“Why is there a battle of the Sexes?” part 2


Chinaman……  Good morning J…….


Let me attempt to take up the thoughts from where I left them last time.


In any individual there are basic urges that forever need to be met.  There are appetites of hunger, thirst, comfort, safety, pleasure and sex that cannot be ignored.  These also have to be met amid a constantly changing world, changing from moment to moment and day to day and year to year. One appetite will dominate consciousness above all the others at any given moment if that need is not being met, but all needs will seek satisfaction in time.  It is a constant state of tension with one need begging for attention over the others at any given time.  The result is that an individual is rarely completely satisfied and life is experienced as a constant struggle.


Individuals are seldom loners.  People find life becomes easier when faced in company and struggle is shared.  As a consequence that means that there has to be give and take between individuals, for unless one is so much stronger than all the others, and so dominates the whole society, then there is a sharing of governance and a pecking order established that is challenged everyday.  That is the source of politics and power.  That is the drive to control for safety’s sake, and that is true within a large community or within a very small one.


The smallest community is a community of two, and even here the same struggle for dominance will go on. No two people think in identical fashion and no two people have identical appetites at identical times.  There is always one giving way to the other, even though it is usually not the same one doing all the giving all the time.  One will tend to dominate, but unless the other is totally subservient and a complete doormat there will be a searching for satisfaction by both.  This is true of same sex couples or of mixed gender, but of course nature tends to breed out same sex coupling – by definition.  The norm is of mixed gender grouping.


When needs are met then the couple or community survives and grows.  If needs are not met then dissatisfaction grows and the community or couple splits asunder.


It would be so good if everyone believed the world should work in the same way.  In that case there would be far less need to argue one’s case and try other ways, systems and methods.  However individuals have individualistic outlooks and ideas and situations change where different solutions are required.  This is true of large communities, of nations, tribes, families as well as for couples.  The world is forever changing and there cannot be a static community or couple.


The world is also very complex.  If an individual cannot find deep satisfaction at any one time but sees struggle all around, then all the more the case existing in community, for people that make up a community will find that dissatisfaction more wide spread and never ending.  The more factors present that need to be accommodated then the more complex and less satisfying the present ever is.


That is how I see things anyhow, but now let me add to that the ‘battle of the sexes’ from last time.  Let me recap.


There are two types of human kind that make up the present day hybrid species of humanity.  There is the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon.

In past ages the Neanderthal was stocky, darker skin, hairier, more intuitive, more emotional, more promiscuous, given to dance, chant and music, more nomadic and tended to be the hunter and gatherer, female dominated as woman was the constant feature of such a life style.  The tendency was for individuals to be less to the fore as the tribe somehow found common cause and solutions to prevailing situations.  More communal activity and communal ownership became a feature.  They ‘went with the flow’ rather than fought against the elements, and that kind of thinking went through aspects of life.


Cro-Magnon was fairer of skin, less hairy, more rational in thinking; more loyal to tribe and family as survival meant they had to work together.  However that also meant that individuals tended to come to the fore through strength of body and character as one viewpoint had to have sway.  It was thus a male dominated society, less likely to roam, more stable and established, more the farmer, putting down roots in an area and thinking more long term and investment of control.  Such a situation meant that tradition could be expressed in more concrete terms through building, art and outward status. Man was the constant factor and heredity became a factor.


Where these two kinds of people met then obviously the less aggressive and more accommodating nomadic Neanderthal would have tended to give ground to the Cro-Magnon.  However that is not a simple equation for there would have been a constant cross breeding between the two, even though the Cro-Magnon expression would have come to the fore.  An unsettled hybrid species resulted with warring urges and inner needs.


If this is the underlying disharmony that is present within each person’s subconscious, then the battle for dominance will have this backdrop that cannot be ignored.  When a battle or issue is fought between individuals of different gender then the battle of the sexes comes into focus.  Individual battles may focus upon particular issues that seem to have no relevance to sexual orientation or gender, but when stepping back from the immediate fight, this backdrop to understanding of life is present, despite the issue under review.  It is a constant niggle that will not go away. Even though the immediate issue might be about one or the other person having their way, it is felt at a deeper level as if the issue is about one whole gender having to constantly give way to the other and the present issue is but one example of that battle.  To give ground is to be disloyal to one’s own sex. There is strength in numbers so issues are usually shared with same gender groups.  That is the battle of the sexes.


It would not be so much a battle if the beliefs of individuals were in tune with their inner urges, but they are not. For example, an individual might believe that they should be loyal to their partner but the urge could be overwhelming to be promiscuous – or vice versa.  The greater the disharmony within the individual then the more likely the ‘battle of the sexes’ will be apparent as anxiety is voiced or held in check by increasing force until something bursts!  Control might be through finance, religious belief, education, tradition or physical strength, but times bring change.  Then the constraints need to be strengthened to maintain the status quo or reviewed and negotiated openly or tacitly as new situations demand attention.


So much of your literature describes this tension, particularly the ‘folk lore’ of relationship.  You have the tall fair haired loyal husband or wife at odds with the dark hair and swarthy alluring ‘gypsy’, temptation towards freedom and free love.


There is no easy solution.  Respect for the differences and differing needs is needful.  It makes for an extremely diverse world that can stimulate and encourage growth, but presents the danger of fear and stagnation when challenge is not met.  Let me give you three examples from your own society and time.


As cultures mix then cultures clash.  This is seen particularly when an Asian family moves to England and settles there.  When the next generation grows the pressures are apparent.  The established order of doing things in the East, with its traditions and family ethic, is so different to those of England.  There is tremendous pressure for, for example, girls to only mix with boys of their own ethnic traditions, and for family members even to try to find a marriage partner from the country from whence they came.  When the girls decline to follow this long held tradition, because their peers delight in a freedom never experienced by the older Asian family members, then conflict is inevitable.


That is true even without the hybrid battle within humanity, but if the older members, male and female, are secure within themselves then although they might feel betrayed by their offspring when they do not follow the traditions that they themselves hold dear, they are not likely to demand obedience to the extreme degree.  However, because human kind is an hybrid species with the inner conflict never far beneath the surface of thought or feeling, then justification of obedience can be found within tradition or religion as being greater than the older family members actual authority.  This occurs when the older members are not secure within themselves, are threatened by new thought and find the loss of authority too daunting.  Outwardly the conflict is seen as following, or not following, tradition or religion, but inwardly the strength of feeling usually stems from the battle of the sexes.


Another example is that of the wayward father.  Although your society is generally an expression of the Cro-Magnon rationality and male dominated ways of doing things, in fact the trend has been growing within your cities of a female domination in all things.  Not only is there a denigration of male strength and role but the tendency is for young females to have casual sex with any male available and to bring up any children without a father figure being present.  The result is that the children have no major authority in their lives and find they cannot easily settle in the greater society with its rules, laws and expectations.  Their childhood setting is that of Neanderthal but their adult lives will be lived in a Cro-Magnon environment.  That means all manner of conflict will result but it is never seen in these terms!


My third example is an observation concerning feminism.  It is my belief that the militant feminist is doomed, and has been from the start.  Wishful thinking cannot change human nature, and so although the echo of the female being dominant is present in the subconscious and has given energy to the militant feminist movement in your recent times, to try to express this within a Cro-Magnon environment has meant a loss of feminism.  Women have tried to compete as non-gender persons, using male tactics and masculine aggression.  The result has been a ‘mixed message’ for they still want to be accepted as women.  Not only that but the backlash is tremendous as society turns even more emphasis on sexuality and young girls see their route to success as being sexual objects rather than able managers and thinkers.  Women dominated in Neanderthal, not because they were thinkers or decision makers, but because their sex and nature was the stable focus for their times.  In the battle of the sexes this ancient dominance is still expressed through the female allure and men cannot help but respond according to their instincts.


Throughout all time and in this time, the complexity of human society means that there is both heaven and hell to be found within it, male and female complementing or fighting, old giving way to new reluctantly, rear guard action, backlash and innovation all mixed up together.


I would not change it for the world!!!!!