GENDER EMPATHY

 

 

PREFACE

 

When I began exploring gender differences some 30 odd years ago, before Mars and Venus became public metaphors, I was consciously motivated by facts which I saw repeatedly emerging in my counseling practice, namely, a contrary set of powers operative between men and women. On the surface and in conventional wisdom, chauvinistic males were the dominant force in cross gender relationships, with females as the weaker and often abused gender--as evidenced in business, politics, religion, and marriage where it was touted that "a man's home is his castle," and the "little wife" existed to serve his needs, sexual and otherwise.

But in counseling an entirely different picture often emerged, one in which seemingly weak women and apparently macho men were actually relating in opposite ways in significant arenas of daily life--that is, the strengths of supposedly "weak women" and the weaknesses of "big strong men" were becoming more evident to me, along with predictable problems in their relationships.

I say "their" rather than "my" because back then I was more focused on "how to help others" than on any private motivations of my own. Had I been more conscious of myself I might have recognized projections that are only now becoming clearer to me, namely, challenges I faced in confronting female strengths and in accepting my own limitations in their presence.

Probably, if the deeper truth be known, I was beginning to feel sorry for myself as I dimly acknowledged how regularly I was in fact done in by those I had learned to see as the weaker sex, even while I was outwardly engaged in "taking care of them.” As yet, the actual idolatry underlying my outward attractions, adoration, and "love" was not at all evident to me.

I was, so far as I knew, "just trying to help" men confronted with their own weaknesses in the face of unrecognized female powers, and women who struggled with facing male limitations as well as their own unseen strengths.

Now--after many years, books, sermons, workshops, experiences, and hours in counseling, both with others and for myself, I think I am beginning to make inroads in the awesome transition between pity or sympathy and empathy, especially unseen self pity projected benevolently onto others, and self righteous sympathy, blindly used to avoid the challenges of truly empathizing with all humans, both male and female, caught up in the human condition--that is, being our genetic, gendered selves in relationships with each other, less like we've learned to think of ourselves, and more like we actually are.

      In the musings which follow, I begin with the female side of the equation because, being male, I can have a wee bit more objectivity (and safety) in imagining what it may be like to be a genetic woman in today's world than in looking clearly at myself. Finally, of course, I am yet struggling with the harder-for-me challenges of embracing masculinity and confronting femininity as I find each to be behind prevailing social images, especially in the context of cross gender relationships. More easily I might ignore these issues and simply continue to blindly act out patterns of behavior and adaptation I learned well long ago, and engage in occasional bursts of self pity and/or anger-at-women when my modes don't work well.

But when I dare, I am trying to look more clearly at our gender differences, to embrace and honor their delightful aspects, and to empathize--not merely sympathize, with the darker sides of what ultimately calls louder, I now think, for a vive la difference rather than an ain't it a shame.

 

*************

 

WARNINGS

 

  

GENERALIZATIONS

 

All generalizations, such as these I make in the following observations, are limited because who among us is truly average or typical like the females and males I describe here. Most of us live at varying distances from any statistical norm and certainly from such personal observations as I explore in these pages. Some women, for example, are more like the men I describe in Part II, and consequently won't identify with my "typical females."

"Well, that's not how I feel," they may think to themselves. They may in fact be more deserving of the empathy I feel for "traditional males." Conversely, many men live outside my mythical "average male," and in many regards are more like the "typical females" who evoke my empathy in Part I.

Even so, the nature of global-type observations requires generalizing, imagining a mythical "average woman" or "typical man," and writing as though we all fall at the mid-point of sine curve, rather than scattered along the widely varying extremes, as we more commonly do.

So, let any reader be fore-warned about this unavoidable limitation, and for purposes of understanding, think of the forest rather than the trees--that is, assume a global or imaginary "objective" position as I have done, like a god in the sky, and from there see how my observations compare with their own.

 

 

PERSONAL PROJECTIONS

 

  Obviously, this is me talking (writing) and no matter how objective or impersonal I may sound and try to be, my own repressions, projections, and unique experiences cannot but color the observations I make. I see, as I assume others do also, through my own proverbial "rose colored glasses,"--that is, filtered through how I have responded to life so far.

Although this should go without saying, since it is the nature of all individual expressions, I need to say it anyway, to keep myself reminded that in the final analysis I am in effect "borrowing others"--in this case, my "average woman (and man)," for trying to clarify what is ultimately about myself and what I have seen so far. All too easily I fall for the temptation to play God and forget my inevitable personal projections, especially those I am yet to recognize.

 

 

REDUNDANCY

 

Many of my "empathies" intertwine and overlap with each other, leading, as I observe in re-reading, to unintended redundancy. Personally, I dislike "hearing the same thing twice," and hence try to avoid saying something more than once. Still, this is how my mind works; often I see more clearly after writing an observation, and then later describe the same thing from a slightly different perspective.

Sorry 'bout that.....

 

 

OBSCENE LANGUAGE

 

             Occasionally I lapse into obscenities when I feel they more clearly express dark sightings I am trying to make lighted in my own understanding. Pussy, for example, the F word, and the even more obscene cunt, sometimes appear in my thinking--and consequently in this writing. Obviously, if I were aiming at public favor, I would choose terms more socially acceptable. But in spite of social and religious judgments often attached to such words, I think they remain capable of experiential clarity commonly lost in more benign euphemisms--at least they do for me.

Even so, recognizing their potential for offense, I forewarn any potential reader who may prefer to stop here.

 

************

 

 


PART I

 

            EMPATHY FOR WOMEN

 

Mostly with women in the past I have oscillated between attraction, admiration, adoration, envy, fear, resentment, and occasional anger--either blindly worshiping and compulsively trying to please, resenting powers they seem to wield so effortlessly, seeking to con them into blessing me with their favors (and getting mad at them when I fail), feeling guilty in their presence about being myself without their overt affirmation, etc., etc.

Recently, however, I find myself moving a bit beyond these psychological motivations and habitual reactions and feeling greater degrees of empathy for females past puberty as I dare to see some of the challenges which I suspect they all face, either consciously or unconsciously.

Among those I now see, even if yet dimly, are these:

 

 

HAVING BABIES

 

--For being the ones who have the babies and face demands of pregnancy, delivery, and child rearing left largely to you, even with the best of husbands.

I once asked my mother--after me, a sister and then twins later, what having a baby was like. She paused only briefly and then said: "Just imagine pulling a watermelon through nose."

I couldn't.

I still can't, and cannot but feel for those who both can and do. Surely some deliveries must be easier than others; but I would never trade the moments of ecstasy we males experience in initiating the pregnancies that commonly result in such pains, not to mention years of later challenges in rearing the results.

 

 

PHYSICAL WEAKNESS

 

--Physical weakness in comparison with males, leaving females continually vulnerable to outward abuse in forms varying from tangible manipulation to bodily harm, such as, undesired touching, unwanted advances, strong arm tactics, forcible entry, plus injury to face, arms, limbs, etc.

Lesser physical strength also invites vulnerability to dependence on males to accomplish needed tasks requiring more "man power," such as, opening jars, hammering nails, and even making a living in most available occupations.

I feel for those who find themselves in such uninviting-to-me positions.

 

 

FACES AND FIGURES

 

--Inheriting faces and figures--especially breasts and butts, with forms and shapes individual females have nothing personal to do with, and yet finding themselves in a world where these aspects of body are their easiest and most readily available form of wielding power with males of all ages--whether or not they want to or even wish it were so.

Conversely, those aspects of themselves that are indeed most personal, such as, their minds and emotions, thoughts and feelings, personality and skills, desires and aspirations are relatively impotent in easily motivating males, except in negative ways.

Some, for example, with absolutely no credit due themselves, inherit physical characteristics, such as, pretty faces, hourglass figures, big breasts, and ample rumps--all the parts which attract male gene eyes. Others, with equal irresponsibility, don't.

"Tain't fair," especially as "lesser endowed" females cannot but know. Tempting negative results include: undue pride in those lucky enough to be born "pretty," and corresponding shame and/or envy and resentment in those "less blessed" by quirks of genetic fate.

These problems can only be amplified when females predictably come to identify their sense of themselves (who they feel like they are) with those aspects of being which are more individually chosen (e.g., of the mind more than the body), and to dis-identify with inherited factors easily taken to be "impersonal"--such as, size of breasts or shape of butt.

Then, when males are more naturally attracted to bodily parts than to emotions, mind, and personality, females must easily fall for the distasteful notion: "Then don't like me; they are only interested in 'my' body." Or, barring (or along with) deep resentment, the temptation to simply use their bodies impersonally, as in, beautifying for power, sex for pay (outside marriage), and/or sex for security (inside marriage) must also be great.

Overall, for whatever reasons, the female temptation to dis-identify their selves from "their (note possessive)" bodies must be equally as great as the converse male temptation to identify ourselves with specific capacities and/or parts of our bodies, e.g., strength and penises. It would, I think, be difficult to overestimate the long-range costs to personal well-being of these all too common converse errors in self-identification--apart from and attached to physicalness.

 

 

FEMALE SUPERIORITY

 

--Embracing natural superiority without resenting males with lesser capacities, or blindly abusing unrecognized personal powers.

Although my observations about the natural superiority of women are not commonly shared, especially by other males, I suspect that this knowledge may be equally difficult to embrace by females who have had a life time of "being put down on" as the "inferior gender," and having to learn to survive and cope via modes of submission and covert power only.

If I am correct in this grand generalization of gender comparisons, including the observation of how commonly the facts are cloaked with reverse conclusions, namely, that males are superior, then I feel sorry for females who must necessarily work their way through these prevailing errors before then can truly become themselves--at least consciously.

It must be far easier to simply resent males for our outward domination, to traffic in wielding power covertly by manipulating our familiar "fragile egos," and even to engage in various forms of emotional abuse, unconsciously of course, in trying to get even with us for what we do to them.

 

 

HIDING SOPHIA'S WISDOM

 

--Being born with Sophia's Wisdom, but having to mediate this wealthy knowledge in the world while playing dumb, acting like men are smarter and actually know what we are talking about.

In practice, this spells out in such phrases as "trusting your guts" or "going by your feelings even if you can't think of a good reason for doing so." Sophia's Wisdom, as a name for what females are either born knowing or else acquire from other females very early in life, may otherwise be known as "unconscious knowledge," especially about how to best cope with men in the world.

Although I may at times envy women for having this wisdom--as also noted in a Harry Bellefonte song with this line: "The woman is smarter; she's smarter than the man in every way," when I recognize what a challenge it must be to continue to keep such knowledge unconscious and therefore have to wield it "without thinking" and based on "feelings" alone, then I cannot but feel empathy for those who may face a challenge I would never want to tackle.

I do think Harry was wrong about "in every way." Certainly we guys are indeed "smarter" about some things, especially knowledge acquired by linear thinking; but in many significant arenas of daily life (outside of war and technology) woman's unconscious knowledge, as metaphored in "gut feelings," etc., is indeed grand. It is the challenge of exercising this "dark knowledge" in the lighted world, without at the same time undermining it with conscious reasoning, that evokes my sympathy.

Ideally we humans, especially females in this arena, might embrace and utilize both Sophia's Wisdom and Apollo's Knowledge (symbol for logical, left-brain type information), not one or the other--that is, honor "guts" and add conscious reasoning to their application; but in practice, being both wise and discrete without escaping into forced repression, must indeed be a significant challenge which alert females can hardly avoid.

So, again, I feel sorry for you in this regard also.

 

 

KILL-ABILITIES

 

B Embracing inherited kill-capacities, evolved, I speculate, as an occasionally needed necessity in protecting one's offspring while in quest of genetic self-replication.

Paradoxically, female capacities for cold-blooded, impersonal killing are, I think, far greater than more obvious male propensities for aggression and violence that do sometimes erupt even in murder. I speculate that consciously accepting this female ability, especially in the presence of contrasting nurturing capacities essential in good mothering, must be grandly difficult.

Closely related and probably evolved as a means of activating killerness, is a slightly less repressed capacity for female anger which commonly resides, I suspect, beneath the surface of most overt caring, only revealed in occasional "cattiness" and periodic "boiling over" when covert management completely fails.

Indiscriminate caring--as evidenced in typically "soft-hearted" females is, I think, unnatural, the result of killerness repressed and projected, e.g., onto males, while nurturing capacities are exaggerated in service of suppressing personal anger and kill-abilities.

I empathize with those who must try to deny such capacities.

 

 

COVERT POWER

 

B Having to accomplish goals by covert power onlyBthat is, being pragmatically assertive without at the same time appearing as "pushy" with the vast majority of males who are obviously threatened whenever our fragile powers are even questioned, let alone confronted with female forces.

Although I'm also limited in practice with overt power skills, I at least have an easier social choice. I feel for those who don't even have my freedom.

 

 

UNCONSCIOUS POWERS

 

BHaving to accomplish most goals with unconscious powersBthat is, inner wisdom operative below levels of conscious awareness. And even when awareness emerges, dealing with the fact that females wield more power more easily by "not thinking" than by "being reasonable."

In practice--regrettably it seems to me, females may in fact be more successful both in relationships with men as well as at lower levels in business and political worlds, when they operate "on automatic pilot"Bthat is, simply "do what comes naturally," than when they decide what to do based on logical thinking.

I can only imagine what it would be like to find my conscious thinking abilities to be more of a liability than an asset.

 

 

SECURITY NEEDS

 

B Balancing genetic needs for security with personal pleasure possibilities rooted in greater feminine sensitivity (allowing for widespread sensuality) in addition to expansive sexuality (capacity for multiple orgasms as well as partners).

In younger years, biological directives for mothering bring ingrained focus on security as is truly essential for child rearing; but in time, as children mature and external security becomes more available as well as less essential, a woman's inherited capacities for expansive sexual pleasures become more feasibly possible. When so, merging lessening needs for security with expanding possibilities for personal pleasure must be a considerable challenge. Or so I suspect.

 

 

FRAGILE BEAUTY

 

B Aging gracefullyBthat is, adapting to the rapid loss of natural beauty (those traits most appealing to male gene eyes) as the easiest and most available tool for power with men; accepting and utilizing attraction powers rooted in gender complementariness without identifying one's self with fast-fading youthful beauty.

The female temptation to identify one's sense of herself with these forces so naturally present in early years following puberty must be overwhelmingBor so I reason while observing the apparent sense of personal devastation some females seem to feel as inherited beauty declines, e.g., evidenced in compulsive "beautification" of one's physical self (make-up, clothing, shoes, dieting, cosmetic surgery, etc.), and often displaced and/or projected onto one's surroundings, including house, spouse, and children.

When the natural, speedy, and inevitable fading of youthfulness occurs, feminine maturity will involve, I imagine, accepting these changes gracefully, along with embracing the larger advantages which accompany moving past motherhood as a sole reason for existence. But I can only imagine how challenging such changing must be!

 

 

RAISING BOYS TO MANHOOD

 

B Raising masculine sons guided by Mother Nature rather than by social memes only; supporting masculine traits--mainly, sexuality and aggression in its service, without loss of inherited femininity rooted in single X chromosomes in each male cell; civilizing sons without emasculating them; rearing boys to manhood versus wimphoodBthat is, to be gentlemen rather than nice wimps; allowing natural motherly love, including sexual attractions in each other's presence, without evoking and ingraining the incest taboo (which many grown men never succeed in overcoming with their legal wives) in service of immediate repressions; embracing natural passions with and for sons, experienced in pleasures in nursing, nurturing, and feeling sensual/sexual with a safe male (of one's own creation!)Bthat is, one who is both attractive but also unavailable as a sexual partner.

Surely rearing any child well, especially when most parenting responsibilities fall into one's own lap even with the best of husbands, must be challenge enough; but it seems to me that a female raising boys as boys must be grander still.

 

 

LETTING GO OF MOTHERHOOD

 

B Switching from natural devotion of self-to-offspring, essential in successful mothering, from children back to self as quickly and smoothly as children naturally matureBthat is, avoiding the temptation to try to live later life through one's grown children and/or grandchildren, rather than facing the challenges of becoming a truly individuated person on one's own.

 

 

LIVING WITH UNCOUTH MALES

 

--Being stuck living in houses with males--lovers, husbands and sons, who, from a woman’s perspective, are relatively uncouth, even uncivilized, insofar as female values and embraced capacities are concerned.

For example: cleanliness, tidiness, tastes, and appearances--as evidenced in such daily activities as: bathing, washing dishes, cleaning the kitchen, picking up after ourselves, making up beds, putting away clothes, closing doors and drawers, arranging furniture and fixtures, dressing in style, being considerate and polite, etc., etc.

Men, in contrast with typical female concerns, often focus almost entirely on such male virtues as: function, efficiency, economy, and reason, giving little or no attention to looks and what "company," et al, might think.

The situation is further complicated by psychological factors in most males yet to grow up emotionally--which is to say, most all of us. For example, when we remain caught up in typical repressions related to our mothers, we harbor desires, often secret to ourselves, to "be taken care of"--either as our mothers once did or we wished they would have.

Also, before we consciously face and make peace with female superiority, the serving role of genetic masculinity, and our own "sissy" capacities, we commonly exist threatened by femininity in general. In these varying degrees of repressed awareness, we are often resentful and/or rebellious against female values, furthering daily conflicts in living together.

We may even suppress our own concerns for cleanliness, order, appearances, and self-care, in secret search of a long lost mother, or else in silent rebellion against feminine values. For example, we may avoid picking up after ourselves as a way of trying to make a female do it for us (as our mothers once did). We may "stay out of the kitchen" in unconscious rebellion against "doing female things." We may even "dress down," as though we have no concern with appearances, in silent protest against "having to look nice."

When such psychological motivations are combined with truly different male values, all in contrast with and/or opposition to inherited female concerns, the problems women typically face in living in the same houses with uncouth males must multiply exponentially.

Whenever I can sometimes see past my own participation in these common male modes, I cannot but feel empathy for what females with inherited sensitivity, tastes, etc. "have to put up with" in trying to both respect themselves and get along with our often boorish male ways.

 

 

DIRTY MINDED MALES

 

--Having to live in the same house with a male who is far more inclined to "get down and dirty" than to be up and clean, to un-make than to make-up a bed, and to generally focus entirely on function with little attention left for appearances or attractiveness.

 

 

NATURAL SEXUALITY

 

--Learning to un-repress natural feminine sexuality wisely, after diligent training in repression of this part of themselves in service of social acceptance and utilization of sex as a power source in quest of more relevant and harder to get security.

 I can only imagine what a challenge this must be for any female well trained and experienced in "being good."

 

 

MULTIPLE ORGASMS

 

--Consciously containing smoldering passion potential and expansive orgasmic capacities, especially when separated from conception as made possible by modern technology for birth control--which unfortunately for women, has evolved faster than genetic wisdom for its expression.

Two major facets of this challenge may be: un-repressing these typically denied aspects of one's female self, and doing so in the presence of immature males more likely to be threatened than thrilled by overt female sexuality as it naturally is, uncloaked by typical repression and/or careful hiding.

 

 

SEX FOR PLEASURE

 

--Making the pragmatic transition between sex-for-power and sex-for-pleasure, from using sex as a carrot for managing male behavior to becoming naturally and openly sexual "just for the fun of it."

 

 

MEN WHO DON'T GET IT

 

--Getting it on with men who don't get it.

By and large we males are boorish rather than truly civilized, more like proverbial bulls in a china shop, especially where feminine sexuality is concerned. Although we rarely if ever comprehend what women may mean when they sometimes observe that we "just don't get it," I can only imagine what a challenge it must be to proceed with "getting it on" with us when they consciously acknowledge this unfortunate but all-too-familiar fact about most of us.

 

 

EASE OF SPIRITUAL ABUSE

 

--Facing the latent and commonly unrecognized female capacity for unwitting spiritual abuse that is often more devastating in time than more familiar forms of male physical abuse.

This challenge is probably amplified by the fact that most forms of such spiritual abuse are both legal and socially acceptable, are commonly cloaked with the best of personal intentions, and only become visible, if at all, after an extended period of time. Unlike much physical abuse commonly perpetrated by males, the "scars" of spiritual abuse, on the "heart" rather than skin, are both harder to see and longer to heal--if ever.

Of course I feel for us males who are sometimes victims; but I also empathize with females who have this vast power in their hands, often unawarely, and must live with the challenges of wielding it wisely.

 

 

MALE LIMITATIONS

 

--Loving men as we are and coping wisely with our natural limitations, rather than succumbing to an apparently universal female temptation to try to change us, usually via nagging and using sex as a carrot.

 

 

FRAGILE MALE EGOS

 

--Having to carefully avoid threatening fragile male egos while at the same time thinking circles around them; being easily able to think expansively around typical male train track type mental activity, and yet often having to act stupid to avoid offending us or stepping on our fragile egos.

 

 

KISSING FROGS

 

--Having to "kiss a lot of frogs before you sometimes find a prince."

This metaphor once showed up on a poster on the door of one of my teenage daughters. I was somewhat displeased at the time with what it led me to imagine. Now, however, I can reflect on the dark wisdom implied in her early awareness, namely, that indeed much exploration may be called for before a girl is, if lucky, sometimes able to find a true prince to both rescue her as a princess and take her into Queendom, if not to the ball.

Kissing girls, given our rare options with almost any of them, is generally exciting to boys; but I can only imagine what it must be like for girls to navigate the perilous waters of teenage courting when such high stakes are constantly at risk--and, when I am alert, to feel empathetic.

 

 

INHERITED POWERS

 

--Post puberty and pre-legal age girls for having the immense power of male attractions thrust on them, along with inner, pre-conscious urges to find a best male and conceive as soon as possible so as to maximize offspring during relatively short years before menopause--all this with little or no training either in coping with feeling internal powers associated with rising libido, or with outside male powers, both real and projected on them, or with social forces mitigating both against becoming conscious of these powers and/or exercising them selfishly in society (e.g., "winning the affection" and/or gifts and attention of males who "belong" to other females, either by marriage (beginning with father) or possession of other girls; or any experimentation in becoming overtly sexual in quest of either experience and/or best sperm. (Now that's a sentence!—or is it?)

It is not unlike, I suspect, giving a girl a loaded shotgun before she has any instructions either in its operation, power, safe usage, or even desire to own one, and requiring her to always carry it wherever she goes. Or, perhaps, continually sitting on a ticking time bomb not of one's own choosing or understanding would be an even better analogy.

 

 

PULLING PUNCHES

 

--Having to always "pull their punches," both verbally and emotionally, with linear thinking, logic-limited, fragile-egoed males--as most of us are, if they are to remain in functional relationships without appearing as ball-busters or patsies themselves.

 

 

MAKING DECISIONS

 

--Difficulty in making decisions--that is, "making up their minds" given the wealth of information they always have to consider in narrowing options down to one single choice--whether in choosing a man or a pair of shoes. 

I do not see this as a limitation in thinking abilities, as many males seem to view the situation, but rather as a truly difficult mental matter resulting from greater amounts of data regularly available to females in contrast with males. With our male "tunnel vision" in which we carefully, even if unconsciously, limit the amount of information we consider in making any choice, decision-making is relatively easy.

First of all, we learn early to systematically exclude sensory, emotional, and memory data that we take to be unrelated to current goals--such as, aiming at an animal or winning a game (or girl). Quite properly and functionally in so many male-type endeavors, we try to focus on our aims, which also means excluding information which may in fact be readily at hand, but is taken to be distracting from dedicated pursuit of our goals.

The end result on the positive side is more efficiency in "getting there (where or whatever)," but limiting side effects--the negative side we might say if we actually saw what we were doing in this regular process, include curtailed (repressed) awareness of many bits of data, both inward and external, which females, as best I can tell, regularly entertain--even if they don't want to.

Another limiting side effect of focused-type thinking, in contrast with female circular or comprehensive type mental activity is our common male tendency to focus on words and their logical placement into ideas, principles, beliefs, and above all, "reasonable" arrangement. Though I have never heard another male (besides myself) admit to the idolatry of "sense," I regularly see guys blindly bowing before the altar of "reason"--that is, living as though whatever seems to "make sense" to you is therefore right and final, even sacred.

Relevant here is the relative ease which males face in "making up our minds" when we are first of all limited in data we have to consider in reaching a conclusion, and then only have to weigh what we consider on the scales of logic and reason--never mind the predictably negative consequences of many of our "sensible" decisions which exclude "feelings" and much other available information.

In summary, I think that females, being more sensitive both to physical and emotional data, as well as relatively unrepressed in the realms of memory, must indeed face a grand challenge in narrowing their many considered options down to any one specific choice, even one so simple (to males) as "being on time," let alone “fast” and "reasonable" in what they decide (eventually!) to do.

 

 

PUSSY AND CUNT

 

--Being stuck with inherited pussy and projected cunt, especially the immense powers associated with them both. 

Those related to pussy are biological and realistic, while those I summarize with the obscene name cunt are psychological and magical. Pussy power is about fucking and replication, while cunt is about repression and salvation. Pussy is physical, literally about vaginal access and power to control conception as well as male intercourse. Cunt, conversely, is mental, that is, about dark memories, imagination, and illusionary power to produce or give male wholeness.

Pussy is about possibly making babies by getting sperm to an ovum; cunt is about making happiness by a symbolic return to the womb. The first force, a physical power, is about the real act of getting a penis to a cervix, while the second psychological force is about mental illusions of getting a self to a home (again?).

So why do these two phenomena evoke my empathy for those who bear them? We less fortunate males might blindly envy such "gifts" of power. First, I said, "being stuck with...," to imply the fact that they come without choice. Like it or not, choose them or not, all females are, as it were, forced to possess and hence have to live with these forces, both real and imagined. Aside from the obvious advantages of being born with the first natural powers and then later finding the second thrust upon them, I look here at what I imagine it may be like to be responsible for them, both in society and in all gender relationships.

Beyond the potentially positive benefits of these two types of power, I mainly feel sorry for those who must inevitably bear them because of the personal vulnerability that also comes as a negative side effect. Pussy power invites male physical abuse--all the way from unwanted advances to humiliating if not painful rape. Cunt power, though less threatening initially, may place immense psychological burdens on any female who falls for typical male projections. In fact, no woman can literally "make a man whole" and/or happy, and certainly not give salvation--as so many of us darkly imagine and diligently pursue, as though "she could if only she would."

But sometime following the obvious immediate benefits a female may find in being the recipient of these common male illusions, "pay up" time may eventually become predictable--that is, a time when a man begins to face the fact of failed dreams, that a magical She cannot in truth make him whole, happy, and/or saved. Commonly, rather than facing our own projections and the illusions we have been living under, we males often take the easier path of "blaming woman" for Her failures. It is here that the price of female vulnerability to male projections begins so often to be paid--in coinage of disappointment (in the relationship or marriage), disillusionment, resentment and anger, often reflected in "looking elsewhere," as in, "fooling around" and/or affairs with other females who just might be able to fulfill dreams which failed in the first relationship, and/or breaking off a present relationship itself.

Bottom line: vulnerability to male projections of Goddess-like powers, though delightful as well as useful so long as kept intact, becomes extremely dangerous once a male begins to "face up." At first, withdrawal and/or emotional (if not physical) abuse are predictable as a man begins to "blame woman (beginning with Eve in Eden)" for the failure of his dreams of Paradise together. Then, in time, "Splitsville"--that is, "being left," emotional if not physical abandonment, is the all too common result.

For this familiar scenario, I cannot but feel empathy for women who truly do not deserve such unfortunate ends.

 

 

COMPULSIVE BEAUTIFICATION

 

--Being stuck with unreasonable urges to beautify one's self and all things--probably comparable to equally irrational male urges to fuck all pretty girls, and yet having limited resources and regular opposition in many arenas.

I suspect prevalent female urges to "make everything pretty," beginning with themselves (body, clothing, and make-up) but extending to all their living spaces, children, and even their spouses, are rooted in evolutionary instincts for attracting "best males" for sperm and security. These primal, pre-conscious directives, however, are now mostly lost to awareness and only find expression in blind drives to beautify everything, regardless of any present reasons or sense.

Powerful female instincts for personal prettiness, aimed long ago at appealing to equally powerful male drives for finding and getting the prettiest girls available, have, I theorize, become displaced from evolved purposes and now exist in free-floating fashion, as though beautifying is for itself alone. As a lady might honestly feel and say, "I just like being pretty and making things attractive. It has nothing to do with anyone else."

In the first sentence I used the modifier unreasonable to describe such urges, not because there is anything wrong or bad about "just wanting to be beautiful" or "to make things attractive," but only to imply that these drives now seem to exist, as it were, on their own--that is, without immediate, practical purposes. Just as older males seem blindly driven to lust after pretty girls (even well-formed ugly ones!) long after such desires have any practical purpose, so, it appears to me, females are commonly driven to beautification almost as instinctively as to breathing, yet without any corresponding pragmatic reasons. Past all sense, women keep on trying to be attractive and men keep on being attracted. Even among the old we yet consistently find "lookees" and "lookers."

My empathy, however, is not simply for the presence of such blind, even unreasonable (to me) urges. In themselves they must often be delightful as well as useful in structuring large portions of female time and directing forces perhaps generated by primal instincts themselves. Creative energies evolved in service of replication drives and now sublimated into beautification endeavors (both of self and surroundings) must indeed "feel good"--no matter what their focus.

Even so, I still feel sorry for females who have, as I said, "limited resources and regular opposition" in activating sublimated creativity. By this I mean: a) not enough money and/or time for effecting such inclinations, and/or b) living with males totally focused on "practicality," "being reasonable," "saving money," and other such male virtues (which are, in fact, often more non-sensible in the larger picture).

Even when females have access to great wealth and live apart from male opposition to their drives to "make everything attractive," I suspect that activating these urges "for themselves alone" must be finally unsatisfying when totally cut off from their evolved purposes. For example, a woman who has succeeded in making herself and her house as attractive as money, make-up, clothing, jewelry, and cosmetic surgery can effect, but is yet without warm companionship, especially from a loving man, may still feel lacking.

Or so I suspect, from the male side of our often-contradictory perspectives.

Clichés for my sympathy might include: for "Having campaign tastes but living on a beer budget," or, "Being a woman with class (or elegance) living with an uncouth man who has no tastes at all."   

 

 

FIGURE LOSS

 

--For what commonly occurs to a woman's figure and body after having babies.

Doing your genetic job is so costly in bodily powers to attract males, well beyond aging itself; e.g., sagging and reduced breasts and ass, stretch marks, fat, varicose veins, vaginal enlargement, and delivery damages. It's simply not fair that male attractiveness to females often increases with age, while the reverse is true for women who have played the major role in our shared replication.

 

 

LOSS OF SEX APPEAL

 

--Lowered sex appeal following marriage and/or children, because of the male urge to spread sperm to many.

This may be compensated for by a wife's freedom while pregnant--if she is not continually ill with "morning sickness," etc.; but unfortunately for wives who are already pregnant or past child bearing, any other potentially conceivable female may be more appealing to her husband's gene eyes than the one who bears his children and often takes care of him as well.

 

 

HAVING BRAINS

 

--Being loved more for your ass than your brains, or worse, for dark shadows of a boy's mother (or her opposite) than for lighted, personal elements of your larger self.

Men often envy women, especially those who are genetically attractive, for the powers they easily wield with their bodies alone. We cannot but wish that women were as attracted to our bodies, including wanting to see and touch them, as we inevitably are to theirs. Or so we seem to think, in the absence of personal experience.

But on even deeper levels of awareness we commonly project images of our mothers, long gone in reality, but yet alive and well in our darker imaginations, onto her later representatives. Then, unbeknownst to us, we often love and/or hate them, not for what they are as unique persons of the female variety, but for their similarities and/or differences from the one we knew first.

Whenever I can see and acknowledge such common male projections, either in other men or myself, I empathize with women who are conscious and thus have no choice but to live knowingly with our images and memories. It would often be easier, I suspect, to have no mental eyes for seeing through what so often remains completely hidden to us who find butts and shadows more appealing than brains.

 

 

ASKING FOR IT

 

--Asking for it without meaning to. After beautification becomes a habit apart from its genetic and pragmatic usages, females often find themselves in the regrettable position of unwittingly inviting male reactions quite unintended and usually undesirable if not grossly offensive as well.

Male gene eyes, like primal female urges to attract attention during estrus, evolved long before consciousness and yet remain as essentially instinctive responses--that is, they tend to operate "without thinking." In a sense, males "can't help but" react to female beauty. And unless consciousness and reason are added to "unthinking" gene eye visions, such male reactions are apt to be crude, blatant, offensive, and patently sexual in intent.

So long as female genetics are also operative, that is, when efforts to "be attractive" are literally aimed at male attractions, then all is well in animal land; but, and this is where my empathy sometimes enters in, when females are "just trying to be pretty" for sake of beauty alone (no genetic intents operative), typical male reactions--which range all the way from staring to leering to intrusiveness to suggestive talk to forcible touch (groping) to continual "pestering," and even to rape, are obviously offensive in the absence of conscious female desires.

The problem with instinctive males who are yet to add consciousness and reason to their inherited drives for finding conceive-able females is that they "have no way of knowing" that a woman "doesn't mean" what she appears to. Her attractiveness is the only thing evident; her intents are, obviously, hidden to male gene eyes. If she looks attractive, it must mean--or so instinctive males rationalize, she wants to attract--or more literally, it.

Consequently, when only primal genetics are operative, the scene is set for male moves aimed at sexual seduction to proceed: she has done her part; not it's time for him to do his. Or so the genetic script runs prior to consciousness and the entrance of many other psychological motivations.

But back to my empathy: When females are truly innocent--that is, without any desire for male reactions to their attractiveness, and yet males "come on" to you anyway, I cannot but empathize with what this common situation must be like to females who "just like being pretty." I certainly wouldn't want to "be hit on" when I don't want to be, and especially in the crude ways guys often do so.

 

 

SEXUAL REPRESSIONS

 

   I cannot but envy females for the vast amounts of Sophia's Wisdom they all seem to inherit (or learn early from other females)--especially about the arts of seducing and wielding power over males. Unfortunately for us who so easily succumb to female wiles, they just seem to succeed in using them "without thinking"--that is, their success apparently "just comes naturally."

But it is this phrase without thinking which points toward what I envy at first glance, but later becomes cause for my empathy. For all the advantages that evidently accrue from "unconscious competency" in male management, I also note serious limitations for females who use inherited wiles "without thinking."

Ideally, I theorize, Sophia's dark knowledge inherited at birth (and hence pre-conscious) would be rapidly expanded as consciousness becomes possible in girls--that is, lighted awareness would be quickly added to instinctive directives. What they know to do "without thinking" would be amplified and sharpened by adding thought and reason to unconscious knowledge.

But unfortunately, as best I can tell, the more familiar path toward socialization leads through sexual repressions for females just as it does for males. Both genders seem to more commonly opt for suppression and denial of sexual instincts rather than risk the challenges of adding sophistication to innocence--that is, remaining aware of inherited drives while at the same time carefully containing and mediating them in social circumstances.

Being "hit on" when they don't want to be (noted above) is only one of the dangers of sexual repression and beautification gone awry. Far greater costs come in other ways.

First, as best I can tell, there must be the temptation to repress one’s own sexuality--which is indeed socially dangerous, in favor of using sex as a tool in service of power, especially in quest of security which is a more pressing need insofar as replication is concerned. Sex-for-sperm only is fairly simple and available, but security-for-pregnancy and child rearing is far more essential in woman’s biological agenda.

Also, the use of sex for power must be far easier when one's own sexual desires are kept at bay, and intercourse, et al, is only an act. If, for example, a woman is concerned about her own pleasures (as in, reaching an orgasm) she will be seriously limited in using "it" like a carrot to dangle before a sex-hungry horse. Consequently, sexual repression of her own urges may easily become a distinct advantage in quest of what she needs far more than pleasure alone.

But the cost of such repression in service of sex-as-tool may be loss of sex-for-pleasure and also likely is the loss best sperm available for conception. Since repression is commonly achieved and supported by judgmental virtues (as in most religions), e.g., marital fidelity, a woman who chooses these values is likely to also suppress genetic desires to "shop around" in quest of best sperm available during estrus.

The end result is commonly this: females who are very good at using their beauty (both real and contrived) and sexuality for purposes of power (usually for security, as in, getting and keeping a good man, but also in achieving success in business)--that's the good news.

But the bad news is that they often do so via sexual repressions that cost you dearly in terms of pleasure and personal wholeness, and often lost best-sperm-available as well. After repression of natural desires the only pleasure left associated with sex is when it serves well in wielding power (for whatever purposes). Inherent pleasures Mother Nature has wisely ingrained with the processes that ensure genetic replication are lost due to personal repression. Instead of an avenue to ecstasy, indeed to multiple orgasms, it all too often becomes but a chore, a necessary duty, e.g., to "keep a husband happy" at best, or at least "at home."

I theorize that in spite of appearances that males are more sexual by nature than females--that is, as some have observed, "men are really only interested in one thing," the biological facts are different.

Because of the relative ease with which females can engage in sex (with, for example, no sperm production required for successful intercourse) and the capacity to immediately repeat the process many times, including the possibility of multiple orgasms, I conclude that were it not for sexual repression females might indeed be even more "interested in sex" than are men. Given its pleasure possibilities well beyond, as well as in the absence of, pregnancy desires, I imagine that, sans repression, the tables would often be turned--that is, females might be even more sexually active than are males.

Conversely, I suspect that the common appearance of males who seem to be "always hot to trot," like barking dogs chasing cars, is more related to the social situation in which females are busy "running away" for purposes of power than to inherent masculine desires. If the "cars" stopped driving away so often, I imagine the "barking dogs" might quieten down considerably.

If I am correct in these speculations, I cannot but feel sorry for females who waste so much of their potential for pleasure via sexual activity, and especially multiple orgasms, due to their own repressions. Surely the utility of trading sex-for-security as needed for child rearing (as well as power in the outside world) is a functional trade-off; but is it really necessary?

Might not a woman add her own knowledge about the world to what she inherits from Sophia, and then consciously choose to do both--without repressing her own capacities in the process? But even if so, the temptation to use the easier path of repression in service both of social acceptance and male manipulation must be immense. And this evokes my empathy for the many who seem to fall for it.

Finally, the greatest price which I think females pay for choosing sexual repression over sophisticated innocence--that is, full consciousness of biological desires merged reasonably with full awareness of social consequences, is in loss of personal wholeness as an individual.

 Sexuality, obviously, is but one element in human capacity, along with many others; but in spite of its common repression both by males and females in service of socialization (and power by females), neither of us can achieve full personhood without embracing this inherited capacity also--not just as a tool or skill to use for other purposes, but as an essential part of who we are.

Consequently, my greatest empathy for females in this regard is for their loss of degrees of potential personhood whenever they opt for repression over conscious, responsible activation of what I take to be their enormous sexual capacities. We all want and need to "be ourselves" as completely as possible. In Natural Theology this is essential for salvation on earth. And, regrettably, a woman confines herself to be less than she actually is (or can be) whenever she opts for sexual denial--even in service of other desirable goals.

That so many seem to do so anyway cannot but evoke my empathy.

 

 

COMPULSIVE CLEANLINESS

 

--For the ever-present temptation to compulsive cleanliness, to blindly worship at the throne of Genes for clean.

I speculate that just as females inherit genes for beautification evolved for attracting males, so they also inherit genes for cleanliness evolved over eons of time for increasing the odds of offspring survival in the presence of germsBlong before male scientists ever discovered and named these threats to human existence.

The problem is not this natural and pragmatic female urge for functional cleanliness, but rather what occurs when the instinct gets cut off from what I take to be its source, and blindly projected onto the world at large.

I refer to what must be a common female temptation to get caught up in cleanliness, even into a compulsion to "keep everything clean"Bas though dirt were the essence of evil, an enemy to be destroyed at all costs, and consequently falling for the familiar but erroneous theology that "cleanliness is next to godliness."

My analysis is this: a genetic female urge, rarely found in males, is rooted in evolutional wisdom about maximizing the health of offspring, protecting them as well as ourselves from the dangers of bodily invasion by foreign agents aimed at their own survival and consequently dangerous to the well being of humans.

But such urges which begin as both natural and practical can get, as it were, cut off from their sources and genetic utility and become "free floating," available for application everywhere, all the time, on everything from "the house" to spots on clothing, dust on window panes to words from the mouth, not to mention children and spouses.

As this unreasonable compulsion for cleanliness becomes more pervasive, other personal and relational matters consciously valued often lose all attention in the activation of blind drives toward universal cleanliness. Even the well being of loved ones and relationships with them are commonly sacrificed in these dark drives to "keep everything clean."

While I respect the practical place as well as esthetic values of cleanliness, I cannot but empathize with females who get so blindly caught up in what amounts to spiritual worship of cleanliness that they lose perspective on many other issues with far greater effect on their lives than dust and dirt in undesirable places.

 

 

VICTIMIZED BY IDOLATRY

 

--Burden of admiration, especially when cloaked under a veneer of chauvinism and/or self pity; unseen costs of male adoration; being suckers for the L word; done in by "love"; victimization by male idolatry, commonly cloaked as such, but occasionally glimpsed in less threatening terms, such as, adoration, and especially in metaphors like, "putting her on a pedestal," relating as though "the sun rises and sets on her head," "worshiping the ground she walks on," treating her like "she is the center of the universe."

Though not generally recognized as such by participants, the phenomenon may be more obvious (to others) in romantic love, the kind we males so often "fall into’--in which each of the above noted metaphors becomes accurate description. Even though highly acceptable in society and understandably encouraged by females, the spiritual idolatry of "love sick" (or "pussy whipped") malesBthat is, their courted adorations, can, I note, be very costly, especially in time.

Even though the immediate benefits to female recipients of male worship may be proper and desirable, there often are, I note, high prices to be eventually paid. All too easily such adored females may in fact be victimized by this socially acceptable form of male idolatry.

More obvious benefits of male worship include physical services, support, and security, as well as many psychological advantages, such as, being in control, having the last word, and finding regular support for fragile self-images from males who unwittingly worship them.

Less recognized prices, which may justify my characterization of victimization in contrast with lucky or blessed, may include:

 

BHaving to keep up an image of perfectionBas a goddess might present.

 

BMissed companionship between persons of equal standing. Goddesses and their devotees, like gods and their worshipers, may exist in proximity, but true intimacy is limited to equals. Goddesses can't consort with mere mortals, any more than officers can "fratinize with troops" without loss of functional relationships.

 

BTemptation to try to rescue/save a devoted admirer, as in, trying to please, make happy, pick up after, and even "make a man of him," as ways of keeping his devotion.

 

BTemptation to resentment for revealed male weaknesses and limitations, even when accompanied by adoration, because, biologically speaking, woman needs a truly strong man who can literally take care of her and her offspring, not a weak one as evidenced in her ease of managing and controlling him. She, as it were, needs a real King if she is to be a Queen, not a Prince who needs her to take care of him.

 

BLost experience in growing up, maturing as a person in the relative safety of a relationship of equals.

 

--Temptation to traffic in unrealistic modes of encounter which will not work outside a goddess-type relationship.

 

BSubverts maturation of a male devotee by supporting his illusions of happiness available from a female elevated to adoration.

 

*************

 


PART II

 

FEELING SORRY FOR MEN

 

As with women, where my responses are becoming less reactive and more empathetic, I am now finding myself feeling for men in ways beyond either blind reactions and/or projected self identifications--that is, I am becoming more able to see and respond to our shared male challenges with greater degrees of empathy.

Certainly some projected self-pity may remain, yet unseen; but as I come to look more clearly at myself and my own pilgrimage to here, I often feel sorry for other struggling males who seem to live more blindly with our common challenges in "growing up" in present society.

 

In broad summary, my pilgrimage to this point has been:

 

1. Early identification with female values (I was a "good boy") and repression of maleness (e.g., aggression, overt power, and masculine sexuality).

 

2. Projection of my masculinity onto "bad" males--that is, only seeing my natural male traits when reflected in other males, especially those more overt in acting out the extremes of masculinity.

 

3. Gradual shift of self-identification from feminine values to intellectually embrace maleness and thus to "pity poor males" in remaining degrees of projection--that is, to feel sorry for myself as yet projected "out there."

 

4. Withdrawal of projections as I gradually un-repress and begin to experience greater degrees of ambivalence--that is, to oscillate between self-pity and self-pride, taking social suppression of maleness personally, as though "they" have singled me out (degrees of paranoia) while at the same time beginning to accept/enjoy these same inherited attributes.

 

5. With this greater degree of self acceptance of both feminine and masculine values and traits, that is, with lesser degrees of repression, I am hence more able to look both at women and men "out there" with less need to use them as mirrors for denied parts of myself; e.g., to defend/attack or envy/judge inherited traits.

 

6. This opens the door to more genuine empathy, beyond sympathy or judgment based on projection only--that is, being more me, I am freed to better see them with other than "jaundiced eyes (partially blinded by repression and unrecognized projections)."

 

7. So now I turn to empathize with other males, as I have recently been doing with females. I realize that I am, of course, still borrowing other men as mental mirrors for more clearly seeing myself--that is, the challenges I face in truly embracing what I see in my mind's eye into my everyday self. Literally speaking, these "empathies" for men are actually but my own challenges in daily life that I see as being common to most of us males.

 

 

SEXUAL REPRESSION

 

--My greatest empathy is for the grand difference between natural male sexuality (as best I now understand it) and corresponding degrees of social repression. Unrepressing genetic masculinity in social circumstances which are fiercely suppressive, especially of its sexual aspects, must be among the greatest of our common challenges.

Both genders live with powerful anti-sexual memes, but given the covert nature of feminine sexuality, plus its general correspondence with other positive social values (submission, self-sacrifice, helping others, etc.) social and legal suppression of natural female sexuality is far less than that of males.

Socially speaking, beginning with mother in the nursery plus the incest taboo behind her, boys get a very bad shake in society insofar as outside support of masculine sexuality is concerned. If any male ever truly embraces natural sexual masculinity--other than by rebellion and "acting out"--that is, responsibly (being true to self and sensible in society), he must have either been grandly courageous as a boy, or else extremely diligent in careful unrepression later.

I cannot but now feel empathy for males facing these challenges.

In popular understanding, especially from female perspectives, most males are not sexually repressed; but rather they live with exaggerated, unrealistic sexual interests. Females, in this familiar perspective, especially from the male side of the coin, are the ones most sexually repressed. But beyond or beneath such conventional wisdom, contrary conditions, I think, are common.

Among them are the pervasive, unrecognized extent of repressed masculine sexual instincts and capacities, initially denied wisely in quest of Mother's Smile (personal favor and services) when She was indeed a functioning Goddess in a boy's world, but later maintained as a habit in service of social acceptance, especially by females unconsciously selected to replace her.

Then, following these unrecognized denials, whether by active repression or only old habit, living in states of fragile integrity--not unlike being on top of a ticking time bomb, such males are continually subject to unwise, self-chosen actions (e.g., as though their brains truly are in their jeans), along with continual vulnerability to assorted females (or various of their bodily parts) where these same repressed forces are commonly projected.

Other costs include: a) loss of sensitivity (literally, sensuality) in service of maintaining such repressions--that is, trying to keep “monster" urges under control by "nipping them in the bud" of primary desire. If we don't look or let ourselves feel or think about "it," then maybe we won't be so tempted to genetically directed but socially unacceptable actions, e.g., ogling, fondling, etc., if not forcefully fucking as many potentially pregnable females as possible; b) loss of creative capacities which are rooted in primal urges to re-create (replicate) ourselves (seen as being "sexy") but may be practically sublimated in countless other more socially acceptable creative pursuits.

 

 

EMOTIONAL WEAKNESS

 

--Being "emotionally" weaker than females and hence constantly vulnerable to manipulation and/or abuse by their superior inward powers (in contrast with greater physical strength in males).

I put emotionally in quotes to imply my colloquial use of the word, which certainly includes bodily emotions, but also many other capacities commonly implied with the term "feelings." For example, "emotions" or "feelings," as I use the terms here, include sensitivity, intuition, and comprehensive ("circular") think-ability.

Whereas physical abuse of females by males is easily recognized and commonly condemned, "emotional" abuse of males by females is seldom acknowledged and usually accepted in society without condemnation, especially by any legal means.

In its lesser degrees, "emotional" domination of males by females, especially in most significant relationships, is so universally accepted as to go unrecognized and certainly unpunished.

But beyond the extensive nature of female emotional abuse of males who are weaker in this department, I think the greater male loss is of our own emotional capacities so commonly repressed in trying to avoid being "sissy" and to "act like a man." If we were not so much in denial of our own feelings I think we would be far less vulnerable to the emotions of women.

But commonly we are, evoking my empathy. 

 

PUSSY VERSUS WEALTH

 

--There is absolutely no inherited male power even remotely capable of moving females with the ease by which pussy so often controls male behavior. Only acquired wealth and/or social power can be at all compared as motivating forces with what all females are born with--no personal effort required. And even this force runs a far distant second in any race between the two.

And if females come to feel impersonal (dis-identified) about their pussies, and consequently to resent men who "just love me for my body" but not for "who I am"--as they often seem to do, then the same resentment, even more so, is predictable in men who understandably feel even less self-identified with acquired wealth than do females with their inherited bodies.

 

 

MENTAL LIMITATIONS

 

--The comprehensive nature of female think-abilities in contrast with the limitation of focused thinking in males is another cause for sympathy for boys and men.

Certainly male focus-ability in attention, indeed the ease with which we can exclude sense data that does not immediately appear to be relevant to present aims, is a distinct advantage in any goal seeking activity, e.g., killing game, winning games, pursuing bits of information possibly useful in making things (tools and technology). But when faced with the wider challenges of living well with people--in relationships and society, single-mindedness or train-track thinking places us at distinct disadvantages with women.

Male-type thinking is an advantage for surviving in the jungle and in wars, but significantly limits us in civilization, especially in times of peace.

 

 

NATURAL FEMININITY

 

--Difficulty in embracing natural femininity in society, without simply switching sides, as in becoming gay and/or a wimp.

The X chromosome in each of our male cells naturally results in many characteristics similar to those more commonly seen in females with 2 X's in each. But in society we are set up to be either symbolic blue or pink, not some of both. Consequently, pressures against "being sissy" in childhood make total repression of feminine characteristics predictable by any socially responsive boy.

Overcoming these typical repressions, that is, unrepressing inherited feminine characteristics in a society that continues to support their denial is another major challenge most males face. I cannot but feel empathy for other men if we dare face these challenges openly.

 

 

AGGRESSION

 

--Being naturally aggressive, wielding power overtly without repression of feminine nurturing capacities or escaping into machoism.

Only in war or under cover of physical games does inherited male aggression become in any degree acceptable in society. Of course it may be perverted into "white collar" aggression, as in business endeavors, but even there it is commonly repressed in male awareness--as best I can tell. Even the most aggressive of businessmen often seem to pretend otherwise.

 

 

NUMBER UNO

 

--Owning "Number Uno" instincts, both in urges to be "King of the Mountain" and to have females as "mine only"--that is, being fully conscious of drives for autocratic sovereignty and female possession (as in harems) without blindly and unreasonably acting them out in society.

This challenge includes being naturally selfing, both as a human being and as a male, without escaping into self-centeredness (egotism) and avoiding personal capacities for expanding gender traits into personhood, as in, moving from "making love" to "being loving."

 

 

PERSONHOOD

 

--Moving from maleness to personhood, from being male only to being a person who happens to have a penis, et al.

Males so easily and commonly self-identify with masculine traits and try to negate feminine characteristics that we commonly find becoming a whole person extremely challenging. It is far easier to simply exaggerate masculinity (or try to give it up) than to dare being both male and human, or, literally gentlemen or "persons" rather than male-only.

With euphemisms, this means getting our brains out of our penises and back into our heads. A stiff prick, as has been said, may have no conscience, but a male-type person has every reason to be conscientious in all social endeavors, rather than being dictated by "automatic erections" etc.

 

 

MALE INFERIORITY

 

--Seeing and accepting natural female superiority and the serving role evolved for males, without falling into self pity and/or rebellion--that is, recognizing the way maleness has evolved to exist in service of the more demanding female role of baby making and child rearing of our shared offspring.

In practice this means embracing male weaknesses in comparison with female strengths in most physical and mental arenas (e.g., in longer living and thinking more comprehensively), without falling into becoming "nice" emasculated males, or for social images of "superior men," as history invites, which are nothing more than exaggerated egotistical self images conjured up in denial of actual physical facts (e.g., in male dominated religions, such as, Islam and Christianity).

 

 

SELF-SACRIFICE

 

--Embracing degrees of pragmatic self-sacrifice as functional in patriotism and/or team membership (such as, hunting, business, and games), without literally repressing natural urges to be Number One; that is, acting sacrificial in service of cooperative endeavors in quest of shared goals without actually being self-destructive, e.g., appearing humble without being ashamed of self, or intentionally insincere in acting self-effacing for social reasons.

 

 

REPRESSED NURTURING

 

--Being naturally nurturing without being sissy.

Paradoxically, while females are the nurturing gender insofar as rearing healthy children are concerned, and males seem to be the killers (since we hunt game, etc.), in many ways men are better at overall nurturing than are women who have more cold-hearted killer instincts (evolved, I suspect, as possibly needed in child protection). Women are naturally better at taking care of babies, but in the larger picture I think men may be better geared for nurturing long range--that is, mentoring growing children without undermining personal integrity.

But this challenge involves accepting lesser degrees of killerness than females have, without succumbing to blind sympathy or trying to be "just feminine."

 

 

SELF-CARING

 

--Loving females as they are--that is, often repressed and living out genetic directives (Sophia's Wisdom) unawarely, without secretly looking to them for support of masculinity and "taking care of us" in physical, emotional, and spiritual ways.

The greater part of this common male challenge lies in unrepressing natural self-caring capacities so often projected onto females, beginning with one's biological mother and continuing thereafter onto other representative females. Before we can truly love women as they are, we must move beyond needing them to take care of us in ways we are actually able to care for ourselves, e.g., feeding and clothing ourselves, as well as tending to our emotional well being too. We must learn, e.g., to pick up after ourselves, both symbolically and literally, rather than needing a woman to provide basic services more naturally found in self-actualization than in continued dependency on females.

This also means getting over "marrying our mothers," as in, continuing to look for another female who will fit patterns acquired in early life--or to make up for qualities missed in a first mother.

Overall, this means stopping attempts to get something from females, all the way from pussy to happiness, with all forms of self-tending in between. Only when we move beyond these typical forms of dependency, usually denied and cloaked with chauvinism and/or self pity, do we face the possibility of truly loving females as they are rather than as we may wish they are.

But this is hard to do; so I empathize with those who face these challenges.

 

 

SELF-DIRECTION

 

--Challenges of self-direction in society where only socially useful roles are supported, e.g., existing as worker, winner, and/or supporter (of family, business, country).

Typically we males fall into these socially functional roles and thereafter live our lives under their tutelage, e.g., being job and/or spouse-directed--that is, living as a "good worker (employee, husband, father, etc.)" who may in fact be quite disconnected from personal characteristics and desires, doing what They tell us to, even if unconsciously.

In practice, this common dependency on roles for direction often means living with time structured by a job during the week and a spouse on weekends. For many men, only retirement and/or grown children bring us to face the possibility of becoming self-determining. Until then, we typically remain almost completely "other-directed" insofar as inherited, unique capacities are concerned.

This challenge, and basis for empathy for men, involves learning to choose one's own way, even while established roles continue to exist and invite dependence on them.

In practice this requires unlearning self-identification with roles only, e.g., boss, employee, husband, etc., but also more personal identifications as "tough," "smart," "he-man" etc. --that is, learning to literally play self-chosen roles without trying to be any of them.

 

 

CREATIVITY

 

--More specifically, this involves becoming creative in terms of self-satisfactions (as females typically learn to do early in life) rather than remaining dependent on external directives.

Specific elements in creativity more commonly embraced by females include: sensitivity and emotionality--expanded awareness of the sensual elements of reality and natural emotional responses to what is seen, heard, felt, etc.

This means, in practice, unrepressing natural male capacities for both sensitivity and feeling--as are commonly repressed in our game oriented lives, that is, in focused type activities such as hunting, winning, and "succeeding."

Before we can ever become personally creative we must unrepress these human capacities more commonly embraced by females; we must learn to be as sensitive in everyday life as we are in hunting, winning, and other goal-focused endeavors. At the same time we must re-establish contact with emotional capacities common to both genders; we must learn to "feel" as well as "think" in responding to reality as we perceive it.

Obviously, most of us typical males face considerable challenges in unrepressing sensitivity and emotions without at the same time denying focus abilities. Still, this is a major requirement for embracing personal creativity rather than continuing to exist only as team members--that is, trying to find ourselves in goal-oriented, outside activities only.

Specific challenges in these arenas include: embracing emotional capacities without becoming a "cry baby" and feeling for/with others without losing oneself in the process--plus embracing sensitivity without losing the male capacity for "being objective" in the sense of remaining focused on goals and "the larger picture."

 

 

SENSUALITY

 

--Learning to embrace and enjoy powers innate in being sensual without rushing to "relief" in being overtly sexual, especially in speeding to orgasm--as though we are either constitutionally incapable of standing such extended excitement, or else so trapped in maleness that we can only enjoy fucking.

In reality, as best I can tell, the continuum of sexuality begins with sense-experiences ("sensuality") as more commonly embraced by females, and continues to fruition in overtly sexy events, notably orgasm--where males tend to focus. Certainly there are good and prevailing genetic reasons for these typical places of focus; but in personhood, beyond gender only, we all have capacities for the whole continuum of sexuality, that is, for being both sensual and sexy, without having to retreat and hide in one or the other.

For males this means escaping the trap of focused fucking only, and embracing other capacities for expanded personal sensuality, as well as participating in those of females we encounter (without either rushing to overt sex or requiring that they give us permission and/or support in doing so).

But after years of focusing mainly on overt sex and suppressing capacities for sensuality, this change can be difficult. Consequently I feel for those who attempt it.

 

 

GIVING IN

 

--Learning to give in without giving up--that is, to act submissive when giving in is pragmatic, without literal self-repression of assertiveness; to use the submissive stance functionally versus compulsively--that is, by choice rather than habit or necessity.

Specifically, this means "growing up" past chauvinism and self-identification with typical macho male images, including identifying oneself with words or "my word."

 

 

COMPREHENSIVE THINKING

 

--Becoming a comprehensive thinker, as well as a more typically male-type focused or "single minded" thinker. Females, of course, do so naturally; but it seems that males in general must learn to think in circular or comprehensive fashion--which becomes a significant challenge after we are practiced at both focused thinking and necessarily "winning" arguments as well as fights.

 

 

GOOD WOMEN

 

--Learning to live well with a "good woman"--that is, to exist comfortably and functionally with a natural female who is identified with her femininity and therefore diligent in its modes and expressions, rather than simply trying to be a "good wife" in the sense of submissive to and supportive of a "man in his castle."

Typically, and more easily we men may either be dictatorial about house and home, requiring female submission (outwardly), or else abandon truly living at home and in effect turn the house over to wifely control, leaving it as her home with us only as supporters of it.

This challenge involves respecting and supporting female values (such as, appearance and cleanliness) without at the same time abandoning male concerns (primarily, function, economy, practicality, etc.)--this, rather than more typical rebellion against, begrudging "giving in to," or emotional abandonment of living at home as well as at the office or the hunting camp, etc.

 

 

LOSING ARGUMENTS

 

--Inability to win arguments with women.

Commonly there are insurmountable barriers preventing men from ever winning arguments with women--really. Conventional male wisdom, "You can never win an argument with a women," is one pragmatic spin off from our different ways of thinking, especially the contrasting values each gender places on thinking itself.

The comprehensive nature of female thinking, for example, allows them to recognize the limitations of thinking in comparison with emotions and intuition (unconscious knowledge). This is especially true both of conscious thinking and especially of words themselves, which form the basis and rules of most conscious thinking, e.g., words and logical arrangement of them easily becomes one type of male idolatry, such as: "being responsible," "making sense," and "living up to one's word."

Seldom do women make the error of word idolatry. Consequently, they can freely use words as verbal tools, as easily dropped as picked up on, and certainly not idolized and/or depended on. Words are to women as guns are to men--often useful in achieving certain goals, but certainly not the only weapon in their arsenal. Women, for example, may use words as long as they are working, but freely drop them when they begin to lose effectiveness, in favor of emotions (e.g., tears) and/or pussy power.

Blinded to our own idolatry and dependence on words and logic for use in arguments, we men commonly remain continually vulnerable to females who are not. Also, given their comprehensive mode of thinking, including better memories of details, as well as emotions, and not limited either by rules of logic or data with obvious connections, females generally have more available information for countering whatever arguments males are able to devise.

In a word, most females can literally think circles around us and more effectively use verbal tools than can we. This, coupled with freedom to leave words when they cease to work, allows distinct female advantages, both in "out arguing" with words by drawing on a wider arena of data and in augmenting verbal tools with emotions (and finally, withdrawal, if not playing their trump card, pussy).

Also, lacking any necessity of winning itself--as are males who become dependent on words and consciousness thinking, gives females an additional advantage in the midst of any argument. Freedom, for example, to say without loss of integrity, "Well let's just drop the subject," or, "Okay, have it your way; you win (without them losing), or to simply change the subject by speaking of some other topic.

When it comes to arguing with females, males, I conclude, at least deserve pity, if not empathy.

 

 

HAVING TO WIN

 

--Challenges inherent in learning that winning isn't everything.

There may be good and sound genetic reasons for sperm-bearers being so diligently focused on winning races. After all, only the one sperm that wins acceptance by an ovum survives, while millions who come in second die soon thereafter. And, it seems, many of us guys who bear them easily become compulsively identified with these genetic facts.

Also, it may be easier for ovum-bearers whose eggs have no competitors and no race to win to learn to keep winning in more proper perspective. But however it happens, less debatable is the fact that women seem to intuitively know that "winning isn't everything"--even that losing may sometimes be more important than winning.

Meanwhile, many of us males remain caught up in living-as-though every competition in life is like a sperm race--where winning truly is everything and to lose is to die. Or, as one coach said, "Winning is not just everything; it's the only thing."

Obviously, if males could remove these all-too-familiar blinders, we might easily see what most females seem to already know, namely, that outside a race for replication, "how you play the game (or even if you play at all)" is often far more relevant than winning. And, contrary to prevailing male wisdom, even losing is often wiser than winning.

Logically speaking, many males may recognize these observations intellectually; but putting them into practice in daily living, and truly learning that every competition is not a sperm race, can become an immense and regular challenge.

And this, when I am occasionally alert rather than compulsively competitive, evokes additional male empathy.

 

 

BLIND IDOLATRIES

 

--I also feel sorry for us males for the places we worship, often unconsciously, in hope of improbable rewards, but at the expense of personal powers commonly sacrificed in quest of favors from our objects of adoration.

Among our common idolatries are these:

 

 1. Sky Gods, created primarily, I suspect, in hopes of bringing freedom from bondage to blindly worshiped Earth Goddesses. This is perhaps the most nearly conscious of major male idolatries yet operative today.

 

2. Earth Goddesses, beginning with one's birthing mother, whose dark images are later projected onto other females unwittingly chosen either to replace, or in substitution for, Her.

 

3. Sense making, rooted in even deeper and darker idolatry of words, which are the primary tools of language, beliefs, principles, logical thinking, and the simplest forms of human consciousness.

 

Dangerous spin-offs of this common form of male (not female) idolatry include: a) unwise dependence on reason as a mode of power for coping with the world, especially, female relationships; b) self identification with stated words, e.g., "word as bond," and willingness to risk limb if not life for keeping, defending, and promulgating one's word (ideas, beliefs, etc.) unrecognized as a projected symbol of one's self--as though one’s words and one's self were synonymous.

 

 

 

WORSHIPING WOMEN

 

 --Getting caught up in blind idolatry of femininity; prices paid for unrecognized worship of feminine capacities commonly projected onto all real females, especially those we love, beginning with mother, and "fall in love with” after her.

I feel sorry for men for the prices we pay for blindly worshiping women. I say blindly because I have never met a man who openly admits to this dark practice; mostly, as best I can tell, we just do so "without thinking” that is, unconsciously. In either case, the costs are not related to what we think, but to what we inevitably pay.

The prices we men pay for worshiping women are amplified by the fact that we rarely if ever see what we are doing and consequently must come up with ways of cloaking our assorted forms of adoration, especially to ourselves. In broadest perspective these are twofold, flip sides of one coin: chauvinism and wimpism, trying to lord it over women to hide our threats and fears of them, or trying to please them in order to ease the dangers we dimly perceive in their presence.

The problem is not helped by the fact that women have good and practical reasons for encouraging this blind habit in quest of satisfying their own needs (More about this in Part I). In spite of the prices they also pay for our modes of coping with their powers, it seems to me that the advantages must far outweigh the costs, given the facts of their diligence in catering to our illusions.

 

SEEING IDOLATRY

 

But since the cause of this empathy is not commonly recognized, I need to clarify my own dark perspectives. First, I note that the issue is the phenomenon itself, not whether or not it is recognized, and certainly not what it is named, such as, idolatry. I choose this harsher term, rather than kinder names like adoration and love, because I think it more clearly points to extreme dangers inherent in its practice. Idolatry, as we all know, is bad--but if we cloak its practice in acceptable phrases like "being in love with," or, "just trying to please the little woman," then we may easily evade seeing what we actually do.

Our familiar practices of either trying to dominate females, as in machoism, or being submissive to them in acting like "nice men," become more tolerable (at least to ourselves) than openly facing what we so commonly do. I think that familiar metaphors such as: "putting her on a pedestal," relating as though "the sun rises and sets on her head," "worshiping the ground she walks on," treating her "like she is the center of the universe," etc., come closer to literal truth than simply being analogies.

But whatever we see or don't see, or whatever names and/or metaphors we use to refer to and describe the phenomenon, its practice is what we pay for--and hence the source of my empathy. Obviously there are many advantages to this widespread kind of socially acceptable adoration (an okay term for idolatry), both for us who practice it openly and especially for females who are its recipients--else, I conclude, we would not blindly continue to engage in it. And of course the negative cloaks, such as, male chauvinism--especially when acted out in such forms as male-type religions like Christianity and Islam, political and economic suppression, and physical abuse, are costly for females, even abominable; but still the prices paid by males remain.

Male idolatry of females is, I speculate, primarily based on: a) Denial of natural superiority of females, and b) Repressed X-chromosome related male capacities which are then projected onto females--where they are consequently worshiped and/or feared--usually in alternating phases.

Male adoration of females is so thoroughly ingrained in our social and religious systems that it is seldom seen as such. More often this serious spiritual error (sin in my theology) is called by other names approved in society, and generally encouraged by females. Almost never is it recognized in consciousness by those most caught up in its practice; in either case, such idolatry is a way-of-being, a relational stance--which may be operative apart from any conscious recognition, like an internal cancer in an otherwise seemingly healthy person.

In spite of what it may seem-in-awareness, such practiced idolatry is characterized on the positive side by blind devotion, unreasonable desires to please, and fears of any displeasure from the adored one--as evidenced in a goddesses smile or frown, plus servitude, usually with hidden expectations of reward (e.g., in bed or later) but practiced without required compensation.

 

COSTS

 

Some of the prices we pay include energies wasted in trying to dominate superior females (e.g., in winning an argument), or to find happiness (get salvation) in their worship. These energies might otherwise be given to: a) becoming one's fuller self as a person rather than a male only, by embracing limited but real feminine-like elements within our genetic selves (e.g., sensitivity and emotionality) versus more familiar uses of exaggerating masculinity used to try to suppress feared femininity; b) becoming better able to cope with their natural superiority, which truly calls for the best we have and can be, versus existing as truncated selves resulting from denied femininity within us all.

 

 

DISOBEYING MOTHER NATURE

 

--Men for having to disobey impersonal Mother Nature so consistently, in order to keep the favor of one's personal mother and all her later representatives--as in, putting all one's sexual eggs (sperm) in one basket (vagina) (forever!), and not even being able to exercise natural curiosities (e.g., about tits and ass) without threat of shame and rejection if not incarceration and/or hell.

 

*************

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

 


 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

PUSSY VERSUS WEALTH

 

--There is absolutely no inherited male power even remotely capable of moving females with the ease by which pussy so often controls male behavior. Only acquired wealth and/or social power can be at all compared as motivating forces with what all females are born with--no personal effort required. And even this force runs a far distant second in any race between the two.

And if females come to feel impersonal (dis-identified) about their pussies, and consequently to resent men who "just love me for my body" but not for "who I am"--as they often seem to do, then the same resentment, even more so, is predictable in men who understandably feel even less self-identified with acquired wealth than do females with their inherited bodies.

 

 

MENTAL LIMITATIONS

 

--The comprehensive nature of female think-abilities in contrast with the limitation of focused thinking in males is another cause for sympathy for boys and men.

Certainly male focus-ability in attention, indeed the ease with which we can exclude sense data that does not immediately appear to be relevant to present aims, is a distinct advantage in any goal seeking activity, e.g., killing game, winning games, pursuing bits of information possibly useful in making things (tools and technology). But when faced with the wider challenges of living well with people--in relationships and society, single-mindedness or train-track thinking places us at distinct disadvantages with women.

Male-type thinking is an advantage for surviving in the jungle and in wars, but significantly limits us in civilization, especially in times of peace.

 

 

NATURAL FEMININITY

 

--Difficulty in embracing natural femininity in society, without simply switching sides, as in becoming gay and/or a wimp.

The X chromosome in each of our male cells naturally results in many characteristics similar to those more commonly seen in females with 2 X's in each. But in society we are set up to be either symbolic blue or pink, not some of both. Consequently, pressures against "being sissy" in childhood make total repression of feminine characteristics predictable by any socially responsive boy.

Overcoming these typical repressions, that is, unrepressing inherited feminine characteristics in a society that continues to support their denial is another major challenge most males face. I cannot but feel empathy for other men if we dare face these challenges openly.

 

 

AGGRESSION

 

--Being naturally aggressive, wielding power overtly without repression of feminine nurturing capacities or escaping into machoism.

Only in war or under cover of physical games does inherited male aggression become in any degree acceptable in society. Of course it may be perverted into "white collar" aggression, as in business endeavors, but even there it is commonly repressed in male awareness--as best I can tell. Even the most aggressive of businessmen often seem to pretend otherwise.

 

 

NUMBER UNO

 

--Owning "Number Uno" instincts, both in urges to be "King of the Mountain" and to have females as "mine only"--that is, being fully conscious of drives for autocratic sovereignty and female possession (as in harems) without blindly and unreasonably acting them out in society.

This challenge includes being naturally selfing, both as a human being and as a male, without escaping into self-centeredness (egotism) and avoiding personal capacities for expanding gender traits into personhood, as in, moving from "making love" to "being loving."

 

 

PERSONHOOD

 

--Moving from maleness to personhood, from being male only to being a person who happens to have a penis, et al.

Males so easily and commonly self-identify with masculine traits and try to negate feminine characteristics that we commonly find becoming a whole person extremely challenging. It is far easier to simply exaggerate masculinity (or try to give it up) than to dare being both male and human, or, literally gentlemen or "persons" rather than male-only.

With euphemisms, this means getting our brains out of our penises and back into our heads. A stiff prick, as has been said, may have no conscience, but a male-type person has every reason to be conscientious in all social endeavors, rather than being dictated by "automatic erections" etc.

 

 

MALE INFERIORITY

 

--Seeing and accepting natural female superiority and the serving role evolved for males, without falling into self pity and/or rebellion--that is, recognizing the way maleness has evolved to exist in service of the more demanding female role of baby making and child rearing of our shared offspring.

In practice this means embracing male weaknesses in comparison with female strengths in most physical and mental arenas (e.g., in longer living and thinking more comprehensively), without falling into becoming "nice" emasculated males, or for social images of "superior men," as history invites, which are nothing more than exaggerated egotistical self images conjured up in denial of actual physical facts (e.g., in male dominated religions, such as, Islam and Christianity).

 

 

SELF-SACRIFICE

 

--Embracing degrees of pragmatic self-sacrifice as functional in patriotism and/or team membership (such as, hunting, business, and games), without literally repressing natural urges to be Number One; that is, acting sacrificial in service of cooperative endeavors in quest of shared goals without actually being self-destructive, e.g., appearing humble without being ashamed of self, or intentionally insincere in acting self-effacing for social reasons.

 

 

REPRESSED NURTURING

 

--Being naturally nurturing without being sissy.

Paradoxically, while females are the nurturing gender insofar as rearing healthy children are concerned, and males seem to be the killers (since we hunt game, etc.), in many ways men are better at overall nurturing than are women who have more cold-hearted killer instincts (evolved, I suspect, as possibly needed in child protection). Women are naturally better at taking care of babies, but in the larger picture I think men may be better geared for nurturing long range--that is, mentoring growing children without undermining personal integrity.

But this challenge involves accepting lesser degrees of killerness than females have, without succumbing to blind sympathy or trying to be "just feminine."

 

 

SELF CARING

 

--Loving females as they are--that is, often repressed and living out genetic directives (Sophia's Wisdom) unawarely, without secretly looking to them for support of masculinity and "taking care of us" in physical, emotional, and spiritual ways.

The greater part of this common male challenge lies in unrepressing natural self-caring capacities so often projected onto females, beginning with one's biological mother and continuing thereafter onto other representative females. Before we can truly love women as they are, we must move beyond needing them to take care of us in ways we are actually able to care for ourselves, e.g., feeding and clothing ourselves, as well as tending to our emotional well being too. We must learn, e.g., to pick up after ourselves, both symbolically and literally, rather than needing a woman to provide basic services more naturally found in self-actualization than in continued dependency on females.

This also means getting over "marrying our mothers," as in, continuing to look for another female who will fit patterns acquired in early life--or to make up for qualities missed in a first mother.

Overall, this means stopping attempts to get something from females, all the way from pussy to happiness, with all forms of self-tending in between. Only when we move beyond these typical forms of dependency, usually denied and cloaked with chauvinism and/or self pity, do we face the possibility of truly loving females as they are rather than as we may wish they are.

But this is hard to do; so I empathize with those who face these challenges.

 

 

SELF-DIRECTION

 

--Challenges of self-direction in society where only socially useful roles are supported, e.g., existing as worker, winner, and/or supporter (of family, business, country).

Typically we males fall into these socially functional roles and thereafter live our lives under their tutelage, e.g., being job and/or spouse-directed--that is, living as a "good worker (employee, husband, father, etc.)" who may in fact be quite disconnected from personal characteristics and desires, doing what They tell us to, even if unconsciously.

In practice, this common dependency on roles for direction often means living with time structured by a job during the week and a spouse on weekends. For many men, only retirement and/or grown children bring us to face the possibility of becoming self-determining. Until then, we typically remain almost completely "other-directed" insofar as inherited, unique capacities are concerned.

This challenge, and basis for empathy for men, involves learning to choose one's own way, even while established roles continue to exist and invite dependence on them.

In practice this requires unlearning self-identification with roles only, e.g., boss, employee, husband, etc., but also more personal identifications as "tough," "smart," "he-man" etc. --that is, learning to literally playself-chosen roles without trying to be any of them.

 

 

CREATIVITY

 

--More specifically, this involves becoming creative in terms of self-satisfactions (as females typically learn to do early in life) rather than remaining dependent on external directives.

Specific elements in creativity more commonly embraced by females include: sensitivity and emotionality--expanded awareness of the sensual elements of reality and natural emotional responses to what is seen, heard, felt, etc.

This means, in practice, unrepressing natural male capacities for both sensitivity and feeling--as are commonly repressed in our game oriented lives, that is, in focused type activities such as hunting, winning, and "succeeding."

Before we can ever become personally creative we must unrepress these human capacities more commonly embraced by females; we must learn to be as sensitive in everyday life as we are in hunting, winning, and other goal-focused endeavors. At the same time we must re-establish contact with emotional capacities common to both genders; we must learn to "feel" as well as "think" in responding to reality as we perceive it.

Obviously, most of us typical males face considerable challenges in unrepressing sensitivity and emotions without at the same time denying focus abilities. Still, this is a major requirement for embracing personal creativity rather than continuing to exist only as team members--that is, trying to find ourselves in goal-oriented, outside activities only.

Specific challenges in these arenas include: embracing emotional capacities without becoming a "cry baby" and feeling for/with others without losing oneself in the process--plus embracing sensitivity without losing the male capacity for "being objective" in the sense of remaining focused on goals and "the larger picture."

 

 

SENSUALITY

 

--Learning to embrace and enjoy powers innate in being sensual without rushing to "relief" in being overtly sexual, especially in speeding to orgasm--as though we are either constitutionally incapable of standing such continual excitement, or else so trapped in maleness that we can only enjoy fucking.

In reality, as best I can tell, the continuum of sexuality begins with sense-experiences ("sensuality") as more commonly embraced by females, and continues to fruition in overtly sexy events, notably orgasm--where males tend to focus. Certainly there are good and prevailing genetic reasons for these typical places of focus; but in personhood, beyond gender only, we all have capacities for the whole continuum of sexuality, that is, for being both sensual and sexy, without having to retreat and hide in one or the other.

For males this means escaping the trap of focused fucking only, and embracing other capacities for expanded personal sensuality, as well as participating in those of females we encounter (without either rushing to overt sex or requiring that they give us permission and/or support in doing so).

But after years of focusing mainly on overt sex and suppressing capacities for sensuality, this change can be difficult. Consequently I feel for those who attempt it.

 

 

GIVING IN

 

--Learning to give in without giving up--that is, to act submissive when giving in is pragmatic, without literal self-repression of assertiveness; to use the submissive stance functionally versus compulsively--that is, by choice rather than habit or necessity.

Specifically, this means "growing up" past chauvinism and self-identification with typical macho male images, including identifying oneself with words or "my word."

 

 

COMPREHENSIVE THINKING

 

--Becoming a comprehensive thinker, as well as a more typically male-type focused or "single minded" thinker. Females, of course, do so naturally; but it seems that males in general must learn to think in circular or comprehensive fashion--which becomes a significant challenge after we are practiced at both focused thinking and necessarily "winning" arguments as well as fights.

 

 

GOOD WOMEN

 

--Learning to live well with a "good woman"--that is, to exist comfortably and functionally with a natural female who is identified with her femininity and therefore diligent in its modes and expressions, rather than simply trying to be a "good wife" in the sense of submissive to and supportive of a "man in his castle."

Typically, and more easily we men may either be dictatorial about house and home, requiring female submission (outwardly), or else abandon truly living at home and in effect turn the house over to wifely control, leaving it as her home with us only as supporters of it.

This challenge involves respecting and supporting female values (such as, appearance and cleanliness) without at the same time abandoning male concerns (primarily, function, economy, practicality, etc.)--this, rather than more typical rebellion against, begrudging "giving in to," or emotional abandonment of living at home as well as at the office or the hunting camp, etc.

 

 

LOSING ARGUMENTS

 

--Inability to win arguments with women.

Commonly there are insurmountable barriers preventing men from ever winning arguments with women--really. Conventional male wisdom, "You can never win an argument with a women," is one pragmatic spin off from our different ways of thinking, especially the contrasting values each gender places on thinking itself.

The comprehensive nature of female thinking, for example, allows them to recognize the limitations of thinking in comparison with emotions and intuition (unconscious knowledge). This is especially true both of conscious thinking and especially of words themselves, which form the basis and rules of most conscious thinking, e.g., words and logical arrangement of them easily becomes one type of male idolatry, such as: "being responsible," "making sense," and "living up to one's word."

Seldom do women make the error of word idolatry. Consequently, they can freely use words as verbal tools, as easily dropped as picked up on, and certainly not idolized and/or depended on. Words are to women as guns are to men--often useful in achieving certain goals, but certainly not the only weapon in their arsenal. Women, for example, may use words as long as they are working, but freely drop them when they begin to lose effectiveness, in favor of emotions (e.g., tears) and/or pussy power.

Blinded to our own idolatry and dependence on words and logic for use in arguments, we men commonly remain continually vulnerable to females who are not. Also, given their comprehensive mode of thinking, including better memories of details, as well as emotions, and not limited either by rules of logic or data with obvious connections, females generally have more available information for countering whatever arguments males are able to devise.

In a word, most females can literally think circles around us and more effectively use verbal tools than can we. This, coupled with freedom to leave words when they cease to work, allows distinct female advantages, both in "out arguing" with words by drawing on a wider arena of data and in augmenting verbal tools with emotions (and finally, withdrawal, if not playing their trump card, pussy).

Also, lacking any necessity of winning itself--as are males who become dependent on words and consciousness thinking, gives females an additional advantage in the midst of any argument. Freedom, for example, to say without loss of integrity, "Well let's just drop the subject," or, "Okay, have it your way; you win (without them losing), or to simply change the subject by speaking of some other topic.

When it comes to arguing with females, males, I conclude, at least deserve pity, if not empathy.

 

 

HAVING TO WIN

 

--Challenges inherent in learning that winning isn't everything.

There may be good and sound genetic reasons for sperm-bearers being so diligently focused on winning races. After all, only the one sperm that wins acceptance by an ovum survives, while millions who come in second die soon thereafter. And, it seems, many of us guys who bear them easily become compulsively identified with these genetic facts.

Also, it may be easier for ovum-bearers whose eggs have no competitors and no race to win to learn to keep winning in more proper perspective. But however it happens, less debatable is the fact that women seem to intuitively know that "winning isn't everything"--even that losing may sometimes be more important than winning.

Meanwhile, many of us males remain caught up in living-as-though every competition in life is like a sperm race--where winning truly is everything and to lose is to die. Or, as one coach said, "Winning is not just everything; it's the only thing."

Obviously, if males could remove these all-too-familiar blinders, we might easily see what most females seem to already know, namely, that outside a race for replication, "how you play the game (or even if you play at all)" is often far more relevant than winning. And, contrary to prevailing male wisdom, even losing is often wiser than winning.

Logically speaking, many males may recognize these observations intellectually; but putting them into practice in daily living, and truly learning that every competition is not a sperm race, can become an immense and regular challenge.

And this, when I am occasionally alert rather than compulsively competitive, evokes additional male empathy.

 

 

BLIND IDOLATRIES

 

--I also feel sorry for us males for the places we worship, often unconsciously, in hope of improbable rewards, but at the expense of personal powers commonly sacrificed in quest of favors from our objects of adoration. Among our common idolatries are these:

 1. Sky Gods, created primarily, I suspect, in hopes of bringing freedom from bondage to blindly worshiped Earth Goddesses. This is perhaps the most nearly conscious of major male idolatries yet operative today.

2. Earth Goddesses, beginning with one's birthing mother, whose dark images are later projected onto other females unwittingly chosen either to replace, or in substitution for, Her.

3. Sense making, rooted in even deeper and darker idolatry of words, which are the primary tools of language, beliefs, principles, logical thinking, and the simplest forms of human consciousness.

Dangerous spin-offs of this common form of male (not female) idolatry include: a) unwise dependence on reason as a mode of power for coping with the world, especially, female relationships; b) self identification with stated words, e.g., "word as bond," and willingness to risk limb if not life for keeping, defending, and promulgating one's word(ideas, beliefs, etc.) unrecognized as a projected symbol of one's self--as thoughone's words and one's self were synonymous.

 

 

 

WORSHIPING WOMEN

 BGetting caught up in blind idolatry of femininity; prices paid for unrecognized worship of feminine capacities commonly projected onto all real females, especially those we love, beginning with mother, and "fall in love with” after her.

 

I feel sorry for men for the prices we pay for blindly worshiping women. I say blindlybecause I have never met a man who openly admits to this dark practice; mostly, as best I can tell, we just do so "without thinking"Bthat is, unconsciously. In either case, the costs are not related to what we think, but to what we inevitably pay.

The prices we men pay for worshiping women are amplified by the fact that we rarely if ever see what we are doing and consequently must come up with ways of cloaking our assorted forms of adoration, especially to ourselves. In broadest perspective these are twofold, flip sides of one coin: chauvinism and wimpism, trying to lord it over women to hide our threats and fears of them, or trying to please them in order to ease the dangers we dimly perceive in their presence.

The problem is not helped by the fact that women have good and practical reasons for encouraging this blind habit in quest of satisfying their own needs (More about this in Part I). In spite of the prices they also pay for our modes of coping with their powers, it seems to me that the advantages must far outweigh the costs, given the facts of their diligence in catering to our illusions.

SEEING IDOLATRY

But since the cause of this empathy is not commonly recognized, I need to clarify my own dark perspectives. First, I note that the issue is the phenomenon itself, not whether or not it is recognized, and certainly not what it is named, such as, idolatry. I choose this harsher term, rather than kinder names like adoration and love, because I think it more clearly points to extreme dangers inherent in its practice. Idolatry, as we all know, is badBbut if we cloak its practice in acceptable phrases like "being in love with," or, "just trying to please the little woman," then we may easily evade seeing what we actually do.

Our familiar practices of either trying to dominate females, as in machoism, or being submissive to them in acting like "nice men," become more tolerable (at least to ourselves) than openly facing what we so commonly do. I think that familiar metaphors such as: "putting her on a pedestal," relating as though "the sun rises and sets on her head," "worshiping the ground she walks on," treating her "like she is the center of the universe," etc., come closer to literal truth than simply being analogies.

But whatever we see or don't see, or whatever names and/or metaphors we use to refer to and describe the phenomenon, its practice is what we pay forBand hence the source of my empathy. Obviously there are many advantages to this widespread kind of socially acceptable adoration (an okay term for idolatry), both for us who practice it openly and especially for females who are its recipientsBelse, I conclude, we would not blindly continue to engage in it. And of course the negative cloaks, such as, male chauvinism--especially when acted out in such forms as male-type religions like Christianity and Islam, political and economic suppression, and physical abuse, are costly for females, even abominable; but still the prices paid by males remain.

Male idolatry of females is, I speculate, primarily based on: a) Denial of natural superiority of females, and b) Repressed X-chromosome related male capacities which are then projected onto femalesBwhere they are consequently worshiped and/or fearedBusually in alternating phases.

Male adoration of females is so thoroughly ingrained in our social and religious systems that it is seldom seen as such. More often this serious spiritual error (sin in my theology) is called by other names approved in society, and generally encouraged by females. Almost never is it recognized in consciousness by those most caught up in its practice; in either case, such idolatry is a way-of-being, a relational stanceBwhich may be operative apart from any conscious recognition, like an internal cancer in an otherwise seemingly healthy person.

In spite of what it may seem-in-awareness, such practiced idolatry is characterized on the positive side by blind devotion, unreasonable desires to please, and fears of any displeasure from the adored oneBas evidenced in a goddesses smile or frown, plus servitude, usually with hidden expectations of reward (e.g., in bed or later) but practiced without required compensation.

COSTS

Some of the prices we pay include energies wasted in trying to dominate superior females (e.g., in winning an argument), or to find happiness (get salvation) in their worship. These energies might otherwise be given to: a) becoming one's fuller self as a person rather than a male only, by embracing limited but real feminine-like elements within our genetic selves (e.g., sensitivity and emotionality) versus more familiar uses of exaggerating masculinity used to try to suppress feared femininity; b) becoming better able to cope with their natural superiority, which truly calls for the best we have and can be, versus existing as truncated selves resulting from denied femininity within us all.

 

DISOBEYING MOTHER NATURE

 

--Men for having to disobey impersonal Mother Nature so consistently, in order to keep the favor of one's personal mother and all her later representatives--as in, putting all one's sexual eggs (sperm) in one basket (vagina) (forever!), and not even being able to exercise natural curiosities (e.g., about tits and ass) without threat of shame and rejection if not incarceration and/or hell.

 

***************
Return To Home Page