|
Aswad -> RE: Misogyny and BDSM (12/29/2009 10:15:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Hey :-) . I think that "Free Women" are still not seen as men's equal, but I could be wrong - it's true that most of what I know of Gor stems from what I have read on the boards of this very website.
Two important, partially seperate points, then some musings:
One. Men aren't other men's equals. This is an aspect of how men and women think differently¹. Men rank each other. Women include or exclude each other. Gorean thought encourages the notion that each be respected on their own merits, as demonstrated by actions. A general principle of equality does not exist, as equality is nothing more than a denial of differences, and thus individuality. Furthermore, seeing as equality between any persons, regardless of gender, is rejected, merit is obviously contextual. In brevity, any number of persons of either gender on this board will trump me. In some other areas, I'm pretty decent.
Two. All women, but particularly women with strength of character and a commitment to freedom at essentially any cost, are valued highly. Any Gorean who does not treasure women fails to value humanity, nature and life itself. This obviously comes from the fact that men and women are made for each other, period. And one that has the character which I spoke of, is a worthy mate, someone with which to share life as partners. Parts that form a whole. That lift each other, hold each other to a standard, and encourage each other to reach for the stars. Together.
It is not as a function of a man that a woman has value, any more than it is as a function of a woman that a man has value. Alone, each is meaningless, at least in as far as gender is concerned. It is together that men and women truly become great, from the perspective that nature did not create us so as to be individually complete and independent, but rather- as LeGuin points out- complementary and interdependent.
If for some obscure reason it should not be clear that free men, free women and the union between them are one of the very foundations of the Gorean lifestyle, then perhaps you would do me the courtesy of asking for elaboration. I and, I presume, others would be glad to attempt to convey the facts if you care to listen.
Now, at this point, someone is going to add slaves to the mix and cause everyone to get confused. I once wrote a post of some size to begin covering this odd beast. In truth, some people are always (as people around the rest of the board can attest) going to do better in an unbalanced relationship, men or women. And some actually seek what the position implies, which need not have all that much to do with a relationship in a conventional sense, again, gender being beside the point (though more women seek it, a couple of men have, too). And in some cases, it is simply a catalyst that liberates one from social restraints, or whatever, a temporary thing. As should be obvious, analyzing the kajiri beyond simply noting that there's a particular brand of pseudocommunal M/s out there, is just muddying the waters.
Disregarding the kajiri as a consensual party to what goes on elsewhere on the boards is helpful in understanding the views and lifestyles of Goreans. Kajiri are optional accessories to the Gorean lifestyles, not defining elements, and may be male or female. We're obviously on a BDSM board here, though, so it's bound to be a popular accessory, lest anyone whine about volume (this thread type vs that thread type vs some other thread type). The free are the defining element, however, and it is the free and their views that must be understood to have any idea what the roles of men and women are in a Gorean framework, and how the framework encourages individual variation.
My apologies if I did not manage to write this as coherently as I would have liked, but it is an honest attempt.
Health,
al-Aswad.
¹ It should be understood for the sake of clarity, and avoidance of undue argument, that I am speaking of generalities here, well documented as overall traits that appear to cross cultural and linguistic borders, yet certainly not descriptive of all individuals. Nothing is implied as to any one specific individual.
|
|
|
|
