Think about, “We’re going to make a lady out of you (or 'make a man out of him').”
What is that but a blatant, overt admission that we are *not* innately different, but must be actively *made* so? Our differences are *created*, if not from whole cloth, at least from the equivalent of a sow’s ear – often brutally, with a fist if necessary.
What purpose does it serve?
Perhaps, once the first seeds of greed sprouted (was there ever a time when greed didn’t exist?) the violence necessary to maintain the power differentials inherent in the accumulation of vast material resources became a self-perpetuating, chicken-egg cycle: Some guy hoards a bunch of stuff; some other guy beats the crap out of him to take it away. First guy gets a friend who wants a share of the loot, and the two of them hammer Second Guy and take it away from him.
And so it begins – Cain and Abel, back and forth, the never-ending, tit-for-tat, schoolyard bully thing. Which quite quickly escalates to massive ‘get even’ vendettas, into the vortex of which entire nations are drawn. Inexorably, by the promise of, “I’m going to get *my* share.” The pirate’s code all over again: “Take what you can; give nothing back.” The roots of war are basically nothing more than ‘getting even’ and ‘showing them who’s boss.’
But there are two different motives revealed by those last two statements, it seems to me.
One is the desire for material goods, wealth and power; the other is – what – a need to ‘save face’? To show that one cannot be beaten.
I came across an interesting article on shame and the roots of violence and possibly even war here:
War and Emotions: Hypermasculine Violence as a Social System
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/51.html
Small quote from there (bolds mine):
Social occasions are seen as opportunities for one to test one’s own character as compared to the other person or persons. The hypermasculine pattern promotes competition, rather than connection between individuals. It is not just asocial, but anti-social. This is one of the ideas crucial to the understanding of unnecessary conflict: the cult of masculinity promotes individuality at the cost of community.So much of my writing here/’work’ has to do with resolving the effects of interpersonal emotional violence (bullying) and greed on the part of various of my family members, and other people I’ve interacted with throughout life. It’s a recurring, and apparently inevitable? theme.
Meeting this new fellow makes me think about this further.
When he and I have been together, I feel an equality, a fairness, an even-handedness that I’ve never before experienced with a man. I *feel* respected; lifted up; even royal, majestic. Like a queen. It’s a fabulous experience.
And yet, on our first ‘date’, while we were sitting in his truck for 45 minutes or so waiting for a concert to begin, he told me, among other things, about one of his previous marriages (he’s been married twice, he says. And I have no reason, at *this* point, to disbelieve him – but I’m reserving ‘judgment’ til ‘all the evidence is in’? or something. Trusting my gut.)
Anyway, he said, outright, ‘the man should be the head’.
I looked at him, astonished. I thought he was joking, at first.
When I realized he was serious, I thought, well, maybe I can finally begin to understand some of this ‘backward’ thinking that still seems to permeate so much of our patriarchal culture. Religion and patriarchy – same root, intertwined.
So I listened, keeping my mouth shut. For some reason, the way he’d treated me up to then made me feel that I owed him the same respect, even if I didn’t agree with what he was saying. I felt that his – generosity? of spirit – made me *want* to listen, to open my mind, my heart, my eyes to this person. He seemed so – vulnerable, yet so fierce at the same time. And, really, quite confused, as I got to know him a bit better. A guy who has to drown his synapses in beer for half of any given day *must* be escaping something. Or so *I* figure.
The link between the beginning of this post and this fella is muddy at best, but I’m trying to see if I can tease out why my mind puts them together.
He *talked* about being ‘aggressive’, and the ‘man as head’ thing also strikes me as a pretty basic power play.
When he said it, I replied “I will never walk one pace behind and to the left of *anybody*. I absolutely refuse to be ‘second fiddle’.”
He nodded, and seemed to accept this, and I thought, well, that’s *that*. End of any future possibilities for ‘us’. And we’ve hardly got halfway through a first date!
Somehow the religion/shame/violence/aggression thing all tangles together, and the linked article seems to provide a thread to grab at, to possibly pull it apart and see what causes what. Maybe see a way *out* of the tangle? An alternative, for men who ‘think’ this way?
Another (? possibly ?) related link:
Roots of War and Peace
Started down this path with googling something like, "Men are trained to ignore and/or block out their feelings."
No comments:
Post a Comment