“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”
Something clicked while I was playing in the bath with Ariel this evening. We were pretending to be at the beach, making sandcastles with my trusty yellow bathjug standing in as a bucket. Ariel could barely even wait for me to lift up the jug-bucket before she was enthusiastically splatting my imaginary sandcastle and yelling with glee – “I broke it down mummy! I splatted it all over the place!”
And I remembered some theory I had read somewhere* about how young children destroy things because, not having the skills to create, they enjoy destruction instead as a way to feel powerful and thereby align themselves with the grownups. The idea is that children (unless they have had a very liberal education and a very sheltered existence) will generally see adults as powerful and themselves as powerless. Because they experience their powerlessness as oppression, they want to become powerful and so they enact power in their games, practising in earnest for the power they crave. An adult builds a tower, a child knocks it down.
If I remember rightly, the author proceeded on the basis that once the child has learned to create – to build wonderful towers of its own – the child will enjoy creating far more, as the more adult (and so more powerful) occupation, and leave off destruction as the mindless splatting of its (powerless) infancy.
Of course, it may not work like that. Maybe the child is encouraged to enjoy destruction and not to reach towards creativity. Maybe destruction is modelled to that child in the home, in the school, in the media, in the world. Maybe the joys of creation are never even seen or approached, let alone taught. Destruction is so easy, there is such a satisfyingly powerful thrill – perhaps it is an addiction – and creativity is a slower, more careful, more patient activity, taking time and skill and effort. A slow pleasure, with pride and joy to be had, but no dramatic climax. The difference between midwifery and Caesarean – or something like it.
And I began to wonder, in the warm water, in a flight of monthly connectedness, whether it is as simple as this: as simple as the possibility that men** have – to borrow from an old, old saw – womb envy. They feel that they cannot create life, they see that women can create life – the ultimate creativity. Lacking the ability to create, they take pleasure instead in destruction… especially in the destruction of the creatrix… because it makes them feel powerful, because by destroying us they are stealing our power for themselves. Maybe the child that is/was mankind feels that it has been always kept out of creation, maybe it has felt that way for thousands of years…?
Obviously it isn’t as simple as this. But suddenly, in the bath, the connectedness of creativity, destructiveness and power come together, in a viscous glob – as the destructive powerlust of those who cannot create. Of those who cannot create – life.
Which all leads to the obvious question: would men be happier if they used compost toilets? What comes from their bodies, nourishes the land, and food grows. Could compost toilets change the world?
——————————–
*I am pretty sure it was in Bertrand Russell’s “On Education” (1926) but I don’t think I have the book any more so I can’t check the reference.
** Tiresome, I know, but I feel I should point out that I don’t mean “men” etc as meaning all men or any particular men but only as broadly referring to constructed masculinity. Or something.
20 April 2008 at 8:13 pm
Nice seedling
Is that one for our garden?
21 April 2008 at 9:53 am
This can´t be true – I was just wondering about this same thing; creativity and the will to destroy. Just the other day that thought came to me and now today, when the sun is shining so bright and my yellow coffee mug looks so friendly on the table in the sun, today this entry was here and wow.
Of course it isn´t that easy but I, too, think that those things are connected.
And was also thinking about how my body goes with the moon, menses, everything that which to me once was nothing to be proud about and now I feel my body, myself, so whole and powerful. I can create, and I will. Create. I will grow, breathe the earth and all greenness there is.
This blog has become important to me. It´s good to read your words. It´s good to feel that we share some thoughts.
Peace, sis.
21 April 2008 at 7:41 pm
Suvi – wow, too, and thanks!
E – yes, it is! It’s a pumpkin.
2 December 2008 at 3:54 am
You’re being serious? Womb envy? That hackneyed nonsense is as bad as penis envy. There is no “creation” in giving birth on the part of the mother. It is as normal as going to the toilet and requires no conscious brain power. A brain dead body on life support can gestate a child. An amoeba does not create, a cockroach does not create, a mouse does not create… it is a biological process and nothing other than that. Feelings do not change that simple fact.
Creation is active and requires a mind… making a meal for your daughter, raising her well is more an act of creativity than birthing. Sheesh!
Oh, and just think of how the ‘creative’ side of giving birth relates to the issue of abortion. Is abortion ‘destruction’ in the same sense? How does that make a woman deciding what to do feel? Are women ‘choosing’ to destroy life? The conservatives would love you for this piece of idle thought.
And the word “mankind” refers to ALL humans… “womankind” is just advertising rhetoric… Do a little research into etymology and you will discover that “MAN” (formerly MANN) refers to humanity/mankind. “A MAN or MEN” refers to the male(s) and I guess you know the other partner in the symbiotic human species. Originally (Old English) WERMAN referred to males and WIFMAN to females – MANN was gender neutral. The prefix was lost over 500 years or so… with the result that MAN must(!) have an article if it is to refer to a particular male. The word woman does not have this confusion as it retains the prefix to the word MAN, ie. Human.
2 December 2008 at 9:09 pm
Iron Nik, I’m really not sure why I allowed your comment. Except that maybe it illustrates how people can so completely see past each other.
No, gestating and birthing a child does not take much brain power, but it does involve having a female body, and it does require emotional and physical strength, as well as (in the case of birthing at least) real conscious effort. So no, it isn’t just like going to the toilet at all. In any case, you don’t have to believe that maternal acts of creative will are involved in order to point out that the processes of conception, gestation and birth are processes that lead to the creation of life.
Yes, abortion is destruction of a (potential) human life, and women choosing to abort are choosing to eliminate that (potential) life . You don’t have to believe that a gestating embryo / foetus is sacred in order to point out that the processes of conception, gestation and birth are processes that lead to the creation of life.
Your final paragraph flew past me. The point you make about the etymological roots of the words “man”, “woman” etc. are well known. The modern usage is also well-known, in particular I wonder if you are aware of the debates a mere century or so ago over whether the vote being given to “man” should be treated as given to all humans or only to male ones. Ah, we could talk about etymology and usage for hours – if only that were the subject of this post. Which it isn’t.
3 December 2008 at 5:00 am
“Iron Nik, I’m really not sure why I allowed your comment. Except that maybe it illustrates how people can so completely see past each other.”
I believe it was Derrida who talked of all communication being miscommunication. That said, your words are not your own when they are printed. People read into and see other meanings that you may not intend… or even see. Simply put: I found your musings insulting. It seems likely that you found mine equally disrespectful – not intended by the way – but few in the same position would publish them, so touché.
“No, gestating… (snip)… it isn’t just like going to the toilet at all. In any case… (snip)… gestation and birth are processes that lead to the creation of life.”
I disagree, life is ‘created’ (no spiritual connotation intended) at the moment of conception. Gestation and birth is the crucial stage between conception and a fully fledged human being.
“Yes, abortion is … lead to the creation of life.”
Firstly, no sacred meanings are intended in what I say… I am atheist (though not anti-theist). I believe in the need for abortion although I can’t really say I like the idea and I seriously doubt if any woman making such a decision ‘likes’ the idea… contrary to what I have read on numerous websites.
“Your final paragraph flew past me. The point you make about the etymological roots of the words “man”, “woman” etc. are well known.”
The point is in relation to the structure of your paragraphs and the implications of what you write:
“And I began to… [consider]… the possibility that men** have womb envy.”
Nope… and women don’t have penis envy. Many women may envy the social ‘power’ they believe men have; the picture is NOT so rosy from the other side, by the way. Power – true power – lies with a few. The issue is not so simple. [However, the lack of empathy present on Feminist and Masculist (awkward word!) sites is remarkably similar.]
“They feel that they cannot create life… Lacking the ability to create, they take pleasure instead in destruction… because by destroying us they are stealing our power for themselves.”
Nope… no envy whatsoever, nothing could ever be this simplistic. Women do not ‘create life’. If you can then please do so without a man. No cheating and using science mind.
And men take pleasure in destruction. Yeah, I see that, I mean look at all that destructive artwork, music, architecture, etc., etc.
Destroying you to steal your power! What?
“Maybe the child that is/was “mankind” feels that it has been always kept out of creation, maybe it has felt that way for thousands of years…?”
So your use of the word MANKIND here refers to what? Do you mean humanity likes to destroy or just the evil that is men?
“the destructive powerlust of those who cannot create. Of those who cannot create – life.”
Because, err women are better than men eh? Seriously? You imply this even if you don’t think you do. I have read numerous male-centric sites which simply invert this idea.
Heidigger spoke of the mere inversion of a rule simply being a case of following a rule. So if men say they are better and women say they are better… how is that better? Women, as I’m sure you know, are aggressive, kind, cruel, strong, loving, malicious, warmongering, clever and stupid. Ditto for men… EXACTLY the same. There are distinct differences between the sexes but none should be used against us or in judgement. And there is no ‘female nature’ that is particularly caring, nurturing etc. No ‘male nurture’ as strong, independent, logical or any other nonsense.
“Which all leads to the obvious question: would men be happier if they used compost toilets? What comes from their bodies, nourishes the land, and food grows. Could compost toilets change the world?”
And my toilet remark is simple… it extends from your equally trite remark. You are saying that all men have to offer is the excrement that comes out of them. Marvelous. Great sense of empathy there.
When reading male sites that talk of men being the ‘creators of civilization’ or perusing female sites that contain equally woolly thoughts I smile at how similar we all are. Shame we can’t spend a moment to wonder why the other person acts as they do. Maybe, just maybe it isn’t as simple as men are bad. Even if you knew some bad ones, even if I knew some bad women I would still think there are endless good people.
3 December 2008 at 8:39 pm
I’m going to skip past all the stuff about abortion and creation etc because (1) we probably aren’t significantly disagreeing with each other, from what I make out and (2) it isn’t really the thrust of what you’re talking about is it?
As to the rest, I feel the need to reiterate my footnote:
** Tiresome, I know, but I feel I should point out that I don’t mean “men” etc as meaning all men or any particular men but only as broadly referring to constructed masculinity. Or something.
(And of course, by “mankind” I meant something similar.)
So, yes, I agree that “all men are…” statements are just as stupid as “all women are…” statements (hence the tiresome footnote). That doesn’t mean there isn’t a constructed masculinity in just the same way as there is a constructed femininity. To the extent that this constructed masculinity has an influence on men, women and social / cultural thinking, any musings on the subject are entirely relevant to our lives, whether or not all or any men actually conform to the construct. Just as it is relevant to muse on or analyse constructed femininity irrespective of the extent to which actual women do or don’t conform thereto.
Which all leads me to wonder why you are so insulted by a lighthearted remark about compost toilets. Excrement is much underrated. Or perhaps you are what Joseph Jenkins would call a faecophobe?
That apart, I suspect we may be on the same side, more or less.
5 December 2008 at 12:32 am
“Faecophobe…” Funny!
I can sum up the creation argument no better than this: “The seed of a man does not ‘create’ life nor does the womb of woman ‘create’ life. The egg and sperm are already alive.”
I saw the footnote but still commented owing to the structure of your post which did not suggest light-heartedness. Maybe I’ve simply grown tired of the putrid meme that brands men as evil simply because they are men. Or the tiresome claim that men are responsible for all the ills of the world… I’m sure you hate single mom’s being blamed en masse for things over which they have no control – real or imagined!
Nevertheless, to talk of women’s ultimate creative power and ‘the creatix’ – no idea what that is supposed to be but I guess you like it – and men’s destructive impulses and being ‘outside’ creation… and then ending with their greatest contribution being taking a dump. My mother would have called that ‘funny yuck’… let me show you what I mean: allow me to paraphrase…
“And I began to wonder, and in a spurt of hardened insight I considered, whether it is as simple as this: as simple as the possibility that women (not ‘all’ of course) have – to borrow from an old, old saw – penis envy. They feel that they cannot create; they see that men can create civilization, science, ethics, music, poetry, and technology – the ultimate source of human progress. Lacking the ability to create, they take pleasure instead in simple bodily functions… but especially in being parasitic upon the state… because it makes them feel powerful, because by sucking men dry they are stealing our power for themselves. Maybe the child that is/was womankind feels that it has been always kept out of civilization, maybe it has felt that way for thousands of years…”
Ready for a joke now? Something along the lines of, squatting out yet another mouth to feed! Funny?
I wouldn’t think it was funny… I leave that to the misogynists among us.
Oh, and we do I guess share some hopes but I could never endorse feminism (nor masculism) as it exists today… I just can’t support double-think.
Perhaps this quote defines my stance best…
“Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together.”
Eugene Ionesco
6 December 2008 at 11:19 am
Iron Nik, I think you are either wilfully misconstruing what I say or you are incapable of understanding what I say. Either way, there probably isn’t much point in continuing this. To say that you saw the footnote but decided anyway just to go ahead and proceed on the basis that I was branding men as evil (when that is exactly the position I disclaimed) makes clear that you are more interested in pursuing your own agenda than in genuine discussion with a person whose point of view you wish to engage. You say you are not a “masculinist” or a misogynist and yet you are doing exactly what MRA trolls do all over the feminist blogosphere.
And clearly you are exaggerating when you present what I said as suggesting that men’s “greatest” contribution to the world is the plant nutrition contained in their excrement: I merely suggested that the creative output from men’s bodies was something valuable that could be used to good emotional as well as practical effect (compost would certainly be more valuable to society than the destructive behaviour that so many men are in fact encouraged to commit and perpetuate). This is not to say than women and men do not have plenty of other valuable things to offer the world than the outcome of their bodily processes and clearly I never suggested otherwise.