Archive for category Spirituality

Hierarchy Dance

SheilaG commented on the conclusion of the Men Without Women series here. Everything she said was spot on:

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

, , ,

8 Comments

Men Without Women, Part 7: Conclusion

A brief (I promise) recap of the series:

  1. Female spirituality is the core structure of a sustainable, equitable, harmonious social structure.
  2. Male entitlement and power-seeking behavior is the antithesis of a sustainable, equitable, harmonious social structure.
  3. If men wish to be allowed to be part of the solution (or to live through the revolution), we must turn to ourselves and begin the long and inevitably painful process of excising our entitlement and power-seeking behavior.
    • As sexuality and sex roles have become the basis of modern society, we must begin by addressing how our entitlement and power-seeking are embedded in those arenas.
  4. We must be conscious of and honest about the road which led us here in order to affect true change and keep us vigilant in the future.
  5. Voluntary relationships are the expression of human compassion, selflessness, and affirmation. Obligate relationships will not suffice, and no social or legal structure based solely on obligation is sustainable.

We began with a set of related questions: What would men be like without women to put on the brakes? What would a more sustainable society involving men and women look like? What has to happen to move toward that goal?
Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , ,

3 Comments

Men Without Women, Part 6: What We Could Be

When I was in grade school, our social studes texts taught us that Dwight Eisenhower invented the nuclear family to encourage suburban sprawl, so that when the bomb got dropped on our cities, our population wouldn’t be destroyed as a result of critical concentration.

Of course, family units had been growing smaller for a long time – a long, long time. Take a look at this brief paper by the American Economic Association. (Luckily, the important bit is before the Keynesian economic drivel really starts dripping onto the page). It discusses the history in Europe of the sharpest double-edged sword in human history: the corporation.

Most of us now think of corporations in general economic terms – for-profit, non-profit, limited liability, et cetera; or, in history, guilds, expeditionary charters, trading companies, and the like. But the history of the corporation is the story of people coming together in the face of widespread social disorder with the hope of establishing an insulating bubble of order around themselves. Communes, regional defense cordons, extragovernmental guilds and farm shares: these were the first corporations, the foundations for restabilization of national governments, replaced by chartered corporations owned by and managed by those governments.

The problem, of course, is that the entrants into a corporation are rarely on equal footing from the start, and corporations have a very dry, dispassionate, anti-holistic view of their membership.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

5 Comments

Men Without Women, Part 5: How We Got Here

There’s no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.

Valerie Solanas, “S.C.U.M. Manifesto

The part that really sticks out for me from the above quote is not “rational beings capable of empathizing”, which is really a condemnation of men’s irrationality and unempathic nature. It’s just declaring the status quo, that men are irrational and unempathic. It’s lateral thinking. What really grabbed me was the next clause: “complete and having no natural reason to compete”. That had the ring of hope. Completion – it sounds achingly satisfying.

Solanas writes elsewhere in her manifesto about males and incompletion: “the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage.” Which got me searching for information about the Y chromosome itself.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Men Without Women, Part 4: Celibacy

Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse has been making the rounds among the feminist blogs, as those who’ve never read it tackle the contents and those who have read it discuss how it’s impacted their lives. I’ve been plugging through the book myself, though between my children and Dworkin’s thick writing, it’s slow going; I’ve gotten more out of the internet debate surrounding the book than from the book itself (so far).

One of the ideas to come out of the discussion of the book has been that heterosexuals especially should evaluate the role of penetrative sex in their lives. Why is there an idea of “foreplay” that isn’t itself “sex”, the ultimate goal of which is to lead to sex – penetrative sex, specifically penis-in-vagina (since penetrative oral sex is also part of “foreplay”)? What would sex be like without penetration?

Part of what it’s gelled for me is that male sexuality is nothing without penetration in modern society, because all other forms of sexual activity are dismissed as feminizing, except for masturbation – which itself is only okay within certain constraints: you must still be experiencing regular penetrative sex; you must be using porn or otherwise engaging in objectification; you may not have any emotional or spiritual investment in your sex life at all, and especially with masturbation, and your sex life likewise cannot enter your emotional and spiritual life.

One of our strongest definitions of a man is someone who has the power and position to be dismissive. If we’re going to redefine men, we’re going to have to stop being dismissive – of women, of “feminizing” qualities, of our own spirituality and sexual natures. We’re going to have to reclaim sex in the name of spirituality even as we reclaim spirituality itself.
Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Men Without Women, Part 3: The Withdrawal Method

Men cannot coexist with women in the current state of affairs. We destroy women, we destroy each other, we destroy everything around us. We grab, we feed, we spit.

There’s been a call for female separatism for decades. I’m behind it. Women should abstain from interacting with men when possible. Women should carve out their own communities, create their own supports, glom together into a terrifying mass to overthrow entrenched patriarchy.

Then again, as I stated (via extreme metaphor) in the last post in this series, that would be awfully bad for men. So if we want a place in the world of women, we’re going to have to pull ourselves together and show that we deserve one. Not to mention that just by being around, we get in the way of female separatism.

I advocate male separatism. OMG FLAMETHROWERS DOWN. This is not Promise Keepers, or a weekend at hunt’n camp, or Southern Decadence. No Tyler Durden, no Fight Club, no space monkeys. Nor is it “getting in touch with our feminine side”. That’s strawman rhetoric used to dickwhip men back into line.
Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Men Without Women, Part 1: Spiritual Framework

I recently read a comments thread on another blog. I spent last night frantically searching for it, but no luck yet. I’ll update if I find it. Anyway, the discussion had a brief diversionary track which caught my attention. The topic was separatism, and one commenter in particular considered what men would do for sex with no women around. The obvious answer was to have sex with each other, which became the general consensus.

On the immediate surface, I agree with that conclusion. However, that part of the discussion really stuck with me, and I’ve considered it for a week or so now. A conversation with my wife a couple of nights back really cemented a lot of ideas which had been unformed until that point, and I have some thoughts to bang out on the matter.
Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

Leave a comment