This entry was posted on Saturday, September 8th, 2007 at 1:35 am and is filed under Love. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
At the time of humiliation and submission of women, the war between the sexes could be easily understood in terms of a revolt of the oppressed against their tyrants.
Terms of warfare are used in any language to describe love relationships. They reflect this eternal warfare. An attractive person is “dangerous.” First flirtations are compared to strategy. A woman is a fortress to be besieged and finally conquered by some male while she must try to “resist.” Under assault she may “weaken”; and accepting her “enemy” completely is even called her “downfall.” Even if these terms are used in jest, they show the spirit of warfare governing the love game. This fighting over the possession of one sex characterizes the union between the stronger or the aggressor-and the weaker who has to be conquered.
One would imagine that when the oppression of one sex by another ceased the tension between them would lessen proportionately. However, quite the contrary is true. At a time when women had to obey, they had no choice and therefore accepted their status more or less as a matter of course. For instance, in former centuries it not uncommonly happened in some small villages in Germany that a henpecked husband received an ultimatum from his neighbors to the effect that if he was not willing or able to subjugate his wife, he must leave the village, together with his family. If one woman dominated her husband, the superiority of all the other men was endangered by her example. The man was always supposed to dominate. That was his right and his duty. Why? Because he wore the pants.
At the present time this strong and obligatory rule that man must dominate and woman must obey is fast becoming obsolete. In her new status, woman can rebel against oppression. She fights against a fate condemning her to submission. She demands rights, and is willing and able to struggle for them. Consequently, the relationship between the sexes has become tenser than ever before; the war of the sexes has reached a state of violence which threatens to disrupt all cooperation and understanding between them.
The Present Anarchy
This intensified warfare has led to a complete anarchy in the relationship between men and women. Until now, no woman or man could escape strict regulations. Now, with the fall of old laws, each man and woman has to establish an individual position in relationship to the other sex. No woman is obliged to submit herself, and no man can any longer rely on his mere maleness. As a result, we find today every couple revealing a varying distribution of power. Sometimes the man has all the authority, as in times of extreme masculine superiority, and in other cases a woman has the rights which her sex possessed under matriarchate. Every couple must find its own place at some point between these two extremes, and rarely do they succeed in establishing a true equilibrium. The old conviction that man is obliged to be superior is by no means abandoned. Many men and women still cling to this old tradition; though women often do not admit apprehension of being inferior, and men, while doubting their ability to dominate, still feel compelled to prove their superiority. The ensuing resentment of man and woman against the supposed masculine superiority was termed by Alfred Adler the “masculine protest.” 14 Each regards the other sex as threatening the personal prestige; and, of course, general tension and hostility between the sexes increase.
As anarchy characterizes the relationship between men and women in anyone country, so also there exists complete lack of regularity in regard to the position of women in the various countries. We can expect dissimilarities when comparing heterogeneous cultures, let us say the Oriental Chinese with the European-American. But bewildering are the differences which are found among people belonging to the same circle of culture.
In each country, at the present phase of transition from patriarchy, every kind of relationship between a man and a woman can be found, ranging from complete domination by the man, to typical matriarchal control by the woman, co-existing with every shade of gradation between these two extremes. Everywhere the release of woman from submissive dependency progresses, though unevenly, reaching various stages in the different countries. Latin countries as a rule have lagged in this development. Emancipation started there later, perhaps because the process of industrialization was retarded. The status of women in Italy and in France, for example, can scarcely be compared with their status in Russia. Matriarchal conditions, however, do not exist in any country, although some men are inclined to regard conditions in the United States as matriarchal-by historical contrast. In reality there is no indication of matriarchal rule in the United States; it is only that American women have achieved a peculiar kind of equality.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Did you write “Oriental Chinese”? I was skimming through until I saw that and what little credibility you had disappeared.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Unfortunately, you don’t express yourself well enough to make a suitable response so I guess I’ll say “thank you for registering”.