the insufficiently explicit degree of my articulation in these things, but also to certain fundamental biases and perceptions in the minds of women and men. We men and women sometimes see the world in very different ways. But the dynamics of our lives historically have sometimes been much more complex than we would imagine today.

Beyond stereotype, beyond family history, are things much more complex, showing that under general stereotypes of unremitting male dominance are far more nuanced things.

The balance of power and control between men and women has shifted and varied from generation to generation, our readings of other generation’s history is often just myth.

Has there ever been perfect equality, no. And indeed, how could there be? Perfect equality demands perfect uniformity of our conditions. No one is equal in every way, hence dynamism. Things are dynamic, there are strengths and compensating weaknesses, that sometimes are adversarial, and sometimes are complementary.

In any relationship one principle or another will always have some slight degree of ascendency, at least. This leads to a dynamic tension. The real nature of which tendency, in which context, had a dominant sway is far more complex and nuanced than one may possibly imagine.

As for myself, I have no faith in our society that the gender wars will cease. I only hope to find a faith in individuals who will, or can, arrive at more enlightened understandings of masculinity and femininity, of male needs and female needs, male priorities and female priorities, and conduct ourselves on a higher plane.

What I consider to be enlightened is simply what is in accord with our inner natures, no matter how politically incorrect.

Most people today are divorced from their inner natures, most people cannot even sit still with themselves for an hour, without needing constant social stimulation. Divorced from nature and the earth at large, and divorced from understanding our deepest selves, we often act without thought or reflection.

Difficult, and painful as this may be, we are very different, but we are also very much the same. There is no contradiction in this – we are also human in our commonalities. And we are two separate faces of the same coin, the same material, the same species, struck with different faces.

Thus often with different roles, some of these roles right and proper to us are survival mechanisms without which humanity could not have survived, and would not survived.

Some are quite subtle, and getting rid of some may have negative consequences on the human project, the project of civilization, that will take centuries to fully manifest much less than be understood.

With our growing power over the gene and the atom, the inability of men and women to meet on a higher plane, and engage both our innate differences (which are vast) and our innate commonalities (which also are vast) will destroy one or the other or horribly mutilate other.

If we cannot learn to truly love each other for who and what we are, and to accept ourselves as who and what we are, and not as we would like each other to be, then our grandchildren may curse our names unto eternity, on a world ruined and deprived of beauty.

Some may read this and think my words are contradictory, or glib. Perhaps they just lack reading comprehension and the ability to understand context and nuances.

Such people are respectfully requested to re-read what I wrote with some greater comprehension. There are far too many critics in the world, and far too few people either capable of understanding, or willing to understand.

The capacity is often a willingness to understand, it requires a will and decision to meet something on its own terms and grapple with it, or to impose one’s own mold on it.
_EOF

5 Comment

  1. Mixed Desi Masala says:

    I had no idea there was such animosity between men and women but after reading about the gender wars and mens rights movement and all that, I’m getting enlightened. Ignorance is bliss and it would have been better if I hadn’t found out.

    Basically men and women are competeing with each other in their relationships. That’s because the relationships are based on ego rather than duty. I’m meeting suffering women all the time. Men are also suffering but rather than deal with it in a mature way, they are reacting to women. Re-acting. Re-enacting the drama tenfold. You can never solve anything from the reactive mind.

    Then you have the Deida types who want to make clear demarcatons between “masculine” qualities and “feminine” qualities. Its not that cut and dry.

    Plus, if any guy is effeminite, I say it’s Deida. Watch his videos and see what I mean.

    It’s all a big mess. Everyone is confused.

  2. I’m sorry your male ancestors were abused and henpecked; I understand about women working and taking on strong roles–way before it was officially acceptable to do so. Both of my grandmothers worked very hard outside of the home–in addition to raising large families, being excellent cooks, seamstress perfectionist, etc.

    But, how many women in our grandmother’s generation proactively decided to never get married, or never have children? Before the 60’s, how many little girls, when asked what they wanted to be when they grew up, said they wanted to be lawyers, astronauts, or the president of the US? Not many. No, the primary ambition was to get married off. Most of those women went on to work hard…but were underpaid and usually did not hold ‘professional’ jobs like their male counterparts.

    I still experience discrimination to a degree. I’ve been informed by my interviewer there were no healthcare benefits offered for the position (paralegal in this case)for which I was applying b/c most of the women in that position were married and their husbands supplied them with coverage from THEIR position/job. So b/c I was neither a man nor married to one, I would be without the same benefits a man or woman married to a man would have. I’ve also been asked if I planned on having children in the near future, if I was married, etc…

    No one’s life should be limited in any way b/c of his or her gender, race, or preferences; all people should be treated equally.

    In a way I see this war as apart of the human condition: men are used to having power, and now that it’s slipping and waning, they are scurrying and scheming to get it back. If by some circumstance women had the control and power for centuries (as far as status, job, money, etc.,), and were seeing it fade away before our eyes, we would probably be doing the same thing. I think, perhaps, it’s a human thing, not a gender thing.

    However, the whole world has been interpreted through the eyes of men: the Bible, God, virginity, beauty, social and personal behavior… And as a woman I’m weary of it.

    (small)Example: I once told my father about my workout routine during small talk on an occasion, mentioning my use of free weights for muscle toning, to which he screwed up his face and said, “Women don’t lift weights, you shouldn’t do that.” He looked totally disgusted.

    Last thing: Your point about our inner natures was great. I’m not sure this was even what you were really referencing, but I had my own personal epiphany! Because of our human baggage (and all of us past the age of 10 have some) we start designing in our heads what we THINK we want and like–probably to ward off bad feelings we’ve had in association w/ experiences, people, behavior, etc., and we start throwing out the good with the bad. For me, having an extremely controlling father makes me resistant to stronger men. When in fact, I’m really not attracted to the bend-over-backwards type of man, and the only relationship I’ve ever had ended for that reason–it was too heavy. I was extremely unhappy the whole time, but thought I’d outsmarted the cosmos b/c he was nothing like my father. I need to quiet the defense mechanisms a little bit to gain a clearer picture of who I am and what I need.

    Thank you for that! I feel like I just had a therapy session!

    One last note, most women–or at least I–would rather be happy than married (it seems men have always had this option and luxury). So, if that means no one can ever accept us for who we are–strengths and weaknesses–we’d rather have a loyal dog, great friends, a peaceful flower garden and enjoy life, than to ever compromise something we feel to be very important–that is what liberation means to women, and perhaps our generation is the pendulum swing too far in one direction so the next generation will be able to enjoy the comfortable middle.

    Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and inspiring mine.

  3. Rebekah, you are welcome. Thanks again for stopping by.

    I think that our generation is really the first to be opting for large scale un-married status as a life choice. It remains to be seen what will be the result because no other generation, not even the baby boomers, has tried it on this large of a scale. The boomers mostly settled down after a period into respectable adulthood.

    I can understand re-interpriting marriage, certainly, I have my own ideas about what I imagine an ideal marriage should be based on my childhood and the breaking up of my parents’ marriage.

    But I simply see our generation’s “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” to be a mistake. The choice isn’t as simple as “my happiness, or marriage” there are subtle gradations.

    I do find interesting the generation gap in our culture. Most people in their 20s and even 30s now days no longer closely associated with older people. I always have. And I can say one thing.

    Many people of past generations arrive at an age in which if they do not have, or no longer have, a life partner they become lonely in a way that friendships and social circles cannot. Everyone is unique of course, with their own cultural conditioning, conditioning from childhood, from negative and positive family experiences, from pop culture and social ideologies, from adult experiences. But there are constants that exist because, after all, we all are human.

    There are lessons I suppose that all people must find out for ourselves, at a certain place and a certain time.

    An interesting thing to me is that Gloria Steinem eventually married. As an old woman. After decades of lambasting the institution.

    I think on a whole our whole generation is so self-centred that we do not understand exactly what healthy relationships, marriage or otherwise, really are.

    Nor do we really understand the key to happiness. Most people really are not that happy, albeit for small bursts, if we are not getting a certain type of stimulus.

    Our generation trades a deeper type of fulfilment and happiness in many areas of our lives (and not just relationships) for a stimulus response to itches, of often conditioned by pop culture, the media, and dominant social ideologies.

    This isn’t liberation. It is enslavement. I truly believe that we loose the ability to pair-bond at a deeper level, reinterprit history and biology to justify our generations inadequate ability to love, and only when we start getting into our 40s and 50s (which comes faster than most people think. Very fast) do we start to wake up. After a youth misspent. It doesn’t seem misspent at the time. But we soon realize it was.

    Only deep relf reflection and the courage to act on our fears, our insecurities, and our conditioning, can make us capable of good relationships of any kind, casual, long term, marriage, friendship, professional. And this is something our generation is denied because it was not taught to us.

    In my opinion.

  4. Mixed Desi Masala says:

    The thing is, while this generation may not be marrying, they are more obsessed with “relationships” than anybody else, anywhere, ever.

    In India, where everyone gets married and marriage is seen as a must-do duty, there is no obsession over this or that relationship and all the depression/anger/emotional drama that comes with it.

    I say Americans are more attached/obsessed than ever to human bonding and they need to get over it.

  5. I don’t want to romanticize other culture’s approaches, there are real problems and tensions that people in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America, and South Asia, all face in their marriages and families.

    But I argue that what we Americans have lost we will find it very difficult to retain, and the vices of some other cultures may be more attractive than some of the virtues of this culture.

    Well, Human bonding is important. In particular when you live in an increasingly atomized and individualized culture that erodes so many authentic human connections.

    We all have a need to belong, and to bond with each other.
    This need can be artificially stimulated to absurd degrees, making us into very needy people.

    I argue that many aspects of Urban American popular culture (things are a bit different in rural and small town areas) really spins people away from each other. That and people are encouraged to invest a huge portion of their very identities in their relationships, or lack thereof. So a natural consequence of a systemic denial, for many, of the fulfillment of natural urges and yearnings, and the artificial amplification and stimulation of these yearnings by the media, leads to a good deal of unhappiness and obsession and, frankly, absurd codependency.

    Many Americans are almost afraid to be by ourselves, afraid to not merge into another, or a group. It is a “mass man” mindset, it started in the 1950s and really has reached absurd levels. Everyone wants to “belong” while at the same time being the special individualistic shining star we are told to be. A mix of myopia, neurotic narcissism, and needy unfulfilled urges to bond.

    Frankly, the elite culture creation clique has really outdone themselves in these matters..

    No one knows how important family, real flesh and blood, is until they are no longer young. Yes, you can create community, create a sense of family, but at the end of the day, when it really matters when we are much older, there are things that become known that the youth would know, if they were no so alienated from the elderly. Things about life, whose failure to learn may cause much pain later in life.

    The baby boomers are discovering some painful lessons and it is a pity that their generation X and Y descendents are not learning from their mistakes fast enough..

    Time and family are actual forms of wealth, literally and symbolically, and they are wasted on the youth of this country – who have been conditioned not to even realize the value of what they hold in their hands.
    And it is later, much later, than they think.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.