THE COUPLE, RELATIONSHIP AND SEXISM
16 December 2011
I ask myself why is it that every time we refer to women we end up speaking about relationship, and in some way about men. As if a woman had no other identity or purpose. This association is so fixed in our minds that it is difficult to conceive of the individual outside of its role. This presents a serious problem when trying to speak about who and what a woman is. Unique, different, gender expressions are seen only in the light of opposition or complementariness. Furthermore, being in relationship seems to define our life objective, our reason for being.
Having said this, I believe that the main obstacle to the refinement of the race in its present moment of consciousness awakening, reinforced by the propagandist media, educational, legal, and religious systems is the belief that relationship is a primary need. The greatest consumer product of all time is the ideal of a couple that compliments, stimulates, cares for one another, serving too as a security blanket for exclusive intimacy. Which later becomes the complacent attitude of “us against the world”.
The problem with the obsession, by both genders, to dominate, possess, and adjust itself to norms that reflect neither in order to fix a continuity, is precisely the cause of male dominance as much as of feminism and all the terms in between. It is as harmful for the evolution of men as it is for women. The compulsion to find a partner and keep him at all costs fosters separatism, exclusivity, paranoia, fear, and anxiety, stirring up a growing insecurity in each gender. The individual itself is relegated to the concept of the couple, or to the need of being in one.
I do not intend to demean the couple relationship but rather re-evaluate its purposes, demands, and the automatism that arises from blind and absurd belief. As with all illusion, there is some truth. What we need to consider at present is that the couple seen from this centuries-old perspective is in truth an anachronism. It is the source of the emotional friction we are living today.
In our current society there are three kinds of response to the classical couple belief. Heading the list is (1) the classic male-dominant type and the women who submit to them. In second place we have (2) the sensitive men, the gentle meditators, and the women who dominate them. In third place we find (3) the liberal “macho”, a new model of strong, seductive male, and the women who match them. Each type and gender holds itself as indispensible for the life and evolution of the other.
There is no need to speak about the classical model whose members have not yet recognized we are living in a different century. In what relates to the second type, my entry of 16 May in this blog (link) alludes to the sensible men who honour and ask forgiveness from women as compensation for the ills inflicted by male society. I thanked them in the name of womankind and asked them to beware of undermining their power and masculinity. They are the noble men of heart and spirit who accept a woman without understanding her in depth, with an innocence parting from their gentle and somewhat intellectual emotions. At this moment in time they do not offer sufficiently vital resistance for the growing force of woman, which makes them appear weak and easily manipulated.
It is easier to understand the category of new, liberal macho-men. In many ways they do not appear to be sexist. They praise us, esteem and consider us. They appreciate good mental combat, thus confirming the intellectual and confrontational inclination of their gender. They maintain and use their vital and intellectual potency as a seductive weapon, serving themselves of provocation and gamesmanship with humour and implicit sexuality, in this way attracting us into an exciting trap. As a woman, with them we lose our strength, self-confidence, and slowly, slowly a certain independence, as we match their way of being. They do not come to understand us but they tolerate us and this suits many women, convinced that some day they will obtain the illusive reward of inner recognition. The mere idea of being with or at the same level with a man brings satisfaction. This is what happens to many corporate and professional women who seek to succeed in a world of men – without taking note that in adapting to them we lose the key to femininity and autonomy.
To illustrate the third type, I found a 2005 article written in Spanish (link) by a Colombian politician, praising what he calls the “new feisty woman”. The former arrogance and abusive power of the macho-man of old appears softened and seasoned by a peculiar sense of humour that is extremely attractive and flattering. Instead of bossing us, this man now praises women’s freedom of expression and invites us to debate. A good number of women accept the challenge and enter into the game with pleasure without questioning its rationale.
Careful reading of the text (only in Spanish) will help us understand that there is great need for massive deprogramming concerning men as well as women. The author’s argument favours the “new feisty woman” while, without apparent malice, he supports the same old structure, now camouflaged by sympathy, wordiness, and idiomatic phrases of the time. His thesis is deeply imbedded in the psyche of the race, so accepted that they majority of mankind doesn’t even think of questioning it. This is the way it has always been.
This liberal sexist functions in the following way: sure of himself and persistent, he declares that this type of (feisty) woman makes the best partner. Meanwhile, he graciously emits judgment on all others, always in the light of appearance and sexual allure. The only “true women” are the new feisty ones who, in the end, adapt themselves to the conditions he sets.
Women have paid dear for our peace of mind and security, and this rather commercial transaction continues with or without money. The fact that he continues to see women as sexual objects and that we offer ourselves duly only perpetuates the transaction.
According to the text by our Colombian diplomat, the purpose of life seems to be sex, a thermometer for all other goods. Women may do as we please but if we keep ourselves sexy, all is forgiven. In truth his description of a relationship consists in a constant war of titans. Other than sensual allusions, there is little talk of tenderness, acknowledgment of difference or quality of being. His praise has the singular purpose of granting us permission to do or not do, just as long as it is under his criteria. This model is not just Latin; it is everywhere in the world where a man does not recognize that we have needs that may be different from his.
In the case of the classic sexist, relationship has been to the detriment of womankind. In the case of the gentle men of the meditative era, it is they who have given away their power and autonomy. But in this more recent case, even if the scale appears to lean towards the women, we both lose.
We must understand that dialogue and sharing, so valued by psychologists that work with couples, serve in bringing ease and convenience to life together but do not help towards genuine spiritual development. They deal with surface, not in depth issues. It is a form of negotiation that demands adaptation or modulation from each party. It alleviates organic tension between the sexes, and helps in the transition we find ourselves, but it does not contribute much in a process of recognition and development of the singularity of each gender.
Neither men nor women can discover themselves while they project themselves into one another, and they “adapt” automatically to one another. As a Race we have attained to an evolutionary level that is meant to now dignify and elevate instinct, not perpetuate and intensify it. Our bodies may relish in the sexual dance and experience but our minds and souls yearn to rise beyond. Each gender would have to open a space within to discover, cultivate and perfect its difference, before completely losing the polarity that attracts us at physical as in deeper levels. The real challenge today is having the courage to be alone while in a relationship. Whole and unique. Then sharing acquires a whole new dimension.
It is not yet sufficiently clear that today, “The Inner Woman” desires real independence and recognition as a person, not for being anyone’s partner, nor for the function she serves. More and more women are no longer interested in the definition or the value that a relationship can offer her.
The moment we recognize ourselves in our own dignified difference within and outside of a relationship, there will be no more battles that seduce us, that can lay claim to our bodies, hormones and intellect, or reasons to guard and defend ourselves. In the end, relationship is an added value and not a means.
Let us find a whole new program and a man who can stand alone as an individual, loving and praising our spirit as well as the fact that we are also women. He exists. He must make himself heard and lead the men towards another category, that of freedom. Love is more than curves and force of instinct.
