Feminine and masculine power aren’t exclusive to men or women, Brandon Ferdig writes, and each one needs the other.
In part one of this article series, I introduced the idea of there being two kinds of power: the masculine and the feminine. My discovery of the latter was eye opening because I was brought up believing that power and masculinity were synonymous, that femininity was a lack of power.
By discovering feminine power, I better understood masculinity as well and defined each in the following way:
Masculine power is about dominance, conquering, and about proving yourself worthy by doing so.
Feminine power is the appreciation, expression, and glorification of life and the life experience, and the ambition to see it prosper.
Masculinity and femininity are not monopolized by either sex, and in this spirit I invited readers of this site to discover the benefits of feminine power for themselves.
Living in China, I saw how cultures manifest these two powers differently. It was clear that America has been tilted in this balance. Its strong masculine power has, on one hand, helped the U.S. rise to new levels of accomplishment and prosperity. However, the lack of acknowledgement and respect for feminine power has biased everything in the U.S., and we have largely missed out on its beauty and joy as a consequence. This is unfortunate.
In this piece, though, I argue that this lack of appreciation is now more than just “unfortunate.” Tired scripts of “might makes right” and attacking every problem with force are becoming a liability.
Let’s go back 66 years.
♦◊♦
On August 6, 1945 the United States military dropped the loudest exclamation of masculine power ever designed by humankind. The atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima instantly killed 75,000 people. 75,000. Three days later was its encore: a similar unspeakable devastation over Nagasaki.
Humankind entered the atomic age with a kaboom. As understood in masculine power terms, man had conquered the challenge of controlling the atom and then used it to dominate his opponent.
America won the war and celebrated its inauguration as super-power (super-masculine power) of the world. But in its quest to conquer, where could masculine power go from there—how do you out-do an atomic bomb?
Let’s go back much further.
♦◊♦
Since the beginning, for most peoples, dominance and conquest has been humanity’s M.O. In times of scarcity and moral infancy, things were simple: if I can take it, it’s mine. These conditions prioritized and perpetuated masculine power and enabled its darker side to go unchecked. Thus, people and societies succumbed to the masculine power-abuse of influencing and conquering others for no reason than to simply dominate.
Besides the protection established within a family, tribe, or society, it was conquer or be conquered. And so it was for thousands and thousands of years: one civilization after another germinating, developing, necessarily defending itself, and then taking the offensive. This steered the tides of civilization from Asia and Europe, to pre-Europeanized North/South America, to Africa, Australia and Oceania.
(We study history and hear about, say, how the Khmer people of modern-day Cambodia conquered the nearby Chams in 1203, and we think nothing of it. We understand ancient times to be about this constant warring, but we should also be conscious of how incredibly different this world was.)
Societies came and went, but in time better resource allocation allowed for technological advancements and now brains made “might” a matter of innovation rather than sheer brute. New ways to attack motivated the invention of bow and arrow, metal weaponry, gunpowder, navies, tanks, aircraft, chemical warfare … and atomic warfare.
So many ways to conquer.
♦◊♦
In the meanwhile, something else was evolving. This resource allocation also allowed for greater prosperity which contributed to higher morals. This cut and dry, logical decision recognized that peace and security within a society meant a better society. It wasn’t because those with more might couldn’t go around taking other people’s things. They could; they can today, too, but a moral adolescence was reached, protecting the vulnerable. Simultaneously, it also allowed a space for the freedom and influence of feminine power—the glorification and expression of life. Women’s rights still far behind, a higher appreciation for feminine power resulted.
In time, the moral trend began to seep to those outside one’s group. Old Testament times called for the complete eradication of other peoples. A thousand years later, Rome conquered foes, but tried to be gracious in victory, citing a moral character. They allowed for locals they conquered to remain as they were, live as they lived, though under the blanket of Roman rule. Accordingly, Rome also birthed an artistic movement of poetry and drama celebrating life.
(Judeo-Christian religion is a good example of the rise of feminine power as the conquering, wrathful Old Testament god was replaced with the feminine power of Jesus, whose forgiving, love-your-enemy message moved the world without raising a sword.)
Nonetheless, things were still terrible if you were an enemy. These same Romans would crucify theirs (crucified Jesus) as did the Spanish crucify Indians in South America in the 1500’s. Recently, though, we saw how the Abu Ghraib prison scandal of 2004 disgusted the world as Americans tortured inmates, one fatality confirmed.
This disgust is a good thing and indicates continued moral progression. Which, in turn, has enabled feminine power—the glorification of life—to gain influence.
So this history reveals twin trajectories: masculine power’s global rule is taking humanity into ever-scarier potentials and actualities of destruction. Meanwhile, conditions perpetuating a rise of feminine power as higher morals shortened the leash on runaway masculine power-abuse and allowed a space for feminine power to shine.
These two opposing trajectories came to a head in WWII.
♦◊♦
By invading Poland in 1939, Adolf Hitler and the Germans simply followed the script played out thousands of times in history: a more masculine-powerful society conquered a weaker one. Yet because of heightened morals, Hitler is considered perhaps the most egregious example of radical leadership ever. The key is that he did this in the 20th century, rather than, say, the 4th century B.C. That’s when Alexander the Great invaded the East. We don’t vilify him; we call him, well, you know.
Same actions at different times under different morals. And a most ambitious activity by Germany and Japan toward world domination led to the pinnacle of the arms race they held with the Allies. The atomic bomb was born.
Today, several countries are armed with nuclear weapons and the notions of “mutually-assured destruction” that prevented extended combat during the Cold War aren’t going away. The dominance of masculine power hit a ceiling in 1945, but rather than trying to break through it, it went underground and still not without death and destruction. Instead of going head-to-head with the Soviets, the West battled proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then, rather than warring at all, economic and political battles were fought to increase hegemony and control of many third world countries.
This brings us back to the present.
♦◊♦
The U.S. is involved in an international stalemate of masculine power. The days of “might-makes-right” may not be completely gone, but the importance of diplomacy and relationships is paramount. From here, progress doesn’t mean who can over-power another, and the U.S. is stuck in an identity ill-fit for modern times.
It’s not enough to cloak military missions of domination under the veil of humanitarian efforts. In this post-war, global era, it’s about who can handle matters peacefully and, at the same time, how a nation can turn their attention inward and take care of their own. Unfortunately, America also uses the same masculine-dominant tactics domestically.
As we did in the Vietnam War—lacking acknowledgement of feminine power, equating “pulling out” with “giving up,” admitting defeat, and ceasing power—we see our domestic problems and we “go to war” with them: with crime, drugs, and, most tellingly, poverty.
These efforts, despite being ineffective, are perpetuated as calls for them to stop—to “pull out”—are equated to being “soft on” the issue. And in America there’s no worse sin than “being soft.” What’s more, this insistent warring keeps new ideas for solving our domestic and foreign problems from reaching the table. The result has been a mono-faceted approach: more manpower, more spending. And now our spending is breaking the bank and the problems continue to eat away.
“Good Men” need to implement other measures.
♦◊♦
For the whole of humanity, the masculine power of “dominate and prove your worth” has taken a necessarily exaggerated role. Today, though, this exaggeration has become a liability. The 20th century was the turning point of this trend—the slaughter and annihilation from the atomic bomb its peak.
First we’ll give it its due: like the hero who protects the damsel, masculine power has allowed humanity to evolve to this point of being. Though still far from perfect, humans recognize the value of life like never before—where norms and morals allow us to assume the feminine without it risking our security, further defining our world order.
It’s not just allowed, though. It’s crucial.
This has put not just America, but also men, at a crossroads. Men, as being the typical embodiment of masculine power and, especially in America, self-defined as such, now see that they’re not needed as they used to be in the form of fighting foes or even providing for their partner. In a way, feminine power can say to masculine power, “no worries, I got it from here.”
A man may think, “what good am I?” Old assumptions of self-worth have been pulled out from underneath. I think this helps explain men feeling a bit lost today. This, I believe, is also what the GMP is all about: men finding meaning in their lives in a new world where the feminine is equal and the masculine redefined—defined, in my opinion, by further implementing the feminine.
Let the masculine motivation to conquer and compete be inspired by the feminine appreciation for life. Use the drive for success and accomplishment to lead to productive ends. Grow a competitive business to enable the growth of jobs and the economy. Invent a new widget that makes our lives easier. Address life-threatening problems like famine and cancer. This time, conquer atomic technology not to defeat enemies, but to benefit others.
Indeed, as technology increases wealth, connects the world, and reduces the need to fight by providing our needs, we ought to continue seeking answers in it rather than brute force—perhaps if we could create a powerful and sustainable energy substitute, we needn’t seek military involvement in Libya and Iraq.
Masculine and feminine power are truly the yin and yang. One without the other is a one-sided challenge. Realizing feminine power as part of our psyche, and shaping our outlook accordingly, creates a well-rounded, more apt, more powerful approach to solving the problems in the world as oppose to simply using force.
There is still a place in this world for the maverick who goes it alone. He may not resemble Clint Eastwood on the American frontier, but she’ll be an independent thinker who leads people to better ways of thinking, producing, and relating to one another.
In fact, it’ll take such leaders to go up against the strong taboos of femininity in certain circles in America that repress feminine power. In business and sports, especially, reducing the competitive, conquering edge can be defeating (despite the moral considerations evermore prominent in the global business world). But though masculine-power dominates these worlds, it doesn’t mean is has to dominate American culture and American leadership.
This is where a division needs to be made as business so strongly directs government in this country. So from city council to congress, from church to academia, we ought to lead with a 50/50 approach—or better yet, a 100/100 approach. The whole spectrum is more powerful than the sum of its parts.
—Photo Boston.com/AP
About Brandon Ferdig
Provocative article. Have you read any Riane Eisler? http://www.rianeeisler.com/chalice.htm
A very interesting read. I would also argue that masculine power is protecting and providing for your family, your group, your country, even should it mean being forced to cause harm to others.
But I agree that both masculine and feminine power is needed, and the continued evolution of the human race depends on both.
Dear Brandon,
You need to stop what you’re doing RIGHT NOW and pick up Susan Faludi’s “Shafted” and read it with attention.
Faludi makes a very well sustained argument that traditonal working class male roles were not about domination or conquering, but about building and sustaining community. She does not deny the PROBLEMS sexism caused. However, she does have a much more nuanced and well-thought out view of masculinity than the one you’re pushing here.
I’d be interested in what you’d have to say about “Shafted”. In fact, it should be required reading for everyone on this board.
I love Faludi and agree that “Shafted” is an excellent expression of what American society has done for the working class man.
I thought that Ferdig was going to make the point that the feminine-charged Allies, in stopping Hitler, were being protective rather than allowing the masculine Axis to do what conquerors do. The point is well made that masculinity’s tendencies are not intrinsically bad and can be channeled into work that is positive and nurturing. Nuclear power can warm or destroy. (In theory. Practically speaking, you have to do someting with all of those spent rods.)
Also excellent reading re: “traditional masculinity”: the new book “War” by Sebastian Junger, the basis for the film “Restepro”, reviewed here on the GMPM (unfortunately, I can’t find the link).
Finally, with all due respect Brandon, Hitler wasn’t just one more in a long line of would-be male conquerers. Nazism was trying for something radically different. You need to read a bit more about it to truly appreciate what was going on. Hitler had in mind a re-ordering of European life far grander than anything Napoleon came up with and the fulcrum for this change was to be a eugenics-based uinderstanding Aryan supremacy.
It would be hard to come up with another conqueror that allied that breadth of imperial project with the means to carry it out and depth of deadly intent for, say, 60-70% of the human race. Maybe Attila the Hun. Maybe.
What I’m saying here is that ‘Dolfie wasn’t just Napoleon or Gustavus Adolphus writ large. There’s a definite qualitative difference between the Nazi project and other projects of conquest.
“Masculine power is about dominance, . .”
“Feminine power is the appreciation, expression. . .”
Those are your definitions only. I get where you’re trying to take this and makes for interesting reading. However, having “masculine power” and strength doesn’t imply that it’s used to force your will by violence and/or intimidation. Cite MLK.
A simple example: I’m relatively large and relatively strong, and considered masculine by most; however, I changed every single overnight diaper (and many others), gave every single nightly bath, and read every single bedtime story for my two daughters. Although my wife as a SAHM, I was thrilled to be able to spend that time with my girls.
Were those acts masculine or feminine? Answer: neither. They were and are human. Such things are just a tiny aspect of t being a decent father or mother.
If you want to talk in terms of power, the most potent aspects can’t objectively can’t objectively be considered masculine or feminine, such as the power of cooperation, the power of self-sacrifice, the power of kindness, the power of love (for goodness sake), the power of self-control, the power of contentment, etc.
Hear, hear. I realized while writing the piece that there are countless gray areas that rendered this “two-pronged” approach to power simplistic and incomplete. But if I were to introduce a theory that encompassed 100% of the variables, it would be a impossible complicated. Plus, the idea was to at least offer to readers the idea of their being more than one way to describe power.
These pieces represent an early step in the process of opening ourselves up to the idea of their being unique powers that manifest in the masculine and feminine. Some people don’t like that I call the powers by these names, but they nonetheless have (at least loosely) dictated the direction of humanity.
Thus they are useful and important (and just plain fascinating) to realize.
The idea is to take what can be used from this piece and build upon it. And the notions of the two opposing trajectories, the pinnacle of brute power in WWII (and over-reliance of it in America), and the need to use other methods of power to move forward are the points I hope people can take away.
There is no point in having these weird custody battles over specific words in the English language. Pigeon holding words like compassion, reason and selflessness to a specific gender is an insult. It’s to the benefit of everyone that we move away from gender identifiers.
I would rather be a complete human being who’s capable of protecting & nurturing those I care for.
I completely agree with the final sentence. That’s why I wrote the pieces. : )
Regrading your first comments, by gender do you mean the sex we identify with or the sex we are? If you mean the latter, I’ll reiterate my statement that I don’t equate masculine with men and feminine with women. If by gender you are referring to the sex we identify with, then I’d reiterate my above comment: I acknowledge there’s shortcomings with my classifications, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Once I truly felt the power of femininity for the first time, I realized it was force that many regularly dismiss. By classifying it, we can bring it to light. And I’d also say to be careful not to dismiss the differences between people for the sake of being progressive, because that can lead to a sterilization of unique strengths that different groups offer–that we all can enjoy by celebrating and acting together.
I lived in China and still do part time. They build their culture around social harmony. Mao Ze Dong believed in gender equality since he was following the Marxist model. Nonetheless the traditional culture persisted where male children were still expected to support the family and their elderly parents. China developed equality between the genders without going through feminism.
Men and women in china are not in a gender war. They don’t have tremendous anxiety about fulfilling some arbitrary guidelines for equality. Women don’t resent men for oppressing them. This is a state which American men would be envious of. Both genders value and respect each other and neither invest tremendous effort in trying to diminish the other or blame them for social dysfunction.
I think this acceptance of gender identity is something we are missing in our society. We have spent too much time and energy fighting over petty things none of us really have control over. The fixation with making men more feminine for example is not conducive to social harmony. This only creates men who would be happier being masculine but forced to be feminine, and women who want to be feminine who are forced to be masculine. If we are free to choose then why is so much effort invested in making us choose to be the opposite of who we feel comfortable being?
Why do we even need to have a debate about rising feminine power? During periods of peace this influence rises, in conflict other qualities are more advantageous. The world is not becoming one thing or the other and we don’t have to force it or encourage it to make it happen. Trying to coax feminine qualities into men will create a masculine deficit, as would pushing masculinity on women.
The goal of harmony can be found in being who we naturally are. The mode of social engineering to reach these goals creates imbalances that later must be corrected. We can see this in the falling ambition of men. Women now earn 60% of degrees but even a men’s site does not focus on the male achievement gap. Instead of celebrating masculinity it is pointed out as a source of war and conflict. If that is what you think of men or what men think of themselves no wonder they lack ambition and drive. The approach we have taken to promoting equality would only allow women feeling secure about themselves.
What I learned from being in china was how dysfunctional feminism has made our society. It’s a disharmonious solution to a fairly small problem that is inflated by a few to serve their self interest. Feminism has not been a harmonious transition, it was contentious and remains so.
The irony is that feminine succeeded with masculine tactics and by encouraging masculinity in women. The only people who became more feminine as a result of feminism are men.
Your article feeds the feminist meme machine which is hostile towards masculinity in men blaming them for all the wars of the world. Femininity waits to be saved, by masculinity. Femininity depends on masculinity for safety so that it may thrive in a secure environment. If the environmental becomes dangerous becoming more feminine would be bring disaster. You speak about the balance but treat the wars as masculine foolishness instead of people fighting to survive in a hostile world. That hostility was not the masculine out of control but the reality of the human condition. We fight for land, resources, and self determination. We fight to take land resources and self determination from others. From this we get our nations, and our government who could not function so efficiently if the world were made of small tribes who did not wish to be lead by anyone.
We should be grateful for the masculine instead of cheering it’s demise. We don’t have to be ashamed of masculine qualities in the evolution in our culture, it ought to be a source of pride as femininity ought be in women. That is a harmonious balance.
Oh god, theres so very much wrong with that I really don’t know where to start.
I accept that you spend alot of time in China, but it might be wise to read a little about the history of Mao Tse Tung and the CCP before extolling the virtues of their “Gender Equality” and “Social Harmony.”
Marxist nations such as the DPRK the PRC and the USSR are among the most socially conservative and murderous societies in history. And of their leaders Mao was at the forefront in terms of opression of just about everyone.
Spending a year in China myself, I dig what you say, Ed. Indeed there seemed much less of a tenseness around gender in China. This experience is what helped birth these articles.
I also like what you say about whether we even need the debate. But I think America keeps trying to solve problems out of dominance when they could do so out of nurture. I don’t want masculinity to go away, but used for good and I want our masculine power-heavy approach to be more centered.
And I’ll say again that I never blame men for all the wars, but masculine dominance. And I said in my piece that I give this trend its due for bringing us to where we are today, did I not? It’s just time to move on. Your right, in desperate times, we need to fight and dominate, but we’re in a world more at peace than ever before.
This article suffers from the massive problems presented in its predecessor and succeeds in expanding on them.
By continuing to identify a binary divide in “power” the author mythologises the differences between the sexes as some kind of victorian universal principal in a way virtually garanteed to promote sexism.
By demonising “male power” and describing historical decisions as primarily a result of too much maleness the actual cause of events such as the bombing of Hiroshima are swept aside in favour of an esotheric concept with little bearing on reality.
Why not just call them “Yin” and “Yang” and be done with it? Its one step away from blaming lightning on the thunder god.
If masculine dominance starts a war, what is it that defends the object of aggression?
Okay. You thought femininity was the absence of power and wrote a column on it. I don’t know anybody else who ever thought that.
What the hell. When my daughter was getting married, we had a level in the house full of bridesmaids, or various other folks who were staying elsewhere and looking in to party or whatever.
All the women went into town for the mass makeup and manicure session and I was hanging out with the groomsmen and suchlike. One was in construction, another a biker and Navy vet, I was ex-Infantry, and there were a couple of other hard cases.
Suddenly, as a surprise, comes up the smallest, frailest of the bridesmaids who had for some reason decided to skip the bonding thing at the salon and fix herself up.
She noted briskly that we hadn’t gotten the buffet lunch ready and we ought to put down our beer and get to it.
Which we did most pfq.
You guys and the power schtick. What a hoot.
Provoking thoughts, and of course, very well written. Thank you.
Women’s power has indeed been repressed and oppressed. Even women have a hard time understanding it and how it relates to a man’s power. We are told, particularly in this country, that feminine power is about our beauty, especially as it pertains to our sexuality, but I believe that sexual beauty is the gift of the young, because the young are immature and unaware of their deeper, more profound power.
There is so much confusion about the nature of power and its purpose, personally and (as this article emphasizes) collectively. I’m particularly saddened by two so-called answers to the problem of masculine dominance: the rise of Feminism, which, most of the time represents a grab for masculine power and therefore promotes things that are more conducive to dominating, taking control and are quite contrary to the glorification of life and the ambition to see it prosper, even to the point of personal sacrifice; and what I believe to be a skewed message in much of the Christian church which also emphasizes masculine power. The efforts of the theist community in general, though perhaps well intended to the contrary, often end up being another way of dominating.
Femininity is not a dominating power. It is not a power of rank authority in most cases, it is the power of influence. I actually really love your simple definition of it:
“Feminine power is the appreciation, expression, and glorification of life and the life experience, and the ambition to see it prosper.”
I long to see a “feminism” that looks like that and a religious view of the power of women that causes men to use their power to assist women in this task. There are things we cannot do. We are necessary to one another, but it IS life and the prospering of life that is the common goal that we share.
Again, thank you for two very good articles. I appreciated them very much.
Provoking thoughts, and of course, very well written. Thank you.
Women’s power has indeed been repressed and oppressed. Even women have a hard time understanding it and how it relates to a man’s power. We are told, particularly in this country, that feminine power is about our beauty, especially as it pertains to our sexuality, but I believe that sexual beauty is primarily the gift of the young, because the young are immature and unaware of their deeper, more profound power.
There is so much confusion about the nature of power and its purpose, personally and (as this article emphasizes) collectively. I’m particularly saddened by two so-called answers to the problem of masculine dominance: the rise of Feminism, which, most of the time represents a grab for masculine power and therefore promotes things that are more conducive to dominating, taking control, and are quite contrary to the glorification of life and the ambition to see it prosper,–even to the point of personal sacrifice; and what I believe to be a skewed message in much of the Christian church which also emphasizes masculine power. The efforts of the theist community in general, though perhaps well intended to the contrary, often end up being another way of dominating.
Femininity is not a dominating power. It is not a power of rank authority in most cases, it is the power of influence. I actually really love your simple definition of it:
“Feminine power is the appreciation, expression, and glorification of life and the life experience, and the ambition to see it prosper.”
I long to see a “feminism” that looks like that and a religious view of the power of women that causes men to use their power to assist women in this task. There are things we cannot do. We are necessary to one another, but it IS life and the prospering of life that is the common goal that we share.
Again, thank you for two very good articles. I appreciated them very much.
My comment didn’t show as awaiting moderation the first time, so I did some minor edits and reposted. Now I see them both… you can delete this and the first one please. Thanks.