Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Kinda Strange Track of Thought Today...

Isn't it funny how "The Mother" always has a primordial presence in the God-Pantheon, but the Father is absent?

I mean, there are "mothers", but the aspect of "The Mother" is what I am talking about. I am talking about the aspect of nurturing and giving life. But there is no father aspect. Or, at least, the father aspect seems to be split amongst other Gods.

Strangely, I used to wonder about the order of progression in creation from the Christian perspective. In terms of both divinity and mankind, it was Father, Mother, and Son. God, Mary, Jesus. Adam, Eve, the Cain.

But I suppose that can be argued, since Mary is not divine...

But from a scientific perspective, I thinking that the ability to reproduce is primary to life. The ability to survive is secondary. Is the male the attache of the female, or is the female the attache of the male? Older societies worshipped the female more...I think? Males seem engineered to be the fighters, foragers, protectors, and such. Is it gender roles or biology? I mean...scientifically, did life start with both a male or female thing? Likely not. Probably a single asexual being that, at some point, split into male and female beings. And while in some creatures the female is stronger than the male, in humans the male is stronger than the female.

Biology may have done this because of the need. Life always shapes itself around the conditions presented to it. Like water, it usually seeks the path to survival. Because of this, I am now, currently, as I write this, wondering what will become of the Male/Female relationship and does it have any bearing on what we see today. In the past, it was about survival, but on average, survival of the kind we came from is no longer an issue. Therefore the male need not be what he was and the female need not be what she was. I guess biology is slow to change things (maybe it's being careful), but because of the way we live, I wonder how biology will change us in the future. Is the current sexual variance a product of this- without the pressure of survival people just...wander...in sexual identity?

This is contemplative and done more from a place of curiosity so I really don't mean to offend anyone if I have offended someone here. I'm actually wondering. You know how they have Maslow's hierarchy of needs? The underlining thouht seems to be that when basic needs are not met- as in the past where all types of lethalities and insecurities existed- our needs are far more simple. As our basic needs are met, we have the space and resources to develop more complex things from our enviornment and to indulge in complex occupations spanning from complex thoughts and ideas on ourselves and the enviornment. With the pressure of the age of survival, things were as simple as man and woman. But now, when we have so much spare time we can afford to just sit down and binge watch Netflix for hours...we wander.

Again, just guesses, theories, thoughts... I'm always thinking of weird things like this and I don't mean to make it sound serious, it's just me giving my best argument to ideas that pop in me noggin.

Comments

"I've had clients who are way too agreeable. So maybe they're pushed around by their father for decades. And one of the ways they react to the hyper-aggression of their father, the dominance of their father, or maybe even their own weakness, is to classify dominance and aggression as evil and refuse to engage in it. Of course, that just weakens them further. They harbor resentment." - Jordan Peterson (link to video)

And here's another video that actually shows and talks about some symbolism of the father, something you mentioned.

[video=youtube;JA5iEKvHNxk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA5iEKvHNxk[/video]

As far as gender roles, the family unit and all that, I'd recommend reading A Brave New World if you haven't.

I can see how having security could allow for the swapping of gender roles. Yet even in the very egalitarian societies such as in the Scandinavian countries, biological differences are simply exaggerated when you look at career interest gaps. Very few women are going out of their way to become lumberjacks and very few men are becoming nurses. You could argue there's a level of survival in the former (because being a lumberjack is dangerous, not to mention physically taxing), but in the latter there certainly isn't.

Just because a man wants to be the caretaker of the home, look after the children and so forth, as opposed to working and being a provider, doesn't mean this man must also swap what sex he identifies as.

You could always be a masculine woman and you could always be a feminine man. They're simply deviations from the norm. None of that means they have to stop identifying with their biological sex, or change who they want to have intercourse with and why.
 
Smith;bt10327 said:
"I've had clients who are way too agreeable. So maybe they're pushed around by their father for decades. And one of the ways they react to the hyper-aggression of their father, the dominance of their father, or maybe even their own weakness, is to classify dominance and aggression as evil and refuse to engage in it. Of course, that just weakens them further. They harbor resentment." - Jordan Peterson (link to video)

And here's another video that actually shows and talks about some symbolism of the father, something you mentioned.

[video=youtube;JA5iEKvHNxk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA5iEKvHNxk[/video]

As far as gender roles, the family unit and all that, I'd recommend reading A Brave New World if you haven't.

I can see how having security could allow for the swapping of gender roles. Yet even in the very egalitarian societies such as in the Scandinavian countries, biological differences are simply exaggerated when you look at career interest gaps. Very few women are going out of their way to become lumberjacks and very few men are becoming nurses. You could argue there's a level of survival in the former (because being a lumberjack is dangerous, not to mention physically taxing), but in the latter there certainly isn't.

Just because a man wants to be the caretaker of the home, look after the children and so forth, as opposed to working and being a provider, doesn't mean this man must also swap what sex he identifies as.

You could always be a masculine woman and you could always be a feminine man. They're simply deviations from the norm. None of that means they have to stop identifying with their biological sex, or change who they want to have intercourse with and why.

That's true and that's what I mean. There's a long range between man and woman- alot of things that come between. I was talking about the mentality or emotional perspective of it. How, as we grow and perhaps have the spectrum of available things to be presented to us as kids, the typical male-female mindset becomes much more of a nuanced, collage-like thing where a persons particular mindset is much more individualized. And, as these particular types not only increase but become much more visible or accessible, the spectrum of particular sexualities or how one identifies will become, in time, much more diverse.

It's a theory though, I'm just toying with the idea in my head. Adults are too conservative, so I think cultural change occurs with the kids. And I think socieity was a lot more suppressed or set in how sexuality is percieved and enacted and so kids in the past only saw two basic types for the most part. But now that they can view a wide spectrum- not just around them, but around the world- I think that in the future a persons sexuality will be much more nuanced- mentally and emotionally. No, I don't think many females would become lumberjacks, lol.
 
kaminoshiyo;bt10348 said:
That's true and that's what I mean. There's a long range between man and woman- alot of things that come between. I was talking about the mentality or emotional perspective of it. How, as we grow and perhaps have the spectrum of available things to be presented to us as kids, the typical male-female mindset becomes much more of a nuanced, collage-like thing where a persons particular mindset is much more individualized. And, as these particular types not only increase but become much more visible or accessible, the spectrum of particular sexualities or how one identifies will become, in time, much more diverse.

It's a theory though, I'm just toying with the idea in my head. Adults are too conservative, so I think cultural change occurs with the kids. And I think socieity was a lot more suppressed or set in how sexuality is percieved and enacted and so kids in the past only saw two basic types for the most part. But now that they can view a wide spectrum- not just around them, but around the world- I think that in the future a persons sexuality will be much more nuanced- mentally and emotionally. No, I don't think many females would become lumberjacks, lol.

I've had a "conservative" view of sex before I hit the double-digits in age. I thought girls were attractive before the-birds-and-the-bees-talk. Born in the generation that I am, I've been exposed to all sorts of different nuances my entire life, and that didn't seem to have a single effect on my disposition other than I don't think it should be illegal to be gay. Kids aren't born as a blank slate. They're born with a foundation that can be built upon.

The way you phrased that bit about conservative adults reminds me of a funny thing I've noticed when having discussions like these. Everybody wants to talk about how you can be "too" conservative (and everybody seems to have different scales and measurements for determining what constitutes as "too" conservative, by the way), but few - if any - want to talk about being too liberal. Being too open. Almost as if the very idea is preposterous.

Wondered if the latter has ever crossed your mind.
 

Blog entry information

Author
kaminoshiyo
Views
38
Comments
3
Last update

More entries in Creative Writing 101

Top