Men know they are sexual exiles. They wander the earth seeking satisfaction, craving and despising, never content. There is nothing in that anguished motion for women to envy.
-Camille Paglia
Men are more creative than women. But let’s not start there; let’s start with sex.
Some time ago nature discovered it could vastly accelerate the process of evolution by dividing species into different sexes. One sex, the selector, would be the gatekeeper of reproduction. The other sex could now only reproduce via the selector. With one simple change the evolutionary pressure on a species effectively doubled. Survival of the individual no longer ensured survival of its DNA; if the male is not chosen to reproduce, he dies a different, more permanent death. On top of natural selection now lay sexual selection.
All the world’s a stage, and women are the audience. All our discoveries, accomplishments and works are offerings to the Goddess. Choose us. See what we’ve created, see what we’ve built. Choose us. Men have held many kinds of power, but sexual power – the power of reproduction – is the domain of women. Men only briefly participate in something women embody.
So men are more creative than women. Because if we don’t create, we die.
A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from women, and it is only confirmed by other men.
-Camille Paglia
Here’s one: Mary sleeps with John, Paul, and Steve. 9 months later she has a baby. Whose child is it?
Mary’s.
So why does man build cities, write history, create art? Because he can’t create people. When woman comes of age she becomes immediately capable of creating something that will endure beyond her. A man may possess children, but he cannot create them. A woman’s children are hers, and she participates in the mystery by birthright. Man has no birthright. What he wants he does not have; what he wants must be won. Legacy he builds with sweat; power he takes with blood. The woman to bring him children must be won as well.
I’ve long held that women are born, men are made. In utero we are female before we are male. Without a chromosome to make us male, we are women. As boys we are not men. Being male does not make you a man. Manhood is not a birthright, it’s an accomplishment. A woman is woman. Her identity is hers from conception; her gift is given, not earned, not taken.
When you understand this as a man, you’ll realize the origin of your drive, the necessity of your hunger. You will pour yourself into your creation as if it were your own child. You will build great things. When you understand this as a woman, you’ll realize you don’t need to.
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?
The Nov. 2 issue of Newsweek features an article titled “Hear Her Roar,” with the subtitle “working women are poised to become the biggest economic engine the world has ever known.” Headlines aside, the article itself was fairly written. However, a quote from UNIFEM adviser Yassine Fall stood out to me me – “They [women] also tend to save more and exhibit less risky financial behavior” (italics mine). I’d always heard that men, being more future-oriented with their finances, were the bigger savers, so I looked into it a little more. Apparently I didn’t need to look farther than the article itself.
Here are the figures it quoted:
Worldwide Total Income (Male): $23.4 Trillion
Worldwide Total Income (Female): $10.5 Trillion
Worldwide Total Consumer Spending (Male): $6.4 Trillion
Worldwide Total Consumer Spending (Female): $12 Trillion
Here’s the letter I wrote to Newsweek:
“While I’m happy to see women becoming a larger part of the global workforce, I have to take issue with the statement that women save more than men. According to figures quoted in the article, while total female income is less than half of men’s, women spend twice as much as men – $2 trillion more than their total income.”
Tell a girl she’s beautiful. It’s a compliment, right? Think about what you’re saying. When you call someone pretty, you’re saying they have symmetrical features. They have a nice chin to forehead ratio. They have good genes. You’re listing physical dimensions. It’s like calling a basketball player tall; not a compliment any more than you’re stating a fact. When the dimensions are on the face, as opposed to the legs and torso, we think of it as a compliment, when it doesn’t have anything more to do with their person than the size of their hands.
It feels good be complimented on looks, and yet the beautiful complain that people’s assessments tend to stop there. Being called beautiful can carry no more charm than being called tall. Imagine telling someone how they’re a great basketball player. That’s a compliment. That’s something they worked at, something that they did themselves – it reflects on them as a person, not a body. This is the personal connection, the validation we crave – we want people to respect us as wholes, not aspects. In that area being attractive can be a disadvantage.
For everything else, though, they’ve got it made.
Bent – Beautiful Otherness || 2003/The Everlasting Blink
