Rihanna comes out for the gentleman!

Respect to Rihanna for her recent statements on men. In an interview with the Evening Standard she describes her personal malaise in the area of relationships with guys, and wonders despairingly why they/we are not gentlemen anymore. "They think that...." she says, "if you take a chair out for a lady, or you're nice or even affectionate to your girl in front of your boys, you're less of a man. It's so sick. They won't be a gentleman because that makes them appear soft."

Leaving aside the discussion as to whether Rihanna is actually 'a lady', she does make a significant point which, when we follow its train of thought seems to lead us into a quagmire of gender-based contradictions.
Young men, like young women, are at the receiving end of a tidal wave of images that suggest, if not actually dictate, the way they should 'be' and what is acceptable, desirable and undesirable for a man to strive for in these times. One of the first to be accused and held responsible must surely be the Hollywood film industry which produces extremely potent role models and stories that undoubtedly leave a hefty imprint on the collective psyche. If we look at those Hollywood heroes we see that, since the time of the first Rocky movies, the male blueprint laid down by the industry has become increasingly tough, macho, pumped up, violent etc. Hugh Jackman, for example does not strike one as much of a book-reading man of sophistication. We also note that unmasculine men are often portrayed as suspicious and untrustworthy in these genres. There are exceptions of course, but on the whole it is muscle that seems to win out as the number one quality for a man to possess, just like for women it is a slim waistline and an inflatable chest. Englishmen are usually portrayed as villains with suspect sexual tendencies in the Hollywood genre too, which further compounds the suggestion that sophistication in a man is not to be pursued.

Such stereotypes are swallowed whole, and to some extent we participate in their propagation when we pay to see such movies. Young guys get the message that ruggedness, not sensitivity is to be cultivated. Male rap stars write ludicrous lyrics that are insulting to women and carry violent implications. Such 'music' is pumped across the globe, the rap stars are seen to become conspicuously wealthy and then we wonder why our young men are growing up with misogynist tendencies! We can begin to see how crazy and out-of-whack the whole picture actually is.

In the 1970's things were different. The cult of the hippy made it cool for men to show their sensitivity towards nature and to openly express their spiritual leanings, but all that changed in the 80's when inner searching gave way to materialism and it's attendant hubris. To display one's wealth rather than one's earth-consciousness became the preferred magnet for female attention, and of course most women participated (and still participate) in this by declaring themselves 'material girls'. Repulsed by male arrogance and violent tendencies, many women continue to hold out an immature longing for the strong armed hero to sweep them off their feet. But if brutishness is what you want, brutishness is what you will get, especially if you are a beautiful woman!

To further complicate matters there is the argument that women are actually far more attracted to husky-voiced hunks than they are to men of learning and sensitivity. After all, we're talking polar attraction here, aren't we? If men and women become more like each other, won't we lose the polarity that makes.....well, the world go round? Possibly not. Surely we have come further than such primitive imperatives would suggest and must affirm a more refined definition of positive gender identity.

Rihanna's statement that she's holding out for a gentleman rather than a hero is a positive and sensible one from an unexpected quarter. Let's hope that more prominent females have the good sense to lead men away from dysfunctional role templates and towards a more mature aspiration, even if it does sound a bit old fashioned.

Disruption

A recent quote from international prosperity coach Randy Gage really caught my attention. It said something like; You are not here to fit in but to disrupt.
The process of disruption begins with a new idea or innovation. It may start at the bottom but builds momentum until whole industries are transformed. Witness how mp3 files changed the music industry, or how online travel agencies and airlines have changed how we buy air tickets and holidays. The list goes on and on.
When we think about it, the whole of evolution is based on disruption. Without it nothing would change and the world would stagnate.
Despite this, almost everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in our traditional education teaches and encourages us to fit in rather than disrupt. "Don't rock the boat". "You need to fit in." "Keep in with the right people." "Don't step out of line" because if you do there will be consequences.
This is the reality. Companies establish consequences for people that dare to step out of line and do things differently. These consequences can be acknowledged or not, hidden or revealed.
The media bombards us with messages that suggest that life is getting tougher, more competitive, less easy to deal with. Less jobs, more suffering. This has been going on as long as I can remember, whether there is an 'economic crisis' or not. Such memes compound the message that we shouldn't take risks, that we should fit in and go with the crowd. People become more scared, more cowed and more likely to conform. They may join in with deriding the ones that take risks, hoping that it will shore up their professional status, which in many cases it does, sadly.
This is a form of corruption. Very insidious and hidden but there nevertheless. Ultimately it does nobody any favours because companies need to change and develop as society naturally changes. When they don't, they tend to disappear.
The lesson rarely gets learned. The fear of being ostrasized from the group remains much more powerful for most that the motivation to go out on a limb and say what needs to be said or take a step in the dark.
But life is for living. In the end there will be little satisfaction in saying: I played it safe, kept my nose clean and didn't rock the boat. It may work in the short term but in the bigger picture it does not contribute to a fulfilling life.
We are here to disrupt, to contribute and make change, to make the world a better place. Playing safe does not do this. So the message here is: join with the disruptors. If you can't be one of them, give them your support and energy because....we are the future!

New feminists and Taoism

Recently we have seen several high-profile individuals such as Emma Watson ‘come out’ and declare themselves as ‘feminists’. Presumably this is a gesture designed to improve the public image of feminism, and somehow make it more acceptable. However, it is by no means clear what they actually mean when they say they are ‘feminists’.One can’t help but wonder if these individuals themselves really know what they mean when they say they are feminists. Emma Watson has mentioned something about standing up for women’s rights in Africa, or elsewhere and of course this is commendable. But this not really a feminist issue, rather it is about basic human rights. Believing that men and women have equal rights is no longer a feminist issue. It is taken as read that it concerns everyone and that any other type of view is unacceptable. So what really IS a feminist? Who can be a feminist? Nobody seems to have an answer to this question but here are a few ideas:

1     A feminist is someone that believes that our world needs to move in a ‘feminine’ direction by becoming more caring, and more nurturing of the values that we associate with people that call themselves ‘women’.
2.       A feminist is someone that believes that women should have more rights and more power in society.
3.       A feminist is someone that rejects traditional stereotypes associated with male and female genders.

These definitions of feminism are quite different in various ways.  The first one is about feminine values and the type of society we want to create.  If we look at Geerd Hofstede’s index of cross-cultural distinctions we see that some societies value Femininity more than others. Examples of this typically are Scandinavian societies that appear to be more ‘caring’ in the way they are structured. On the other hand, according to Hofstede Japan scores very low on the index for feminine values. Anyone that has actual experience of Japan however would probably dispute such a result and we soon find ourselves in difficulties here: What really ARE feminine values and how do they manifest in a society? Speaking personally as someone that has lived in Japan for example, I would say that overall and with all things considered, Japan is a more’ caring’ society than the UK, which apparently contradicts Hofstede’s findings.

The other two definitions above are more similar to each other and imply a more political stance for a feminist. The second really amounts to an interest group for 50% of the population and is not really about values. It’s more about women saying “Here we are and we mean business”, which is, after all not a very feminine thing to be saying. It leads us to saying things such as: Do feminists actually want to be women or not? This implies an existential crisis behind feminist outbursts, a kind of search for an identity or re-definition of women’s role in society. Again, nobody seems to have clarity on what this means and how it can actually support the interests of women or society.

The third definition above again suggests a re-ordering of roles and relationships with regard to gender. But what this really means or what it would look like is not clear. It is also not clear whether or not it would contribute to the quality of life that people, including women experience now.

One possible solution to this confusing situation is to turn to Eastern philosophy for insight. In the Taoist principles of Yin and Yang we get a different frame on the whole issue, that moves us away from intellectualism and political posturing towards a more profound connection with what makes us who we are in this world. The genius of Eastern thought lies in its’ simplicity. Taoism takes us into the energies that govern our existence, giving us insight that resonates with quantum science at a very deep level. The principles of Yin and Yang deal with optimum balance and well-being. There is a simple clarity in the principles that go beyond the confusion that politically-oriented ‘intellectual’ western-style discourse gets us into. We are after all, essentially fields of energy moving through a universe of energies that are interacting in various ways. Taoism says that nothing is wrong. We already possess everything we need to be in balance, whole and complete on this earth. The problems begin when we confuse ourselves and get out of balance. This happens when we disconnect from our centre and identify with a false identity. Unfortunately, western civilisation is based on and continually encourages us to engage with this whole confusion rather than re-connect with the whole. Osho has pointed this out in a detailed way in his speeches as a critic of the West.

When individuals are out of balance and sick, then naturally the society will also be so. Clarity is needed to bring people towards a healthful existence so that they can truly move ahead and contribute their gifts to society. The problem is that there are too many voices giving out confusing and unhelpful messages. When people start to identify with political principles and base their life around intellectual ideas they soon get lost or mired in conflicts that in general do not bring us closer to healthy solutions.  The term ‘feminist’ has a cache of conflict and division that does not really serve the cause of unity and wholeness. Seeing and feeling beyond gender politics to a more underlying and fundamental pattern of harmony or disharmony, firstly within ourselves and then as a society, is more likely to bring people closer together in reconciliation.