Showing posts with label patriarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriarchy. Show all posts

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Men & Women -- Why Are We So Different?

Differences abound between men and women. And all the people said, "Duh!"

Ken Wilbur puts it this way:
Men tend toward hyperindividuality, stressing autonomy, rights, justice, and agency, and women tend toward a more relational awareness, with emphasis on communion, care, responsibility and relationship. Men tend to stress autonomy and fear relationship; women tend to stress relationship and fear autonomy.


A broad brush, but containing much truth nonetheless...

Women's friendships focus more on mutual help and problem-sharing, and much intimacy ... wheras men develop friendships based on common interests, with less intimacy.

More differences:

- Women seem to need less power and status than men ... women's speech is more cooperative,reciprocal and collaborative, and their conversations last longer, filled with feedback, both verbally and non-verbally -- empathy prevails. Disagreement is often in the form of a question, rather than a statement. The goal for women seems to be to develop and maintain intimate, reciprocal relationships.

- Men tend to be more blunt, competitive and direct. Feelings are not as important as logical truth. Their speech is punctuated with imperatives and commands ... men are more apt to brag, threaten, to talk over each other, and to ignore what's said. For men, language can tend to be more of a tool for domination, and a display of status. The goal for men seems to be to impress others with their skill and knowledge.

(Now, I know women who are blunt and aggressive in their speech, and I know men who are sympathetic, kind and thoughtful in their speech ... this is a general tendency.)

This need for male dominance shows up early among boys ... studies at summer camps show that the moment boys get together, they begin to battle each other for status, using ridicule and even violence to establish their hierarchical pecking order. The girls instead used milder ridicule, and flattery of the more dominant girls ... while the boys maintained their hierarchy the entire time they were together, the girls quickly forgot the distinctions, and formed "bonding pairs" in groups of two or three, forming "best friends."

According to some sociologists, the most fundamental difference between male and female psyches is the differing capacities for empathy. In "The Essential Difference," Simon Baron-Cohen says that most men suffer from a mild form of emotional "autism" ... an empathy-disorder. In it's extreme form, it's a type of "mind-blindness", wherein they cannot put themselves into the "shoes of another" ... they cannot feel another's pain, can't even imagine what another is thinking/feeling, and thus cannot respond in a helpful way. These men could be said to have poor social skills ... obsessive interests, and even appear to be somewhat emotionless and overly-logical. According to Baron-Cohen, most men have this struggle to one degree or another ... (& yes, there *are* exceptions -- I'm married to one). Men are just generally not as adept at reading others' emotions, reading facial expressions, or interpreting body language, as are most women.

In studying toddler groups, it's observed that boys have a much harder time sharing than girls ... with girls permitting 20 times more turn-taking than boys. Girls tend to have more egalitarian groups, while boys tend to give orders and make demands.

Criminality is almost solely the domain of men ... with rare exceptions. Statistics across international studies show the same thing -- 80-90% of all crimes are committed by men -- and when the crimes are defined as the violent ones (robbery, murder, sexual assaults), the percentages go up to the 90's. Male on male homicide is 30-40 times more common than female on female (including in prisons).

The opinions about why we have these differences are myriad. But Steve Taylor, author of "The Fall" contends that the differences are just a consequence of the Fall ... that the Fall affected men far more than women ... resulting in a more pronounced ego in men, than in women.
The feminine characteristics - more relational, more feeling-based, less concerned with power and status, a greater sense of empathy, and so on - are exactly those we would associate with a less developed sense of ego, and a less "fallen state of being. On the other hand, the male characteristics - autonomy, obsessiveness,lack of empathy, a high degree of systematising - are exactly those we would associate with a strongly developed sense of ego... In other words, what we think of as "masculine" behaviour is largely the result of the Ego Explosion... It's probably possible to say that the "female psyche" ... is a kind of midway point between the unfallen psyche of primal peoples, and the male fallen psyche.


So, *why* did the Ego Explosion affect males more than females?

One possible reason is that the female psyche never got "walled off" as the male psyche did ... largely due to the woman needing to care for children. Being a mother is about empathy -- feeling with/for another. Having to second-guess, intuitively, what the infant/child's needs were, and responding to them ... while the man was "out there" literally in the wild, fighting each other off for enough food to survive.

Beyond that, women are cyclically "tied to the earth" and to nature ... our biology is rhythmically cyclical (conforming to the lunar calendar), whereas men are steady and "inert". Men are better able to "rise above" their biological pullings, whereas women cannot get away from our connection to nature. In general, women were less exposed to the harsh pressures and realities of the fallen life, which created the "sharpened male ego."

This sharpened male ego also began to perceive the female as a threat to his survival. Men became mind-focused, and saw the body as "less than". Women were a constant reminder of the body, with their menstruation, birthing, and nursing ... so, too, did their sexual allure pose a threat to men's survival ... as man sought to rise above his body's urges, woman became seen as a sexual temptress ... eventually leading to the concept that women were impure and sinful creatures, used by the "devil" to lead men astray from purity.

Woman was blamed for the "fall" according to the story in Genesis (or at least the male perspective's interpretation of the myth). Woman thus could not be trusted ... she was weaker, easily deceived, dangerous. This basic view was expressed by the Jewish Testament of Reuben:
Women are evil, my children ... they use wiles and try to ensnare [man] by their charms ... They lay plots in their hearts against men: by the way they adorn themselves they first lead their minds astray, and by a look they instill the poison, and then in the act itself they take them captive ... So shun fornication, my children, and command your wives and daughters not to adorn their heads and faces."


This antagonism toward women has led to all manner of atrocities ... including the European witch-killing mania from the 1400's through the 1700's (later in some areas), and has been a feature of the three monotheistic Saharasian religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

The more men have believed that their bodies are "less than" their minds, the more women have been punished for displaying a connection to the body. Men = purity of mind, whereas women = impurity of body.

Women came to be likened to all that is disgusting ... Marina Warner writes:
"In the feces and urine - in St. Augustine's phrase - of childbirth, the closeness of women to all that is vile, lowly, corruptible, and material was epitomised - in the 'curse' of menstruation, she lay closer to the beast; the lure of her beauty was nothing but an aspect of the death brought about by her seduction of Adam in the garden."


As men came to see that sex was sinful, and that his own sexual desires were to be despised, they thus felt extreme animosity toward women, whom they believed *produced* these desires in them... likening women's allurement to "witchcraft." Men must therefore have absolute control and domination over women, in order to dominate their own bodies, in order to be "pure" ... in order to be acceptable to God.

Even today, in the most-arid regions of the world, women are forced to cover their bodies and faces (and some, their eyes!), and to live as virtual slaves, so that they cannot arouse the powerful and uncontrollable sexual impulses that these men fear make them impure.

The past 6,000 years of man's inhumanity against women is at least in part, man's revenge on women, for this.

And so ... God's gift of sexual desire and expression has been despised by man, and has been used as a weapon against women.

May we awaken from this nightmare...!

Shalom, Dena



(& may I make this CLEAR ... I adore my husband, my men-children, and my men-friends! I do not put men down ... I desire that we all, men and women alike, be free from the ego-explosion, including the destruction of patriarchy -- which hurts men and women alike! Later, we will look at how many men are awakening, even transcending their egos ... integrating the best of the unfallen and fallen psyches, evolving into our next stage of development -- I must commend the transcendent men in my life ... many of whom are reading this blog! And you know who you are!)

Next: Inequality and Child-Oppression

Sunday, February 21, 2010

The "Unfallen" People ... An Examination

Due to the invasive nature of the "fallen" people, patricism/patriarchy had spread to such an extent, that by the 3rd century BC, it completely saturated the entire Eurasian area.

Interestingly, there were pockets of "unfallen" people groups ... those who managed to hold onto their more matristic/matriarchal view (and keep in mind that matriarchy doesn't mean that the women ruled over the men ... just that they were revered, and perceived/treated as equals).

For instance, the Lapplanders of northern Scandinavia ... the tribes of Siberia and Mongolia ... tribes in the Indian forests ... all of these retained their unfallen life.

But -- outside of the Saharasian-reach, unfallenness was maintained until roughly 1600 AD...! Australia, and North and South America were not invaded by the fallen people for many centuries ... as was the case for the Pacific Islanders. And many remote areas of Africa also remained uninvaded. All of these groups remained largely free of war, inequality, hostility to sex/body, and social divisions. The exceptions to this are the people who were subjected to climate change -- wherever rapid aridity. In every case, warfare and social violence coincided with exposure to intense aridity. In addition, as European (descended from Sahariasion invaders) conquest/colonization was introduced, violence became the result.

Even today, there are pockets of "unfallen" people groups ... let's look at a few of them, to see what we can learn, about what life was like before the fall...

The Aborigines of Australia: Now, at first-glance, we may see polygamy, and think them to be patriarchal ... but let's look deeper (surface understanding causes much misunderstanding). In their culture, women are considered to be more "complete" early in life ... even at puberty ... while men are seen as needing to take more time to become "complete" ... through initiation and experiences. So, women can marry right away, but men must wait. It seems that some men die before maturing (I shall withhold comment here!), so the women marry into other marriages. Their marriages do not exhibit sexual domination ... women are not seen as "property".

Native Americans: Again, at a first-glance, I would venture a guess that many of us would think, "wait a minute -- what about all those savage, war-mongering Indians of the Plains?" However, this image comes from only one particular Indian culture -- the Plains Indians of the 18th/19th centuries, who were invaded by the Europeans, and who had their land displaced ... they acquired their violence due to being disturbed and conquered. It was brought about by cultural disruption and group migrations. Guns and horses were not part of their aboriginal societies ... they were introduced by the European invaders/colonists.

Now, we have to look at the aberrational societies of the Mayas, the Incas and the Aztecs -- as they are more closely akin to the Saharasian people ... as a result of their more egoic ways, they also developed a high level of sophisticated development, including math, astronomy, calendars, writing. They also manifested the elaborate tombs, much like the pyramids of Egypt. Like their Saharasian counterparts, they also exhibited intense warfare, incredible violence (including ritualized violence and human sacrifice), a lust for power and wealth, and strong dominance over women (even though some women could be priestesses ... yet these priestesses were slated for human sacrifice themselves).

So why these anomalies, among all the other peace-loving, egalitarian Native Americans...? One likely reason was that the areas they inhabited became quite arid, quite suddenly ... and the effect was like what happened in Europe, Asia and Africa. It's also quite likely that the Sahariasian people migrated from Asia to the Americas, via the Bering Straight ... and that their influence on the native people would have an egoic effect.

One thing I found quite fascinating is what Steve Taylor shares here:
"Whereas 'fallen religion is based around the worship of anthropomorphic gods who overlook and control the world, 'unfallen' religion is based around an awareness of a Spirit-force, which pervades the world and everything in it [Panentheism]. The religion of the Plains Indians, for example was basically 'unfallen' They believed that there was a Great Spirit, or Life Master, which pervaded all things and that natural phenomena were controlled by spirits [energy]. The religion of the Inca is typically 'fallen' in that they believed in an all powerful creator God, Virachoa ... who they prayed to and made offerings to."


Wherever God is "like a man" (anthropomorphic), violence prevails. Wherever God is perceived to be the Spirit-force in all things, peace prevails.

Fascinating.

For the sake of conserving time and space, I'll share some highlights of life among the unfallen peoples (Native Americans, Aborigines, some sub-Saharan African tribes, some Oceanic island nations, and Papua New Guinea):

- Peaceful, democratic, consensus-led, non-patriarchal

- Low violence and warfare (conflicts often settled with contests, such as singing contests, or sports contests)

- Egalitarian relationships - low levels of possessions and status

- Focus on community, together with "individual rights" - much sharing of all things

- No ownership of items, or of the land

- No external laws -- just guiding principles -- each one a "master/authority of self" (and yet peace, rather than chaos, reigns ... hmmm...)

- No formal leaders -- "what's good for the whole" instead

- Equal status of women

- Earth is a gift -- we are all equal stewards

- Generosity is encouraged -- greed is frowned upon

- Unselfishness -- open hospitality, even to strangers

- Children considered to be "fully human", and experience a high degree of freedom

- Women do most of the food-gathering, and men do most of the child-watching (children benefit from close ties to both parents -- both are nurturing)

- Individual autonomy is respected -- no coercion, control, manipulation (all seen as violations of the Spirit in each one)

- Children are not controlled -- allowed, even encouraged, to learn through making mistakes (not seen as moral failings, but necessary for learning)

- A lack of weaponry -- only tools

- Openness toward sex ... not seen as shameful, but natural -- the body is respected, not shamed

- Nature is revered, cared for as a gift for all -- the earth and all things on it are seen as "alive" -- filled with Spirit-- all things and all people are seen as a manifestation of Spirit -- all inter-connected as One -- all Life is Divine Life

- We are stewards and custodians -- NOT owners -- Ownership implies superiority and dominance

- A state of contentedness ... no "hurry up" ... living in the present moment, rather than a past- or present-focus ... state of peace, strong sense of well-being



How does this strike you? My feeling is a longing ... almost a remembering, a homesickness, for this sort of life. As if this is how I'm *meant* to live ... and that I'm caught up in a world-wide sickness, an insanity that has taken over (images of The Matrix!). This description resonates for me ... it feels more *real* for me than what I've been mesmerized into accepting as "reality".

It seems to me that THIS is how life is meant to be lived ... and that we're meant to return to it, for our own survival, and thrival.

Next -- examining the Fall myths, to discover why the Fall occurred in the first place ...

Shalom, Dena