[Request] Questionability of female loyalty

A number of individuals asked me to write something of my thoughts regarding a part of feminine group dynamics that I’m just going to refer to in this post as female loyalty. Challenge accepted, but wow did it take months before I could be remotely prepared to engage with the topic.

Just to make this VERY clear: I have a research background, but I don’t write posts on Merlight as a researcher. The current purpose of my blog is to explore psychology and spirituality as a node within my paradigm that is subject to change at my whims and wishes. People, their opinions, their perspectives, all of these can change and denying a person that freedom is an act of oppression.

To answer an initial question that’s probably lurking, only one of the individuals who requested this post is male. As in sex and gender. A basic fact learned in psychology is that sex and gender aren’t identical in concept. Sex is a taxonomic term. Gender is a contextualized construct.

Did you notice the assumption there? If not, here it is: I anticipated that a reader of this post would think I’m defending men. I can spot my biases if I’m willing and if I make the effort to do so. Are you prepared to examine and grapple with yours? I could’ve edited and try to appear neutral, but as I relate below, I’m certainly not neutral. I’m fine with this, because I recognize my viewpoints as part of my humanity.

Feminist theory and feminism aren’t the same thing. I struggle with the label Feminazi, preferring extremist feminist instead. But that’s just me.

For myself, feminist theory is extendable in approach to tackle the issues of all power imbalances. The most common form I see everywhere is in the original mandate to address gender inequality (gender inequality, not sex inequality – that difference in terminology is potent), but the heart of the theory has shifted to tackle the struggles of authority and empowerment in favour of the oppressed. So by that definition, it’s quite possible for men to be feminists.

Feminism, on the other hand, is rooted in obtaining and elevating women to the privileges handed to men on a general scope. There are exceptions, and saying men “enjoyed” these privileges is a coarse-grained focus. There is little reason to say that feminism is no longer needed in this form. There is plenty opportunity to apply this sociohistorical movement, provided it’s done responsibly.

There is a particular form of feminism in which I find great potential for destructiveness. This is the form I’ll be talking about from my experiences. It’s the one that’s romanticized as a call for unity and sisterhood.

Heh, I was distracted for 20 minutes by initiatory exploration of the Devouring Mother archetype, and there went my mapped thoughts for the second time today. Okay, for the sake of this requested post, I’ll push through.

I’m disturbed when people call for a “return” to matriarchal societies, and demand that all take on the Sacred Feminine. All sorts of reasons are given, and I have yet to come across an example that embraces this concept of sacred feminine as a whole. Why? It’s because society is romanticizing the feminine, utterly focused on the so-called positive aspects. Unity and sisterhood are based in such conceptualization.

Positivity is most often associated with goodness and light. It’s forgotten or pushed aside that negativity is equal in force to positivity. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, they are on a continuum. White light isn’t pure. White light is a contained spectrum. On a pH scale, acidic (less than perfect 7.0) is just as potent as basic/alkaline (more than perfect 7.0). Also, one doesn’t usually drink distilled water.

Yes, my disdain for female loyalty is coloured by my experiences. There are people who would benefit from such calls. There is power where women are gathered together. I’m not denying that. What I’m pointing out echoes something Father said, “Power is tyranny when unchecked by humility.”

Associate: I’ve seen it a lot. Men knock you down and they’re finished. Women? You go down, they’re not finished.
Me: A while back, I would’ve argued with you, but after so long being cast as Snow White, I’m not going to deny your right to your interpretation.

Acquaintance: Hang on, you’re judging your own sex? That’s harsh.
Me: Considering how many of the females in my immediate sphere of reference are so incredibly sexist and refuse to look at their own thinking and behaviour, uh, I guess?

The matriarch in any form can shape her power in any way. Sacred Feminine doesn’t automatically mean Love and Health Restoration. She can be Apathy and many other undesired expressions as well. Look at Mother Nature. Many see the greenery. How many are willing to search for the crimson?

This isn’t to say that the Sacred Feminine has a polarity or even a duality in good and evil, light and darkness, positive and negative, and so forth. This emphasis on conflict dualism in all parties is a powerful, subtle weapon in all hands. I’m arguing for a holistic approach in the sense that the WHOLE is considered, not the pretty shiny pleasant parts.

“The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” – Aristotle

Okay, I can see where this post wants to go. It wants to go in the direction of how the Ego has been maligned. But that has to wait. Calm yourself, eager mind. I do have a life outside of Merlight, you know. :P

I’m losing steam. Oy. All right. So to conclude, I don’t appreciate how prejudice and discrimination is being utilized by the identified oppressed to have revenge on the identified oppressor. This is one example of how the cycle of abuse continues, as mentioned in previous Merlight posts.

Peer: I don’t understand why history repeats itself. You’d think people would learn from the past.
Me: The context is different, yes, but the same strategies are being used. Different tactics, perhaps, but the way the problems are handled is identical.
Peer: But we have the power of hindsight.
Me: And what good has hindsight been throughout the millennia? Potential is there, but how many are using it for that intended purpose?

Okay, that’s enough for now. My partner is working on an original composition for his Gothic Monsters course, and I’m in a mood to poke at him. Affectionately, of course. Maybe. ;) Poutine sounds really good right now.


Cast a pebble

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s