Let us assume for a moment that a human is a political animal.
Then he is, a person who is active in shaping his political landscape. Therefore, he might be inclined to set his attention into the far and reaching considerations of his political view.
His/her/their recognition of the political landscape is bounded by the ability to attend and interact with it. It is the politics of environmental attention. And attention can be set by his perception. ( from now on using -his-)
Attention and perception then are the drivers of the interaction. What you can perceive demands attention.
Attention lately to political struggles directed towards women’s equality/inequality circumstances have left me baffled. Mainly, a large proportion of the rage with regards to what women in quotidian settings see as injustice is directed to men who are not the creators of the injustice; they are the passive spectators of a traditional way of behaviour.
The detachment is clear since the persons who are decision makers are in a position of power and from a position of power is when abuses can be easily carried. Not all men are in the same position of power with regards to politics, which is the gist of discontent. Not referring here to physical power, or psychic power, or intellectual power. Political power can be handed on by simply having access to elite positions. Socio economical positions. Traditional political families. Those are the groups that are being highlighted as having a patriarchal approach that enables abuse against women. And of course they set the threshold, the example, since higher social structures are however in charge of shaping the political attitudes of their governance. They have created their own tragedy and state of success. Political groups reflect themselves. Their position of success is their despair.
Casually speaking, with the intention of setting aside a new wave of powerful man that can reclaim their political power, elite groups have opened the gates of discontent to the public ( woman ) to hold steady and control raising men at the granular level. An image is projected to enact dissatisfaction, and women, find a vent of anger in the closest culprit, their quotidian men that do not hold a position of political power as great as the releasers of the information, the creators of the attention, the shapers. That is a detachment, that is; to think that the load of patriarchal behavioral inconsistencies must be spread out evenly among the men population, enraging women at a distance, while the access to political shaping and, to positions of power, is restrained and made narrower as population struggles to find paths into participatory politics.
It is an horrific intimate debate where the worst and the best of our interaction as a species comes afloat. With due intent of reconciliation with the misdemeanor of fellow men have inducted on other women, what makes me guilty of it, in case of it being sought, it is a disassociation, It will be a temporary believe in the idea that it was, me; the responsible for treating others uncaringly and therefore my instinct should keep at bay. Temporary is dangerous since it tends to become permanent.
The human journey is such a remarkable endeavor that it is by addressing inequalities of thought that we might be able to understand the deepest questions surrounding our night minutes before going to bed. Yet, in the question of feminism ‘I’ stand by the believe that the process of shame allocation should not be addressed by spreading it evenly among men; who, at the end, have stood by the side of their women encouraging them to go on and build whatever we agree that should be built, despite the awful structure of political governance that surrounds the nuclear family. With at this point is not nuclear any more; reintegration reigns with independence, individuality, and self serving lifestyles.
Instead of creating enemies and dividing the genders even further, a developmental reconciliation lies in the close encounters of intimacy where the two become a truly one. And that oneness shines light in the evermore extending oneness of our experience. A one will not divide shame or rage against the other since the other will be the self, and the self can not live in disharmony with itself. Recognition of the wound is mutually indicative of healing process in which the darkest revealed understanding of patriarchal behaviour it is still to be exorcised into the plenitude of a luminous existance.
Reflection on the intimacy of our impulses creates the appropriate set point of dialectical gender equality since those impulses are mutual characteristic of our instinctual behavior. A cultural expression of your deepest fears, angst, and ideals. A repressive impulse is to be addressed at the moment and avoided for it to be held for generations past to create the tissue of anxiety that has led to today’s discussion. The lack of understanding of our own desires, and the historical reprisal of them by the same elites and/or institutions, covey a direct image of the perpetrators of this ideological gender mess. Yet, it is a beautiful time to recognize each other on it, and address structures of power that attend and tilt the soil of politics in such a way that prohibits the ripe harvest of reconciliation and communion.
There are men eager to set the scale even, yet, some of them have found the greatest obstacle, no in the field of participatory politics, instead at home, in their own bed, with a hurting metaphors depressing the anxiety created by media, night after night into their recognizable agent of patriarchal analogy.
Let us both be free. Ways of life can be changed, they demand though, heaps amounts of courage and recognition; the inevitable prelude for change and load balancing, in the journey . Yet, beware, language is a restriction. It is deterministic. And this introduces linguistics in the conversation because at the end it is, gender issues are but a deterministic discourse based on stereotyping humans that have or don’t have a phallus. And language , or in this case, the rhetoric of gender, will block its own advancement.
” Languages are imperfect (because multiple); the supreme language is missing… no one can utter words which would bear the miraculous stamp of Truth Herself Incarnate… how impossible it is for language to express things… in the Poet’s hands… by the consistent virtue and necessity of an art which lives on fiction, it achieves its full efficacy.” Symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarmé:
What is that language we are discussing that is so much needed? That stamp of truth!! Truth itself incarnated! , that seal of Understating….
That my friends is likely to be found in the mute linguistics of shared intimacy; in a mutual agreement of fusion; in the trust of fear, in the shameless exposure of those fears, in the wordless act of ….
——-
– This was struck by
beauty
this heart wrecked itself
as a shattered glass
at sight of beauty
yourself projected
this self –
Nico 