The Illusion of Masculinity in Relationships
It appears to me that the great fallacy of the so-called “masculinity movement” is found in man’s attempts to establish well-defined thresholds where nuance has not yet been explored. It is perhaps also found where today’s man erroneously and naively seeks an end to the feminine chaos. In his attempts to establish himself as a leader in his relationship, today’s man is almost always, likely to a large degree, seeking an orderly, predictable state of permanence with his partner’s femininity. That is, what he believes to be strategies that “provide the container” for his feminine partner are often unconscious attempts to remove the chaos altogether. And that is not good. The feminine, by nature, cannot be bound in a state of permanence. It is suppressed and therefore festers in the depths of the feminine unconscious. What then emerges is the shadow feminine.
The issue at hand with these fallacies is a matter of orientation on a deep and not so obvious level of analysis. Most men seem to orient themselves from the belief that it is the masculine man who exalts the feminine woman into higher meaning. This is a fundamentally incorrect perspective on the process of masculine/feminine dynamics. It is actually the feminine that transforms. In its proper, ancient form, the archetype of the feminine exalts man into higher meaning. Yet today’s man, although noble and well-meaning, mistakenly believes he is the one who lifts his woman to the heights of her rightful place.
However, this fallacious thinking is understandable; for centuries—if not millennia—what was once represented as a feminine function gradually became represented as a masculine function. The ideas of who led who became somewhat inverted. To further obscure this ancient process, lesser men have diminished the feminine over the ages. In modern times, today’s man—attempting to awaken his masculine spirit—tends to see his responsibility as returning to tradition and being the leader for his woman. Generally speaking, there is much validity to this. But today’s man fails to see the leadership the feminine is supposed to have with him.
Perhaps today’s man should take the initiative to invite his feminine partner to see that he is ready to be transformed by her—although his inner warrior must be readily accessible and present for his feminine partner to witness. However, the collective mindset within the “masculinity movement” often prematurely concludes that his leadership role extends to lifting the feminine up, not only from her slumber but also to a higher meaning. And therein lies the most critical differentiation: he may have a responsibility to take the initiative to awaken her—to open himself to her transformative powers—but, at that point, he must make room for her to assume her leadership role to exalt him into higher meaning. By failing to “hand over the reigns,” so to speak, he, in fact, begins to repress her all over again.
I think the idea I’m trying to formulate is about guarding against our deep, unconscious desire to create utopian relationships with women. In other words, attempting to eliminate chaos is to remove the very thing that keeps order from going too far. That’s tyranny! It is perhaps better to learn to coexist with chaos, to make friends with it, rather than banishing it altogether. There is truth in chaos, and to remove it is to cut ourselves from the promise it holds. It is better to learn to transform chaos and let it be directed through you and towards something virtuous for the world. If we eliminate chaos, there is nothing for us to conquer, and the masculine purpose will cease to be realized—it would grow stale and bitter and resentful.
Today’s man must answer the call to explore the nuances of masculine/feminine dynamics. If he prematurely asserts definitive lines between these two archetypes, he inadvertently contributes to their suppression. It seems to me that most men today take a relatively small cross-section of our history and base their entire ideas of masculinity on it. Neglecting to consider the whole history of this dynamic will likely result in a very incomplete truth of it. Left unchecked, this partial understanding will gradually give rise to an ideological narrative that produces the illusion of fulfillment and duty. In reality, it will only ever be yet another attempt to create a life free of the struggle with chaos. And that is a utopian dream.
