Blog Action Day: the pedestal alone must have cost a fortune...

Mon, 2007-10-15 15:47

So today seems to be Blog Action Day. Their website says

On October 15th, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind – the environment. Every blogger will post about the environment in their own way and relating to their own topic. Our aim is to get everyone talking towards a better future.

And how, one might wonder, does a sex blogger post about the environment in his own way and relating to his own topic, with an aim to get everyone talking towards a better future?

I’d say one good way would be to look back nearly 38 years in order to develop on this post about men’s belief that they must be “worthy” and/or “earn” sex. Watch this.

So some time before 1970 Germaine Greer wrote, in some draft of The Female Eunuch, a scathing indictment of an image of women, created by men for men’s benefit, that Greer called “The Stereotype.” (Note: read carefully and wait for the last lines in the following excerpt.)

She is more body than soul, more soul than mind. To her belongs all that is beautiful, even the very word beauty itself. All that exists to beautify her. The sun shines only to burnish her skin and gild her hair; the wind blows only to whip up the colour in her cheeks; the sea strives to bathe her; flowers die gladly so that her skin may luxuriate in their essence. She is the crown of creation, the masterpiece. The depths of the sea are ransacked for pearl and coral to deck her; the bowels of the earth are laid open that she might wear gold, sapphires, diamonds and rubies. Baby seals are battered with staves, unborn lambs ripped from their mothers’ wombs, millions of moles, muskrats, squirrels, minks, ermines, foxes, beavers, chinchillas, ocelots, lynxes, and other small and lovely creatures die untimely deaths that she might have furs. Egrets, ostriches and peacocks, butterflies and beetles yield her their plumage. Men risk their lives hunting leopards for her coats, and crocodiles for her handbags and shoes. Millions of silkworms offer her their yellow labours; even the seamstresses roll seams and whip lace by hand, so that she might be clad in the best that money can buy.

The men of our civilization have stripped themselves of the fineries of earth so that they might work more freely to plunder the universe for treasures to deck my lady in. New raw materials, new processes, new machines are all brought into her service.

...

The stereotype is the Eternal Feminine. She is the Sexual Object sought by all men, and by all women. She is of neither sex, for she has herself no sex at all. her value is solely attested by the demand she excites in others. All she must contribute is her essence. She need achieve nothing, for she is the reward of achievement. She need never give positive evidence of her moral character because virtue is assumed from her loveliness and her passivity. If any man who has no right to her be found with her she will not be punished, for she is morally neuter. The matter is solely one of male rivalry.

It would be extremely easy to mistake Greer’s indictment of the near-Platonic ideal trophy contested over by men as indicting… blaming... women. We get enough of that already and it’s not even true (at least not in the sense of “truth” being that which is still even when everyone stops believing it.) That’s not to say no women participate in it, or even gain from it to one degree or another. But even to that extent it’s difficult to assign blame to people who play a game when it’s the only game they’re permitted to play or, as in some parts of the world, the only game in town.

I might add that to the extent it’s perceived as the only game in town, a staggering degree, by men themselves, even men aren’t to blame for it. Which, while subjectively tragic in the extreme I see as objectively great since, if the exits can only be lit — lit well enough to reveal there “be no dragons” beyond — that men as well as women will head for those exists. In droves.

Until then… yeah, if you consider how wealth itself has been repurposed, how exploitation of mountain ranges, of species, of peoples, of oceans, of atmosphere, of posterity itself has served only to further “the matter … solely one of male rivalry” then the peculiarly sexless sexual ideal — “The Stereotype” as Greer labels it, has been Hell on the environment.

The kicker? It’s a big kicker.

Via Jessica of Feministing, a Rutgers study suggests that...

...having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.

<Read the report here.

The cool thing about feminism is that men and women can appreciate each other for each other instead of for our worthiness if we’re men or our worth if we’re women. And those who can handle real, human attraction needn’t put themselves, or the planet, out in ephemeral and ultimately futile gestures of worthiness and worth.

Submitted by 1679 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-10-18 22:01.

I'm just saying what I think those archetypes stem from.

Okay, fl.
Fine.
Suit yourself.

[Leaves comment area, followed by: the Great Mother, the Hero, the Shadow, the Anima, the Senex, and the Syzygy.]

Great Mother: I can't believe he said that, what I think *those* archetypes stem from. After all I've done for him...

Hero: You should have read his other post. He made me feel totally worthless.

Anima: Hey, I don't even qualify as an *archetype* -- I'm just a stereotype. Next time he has writer's block, he can suck chili peppers until the cows come home.

Shadow: That's the trouble with these online personalities: you never know what's lies beneath the surface.

Senex: All this time I thought I was his role model. I'm getting to old for this.

Syzygy: And we were so close to finally, finally getting his unconscious to talk with his conscious...

[Now now, I didn't say all archetypes, and I didn't even say anime/anima are bogus or bad or wrong. Just that there might not be *one* who's gender is incidental rather than essential. (And don't get me wrong -- some of my most vivid dreams ever, not to mention wistful/blissful/erotic ones, have been of or with my anima. So I'm *really* really not discounting it.) Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]

Submitted by 1679 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-10-18 13:08.

At this point I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say my... call it men's intuition... tells me that anime/anima aren't true archetypes at all but defenses/reflexes/neuroses arising out of an insistence that men be men and women be women and never the twain overlap.

While you're sitting on that limb, ponder this: one of the tenets of Jungian theory is that each person, regardless of gender, needs both masculine and feminine attributes to be a fully functional human being. There are times to be introspective and times when you must act. As a parent, there are times to be nurturing and times to be detached. I agree that if the cultural milieu in which you are raised insists that men be men and women be women and never the twain overlap, the anima projection of a man will be an exaggerated projection of feminine attributes, as portrayed in the art/literature of the culture and the dreams of the individual, which are IMO two mirrored surfaces which reflect one another. But I would not discard the animus/anima theory with such alacrity, fl, because it really does support your theory of the no-sex class. To summarize, IMO the animus/anima are true archetypes, even though they may be portrayed within a particular culture in a stereotypical way.

[Just to be clear I'm not discarding, or even discounting anything from Jung. I'm just saying what I think those archetypes stem from. I *certainly* agree that the idea supports the no-sex class. The classical notion that all sexuality is male (for instance) certainly reinforces... and practically defines... the notion that asexuality is *consequently* female! I just believe it's a) wrong and b) counterproductive -- sometimes murderously (see Ted "what's the life of one girl more or less?" Bundy) so. Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]

Submitted by 1679 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-10-15 23:50.

And how, one might wonder, does a sex blogger post about the environment in his own way and relating to his own topic, with an aim to get everyone talking towards a better future?

Hey, Figleaf, enjoying sex and enjoying it often is good for the environment. ;-) When people have sex with adequate reproduction and protection from STD's):

1. They are not at the mall buying things they don't need that will end up in the garbage.

2. If people don't spend as much time at the mall, they won't need to work as much overtime to payoff their credit cards, which means businesses and stores could close earlier and use less electricity and fossil fuels.

3. They are not sitting in front of the tv consuming excess calories.

4. If the tv and perhaps the lights are off, the consumption of fossil fuel will be less.

5. They'll be more relaxed, experience less stress, and may not need alcohol or drugs to take off the edge.

Of course as I am writing this I realize that the free market analysts will say that, if everybody followed this advice, we would face a total economic collapse. So I guess it is our patriotic duty to eat and buy junk. :-(

P.S. How much did you pay for that pedestal?

[For me rather than an actual pedestal it's thumbtacks -- as in the thumbtacks with which, especially, young men pin posters of whomever the supermodel du jour might be and then measure not only their real partners but their asperations against. Whoever the real people behind the posters might be, their image (Greer called it "stereotype," Selena Kitt perhaps more accurately says "archetype") inspires in the viewer (not creates, not demands) all manner of ethical, moral, and ultimately environmental striving to be "worthy." Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]

Submitted by 1679 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-16 08:28.

There's a fine line between stereotype and archetype... but it's an important one. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[I agree that archetype might be a better term although it's worth noting that people rarely strive to embody or possess archetypes (if that's even possible) the way they do to fit stereotypes. Plastic surgery and credit card debt seem like two ways people try. Thanks, Selena. --fl]

Submitted by 1679 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-16 15:10.

Figleaf,

Although my first comment was light-hearted, I recognize that this is an insightful post. But I agree with Selena Kitt when she states, There's a fine line between stereotype and archetype... but it's an important one. Perhaps I am partial to the Jungian concept of archetypes because several of my instructors in graduate school as well as my therapist were adherents of Jungiaan theory. As I see it, the boy who thumbtacks to his bedroom wall a poster of a contemporary goddess, the poet who composes stanzas in her honor, or the executive who seeks the trophy wife are all seeking (perhaps ineptly) the same thing: the anima, the feminine aspect of his own psyche. I am aware that some may call this Jungian concept of male and female archetypes psycho-babble, but IMO the concept of archetypes comes closer to dismantling gender stereotypes than any other argument or theory.

Why? Because each one of us, man or woman, possesses both male and female attributes, or attributes classified as male or female. The balance changes based on our ages, our lives, and the challenges we face. And the fact that men and women share these attributes is what adherents of the no-sex class ignore.

[At this point I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say my... call it men's intuition... tells me that anime/anima aren't true archetypes at all but defenses/reflexes/neuroses arising out of an insistence that men be men and women be women and never the twain overlap. And that's based in part on how no autopsy, no brain scan, no antibody-based survey, no test no matter how subtle can identify the part of a man that's his "feminine" side, nor a woman her masculine one. That doesn't mean there aren't differences (thank goodness!) but that they're not *exclusive* ones. Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]

User login