“Men often say joining the Army “made a man” out of them. I know of no woman who says the same thing about joining the military.”
That’s because the idea of “making a man out of” a woman is an absurd statement. Military service might drag someone into adulthood kicking and screaming (or not) but these days it honestly has nothing to do with whether the individual servicemember has a penis or not.
As to men “losing privilege” – welcome to the lives of the other half of the world, guys. I’m in favor of equality based on individual proclivities and talents, not biological determinism. I have never had nor have I ever wanted children. I would find it so utterly destructive of my personal life that I would not ever inflict such a thing on some poor child. No kid needs to grow up with a parent as messed up as I am.

If women replaced men as the greater proportion of the work force, but the character of the political economy did not otherwise change–What difference in life circumstances would it make?
Power over is power over. Dangerous working conditions are dangerous working conditions. Low wages are low wages. Industrial pollution is ondustrial pollution. Alienation is alienation. Oppression is oppression.
Gender guarantees nothing about the character of the ruling class.

On the biological level of man and woman, let me address this first. Physically men are faster, stronger, and geneally more aggressive, which I agree, makes them better suited to physical labor such as farming, factory work, construction, etc.
On the level of masculine and feminine, I believe men are better suited to making decisions, as they can do this without the interfence of worrying about the way it will make another person feel. Women are better suited to the healing and caring arts such as teaching, nursing, and child care, as these all take terriffic advantage of the female special ability to magickly, with a kiss and a kind word, make most any injury “all better”.
As to patriarchial and matriarchial: This is to say the least, the most rediculous seperation of all. The reason I say this, is that noone can make anyone else submit to their will without severe rebellion. I do still believe the man should be the head of the household, as I said yesterday, however, I know from experience, that when the male head of the household is too power hungry, the subordinents WILL rebel.

I certainly HOPE we aren’t seeing the “end of men”. The world needs the balance of male energy and I need my eye candy!
However, I find Mouseytalons’ concept of having a “head” of a household comical. My parents shared the “power” in our home. If my dad had tried to assert that he was the “head” of our household – my mom would have CROWNED that head with a frying pan ;-D
So in my marriage, neither of us is the “head” of the household. (The three CATS are!)
Seriously, I would never want to rely upon my husband to make all the decisions, as though somehow I’m the inferior or stupid partner in our marriage. And it’s a good thing I feel that way; when I was widowed from my previous husband in 1996 there were PLENTY of decisions that needed to be made both while he was in the hospital in a coma, and after he died. And I was able to handle them. You don’t want to become too comfortable leaning on someone like a crutch; you NEED to be able to stand on your own.
Men are physically stronger than women yes – so hire someone to move your furniture if you need to. Get that handsome neighbor next door to open that stuck lid on the pickle jar. But don’t surrender your right to make decisions that affect YOUR life, just because as a woman you might lack the physical strength of a man.
My husband and I are equals in our marriage. We share decisions and responsibilities, and I couldn’t imagine it any other way.

Erynn-
I meant that no woman says joining the army made a woman out of her. She has her reasons for joining and may think she benefitted from doing so at its conclusion – but not in that way.
Mouseytalons-
You slander decent men and elevate the sociopaths to a bogus normalcy when you say men are not concerned with the impact of their decisions on other people. Decent people of both genders take others’ feeling into consideration. I am sorry you appear to feel inferior to those who do not give a damn about other people when decisions have to be made.

Hi Gus,
“‘Feminine’ and ‘masculine’ refer to qualities, often analogous to yin and yang. In my view the easiest way to distinguish between them is how they relate to boundaries. Masculine values assert, define, strengthen, and defend boundaries. Feminine values blur, dissolve, open, and weaken boundaries.”
It sounds to me like you are conflating ‘masculine’ with Logos and ‘feminine’ with Eros. I am referring to Eros and Logos within the context of the Jungian idea that Gods and Goddesses personify forces at work within our own psyches. From what I understand, Logos and Eros perform exactly the functions you ascribe to masculine and feminine in terms of ‘boundaries’.
My own experiences with the archetypal wild Horned God in his various guises (Pan, Dionysus, Cernunnos etc) lead me to think that ‘masculinity’ is quite capable of answering the call of Eros: invading, opening, blurring and dissolving boundaries. Indeed, takes a positive delight in doing so.
Esoteric traditions that engage with the question of gender and polarity emphasize the manner in which polarity can shift between the genders – there is little Yin or passivity in the Goddess Kali as she kneels astride the passive Shiva, or in Isis as she resurrects Osiris. Whose hand holds the athame in the Wiccan blessing of the wine, and whose the cup? I suspect that when it comes to masculinity and femininity, they are all but impossible to define, but like all good things, we know them when we see them.
Our culture is deeply in the grip of Logos. No argument there. Nowhere is this more obvious than in our obsession with money, which really is just a means of ascribing value (and therefore, definition) to things. I heartily agree with the last part of your post, Gus, because to me the Supreme God you are talking about, the strict parent, is merely an expression of sexless Logos. And yes, men (and women) who bow down to Logos (and demonize Eros as ‘other’) do not know the depths of their bondage.

Interesting issues Gavin.
I do not think I am conflating masculine with Logos or feminine with Eros. Logos as I understand it (I basically go with Karen Armstrong on what this word means) is a masculine style of reasoning, very much so. But the masculine is much more than that. Instead of Eros, with Armstrong I contrast logos with mythos, and mythos is a feminine style of reasoning: poetic, intuitive, going beyond what can actually be said in words, illuminating meaning through metaphor.
It’s morning, and I’m still on my first cup of coffee, but your comments on Eros seem not connected to the points I am trying to make. Eros, sexual energy, is the power of coming together, seeking unity from a position of separateness. When fully given in to, especially when accompanied by love, it leads to a blurring of boundaries that ALWAYS RECONSTITUTE THEMSELVES. Eros is a power of duality, always expressed dualistically, and duality always has both dimensions of attraction and differentiation.
Think of an erotic dance. There is a promise of union accompanying a continued putting off of that union as the dance continues. Prolonging the promise while not yet fulfilling it heightens its erotic power. Simply coming together sexually – which I m NOT criticizing – is not usually as powerful. Once the promise is fulfilled, separateness returns. But the separateness, the absence, is a part of Eros as well. I think Eros is perhaps best expressed in a dance both in human terms and as a broader image. As such Eros is both masculine and feminine.
In your description the Horned Lord is “invading, opening, blurring and dissolving boundaries”’ Part of the problem in our different terminologies is due to the brevity of blogs, but even here I think you’ll see my point.
“Invading” is an active penetration into someone else’s space- whether the invader is welcome or not is another question.
“Opening” can be either I open myself to you, or I open you up. It can serve either function.
“Blurring” in my experience comes to men – this one anyway – when connection is from the heart or with orgasm AND SURRENDER to the aftermath. The blurring occurs most profoundly at the end- and when there is little connection with the other I think it is no accident that a sense of separation, even isolation, is strongest at just this point.
Ditto dissolving. But as I try and describe the difference between encountering the Goddess in a strong way as compared to (all too briefly) embodying Cernnunos – my strongest experience with a male deity – in the first case I am happy to ‘dissolve in Her” whereas in the latter He/I could embrace and take in others. These are words describing what is really beyond words – and so prone to ambiguity or misunderstanding. But in the Goddess’s case She was anything but passive, and still feminine in the way I use the term and Cernnunos was deeply and wonderfully different.
Eros, sexual energy, is the power of coming together, seeking unity from a position of separateness. When fully given in to, especially when accompanied by love, it leads to a blurring of boundaries that ALWAYS RECONSTITUTE THEMSELVES. Eros is a power of duality, perhaps even the dance of duality, and duality always has both dimensions of attraction and differentiation.
I wasn’t making esoteric points in my post, I was making psychological, cultural and biological ones. I agree Goddesses are not passive. I think you equate passivity with yielding. I do not. Yielding is often described as yin or feminine – but it is hardly passive and in martial arts is a key part of turning an opponent’s strength against itself. The ideal relation between feminine and masculine points is one of balance and respect. It can take place within a person’s psyche and it can take place within a relationship. Problems arise with one -sidedness, and big problems arise when the one sidedness becomes so dismissive of the other as to be pathological, as with many of the leaders of the culture wars, secular and religious alike.

CherryHill & Gus,
Thank You for pointing out that I came across as sounding like men are superior and women are inferior. I did not intend it to come across that way at all. Aperently, My life experience, and abuse at the hands of many male psychopaths crept in, for that I apologize.
Many years ago I would have beat a man like these to a pulp, but, somehow, through the mental,emotional, and spiritual abuse, things I was unprepared to battle, my warrior’s spirit was injured. I am a woman who can carry out many of the physical jobs that most men can. I am in the process of repairing the damage done to my spirit.
You have given me much to think on and meditate on, Thank You again. Thank You Gus, for the prime examples of the Goddesses and Gods that prove this, it is very helpful to me. Blessings to you all.

You are welcome, Talons-hopefully-soon-no-longer-mousey. Talons can be sharp and kept sheathed until they are absolutely necessary. At such times it’s really good to have them. (I mean no disrespect for your online name- I’m just playing off it given our topic!)

Gus,
no disrespect taken, Yes, hopefully one day soon, it will be talons, no longer mousey. Thank You.

Hi Gus,
I had not been exposed to the pairing of Logos and Mythos before – thank you! Much ruminating will result.
To be clear, I introduced Eros into the discussion because you defined femininity as the principle that blurs, dissolves, opens, and weakens boundaries. I still feel the masculine principle is quite capable of this also.
I agree with much of what you say in relation to Eros and the boundaries that always reconstitute themselves – except I suggest, perhaps not always. Personally I see the erotic as going far beyond the sexual (and I sense you do too) and enmeshed in life itself and all sensations that can be experienced. Even death could be considered as an ‘erotic’ experience if one were to look at that process as the dissolution of personal identity and merging back with the universe – being unborn, if you will. Eros and Thanatos are another traditional pairing, and not necessarily as opposites.
I find interesting what you say in relation to Eros being the dance of duality. I can see your point of view, but also recognize that the power of Eros lies in the promise (and delivery) of dissolution, even if temporary.
With martial arts, the chief distinguishing feature between masculine and feminine techniques is that the former tend to be linear, the latter circular. Probably the most effective way to describe the difference between the two – I certain agree that language can be inadequate for such concepts.

Mouseytalons: ” . . . things I was unprepared to battle, my warrior’s spirit was injured . . . I am in the process of repairing the damage done to my spirit.”
At risk of sounding pretentious and cliched as hell, and because this rings with something a friend of mine is going through, I’m tossing this to you if you want it and can maybe find it useful at some point:
Healing a damaged facet of yourself is a good thing, but nobody can be everything and all things all the time. That’s one reason we have friends, so that we don’t have to be.
May friends of substance flock to you.

Gus,
I originally did not understand why you used Logos and Eros as you did until I reread your post. I do think, though, that if you would have used Aphrodite (feminine) and Eros (masculine), both with similar qualities of love, sexuality, etc. you could have made your point just as easily. Yes, Aphrodite was married to a man she hated, and regularly cheated on him, and even went on to defy both him and Hera, and even started the trogen wars. Aphrodite exibited many masculine qualities, just as Eros exibited many feminine qualities (according to early traditional roles). Thank You, You gave me the opportunity to refresh my memory about these things, and many more while I was at wikopedia.com.
Gavin,
I am not real familiar with martial arts, however, I do understand some of yoga. I suspect, the same holds true with both? They are both pretty much gender neuter. All techniques are equal, was this your point? I tried to make this point with Aphrodite and Eros.
Snoozepossum,
Thank You for the blessing of strong friends around me, they have been around, and very helpful during this healing process. I will, as the phoenix, rise from these injuries stronger, more beautiful, and much more alive than ever. With much more capable talons for better protection. The phoenix burns to ash, then regenerates, and lives again.

Thanks for the very kind words about me and my post on this topic, Gus.
On martial arts, we are told to seek the straight within the rounded. Every move is both linear and circular. It took many years for me to understand this on a deeper level. The circular has no power without the straight, the straight has no power without the circular. Try a few moves slowly and one day you realize that.
Likewise, tai chi points out that it is the combination of yin and yang that makes each person alive and balanced. With all yang one is a monster, with all yin one is a ghost.

Mouseytalons,
I reckon that with yoga, like with martial arts, it is important to recognize the need for tension (masculine) and relaxation (feminine) depending on the situation and what you are doing. And it isn’t an either-or situation: the beauty of masculine and feminine is that with understanding, these two principles work together, not against each other. Echidne makes a similar point. We are taught that true strength lies in exploring both the hard and the gentle within oneself.

I just wanted to point out that “men” and “women” are NOT biological terms. “Male” and “female” are biological terms. “Man” and “woman” are GENDER terms, which is another matter entirely.
It is true that in most cases, male/man go together, as do female/woman. But as the trans and genderqueer communities show us, this is not always true, and there are in fact more gender identities possible than the most common two.
I find that in discussing matters of gender, precise language is always best.

Also… On men and initiation: I think, that in our culture, it is becoming less and less that initiations are required of members of EITHER gender in order to be considered an adult. Some men do, in fact, go into the military and feel that it strengthens their more traditionally-masculine qualities. And that’s fine. There is usually nothing wrong with that, except that it should be noted that the military still has major problems with sexual harassment and assault against its female members within its ranks, due in part to SOME mens’ feeling about behaviors are also included in the masculine mindset.
But the fact of the matter is: most of us, male or female, do not undergo any sort of initiatory experience. It may ONCE have been that adulthood in women was marked by marriage/children, but this is not a mindset that most women of my (admittedly younger) generation have, what with women waiting much longer to have children– well into their 30′s, at which point they have been societal considered women for well over a decade. And more and more women are choosing not to have children at all! Therefore your earned/unearned initiation theory has some major Swiss Cheese holes in it.
As for me, I don’t believe that gender equality has to be a zero-sum game. I think you’re right when you say that in order to achieve equality all around, we must be equally in touch with our (traditionally) masculine and (traditionally) feminine sides. I just wanted to point out that some of your assertions are becoming less and less accurate as our culture evolves.

Chris-
Whatever. That’s why I defined how I meant the terms, so you could substitute the term of your choice if it was an issue for you. If you prefer different wording, fine.
I hope it is obvious that my post had nothing at all to do with transgender issues as such.
I do not think you have found any holes in my earned/not earned distinction. This society does not have a particular set of initiatory events for men, and I personally think it suffers from that lack. BECAUSE manhood is not as biologically linked as being a woman. That some women put off having children is irrelevant to my argument.
Because there is no socially secure sense of manhood unrelated to some achievement or other, men find ways of achieving that are substitutes. Joining the army, supporting a family (which is why unemployment is so devastating in many cases), being a tough guy and not tolerating ‘disrespect,’ are all strategies, and there are more.
I do not see how any of your arguments impact that point.

“Whatever. That’s why I defined how I meant the terms, so you could substitute the term of your choice if it was an issue for you. If you prefer different wording, fine.”
I was merely commenting because when you made this post, you entered the realm of social justice commentary, and in the wider spectrum, these words “sex” “biological” and “gender” have specific meaning. You may define them any way you see fit, but if you are using them in a way that is going to be problematic or flat-out wrong to many of the people who your op ed will draw, you should be aware of that. (And it has– it has been linked to on a widely-read social justice blog– Tiger Beatdown– so you are likely to be read by an influx of many people who will notice that the definition of “man” and “woman” as a biological terms is incorrect.)
“This society does not have a particular set of initiatory events for men, and I personally think it suffers from that lack. BECAUSE manhood is not as biologically linked as being a woman. That some women put off having children is irrelevant to my argument.”
I agree that our society profoundly suffers from the lack of initiatory experiences, and that men and women should both have experiences that mark them as members of adult society.
However, you EXPLICITLY linked initiatory experiences to childbirth for women, and I was pointing out the obvious flaw in that, given our current cultural climate. My pointing out that childbirth is not the initiatory experience you think it is (and I quote– you claim it “comes as a rule to any woman who lives long enough”), is entirely incorrect, and therefore valid to the argument.

Chris-
Words’ meanings shift and change over time. Maybe the way you and those like you use the terms “man” and “women” will in time be adopted by society as a whole. Fine by me. Not my fight. Right now my use of the term is the majority usage, and I thought I was being sensitive to its fluidity by making explicit what I mean by the word because I am aware of some controversy over the term. Personally I think that “man” and “woman” are the ADULT forms of male and female, and ‘gender’ is the plastic term. See http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/flsh_gendered.html
Regarding the women and childbirth passage you quoted, I can see how you read the passage the way you did, but it is not what I meant. I will clarify it. Giving birth is an initiatory experience into motherhood, but not into being a woman. The ability to have children is often celebrated in many cultures worldwide as the transition into womanhood. I should have written “the ability to have children” instead of “having children” which I used as a lazy way of making that point – a lot less precisely. I thought the qualifiers I put into the passage from which you quoted clarified it. They did not, obviously.

And what about the women who can’t have children? What about men who do not believe that joining the army improves their “manhood”? Men can be masculine, fine. But they shouldn’t have to feel like they have to assess that in a way that harms or undermines others’ freedoms. (Not that you encourage this, of course. Just pointing out.) Maybe we as a society should change our views on “power” and “dominance”, because equality is supposed to give the same amount of power to everyone. And maybe people should too, in order not to feel like women are taking care of men’s jobs and losing their importance. People going up are going to feel better, but the people that go down, even if it’s only to balance the scale, will always feel worse.

Hanna Rosin’s article “The End Of Men” is really about the demise of America’s manufacturing economy but she fails to get the point of her own article. The idea that America could build its economy mainly on services, retail, etc. and let its manufacturing base move overseas without long term damage was snake oil sold to an economically ignorant American public. Both female and male alike are going to pay a dear price for buying into this myth for many years to come. If we all become poor as a result, what difference does it make which gender thinks it is superior? The greatest power of the human mind is self delusion.

May I ask a simple question here? What is it, with all this emphasis on definitions, are you defending? What is the importance of these distinctions?
My own, mostly ambivalent reaction to these questions is here:
http://bit.ly/eMTmOD

Interesting blog Stephen, and it is nice to read someone who knows more about the Kropotkin/Goldman meeting than I remember! They were truly giants.
That said, I am no longer an anarchist, nor am I a statist – i think it’s a false dichotomy – and this blog isn’t the place to explain it. (My Persuasion, Power and Polity does a fair job.)
My emphasis on definitions is because seemingly subtle distinctions can have great and powerful implications down the line. My last section “Men in Crisis” makes my case on these issues. For what it’s worth, and to maybe pique your interest, I argue in PPP that democracies are not really states, and that when we realize this very interesting possibilities arise.

But it does move! (Galileo Galilei).