I have not read this book (see also: WhatIsReading?,) but I’ve read a number of things on the web about it and from it (see also: DoWeNeedToReadSources.) My main source review right now is J. Steven Svoboda's review. Perhaps one day I will read the original. Until then, here are my positions.
A boy putting fish into a boat. Nice.
It just works for me, somehow. It’s more than just “men provide,” (although that’s true, part of it, I think;) – there’s something about the adventure of fishing, to it.
We can get all ShinTo? here, and / or talk about IndigenousCulture? and the fundamental JosephCampbell? HeroWithTenThousandFaces? go-out-and-get-something-cool for us thing, that makes up so much of mythology.
And then there’s just, “It’s fun to fish.” (I think… Not really sure, actually…) But that picture seems to capture a feeling that is essentially meaningful and adventurous and good.
The primary colors are a golden yellow and blue. My two favorite colors. If you just slanted them a bit so, … …See how close the cover design is, to the ECKANKAR yellow and blue? (An ECKANKAR page, as an example.)
This reflects the author’s spiritual (rather than materialist) convictions and nature; We subconsciously connect with the spirituality of the image.
The red and the black are the Anarchist black flag, the Anarchist tradition, full of masculine energy.
Yellow and blue are the colors of regal kingship, and righteous rule. It makes sense, as a cover. It works very well.
One reviewer wrote that he argues, “we need to regenerate a male-flavored spirituality if we are to save this planet.” [1]
Intriguing. This strikes a deep chord with me (male, spiritualist,) though I wonder if it’s something that most people in our deeply secular society can handle, male or otherwise.
If women are deemed more spiritual in our society, it is (I believe) a spirituality worn like an earing, rather than the questing that I associate more deeply with spirituality.
Then again, I may be proving a point with these words, that the author makes, that I disagree with – he seems to believe that masculine spirituality is deeper, profounder, more powerful. (See my difference below, regarding “mental essentialism,” for more on my thoughts in this respect.)
I am balancing on the fence on that one.
But regardless of whether and how spirituality differences between the sexes / genders, I can whole-heartedly embrace the concept of male spirituality.
I have a mission to inspire humanity to reawaken to the divine within (see: FederationOfDamanhur, for more on this mission.) I do not yet know whether this is something that is for everyone, or for a subset of people. “Does everyone feel the pull of the spirit?” If you believe that there is an easy answer to this question, … well, … I don’t find it easy to answer; I’ll leave it at that.
“We don’t need more education. We need more spirituality.”
A-men to that.
The author notes decay in America and Europe, and compares it to decay in Native American societies. “What we are seeing on the reservation is a speeded up version of what Western society has done to all men--killed off the visionaries and turned the rest into a bunch of alcoholic businessmen.”
Sharp, (ouch!), but an interesting idea. I do know something about the plight of the Native Americans; It’s sad, horrific, and horrible. I believe that the Native Americans do have a noble heritage, that it’s not just a romanticizing of the unseeable past.
I can see a vision of America such that the analogy makes sense. I can see a society where men and boys are increasingly devalued and stigmatized. If it were not for the self-correcting mechanisms of the social organism, (of which the MensMovement is a part,) then I would envision that by 2050, we’d look at men in disgust, and everyone would (like I presently do– see OccasionalMisandry; BirthingBoys?) prefer baby girls to baby boys.
I can’t see the vitality of a society that holds a whole gender in contempt. (Interesting to compare vis a vis China, and other societies through history. Need a stricter definition of what it is to “hold a whole gender in contempt.”)
I love seeing the male versions of the statistics that feminists so handily bandy about. It’s like: “Fresh ammunition!” Though, it’s pretty easy to disconnect connotated implications from statistics, regardless of whom they come from (feminists or masculinists.)
Regardless: refreshing to see another angle.
“Our job is not to get along with the Goddess. Our job is to fuck the Goddess.”
I love it. It’s just the antidote we need, for our MarryYourFriend? SexlessMarriage society.
Rough, crude, and over-stating, but I think we need some heavy medicine right now.
If this line worries you, do remember that the (sub-) title of the book is: “How to Love Women Without Losing Your Soul.”
Anything that liberates the KeKale within men, the KeKale who has been totally destroyed and attacked from all angles by women.
Providing “poetry and fascination and risk-taking.”
Heh!
Erasmus would get a kick out of it. (see: ThePraiseOfFolly, SquashedPraiseOfFolly)
I merely turn my lip up at the edge. Cynical ironic culture has kicked the shit out of any praise of folly that I can muster up. But I can smile a little bit about this. I can tell that the author isn’t into the culture of cynicism.
Erasmus’ fine literature has some good points in it. ;)
Not part of the review I’m working off, but part of the website for the book;
“Psychology has taught us that our “masculine side” is aggressive and domineering and territorial and our “feminine side” is kind and caring and sharing. Where’s the proof of this? Haven’t any of these people had dealings with female lawyers or realtors or advertising executives? My “kind, caring, sharing” side is my “kind, caring, sharing side”, not my “female side”.”
So, the “Anima / Animus” (male side / female side) distinction can be harmful.
I somewhat agree, but regardless of my “agreement,” the idea is steller and freedom-granting, so it is good.
It is important to remember that the author is (like myself) essentially a spiritualist, and so HowardBloom’s regular “you’re a brutal silverback babboon” (LuciferPrinciple?, HowardBloomsGlobalBrain?) stories don’t seem to bug him.
The author’s vision appears to be a vision of spiritual men, with deep insight and so on, akin to IndigenousCulture?.
I can dance with it. More than that: I’ve commit myself to contributing it to make it real.
The author doesn’t seem to dismiss indigenous culture!
“It amazes me to hear Americans mock Third World dwellers without for a second understanding that these people have more food laying around in their own backyard than they could eat in a year.” – the author, in his book
Yay!
So true.
“I can also sign on to Zubaty’s “flake tax” for all childless men and women over the age of 30.”
WOW! What a great tax idea!
This is a nice answer to my question, “How could society honor parents in a very real and significant way?”
Because presently, society treats parents as scum, and gives parents (not your mom & dad – but rather: “parents,” as a class – you know – other people’s dad & mum) a big strong repeating persisting kick in the shins. Over and over.
Any problem with anything? Blame parents. Kid at a movie theater? Blame parents. Kid at a restaurant? Blame parents. (and so on, and so forth…) Parents, a burden at best, to our society.
Think about age-ism in the workplace, if you’re a programmer, as well, … Corporations going after kids out of college, doesn’t want anyone over 30? Now why might that be, ..?
Heh! An interesting idea.
“Flake tax!” Very nice.
And it’s true: Men do change after children. I saw it for myself, and I’ve seen it for others. And it is after children – it’s not age alone. It’s got to be children. Doesn’t matter if you’re 14 (seen it!) or if you’re 20-something (been it!) or if you’re 30 (seen it!) – you change.
I believe for the better, despite all this word going around otherwise.
Are men actually better / more intuitive thinkers than women? Are women actually more materialistic / earthy than men?
I suspect most people will, in their secret heart of hearts, agree with the author. “Well, yes, I did have this sinking suspicion.”
There is clearly evidence for the position.
But just how true is the idea? This is where I have my serious doubts.
Culture is, I believe, the predominant and overpowering force. And, it takes a lot more than wishing (women attending feminism classes) to change culture.
I can conceive of a culture where, say, mathematics was the exclusive domain of women, and men were not involved. Wherein whenever men were building something, and needed some mathematical muscle to get behind it, they promptly delivered the rough blueprints, requirements, and a copy of People magazine, to women, who promptly did the mathematics work on the documents, and then returned them back to men.
I can conceive of that, and more than that, I can imagine that this could be a realistic society. I remember at Mudd, learning about a country (was it Hungary?) where, just historically, almost all Physicists were women. That was just the tradition. That’s just how it was. It was viewed as a perfectly natural feminine thing to do. (I wish I had the data; I heard it at a formal dinner, talking with people who were doing a lot of research on women in science.) Many women growing up said, “Well, I’m going to be a physicist, like (so-and-so) and (so-and-so.)” Strange, but (I think it’s) true.
I have noticed how strongly the role of social imprinting is on people. Surely, no boys envisioned being firemen, before there actually were firemen. Roles are gendered. There’s tons of evidence that this stuff is culture-tied, and it’s very counter-intuitive evidence, so we really do have to “check our intuitions at the door.”
So the author of “What Men Know That Women Don’t” – I really have to distance myself from his essentialism. (I’ve known plenty of men who were absolutely not spiritually inclined, and plenty of women who deeply were.)
see also: NatureVsNurture
Interesting!
I actually somewhat agree, but I don’t see it as a negative thing.
Rather, I actually see the “effect” as part of the de-coupling of humanity from the body, and I think that it doesn’t matter whether you are a man or a woman for the effect to happen.
I think computers are a strong (and growing stronger) attractor into a post-modern gender-queer space of the mind, and that all bets are off when we fall into the transhuman black hole.
But, ah, … That’s a different story, for a different day.
“Our male models are reconstituted women. They are the men women like, not the men God likes.”
Uh, that’s just creepy. I really don’t like the idea of some dick-head God out there telling me what I have to be like, just because I’m a man.
But, I like noting that he’s noted the existence of Kales. (See: KalesAndKekales.)
The “reconstituted women,” which are “male models,” are what I call Kales; The men of the female sexual imagination. The counterpart of KeKales? – the women of the male sexual imagination. Different than the Anima and Animus.
Another anecdote
In my family, SakuraKimbroJuliao? is taking her mental imprints off of me.
She appears to, at least on the surface, (and I think likely at the deep layers beneath,) take my intuitive spiritual nature, and carry it.
AmberStraub definitely fits the author’s “men are spiritual, women are material” model; She has simply no patience and imagination required for the spiritual.
But Sakura does.
In fact, when we took her to the Shinto shrine (see ShintoJinja?,) she took to it immediately, and immediately got what was going on, what was required of her, how she fit in, and started ad-libing along. At home, she immediately started “playing Shinto shrine,” and made up norito and spells and shide and so on, and was bringing me very good questions that showed many levels of insight into Shinto.
So, … ..?
Miko and priestesses have existed for ages here, … Not really a new concept.
So heap this onto my reservations about the gendered essentialism here.
It’s important to me that gay culture is safe and protected. It’s unrighteously attacked, and quite vulnerable. Gay causes are very important to me.
The author’s “what God wants men to be like” like gives me serious concern; I’ll have to look into this if I actually read the book.