SirZarath
Posts: 31
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
|
The Gorean male supremacy ideology as weakness
- by SirZarath -
There seems to be one thing that the typical Gorean male fears. And it's not the sky falling on his head like some ancient tribes did. The Gorean male fears one thing above all: to be considered weak.
If you hear Gorean males talking amongst each other or preaching their Gorean morals on public fora, always the same thing comes up: how to keep that appearance of being a 'tough guy' who is mercyless, shutting FW up by stuffing their mouths with a penis, treating slaves as a commodity with only an economic value and keeping caring or loving emotions far from them. Another common strategy used is rising suspicion against non-Gorean males who are depicted as weak men, for instance by 'demasking' posessiveness, care or love for a slave and not willing to share her, as 'fear of losing her' or 'catering to her needs' or even as 'proof the slave is in charge'. The only goal here seems to appear 'stronger' themselves (we don't do that, we *do* share slaves, she is of no value other than economic to us and we don't care one shit about her comfort-zone; tough hey?).
Now basically this behavior amongst males is nothing new and is not even invented by John Norman in his books. One can see this behavior as well in street-gangs, in bars amongst drunk men or in war rethoric of the kind that still seems popular in the US. Now, I don't want to do off with this behavior as only 'boasting behavior' and 'primitive war cries'. With the books of Gor, this behavior has gotten a somewhat stronger philosophical foundation, which is not new either by the way. As a matter of fact a lot of Norman's philosophy is based on the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher who lived in the 19th century and who, besides having written a lot of interesting books, was known for his fear of women. In order to deal with this fear, he treated women in his books as an 'inferior kind', not capable of even understanding certain 'higher morals'. The equivalence is rather clear here I suppose.
There is however another equivalence rather clear to me. We only have to think of the Gorean concept of slavery and compare this to types of slavery that have existed in history. The Africans who were transported to the US to work on the cotton-fields were treated like commodities with only an economic value as well. And we only have to look back a much shorter period in history: to the South-African system of 'Apartheid', where the black people were sent to special schools as they were regarded less intelligent and needed special 'adapted' education. Those types of slavery in history have more than a few things in common with the Gorean concept of slavery. They are based on the following premises:
1. The principle that there is some 'natural' order that splits humanity into two (or more) distinct classes with a different status. This status is not based on achievement in life or any proofs of difference in abilities, but based on race, gender or birthrights and as such is fixed for life.
2. The principle that the 'superior' class has the right to rule the 'inferior' class(es) and to treat them as they see fit and
3. Strategies, philosophies and even laws to keep the situation as it is.
Applied to Gor, we see those principles re-appearing quite clearly, when Goreans invoke 'nature' or use words as 'natural' as 'proof' of their Gorean male superiority to the 'natural slave'. And when they treat slaves as commodities with in the first place an economic value, supported by a belief system derived from a series of science-fiction books.
Now, the interesting thing to notice here, is that certain females are even attracted to this Gorean idea of being enslaved. Left aside the romantic dreamer-type who reads novels and masturbates on fantasies of being abducted, for whom this is mainly 'just a fantasy', there is a type of woman that thrives on the idea of being enslaved in a more profound way and being treated as 'dirt' seems not even a real problem to some of them. On the contrary: it only reinforces their positive feelings about being enslaved. As a non-Gorean male Dominant, I recognize many of those mechanisms. The concept of 'humiliation' is used in D/s circles as well and quite some submissive women (and men for that matter!) just love to be humiliated and to have that 'slut inside' awoken. And some also crave for physical or mental pain. Main difference here is that the humiliation in a D/s type of relation takes place in a loving, caring and trusting relation and only on a temporary basis, during bdsm-scening for instance. The treating of a slave in a harsh way, always takes place with a 'wink', the slave knows very well that she is in fact loved and cared for and that the humiliation is basically done for *mutual* gratification and will be ended by a lot of 'aftercare' and cuddling. That does not mean that the humiliation is not seriously felt by the way at the moment it occurs. The humiliation can feel very real for both.
In Gorean circles, to the contrary, humiliation is not an 'erotic game' but in stead a very basic principle of the interaction between owner and slave. The Gorean concept of slavery has little to do with a scene where the (normally caring) owner humiliates the slave from time to time for erotic purposes, but in stead it is seen as a status-quo: the slave *is* slave, *is* inferior and *is* a commodity. She is treated as a servant, slut or whatever she is used for on a permanent basis. Humiliating a slave for erotic purposes is even often regarded as 'catering to the slave's needs' (and that is what Goreans would never do, that would be 'weak' right?). So basically the Gorean owner would be as indifferent as possible to the slave's feelings and needs and the slave should focus on *his* needs solely. Caring or even loving feelings from the side of the owner are regarded as at least suspicious or counterproductive towards keeping her in her slave-position in the long term.
This concept of Gorean slavery rises an important question about it's validity: how plausible is the Gorean concept of a 'natural order' that puts men on top and females either in a slave position (as 'natural' slaves) or granted a somewhat higher position as FW, but always lower in position than the Gorean male? When we look at today's everyday western society, we see equality between the sexes and females having higher and higher positions all the time. Households are no longer ran per sé by the man but responsibilities are often shared between the spouses and there are even quite some marriages where the female is in charge. Gay marriages are not uncommon any longer, and responsibilities are shared there as well or one of the two assumes a dominant position over the other that seems not sex-related at all and if you look in the bdsm-kink-scene, you will notice that male submission is even more common than female submission. So the modern everyday society supplies ample proof of any 'natural male dominance'.
This situation is met by quite some Gorean males as a 'perversion' of the natural order of things. As something that somehow happened to humanity in history that is basically 'wrong'. Norman seems to defend this and similar thoughts can be found in Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche often points to Christianity and Judaism as the roots of this 'reversal of the natural order', in which what is strong is made weak and what is weak is made strong. His work 'The Antichrist' is a long rant against Judaism and Christianity that is, by the way, sometimes quite amusing to read.
So, for the matter of argument, let's assume Norman and Nietzsche were both right here and that we are living in a 'perverted' society that has forgotten about 'how things should be'. Where can we find proofs that there is indeed a 'natural order' that places males in general on top and females in an inferior position? Well, of course, in history this has been the case for centuries. But what does that prove? Were ancient times in any way better than the current time? And why? Why should we consider the developments in the relative status between males and females that took place in the last centuries as a derision in stead of progress? Moreover, slavery in the past has in most occasions been forced upon the enslaved party at the barrel of a gun and was by no means something that established itself 'naturally'. The male supremacy between the sexes has for a long time been defended by law and religion and general morality, which are only relatively recently being broken down with good reason.
OK, let's turn to the animal world then. At least animals, especially those living in groups, should be able to support some proof of natural male dominance as they don't have a such an elaborate handed down culture that could 'distort' things like we humans have. And indeed: most animals living in groups have a group leader, mostly a so-called 'alpha-male' who is in charge. Now, this looks like some sort of 'proof' but basically it isn't. Besides a hierarchy amongst the males (there is only one alpha-male and the other males have a lower position, ranging from just-below-the-alpha to below even the larger part of the females in the group), there is also a female hierarchy and most animal groups also have an alpha-female. The relative positions in those groups are not established by 'birth-right' in the first place, but by strength, skills, intelligence, that may have a genetic make-up as well, but still the positions have to be established in the longer term by competing. The one who wins is on top and becomes the alpha (male or female). Peace and a stable hierarchy is established only temporarily and when the alpha male or female becomes weakened (being wounded, ill, old) s/he is replaced by the next-strongest, next-skillfull or next-cunning beta who becomes alpha at that moment. So there is a group-dynamic and not a static state of affairs. Of course the less intelligent or strong will never reach the alpha status by lack of means to compete with the stronger ones. But this is not necessarily gender-based.
Now, the reason why in many animal groups there is often a male alpha on top is mainly because of reasons of physical strenght and protecting the group against rivaling groups or enemies. We see however in the bonobo apes also an example of a matriarchal society, so there is proof of female dominance as well in the animal world. And what to think of certain spider types where the female would even devour the male after having 'done his job'.
Important to note as well is that in our modern society, things as physical strenght have lost it's importance in favour of mental strenght, and rational and emotional intelligence, just simply because the threats to the human species are not in the first place based on physical violence or starvation any longer. The qualities that form the basis of dominance in our modern society have thus become increasingly or possibly entirely non-gender based. There is simply no scientific evidence that males are more moral, intelligent, caring or better able to coöperate than females (and even some that suggests the opposite).
So, in the end we are left with little prove that there is indeed a 'natural male dominance' anywhere or even that male dominance is indeed a better way to go to start with. Against some Goreans who defend that 'modern diseases' like failing marriages are causes by the lack of male dominance, which is absurd, I hold that there are many succesful long-term relations based on equality or female dominance and the traditional 1950 type of marriage was maybe long-term because divorcing in those days was just out of the question. But were they succesful? That depends largely on what you define as 'succes' to start with!
So, the first principle of Gorean slavery, the one of 'natural male superiority' is at least questionable. There is nothing 'natural' about male supremacy. So in the end, 'male supremacy' can not be anything more than a 'belief-system' that you can take or leave. The same way as that there are circles who have the contrary 'belief-system' based on female supremacy. And the same way there are circles who belief there is only one superiority in God to whom both males and females submit.
So basically, we humans 'choose' what system we feel attracted to. Maybe not always so rationally and gut-feelings, upbringing and traditions play an important role here. People who have a strong tendency to manage their life in much detail, will feel attracted to a belief-system where they are in-power to deal with things. People who feel more comfortable as 'followers', leaving important decisions to others, will 'kind of naturally' follow people who love to put themselves in decisive positions (and are able to maintain that position by skills they have). I personally don't see that we should in any occasion only strive for equality when there are people who plainly thrive in a leading position and others who thrive more in a following position. But there are also lots of people who thrive best in a non-hierarchic organisation which is more based on principles of collaboration in stead of clearly defined leadership. And I don't see anything wrong in that.
So do we even 'need' ideas of 'natural order' to be able to form Owner/slave relationships? I don't think so. We can "choose" to do so for those that fit in this type of relation, be it with a male leading a female, a male leading another male, a female leading a male or a female leading a female. Those who are fit for leadership will stand out automatically and those who are more fit to follow will automatically submit to them, without any need for a recourse to some 'natural order of power', be it amongst sexes, races or based on whatever 'difference'.
So do we need this Gorean Master/slave morality to start with? Well, the Gorean books can be a great inspiration for power-exchange relations, especially those that can be labelled as ownership relations. And even those in D/s circles can find a lot of inspiration in the ceremonies performed and the ways to serve depicted in the books. But the books need to be liberated from ideas of 'natural superiority' which are quite dangerous.
Why are those ideas dangerous? Well, they are dangerous because living in a power-exchange and even more so in an ownership relation, is quite a far-reaching decision for a person, especially for the one that submits, because it leaves that person in a very vulnerable and dependant position. So that means that decision should not be taken lightly and be taken freely and be based on informed consent. Moreover the owner assumes a big responsibility to take a slave as his/her property. Without taking any responsibility, the road to abuse and cruelty lies wide open and that responsibility, in my opinion can not be pushed aside by reverting to: "Hey, you knew it was going to be harsh, so don't complain, you got what you deserve."
More specifically, although the 'idea' of being treated permanently as an inferior breed, although it might have it's attraction to certain people, few have ever been in this position with a non-caring owner in a long term relation, without the owner taking responsibility and care for the slave. Slaves can sometimes 'like to be treated as inferiors', but that is not the same thing as them really 'being' those inferiors. You can keep thumping on the fact that the 'slave is a slave' and his/her 'comfort-zone' is irrelevant, but that is theory. A theory also supported by the books of Gor, stating that a slave can be trained to have a total slave-state-of-mind where her own feelings don't even count or plainly disappear in favor of her totally being dedicated to her Master's wishes. Feelings like that can be present temporarily but in the long term disregarding one's own needs is devastating for anyone, however well-trained as a slave s/he might be.
The Gorean theory seems in that area an adolescent male masturbation fantasy at most. Slaves are human beings and as such also have needs for care and love. Disregard those needs and you will end up with an unhappy slave who is not willing to serve any more. And if s/he is still willing to serve, that would be a sign to me that the owner has succeeded in killing his/her personality entirely. This is called brainwashing. It is much like the behavior of certain abused dogs, who come back to you to get kicked. Negative attention, after all, is better than no attention at all. It also makes me think of abusive marriages where a woman or man is abused physically but blames it on him/herself, is embarrassed to the outside world, and still derives pleasure from sparks of hope by small positive gestures from the partner. It also makes me think of the things that certain religious sekts do to people. As long as the brainwashing keeps it's power, the member of the sekt, or the slave in a Gorean relation, can seem even to be happy (and even belief s/he is!). But we all know the shocking stories of members of sekts driven to violence or suicide and ex-sekt members who are marked for life. Absolute power leads to abuse of that power if there is no care for the ones who submit to it. This was one of the big themes of the works of Marquis De Sade and taken to our century by Passolini in his movie 'Salo'.
Of course people who have a very strong tendency to please others and a deep urge to serve, will be very easily attracted to a strong dominant (m/f). It can even feel like being attracted like a moth to a flame. But flames can burn you. A slave is always at risk of being attracted to the wrong person who damages him/her. This risk is even higher when this person has a low self-esteem and is lured into the idea that s/he is 'meant to serve' as a 'natural slave'. This very idea reinforces the low self-esteem the person already had and masks it as 'normality' which has devastating effects on that person on the longer term. Especially when something should go wrong in the relation and the slave is sold or released. Breaking up a relation is painful enough as it is. Kicking a slave on the street from a very dependant position and believing s/he is kicked on the street for reasons of failure, of not even being able to fulfill the duties of an inferior kind is plain abuse and highly destructive for a person. Avoiding this responsibility as a Gorean male for the sole reason of fear to appear weak, is the deepest weakness imaginable. Protecting yourself from the pain of breaking up by assuming a disinterested position towards your slave is cowardice. Destroying a person for reasons of feeling 'better' yourself is plainly sick.
copyright SirZarath
Belgium
September 02, 2008
|
RE: Just a nagging or is it a nudging question.. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread