LIVING WITH WOMEN
 

PREMISES


PRINCIPAL IDEAS


Some of the uncommon, controversial, or perhaps heretical notions which underlie and sometimes appear in my writings on this subject include the following:


1. Vast male unconsciousness. Primal maleness, as I have come to understand our genetic structuring and acquired modes of functioning in society, is still largely "in the dark," both in society and in average men on the streets. My speculated content of natural male unconsciousness--that which can be expected to appear when any man is analyzed or dares to face his "darker side," includes these commonly denied elements. If an average male "gets honest with himself," these are my predictions about what he will discover about "who I am":


a. Female idolatry; primal experience of god as goddess.

b. Incestuous desires--that is, sexuality in family settings.

c. Homosexual attractions; same-sex interests which originate pre-puberty.

d. Projections of male power; masculine generated powers recognized only as mirrored in females, as in, "turn on" abilities.

e. Extent of dominance/submission--abuse and worship, of women as a way of surviving and coping with denied powers of femininity.

f. Lost sense of true male selfing which inevitably occurs when men identify ourselves with social memes, either for "good" or "bad" images of ourselves.

g. Lost awareness of the "female shadow" in every male--that is, capacities emerging from an X chromosome in each of our cells, the "female part" of who all we males also are.

h. Lost capacity for self-caring, which is largely projected onto women, beginning with mother and continuing on to spouses and femininity in general.


2. Bad shake in society. With good pragmatic reasoning, natural maleness is primarily judged negatively in social circumstances. Only in war times, in the "jungle," and in carefully ruled athletics, do male genes get invited into human circumstances. This is in sharp contrast to social acceptance of female genetics, which is inherently supported by most social structures.


3. Power imbalance. Femininity, I conclude, is basically, inherently more power-packed than masculinity. This power imbalance, weighted in favor of primal femininity over genetic masculinity, begins with the biological fact of two powerful XX chromosomes in each cell, contrasted with only one X in males, plus a weaselly Y, and is further supported by social structures ("memes") which have existed from the beginning of recorded history–operative in religions, laws, mores, and group rules recognized in etiquette, "polite behavior," and other subtle guidelines for socially acceptable behavior.


4. Mother/son experience. All parent/child encounters are significant, as are sibling relationships--mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister; but mother/son experience is, I conclude, vastly more determinative of childhood shaping and future behavior. It is, I believe, harder for a boy to reach relative maturity than for a girl, given the greater power of mother/son experience over father/daughter learning.


5. Incest taboo. The proverbial "incest taboo"--which I understand to be about conscious and overt sexuality in a family setting (where genes are shared), applies to all family members; but I think it is more consequential for males because of the differing nature of male and female sexuality.


6. Two major male modes of coping. Although feminine modes of survival and succeeding in family settings are quite diverse, common male modes are far more limited; in fact they can be summarized in two main categories, with only slight variations on these major themes. Boys, to survive and cope, are largely limited to being "good" or "bad." The "good boy" mode (the one I took), involves "minding your mother," that is, accepting her memes and becoming compliant (at least outwardly) with them. This commonly leads to "loving your mother"--putting her on a pedestal, "behaving yourself," and constantly trying to "please women." The corollary mode of "being bad" is simply the opposite side of the same coin--acting rebellious rather than compliant, condemning rather than adoring, putting down on females rather than elevating them, and trying to displease (even unconsciously) rather than please.


7. Unrecognized spiritual abuse. Historical and still prevalent male physical abuse of females, as in, religion, the work place, the home, and in bed, is finally coming to public recognition; still commonly hidden to social consciousness is all-too-common spiritual abuse of males by "well meaning" females. Physical abuse is certainly bad, but the consequences of spiritual abuse are often deeper, more far reaching, and worse in time. Cuts and bruises of the body tend to heal much faster than metaphored "cutting" and "battering" of the heart--including, female abuse of masculinity which is completely legal and even socially supported under the name of "love."


8. Religious and legal structures. On the surface, religious commandments and social laws are theoretically not gender-biased. In practice, and below the level of common social recognition, I think that popular religions and prevailing legal structures unwittingly undermine masculinity and unduly support femininity--all this while appearing to do the opposite. I think that masculine unconsciousness (Number 1, above) is unwittingly projected into both religion and politics in subtle ways which may protect both ourselves and vulnerable females outwardly, but with potentially devastating inward consequences.


  1. 9.Male cockiness/compliance. Macho males and hen-pecked husbands, brutes and wimps, cloak, mostly to ourselves, unseen capacities for individual independence, sans salvation via femininity.


**********