One of the things I have most grappled with, over the last few years, is my traditional opposition to patriarchies. Having been brought up as an adopted kid, having had no positive experience of male hierarchies, having been an Osho follower for decades, it’s always seemed to me like patriarchies were just wrong.
At the same time, I’ve always been on the “male side” of therapy, traditionally a more feminine pursuit. I’ve always been the kind of therapist you come to when you want to confront yourself, when you know you need some tough love. Even now, most of the therapists and coaches that I tune into or look up to are strongly into patriarchal structures. But I’m still not.
Recently, I have had some insights into what is going on inside of me here.
I like strength.
Not the kind of strength that comes from having big biceps. But rather the kind that comes from having looked inside sufficiently to get really clear with yourself. The kind that comes from having been on the great journey of self-awareness for a while. These people radiate something. They naturally command respect. You know you can’t bullshit them.
And their gender makes no difference. In fact, hiding behind gender, trying to use it to advance an agenda, seems to actually makes us weaker.
And when I look out into the world, I see how much the West opposes the patriarchal regimes of, say, countries like Russia or Iran. They invest money in supporting, for example, women’s or gay rights groups, stirring up “velvet revolutions” whenever they see an opportunity. These are movements I absolutely support. But I’m left with a question.
Is the West opposing patriarchy? Or is it opposing strength?
Because, whilst such regimes are to my mind a long way from ideal, they nevertheless do have a certain level of strength. They can oppose the West.
At the same time, strength seems to be becoming systematically eradicated in the West. Everywhere I look, people seem more dissociated from the body, more in their minds, more needy, more scared of taking a position. They are lost in the first three Reichian character archetypes - Leaving, Oral or Enduring.
Such people lack the simple egoic drive to chart their own course in life. Whatever other qualities they may have, which can be considerable, they will still lack the inner strength necessary to take a course that appears to go against the will of those around them.
Such people can be very easily controlled. You only have to give them the slightest hint that others will disapprove, and offer them a path of less resistance, and they will do your bidding.
I still don’t know the answer. Is the West fighting patriarchy? Or is it fighting strength?
What do you think?
Yes the 'first three' Reichian characters lack aggression and aren't able to stand for anything but rather just opine. And the 'first three' [which includes me] are about 90% of the population.
The masculine (not the same as men) does and the feminine (not the same as women) is done to. This is the spark of life.
We look to technology for security and corporations only need a few 'leaders' so on a macro level unneutered men and unneutered women are just a nuisance. On a person, family and couple level though it's a disaster.
Question: To what extent is strength another term for independence.
We are living in a Matrix like simulation. To exist in it, we have to give up our independence and conform to the simulacra of compliance. “You won’t own anything, and you’ll be happy.” One has to be incredibly strong in mind and spirit to stand and not conform.
However, this culture is failing. I know because it it easier to distinguish it from reality. And people are beginning to choose the hardness of reality over the soft conformity of the simulation. I wrote a lot about this last spring. https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-culture-of-simulation-series
This is a great conversation starter. Thank you for saying it. I’m passing it along to people.