There cannot be a comfortable relationship between a woman who knows her mind and a man who knows his. By knowing one's mind, I mean the congnizance of all the factors that play a part in shaping the way we think, and the way other people do. Unfortunately for humans, the decree seems to be that understanding the world in its entirety and weaving the signals, the thoughts and other variables in the environment into the psychological process seems to be the woman's natural forte. It has been ordained that in knowing her own mind, the woman knows the man's. Wouldn't things have been so much prettier if the reverse were true?
Men might see the things that ought to influence their thoughts and feelings, not the least because it would help him understand woman better. But they don't see a point in thinking about things that don't patently have a tangible bearing on their lives. So it rests that a man would rather not be aware of how a woman's mind works because it is a rather inconvenient prospect to him, in stark contrast to a woman's quest to fathom why people are the way they are, say the things they say and do the things they do. And often times, know these things to the detail. He calls it reading too much into discrete elements of existence without seeing that nothing is discrete in a woman's mind. A man finds a woman's world disconcerting - the very fact that she lives many intertwined worlds disturbs him. He would would much rather stand on the outside and learn to deal with the implications of such on his life and act accordingly. She might try to live in the real, here-and-now world that a man knows and loves, but the more she resists the urge to interpret the myriad cues to life around her, the more unhappy she'll be. In striving to shield man from the intricate tapestry of her mind, she will do herself the grave injustice of leaving a work of art incomplete. And she will suffer for her loss.
There's always, always going to be conflict and disillusionment. How can one know, and yet walk a path that can bring nothing but grief?
We live in a world that is set in her ways. Men are not going to change, and neither are women. Men will never stop being driven instinctually towards sex, power and money, and women towards fighting tooth and nail for the not-so-palpable things they want and don't get. Since neanderthal times, men have considered themselves the key to all existence. Women have squabbled among themselves, putting each other down while men have hunted and rules together. The end could only be if men become substantially more powerful and women more subservient, or one sex takes control of things after a catastrophe. A bit like one of the means to world peace as envisaged by Bertrand Russell - one supreme power, country or group, at the helm of the world so there would be no need for weapons or war. There'd be factions and minor quibbles, but there'd also be obvious direction and perceptible authority. This authority would perhaps go the way of communism, but I think not, because it would be rather difficult to reduce the entire population of the world to serfdom. One of the visions of the world that H.Anyhow, G.Wells had in his Time Machine too, if I remember correctly.
Anyhow, the institution of marriage will dissolve, men and women will procreate and go their separate ways, their minds will soon blend into one another's because of the want of debate, they will each have one foot on Mars and the other on Venus, communities will breed children and there will be no more gender strife on the much-maligned planets. If we're lucky, we might just get a pellet of soma at the end of every day to pep things up a little.
That's the hope, at any rate!
4 comments:
Hmmm... Well written indeed. Captures your 'myriad' thoughts in a nice 'web' :) And of course, I do have some disagreements, especially your prophecy of how the relationship between man and woman will evolve. There are various dimensions to it and simplification will only lead to destruction of the intricate details. Men and women I believe will get closer at an emotive level rather than the get-together-procreate-and-job-well-done-adios scenario you had mentioned. We will debate more on this ;)
Simplification WILL lead to the destruction of the nuances, but it still is perhaps the only practical solution to conflict. If a balance is to be achieved between all that i beautiful in men and women, they will both have to try to learn what is best in the other, and worked towards making our brief existence on this planet one of a synergy.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think we will ever get to a stage where we can begin to hope for such a state on a macro level.
i was referred to you by your friend somesh...
anyway, i first of all recommend the book 'turning on the girls' (my apologies for the insufficient flexibility in blog software to style that properly). it captures the feminine-takeover utopia you seem to envisage.
i agree with your analysis of the desires of women as significantly more amorphous, if nothing else, than those of men, but i think part of the genius of women is also being able to identify the common threads between the sexes, and differentiating between the common barriers to understanding in male/female relationships and actual deficiencies intrinsic to the male psyche. the best luck i can wish you is to meet a sensitive english major. :)
enjoyed your blog.
-caly
One foot on Mars and another on Venus is going to take billions of years of evolution and before that men and women will have constructively destroyed it, and even that might (will?) not be possible, just for the simple reason that if these roles were to change such that neither assumed the role of a nurturing parent (not being sexist here, but it happens in the animal kingdom) then what would ensue in a rapid extinction of the species and that again is counter-productive to our purpose on this planet and universe. As long as one of the parent’s continues to play that role (either man or woman) things will continue in a natural balance and hence nothing in effect would have changed.
Post a Comment