Friday, August 20, 2010

A note on constructed masculinity

"Need without feeling" -- a preliminary description of the stereotypical state of being in male sexuality. This state would cause incredible emotional pain in any individual. This pain would cause persons to seek relief and release in others (individuals constructed as women in a binary gender system). "You're nice, so..."
This removal of emotionality as a legitimate component in male desire is a source of the self-perpetuation of stereotypical male-female conditions and relationships.

This is an intuition based upon my own suppression of feeling due to, partially having this expectation upon myself due to my upbringing, and partially a deliberate though half-forgotten attempt to model male behavior and emotional conditions within myself in order to resolve questions of the whys, wherefores and sources of the binary gender system for those unconvinced persons whether "male" or "female" who do not wish to see the constructedness of the system, its effects, and its damaging results for EVERYBODY.

Who would emotionless desire benefit? Who does the division of society into men and women benefit? It seems to me that those persons are ones who extract wealth and position from such divisions, who in Western society are those who deliberately hide their sexuality from the common round of people in order to perpetuate their power to manipulate such people. These are people who hold onto money through pretending their sexual conduct within their social life is a "private matter" having no effect on others or who legitimate such self-assertions. In other words these are the sexual hypocrites among us, whether rich or their hangers-on, the right-wing religious leaders.

This is an overly simplified and schematic account, yet I believe that it is successful in tracing the ongoing and thus "historical" relationship between individual emotional conditions and the social beneficiaries of such conditions.



A personal reaction to what brought about the above writing and the consequences of it for me.

I feel on the one hand a great frustration that my mind constantly works on problems related to the one expressed here and yet rarely do I succeed in communicating the results of this WORK; and on the other hand a great frustration that I have ignored my own feelings to accomplish this.

These feelings are:

awareness that I am isolated; resentment of this; exhaustion because of this; knowledge of inauthenticity; hope of receiving emotional comfort.

I believe that no one need feel that they must destroy their own natural predilections for the sake of proving some sort of hypothesis about society. Yet how else will all believe that the social and individual distortions and pain related to the binary gender system NEED once and for all to dissipate?

I rather prefer to know how there is feeling within me than how there may not be legitimate feeling within society. The fact that there is feeling within me in and of itself is an argument to obviate the system of legitimation/non-legitimation. This is a plea that others recognize my humanity as well as their own.

A home for Julia
Is all around

Stark pest flow.

Strangely enough no one likes being free when trying happiness in love.

I am a lost and terrorized person.

Believe in the universe within. It is there for you and will give you kindness and joy without destruction of your being or that of others you love.

Interesting.

I know in this moment that my feelings are hopeful and that I must restore myself to functioning as a whole person. Please do not abandon me. Love me please I'm tired.

JKH wrote me. She needs friends to contact her.

P.S. Subject for another time: I don't believe God sexualizes me.

3 comments:

  1. There is an interview with Catherine Keller you might be interested in. It is in the book "Listening To The Land: Conversations About Nature, Culture, and Eros" by Derrick Jensen. Briefly: "Alan Watts said one of the prime hallucinations of Western culture -- and I would add the paradigm of dominance -- is the belief you are a skin-encapsulated ego. . . . This leads to what I have termed the separative ego. . . . There are many problems with this model, not the least of which is that it doesn't match reality. . . . When we live in a state of defense, there is no moment-to-moment feeding from the richness of the endless relations in which we exist."

    She says more, and some others interviewed (for the book is a compilation of discussions with different people) also talk of the same things . . . not the least of which are the whys, wherefors and whathavewes of the patriarchy, or as one person described it, the war heirarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for commenting and for the intelligence and helpfulness of the comment.

    Yours,
    c*

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you first for commenting and thank you also for being so intelligent and helpful.

    ReplyDelete

Go Ahead: Comment.