I’ve started a specific topic to continue the discussion of sex & gender:
I hope you don’t mind, I shared a sample chapter from your book to get us going.
Regarding your comments above,
I think that is a good point. To restate my inquiry, I was asking, “Why should there be men at all”? If the underlying reality is “female,” why would nature produce men? What accounts for the difference?
One the one hand, of course, there is the reproductive function, the role of the sperm or “seed” in sexual reproduction. But I was also referring to the material reality of the human female’s vulnerability during pregnancy, birth, and childrearing. The man must then play the role of “protector” and “provider,” which accounts for the differences in physical strength and propensity to aggression.
Upon further reflection, it seems the man encapsulates the power of death, or the “death drive,” the power to take life and to kill… and of course we would see this as “bad” and “evil.” But what if it is in the service of protecting the female and child (i.e., the furtherance of life) during their phases of vulnerability—if that is at the root of it, however else it might become distorted or sublimated? There would be an aspect of eros, love, or care, even in the death drive. I imagine this is a hard pill to swallow, but I think it may account for the material reality as well as the spiritual pathos we see in men.