- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Women seem to tend to gravitate toward "power". In ancient cultures, power was expressed in more blunt terms-- the ability to defend the clan, kill bears, build civic improvements, command others. The biggest buck generally got the bestest broad. Who chose whom is a toss-up. Maybe they chose each other-- maybe it just works out that way, I dunno.
Today the circumstances have changed a bit and the tokens of power have morphed and abstracted to fit the modern culture. Thus a man-- or increasingly a woman-- who has money has power, at least latently. Accordingly, money may be substituted for power in the feminine equation used to size up a mate. Traditionally one consideration was an assessment of how well the suitor could provide actual resources which could assist in her nesting. In the present, money is able to substituted and can be assessed for its abstract latent potential.
I find it intriguing that with the women's movement has also come an abstraction of the woman's mate-- i.e. from a live "he-man" to an abstract version in the guise of the various laws that have been passed to enable a woman to operate in a nearly self-contained manner using the various assemblage of laws as her abstracted "husband".
In past times, if the woman needed assistance she would turn to her male kinfolk to "defend her honor". In modern times a woman is more likely to turn to the "government" as her champion.
As more laws have passed and more of the construct has become viable, males have found it increasingly difficult to challenge or prevail (particularly legally) against the female's abstracted husband.
Personally I think a lot of the male's issue stems from a reluctance or inability to organize and develop a unified voice to push male issues in a manner similar to the woman's movement. But there may also be complicity on the part of the male with the feminine agenda either wittingly or otherwise, or often in in the guise of "caring/loving her" and wanting to support her concerns. (Which I am not suggesting is a bad thing, only that it would be nice if the sentiment were returned more by the distaff half.)
As a result of the abstraction of the male roles in modern society, men have been left scratching their heads and wondering what to do, how to act, how to behave, and trying to figure out what the message is. Some men are more perceptive and "get it" (have "gotten it") already, while others may perceive parts of it to varying degrees, while others are still completely clueless to the ramifications and reordering of the male and female roles in society.
Women, for their part do not seem to be overly charitable in their treatment and assistance to the men in understanding and adapting to new roles in society. They seem to instead be revelling in their newfound ability to be assholes and doing their best to simply reverse the roles. Supposedly feminism was supposed to be about the "lifting up" and "enlightenment" of all genders, but instead the reality seems to be a bit more one-sided to me. The reality of a truly egalitarian society still seems far off to me.
But overall society is changing for good or for ill. The ideas and basic premises surrounding the most fundamental concepts of gender and gender roles are being challenged and examined. What constitutes "male-ness" and "female-ness", as well as the various combinations of "male in female body" et al. I suspect it will continue to evolve and differentiate into even more "genders" as the ability to physically and meaningfully blur the roles technologically continues. Currently men are in the spotlight. But what will it do to the female psyche when technology is able to supplant the female womb and women are rendered obsolete in the reproductive process?
For one thing it WILL put men and women on equal reproductive terms-- and even more so if technology is able to create divisible cells from ANY combination of two individuals. Whatever the form, Men will contribute their portion, women theirs and then the whole conception and gestation process can take place in a nice sterile laboratory.
Men and Women might BOTH be freed from their reproductive shackles. Both parents will have the ability to control the pregnancy, the law will evolve to recognize both parents biological heritage and right to continue (or not continue) a pregnancy. Women will have to deal with traditionally male issues like child-support-- particularly having to support a child they didn't really want, if the man wants the pregnancy to continue. Etc-- the legal ramifications are endless. And of course the whole notion of surrogacy is carried to a brand-new level.
Is such a reproductive union souless? Do men and women lose the innate "beauty" of coming together to conceive a child? Will people be any less (or more) valued if they are manufactured instead of born?
Its interesting that most of the mainstream "feminist" rhetoric is hung-up over issues of "power". To me that is very deeply telling and indicative of the true goals and motivations of women. Whereas male issues tend to center more around sex and the access to female sexual organs-- whether for recreation or otherwise. And I find it equally interesting to observe that-- at least historically-- each has the commodity the other covets. So various convenient arrangements have been possible between men and women throughout time. But in this modern society, women are more able to meet their own needs, have their own resources, weild their own power, and be protected by their abstract legal husband constructs-- whereas men are still sort of stuck in the stone age when it comes to access to pussy.
And that I think is the rub.
We are witnessing the ascendancy of the woman-- and are uncertain as to the role of man in modern and future society.
