General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Battle of the Sexists [View all]malthaussen
(17,195 posts)... since I fear little wisdom can be found in them.
But between you and me, I've often thought that the problem lies in the way the dominant culture defines "strength." So long as it is defined as "the ability to impose your will upon another," conflict is unavoidable. The difficulty, of course, is that this may be a necessary definition, the world being as it is.
But there is more: I've been floating the idea recently that there are two definitions of "strength," one "masculine," if you will, and one "feminine." The former being identical to the definition above, and the latter defined as "the power to endure." After all, women themselves frequently brag about how men "couldn't take" the pain of childbirth and the monthly annoyance of menstruation. One of the interesting things about this model is that members of a given sex who display the strength of the other sex tend to be looked down on by both sexes. Although we pay lip service to admiration of "strong women," and although great examples of male endurance have been celebrated, I get the impression that such admiration is grudging, at best, and really an overlay to disguise contempt. At least among people who display what might be called "stereotypical" sexist attitudes, the member of one's own sex who displays the "strength" of the other may be subject more to ridicule than otherwise.
We know that certain warrior cultures torture prisoners, not because they are rotten and sadistic bastards, but because they want to give the prisoner a chance to demonstrate his courage. Now, surely holding out against torture is "the strength to endure," but I wonder if a) that strength is not/was not less-respected than the other sort of strength, and b) contrarily, if that is not an example of a culture reflecting a matriarchal, or at least not patriarchal, culture. But since the dominant culture (around here, anyway), is not derived from such roots, it's kind of a moot point anyway.
Warrior societies excel at individual courage and conflict, but paradoxically are just terrible at war. Successful warmaking requires that most combatants submerge their individuality for the good of the whole. Conflict is not so much an expression of individual prowess, as a means to achieve some larger end (usually benefiting the leader class more than the masses, but let's not digress too much), to compel the chosen enemy to submit to the demands of one's own group. What I find curious is that self-sacrifice and submergence of individuality are highly prized in the task of imposing our group's will on another group, but not so-highly prized within the group, and towards other members of the group. Whereas in smaller, warrior-centered groups, compassion and obligation to one's fellows is prized, but the group as a whole (usually) is not interested in dreams of conquest and subjugation of others. Whether or not these attitudes represent a "patriarchal" or "matriarchal" viewpoint is a fraught question, but I do find a greater respect for females in warrior societies than war-making societies. Then again, I may well be looking for just that.
-- Mal