The Male-Female Divide

1300 words

I.

Among or alongside the first & last things of birth, death and transition to adulthood, which are the core subjects of religious ceremony, is the male-female divide. The life of a woman is always different to that of a man. We define ourselves in the light of what we are not. It is hence no accident when this divide figures high in the precepts of religions.

Traditionally, or in most societies, men and women have lived separately, the men keeping to themselves and the women likewise, coming together only at appointed times. As historically we have moved away from this ordering, now with mingling in all walks of life, there is one institution which stands out as a remnant of a bygone era. It is marriage, or rather, the idea of marriage as encapsulated in couples, which are less committed formally whatever the strength of the bond.

In the West and many places elsewhere, one defining feature of marriage is not, as some would have you believe, love, but exclusion. The counterparty is regarded as property. The extent of the putative property rights varies. At a minimum it is the claim to have exclusive access to the sexual organs of the other. But it may extend to access to their intimate thoughts, such that even male-female conversation of any profundity with outsiders is illicit.

There has always been a refusal in the Deep Christian State (as similarly elsewhere) to come clean (be explicit) about the disparate elements which constitute marriage. Much vexation can be attributed to the attempt to keep these elements together.

It would be possible for the state to allow a man and woman to form a legally binding partnership which was solely for the creation and upbringing of children. Such a partnership would end when the children reached adulthood (which may itself be in need of more precise definition).

The partnership need not include long-term co-habitation, altho living together may be practical and most welcome especially when offspring is very young. It would be enough to commit to proximity of dwelling.

There is a need to spell out a role for fatherhood, which is quite different from the maternal role, this latter being dictated, for babies at least, by biology. It is not complicated (tho it may be hard) to be a passably good mother. One knows what one has to attend to. Fatherhood, as a pre-eminent form of masculinity, is less well-defined. I suggest that it is induction of the child or children into the outside world, away from domesticity. As such it would be a growing role, with the maternal role diminishing. We are talking in generalities, so exceptions will apply, not all of them desirable.

(Masculinity is not limited to or defined by fatherhood. The masculine role is to attend to affairs outside the home. Most men neglect this duty, thereby conceding a concentration of power to the hands of only a few and with disastrous consequences. It is irrelevant that a few women choose to take on core masculine tasks. We are talking generalities.)

One reason (or the reason) that people get married is to accommodate their sexual desires. We return to the idea that the (or: a) purpose of the marriage contract is access to (possession of) the sexual organs of the other. This is contingently associated with the idea of fidelity.

But what happens when the access is refused? Refused not because of monthly or health-related restrictions, but for other reasons, which may or may not be known.

Sometimes the motivation for refusal will be the exercise of power, with disputes outside the bedroom spilling over to inside. Power sits uncomfortably with love, which is supposed to be the spirit of the marriage bond. Such exercise of power may find itself countered with violence.

The easy response to sexual withdrawal (an infringement of the marriage covenant) would be to apply the right of first refusal.
This enables an initial infidelity to be rebuked (lawfully, morally) by a second.

By upholding the absolute (inviolate) nature of the marriage vows on fidelity, Puritanism (endemic also among Catholics) leaves no space for a better accommodation of sexual desire with the nuances and realities of interpersonal relations.

II.

Thought can be given to the psychology behind the idea of fidelity. The sexual act involves taking bodily possession of another, or allowing oneself to be taken possession of, temporally. Afterwards the desire is extinguished and the possession relinquished. What drives desire is to take possession, which is only possible for what is not possessed. Desire is dynamic.

Not all people wish to possess another uniquely. For suchlike, jealousy, like fidelity, is not a virtue. There is, tho, a counter-sentiment, which lacks a name. It is resentment at being excluded on principle rather than due to capacity or attraction.

The prominence given to Coupledom has a corrosive effect on friendship between men and women. The corrosion also occurs where there is no possibility or hint of sexual rivalry. This is an affront to those of us who simply prefer the company of a variety of members of the opposite sex.

This is how it comes about, counter-intuitively, that marriage, often touted as the remedy if not panacea, drives loneliness. People hesitate to venture out of their shells, until, that is, their one relationship ends, whether by death or desertion, whereupon they find themselves playing musical chairs. If nearly everyone is uniquely attached, and be they attached ever so badly, there is no space for new friendship across the gender divide.

III.

In truth, they are seldom uniquely attached, but almost haphazardly, “uniquely” here meaning “exclusively”.

The rare exceptions receive much attention and idealisation. In the public sphere, we learn of exceptional marriages, where there is a meeting of kindred spirits. We might even be envious. The envy may end when one of the couple dies or loses their mind. Or when the image of harmony turns sour. Sometimes, tho, these marriages of soulmates are indeed blessed, and productive. Other couples have several years of mutually enriching exchange, but eventually they run out of things to say to each other. The challenge here is not to delay the end, and to end amicably, or to separate for a while. But we lack a culture of departing on good terms or, as the rhythm of communication slows, just growing apart naturally.

For most, it is wiser (would be wiser) to have a handful of special relationships. With luck, one or two will survive into old age, with the others replaced by more recent encounters.

All real life being encounter. (An encounter may be brief or long-lasting. Each ends eventually. People cannot merge, except in the creation of new life, which then becomes separate. The sentiment ó or illusion ó of merging is the essence of being in love which, if it ends amicably, is a worthy experience and has its own antecedents.)

“For most, it is wiser to have a handful of special relationships…” But it is here that the Deep Christian State invokes its authoritarian legacy.

Another reason people marry is in order not to be a nobody if their partner dies or is rendered incapacitated. Without a marriage certificate, you mostly have no say in burial, in inheritance, or the direction of palliative care. You may not even receive consolation from acquaintances. It is no bad thing, today where so many lead isolated lives, for there to be a formal, i.e. lawful, record of close, trusted, friends of long standing with certain privileges. But only one? Or only those in the blood line?