On the "Sacred" and "Profane": A Response to the Progressive Movement on Gender Equality
Where Shall We Go From Here?
The problem today with the “progressive” movement is that by attempting to convince men and women they are the same, which is “sacred” to its postulates, it is, paradoxically, creating women as objects that are “profanely” subservient in the eyes of men more than ever before. And doing so despite itself, in large part because it is attempting to bridge the gulf between the two genders by projecting that conflict into the world to compensate for the open conflict now between them, rather than placing the burden of the conflict and its arrestment on the individual, wholly and privately.
Instead of placing the “self” and autonomy of gender identity as a process of integration wholly within the self or “psyche” (an experience analogous to androgyny of the collective unconscious [in the spiritual and introverted sense, not extroverted sense]) they are projecting that sexual conflict onto the world with outward gestures and words that give an “appearance” of a neutrality of the sexes, when, in actuality and in the long run, no one is so far-sighted enough to allow him or herself to be hoodwinked by this “show” of neutrality. Why? It avoids the individual shadow, thus dispensing with the truth that wholeness or the love of “persons” is manifestly and genuinely felt only when it is experienced on the inside of the individual or genuine only in the experience of personal “relationships” and not the world at large. For progressives, what is seen on the outside is truth, not what lies behind the mask. In other words, they are succeeding at the opposite of their intentions.
In fact, the outward projection of “the self” is how the progressives approach all obstacles in life, perhaps most starkly seen with the advent of the sexual revolution where the experience of one’s uniqueness in relationships, sexual and otherwise, was usurped in the unconscious by projected “collective” sexual contents and needs outside oneself (like a new “normal”) in an experience “shared,” rather than an individual and private thing that is thus more creative and fulfilling and which evolves over time to enrich and form closer and more loving human relationships.
Today, therefore, we as a people are evolving as by-products of purely extroverted stimuli, and need for acceptance, rather than wrestling with the feelings of inadequacy in being different, or failure in dealing with another human being one-on-one in our own uniqueness. The new way progressives found to appease a low self-esteem or to escape the sometimes deep personal pain that all human beings experienced at some point in their lives in relationships (since time immemorial) is instead to look outside oneself for the answer; and to the “progressive” movement that means creating a world of superficial love or superficial “togetherness,” a false moral superiority and a misguided and deceptive road to happiness.
Little wonder then that our young adults and children feel like failures even before they begin an adult life. They have been convinced that they will not succeed against the high hubris of the progressive culture. That is because placing value on being “accepted” means failure can come at any time, beyond one’s control, and creating one’s own destiny is a lie. The experience of working hard for reward has no meaning and is a lie that the rich are promulgating, is what they think. This erosion of belief in one’s ability to create their own universe, to take the left turn or the right, independent of worldly dictates, has also resulted in feelings of inner weakness, lack of control (largely due to self-doubt), over-the-top expectations, a disdain for the more reticent personality, despair, and a sense (which may in fact be real) that the world is ending and that the individual has become irrelevant, which accounts for the abysmal record of depression in this country, and the lack of genuinely felt love, wisdom or maturity in people and relationships. That is because progressives emphasize through their actions that the need for acceptance is more valuable than not, when up until this purportedly “gilded” age, the beauty and wonder of art and science was tangential and real when it came from within.
Freud was thus correct then when he concluded that “[t]he pervert and the prude are the same,” meaning that the experience of “collective” sexuality and identification (which both of these extremes represent when examined from a psychoanalytic perspective) on either a “collective emotional” or “collective sexual” plane produces, not persons with maturity who accept their sexual selves and are comfortable in themselves with who they are, but who evidence an inability to integrate their experience as individuals on a truer spiritual plane with other individuals, subjectively or objectively, thus losing entirely an ability to love another human being, much less mentally able to handle the “sacredness” or “profaneness” of any sexual experience they alone have with another person. Thus, the pervert and the prude, as we are all too familiar, never find love no matter where they look and ultimately, as we also know, lash out at others whom they hold responsible.
In fact, instead of “strengthening” gender equality, it is rather that “progressive” postulates have “weakened” gender equality by stealing it from the proverbial self where it has always resided most genuinely, and projecting “perverted” or “sacred” contents and other aspects of the unconscious onto the world stage to arrive at an “acceptable” moral code all should follow, which we are never hoodwinked to believe as a genuine experience of life at all (if we are true to ourselves) but rather a display of perpetual immaturity and stunted growth.
One stark example of this is the recent Secret Service Agent debacle. There you have a bunch of guys – together – sleeping and drinking with prostitutes. The whole case is very strange, not merely for its lack of “morality,” which does not sufficiently grasp the mental mechanics of the whole thing, but for the fact that these men did this “collectively,” prompting one to question why the men, as individuals, alone on different days or completely independent of each other, were unable to experience the prostitute by themselves and on their own terms, or avoid her altogether, which begs the question: Why, all of a sudden, are grown men in such need of another man’s codification? The answer is perhaps not one of morality, but, rather, the group helped put a veneer on the true self that was, at least traditionally, what made a man a man. Had they been able to experience their own true selves independently of each other, they probably would not have been caught, much less their actions been a threat to the security of our country.
Another example of “progressive” postulating gone amok is in the story of the woman who wants to hide the sex of her newly born child from others and proclaiming that her reason for doing so is because it is “irrelevant,” when in fact the “irrelevancy” she believes she’s projecting is completely overshadowed by the opposite projection, which is that the sex of the child is indeed very important to her. Is anyone hoodwinked by this show of neutrality? Not in the least.
Still another example to share is my own experience during the application process at a major university I had planned to attend. In its curriculum, advanced courses were provided on gender bias, equality, and its effect on early writers and poets like Emily Dickenson, which if the reader is truly and deeply acquainted, would more than likely agree with me that she was infinitely more comfortable in her person concerning herself, life’s truths, both earthy and mystical, than any conscious focus on “gender” could further engender from the evidence of animus in her works. Rather, the university’s emphasis on “gender” qualities that define any artist’s work does more to inhibit and hide the artist from the student, as well as the other deeper unconscious contents that consistently erupt from deeply creative thoughts and emotions, both on the philosophical, sacred and profane levels, which is perhaps why we are seeing a decline in good literature and the arts.
In the end, however, it is women and children who are suffering more than men from the direction we are going in the progressive movement. This is so because the inherent underlying criteria that gave rise to desires of gender equality in the first place, has the opposite effect of reducing women to inferior status by paradoxically inferring that the more the feminine gender strives for equality on the outside, the more inferior she admits herself to be on the inside. Men are not so easily hoodwinked by this show of neutrality by progressives either, which is why we are seeing a greater division and lack of love between the sexes than ever before, leaving us, in the end, bound on a plane of existence where the “sacred” and the “profane” feel like the same and the prospect of hostilities increasing in time.