In my soujourns far and wide into the very corners and orifices of the Internet, I am surprised to find some downright antiquated views still abounding. So much -- so very much -- of culturally inculcated prejudices can be traced back to the use of primitive defence mechanisms.
The idea, for instance, that women are "more emotional" than men ought not to be read as a propositional statement concerning the notion that women express more emotions than men do, or that they are more in touch with their emotions, or that women's emotions are more in control of women than men's emotions are in control of men. To even engage with the question as a propositional statement is erroneous, because the notion of women's ostensibly greater emotionality does not, in fact, emerge into the world as a product of analysis, or observation. It is in fact not an idea that derives from the processes of the higher mind at all, but rather it is a statement deriving from the lower parts of consciousness -- R-complex. It emerges from the parts of the mind that are primarily concerned with operations of desire and expressions of need.
(I do not deny that philosophers and politicians may come along in due course and wish to interpret the statement as if it had rational meaning or was empirically valid. They are free to do so, to the degree that their perspectives on the matter go uncontended.)
My own experiences point to a totally different reality -- and to the degree that these do not accord with the dominant paradigm they will be disregarded as 'unrealistic' and/or as corroborating evidence for women's presumed states of overwrought emotionality: "How dare she contend against the System! See! What more evidence is actually needed? She's totally out of control!"
While it is true that going against the grain of such an entrenched system of beliefs can often feel like a kind of madness, knowledge of how primitive defence mechanisms actually work is my substantial ally.
It is this knowledge that stands up for me in a time of patriarchal madness, and says: "Hey, sista, when he proclaimed, 'women are more emotional', didn't you hear that tone of pleading in his voice, begging for comfort and reassurance that life will become easier? In fact, when he spoke of women's 'inherent' emotionality, wasn't he begging you on a personal level: "Please! -- become more emotional for me! I'm doing hard time here. The ideology of pure, undiluted rationality -- which I merely seem to embrace -- is doing me in. I don't think I can keep up pretending for one more day, unless some female steps in and takes some of the burden from me. She could work as a decoy, drawing others away from recognition my pain. It could be her job. She could process my pain and confusion. I cannot make sense of it. It's her job!"
Therefore he utters, "women are more emotional." But why does he say it?
Would he ever be able to answer truthfully:
"Because I have a need!"
The idea, for instance, that women are "more emotional" than men ought not to be read as a propositional statement concerning the notion that women express more emotions than men do, or that they are more in touch with their emotions, or that women's emotions are more in control of women than men's emotions are in control of men. To even engage with the question as a propositional statement is erroneous, because the notion of women's ostensibly greater emotionality does not, in fact, emerge into the world as a product of analysis, or observation. It is in fact not an idea that derives from the processes of the higher mind at all, but rather it is a statement deriving from the lower parts of consciousness -- R-complex. It emerges from the parts of the mind that are primarily concerned with operations of desire and expressions of need.
(I do not deny that philosophers and politicians may come along in due course and wish to interpret the statement as if it had rational meaning or was empirically valid. They are free to do so, to the degree that their perspectives on the matter go uncontended.)
My own experiences point to a totally different reality -- and to the degree that these do not accord with the dominant paradigm they will be disregarded as 'unrealistic' and/or as corroborating evidence for women's presumed states of overwrought emotionality: "How dare she contend against the System! See! What more evidence is actually needed? She's totally out of control!"
While it is true that going against the grain of such an entrenched system of beliefs can often feel like a kind of madness, knowledge of how primitive defence mechanisms actually work is my substantial ally.
It is this knowledge that stands up for me in a time of patriarchal madness, and says: "Hey, sista, when he proclaimed, 'women are more emotional', didn't you hear that tone of pleading in his voice, begging for comfort and reassurance that life will become easier? In fact, when he spoke of women's 'inherent' emotionality, wasn't he begging you on a personal level: "Please! -- become more emotional for me! I'm doing hard time here. The ideology of pure, undiluted rationality -- which I merely seem to embrace -- is doing me in. I don't think I can keep up pretending for one more day, unless some female steps in and takes some of the burden from me. She could work as a decoy, drawing others away from recognition my pain. It could be her job. She could process my pain and confusion. I cannot make sense of it. It's her job!"
Therefore he utters, "women are more emotional." But why does he say it?
Would he ever be able to answer truthfully:
"Because I have a need!"
5 comments:
Expressing emotional need is a sign of weakness. Most men are brought up to be 'strong', which translates into a culture of stoicism.
I was also brought up to be STRONG and STOICAL. That is why I resist them pushing their psychological work onto me and making me be 'emotional' for them!
What I find is that most men are brought up to have their emotional needs serviced by women. Women who refuse to do this, or who get frustrated with the burden of it, are called "emotional" (which is a bad thing, of course). Yet I find men generally to be in less control of their emotions than women; it is just that they don't always call their emotions, emotions, they also call them rights, or logic, or truth, or nature.
Some women, of course, buy into this emotionality thing; they think they can attract and hold men by being weak, illogical, needing help, getting hysterical, things like that. But this is all constructed gender stuff, too.
True. When you do not fawn, they accuse you of being emotional. Like how can you be so fanciful as not to accept my patriarchal circumstances and orientation and to hold something back?
I can't remember the last time someone said to me that women are emotional... But I love this post! Well said! After all, our brains are the same as men's.
Post a Comment