VELON JOHN ON THE SUPERIORITY OF MEN!
In antediluvian or Neanderthal times when Homo Sapiens (male) stood at the entrance of his cave facing the unknown and the dangers of the unknown, where was his female counterpart? Was she beside him, in front of him or just behind him? In that arena of danger she was conspicuously absent. She was in the innermost recesses of the cave suckling her young. He, the man, was in the arena of danger providing for and protecting the family.
This existential posture was facilitated by his brutish strength and emerging cunning to meet the exigencies of his primordial circumstance. And the latter being a function of an evolving cerebral capacity. It is this evolving cerebral capacity that gave the man a certain cognitive superiority over his female counterpart at that time. As he subdued his physical world, the experience engendered within him a certain confidence of self and in relation to his female counterpart a certain admiration for her man. And so on one hand there is confidence, the locus and provenance of which repose in the male. On the other hand there is admiration: a female response to an objective male reality. In the ascendancy of human responses in an evolving world the relational position of the male evinces a certain superiority vis-a-vis his female unfeathered biped.
The challenges of his evolving and primordial world trigger his cerebral component to an extent and degree that surpasses that of the female. And for her the residual admiration with the effluxion of time provides her with a certain existential solace that defines her relationship with her male protector and Innovator. She necessarily relies on him but he in turn holds on to her in the context of a utilitarian necessity.
But with the passage of time, and the societal processes and challenges becoming more cerebral, the matrix of dependence that ensured her survival became less acute and necessary. A budding confidence of self and in-self began to emerge across the tumultuous legions of years. And so in the struggle of life for life on its various levels she acquired knowledge, she acquired skills virtually on the same level of her male counterpart. And though she has excelled in the various spheres of human endeavour, the generality of her gender has in some measure been impeded by a certain stuttering disability.
From the entrance of his cave Man resolutely marched into the unknown world: forever conquering, forever confident. And in the trail that he blazed she and her offspring followed: forever admiring, forever pleasured, forever pleasurable.
And as they marched across the generations, in relation to the female the cave syndrome of dependence, subordination and admiration virtually imprinted itself upon her psyche. And as regards her male counterpart, dominance and conquest defined his role and posture in the general scheme of things. The march was an evolutionary one with Homo Sapiens becoming less animalistic, less brutish and more rational. And so the two continued to evolve, conquering in their respective and various spheres the realms of thought and action that was made accessible by a critical metamorphosis of their cerebral faculty.
But despite their leap across the generations of time, and during which the Interpersonal relationship between man and woman assumed a very human face, the syndrome of the cave residually persisted.
Cooperation and partnership seem to characterise their relation in their secular and domestic world but even then there was a certain relational imbalance. Regardless of how sophisticated their society, how erudite, the diminishing residue of the cave continued to manifest itself. Gender power was skewed in favour of the male in spite of female consciousness of its existence.
Modern woman has been aware of this imbalance which paradoxically is maintained by woman in her collectivity, but tentatively reduced or minimised in her singularity. Throughout the world of woman this phenomenon of gender imbalance or inequality is evident, and will persist until the thrust of human evolution brings about a salubrious existential nexus between the genders. And this evolutionary thrust can only be actuated and consummated by woman in her collectivity. It is only woman who can liberate herself from the syndrome of the cave. It is not the role nor the responsibility of the male to assist her in her quest for transformational leadership. He is not an impediment. At worst he is just an enabler by his disinterested posture; and it is left to her to make that leap into the circle of gender equilibrium.
How can she be assisted if, by being assisted, the syndrome of the cave is given greater potency? She would be giving it life by assuming a posture of need across the gender divide. She has all of what it takes to successfully make that leap – almost. The psyche is more or less wholesome and the cerebral faculty attuned. The mundane capacities are almost in overdrive and her heart is pulsating expectantly. Within her psyche there is a struggle going on, the outcome of which will "characterologically" define her in her sublime gender pulchritude and plenitude. There may be many evolutionary phases before the struggle ceases to be but when it does, as it must, gender justice will have been attained. At this juncture in her special evolution woman in her spiritual sublimity, her venereal pulchritude, her cerebral incandescence, and in her collectivity lacks confidence in herself.
Look at the world around us: gender inequality is all so pervasive, all so ubiquitous regardless of the diverse ethnic and geographical expressions. From the time of the cave she admired him, not herself. Did he admire her? Why? For the natural expression of a biological endowment! She admired him because of the recognition of a certain disability within herself. And a corollary to this awareness was a lack of confidence within herself. But as she evolved the capacity to do, to achieve, became greater and greater, and on the template of her existence, female confidence began to emerge.
At this point in time (2016) there is still this residual Neanderthal admiration. And so woman is still not fully liberated from herself. The "disability" in some measure is still there; and so the conversation among women must become more vociferous and ubiquitous. I hope this article will engender a dialectical inquiry among the generality and collectivity of women and in consequence thereof expand the epistemic parameters of her ontology as it relates to the existential contradictions between her “being” and “becoming”. There is need for a reconciliation on the level of the psyche.
In reiteration the struggle is hers not his. She must embrace it and liberate herself as he, the male, smilingly awaits her deliverance. But when? Certainly not now. Our extant political situation evidences this unpreparedness, this inadequacy, this disability.
As I see it the time (2014,2015,2016) was anything but fortuitous for the emergence of a virtually all-female political party to contest the recently consummated election exercise. The time was right and this was evidenced by the alarming number of persons who did not vote. And flowing from this is the question, Why didn't they vote? The answer, a critical level of frustration, dissatisfaction and disappointment. Why didn't a virtually all-female party emerge in this morass of populist political negativity? The answer, a patent lack of confidence in WO-man.
And so reverting to the titular question, is wo-man woman by virtue of a certain disability? The answer is blowing in the wind; but I can feel it. (QED)
I am not an anthropologist nor a formal student of gender relations. I am just a free thinker as waves of thought carry me along the many streams of life.
From the time of the cave, wo-man has admired man. Was it out of love, dependency or the natural expression of a biological endowment/