Chronic Disrespect (Part 1)

By David Spry  

Domestic violence is the ugliest expression of the exploitation of and prejudice against women, and it occurs worldwide. This prejudice takes many forms and is the subject of countless opinions and arguments that mostly tend to cloud the issue and, to complicate it further, includes problems with a broader base.

Facts and science unequivocally show that inequality between the male and the female of the human species is not an accurate assessment of the human condition and our reality.

Human life is basically about survival and the perpetuation of our species. This can only occur when a single cell from each of the male and the female are brought together to merge and begin a new human life.

A man and a woman are essential for this process and are of equal importance in this initial function.

However, this function will only go on to succeed through the other functions and abilities of the woman. Only she can provide the physical requirements of protection, nutrition and nurture that will allow the tiny new proto-human to develop to the point where it can enter the world as a separate individual. The woman is uniquely essential to the creation of new human life and should be fairly valued for it.

Even after the birth, the woman can provide the new human with nutrition from her own body, comfort and reassurance to the growing vulnerable infant and protection.

The supposed weaknesses of women, such as menstruation, pregnancy changes, breast feeding, hormonal impacts, the need to put health and nurture ahead of career, nutritional variations and menopause, are in reality the natural and essential consequences of the indispensable role women play in the perpetuation of our species. These functions need to be openly recognised, respected and supported – we don’t exist without them.

None of the men-centric arguments as to the relative merits of men and women can alter these essential, irrefutable and fundamental facts and such man-biased arguments are never more than constructs that have motives that seek to distort reality in favour of men.

Religion or culture cannot change science or indisputable facts and to use their writings and teachings for justifications or excuses for prejudicial behaviour should be examined in the context of the background and sources of those religions.

The supposed authority of a religion and its members can and should be questioned when the tenets of that religion are used to justify inequality, unfairness and the breach of human rights.

There should have been a vigorous debate and re-adjustment of trust when the last few decades revealed the widespread depredations of paedophile priests, the deaths and abductions of children under the care of nuns and the domestic violence, justified by their patriarchal status, by the hands of ministers and clergymen. The disclosures were made worse for trust and respect when it became clear that church leaders had been complicit in perpetuating these crimes and had been duplicitous in their responses to the revelations. Continued support for them and the institutions raises the probability of blind adherence rather than balanced judgement.

The superiority of men and their right to rule are taught beliefs that are deliberately intended to overlay our essential interdependent identities and reality.

A non-religious person has the unfettered right to consider all the information available that will enable the assessment of a religion’s claim to authority and the justifications for the tenets of that religion which it seeks to impose upon all people.

If a religious person truly believes in equality and human rights, they are faced with questioning the contrary doctrines of their religion. Such a course of action is not easy, particularly when seen from within a religion, but the world and humanity have changed in two thousand years, with enormous changes in all aspects of life, knowledge and experience bringing new perspectives and understandings that are relevant to all of humanity.

To think that a religion and its rules, formulated 2000 years ago, as an exception to many centuries of broader understandings and beliefs, can or should dictate human behaviour now is completely unrealistic and to claim authority over the lives of all people cannot be justified.

The abilities of women in all walks of life have shown that they are not inferior to men in intelligence, leadership, academic achievement, practical skills and the ability to contribute to the sustainability of humanity. When linked with their irreplaceable role in the perpetuation of our species they are undoubtedly entitled to be treated with equity and respect by all of humanity. To demean their status in the name of religion is not justifiable or sustainable.

The two most populous world religions are clearly patriarchal in their nature and intent and as such are biased against women. Their origins and the origin of their root Abrahamic religion do not reach back to the origins of humanity.

Long before the development of monotheistic male deities around the Mediterranean there were multiple deities, both male and female, revered and worshipped by a range of civilizations over a period longer than the time span of our current top two religions.

One of the oldest, and perhaps the oldest, representation of a religious figure yet discovered was one of a human female form, and for millennia the sacred female was worshipped and revered in many forms. Earth Mother, Earth Goddess, White Goddess and the sacred female in various forms, and the concept was later adopted by the Greeks, Romans and others.

Archaeological, cultural and historical research has revealed that recognition was given around the world to the reality that life flowed from the female. It was not just the example of the human mother, but observation of the world around them that showed that the female was essential to the perpetuation of life. The concept of the Earth Mother was, understandably, very pervasive.

While male deities came to be worshipped alongside the sacred female, recognition of the significance of the female did not lessen for a considerable time.

However, a shift in the roles of female deities and their hallowed status did start to occur as various societies started to focus more on belligerence towards neighbours and acquisition of new territories by force. The aspiring male leaders of these societies did not want to respect life if it inhibited their ability to put other peoples to the sword. They did not want to follow deities that inhibited their egotistical desires and they did not want to have to respect the views of women who might counsel against their ambitions, particularly if the views of those women could rely upon the authority of a female deity.

This devaluation of the female was accompanied by the growing status accorded to the warrior gods and to the ‘Warrior’ rather than the hunter, to the extent that the ‘Warrior’ came to be asserted as being the ultimate achievement of a human.

Unfortunately, this identification of the male Warrior as an ideal still resonates today, with many men aspiring to such an identity, even though the vast majority of them will never be called upon to assume the role of a real combatant warrior.

Knowledge of societal organizations around the world has revealed many cultures that have adopted and supported beliefs that focus on the supposed superiority of the warrior and the attendant relegation and subjugation of women. Unfortunately, many modern men use these examples as further justification for their prejudicial views.

The prejudice against equality for women expressed in their brutal treatment at the hands of the warrior is based upon primitive and simplistic thought processes that don’t consider human life in its full context. There is no place in a balanced human society for the asserted unfettered rights to be primitive or justifications for following crude, disrespectful, self-gratifying urges. The creation and maintenance of a balanced human society cannot be achieved if primacy is accorded to satisfying aggressive male egos.

It is not an exaggeration to refer to it as ‘the cult of the Warrior’ and at its heart is a reliance on violence and intimidation to establish status. It is an integral part of the assertion of the supremacy of men over women. At its simplest it asserts, that if a man can frighten, intimidate or physically harm a woman then he is superior to her – to respect her is to show weakness.

Identity, status and ego are a constant focus for the Warrior and the possibility of not measuring up to the ideal is a source of underlying fear for many men, and it often promotes a negative and aggressive response to anything and anyone who threatens or undermines that craved for status.

Relationships, including sexual ones, are, for the warrior, also relevant to their status and are intended to service that status. To fulfil his ideal, the warrior/ideal man has to be the dominant one in any relationship or family. He feels constant pressure from his warrior peers and from widespread teachings that champion male dominance. His dominant status is at the centre of his identity and he persuades himself that the role of his family and associates is to support his vision of himself – they belong to him to fulfil this purpose.

The warts and all knowledge of a man, held by his mother, sisters, wife, partner and daughters, can be perceived by him as a threat to his self-image and status and, when their knowledge erodes his self-confidence, his attendant fear prejudices him against them and can be a source of frustration, anger and violence.

Unfortunately, this also leads the warrior/man to focus on self-gratification as the purpose of his relationships, particularly sexual ones, and he can be indifferent to the feelings of partners and other family members. If he feels that he is not getting what he wants, and/or that his ideal status is being thereby undermined, he can become angry. Showing understanding and sympathy for his fears and vulnerability can also provoke his anger.

Of course, this warrior’s perspective is not a reasoned, balanced, intelligent or objective assessment of the issues, but rather a resort to the primitive, as if it is a justifiable idea to be homo without the sapiens.

Respect, as a concept, for such a man is limited to regard or fear for someone of equal or greater power than the warrior. It is inconvenient and limiting of personal regard to show any real respect for someone who can be intimidated, abused, harmed or killed. For the warrior/man it is limiting and weakening to have a conscience about the negative consequences of their actions.

Many of the other arguments that assert the supposed rights of men to be the leaders of humanity, to be entitled to whatever roles they claim and to be the owners or possessors of women, are extensions of the warrior status fuelled by the religious writings and practices of the past 2000 years.

Continued tomorrow… (Link to Part 2)

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969