Of all the dualisms generally proffered
in this age of binary stupidity, one which too often proves
dysfunctionally divisive and the source of much violence yet which is
amongst the most primal of dichotomies we know, masculine/feminine is
perhaps the most mistakenly arrayed in the prominent “Western”
socio-cultural constructions and general milieu. The assumption that
male=aggression/action and female=passive is in fact nigh the polar
opposite of the teachings of tantra and yoga in general, and of many
of the rest of the world's cultures. The tantric understanding of
such is that masculinity in archetypal perfection is Shiva, God the
Destroyer, most compassionate One and Master of Yoga, source of peace
and tranquility. Though Parvati, Goddess Mother of the Universe, is
sometimes engaged in meditation and austerities, She is most often
represented as active, slaying demons, riding Her big kitty cat
Dharma, adoring Her Husband or his lingum or caring for children. Shiva is mostly depicted sitting in meditation, and only
occasionally in action.
Not to get too Freudian, mind you, but
to look at the tantric perspective of the relationship of female and
male from an archetypal and deconstruction perspective, from the
perspective of form, it only makes sense that the male, bearing the
projecting part, ought play the more passive role to effect a
legitimate balance, and that the female, bearing receptive parts,
ought play the more active or even aggressive role to effect the
same. This natural and balanced state, represented in matriarchal
societies and in some guises in Hindu culture (and in many
undercurrents in “Western” culture), is not unlike the Hindu
understanding of the Destroyer aspect/expression of the Divine as the
Most Compassionate, thus balancing potential destructive force by
placing such with the One most likely to show mercy and forbearance.
Similarly in relation to gender, the one bearing “the rod” ought
be the one with the most restraint, and the one who is to be
penetrated, or better the receptive party, ought thus be the more
active if not aggressive player in the partnership.
In the general
“Western” understanding, promoted if not primarily promulgated in
some guise by all three of the Abrahamic religions, does a great
disservice to both men and women by a formation of gender that links
male to aggression and female to passivity, in effect justifying
violence against women because, “Oh, that's just the nature of
men/masculinity.” In Nature the true nature of the male is
passivity, to be the “pillar” so to speak. Though of certainty
testosterone, when not properly utilized via right mind and right
practice and true Nature, is potentially a physiological cause of aggressive
behavior, the basic assumptions made by American/"Western" culture that woman
is/ought be passive and male is/ought be aggressive/active foments
discord undue, and is certainly to no small degree responsible for
“rape culture” as such exists in this society. Were masculinity
associated with quiet strength, wise reserve and compassion, and the
feminine as active, dynamic and potent (Shakti, the name of Shiva's
Wife/Consort and an appellation applied likewise to designate Laksmi
and Saraswati, Consorts of the Maintainer and Creator, means
“Power”), such things as political correctness would
have no meaning as such is a response to discursive abuses of power
that are largely a product of the preexistent misdeployal of gender,
and the divorce rate would almost certainly thus plummet. If
culture, mores and etiquette taught and fomented those constructions
and conceptions of gender which are indeed more natural to humans
(outside of cultural contrivances and patterning)--again, male as
passive and female as active, and terms like “sissy” and “pussy”
put into disuse (obviously discursive violences at least indirectly
abusive to both men and women), then gender bias and most sex crimes
would cease to perpetuate.
Now
mind you, I'm not saying you will find that such a more healthy
gender balance is extant in say, Indian culture generally, as
patriarchal influences have been present for many years in Indian
society in juxtaposition to said more natural balance of male and
female presented in tantra and yoga generally. Nonetheless, to shift
and reform gender consciousness and cultural binaries towards a
pattern of “male=passive, female=active” as presented in tantra
yoga would certainly do much to balance sex and gender disparities
and injustices present in society generally, and such would also
almost certainty improve mental health in our society as many of
those ailments are in fact derived from or directly caused by gender
formation issues created in and by a society that wrongfully and
mistakenly arranges gender in the first place!! The very
“penetrative” project of “manifest destiny” and the necessary
correlative construct of male=aggressive in what has been designated
“Western culture” is symptomatic of misdirected masculine impetus
and potency, and indeed not of a basic flaw in “male nature.”
The key to correcting such is not to encourage men to be more
“feminine,” but in fact to rethink the very constructions of
masculine and feminine in light of those more ancient deployals and in light of Nature, and thus to recognize that Western constructions are not
equal to nor necessarily the same as Nature's construction of gender.
We are free to reimagine and reconstruct what it means to be a man
and what it means to be a woman, and would do well to do so in light
of the perpetuations of violence so endemic in this day and age under
current constructions, violences that would likely dissipate were we
to return to turn to those better constructions of that most basic
binary as is proffered by yoga, Nature, and nigh all of our ancestral
cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment