A Social Pendulum Swing

Counter Language to Even the Playing Field of a Gender Divisive Phenomenon

In this week’s edition we are tackling a topic that has the potential to push buttons. We encourage you to stay the course as we hope to respectfully address an issue we see playing out on the social media stage and in pop-psychology literature.

We begin with a public statement

“When public discourse, intentionally or otherwise, normalizes contempt or dehumanization—whether through channels of free speech, hoped for educational or mental health statements, or even countering culture in various digital spaces —it harms not only individuals but the social fabric itself. Center for Peace  supports purposeful and constructive dialogue, where dignity and accountability are viewed as essential to building communities where everyone can thrive” (Center for Peace).

Violence and Abuse

Center for Peace,  is an online care center, with a mission that promotes human dignity and value. Where women reclaim their agency after abuse and men relearn what it means to be in a relationship with a woman without control, domination, or oppression of women and children. 

It is not possible for a people to thrive in this world where violence of any kind exists. It is destructive to us as human beings in this shared existence. Regardless of beliefs or of choice for how one wants to live their life – there must be an expectation that all human beings will live within a set of guidelines that do not cause harm – of any kind. 

Violence is in our language – it is in the casual cruelty and sarcasm of conversations online, particularly when opposing views are stated. It is in homes and marriages where a lack of respect for one another and the commitments previously made should be honored with care – even in disagreement. 

Despite the global prevalence of violence, whether physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, financial – or in the written or spoken word – it is unnecessary. We can change the trajectory of our individual and collective social compass.

Responsibility is Personal Practice – Not a Social Construct

All too often we hear or read language that suggests a particular issue to be the problem of society. This suggests that even with a type of social inheritance of ideologies – it is society that is to blame, and therefore responsible for the change. 

Society is a category. It means nothing other than it is a classifier for a unit of measure. Society cannot be responsible. It is non-agentic. It cannot act upon us. 

We are the actors in our society. Each one of us that breathes and walks upon this planet – we are the actors and therefore we are all responsible for what happens here. We might not be culpable for the genesis of the problems we face – but we are the only ones who can affect correction of them.

Shared Minds – Shared Reality

Our human reality – our human minds are not singular in nature. They are not isolated under the hard skull of the physical body. Our minds share our reality through an interconnected system of relationship and human interactions. 

We connect through our cultures, religions, and through the interactions we have in various forms and forums. We share ideas through media, music, and both spoken and written words. Not only do we share our current thoughts with one another, we carry the ideologies and experiences of the past with us. 

This is the process for how meaning is made, or how we make sense of our experience in the world. As generations pass, we change and update. We have downloaded socially – into our social conscience – so many iterations of social thought that we cannot even keep track of what version we currently run.  

Think about it, decades ago the word, ‘gay’ had a common definition of ‘carefree, happy or good.’ Despite the common accepted definitions, an underground shift in meaning was taking place.  Today we have brainrot words like 6/7 that may likely in generations to come, morph into something completely opposite than what it meant at the genesis of popularity. 

This is just one simple example of cultural inheritance. No one was born with these definitions or language. It’s not DNA or gene expression. It is picked up, agentically – meaning the person has to choose to apply the language in their everyday use — AND — they will form their own meaning of it.

Patriarchy is a Social Construct

In a similar manner, “patriarchy” is a social construct. In and of itself the word has no inherent meaning other than what PEOPLE decide it means. 

In 1828, according to Webster’s, the term meant, “The jurisdiction of a patriarch”.

At that time, a patriarch was the father and ruler of a family. He ‘governed’ or led by a paternal right. Those rights were socially defined and constructed according to the ideologies of that time period. His jurisdiction was limited to what was legal and constrained by the organization. Meaning he had no authority outside of his legal family/marriage. Again – all of this is a social construct. The actors – the men, and the women of the society at that time – are the ones who permit how this is executed. 

Ramp up to modern day, and we have a different meaning for these words and concepts. They have come to mean something much more to the women hurt by the execution of oppression, domination and power over women in violent ways – without regard for their humanity – and without consequence for the harm the oppressive acts cause. 

The problem is – words, terms, phrases, concepts – even in our shared reality and culturally inherited language – do NOT translate equally across human beings.

Swinging the Pendulum

In an opinion piece written for ‘The Center for Male Psychology’ the question is asked, Are we oppressed by patriarchy, or by mother nature?’   (*Warning, reading this might create high-octane emotions for those of us who have lived experience with oppression.)

From the inception of the piece, it is clear, even the author has held misconceptions of the larger issue. Blame is placed on family court and the dubious assignment of fault on the belief now known as ‘misandry’ and on the creation of the feminists’ exaggerated ideologies of oppression.

The author purports that there is a difference between the theory of patriarchy and patriarchy – ‘itself’. Giving him the benefit of the doubt we’ll go with the idea that there is an OG definition and an updated understanding of the act of patriarchy as experienced by women – both meanings are accurate – context matters.

We won’t waste our time (at least in this post) attempting to counter any of the claims made in this article, as it is clearly written to a specific audience who would appreciate his myopic lens of evaluation and the shifty claims made. However, the point remains for our work – to counter the claims women made about injustice – we have to swing the pendulum wide and far.

Women’s Claims About Male-Perpetrated Violence Against Women

For decades women have been speaking out against the violence of them by men. Much of the conversations were addressing the component of domestic violence where physical battery exists. As many of us know well today, we are so far beyond that in our conversations, but we have not made much traction in the resolution or the stable platform for civil redress. 

With male ideologies discounting the lived experience of countless women across the globe, we still have a long way to go before there is a level set pendulum for a civil discussion.

“Disabusing the Public Mind” (Coach Joi)

The body of work that has become the focus of Center for Peace is to accomplish the task of ‘Disabusing the public mind at the intersection of ideologies and lived experience of women and men to achieve equality in our individual lives’ (CenFP, LLC).

This is a phenomenological focus that must investigate gender issues, like patriarchy, ontologically, epistemologically, and axiologically – which is an academic way of researching how we know what we know and is there any value in knowing these things. In addition, we must study the etymology – the history or words and what they meant for other social time periods. As stated, words and ideas change in meaning over time. 

For women, this is a high value study, but as you may have already assessed if you looked at the referenced article, there is a population of men working tirelessly to thwart the effort of women to bring a reasonable dialogue to the table. 

Misogyny and Misandry – The Pendulum in Motion

When women use their voice to speak out about their lived experiences they are often countered by men, twisting, DARVO’ing and blameshifting. Men hear (read) women’s experiences as criticism – just as they hear their wife share pain as criticism. 

The genesis of this phenomenon of men likely is the root of why so many men promote their ‘good-guy’ reputation. It’s almost as if they know there is truth to these claims, so that obvious antidote to their seemingly allergic reaction to responsibility – is to blame women through character attacks. 

If women say men are misogynistic. Men counter with women are misandric. Thus we have the pendulum swing of contempt and divisiveness.

“What You do to Women, You do to Your Nation” (V. Hudson, 2020)

Hudson has argued in influential global arenas that world peace is unattainable without resolving fundamental inequities between men and women. In her research, her statistical data shows that systemic subordination of women curates broader violence and instability in our societies. 

This issue is sociologically and anthropologically a human issue. It is not merely philosophical. It is indeed practical in nature and scope. It impacts the lives of all human beings, both men and women. Men who believe women are inferior are more likely to treat women with disregard, disrespect and as commodities rather than as a human being equal in value to men. 

At Center for Peace, it isn’t possible for us to address all of the global conditions women face in their individual countries. We acknowledge this is deep in scope and in severity. 

It also seems pointless at this juncture to suggest that we need to kick the dead topic down the road again on the points of what and how men are taught as topic fodder for this issue. Those ideologies (excuses and justifications) are not worth our time to consider in our current climate.

What’s the Solution?

At this point in our social reality, the solution is likely very far away from our grasp and view. We hold that any solution or resolution in a forward thinking society will not occur until we can come to the collective table without divisiveness and contempt. The mocking of women or men will only further the problem we are all attempting to solve. 

That said, it should not turn down the volume or frequency of our voice or reporting. We encourage and invite a conversation on this issue. Our lived experience matters. We are not all identical, but the issues face us all as human beings, both men and women, are similar. These experience bring the raw data to the table that we need.

More importantly, these issues and stories impacts us today, and will continue to impact generations to come if we do not continue the discussion. 

If you have stories to share, please reach out to us at Center for Peace.

If you are working on safe solutions to navigate oppression and abuse from your husband, we have services available to support and mentor.