Woman Hating: A Radical Look at Sexuality

156

Woman Hating

Depth psychologists consider man the center of his

world —his psyche is the primary universe which governs, very directly, the secondary universe, distinct from him, of nature; philosophers consider man, in

the fragmented, highly overrated part called intellect,

the center of the natural world, indeed its only significant member; artists consider man, isolated in his creative function, the center of the creative process, of the canvas, of the poem, an engineer of the culture; politicians consider man, represented by his sociopolitical organization and its armies, the center of whatever

planetary power might be relevant and meaningful;

religionists consider God a surrogate man, created

precisely in man’s image, only more so, to be father

to the human family. The notion of man as a part of the

natural world, integrated into it, in form as distinct

(no more so) as the tarantula, in function as important

(no more so) as the honey bee or tree, is in eclipse, and

that eclipse extends not over a decade, or over a century, but over the whole of written history. The arrogance which informs man’s relation with nature (simply, he is superior to it) is precisely the same arrogance which informs his relationship with woman (simply,

he is superior to her). Here we see the full equation:

woman = carnality = nature. The separation of man

from nature, man placing himself over and above it, is

directly responsible for the current ecological situation

which may lead to the extinction of many forms of life,

including human life. Man has treated nature much as

he has treated woman: with rape, plunder, violence.

The phenomenological world is characterized by its

diversity, the complexity and mutuality of its interac-

Androgyny: The Mythological Model

157

tions, and man’s only chance for survival in that world

consists o f finding the proper relationship to it.

In terms o f interhuman relationship, the problem is

similar. As individuals, we experience ourselves as the

center o f whatever social world we inhabit. We think

that we are free and refuse to see that we are functions

of our particular culture. That culture no longer organically reflects us, it is not our sum total, it is not the collective phenomenology o f our creative possibilities —it possesses and rules us, reduces us, obstructs the flow o f

sexual and creative energy and activity, penetrates even

into what Freud called the id, gives nightmare shape to

natural desire. In order to achieve proper balance in

interhuman interaction, we must find ways to change

ourselves from culturally defined agents into naturally

defined beings. We must find ways o f destroying the

cultural personae imposed on our psyches and we must

discover forms o f relationship, behavior, sexual being

and interaction, which are compatible with our inherent

natural possibilities. We must move away from the perverse, two-dimensional definitions which stem from sexual repression, which are the source o f social oppression, and move toward creative, full,