Wednesday, April 19, 2006

And Now For Something Completely Indifferent

I was going to write about the spiritual virtue of calm detachment, but somehow this post was quickly hijacked by an incendiary remark by Petey. However, I like the title, so I think I’ll keep it. It actually has some relevance to what we’re about to discuss, but I will probably expand upon that tomorrow.

Perhaps you have noticed--how could you not--that the Left and the MSM are always in full hysterical mode. One day it's this, the next day it's that, but it's always something. It is what I call the "tempest of the day," and I myself try to avoid it except to view it from afar with bemused detachment.

You can tell it's hysteria, because as soon as the hysteria dies down, you may ask yourself, "what was that all about?" A few weeks ago it was the vice president accidentally shooting his friend. Yesterday it was the moonbat generals. Whatever it is, the hysterical press will quickly move on to something else, just like a woman.

I didn't say that!

One of these days Petey is going to get me in real trouble. Now I've got to try to explain what he meant--if I can figure it out myself. And to the extent that I can't, I'm going to rely on some self-aware female readers out there to back me up.

Let me first say that traditional metaphysics views sex and gender in precisely the opposite way as do modern secularists, who regard sex as an objective biological fact and gender as an arbitrary and superficial cultural invention. In the traditional view, gender is actually a universal property that inheres in every created thing. It is antecedent to biology, so it is quite natural that it should appear in a complementary way in biological organisms.

One of the first things you learn in graduate school when studying hysteria is that it is derived from the word for "womb" (think of "hysterectomy.") In the ancient world it was thought that the cause of hysteria--which involves a rapidly shifting and often shallow display of affect--was caused by a "wandering womb." That is, instead of staying put in one place, the womb roams throughout the body, causing various physical symptoms and “affect storms.” The ancients believed that the "cure" for hysteria was pregnancy, as that caused the womb to "settle down" and remain in place.

Of course, this theory sounds hysterical to us now. But bear in mind that Galen was actually a careful observer. Ancient physicians were empiricists who paid close attention to phenomena. It's just that their theories of the phenomena fall short in light of modern scientific explanations. But the phenomena are nonetheless real and in need of explanation. After all, we still use the same word--hysteria---with the same characteristics, etymology and connotations.

Call Galen’s theory foolish, but it is well understood that a woman will become more conservative if she has a child--provided she is not an unwed mother, which may simply make her more female, er, I mean liberal. The key is actually to have an appropriate relationship with her complementary gender--just as it is with men. For a man who is not tempered by his complementary opposite will either be a beast or a shemale.

This, by the way, is the reason why a woman can make a baby but not a man. For a boy to become a man, he will require “male mothering” from a manly role model. It is very rare that a boy will be able to obtain this from his mother alone, no matter how hard she tries. This explains why the plague of unwed motherhood leads directly to the plague of barbarous boys in the body of a man.

So please, do not misunderstand--when Petey talks about female energy in a seemingly disparaging way, bear in mind that he is specifically referring to what happens when it is wrenched from its natural context, which is in relationship to male energy. A different, but equally noxious, pathology results from unhinged male energy, as we see in the Arab world, where females are degraded and devalued. (I was about to say "unmoored" male energy, but that's the problem... It's definitely Moored.)

I am hardly the first to notice that the man-woman gender complementarity spontaneously appears in the political field. Republicans are the Daddy party, Democrats the Mommy Party. If you don't already clearly see that, I'm not going to try to convince you. I've discussed it in the past.

This bipolarity is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it is the natural and inevitable thing, just as marriage is. Speaking of which, you will notice how man-hating feminists, unwed single mothers, and feminized men are perhaps the largest constituency of the Democratic party. Each of these, it should be emphasized, represents a perversion of female gender. For they represent "pure" or unbalanced female energy in the absence of its complementary opposite. Thus, I hope you understand what Petey means when he says that Democrats and the liberal media are just like women, only worse.

It seems that when a woman marries--or simply even has an appropriate relationship with her complementary gender--she automatically becomes more conservative. But here again, marriage itself is not the necessary variable. For example, a girl who feels loved by a strong, virtuous and noble father has almost zero chance of becoming a leftist. Nor will she have any interest in marrying a fe-man such as Jimmy Carter or John Kerry.

I accidently caught a bit of Jane Fonda on Larry King last night. Not surprisingly, her dysfunctional father was a big liberal. Equally unsurprisingly, she has married two of the bull goose loony leftists of all time, Tom Hayden and Ted Turner. If I were Noam Chomsky, I'd ask for her number. (Interestingly, she now claims to be a Christian, so long as it does not clash with the deeper truth of feminist dogma. Having struggled with bulimia for some 25 years, I suspect that she will have the same ambivalent relationship to God as with lower forms of nourishment.)

I also heard some of the Rumsfeld press conference yesterday, and it was a fine example of a proper man engaging with histrionic liberal energy in an appropriately calm and detached way. As a matter of fact, the man who is foolish enough to "take the bait" and engage with the histrionic on his or her own level falls very far indeed. He will enter the murky world of the "purely female," where he cannot win. He has recapitulated Adam's big blunder.

You will notice this whenever you try to debate a leftist. You will notice it when you read dailykos or huffingtonpost or the New York Times op-ed page. Vanderleun has referred to the pathetic men of these worlds as our "modern castrati," but I would fine-tune that assessment, for these are not so much men without a phallus but women with one (or who imagine that they have one). A Maureen Dowd and a Kos What's-his-name are actually the same monstrous hybrid gender.

A few months back there was an excellent piece by Vasko Kohlmayer at American Thinker, entitled Gallantry: What Liberals can Learn from George W. Bush (in what follows, my comments are in brackets). In it, he writes how "The other day, the American people saw George W. Bush once again addressing his critics in connection with the NSA’s surveillance program. Despite the fact that he has been [histrionically] accused of the worst of possible motives--of willfully and deliberately breaking the law to spy on his fellow citizens--the President tackled this and other gratuitous charges without a trace of anger or bitterness [i.e., in an appropriately manly way]."

Kohlmayer continues: "A relative few presidents in this country’s history have endured the kind of vicious and spurious attacks that have been leveled against George Bush. Completely abandoning any sense of decorum or statesmanship, some of the highest officials in the Democratic Party have repeatedly called him a liar, a loser, an election-thief, an airhead, and a fraud. Regularly likened to Hitler, there have been books discussing his assassination. Recently he was even dubbed the world’s greatest terrorist by one of America’s once-prominent entertainers.... Sadly, such views are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream liberal outlook."

Nevertheless, "no matter how malicious they have been, George Bush has always faced his critics with affability and goodwill. Even his most bitter enemies--hating him as they do--would be hard pressed to fault him for being uncivil or personally unpleasant [i.e., for being like them]. He displays none of the [hysterical] unkindness, harshness or anger one would normally expect from someone engaged in a political struggle against those who frenziedly seek his destruction."

In fact, "Bush’s gallant manner has become something of a trademark. His comportment has served him well, for he has triumphed in almost every great battle he has fought, including two heatedly-fought national elections. His successes tend to drive his opponents into what can only be called spasms of political hysteria [emphasis mine], and not knowing what else to do, they crank up even further their already outlandish rhetoric. Their near-madness is indeed a sight to behold."

Kohlmayer points out that "liberalism’s present day haplessness is not primarily due to a lack of argumentative skills on the part of its advocates." Rather, it is a deeper predicament, for their "real and ultimately insurmountable problem is that most of their beliefs and positions are inherently indefensible," for example, multiculturalism, higher taxes to help the economy, socialized medicine, an ever larger and suffocating state.

However, contemporary liberalism is not based on thought but on feeling. Give them credit: at least the feelings are very strong ones. Nevertheless, "So profound is [liberal] desperation and impotence that often they can think of nothing better than heckling, throwing, and squirting salad dressing at conservative speakers. It is both telling and ironic that this often happens in universities which are supposed to serve as forums where opposing points of view are freely and openly discussed."

It should come as no surprise that this histrionic attitude prevails in the gynocracy of wackademia. Manly virtues are utterly alien in that ovary tower of feminist experiments against reality. If you accidentally act like a man--take the case of Lawrence Summers--you will be mercilessly castrated, even if you cravenly apologize and immediately close your eyes and revert back to liberal hysterical blindness, as Summers attempted to do.

Thus, the only hope for liberalism "lies in deception and personal attacks. They must lie about what they believe and demonize those who disagree. Over time this tends to make them vicious, bitter and hateful. One needs to look no further than Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Harry Reid and the aging Jimmy Carter for confirmation that this is indeed the case."

"What a glaring contrast with the gracious deportment of George W. Bush. In him we see the human aspect of conservatism at its best--kindly, affable and good-natured," similar in a way to Ronald Reagan. How do such men do it?

They do it because they are not merely men in a state of nature or the phallic women of the left. One major reason is that they have (and had) appropriate and psychologically generative relationships with their complementary gender. As a matter of fact, both Reagan and Bush were vertically transformed in part by women--real women.

As was this barbarian.

Petey? I don't know. I think he's still single. That would explain a lot.

*****

Natural man vs. semi-civilized beast (click to enlarge):

32 Comments:

Anonymous Hoarhey said...

Bob,

I have a question.

You wrote:
"For a man who is not tempered by his complementary opposite will either be a beast or a shemale."

Is it not possible for a single man, or a woman for that matter, to be tempered by God?

My guess would be yes but it would seem that a relationship with a "complementary opposite" might be akin to taking a final exam as proof.

4/19/2006 08:34:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

An unqualified Yes!

Indeed, that is one of the purposes of spiritual practice.

By the way, soul has a "female" relationship to God, just as the church has a female relationship to Christ.

More on that later.

4/19/2006 08:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Rorschach said...

Agree with hoarhey and Bob: Single human being can in fact reach wholeness through help from Someone at top of vertical ladder. This point easily argued by reference to Christian and Buddhist monastic traditions.

Inhabitants of convents often called "Brides of Christ".

4/19/2006 09:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Sal said...

Bob -
Good point. A gifted teacher/clergyman used to point out that "feminine" and "masculine" are states of receptivity and generation (generativeness? you know what I mean).
Parents, of whatever sex, are masculine to their children. The conductor is masculine towards the orchestra, but he is feminine to Bach or Beethoven or whoever wrote the music.

I'm old enough to remember the latter-day feminists calling for the re-education (and I don't use that term lightly) of boys and girls beginning in the late 60's and the utopia of inter-personal relationships that was going to bring about.
Yeah, that worked out well...

I'm guessing that the mark of a mature person would be an appreciation of the strengths of both sexes, with only the occasional good-natured eye-roll re: the inexplicable about your complementary gender.

4/19/2006 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Rorschach--

Yes, not to be confused with brides of Frankenstein such as Cynthia McKinney, Barbar Boxer, Cindy Sheehan, Maureen Dowd, Randi Rhodes, Jane Smiley, Helen Thomas, et al.

4/19/2006 10:01:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

hoarhey -

Just to add to what's been said - I think the relationship with the "complimentary opposite" is not the final exam but something more along the lines of a quiz. The final exam, ultimately, is - the marriage of male and female within, the holy androgyne, which is what the spiritual quest is all about. Relations between the sexes in the "exterior" world are, perhaps, an introduction course to the concept of the divine fusing of male and female.

After all, we are often attracted to members of the opposite sex who seem to have some quality we are lacking in. Attraction then, must be a move, a tropism, toward an inner balancing. Ultimately, the balance must be found within.

4/19/2006 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Swish!

4/19/2006 10:13:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

>>Swish!<<

Now just because I'm a metrosexual, you have no right to call me a . . . . oh, you meant . . right!

And from beyond the 3-point line, too!

(just what is a "metrosexual" anyway? they find whole cities attractive?)

4/19/2006 10:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Hoarhey said...

Whew!
Glad to know it was only a BUNCH of quizzes that I flunked.

Will,
You mentioned attraction to members of the opposite sex who seem to have the qualities we are lacking in.
In a healthy context I believe that to be true.
In my own unhealthy context, my attractions were more from the perspective of an immature lack and neediness. I needed those interactions to discover the "holes" but when I started filling those voids with Truth (God), the unhealthy attractions disappeared.

Bob,
I'm afraid that barbarian alter ego of yours, Petey, may have run the womenfolk off ;-).

4/19/2006 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

That's okay. The baby pictures ought to bring them back.

4/19/2006 11:16:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

hoarhey -

Yeah, I think the opposite sex balancing act can be healthy or unhealthy as the case may be. For example, if a guy hasn't activated his yang qualities, he might attract an excessively yang female - then all hell breaks loose. I think the more we become self-aware, the more healthy our balancing attractions become.

The poet Rilke has a great line from somewhere - something to the effect that the ideal marriage/relationship is one in which the two partners are able to grant and honor one another's "solitude". To me, this is a way of saying the balance is ideal. No neediness, no voids to fill, just acceptance. Also implied here is that a spiritual ideal and goal is shared.

4/19/2006 11:24:00 AM  
Blogger Asher Abrams said...

Bob,

Fascinating post, as always.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on gay and transgender people, particularly in regards to spirituality, social development.

4/19/2006 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Hoarhey said...

Hey, it worked!

4/19/2006 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Bryan said...

Hi Dr. Bob,

Very suggestive post. It goes a long way toward explaining the high correlation between leftism and the rejection of traditional sexual mores, even though that wasn't the emphasis of your post. I wonder if that means that the "South Park Republican" phenomenon is inherently unstable in the sense that one might speak of a subatomic particle being unstable, and if the group of people who identify themselves as such are destined eventually to "decay" either into conventional leftism or social conservativism.

This post has also gotten me interested in learning more about hysteria, particularly what its causes are. I know that there is Papa Freud's early work with Brauer (which I haven't read), but are there any sources you would recommend?

4/19/2006 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

One of the best little books that discusses hysteria in an exceptionally clear way is "Neurotic Styles," by David Shapiro. It doesn't get into the etiology, but I like R.D. Fairbairn's theoretical approach.

4/19/2006 12:55:00 PM  
Anonymous dilys said...

Well, it's clear how the bib got clean, since the picture is taped onto the washing machine. But that little face -- the baby! THE BABY!! Where's THE BABY?

And, as to the thread, it's only an anecdote (well, a life-long catalogue of them), but I know Sr. Dilys, who shares my basic orientation, is much more dispassionate. For some of us, the uterus migrates immediately to the big toe, and the impulse is to offer a swift informative kick.

My ideal world is full of gallant responsible Alpha males who keep us in the guise of entertaining, mildly ornamental, and occasionally preternaturally analytic pets.

Mileage obtained via this viewpoint may vary, and of course the responsibilities of life require intermittent & reluctant adoption of other postures.

Like the vigilant mom, assuring us that the baby is fine, didn't go through the bleach'n'fluff cycle after all.

4/19/2006 02:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Helene said...

Wasn't a picture of Mrs. Gagdad Bob on earlier in the day? Truth and beauty . . . and the best of the American west seem to be manifested in your family.
For the apopletic spasms of venom coming from the left vis a vis Bush(derangement syndrome), what is really kind of fun is to mention that you think Bush will be on Mount Rushmore . . .that is, after moving certain religious books around at Borders.
A Metrosexual, it has been explained to me, gets the occassional massage and has a manicure every now and then. Sometimes they are called girly men, but they like woman, or so my friend Jack tells me.

4/19/2006 04:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Hoarhey said...

Helene,

You wouldn't be making reference to Jack Ritter would you? The original metrosexual?

4/19/2006 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger Dr Schnuggiputz said...

Hi Bob,

Am currently interested in what psychotherapy is, should be, hence roused by your remarks on the weekend about what people's problems really consist of. If you've an inclination, would love to hear more about getting free of 'mind parasites' and the way of symmetrical logic in that.

Best,

Chris

4/19/2006 06:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

How would strong conservative women (e.g., Margaret Thatcher) fit your scheme?

I would also agree with hoarhey (assuming I understood the comment correctly) that single people should not be written off as incomplete beings-- otherwise the traditional Christian belief that Jesus was single becomes a problem (to be solved by such books as the Da Vinci Code, presumably).

4/19/2006 06:17:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

If you think I was writing off single people as incomplete beings, I think you've missed the point, the point being.... the point being.... the point being what Will said.

4/19/2006 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

*eating strawberry shortcake with california big strawberries YUMMY*

I just love sitting back watching you "men folk" chat about being attracted to the "opposite sex" because maybe of things you might be lacking... cause it makes me take a second look at THIS SURVEY


Dilys...hahhahahhaa that picture was tooooooooooooo funny girly!

4/19/2006 07:05:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Ah, LLH:

Trying to food taunt the males with strawberry shortcake?


How totally female of you.

Men can be food taunted, but it takes animal flesh burned in fire.


Beer works too.

Nice try, though.
;)

JWM

4/19/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Anonymous ben usn (ret) said...

So, Bob...
If my wife gets hysterical, I should get her pregnant?
We are a bit old for that, so that will be difficult.
Plus, she had a hysterectomy, which may also pose a problem (so I heard).
Obviously the hysterectomy didn't solve the occasional hysteria, but it passes as quickly as a rain squall.
Disregard the above.
My alter ego, Captain Seadog wrote that, and he's a bit insensitive, if you catch my drift.
AAARRRHHH!!!

4/19/2006 09:32:00 PM  
Anonymous captain seadog said...

JWM-
Meat and beer always works!
AAARRRHHH!!!
Sorry, JWM. The pirate won't shut up tonight.

4/19/2006 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

Jwm, nah, I was just eating cause I was hungry and yesterday we got some of those gorgeous CA berries!

You know, I was just thinking how as you guys get older that you get more and more estrogen....right? So in a way....your hormones become more "female like"

And don't women get more "male like hormones" as they grow older?

4/20/2006 04:35:00 AM  
Anonymous AskMom said...

Anyone who doesn't believe that single moms create monsters intstead of men can talk to me. I was a lobbyist and advocate for men and fathers, and the statistics and anecdotal evidence are overwhelming.

Furthermore, I say this in spite of the fact that I was a single mom, and not by my choice. Knowing as I did how much boys need good men to civilize them, my boys were subject to their uncles' control. And now they are wonderful men, attached to wonderful women.

Thanks for a fabulous essay.

4/20/2006 12:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anchoress said...

:::applause:::

4/20/2006 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous marybel said...

Came here by way of Anchoress and Venderleun. Thank you for a priceless post. You are dead on right and you may have scared off some "womyn," but I feel right at home. Consider yourself bookmarked.

4/20/2006 03:31:00 PM  
Anonymous skeeter said...

What Marybel said. Right down to the bookmark.

4/20/2006 09:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that the main conflict in the world today is between a Middle Eastern culture which is entirely male-dominated, and a Western culture which is increasingly female-dominated.

I wonder to what degree the appeasement instinct among western politicians results from the seemingly-instinctive tendency of many women to follow this course when confronted with a threat.

4/21/2006 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger staghounds said...

It's a shame that the idea of gentlemanly behaviour has been so driven from our culture.

Because that's your post in a few line. Behaving as a gentleman or lady- with civility and respect- has become so rare in the advocates of one party's outlook that the other party's advocates are forgetting themselves, too. A lady or gentleman in politics is so scarce as to stand out.

4/25/2006 07:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home