The Solution to Feminism
A popular tenet of modern feminism has been that, throughout history, “women were smart and strong but men kept them down.” This statement is most often used in reference to the idea that men are the dominant sex within society – “women would be too, if men hadn’t kept us in the kitchen.” Yet in A Brief History of Everything, Ken Wilbur raises a strikingly simple point – “If women were smart and strong, how did men keep them down?” (It’s beginning to look like we should put this sort of question to the “men’s rights” movement as well.) It’s a classic catch-22, with only two answer categories – “A”, because men are smarter and stronger, or “B”, because men didn’t keep them down. Not surprisingly many men chose A, but while the feminists have not, neither have they chosen B. That would imply that they willfully submitted to male dominance – also a contradiction of feminist ideals. To be a victim is to assume lack of power; to be otherwise is to assume responsibility.
This is only a problem insofar as we’re making it one. In reality, it was never about “dominance” or “submission,” it was about direct vs. indirect. Female power derives not from directness (physical/mental) but from indirectness (emotional/spiritual). If females “submitted” to males directly, then so did men submit to them indirectly. “B” wasn’t really a compromise; we just thought it was.
And yet the reason this problem arose in the first place is because we currently live with a highly male-centric worldview. Before I invite argument from the likes of MND and The Spearhead, I’ll reiterate – not a male-centric world, but a male-centric worldview. In the male worldview, we equate power with directness, indirectness with weakness. Hence the above problem – when we ignored the fact that the intangible, the true feminine mystique, is power as well, lack of male traits became equated with lack of power. From this mindset arose the ultimate irony of modern feminism, that in encouraging women to be more assertive, more dominant – more direct – they were, in other words, promoting male values!
This is the exact opposite of what feminism should be about (Girl Game knows this, though they might not have said it so directly). True feminism is the promotion of female values and strengths, the strengths that enveloped and bound the men who built cities. I’m reminded of something a friend once said – “Men were placed on earth to move the world forward; women were placed on earth to hold it together.” Vertical and horizontal – it’s powerfully simple, and sums up the point we seem to be missing of late – men and women are not equal, but are of equal value.
That is what today’s society needs to realize; this is the end of the “gender wars.” Like a scale tipping from one end to another, we can continually go back and forth on sex issues – or, we can balance the scale. Which do you want?
-
See also:
DJ Kaos – Love the Night Away [TieDye Mix] || 2009/Love The Night Away (Tiedye Mix)
You bring up some excellent points here! I’m extremely invested in understanding the ways in which men and women communicate values and needs, and the ways in which those things get interpreted.
I’m wondering how much of the differences between men and women have been assigned to the biological realm, but are in reality, the result of gendered socialization. I think this is at the heart of what you’re saying about direct versus indirect. Men are socialized [in US society, anyway] to push down emotions and ignore feelings because they are traditionally associated with the feminine ["Big boys don't cry" or "Suck it up and walk it off!"] and women are socialized to be concerned about everyone’s feelings [if they don't, they get labeled "selfish" or worse].
Women who are more aggressive or forward are labeled ball busters or bitches, and this seems to mesh with what you’re saying about how this kind of directness is associated with male behavior.
It seems like maybe it would be beneficial for society to stop assigning gender to behavior, and start addressing people as individuals, wouldn’t it? Ahhh, would that we lived in a world like this! If we could accept the idea that behavior is *not* gendered, it might mean the end of gender wars.
What do you think? I’m going to go read the White essay.
Dagny
http://whayta09.wordpress.com
In order to define patterns it’s necessary to deal with groups; as such there will always be exceptions. Since I’m dealing with gender from a philosophical standpoint, I focused on “male” vs. “female” aspects in the most fundamental sense (physical/spiritual, ration/emotion, individualism/connection). It’s less about gender roles as it’s about gender archetypes and how they influence our modes of thought. I’d argue some of your points on socialization of gender, but the nature vs. nurture debate is another conversation entirely, one much better applied to individuals than groups (as you said yourself). Still, if you want to talk about it, feel free to drop me an email.
After reading this, and being at odds with myself upon the issue, I consulted Lao-tzu. My old copy of the Tao Te Ching is all but destroyed, so I had to open the crisp new pages of the one that I just acquired. I came across the answer for myself in the second verse:
“When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.
Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn’t possess,
acts but doesn’t expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.”
Understand this as you will,
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Common Cold Edition « In Mala Fide