Spirituality and Feminism
in Spirituality ·
dustyskipper3 said:I suppose when you say a "male" world, you mean a sphere of power dominated by attitudes of opposition and dominance, whereas a "female" world would be characterized by submission and resignation. Even though Western Christianity established submission as its fundamental stance, historically—following the Council of Nicaea—it functioned through dominance and opposition. In the last 300 years, it has leaned mostly toward opposition, which brings it closer to Judaism and Freemasonry, both of which foster an oppositional stance. Nazism was essentially a failed attempt to force Christianity and the West back into a purely dominant posture. On the other hand, Islam has historically occupied both dominant and oppositional roles, though today the dominance seems more pronounced; meanwhile, Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism tend to develop a resigned attitude, which I guess is necessary for controlling large, impoverished masses. Secularization and the modernization of society just seem to strengthen this oppositional drive, so secular feminism remains stuck within that same loop, unable to trigger a true paradigm shift. It stays stuck on that line of thinking regarding power versus powerlessness, rulers versus slaves, and so on. Since resignation as a stance can't really bring about any renewal, I assume that when you talk about liberating the world through feminine values, you see it as a restoration of a submissive stance—something calling upon the "eternal feminine" within us all, much like how Taoists perceive it, but perhaps without too much dualistic hair-splitting between yang and yin. Taoism really emphasized the importance of a spirituality where a man develops his inner feminine qualities to become more complete. Since everyone carries both "masculine" and "feminine" traits, maybe a new spirituality would assume gender equality where everyone develops their inner submissiveness. This could liberate a civilization currently mired in dominance and opposition. It would lead to a total reversal in thinking where letting go of power and refusing to exploit others becomes desirable, encouraging altruism to such an extent that exploiting anyone would be viewed as a crime. The evolution of human consciousness would likely lead to biological evolution too, where an altruistic human (perhaps *homo sapiens altruisticus*) non-violently displaces—or if I may say, "eradicates," since that is an old-fashioned 😁 paradigm—the old violent and egoistic *homo sapiens*. This would probably happen through a combination of natural talents (like intuition or higher intelligence) and advanced technology, via "emergence" and networked IT systems using a bottom-up principle rather than top-down planning and enforcement. That would be some kind of "brave new world" where there are no wars or crimes, and perhaps even no sex or reproduction as we know it today (sex might mostly be tantric, maybe even without physical contact or perhaps via computer terminals, while reproduction would happen in vitro and in incubators, just so women aren't used as mere biological machines). But then again, people (including women) who have been satiated by their own prosperity following centuries of technological progress without war would probably end up keeping some examples of the former human species—mostly men, I guess—in natural island or "rural Midwest" preserves, just so they could occasionally experience the pleasure of primal, raw passions and physical sex, where unrefined opposition and dominance still prevail.😲🤣
I suppose a man, given his current spiritual state—which seems so heavily built upon this rigid, sharp dualism—might find himself unable to truly break free from isolation. In fact, I suspect his sense of being alone might even deepen. It feels like he’ll eventually end up in a sort of reservation, much like how Native Americans were moved, though perhaps more as a conscious choice within a liberated society. It would be a place where the physical differences between the sexes no longer carry the oppressive, highly ideological weight they seem to hold today.
I suppose I’m referring to that inertia when people question gender equality—where men don't even bother asking which sex they are actually being equal to. It serves such a dominant purpose, I guess. Like a heavy grimace holding the whole world together. He doesn't even feel the loneliness; he's just convinced this is how things have to be for men.
Maybe I mean the way knowledge was approached by excluding women entirely. This so-called emancipated woman just imitates the man, who, in turn, identifies with dominance, much like an actor playing a lead role.
A flock lacks consciousness; it only has the authority that drives it. Perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble to question all authorities. Yet, people stubbornly follow them in their thoughts, their stances, and what they expect from them.
Women possess a masculine nature, and men, a feminine one. We both act for the sake of self-realization, I suppose.
The problem with dominance lies in the distortion of a forced masculine nature. A man recognizes the goal; he is the active force of change. A woman is passive—she receives the impulse and recognizes the space and time.
Being passive means receiving the abstract, the spirit—that space we observe as receivers of ideas. And while that exists in everyone, in the duality of the sexes, it appears first in women. A woman gives birth to change; she recognizes the space where new things are created. Her approach to ideas and knowledge should therefore remain undisturbed by how knowledge organizes life, both universally and humanly. No social structure for thousands of years has managed to ground the idea of the human and ennoble its form, simply because women weren't involved.
All these different structures are just attempts to ground one single idea: the idea of free and equal individuals. Men lose themselves trying to map that idea onto society. They pick winners and losers based on mere practicality. He knows the goal and the will behind the idea, but struggles to force that goal into whatever form is currently at hand.
When it comes to liberation, I think the story of Hansel and Gretel is enough. If only we could figure out who the wicked witch is, tempting us with cookies.
The fire should be clear from the start.
Even though Gretel is enslaved without bars, the moment the fire illuminates the witch, she rushes to help Hansel.
And then society changes.
Instead of a passive state—one that merely receives—we won't have something that just takes orders. And instead of an active state—one that gives—there won't be "the one expressing a raw personality just to avoid being devoured."
Finally, the analyses that are currently suffocating the world might find room for synthesis.
And most importantly, if it were easy to see what binds us, we wouldn't be bound.
The knot is a loop made of our own convictions. One of them is the belief that we are tied.