So, there's something I meant to write about for a bit now, but ... I didn't quite come around. Like,
to a point or something. It's in and of itself a rather simple thing, but ... as that, it's somehow
suspended in the air - to say, it ... doesn't really mean anything outside of itself. And what connects
to it - is ... I guess ... tricky ... is a word I would use there.
And so - I guess I also have to start somewhere else.
So, through ... media ... I've basically been told, that "the bad guy" is this embodiment of toxic
masculinity. And sure enough - ... . I sometimes go to bed with what I would call hyperactive synapses;
And respectively have some kind of vision/hallucination/vivid imagination thing going on. But it's not
really my biology that speaks there - it's something deeper that ... I guess we could say: Has a stimulating
effect on my cognitive machinery. And what I ... uh ... "visioned upon there" - was the impression of a
weak man who only ... wanted to be strong. Which, I suppose, is like ... what we generally surmise
toxic masculinity to come from.
But toxic masculinity is a bit of an umbrella term here. To take it back to what I was led to believe, or we
are ... led to believe, is that it's a bit of an umbrella term for nearly every negative quality of humanity;
As per the mangle and the human condition in this world.
Something that thereby triggers me the most, is something about asserting dominance. If we wanted to dig
deeper I'm sure we'd find a need to be in control. To have all the pieces move as desired. And people who
are bent against you, they'd be annoying to deal with - and so - one would desire to ... convince them to
... stop being that.
There's a phrase that pops up in the Bible ... as I would say: endemic of a certain period in Israelite
history. Probably not too different from the "Yes we can"s and the "Make America Great Again"s. It is:
"what part do we have in David?". I mean, If you've read the Kings or the Chronicles, or - pretty sure:
spent enough time around Christians or Jews - the name David must mean something to you. What exactly ...
isn't important. But he used to be a pretty big deal. Or is. For ... some reason. He was God's
chosen, in a way. And I think stands in good contrast to Saul. While Saul was rejected for not obeying
God's instructions to the letter, David ... wasn't only let off the hook but ... God's blessings on him
were extended onto his offspring. And years or even generations later ... people would speak of "the House
of David" - as though it meant something. Though the modern Zeitgeist might disagree - he does enjoy a
similar standing to that of ... a King Arthur. And if you wanna look closer - you may find, that David had
more integrity than Saul. So, for comparison; David had a keen - even if at times questionable - sense for
justice. Saul was more like ... selfish, narcissistic and egotistical.
But the point is, that after David's sons couldn't agree on who got to be King - the nation fell apart -
and it was "the Kings of the House of David" against "the Kings of the House of Israel". At which point
I'm sure that to the one side David was more than he ever could have been - and to the other, nothing
of tangible significance.
It might not seem relevant here - but yea ... it's just a story about ... basically ... "who gets to do the
convincing". As in - who is in the right when asserting dominance. And eventually - though they were meant
to be one - there were two nations, worried about their own safety - I assume - as threatened by "the other".
And at the end, they both fell. After they had weakened each other enough, they were an easy target for those
around.
What I'm concerned about here - isn't really that though. But certain things, like - toxic masculinity - are
a bit like fractals. As we find them present in the small, we also find them in the large. As such, they can
be properties of an individual - "perhaps even" with nuance - but also of the great abstract of society - well,
"perhaps even" ... with nuance.
And like so - we almost inevitably dropped into puddles of identity politics ... throughout history. And yea,
the ... story between Christians and Muslims ... might just be one of the larger ones of that kind.
Well. What I'm thinking about in particular is, that the rather patriarchic mindset of Muslims is often a
source of friction with our German sensitivities. It is the kind of stuff that ... gets good people angry.
So do we as Germans, if I may generalize, have a certain expectation of who we are at large based on simple
conceptions of the small. And men who think that women are their property - and whatever baggage comes with
that - and whatever comes of that - just don't fit in and as of that people would start talking about the
tolerance paradox. Because ... it is difficult to bend this condition around matters of tolerance. Either you're
tolerant and thus tolerate the abuser - at which point ... the reason why we want to be tolerant becomes
obsolete - or we don't tolerate it, at which point, it seems somewhat self-defeating.
But so, then - if we cannot draw the lines properly - we're bound to act unjust. As of that, we'd probably wrong
people who then have a justification to be upset. And sooner or later, both sides are wound up in a convoluted
web of hypocrisy.
A web of "buts" and "whatabouts". Surrounding nests of who did what to whom for what reason.
Some might there see the Bible as inspiring. That, as God led the people of Israel to conquer the lands of Canaan,
they were instructed to leave no survivors. Because ... survivors hold grudges - we might think. And grudges lead
to political opposition. So, tolerance again ... being apparently something that leads to endless cycles of ...
turmoil. Because at the end, so it seems, ... perfect tolerance cannot co-exist with any kind of other ideology.
But ... we do hold those ... as it would seem: Inevitably.
But so then did Jesus not tell us ... to conquer the Planet. But to present our left cheek to those who would beat
us on the right. TO live tolerance, as it were, so for the time that we don't have to deal with intolerant BS,
so one idea, we may actually do good - for ourselves and others - rather than being upset and filled with anger.
It's a bit like: If we want to base our actions (and beliefs and ideology) on the mistakes (or worse: mere existence)
of others - we have to make sure that we are free of it. Or so would our own claim manifest. And to us westerners -
this takes on form in shape of exploitation. Our wealth is built on exploitation. And to some - perhaps large - extent
still is. And like so ... it would seem to be our Karma ... that we be exploited in return.
It's ... "funny" how that goes. I mean, well. It is difficult - and for the most part I think that works for the
better - these days to broadly generalize. So is there the matter with "Karens" - who expose behavior that most
people deem unacceptable. And yet I may assume that their behavior ... stems from something. And I find it weird,
that ... it is so prevalent in "the Land of the Free". And I've learned, that people generally have a bad attitude
towards service workers. The irony being, that the USAs claim to fame is liberty FROM that ... master:servant
dichotomy. Well ... maybe not really.
Meanwhile in Germany, I learned that service workers are respected. Service certainly is one of the pivotal aspects
of a functioning society the size of ours. But if you want to live in a world where it's OK to look down on others,
you must be OK with others looking down upon you. But of course ... that's where our stubbornness comes in. A
stubbornnes that doesn't like reality for its nuances and conditions and consequences and all that. A stubbornness
that doesn't want there to be another way but its own.
Toxic Masculinity is however also only one side of the coin. Like so might we say, that there are two types of women.
Those that support the good, and those that support the bad ... in their men. Jezebel being one villain that genre
of stories. But at the same time, it's part of a Book that contains the book of Esther - as one thing girls might
find aspirational value in. And sure enough ... what Disney does ... with all of its princesses ... essentially just
iterates on that. Now, I don't want to say that it's a bad thing; Though I'm sure the one or the other feminist might
... disagree. There is however a silver lining to the story - as ... though it is still the man who gets to say what
the woman may be ... she didn't get to be recognized by doing as people told her to. She stepped out of line - a ...
nuance ... however, that might oft be forgotten.
In a sense it is as a seed however. For so, in the dark, even a dim light may light way. Even so we might say, that it
is a woman's duty to step out of line ... for men to be able to step beyond their shortcomings. There so would be men
who might think that women do not deserve autonomy - and yet can they not answer why God so gave them as much.
But yet ... I mean. I think there is what we may call 'the female trauma'. That is also the thing I wanted
to write about.
It is, in short, that women anticipate men to be eager to put them into their place - to the point, that this internalized
misoginy informs their mating habits. To say, they don't trust men who don't seem like they'd do it - because those who
certainly seem like they would, can at least be judged in terms of how that might manifest. And that might be what makes
women seem erratic, paradoxical, emotional, intransparent, unlogical, ... etc..
And then there's the issue, that this toxic masculinity often also triggers sexual stimuli - as that's usually what it
boils down to.
But, far be it from me to claim that it is a simple matter. And to skip past all the silly remarks and surface level
analysis of the matter - the problem is this: By attempting to put "the woman" into her place, "the man" effectively
distorts "the natural order" - in a sense glancing past the fact that it's difficult to quantify what "natural order"
ought to be. I mean, amongst non human lifeforms, that what we would perceive as 'natural order' doesn't quite ...
play out that much. And in as far as men wanna be "Alpha"s - the joke's on them, because nature's 'true' Alpha - as
of how the term was coined - is much more like a Queen B. And among some species the female is the dominant or
even exploitative sex.
Being ourselves autonomous and conscious - in the sense that we're as far removed from our biological urges and
instincts that we can't even agree on how to respond to them - there isn't much of a ... argument ... for some
kind of "natural order"; And in consequence any attempt to impose as much on others, defies the very essence of what
makes us human.
But yet, the man is the stronger and traditionally dominant sex. And due to our freedoms - coupled with urges - we run
into trouble. Like so, protection is all well and fine - but when it's the Mafia, for instance, speaking of Protection
... well ... it's not really protection anymore. And so are Pimps a bit of a mix of the two. One that may just perfectly
embody the issue at hand.
It's similar to how, when it turns out that some politician engaged in some explicit or at least borderline pedophilic
activity, I certainly expect it's a republican and most of the time that's been proven right. Just as a plethora of keyboard
warriors will chime in defending it - yet somehow - they mean to be the ones we trust to protect our children?
In other words: people who take it up on themselves to be dominant and strong to protect us and stuff - could generally
be considered to be good - unless the things they believe in are ... bad ... actually. Which maybe is the case ... most
of the time.
And some part of me wants to argue that these disagreements are for the most part artificial - generally built on ignorance
- and the sole reason for "why we can't have good things" as it were.
I hesitate to do so because ... I'm willing to acknowledge that it's more complicated - until we're back in the Christian
worldview - mine, that is - because when starting to think ahead, willing to let go of misconceptions of the past - things
can't be THAT difficult.
I mean - due to this hyper polarized political landscape we live in, the concept of disagreements has in my opinion been
... exalted into a flat out ridiculous position. Like, what are we disagreeing on, even? Basic reality? Yea, which is why
it's ridiculous! But "those nitwits" over there can't stop talking of "two genders" like it means anything - believing that
they got it all figured out - while actual biologists sit there, fingertips to the bridge of their nose, contemplating upon
the virtues of optimism and the point of it all in face of the rampant ignorance spreading across the globe.
It's like ... when they start speaking of gender affirming care, they have to emphasize all the horrible possibilities in
all sorts of gory language - because in actuality - reality is far more mundane. And often more aggravating on the other
side of the story.
I mean, it takes like ... a moment or two ... to figure out that sex-reassignment-surgery for Children is idiotic and a
complete non-starter. One would at the very least have to wait for the respective organs to be developed to the point that
that the surgical reassignment makes practical sense.
Then they cry about how Democrats will maybe eventually possibly take into consideration to take queer children from their
republican brainwashed parents - which is something most if not all sane people will find a rational alignment with -
while republican politicians are quite adamant on making a case for the taking away of queer children from parents that
support them.
And the whole abortion thing ... [sigh] ... well, it probably makes them feel really good about themselves. Yea, well ...
what is it called? Deontological good? Which is to say: It isn't 'utilitarian good' - to say - it has no utility and is
only good ... in a hypothetical sense. While factual reality disagrees - to a rather mocking extent.
And - if I may: Sure - deontological good is good - in as far as it means 'principledness' - in so far as that what might
seem beneficial in the short term might not be so in the long. But so, the more meaningful discussion were about long
versus short sightedness. And if you want to make profound deontological claims based on theology ... well ... you better
have a solid and profound theological understanding to justify that from.
Anyhow - so: The problem with dominance is that it often leads to "the suffering of the weak". Something that, as per the
modern Zeitgeist that the newest Generation is subscribed to, is generally implied when using the term: 'Minority'. Not to
mixed up with "the loud minority" - a.k.a. the part of the dominant group that less and less people want to listen to.
But, well ... what do I know? Though, sure ... the question should be: What do 'they' ... actually ... really ... know?
So, the thing is - to my understanding for sure - that the story of Jesus is one that encourages us to turn towards the
plight of the weak. With something more profound than: Help yourself! Though, certainly, one's self is always the final
instance of improvement - merely pointing that out isn't really a whole lot of help, actually. But, I figure, maybe Jesus
was trying to be funny by telling a disabled person to "stand up and walk". So, maybe that's the secret! That it's ... so
simple after all! Right?
No. In my understanding - it all starts with the innate diversity that the cosmos hath bestowed upon us. With it, eventually,
came tribalism - and quite possibly a form of bullying that isn't all that far removed from our worldly grasp. I mean, let's
face it: We can be really stupid at times! Some people's stupidity may play out in areas that are somewhat inconsequential,
while that of others shines more so in the spotlight. And - ever so often - our own wishful thinking might make things even
more difficult for us.
I had a thought recently - and it concerns this idea that some might think us to be better off if we just ... got thrown into
a huge cauldron of consciousness where we then might exist as little specs of consciousness in what might seem to be some
"natural order" of co-existence. And I had to wonder ... about it ... and couldn't ignore that real life is much about getting
along. Now, imagine you were semi fused to a speck of consciousness that constantly invaded your free space - perhaps as much
as you invaded theirs - so you might co-exist in an eternally perpetuated state of unbridled rage against each other. The kind
of rage one has for a fly that keeps on being a nuisance, or a sound that just doesn't go away, or ... whatever it is that you
can't quite control. It's as real a possibility as that it might actually turn out fine. It's ... all hypothetical - but,
wanting it to be all peaceful might actually be what made it worse. Though I guess it's all fine if your the dominant one that
can pretty much invade unchallenged. Yet in all fairness, that wouldn't really be a likely condition. And if you have the
peace to bear it all like ... peacefully - you'd certainly deserve better!
I mean, I sure think there's a plethora of stupid takes on reality - what it should be and stuff - that fundamentally only
serve the purpose of making us ignore the actual reality that is right in front of us.
But that is then also more often than not what fuels this ignorant, misguided urge to dominance. I mean, a lot of the conservative
rage of the day is aimed against how the younger generations have grown up to believe in a better tomorrow. And while a lot of
it might be misguided - the real blame is in how the older generations reject the reason behind that thinking. I believe.
And as is said: One cannot kill an idea. Though I hope to disagree - the sad thing is, that the idea of conservatives is utterly
disturbing - in as far as it means to resist ... the changes that need to be made for us to have a better tomorrow.
But so - there also isn't much of a point here. Other than just ... saying how it is. Or how I see things, for that matter.
And sure - let you decide. Each individually. In hopes ... we can ... walk this thing to the best possible future ... together.