What frightens me: male/female politics

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Dan says:

>>Women can't rule without first defeating men, the

original rulers. The old king must be deposed. You

can't do this without

adopting the ways and means of men - without becoming

*like* men. And once you have, what's the

difference?<<

>--That may be true to some extent. There must be both

>the " warrior woman " and the " pure woman " in order for

>the alchemy to progress. That means both an increase

>in the number of women successfully competing with men

>on their own ground, and an increasing focus on

>community, morality and compassion. Together, those

>forces will sweep the remnants of patriarchical

>lizard-brain

Lizards are not paternal. They do not love their young. Your rhetoric needs some

work. I suggest Aristotle's book of the same name :-).

>linearity like a good rainstorm. It is

>only a matter of how much damage male-supremacist

>groups do before they admit (consciously, or through

>increasingly unstable behavior) that the problem is

>within and can no longer projected outward.

I predict that what you call the damage may be the salvation of us all.

>This may frighten you, but it does not frighten me.

What frightens me is the specter of the last man, or the prospect of 10,000

years of the deification of mediocrity. However, I grow increasingly optimistic.

Global warming seems, after all, to be real, and may provide the pressure under

which we will yet again be human. It may be the saving of humanity. Lest anyone

think that I am being ironic, I can assure you that I am not. The recent

statements by President Clinton - a remarkably intelligent man who, just as

remarkably, manages to be wrong about almost everything that really matters - to

the effect that we will never achieve a truly global society if we don't tackle

global warming seem to me to be spot on. Since I do not want a truly global

society and I do not believe that we will tackle global warming, such statements

are heartening to me.

>Only a continuation of the linear, compartmentalizing

>mindset in politics frightens me.

Then be afraid, be very afraid, because ain't no other kind of politics.

>Yes, a woman leading

>a mostly male group will become " male " and may even

>act more recklessly than a man would in order to

>secure her own power and dispel the appearance of

>weakness. But I am talking about a sea change, a step

>forward in cultural evolution, and the insecurity and

>autism of " manly-men " will lead them to either become

>supportive of powerful women, or render them

>increasingly irrelevant.

They will not allow themselves to be made irrelevant, don't you see that? That's

one of the things that makes them " manly men. " You don't make Alcibiades

irrelevant - well, there is maybe *one* way, and that is to kill him. Then where

are you?

>Men who are in touch with

>their authentic masculinity will be driven equally to

>develop their own authority and to endorse that of

>strong women. Men whose authentic male energy has died

>will either find some path to healing, or they will

>cling to powerful male groups with increasing loss of

>integrity and ethics, until those groups become a

>shadow of their fathers, cut off and ashamed.

>The reptilian brain is losing its armor,

Let's hope not. Demylination can lead to serious disease, and even insanity.

> and empathy

>with wisdom is the next wave.

Wisdom cannot be " a wave, " insofar as " wave " refers to a kind of universality.

Only a few are wise.

> Yes, the reptilian

>machinery will grind on, and no, it won't " win " (even

>if it wins politically, it shames itself through bad

>management and toxic entrainment patterns). The trance

>of compulsive masculinity leads to greater insecurity

>in the long run. It's not authentic, and doesn't

>stand. At heart, it is men leaning on male

>establishment symbolism, incestuously attaching

>themselves to something that awed them as children

>rather than gaining their own authority and integrity

>as male mammals. It's a farce, and men know it.

Which men know it?

You have made many predictions above. Can you base them on anything but wishes?

> As

>Norah (the woman who lived as a man and

>infiltrated " male culture " ) wrote, men wear armor ten

>sizes too large, and their insecurity leads them to

>impoverish their own spirits. In politics, or anywhere

>else.

>As a compassionate man, I understand how it all

>affects you, and I agree there is a lot of poison

>between genders that can lead both sexes to behave

>badly. I empathize with your fear of civilization

>unraveling

My fear is more of it *not* unraveling at this point, I think.

>(I think everyone does at this point,

>although they point fingers in different directions).

>And as a " real man " , all I can say is, " deal with it "

I intend to. I will not shame you or my other well-wishers by dying without a

fight ;-)..

Best,

Dan

__________________________________________________

Dan says:

>>Women can't rule without first defeating men, the

original rulers. The old king must be deposed. You

can't do this without

adopting the ways and means of men - without becoming

*like* men. And once you have, what's the

difference?<<

--That may be true to some extent. There must be both

the " warrior woman " and the " pure woman " in order for

the alchemy to progress. That means both an increase

in the number of women successfully competing with men

on their own ground, and an increasing focus on

community, morality and compassion. Together, those

forces will sweep the remnants of patriarchical

lizard-brain linearity like a good rainstorm. It is

only a matter of how much damage male-supremacist

groups do before they admit (consciously, or through

increasingly unstable behavior) that the problem is

within and can no longer projected outward.

This may frighten you, but it does not frighten me.

Only a continuation of the linear, compartmentalizing

mindset in politics frightens me. Yes, a woman leading

a mostly male group will become " male " and may even

act more recklessly than a man would in order to

secure her own power and dispel the appearance of

weakness. But I am talking about a sea change, a step

forward in cultural evolution, and the insecurity and

autism of " manly-men " will lead them to either become

supportive of powerful women, or render them

increasingly irrelevant. Men who are in touch with

their authentic masculinity will be driven equally to

develop their own authority and to endorse that of

strong women. Men whose authentic male energy has died

will either find some path to healing, or they will

cling to powerful male groups with increasing loss of

integrity and ethics, until those groups become a

shadow of their fathers, cut off and ashamed.

The reptilian brain is losing its armor, and empathy

with wisdom is the next wave. Yes, the reptilian

machinery will grind on, and no, it won't " win " (even

if it wins politically, it shames itself through bad

management and toxic entrainment patterns). The trance

of compulsive masculinity leads to greater insecurity

in the long run. It's not authentic, and doesn't

stand. At heart, it is men leaning on male

establishment symbolism, incestuously attaching

themselves to something that awed them as children

rather than gaining their own authority and integrity

as male mammals. It's a farce, and men know it. As

Norah (the woman who lived as a man and

infiltrated " male culture " ) wrote, men wear armor ten

sizes too large, and their insecurity leads them to

impoverish their own spirits. In politics, or anywhere

else.

As a compassionate man, I understand how it all

affects you, and I agree there is a lot of poison

between genders that can lead both sexes to behave

badly. I empathize with your fear of civilization

unraveling (I think everyone does at this point,

although they point fingers in different directions).

And as a " real man " , all I can say is, " deal with it "

__________________________________________________