sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (12/24/84)
Where the Wildmen Are (What Men Really Want) - by Robert Bly
The step of the male bringing forth his own feminine consciousness
is an important one-and yet I have the sense there is something wrong. The
male in the last twenty years has become more thoughtful, more gentle. But
by this process, he has not become more free. He's a nice boy who not only
pleases his mother but also the young woman he is living with.
What I'm proposing is that every modern male has, lying at the bottom
of his psyche, a large, primitive man covered with hair down to his feet.
Making contact with this wildman is the step the '70s male has not yet taken;
this is the process that still hasn't taken place in contemporary culture.
The kind of energy I'm talking about is not the same as macho, brute
strength, which men already know enough about; it's forceful action undertaken,
not without compassion, but with resolve.
The fault of the nuclear family isn't so much that it's crazy and full
of double binds...the issue is that the son has a difficult time breaking away
from the parents' field of energy, especially the mother's field, and our
culture simply has made no provision for this.
Fathers no longer share their work with their sons. The strange thing
about this is not only the physical separation, but the fact that the father
is not able to explain to the son what he's doing...in the world of offices,
with the father only home in the evenings, and women's values so strong in the
house, the father loses the son five minutes after birth. It's as if he had
amnesia and can't remember who his children are. The father is remote: He's
not in the house where we are, he's somewhere else. He might as well be in
Australia.
If the son accepts his mother's view of his father, he will look at
his own masculinity from a feminine point of view. But eventually the male
must throw off this view and begin to discover for himself what the father is,
what masculinity is...
The idea that male energy, when in authority, could be good has come
to be considered impossible. Yet the Greeks understood and praised that
energy. They called it Zeus energy, which encompasses intelligent, robust
health, compassionate authority, intelligent, physically healthy authority,
good will, leadership. In sum, positive power accepted by the male in the
service of the community. The Native Americans understood this too, that this
power only becomes positive when exercised for the sake of the community, not
for personal aggrandizement. All the great cultures have lived with images
of this energy, except ours.
The male in touch with the wildman has true strength: He's able to
shout and say what he wants in a way that the '60s and '70s male is not able
to. The approach to his own feminine space that the '60s and '70s male has
made is infinitely valuable, and not to be given up...The ability of a male to
shout and be fierce is not the same as treating people like objects, demanding
land or empire, expressing aggression-the whole model of the '50s male. Getting
in touch with the wildman means religious life for a man in the broadest sense
of the phrase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somehow it seemed better to quote the above in tact, rather than to continue
the mud slinging resulting from my previous article on the hairy beast.
Sunny
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunnydmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (12/27/84)
In article <1894@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >Where the Wildmen Are (What Men Really Want) - by Robert Bly > > The step of the male bringing forth his own feminine consciousness >is an important one-and yet I have the sense there is something wrong. The >male in the last twenty years has become more thoughtful, more gentle. But >by this process, he has not become more free. He's a nice boy who not only >pleases his mother but also the young woman he is living with. > What I'm proposing is that every modern male has, lying at the bottom >of his psyche, a large, primitive man covered with hair down to his feet. >Making contact with this wildman is the step the '70s male has not yet taken; >this is the process that still hasn't taken place in contemporary culture. > [ and more] Ok, now that I've seen this article, I know the context you posted your previous "wildman" article in, and now it makes more sense. However, Robert Bly's article seems based on the assumption that there is something fundamentally different between men and women - that all men, and presumably no women, have this "wildman" inside them. And I simply don't accept that assumption when presented without any supporting argument.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/27/84)
I suspect there is a problem here (a friend calls it ``the `wimpification' of the American male''), but I don't think it is just a male problem. I think it is the result of the increasingly self-concious nature of the American psyche: our intense obsession with ``self-image'', and with such self-centered emotions as guilt, greed, and vengence. The reason men and not women are perceived as developing this affliction is that the traditional female role covers it well by allowing it to be couched in passive terms. But I think that a ``crisis of the will'' exists in both sexes. It isn't so much that people need to ``get in touch'' with a particular part of themselves--such inward direction is already over-indulged in. Perceptions and actions are already far too colored by self-expectations and rationalizations. We insist on being ``in control'' (a good part of the evil side of the male role manifests itself here) so that our selves can be pushed and manipulated into what we think they should be. And if we now start thinking there is a ``hairy beast'' inside, we're sure to find it--or create it. We've objectified ourselves: we've become objects. And objects are meant to be manipulated. What is the result of all this, of this self-divided-against-itself? Paralysis of the will. If I spend all my effort trying to will myself into that person I ``know'' I am, how much is left to will action outside of myself? Especially if that action is so strongly inter- twined with my self-image. And since my reign on my actions and perceptions is only so strong, what happens when they get away from me? Self-restraint has all been concentrated in one place. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
sunny@sun.uucp (01/03/85)
> I think [the problem] is the [] self-concious nature of the > American psyche: our intense obsession with ``self-image'', and with such > self-centered emotions as guilt, greed, and vengence. > I think that a ``crisis of the will'' exists in both sexes. > Yes, there is too much focus on "self-image" (how we manipulate how others see us) rather than focus on self (postive, life-enhancing vs guilt, greed...) I think the crisis is in knowing self in the first place, the power base needed to have a will to assert. > > It isn't so much that people need to ``get in touch'' with a particular > part of themselves--such inward direction is already over-indulged in. > Are we really overindulging in self awareness, or merely in making the motions of pretending to become self aware? > > Perceptions and actions are already far too colored by self-expectations > and rationalizations. We insist on being ``in control'' (a good part of > the evil side of the male role manifests itself here) so that our selves > can be pushed and manipulated into what we think they should be. > I think the point would be to become a new person, rather than to be the old person continually aware of what the person wants to be instead. Again, this evidences making the motions of self awareness/ self actualization, without really accomplishing a real and lasting change of self, merely a veneer of "supposed to" laid on top of another reality. > > If we now start thinking there is a ``hairy beast'' inside, we're sure to > find it--or create it. We've objectified ourselves: we've become objects. > And objects are meant to be manipulated. > A standard die has six sides. We can look only at the "face" on top, and conclude it is an object which represents that number. Or we may look around it and see a total of 5 sides, and conclude it represents 5 numbers, or 5 pieces of a whole. Or we can look under it and find another face alltogether. The point is not to objectify our pieces, but to use the techniques of extraction and synthesis in an evolutionary process of change. Having seen all six sides of a die we may conclude it represents the integers from 1 to 6. Knowing why one would want to represent those integers is yet another level of understanding when one examines a die. Knowing oneself is equally a complicated puzzle, and so easily distracted by not having seen all the sides, or by accepting other peoples "knowledge" as the truth, and external definition of what one is, or ought to be. > > What is the result of all this, of this self-divided-against-itself? > Paralysis of the will. If I spend all my effort trying to will myself > into that person I ``know'' I am, how much is left to will action > outside of myself? Especially if that action is so strongly inter- > twined with my self-image. And since my reign on my actions and > perceptions is only so strong, what happens when they get away from > me? Self-restraint has all been concentrated in one place. > I agree that it is a waste of time and energy to be divided. But that was not the goal I had in mind. The point is to know all facets of oneself, and to change the substance of oneself, rather than to cover it up with an unreal self-image projected outward, and trying to make others believe in that. Then there will be no self divided into "is" vs "should-be", but instead a new person, whose self image is merely having looked in the mirror, rather than a madison-ave projection. The trick is to find the mirror which will show you all your sides, and the realities you don't want to see. Other people can give you some feedback, but only true introspection will help you find yourself. There is very little time for that in modern life. Holidays and vacations are too often filled with other people, escape, and entertainment, rather than isolation and true introspection. Anyone can go to a "drive-thru" mirror (workshop, etc) and convince themselves they've actually accomplished some introspection for their money, but true self realization is a life-long process of evolution, not a set of new-years resolutions which suddenly make you better just because December became January. The kind of awareness of the hairy beast I spoke of is that born of true introspection and work, not the self-divided-against-self new-years-resolution. It's a lot like dieting. You can "go on a diet" until you lose 10 lbs, and then go back to normal life and wonder why the extra pounds keep finding your midriff. Or you can work on a long term change in your eating habits until you are a new person, with new eating habits. Then you lose the weight and keep it off. Getting the hairy beast under control in a manner which channels its energy into positive constructive society enhancing activity is like the long term change in eating habits, it's a long term change in life/ social habits, not a superficial, "I'll try to be good" attitude such as the one you mentioned. You're right, the kind you mentioned won't work. never has. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
waynez@houxh.UUCP (W.ZAKARAS) (01/03/85)
>I suspect there is a problem here (a friend calls it ``the `wimpification' >of the American male''), but I don't think it is just a male problem. I >think it is the result of the increasingly self-concious nature of the >American psyche: our intense obsession with ``self-image'', and with such >self-centered emotions as guilt, greed, and vengence. The reason men and >not women are perceived as developing this affliction is that the >traditional female role covers it well by allowing it to be couched in >passive terms. But I think that a ``crisis of the will'' exists in both >sexes. > >It isn't so much that people need to ``get in touch'' with a particular >part of themselves--such inward direction is already over-indulged in. >Perceptions and actions are already far too colored by self-expectations >and rationalizations. We insist on being ``in control'' (a good part of >the evil side of the male role manifests itself here) so that our selves >can be pushed and manipulated into what we think they should be. And if >we now start thinking there is a ``hairy beast'' inside, we're sure to >find it--or create it. We've objectified ourselves: we've become objects. >And objects are meant to be manipulated. > >What is the result of all this, of this self-divided-against-itself? >Paralysis of the will. If I spend all my effort trying to will myself >into that person I ``know'' I am, how much is left to will action >outside of myself? Especially if that action is so strongly inter- >twined with my self-image. And since my reign on my actions and >perceptions is only so strong, what happens when they get away from >me? Self-restraint has all been concentrated in one place. > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall > WOW !!! Billy Graham couldn't have said it any better. A REAL Revelation. WayneZ...
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (01/06/85)
> I suspect there is a problem here (a friend calls it ``the `wimpification' > of the American male''), but I don't think it is just a male problem. I > think it is the result of the increasingly self-concious nature of the > American psyche: our intense obsession with ``self-image'', and with such > self-centered emotions as guilt, greed, and vengence. Guilt, greed, and vengeance are not emotions but learned attitudes. A child learns very quickly that he "should be ashamed of himself," or should love to get things, or must not let the other fellow "get away with it." The child who does not learn these things will be better off as an adult. In other respects I agree fully with the original article. The less you "know" about yourself, the more you can do. But it helps if you can distinguish your emotions from the behavior traps that monopolize them. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (01/11/85)
> > I suspect there is a problem here (a friend calls it ``the `wimpification' > > of the American male''), but I don't think it is just a male problem. I > > think it is the result of the increasingly self-concious nature of the > > American psyche: our intense obsession with ``self-image'', and with such > > self-centered emotions as guilt, greed, and vengence. > > Guilt, greed, and vengeance are not emotions but learned attitudes. A child > learns very quickly that he "should be ashamed of himself," or should love > to get things, or must not let the other fellow "get away with it." The > child who does not learn these things will be better off as an adult. > I fully agree with you; I suspect our differences are semantic. My point was that these conditioned emotional reactions (i.e. ``attitudes'') are nothing but manifestations of culturally-fostered self-obssession: guilt (reaction to a self-damaged self-image), greed (accumulation of objects-- and they can be people considered as objects--to inflate self-worth) or vengence (reaction to other-damaged self-image). They are learned responses, usually as a reaction to arbitrary parental domination and neglect. I'm sure you can add other, similar ones (e.g. jealousy, pleasure at deception, and so forth). > . . . . > -- > Col. G. L. Sicherman -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall