I've been listening a great deal of Robert Ohotto's 2 radio shows: Dialogue with Destiny, and Soul Connexions. In almost every single show, he says something which inspires me to write a sticky-note. My desk is currently covered in sticky-notes. Most of them are reminders, but a good many of them inspire deeper thinking.
The latest batch of shows that I'm listening to deals with the Marriage Model which is currently dying in modern Western culture. It's not DYING in that marriage is going away, but it IS dying in that it is undergoing a serious transformation which is still underway. As Ohotto talks about it, the old model is built around co-dependence. What he means when he says co-dependence is that it's a relationship in which responsibility for one or more aspects of oneself is transferred to another person in an unhealthy manner (that's my re-phrase of his definition). Do bear in mind that co-dependence by and large requires a stagnant relationship in which personal growth is actively discouraged. Afterall, growth means change, and change threatens the workable, managable, survivable situation which has been dealt with to present. Change threatens the foundation. The marriage model trying to be reborn in Western culture is built on interdependence. The rise of gay marriage as an issue is the most obvious manifestation of this growth and transformation of the marriage model within this society.
I think that the relationship which I have with my husband is one of interdependence -- I rely on him to help me become the best person I can be, and vice verse. I actively encourage his growth as an individual, and actively pursue my own as well. We work together for the betterment of both the individuals, and the unit. If this means that someday we'll be moving along separate paths, so be it. I accept that as part of the deal, and trust in myself to be able to handle whatever situation might arise. My survival no longer depends on being married.
This statement is not true in much of the world! In much of the world, a woman's survival still does depend on her being married. In fact, I would say that marriage in general is a survival tool, but how it manifests will depend on the culture it's in. I've spoken before about my view of First, Second and Third Chakra Cultures and how the values of each are interpretted by the others.
Western Culture is a Third Chakra culture, in which the Individual is the focus. In a third chakra society, marriage as a static relationship designed to promote tribal or familial stability doesn't work. It doesn't make sense to us. That's often viewed as oppressive, depersonalizing, abhorrant, and just plain wrong. It's in the 3rd chakra society that the idea of marrying solely for love and individual compatability makes sense and seems right. But to a 1st or 2nd chakra society, those ideals are just as horrifying, and indeed are destructive to the social fabric required by that society. Marriage in those situations has a completely different function and purpose. This reality must be recognized and respected!
But I think that there's something deeper in the division, in the survival aspects of marriage that is largely unrecognized yet is now coming into active awareness - i.e. gay marriage. Our world, all levels of it, is a Masculine dominated world. The 3 most dominant religions which blanket this planet all share the same foundation and creation story, and that story is completely missing the Feminine. The world was created by a male god, ruled and mandated by a male god, opposed by a male evil force, spoken for only by male priests/shahs/rabbis. The feminine is marginalized and told that her contributions are flawed, since god is male and she is perpetually punished with pain for her role in the fall of man.
UGH! This is a TERRIBLE story from the point of view I'm using in this post. Why? Because it means that psychologically all things associated with the feminine must be denied, repressed, and marginalized if rhe culture identifies someone as a man. This is especially true in those cultures in which the eldest daughter becomes socially male due to the absense of sons. This ultimately means that the psychological masculine aspect is unbalanced, and unwilling to own all that he is.
I was thinking about the idea of homosexuality the other day. It struck me that this was the PERFECT illustration of exactly what I've talked about over and over again -- that which we deny in ourselves is projected onto others. Modern Western society has seen a major shift since the 1970s, and a huge aspect of that shift is the emergence of the Feminine. In response, on a cultural psychological level, sexuality has also opened up. More homosexuals feel freer to be honest about who they are, and that is now a legally protected stance. Companies are no longer allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, as an example. Most folks my generation and younger don't really bat an eye when someone says they are gay. "Yeah, and?" is my response. I am unthreatened by the reality of a man owning his own femininity, and more and more men in this culture are equally unthreatened. I can now instantly tell when someone is still divided on this front because of their reaction to the idea of a homosexual man.
Even the use of the word 'gay' shows a heck of lot about the perspective. What does GAY actually, really mean? It means simply "having or showing a merry, lively mood". This means that a homosexual man is someone who expresses himself in a lively way. ... Following the linguistic logic, men who express their emotionality are homosexual. Men who are in touch with and expressive of their emotions are sexually attracted to men. Emotional men are women. Wow. So our language choice betrays the bias, illustrating the very core of the denial. Men should be MEN, and emotionality is the domain of women.
And what does this have to do with marriage and the shift from codependence to interdependence? Everything. In the West, we're struggling to respectfully balance the Masculine and the Feminine. I think that's the big picture, long term struggle which is going on. Part of process demands that the masculine own his own emotions, and that means to become aware of and act on them.
How many couples have you ever personally witnessed in which the man was a complete dick and yet it was the woman who did the apologizing and social feather smoothing? That was my grandparents. My grandfather had the greenlight to be a total jerk, because he was a guy. In his world, men aren't expected to be socially conscious, let alone mindful of how their words might injure others. That's a woman's job, and he silently demanded that she do it. My grandmother was always apologizing for him and cleaning up his emotional messes. That is a co-dependent relationship. If my grandmother had ever told him "you have to clean up your own crap", that marriage would have been over. He went to his grave steadfast in his ideas, and never once did I hear him apologize for even the worst and most abusive behavior that I experienced from him. My own first husband disowned his emotionality and expected me to handle all of that for him. Nope, no dice. I have my issues; you have your issues; I'll help you in every way that I can but I will not do your work for you -- and I expect the same in return.
Not surprisingly, both my grandparents and my first husband were horrified by the idea of a gay man. The only emotion men can safely exhibit publically is anger. Even privately, a great many women expect that a man will be emotionally stalwart no matter what is going on while she has permission to cry about whatever she wants to, however minute. Heaven help the man who has a moment of emotional weakness and needs a shoulder to lean on, even if only for a little while.
My point with this last bit is to illustrate that this idea of men being unable to own the full range of their emotionality is believed just as much by women as by men. Fortunately, it's changing. Slowly, but surely, it's changing. My grandmother was just as horrified of homosexuality as my grandfather, and while my own parents are seriously uncomfortable with it they aren't violently responsive. Me? *shrug* Whatever. My brother? Violently opposed. By this, I know instantly what the real trigger for him is, and it has nothing to do with the sexual choice of someone else, and everything to do with own shadows and denied Self.
So what does a disowned feminine look like? It looks like angry men and bitter women.
I see plenty of that, the world over, in 1st, 2nd AND 3rd chakra societies. What does a fully owned feminine and a fully owned masculine look like? I don't know. I've never seen it. For now, I have to turn to stories. Ultimately, I think it's The Story which shapes our world, our worldview, and guides the interactions which we each have. I am writting a story in which the main character is the female captain of one of the most powerful and coveted war marchines known, and she's also a quilter. It's been fun to deal with that, a woman comfortable with own aggressive and domestic sides at the same time, in a universe which finds the duality odd and uncomfortable. Her example ultimately encourages the male protagonist to own his own feminine nature, which for him manifests as a nurturing spirit, so he too learns to be comfortable with his own aggressive and caring aspects. He becomes fully human, rather than just half of one. I like this story because it's also illustrating very clearly an interdependent relationship.
What Story do want your life to reflect?
- Lioness (in training)
