Misogyny & Misandry

Putting together ones life with the modern world.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Nefastos » Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:28 pm

In our other topic of sexuality – which was a topic originally split from the thread about partnership – there rose an idea about discussing misogyny and misandry.

As mentioned there, this is quite a courageous enterprise, since these feelings are easily inflammable, perhaps particularly at the (cultural) moment. In order to keep things as helpful for the whole as possible, let us try and keep calm in discussion, and avoid the feelings of being easily hurt by others, let alone hurting others.

Nota bene: If actual criticism towards some archetypal gender presentation is depicted, let the criticism remain mostly in the sphere of sex that is the same as the critic's own. I say "mostly" because these spheres cannot be absolute. I.e. I feel that I have more right & more credibility to present criticism towards the male archetype (its presentations, my feelings about that archetype, and so on) since I am physically a man myself. To criticize womanhood would be much more controversial, even though I certainly think that I may have something to say about the female presentations as well. The latter should be differently presented, though.

* * *

To give something to start with, in addition to just warnings, I repeat here what I have said in many occasions in other discussions:

Since I grew in a family which was quite matriarchal – having been raised by a mother and her mother, who both were strong and independent women – I came to see men as something a bit less serious and respectable characters as women. Men were not per se criticized in our family or in the meetings of my mother and her friends (who were usually women), but a bit of humour usually took place in the discussions: the atmosphere was always such that women can most certainly do the job of men, and then they have to take care of the men on top of that. This humour was not mean but positive, but the idea was there. Also the male people I met when I was a boy were mostly – so I felt – quite crude or unsophisticated compared to women, and not very nice to me. This left me a bit traumatic and Oedipal. By "Oedipal" I don't mean that I'd have actual self-admitted sexual feelings for my mother, but that in my sexual imaginations many motherly tendencies are overstressed (this discussion will most certainly split to the fourth generation split to sexual fetishes at some point...), & cetera.

But as I also already mentioned, being in the brotherhood has helped me to understand that the problem is not the gender itself, but its bad presentations. To me these presentations often seem more hilarious than threatening, but I understand that this is because my personal traumas are not so bad in these things, but there is a spark of laughter under all the bad experiences (resulting in slight misandry in my personal feelings). I can only distantly guess how horrible the situation must be for a person who, for example, has suffered sexual violence, or whose parent relationships are more traumatic than mine. (I have yet to see non-traumatic relationships with one's parents, but some stories are more horrible than others.)
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Kavi
Frater
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:52 pm

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Kavi » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:17 pm

I am very happy to read about other fratres who connect with femininity.
I have my own personal experience with this friction within myself and while I can't say to be misandrist, I have some criticism to say about misogyny and I hope my effort is by the rules.

There seems to be irrational fear of femininity. (and dragons and chaos) why? At least I like chaos!
George the Saint fighting against the dragon is seen as order fighting against chaos and order is male and chaos is female.
There might be fear of possession, that the dragon actually wins the knight of reason and order and locks him inside the same cage where he oppressed the dragon. Does this sound any convincing?
Misogynist fears misandry and so this, fight must take on forever in this way of thinking.
This thinking is almost like intersection of Nietzsche's Apollon(male) and dionysian(female) with Jung's Anima and animus.
I think this kind of duality is oversimplification and exists only to legitimize misogynistic mindset.
In life I, see chaos in order and vice versa and to conclude I can't be fully human without both and I think femininity and masculinity are intertwined in me and no archetype is inferior to other


Does our fellow Satanists have any thoughts on this theme?
7&8
User avatar
Cancer
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:45 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Cancer » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:42 pm

I’ll start my reply with a quote from the aforementioned writer. He might be called a great poet of resentment if he didn’t consider prose the superior art.

When something small, disconnected and beautiful is noticed somewhere, say a frog on the backyard, a crow’s nest in a tree or a wooden elephant sculpture on the playground (the last of which moreover brings to mind art, interest in which is girlish and sentimental), the first thought of a human with a Y-chromosome is to torture, rape, and destroy it. Especially anything that arouses feelings of tenderness or sadness must be destroyed. The dead pheasant buried by other children must be dug up and dismembered on the schoolyard, since tenderness and sadness are intolerable even in other people.

— Antti Nylén, Vihan ja katkeruuden esseet (”The Essays of Hate and Bitterness”, 2007)

This pretty much sums up my experience of hanging out with groups of boys as a kid. Endlessly stupid and violent games, fast-forwarding to fight scenes in movies, cruelty as humour, compulsory laughing at anything resembling sincerity. I never understood the appeal of harassing girls in ambiguously sexual ways, but I did take part in torturing animals for fun; it’s still a source of shame for me, and so it should be. I don’t think the majority of boys who spend time in such an atmosphere are very comfortable in it, but somehow the loudest and most unscrupulous ones seem to have a disproportionately strong effect on the rest.

In later, teenage years, it was always men and boys who thought it their business to, for instance, comment on my appearance: I looked like a f*g, a girl, too bony and long-haired to be taken seriously. This is of course something that many, many people go through. But shouldn’t that make it more, instead of less, repulsive?

One of my most prevalent fears is that my interest in literature has too much mere sublimation in it to be salvageable; that, in writing, I’m ultimately just living out the same masculine power-fantasies as my past bullies. Men can’t really be artists, only polemics and intellectuals; which is, itself, an example of a highly polemical, self-asserting statement.

I’d like to pursue art as healing, listening, and care — as a making-fragile of the self. But all too often it ends up (at least being perceived as) just another elaborate ego-booster.
Tiden läker inga sår.
User avatar
Cerastes
Soror
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:31 pm

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Cerastes » Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:24 pm

Okay, I'm probably producing some antipathy now. :D
Hopefully my words are taken as a different point of view not as an offence to anyone who sees this things in another light.
Nefastos wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:28 pm
Since I grew in a family which was quite matriarchal – having been raised by a mother and her mother, who both were strong and independent women – I came to see men as something a bit less serious and respectable characters as women. Men were not per se criticized in our family or in the meetings of my mother and her friends (who were usually women), but a bit of humour usually took place in the discussions: the atmosphere was always such that women can most certainly do the job of men, and then they have to take care of the men on top of that.
This made me smile because it pretty much is the inverted version of what I was about to write.

I never hated other women but I did not get along with them, did not have the same interest and considered them to be a little less respectable than my male friends.
The contrary experiences on this point actually make sense. It could be that women are less teeth grinding against male friends and men are less teeth grinding against female friends.
Finding the value of femininity was part of my occult process and of course it involved the exploration of the whole.

Meanwhile I have a deep adoration for femininity but it was a long process and I still don't like the "blame masculinity" attitude of todays feminism. Problems can never be solved by blaming someone and the collective victim-status is highly destuctive for the self-efficacy of women. On addition it causes youngh men to grow up with a innate guilt and I consider this to be highly unfair. You can't fight masculinity without destroying femininity too because they depend on each other as polarities.

Although I can conncet with other women much better now, there are still some typical feminine behaviors that I can not handle well. For example, I do not like passive aggressiveness, I find it somehow dishonest. I prefer it when people tell me right in the face what they think even if it is offensive or aggressive.

Kavi wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:17 pm
There seems to be irrational fear of femininity. (and dragons and chaos) why? At least I like chaos!
Yes, I noticed this fear too.
In my opinion, masculinity involves the need to rule. Rule over nature, rule over women, rule over the world. On the positive side, this may lead to the fact that men are often more willing to obsessively explore, discover and dig deeper than many women and I like this active drive. The problem is, that the same drive involves the need to control and suppress whatever cannot be ruled over. This may cause fear because chaos can not be controlled and stays unpredictable. Nobody rules chaos.
Kavi wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:17 pm
This thinking is almost like intersection of Nietzsche's Apollon(male) and dionysian(female) with Jung's Anima and animus.
I think this kind of duality is oversimplification and exists only to legitimize misogynistic mindset.
In life I, see chaos in order and vice versa and to conclude I can't be fully human without both and I think femininity and masculinity are intertwined in me and no archetype is inferior to other
I tend to think that most misogyny and misandry is caused by the fact that we are all mixed beings. People like to deny the side they do not identify with but it haunts them as a shadow. As soon as they see it in others, they need to oppress it like they oppress it in themselves. Of course those archetypical discriptions are an oversimplification and SoA ist the best proof that femininity is not only dominant in women but it can also be dominant in men and vice versa.
“Granny Weatherwax was not lost. She wasn't the kind of person who ever became lost. It was just that, at the moment, while she knew exactly where SHE was, she didn't know the position of anywhere else.”
(Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1769
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby obnoxion » Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:30 pm

I can pretty much relate to what you've been saying - that boys had a strong connection to the feminine, and I think sor Cerastes is not the first female member to have a somewhat similar relation to masculinity. I suppose this has to do with the tendency to be focused toward the soul, that is, the anima/animus. A person who had a less involved relationship to the soul, I think, would propably have his or her intrapsychic dynamics played out with the same sexed shadow. That being said, I really enjoy being sexually male. It is absolutely wonderful!

When it comes to gender, it forms for me the very basic pare of dynamics, like in Alchemy or Tantra. So my spirituality is very much founded on strongly gendered principles. This is a very different thing from gender politics. For example, if there is emblematic incest in Alchemical symbolism, that obviously does not mean there should be incest in society. In some ways, one of the biggest advances in religion must have been, that we do not need to live out the symbolism in the flesh. That is also one of the foundations of magic, too, isn't it?
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Nefastos » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:56 am

Yesterday the Finnish news site of Yle published flashing news piece about a research in the University of Zurich "The female brain reacts more strongly to prosocial behavior" (2017). The headlines of this usually quite conservative mainstream media was: "Now it is researched knowledge: Women are better people than men – if they are rewarded" (article here). This idea of "male vs. female brain" seems to be usually quite problematic a concept, and there are many people who rather not speak about physical differences at all. Still, the idea is intriguing. (Personally I have no problem about pointing out physical differences, be they in the brain or lower in the body, since as an occultist I see such physical differences only as ephemeral, not much unlike one's clothing.)
Kavi wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:17 pm
There seems to be irrational fear of femininity. (and dragons and chaos) why? At least I like chaos!


I see your point & definitely agree. Yet I am personally afraid of chaos, if we take the word in its common meaning of lack of order rather than in the original metaphysical meaning of the fullness of possibilities. I am quite neurotic a personality, and it is almost impossible – or extremely stressful – for me to work or even spend my time in a place that is messy & everything is not in its place. But is that kind of chaos really shaktic or archetypically feminine? I don't think so.

Cancer wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:42 pm
This pretty much sums up my experience of hanging out with groups of boys as a kid. Endlessly stupid and violent games, fast-forwarding to fight scenes in movies, cruelty as humour, compulsory laughing at anything resembling sincerity.


Ah yes. You bring up some unpleasant memories. This is one of the reasons why I have always liked aging: when we age, the people around us get older too, and with this, smarter, or at least, they usually have more reasons to hide their brutality. As I was child, I was quite baffled how the people around me (that is, other children) could be so uncouthly. Luckily enough, I was adaptable enough to learn the basics of sociological & physical self-preservation, so the constant boyish fights & pickings never got out of hand.

Cancer wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:42 pm
One of my most prevalent fears is that my interest in literature has too much mere sublimation in it to be salvageable; that, in writing, I’m ultimately just living out the same masculine power-fantasies as my past bullies. Men can’t really be artists, only polemics and intellectuals; which is, itself, an example of a highly polemical, self-asserting statement.

I’d like to pursue art as healing, listening, and care — as a making-fragile of the self. But all too often it ends up (at least being perceived as) just another elaborate ego-booster.


I really appreciate your extreme austerity, which demands so extreme will and honesty. But I offer the same words that I always say to brethren who are very severe towards themselves:

a) Almost always this degree of perception – to see that there is a possibility of problem in oneself – is enough to conquer that challenge. We fall if we lose that possibility from sight, i.e. choose to forget it, but it we see the possibility of fall but neither flee it nor jump to the inviting chasm, we are safe.

b) We ourselves – as personalities – are only the familiars, so to say, for our true selves, for that inner being who is also the Otherness. To be extremely severe towards oneself is not different to be extremely severe towards a loved one, towards another sacred being. For no one of us is really "the self", who would belong only to himself.

Just my personal thoughts, of course.

Cerastes wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:24 pm
(...) I still don't like the "blame masculinity" attitude of todays feminism. Problems can never be solved by blaming someone and the collective victim-status is highly destuctive for the self-efficacy of women.


Yes! It is very sad how often betterment is seen in waging war towards some other group or ideal. Such arm-wrestling can never reach true happiness:
Dhammapada wrote:"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule."

Cerastes wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:24 pm
On addition it causes young men to grow up with a innate guilt and I consider this to be highly unfair.


And not only guilt. Let us take just one harsh example of the double standards. In Finland we have compulsory military service, for men only. This service can be changed for social service ("in the times of peace", so it remains problematic), but thus every man is bound to serve his society about a year without pay where nothing of a sort is demanded from women. Yet I don't think I have personally ever heard any feminist speaker against inequality between the sexes say anything against this. These are very problematic things.

obnoxion wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:30 pm
That being said, I really enjoy being sexually male. It is absolutely wonderful!


I must confess I would be quite jealous about feminine sexuality & its often easier access to greater physical pleasure (as Teiresias pointed out when asked by Zeus & Hera), if I didn't have this conviction that it is barely an adequate compensation for all that trouble & pain that the female sex must go through even biologically: menstruation, giving birth, more inescapable trouble concerning contraception than men (who are able to flee their responsibilities as conceivers), sometimes the terrible psychological & moral dilemmas of abortion, & so on.

obnoxion wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:30 pm
When it comes to gender, it forms for me the very basic pare of dynamics, like in Alchemy or Tantra. So my spirituality is very much founded on strongly gendered principles. This is a very different thing from gender politics. For example, if there is emblematic incest in Alchemical symbolism, that obviously does not mean there should be incest in society. In some ways, one of the biggest advances in religion must have been, that we do not need to live out the symbolism in the flesh. That is also one of the foundations of magic, too, isn't it?


This is extremely important point, something that should never be forgotten.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Cancer
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:45 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Cancer » Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:54 pm

Nefastos wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:56 am
Yesterday the Finnish news site of Yle published flashing news piece about a research in the University of Zurich "The female brain reacts more strongly to prosocial behavior" (2017). The headlines of this usually quite conservative mainstream media was: "Now it is researched knowledge: Women are better people than men – if they are rewarded" (article here). This idea of "male vs. female brain" seems to be usually quite problematic a concept, and there are many people who rather not speak about physical differences at all. Still, the idea is intriguing. (Personally I have no problem about pointing out physical differences, be they in the brain or lower in the body, since as an occultist I see such physical differences only as ephemeral, not much unlike one's clothing.)
Headlines like this annoy me to no end. Of course, stupidity alone is usually enough to draw my ire, but here there is at the same time something actually sinister. Many people (who are not crazy Platonists like you :D) ascribe metaphysical significance to this kind or research. This is, on the other hand, the reason many others are reluctant to talk about physical differences at all. The thought that human beings are determined by attributes natural science can describe is the first step in making them less than human. Hegel mocked this idea as ”the Spirit is a bone”; today, the phrase would be ”the Spirit is a neuron”. The underlying idea is that natural science can tell us how men or women (or any other category of people) ”really” are, what their metaphysical, unchangeable nature is. This can quickly lead to someone else deciding what is best for the group in question. Actual scientists don’t think in this way, of course, but click-hungry media gonna get clicks.
Cerastes wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:24 pm
Okay, I'm probably producing some antipathy now. :D
Hopefully my words are taken as a different point of view not as an offence to anyone who sees this things in another light.
I don't see what in your post could produce justifiable antipathy. It's not like I'm proud of my misandristic feelings, for example. They are a burden and a blurring of my vision. There are probably some unrealized homosexual feelings mixed up in them, too, which makes them particularly vicious. Writing about them in extreme ways is fun and cathartic, but it doesn't mean that I would actually endorse them as a guide in everyday life.

The anima-animus-phenomenon (if there indeed is one; I can only speak for my anima) could maybe be explained by non-conforming children experiencing much of the pettiness common to all people "through", or among, other children of the same gender. All that is dull and oppressive about everyday life would thus be associated with that gender, and the soul - all that is exciting and liberating about inner life - with another. This would certainly fit my experience. Nail polish and shoujo anime eventually became signifiers of freedom for me because no-one had tried to push me in their direction. Many "boyish" things, on the contrary, felt stifling, because so many authority figures had expected me to like them.
Nefastos wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:56 am
And not only guilt. Let us take just one harsh example of the double standards. In Finland we have compulsory military service, for men only. This service can be changed for social service ("in the times of peace", so it remains problematic), but thus every man is bound to serve his society about a year without pay where nothing of a sort is demanded from women. Yet I don't think I have personally ever heard any feminist speaker against inequality between the sexes say anything against this. These are very problematic things.
It’s always nice to hear from people who are concerned about militarism. The unconditional ideal of non-violence is one of the things I admire most about the SoA and many members’ (including your) personal philosophy. It is false however to portray mainstream feminism as somehow ignoring this problem. The first page of a quick Google-search about feminism and the military is almost nothing but feminists condemning gendered military service, or compulsory military service altogether. Some go so far as saying it’s the greatest obstacle for equality in Finland today. Here’s an example.

(I hope this isn’t getting too political, by the way. The larger point I try to make with rebuttals like this is that many aspects of secular culture that are sometimes seen as harmful by occultists seem actually to be very much in line with, in lack of a better term, "occult ethics".)
Nefastos wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:56 am
I really appreciate your extreme austerity, which demands so extreme will and honesty. But I offer the same words that I always say to brethren who are very severe towards themselves:

a) Almost always this degree of perception – to see that there is a possibility of problem in oneself – is enough to conquer that challenge. We fall if we lose that possibility from sight, i.e. choose to forget it, but it we see the possibility of fall but neither flee it nor jump to the inviting chasm, we are safe.

b) We ourselves – as personalities – are only the familiars, so to say, for our true selves, for that inner being who is also the Otherness. To be extremely severe towards oneself is not different to be extremely severe towards a loved one, towards another sacred being. For no one of us is really "the self", who would belong only to himself.
Thank you very much for your kind & wise words! <3 I felt kind of poisoned by my own writing yesterday, but this instantly made me feel better. The lesson of self-harm or -negligence being just a round about way of hurting others is really something I already should have learned.
Tiden läker inga sår.
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1769
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby obnoxion » Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:59 pm

Cancer wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:54 pm
The thought that human beings are determined by attributes natural science can describe is the first step in making them less than human. Hegel mocked this idea as ”the Spirit is a bone”; today, the phrase would be ”the Spirit is a neuron”. The underlying idea is that natural science can tell us how men or women (or any other category of people) ”really” are, what their metaphysical, unchangeable nature is. This can quickly lead to someone else deciding what is best for the group in question. Actual scientists don’t think in this way, of course, but click-hungry media gonna get clicks.
At the moment, I am taking a university course on the basics of developmental psychology, and I was positively surprised how in this rigorius textbook's forewords a significant role was given (as complementary to science) to religion, philosophy, literature and art as ways one can search for meaning and understanding. Just to have this view of a vast intellectual and uninhibited expanse before me was amazingly inspiring, and made me very energized for my study.

As mentioned before, I, too, in my gendered approach to spirituality, base my symbolism largely on anatomy - that is, the Yoni and the Linga, both of which are utterly transcended principles.
Nefastos wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:56 am
I must confess I would be quite jealous about feminine sexuality & its often easier access to greater physical pleasure (as Teiresias pointed out when asked by Zeus & Hera), if I didn't have this conviction that it is barely an adequate compensation for all that trouble & pain that the female sex must go through even biologically: menstruation, giving birth, more inescapable trouble concerning contraception than men (who are able to flee their responsibilities as conceivers), sometimes the terrible psychological & moral dilemmas of abortion, & so on.
I'm quite certain that Vishnu also came to this conclusion through experince of his female incarnation (it must have been Mohini...)
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Nefastos » Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:27 am

Cancer wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:54 pm
Many people (who are not crazy Platonists like you :D) ascribe metaphysical significance to this kind or research.


That corpse is still in move, huh? That is vile. (I take that you mean by "metaphysical significance" that this interpretation could justify putting limits to undestanding & abilities of each sex? Most probably to one opposite to the interpreter's own?) I thought that this kind of psychosomatic jail argument that the other sex is somehow soulless or unable to understand because of an innate lacking would now have been mummified inside the tents of those evangelists still living the middle ages.

Cancer wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:54 pm
It’s always nice to hear from people who are concerned about militarism. The unconditional ideal of non-violence is one of the things I admire most about the SoA and many members’ (including your) personal philosophy.


The philosophy of the Star of Azazel is, in a way, the philosophy of a compromise: to give way in in order to accept. But paradoxically, such work of uniting differences demands some very ideological points of its own to stand on – the points of the demands of such empathy. Thus while the brotherhood welcomes also people who see militarism as a needed compromise, in our philosophy we must stress the fact that all war – all physical violence – is the very opposite to this ideology of love & understanding. This is how I feel.

Cancer wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:54 pm
It is false however to portray mainstream feminism as somehow ignoring this problem. The first page of a quick Google-search about feminism and the military is almost nothing but feminists condemning gendered military service, or compulsory military service altogether. Some go so far as saying it’s the greatest obstacle for equality in Finland today.Here’s an example.


That is a relief, although it doesn't actually surprise me. Regarding the feminist rhetorics, I am in the periphery of news, right next to Joe Consumer knowing very little depth beyond the usual headlines and how the usual voice carries out on the surface. (I started Gender Studies in the uni a few years back but was quickly taken back by its eagerness to be more a torch-bearer of a certain ideology than actual open philosophical study.) This creates the tension of the audiences of these narratives: how the focus is seen and thus how its laser works its way is as much the work of media as those of the actual philosophers. (A familiar challenge also to us because the Star of Azazel presentations in the media. It is not enough that they are not entirely false; they should also give a more comprehensive view on our actual agenda. But such work is slow to accomplish, because people love flashing headlines & most journalists feel they must obey.)

Cancer wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:54 pm
(I hope this isn’t getting too political, by the way. The larger point I try to make with rebuttals like this is that many aspects of secular culture that are sometimes seen as harmful by occultists seem actually to be very much in line with, in lack of a better term, "occult ethics".)


Yes, we are walking on narrow space between several abysses, and perhaps should also take our shoes off since the ground is sacred. This is how I hope the difficult subjects could be treated in the brotherhood; not adding thicker & thicker boots in order to escape the sparks of the burning bush, as it is usually done nowadays in public or semipublic talk.

I am really grateful how tactfully everyone has been treating these subjects, all the while when talking from their heart & presenting criticism & worry in a good way. In case the political tendency starts to be in ascendance (as opposed to common ethics, sex as symbol, one's own psychological dilemmas, and so on) we will edit or lock the topic. But such work has been needed very, very seldom in these forums. This is why I named the thread like this, by the way. Even while we must all the time talk about that mysterious "gender", putting it on the headline would have immediately caused some people to grab their flags & hammers. When coming to the topic from this side, the talk is more likely to remain helpful even when people disagree. It would be great to see that the talk about sex & gender would soon become more basic humanitarian thing, instead of being seen under a large political umbrella. But of course I understand that people who either love or hate that particular umbrella do see that very differently. The connective work of the Star of Azazel (right at the middle of the brotherhood's constitution) is based on the idea that all those ethical ("under love and understanding") ideologies we seek to unite must first be melted in the alchemist's fire in order to be actually One instead of many-legged monstrosity biting its own entrails. "Your way of loving is false" is something we cannot tolerate (sic!). Search of empathy as total as possible is the brotherhood's tyrant.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Wyrmfang
Frater
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Jyväskylä

Re: Misogyny & Misandry

Postby Wyrmfang » Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:05 pm

My youth and early adulthood was characterized by extensive feelings of both misogyny and misandry, that is, basically "anti-cosmic" mentality. This was largely a result of the fact that I was unable to find a partner (or rather unable to try). First it was classical misogyny, the experience that women are irrational, unable to distance themselves from their immediate feelings, deceptive & so on. Soon I recognized this way of thought as a psychological defence against my own, in certain sense masculine, problems, which resulted in equal misandry. Quite early I realized that in my case the issue was not that much sexuality itself, but rather the social aspects related to it. But, of course, these are not completely separate issues. I don´t still fully understand what it is that doesn´t work, but luckily the issue is not that acute as I somehow managed to get a relationship, and have been in it almost 9 years. I guess it is some aspect of sensitiveness, which is not allowed for men, and which I mysef haven´t fully recognized, even if in most other matters I don´t care much about social expectations. I was very much into the model of thought today labeled as "incel" (luckily, at that time these communities and the concept did not exist, or at least I was not aware of it).

Since then I have thought a lot about the relationship between esotericism and secular/political feminism. Obviously, at the time described above, I was very much against feminism, although already at that time a disliked a lot for example shaming anyone of his/her appearance etc. I haven´t still reached any systematic conclusion, but, in general, I don´t think there is any fundamental discrepancy between esotericism and political feminism. Not any more than between esotericism and secular arenas in general. The basic clash seems to be that many feminists condemn all essentialism (the view that are non-changing essences of "femininity" and "masculinity") as they rightly see that it easily leads to sexist views and practices. Esotericism, on the other hand, as far as I can think of it, it instead always based on this kind of essentialism.

However, it is not that simple at all. First of all, there are esoteric feminists (in the secular/political sense). Then there are lots of feminists who draw from psychoanalysis, particularly from Lacan. And psychoanalysis is also based on polarity, though Lacan does not take the idea of metaphysical essences seriously but conceives the polarity in terms of the structure of language. Practically the result is yet much the same. One esoteric feminist I discussed lately with had came to the same conclusion as I: there is a gross misunderstanding to both directions. Secular feminists usually can think essentialism only in biological terms, because a more esoteric/metaphysical viewpoint is simply inconceivable to most people today, at least on conscious level. It is quite easy to see then why they cannot see it as very elevating though they are actually often doing what we would call "elevating the female archetype". I hardly need to re-iterate what esotericists tend to find negative in feminism. However, I haven´t found a single feminist who would oppose my spiritual views as sexist once I explain the issue a bit (and my spouse is quite fierce one in her feminism).

In short, I think esotericism of sex(es) is, well, esoteric. It is not a matter of political statements but of my inner life. I, of course, cannot help but thinking it as metaphysically valid, and consequently, that some feminists (with thinkers today in general) are wrong in this, but it is not something that is constructive to shout aloud. I ask everyone to consider very carefully talking about feminism in general, especially if you don´t know the field very well. Simplistic statements can be easily taken in the same way we take these "hahahah can you look my future from a crystal ball" things (and there obviously are naive esotericists as there are naive feminists), except that we easily hurt much more. If you have to make a negative assesment about some feminist stance, I would ask you to talk about the particular case you have in mind. That also helps to clarify one´s own thoughts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest