Current issue

I’ve been reading your thoughts on male and female thinking in the last few issues. I’m wondering if you have read any of the work of the scientist Fritjof Capra, particularly The Web of Life or The Hidden Connections (he also wrote the famous yet very dated Tao of Physics, I’m sure you know), or if you have seen the movie Mind Walk based on his book Turning Point. Capra touches on this male/female issue in the way you are getting at. I also recently read a book called A Sideways Look at Time by a woman named Jay Griffiths, and she delves into this topic as well. The book is very good (though at times her metaphors get a little convoluted).

I believe that people react negatively to this topic because, at first sniff, it smells like generalization, and people do not like to be generalized. To use myself as an example, I am a person who has never fit in to any group mentality, and I highly doubt any other women in St. Cloud, Minnesota "thinks" like me. I hate malls, I usually forget to comb my hair before I go out, I don’t have my nails done and I’m not a member of the PTA. Mostly I sit around thinking of weird stuff. I’m not stereotypical, and I’m not femmie (though I am damn good looking). I would therefore protest to be lumped into any general group of women.

That being said, I really think the conversation is about something else. Linear male thinking has run amuck and unchecked, and our whole planet is footing the bill. I have come to believe that female thinking or non-linear thinking—is not allowed at all in our society. Both women and men are punished for demonstrating it. Both women and men have been taken over by the drive to conquer and acquire. School systems are set up so that only rote, linear activity is valued. It is less important what is learned than it is that the worksheet is complete. Our schedules are becoming more and more regimented so that we have little or no time for random creative thoughts. Almost everyone I know, including the women I meet, are linear in their thinking and working to become more so. I don’t believe that feminism has caused this; I’d say it’s the result of our industrial, materialistic goal oriented culture. For our corporate world to work, the powers-that-be need women marching in line right along with the men. And I’m not talking about "having a career" —I’m talking about our willingness to trade our time and energy for stuff.

And about science: Let me know if you have read Capra and what you think, and also if you have read a book called The Tree of Knowledge by Franciso J. Varela and Hurburto Manturana, or anything by Varela. I think all these guys support (or supported, Varela is dead) a shift in the paradigm to a non-linear kind of thinking in science. Or maybe you know a bunch of other scientists who also do. If so, let me know.

—Susan

From: Robert

To: Susan

Sent: May 30, 2004

Susan,

On the one hand, I understand your point about generalizations, on the other certain general statements do seem to me to have a basis in reality. For instance, my observations tend to support the idea that women do approach problem solving in a way quite different than men. The whole difficulty seems to lie in ascribing inferiority to difference. And the automatic assumption of roles that arise from the power/powerless construct.

Men, on the whole, seem to be almost powerless these days if they are separated from the artificial constructs of modern civilization. Know of men who are proud that they are inept with tools...that they use only their "brains" to earn their way in the world. What C.S. Lewis described as "men without chests." Women, on the other, seem to be striving toward something better—what I think of as "breaking the chains." One image that keeps
coming to mind is from a book by Marion Zimmer Bradley...women in this text, even when physical chains have been removed, still move within the constraints of their now absent bonds, held in check only by their mental restraints.

Your comments about our whole culture being entrapped in the linear thinking mode—to the detriment of everything—are quite cogent and useful. (See below) Hope to have some useful comments about that soon.

A (cliché here) new way of thinking about the world has to evolve...I’ve read Varela’s "Tree of Knowledge" (at your suggestion, though I haven’t yet encountered Capra’s work), an interesting text, but still—from my point of view—hanging onto the scientific point of view...I found Gregory Bateson (Toward an Ecology of the Mind) more useful for me...then there’s the "morphic field" group: Ilya Prigogine, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, Erich Jantsch, et alia...June Singer (particularly "Modern Woman in Search of a Soul")...and so on. Everyone is reaching, but nobody I’ve found really seems to have a footing. I do believe that the basic ideas/writings can only be done by women...male thinking is culturally tainted—my own included—to the point that it cannot be fully divorced from self-interest and maintenance of some level of status quo. Caveat auditor any woman who hears a man say "oh yes! I understand..."

Enough! May I have your permission to publish your letter in Bellowing Ark? We’re receiving some provocative responses and I think your words will be of value to our readers. The more points of view we can get into this conversation, the more likely something will evolve out of it. I’ll look forward to hearing from you...I’d love to see some more of your fiction for BA...and take care.

—Robert

From: Susan

To: Robert

Sent: May 31, 2004

Subject: Re: from a female thinking/response

Hey, thanks for that reading list. I’ve read some Bateson and want to read more. You can publish my letter ... does it need edited?

About generalizations: Lets say that women do approach problem solving differently, generally, and that I agree to that point. What I’m saying is this — I think that the matter gets confused because people think anyone who talks about this subject is talking about something else entirely. They actually HEAR something that is not being said. It is a complex subject and fairly abstract, so unless people have done some reading, discussing, thinking about it, they think it means some kind of nasty battle of the sexes thing. And the thing is, I do hear that kind of stuff still, all the time. I find those kind of conversations annoying at best. Sort of like watching "the Man Show" or something like that. Like my friend Darrin, who is a man, said, there is a kind of gross assumption by that crowd that "that sort of thing" is what every man wants. There is also a gross assumption that all women are possessive shopaholics and gossips. Those are the kinds of generalizations that pop into people’s heads whenever anyone starts talking about differences between sexes, no matter if that is what they mean or not. It is almost like there needs to be a brand new language to communicate this thought. I absolutely do not fit into that general category of women, yet I consider my thinking "female" — much more so than the shopaholic crowd because I don’t place value in owning a lot of crap (I like to own SOME crap — but you know what I mean).

Anyway ... yeah. I don’t have any new fiction right now. I’m working on a long piece and just generally enjoying life. Hope you are too.

—Later,
Susan

To: Susan

From: Robert

June 2, 2004

Susan,

Problem is, it’s mostly the self-identified educated/intellectual/artistic types who respond in that reflex fashion. People who reject "stereotyping" and yet assume that adumbrating the Female means weak-minded/grasping/manipulative/physically inept (which, by the way, brings to my mind most of the men I know...though granted, I have become nearly a hermit in the last few years...even my correspondents seem vastly intimidated by the idea of women who are actually fully human) when, in fact, I’m groping my way toward some small grasp of what the Female might actually come to encompass.

But nobody wants to hear that...as you said earlier, our entire culture—hell, the whole world regardless culture...even tribes in New Guinea have begun to incorporate coke cans in their "native" art—has sold out to the process of acquisition. Very frightening when you think about it...much of our food, much less steel, iron, plastics, et alia come from areas outside our political/moral control.

So, how do we work to open up people’s thinking to non-linear modes? Even the religious types (I’m thinking of a couple of "Buddhists" I know, in particular) seemed to have locked into the process rather than what the process represents. Anyway, I’m open to suggestion.

By the way, you might look into June Singer’s "Modern Woman in Search of a Soul." Jungian ideas from a seeking Female perspective. Jung had some useful insights; Singer carries it little further...

Please, stay in touch. Love your ideas, and the way you present them.

—Robert

Last Updated:

12/27/2004