עודכן: 8 בדצמ׳ 2021
The Female Origin, Nature and Validity of Authority vs. the Female approved Male Execution and Codification of its Power as a Reflection of the Division between Formal (Male) and Informal (Female) Power!
To understand the relationship between authority as formal male power and the narrative (language, speech and a form or sub category of a wide range or scale of collective wisdom) as informal female power we must consider and understand the workings and the dynamics of the division between the informal power itself (always in the hands of women) and formal power (mostly but not completely in the hands of men) as well as the distinction between its abstract vs the concrete realms or the emptiness vs the form. This, however, contrary to feminist claims, is not a modern development but always took place and could be observed in human societies. The following discussion is more of a theoretical nature and it follows the research of S.C. Rogers "Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance". While Rogers showed this dynamic within older and traditional societies especially the peasant ones here I continue to elaborate on her findings and conclusions showing that this is a universal principle that is valid in all human societies - modern as well as traditional ones. It is important for the realization and apprehension of the underlying dynamics, the recognition of the clandestine nature and hidden gynocentric dynamics of our society as well as offering the best solution to overcome or deal with the ravages, the destruction and scorged earth that femimism, gynocentrism and misandry leave behind them.
First, I want to give the most important conclusions from Roger's research by highlighting the important points from her outstanding work as a form of a short summery. Rogers begins by observing and correctly characterizing and defining anthropology as a field, we can say hardly scientific descipline, that is guilty of making a lot of sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Those false generalization and assumptions directly and negativelty influence anthropologiest's perception of reality through selective interpretation and chery picking of its nature who based on these false axioms investigate power dynamics and authority. Those academically active on the field of anthropology typically assume that the only forms of power dynamics that are relevant are those codified through written laws, legislation and so on and are finaly formalized: according to them things like directives, (the written) law and positions in political entities are the only thing that counts. There is no place in their observations for informal power.
However, this sole focus on only formal aspects of power and authority through cherry picking and selective misinterpretation naturally distorts reality and its none dual nature, as we will see, where the masculine can't exist without the feminine in a vacuum and makes it deludely and wrongly appear as if male dominance is virtually a universal phenomenon all over the spectrum of human experience, existence and societies. To make this even more worse, according to Rogers, both men and women actually act upon this myth as if men are truelly dominant (again all over the range of human existence), when in reality, the situation is of course almost as diametrically opposed to those myths and notions. In fact, none of these myths have corresponding reality. In her research, Rogers writes, “although peasant males monopolize positions of (formal) authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power” (p.728). Here, below, in my further elaboration I attempt to explain the underlying dynamics that solve this phenomenon and explain the clandestine and hidden gynocentric nature upon which it relies and Rogers fails to bring in her research.
Furthermore, in the peasant societies investigated by Rogers, women were in control of the major portion of the family resources and made most of the decisions regarding how those resources were used, in effect, wielding the greater power as she writes and explains. This dynamic by the way has been proved as valid in our modern societies too when we consider the global female consuming power where females according to estimates control 70% of global spending, the same amount of the world's wealth including family resources. So, the question that may arise in this context is why in ancient societies both women and men would do this and which personal and collective incentive it would serve? Why ancient societies acted like men have all the power and subsequently authority, when in fact, not only this hasn't been true or had any corresponding reality while those are actually women who have most of it?
Well, Rogers starts by first defining a myth as a belief that one can see is factually untrue. According to her research, both groups seek to think, see and understand themselves as having clear advantages, values and prestige relative to one another. Each of the groups members naturally seeks of course those attributes to be distributed fairly and in such a way that neither group or its specific member in an intimate relationship feels like they’re getting less out of the deal. Each of the individual members of the respectively collective group wants to be seen personally as well as collectively as “winner” in the eyes of both the actual partner in the relationship as well as publically or collectivelly. Furthermore, both men and women see themselves as mutually dependent upon one another, which, when you come right down to the very basic reality of reproduction is absolutely and without any doubt valid. However, as we will see it transcends the realm of reproduction and is true in each and every aspect. This we will discuss immediately.
Addionally, despite a certain level of ignorance and delusion needed to maintain the myth as Rogers states both men and women in peasant societies (whether intuitively or by insight), completely understood that we are all, men as well as women, dependent upon one another and thus they sought to create a social structure that makes both men and women feel valued and being treated respectfully and fairly. This although still a socially fair gynocentric contract existed until the time of queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and was replaced by her with a new misandrist model that gave rise to the current social and cultural gynocentric social contract whose epitome is feminism and its attempt to form and create a misandrist matriarchy in the future as its end goal. Both, this none dual ancient as well as the one sided constract and social contract between the genders we will be discussing immediately.
So, what resources do women control is of course the next question we should be asking? In peasant societies and actually still even today the key unit of economic development as well as social life, both in evolutionary terms as well as our personal and collective well being (which is also important for survival), is the nuclear family. Husband, wife, children, and perhaps extended members of the family in the form of grandparents. Jill Dubisch, that was mentioned in Roger's research also tried to evaluate the power that women hold in peasant societies, came up with four criteria to evaluate how evenly power and authority were distributed between husbands and wives which can be outlined as the following fourfold evaluation or points:
1. How respectfully did the spouses treat one another, both privately and publicly?
2. How often or much did the spouses interfere with one another’s domains?
3. How were family resources distributed?
4. How were decisions regarding plans for children made?
Here is an example of how it works in Greek villages just to give one example. It is important to understand because it gives us undetstanding into the workings and the dynamics behind the facts that women control 70% of family resources, 70% world's wealth and 70% of global spending. So, in our Greek example women control all the family finances, because they take principal responsibility for producing the food/goods that will be sold at the local market. Those women bake the bread, produce the butter, weave the cloth, collect the eggs, raise the goats, make the cheese and so on. They then go to the markets, set the prices, and collect the payment. So far, they are not only the primary drivers of the family’s wealth and physical well being but that is one of many underlying reason why women control up to 70% of the world's wealth and family resources even if they work less than men and participate less in the working force. Adding the fact that women are natural and sexual selection in evolutionary terms and their control through informal power is almost absolute.
Here, we should also add that contrary to moderm misandrist culture driven by feminism and extreme gynocentrism, according to Rogers traditional peasant societies could see that women produced and controlled most of the actual, finite resources in society, including the labor of the majority of less lucky and rich men. They also could see how that might make men feel exploited and in a problematic position in a relationship with a woman. So both men and women agreed to a division of power where the more important informal power stays completely in the hands of women but men would be allowed to control the greater part of the formal power structures, none of which can exist without the consent, being approved by women, their actual help in executing power and authority as well as the labor of women and poor men including of course the participation of women in political institutions as well as the power structures of authority. So, to make certain that both men and women felt equally valued and appreciated, they created a myth of male dominance, all the while knowing that the true balance of power swayed heavily in favor of women.
So these are the findings and the conclusion from Roger's research and now let's continue to my elaboration which relies upon her research, findings, conclusions and further explain their underlying dynamics. Here, in that sense, we must first understand that formal power (authority aka codification, law, legislation, directives, regulations and many more) is rooted, defined, it depends and can be excercised only with the help, the consent and when approved by the informal power (societal focus, collective intelligence/understanding and narrative). And the latter is always gynocentric and especially matrifocal that obsessively concentrates on female incentives, wishes and desires. It is also important to add that conventional - collective intelligence is a form of relative wisdom but not the ultimate one. As such and on a large group scale it is susceptible to mistakes, false views and misinterpretations having thus to undergo an evaluation not through group members but by being scrutinized through empirical finding and data as to be classified as truth.
In fact, metaphysically authority springs conceptually (abstractually) from wisdom, language, speech including verbal interpretation (before codification) and is overwhelming controlled by female energies and gynocentric concepts while it is important to understand that through conditioning begining from early stages of infancy up to adulthood both boys and girls adopt their mother's female and thus gynocentric mindset in how and through which they perceive and interpret the world and reality. In practical terms authority springs in the world of actual forms (as standing opposed to abstract and conceptual "emptiness" aka. "pregnant void" ( which can be conpared to the quantum physical principles) from the narrative and through the realm as well as at the same time the means of laguange and speech, both heavilly coloured through its gynocentric and female nature, then it is codified (thus dependent on it) and is finally implemented/exercised over the masses through the support and acceptance of the informal power (women and the gynocentric principle).
Without going too much into a metaphysical discussion it is important to understand and differ between the ultimate, unborn - abstract wisdom and its emanation into other realms of knowledge and intelligence which are born, relative and not ultimately always true as even paradigm changes (and shifts) within science itself show. In that sense the ultimate wisdom, the abstract - unborn is eternal and primordial; other forms are born and emanate from it. The next one is the born wisdom and it is followed by various stages, level and realms of inteligence up to the last and lower pieces in the chain of originating wisdom, intelligence and knowledge which are bits of data and information. In this contex despite the unborn wisdom there exist non dually personal as well as (conventional) collective forms of wisdom and intelligence leading to knowledge based on data and information. Not only this is the dwelling realm of the collective conventional knowledge but it is also the place where it is created. Thus gynocentric collective - conventional knowledge and narrative is formed in the born, conditioned realm of the narrative and this is the root dimension of its origins. Despite the feminist's and the blue pill's claims, gynocentric conventional - collective wisdom is not the ultimate truth and in fact it is wrong and falsely fabricated narrative.
Anyway, authority as a characteristic of male power is surrounded by female qualities, concepts and energies from every side while at the same time it is born of it, condinioned and thus at the end implementing its narrative and cause by being approved and the support of the feminine in the same way as male baby is by his mother even physically in the womb. In other words, authority, in that senses, resembles, reminds and embodies the same dynamic as masculinity itself that by default of the gynocentric nature of women and the societal expression of reality is defined by women.
In other words, the origin of mundane authority is metaphysicaly born, conditioned, created and is emanating from born, conditioned, relative and emanating wisdom, especially the collective one as well as narrative, language and speech. It functions on a twofolded realm principle where as the origin of authority it gives it birth and rise and than in another twofolded manner it first defines it and then through language, speech and narrative interprets it. It is only in the middle stage or link that based on the female principles men practise, codify and excersise authority. Therefore, the codification and execution always occur within this none dual phenomenon where the masculine and feninine can never be seperated and function alone but the feminine is the dominant force which gives rise, defines and allows the masculine to be acted and executed in the world.
This embedded gynocentric biological evolutionary and unavoidable feature within the mundane society does not mean that it leaves men devoid of (personal) choice and agency but that through the personal agency they have, men have the choice to seek to transcend this conditioning by cultivating a masculinine expression that is not female focused and conditioned. It is the none dual principle of living outside while operating within. Again, without going too much into metaphysics it is a middle path that allows (mental as well as conceptual) liberation through ultimate wisdom that is in harmony with its lower emanating types including the personal as well as collective forms without resorting into the extreme of renouncing each and every aspect of the material and mundane world or life.
In the bottom line, we can see its workings maybe ultimately taking place in the realm of laws and the legal system (which extremely prefers and favors women over men. In the legal system the written law and codification is less important but what counts is the interpretation of the written law which is always female, gynocentric and today feminist - misandrist. Why is it so? Because codification and written law can never cover all possibilities thus you always need interpretation which belongs to the realm of narrative which is, as I said, always female, gynocentric and rooted in informal power. It is defined, it depends and can be implemented only through being in agreement with it
The question thay may arise now is whether womem should participate within the power dynamics, centers or circles of formal authority. Historical and empirical findings decisivly suggest contrary to feminist myths and falsehoods that women exercised (formal) authority and participated in it on a large scale. Therfore, such a question is outdated and irrelevant. What is the relevant question? Within our changing society it may be the correct ratio between male and female forms of authority but in fact the more important question is how we balance correctly the power gap which is detriment to men by balancing the formal and informal power in the light of the changing ratio whatever it might be. And this starts upon a personal reflection of both men and women, continues to a collective agreement within each respective gender and finally must end in a new social contract between men and women that will end the era of gynocentric, feminist and misandrist tyranny against men. Especially such one where a tiny minority of men at the top of the formal power oppress the majority of men in the name and for the benefit of all women. And this is what needs to end.
S.C. Roger's research:
"There was never a patriarchy" by Janet Bloomfield aka. Judgy Bitch (I used this article as a source for the summery of S.C. Roger's research):
Women control two thirds of the world's and family's wealth