Monday, July 31, 2023

Women rule

"Take a look around you boy, it's bound to scare you, boy
And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
How you don't believe
We're on the eve of destruction."

          PF Sloan, "Eve of Destruction." 1965


Will "female culture" save humanity from self-destruction? Today's Guest Post argues that feminine consciousness and sensibility is where one finds the "egalitarianism, cooperation, and collaboration" necessary for our species to survive. Men being men will drive us to extinction.

I have watched female candidates up close during three presidential cycles. It is not evident to me that Hillary Clinton, Carly Fiorina, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, or Kamala Harris bring a different sensibility to the public square than do men. My sense is that voters want a warrior/protector in their president, so female candidates, navigating expectations and misogyny, give off an alpha male vibe. Jane Collins argues that we need nurturers instead.  

Jane Collins is a college classmate and therefore she came of age into second wave feminism that allowed women to be "like men," entering the professions and taking positions of social, economic, and political power. Collins listened to her own drummer. She has been a full-time mother, mostly living under the poverty line; an organizer, advocate, and writer on poverty issues; an administrator at Harvard; a grant writer for social justice and environmental organizations; and a gardener. She has just celebrated her 50th wedding anniversary and is the proud grandmother of three.



Guest Post by Jane Collins

Let’s deal in oversimplifications for this argument. Imagine an extremist Christian man and an extremist Muslim man talking about their beliefs in a living room somewhere. Their discussion grows more and more heated, and, depending on the men’s temperaments, might even come to blows.

Meanwhile, their wives are in the kitchen, fixing tea and a snack. Are they discussing religion? Most likely not. They’re talking about men, maybe even about the challenges of living with true believers. The men in the living room are fussing. The women are laughing. The real difference in this (terribly stereotyped) scenario, I respectfully submit, is not between the Muslim couple and the Christian couple, but between the men and the women.

Any time you try to talk about culture you are forced to generalize. If you constantly qualify your projections by acknowledging the wide spectrum of behavior in any one culture, you can’t reach any conclusions at all besides the fact that people are strange, which holds true everywhere. When it comes to human behavior, there are more exceptions than rules.

In general, though, there are two cultures in conflict in the world today. One is dominant, but unstable. The guardians of this culture tend to be “alpha males,” that is, men with a need to be on top of their worlds, who are aggressive, self-centered, ambitious, and willing to resort to violence. This culture has encouraged certain kinds of material progress but results in constant struggle and increasing divides between haves and have-nots.

The other culture is submissive but stable. This culture is maintained and propagated mostly by women. It is other-centered, conciliatory, patient, and prevents or tamps down violence wherever possible. This culture keeps the human world going, for without it, the dominant culture would tear everything apart.

I’m going to call the dominant culture male, though it includes many biological females. I’ll call the complementary culture female, though it includes many biological males. There is no question about which culture is uppermost today. Anywhere you find hierarchy, whether in a capitalist, nominally communist, or oligarchic society, the male culture rules. Wherever you find egalitarianism, cooperation, and collaboration, the female culture is in charge.

Not every society in history has been ruled by alpha males. Sophisticated justice systems; decisions by councils of elders; inclusive mores that provide for and protect society’s outliers; peaceful agrarian societies: all of these indicate the primary influences of women’s culture.

On the other hand, violence; the heedless destruction of human and other natural resources; the oppression of the lower classes: all these are sure signs that the male culture is running the show.

Clearly women’s culture evolved around the need to protect children from men’s aggression. If some sector of society did not propagate the values of caregiving, altruism, and sharing, that society would not survive two generations.

In a world of many languages, where communication was difficult, male culture evolved to settle disputes through physical violence. It would be up to the males whether a tribe’s territory expanded or contracted. The more territory, the more access to game, water, and fuel, the better the tribe’s chances of survival. If you see the world as belonging to “us” or “them”, you want the biggest, baddest guys on your side.

Our world today hangs in the balance in more ways than one. Scientists tell us that our behavior over the next decade or so will determine whether global climate change continues at a pace likely to doom our (and most other) species, or whether it will moderate to a manageable level. Nuclear proliferation proceeds at a rate where unstable regimes and non-state actors have access to weapons that could render the planet uninhabitable except by cockroaches and rats. Water pollution and over-use is at the point of making entire countries vulnerable to death by disease or famine.

Whether our species survives these crises depends upon another balance: the balance between male and female culture. Male culture has ruled, nearly planet-wide, for centuries, cementing its hold though tyrannies and then through the spread of capitalism, which values and rewards selfishness, aggression, and greed. But the destruction that attends these values is catching up with us. More and more people realize that we could very well do ourselves in if we continue on our current path.

The cultural values historically nurtured by women have begun to strengthen in ways unimaginable a century ago. Women’s liberation has barely begun, but its effects are threatening male dominance in every society. Some ancient techniques (violence against women and LGBTQ people, veiling, double standards on sexual experience) and some new ones (high heels, sexualization of younger and younger women, co-optation of women leaders) work against women’s rise, but the trend continues. Women have gotten the idea that they should participate fully in public life, and they are insisting on their right to do so. What has given this idea such strength and persistence?

I believe that deep in our collective unconscious, we know that women’s culture must assume dominance if humanity is to survive. We must stop hurting one another and start taking care of one another; we must stop wasting resources, and learn to conserve; we must clean up the messes we have made; we must stop rewarding greed, and place more value on sharing. Only women’s culture carries the tools and techniques to bring about these changes.

This necessary revolution, which seems so radical, would actually require only a shift in the balance of cultures. We just have to listen more closely to what Jung called the anima, the feminine side of our consciousness. The center in us that corresponds to female culture - the center of nurturing, caring, sustaining values and behaviors - must gain our respect, as it is the key to our species’ survival.

The movement toward women’s liberation arises from the deepest place in ourselves: the part that wants to live, and wants our children to live. Right now, many of the stories we tell ourselves stem from our fear that survival is not possible. Even though every one of us contains the seeds of a new world, we despair of the possibility that they will grow and thrive.

When we choose our leaders, we should ask ourselves which culture they embody. We need more representatives of female culture to set public policy, whatever their gender. We need more women in positions of power, not because women are that different from men, but because they have been the custodians of the set of values around which our species must reform its behavior.

Those women laughing in the kitchen do not need to come into the living room and argue with the men. No: it’s the men who need to come into the kitchen, drink the tea, eat the cookies, and learn to laugh with the women.



 Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]



7 comments:

Mike Steely said...

It’s hard to discuss male and female without resorting to stereotypes. Genetically, there isn’t much difference – one out of 46 chromosomes – but as they say, “Vive la difference.” So, the old question arises, how much of the difference is due to genetics vs. upbringing.

It would be nice to think that a society run by women would be kinder and gentler, but would it really? Are they inherently nicer to each other at school or work? All the women cheering at rallies for a pussy-grabbing rapist doesn’t inspire me with confidence. Were queens less cruel and conniving than kings? I’m not so sure. What we know is that we’re all human and most of us could stand to improve our character. If each of us did, the world would be the better for it.

Ed Cooper said...

Well done, Peter ! I suspect a percentage of uour regular have their hair on fire this morning. For the record, I pretty much agree with your guest Post; In fact, I'd have a hard time picking out any specific point to disagree with. Unless you disagree, I'd Ike to copy and paste this Opinion Piece into my feed for others to read and think about.

James Stodder said...

Jane is so right. I think there is good evidence for her assertion that the female principle was once much more central in human societies. This includes

1) The common matrilineal (not 'matriarchal') societies of West Africa, especially in horticultural societies where the family garden passes from mother to daughter.

2) Woman's increased voice in many matrilineal societies. For example, in the Cherokee, the largest Amerindian tribe in the current US, elder women sat on war councils. And because women determined kinship, a consensus of women determined which captives of war were to be enslaved, and which, on the contrary, were to be made members of the tribe.

3) Graeber and Wenegrow, in their "The Dawn of Everything," present layout and architectural evidence that the first "Mesolithic Cities" in the Mideast and the Americas, were much less hierarchical. They were also probably matrilineal, with lots of goddess figurines. They were probably conquered by patrilineal (and patriarchal) nomadic warriors. The Cherokee are from one of these Mississippian cultures in today's Southeast US. One of their place names in Alabama means "on the ruins of a once-great city."

4) Cultural memory of this patriarchal conquest is preserved in the mythology of many cultures. For a Western example, see "The Magic Flute" by Mozart. Spoiler: the sun-centered rational patriarchs are the good guys and the moon-centered emotional matriarchs are some bad bitches and witches.

Mc said...

The world needs good leaders of all genders!

Michael Trigoboff said...

Males and females are equally violent, just in different spheres. Male violence is expressed in the physical realm; female violence in the social realm.

For an example of how violent females can be, we need to look no further than the social media realms of Instagram, Tumblr, and Twitter. The culture that mainly females have created in these spaces is a marvel of emotional violence and social reputation destruction, taken to a degree rarely seen in the history of the human race.

What we actually need is a balance between male and female. Go too far either way, and bad things happen.

John C said...

While I appreciate Jane’s sentiment about our trajectory as a species, I am trying to understand why she feels the need to classify character and behavior traits by gender. She says “I’m going to call the dominant culture male, though it includes many biological females. I’ll call the complementary culture female, though it includes many biological males.” What’s the point? Maybe simply calling them say, Type 1 (e.g. Cleopatra and Pol Pot) and Type 2 (e.g. Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela) might be more useful than vilifying or valorizing a gender label. It helps focus on the behavior without being unnecessarily distracting with gender baggage. In Jane’s view, if only Type 2s were in charge, then the Earth and all its inhabitants would be better off. But history has shown that although Type 2s are often highly influential, they rarely secure the kind of leadership roles that allow their personal character traits to shift the moral compass of a nation. I am open to opposing views of course. Is it possible that we’ve reached the point in our historical moment where the evolution of our democratic processes cannot be counted on to select the most noble, wise, and capable leaders? So, we end up with the ones who the propogandists convince the most people to vote for, but not the ones who we need. It’s messy.

Although my experience here tells me otherwise, I’d like to offer a Christian theological perspective to the problems Jane describes. At the risk of oversimplification, Classic Humanism (the worldview to which many commenters here subscribe) is grounded in the core belief that people are innately good, and we just need to figure out how to correct the kind of adverse social or psychological experiences that keep people from flourishing. Or maybe we need the right kind of political structure, the right ideologies, rules and programs, or perhaps more tea and cookies. Christian orthodoxy says quite the opposite, and it is why many people find it offensive. The core message of Christian teaching is that people are inherently sinful (rebellious against God’s guide for flourishing). It takes an authentic inner spiritual transformation to change each of us to be more aligned with how we were created to be. This only happens when the Spirit of God is invited and mysteriously enters that person. It's nearly impossible to explain to the modern western mind (or even understand), but St. Paul wrote that the fruit (or evidence) of the presence of that Spirit in a person is manifested by love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Sort of what you might expect to see in Type 2s – regardless of gender. One might ask if everyone needs the Spirit in them to exhibit some of these qualities. Obviously not. There are many non-believers who exhibit these. Does everyone who has the Spirit exhibit every one of these qualities all the time? Definitely not.

I guess my point is that I will continue to work and hope and pray for a better world, but I don’t see the arc of our current troubles changing by wishing that Type 2 (or cultural female) leaders could mysteriously grab the mantle of earthly leadership. I think that would be antithetical to their nature. So I’m hoping for godly, spirit-filled leaders of any gender to enter the political race. But, like Jane, I have little confidence they would be elected in our current system because they are not Type 1 enough – even for many nurturing female voters.

Neena said...

Re: "The Dawn of Everything"

Unfortunately, that book lacks credibility and depth.

In fact "The Dawn of Everything" is a biased disingenuous account of human history (https://www.persuasion.community/p/a-flawed-history-of-humanity ) that spreads fake hope (the authors of "The Dawn" claim human history has not "progressed" in stages, or linearly, and must not end in inequality and hierarchy as with our current system... so there's hope for us now that it could get different/better again). As a result of this fake hope porn it has been widely praised. It conveniently serves the profoundly sick industrialized world of fakes and criminals. The book's dishonest fake grandiose title shows already that this work is a FOR-PROFIT, instead a FOR-TRUTH, endeavour geared at the (ignorant gullible) masses.

Fact is human history since the dawn of agriculture has "progressed" in a linear stage (the "stuck" problem, see below), although not before that (https://www.focaalblog.com/2021/12/22/chris-knight-wrong-about-almost-everything ). This "progress" has been fundamentally destructive and is driven and dominated by “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room” (www.CovidTruthBeKnown.com or https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html) which the fake hope-giving authors of "The Dawn" entirely ignore naturally (no one can write a legitimate human history without understanding and acknowledging the nature of humans). And these two married pink elephants are the reason why we've been "stuck" in a destructive hierarchy and unequal class system , and will be far into the foreseeable future (the "stuck" question --- "the real question should be ‘how did we get stuck?’ How did we end up in one single mode?" or "how we came to be trapped in such tight conceptual shackles" --- [cited from their book] is the major question in "The Dawn" its authors never really answer, predictably).

"All experts serve the state and the media and only in that way do they achieve their status. Every expert follows his master, for all former possibilities for independence have been gradually reduced to nil by present society’s mode of organization. The most useful expert, of course, is the one who can lie. With their different motives, those who need experts are falsifiers and fools. Whenever individuals lose the capacity to see things for themselves, the expert is there to offer an absolute reassurance." —Guy Debord

A good example that one of the "expert" authors, Graeber, has no real idea on what world we've been living in and about the nature of humans is his last brief article on Covid where his ignorance shines bright already at the title of his article, “After the Pandemic, We Can’t Go Back to Sleep.” Apparently he doesn't know that most people WANT to be asleep, and that they've been wanting that for thousands of years (and that's not the only ignorant notion in the title) --- see last cited source above. Yet he (and his partner) is the sort of person who thinks he can teach you something authentically truthful about human history and whom you should be trusting along those terms. Ridiculous!

"The Dawn" is just another fantasy, or ideology, cloaked in a hue of cherry-picked "science," served lucratively to the gullible ignorant underclasses who crave myths and fairy tales.

"The evil, fake book of anthropology, “The Dawn of Everything,” ... just so happened to be the most marketed anthropology book ever. Hmmmmm." --- Unknown