Wouldn’t a Matriarchal Society Be Great? | Clarissa's Blog
It's very bizarre essentialism. The 19th Century European notion -- or should I say, Victorian British -- was that women had these wonderful religious, non-aggressive and nurturing qualities, quite different from men. I don't like being reduced to a notion of essence, from two centuries ago. In any case, I think that men and women only start to express generalizable characteristics when within a particular historical context that brings them out. They're not walking carriers of those characteristics apart from the context that makes them seem necessary. In short, people are such apes.
--
Perhaps it's felt to be an easy way out, to demand that a certain "essence" become more dominant, but there is not actual thinking involved in this promotion of essences.
And yes-- the "feminism" of today seems to be about nothing other than ideas about male and female essences. Perhaps this is why those of a "choice" or postmodernist bent don't feel the need to defend other women against political attack. After all, one may lose everything, but according to this view it seems one cannot lose one's "essence". Therefore there is no argument to be made and nothing to be defended from destruction?
---
I often find, when I am speaking with Americans, a very anti-intellectual attitude, which is not conscious of being anything other than natural (rather than anti-intellectual).
People take their perceptions for the whole picture -- the largest one it is possible to have. For instance, someone said to me recently, "Why is it that you don't criticize Australians, too?" -- as if they had discovered a bias in me. But the sense of a bias comes from their own intellectual laziness. I said, "If you had read anything I'd written, you would see what it is I criticize." The inconvenience of actually reading and making an effort can make a difference between understanding or not understanding my point of view. It certainly does not help to treat one's raw perceptions as reality, although that is what I'm getting used to from many people. They actually really do believe that if they perceive something, then that is all there is to see. If something jumps into their head, that thing that jumps in is the fullest expression of reality itself.
It's very bizarre essentialism. The 19th Century European notion -- or should I say, Victorian British -- was that women had these wonderful religious, non-aggressive and nurturing qualities, quite different from men. I don't like being reduced to a notion of essence, from two centuries ago. In any case, I think that men and women only start to express generalizable characteristics when within a particular historical context that brings them out. They're not walking carriers of those characteristics apart from the context that makes them seem necessary. In short, people are such apes.
--
Perhaps it's felt to be an easy way out, to demand that a certain "essence" become more dominant, but there is not actual thinking involved in this promotion of essences.
And yes-- the "feminism" of today seems to be about nothing other than ideas about male and female essences. Perhaps this is why those of a "choice" or postmodernist bent don't feel the need to defend other women against political attack. After all, one may lose everything, but according to this view it seems one cannot lose one's "essence". Therefore there is no argument to be made and nothing to be defended from destruction?
---
I often find, when I am speaking with Americans, a very anti-intellectual attitude, which is not conscious of being anything other than natural (rather than anti-intellectual).
People take their perceptions for the whole picture -- the largest one it is possible to have. For instance, someone said to me recently, "Why is it that you don't criticize Australians, too?" -- as if they had discovered a bias in me. But the sense of a bias comes from their own intellectual laziness. I said, "If you had read anything I'd written, you would see what it is I criticize." The inconvenience of actually reading and making an effort can make a difference between understanding or not understanding my point of view. It certainly does not help to treat one's raw perceptions as reality, although that is what I'm getting used to from many people. They actually really do believe that if they perceive something, then that is all there is to see. If something jumps into their head, that thing that jumps in is the fullest expression of reality itself.
9 comments:
I'd prefer a nurturing society to an authoritarian one, but if it can't be tied to some innate human quality it might be difficult to justify. But then I've got no problem in considering myself a nurturing dad..
The thing is, you're really dealing with constructs that are mental rather than physical. Western culture separates out "nurturing" qualities from "authoritarian" qualities and designates the first as feminine and the latter as masculine, but not all cultures do so, and not all of them do so in the same way.
When I hear someone say, "I'd prefer an nurturing society to an authoritarian one," I hear something akin to, "I'd prefer a bright and perpetually sunny society to one that had shades of night." Or, "I'd prefer black and darkness to dazzling sunlight."
My question would be: "Who forced you to have to make this sort of choice? It seems unnatural in one way an irrelevant in another!
Even a liberal democratic state obviously relys on authority in various ways, but I'd say the argument is something like the malthusian 'god wants you to die because you didn't work hard enough and the circumstances you are born into are irrelevant' vs 'the circumstances the individual finds themselves in are paramount', so it ends up being either/or.
If private capital ownership is justified with "I worked hard and you didn't", and if I reject that argument, then I've rejected the primary and overarching authority of the capitalist state in favour of something that could be called 'nurturing'.
There's all that plus the whole christian tradition that no one seems to realise is affecting them... it's a tough nut to crack!
Agreed. But people respond in a knee-jerk way and think that if the authority of capital is undesirable then all authority must be undesirable. I think anti-authoritarianism is just the flipside of draconian domination. You can be dominated as badly by your own emotions, left to your own devices, if you choose.
Absolutely. they can be just as pervasive and debilitating.
The problem with Western culture is it's binary thinking. You can't label something as "evil" and then embrace its opposite as necessarily "good", just on the basis that it is the opposite to what you have arbitrarily labeled as "evil". You could end up in as bad a situation or worse that way. Much more nuance -- and less metaphysics -- is needed.
I've begun noticing how common it is for people, particularly well-meaning, progressive people, tend to want to justify every single action, usually with some vague, unanalysed morality, and often making liars of themselves and TO themselves. It's like a strange self-imposed matyrdom.
I'm certainly not innocent of it, but yeah - every tiny action must be either good or evil, even the dishwashing liquid you use...
It's a boring moral conceit that undermines real activism. In fact, I have noticed many people adopt this attitude for personal, egotistical reasons. Such "good" leftists are worse than my worst enemies, who are at least less sensitive to minor issues of conformity and announce their status as enemies from the beginning. I have had perfect leftists block me on Facebook for not having the same position on Islam as they do. I am critical of it and they are not. I've had 'radical feminists' denounce me for fabricated and nonsensical reasons.
Most people don't have a deep capacity for thought or fairness. I think that's gone out of style as people have become increasingly hysterical. I also think that there is a reason for this. The late capitalist system treats people with the same inconsistency as a grandiose narcissistic parent would treat a child. It both praises and builds up their sense of importance for unmerited reasons and then devalues and threatens to dump them. Both at the same time!
In late Capitalist societies, the consumer is king and his or her every wish is to be catered to, no matter how fantastic. At the same time, "the consumer" is also a worker or laborer -- and the laborer is devalued, made to know he is expendable and treated with short thrift.
As a result of this contradictory treatment, the average citizen grows up confused about himself and does not know how to correctly evaluate anything. He develops narcissistic defenses to cope with his vulnerabilities. He doesn't think things through. He immerses himself in metaphysics and self-righteous moralizing, but at no point does he examine actual cause and effect or dare to look at reality directly. He has learned to be afraid of it.
In my experience so far, 'activist' groups are primarily social clubs who occasionally offer beat-downs to anyone who isn't like them. Anarchism seems to be a massive list of things you aren't allowed to do, and the one who has actually studied Marx is the least of the socialists. They cling to ideals with a rabid defensiveness that so far I've only been able to explain with a fear of losing social status.
Maybe they're just the flipside of what you described above - as labourer they are king; as consumer they are worthless.
Post a Comment