Boobies and Brainwashing Part II
An excerpt from “The Power of Myth”:
Bill Moyers: We hear people say, “Get in touch with yourself.” What do you take that to mean?
Joseph Campbell: It’s quite possible to be so influenced by the ideals and commands of your neighborhood that you don’t know what you really want and could be. I think that anyone brought up in an extremely strict, authoritative social situation is unlikely ever to come to the knowledge of himself. (176)
Of course, the “neighborhood” that Campbell refers to can come to represent society on multiple levels. There are universal or “global” ideals and commands that belong to society such as: murder is unlawful and will be punished. There are also “local” ideals and commands that belong to smaller communities such as: “on this team, we never yell at the referees, even when they are wrong.” When engaging others about an issue or topic, it is important to identify and agree on whether it is more a “global” or “local” issue before examining causality and possible solutions.
Regarding the issue of female-based discrimination in American society, there are certainly pockets or areas of the country where it is much more prevalent, but as presented in Part I of this discussion, I think it’s fair to say that female-based discrimination is occurring in every state and every city in America to some degree. I’d like to dive deeper into why it is happening, and what each of us – as individuals – can do to counter it.
If you turn on your television, your tablet, or your internet browser on your phone, how long do you think it would take to see an advertisement or program where a female figure is being over-sexualized to sell a product or increase ratings? About two seconds, right? But this isn’t a new concept at all. Somebody out in the world is given far too much credit for playing Captain Obvious in stating that “sex sells”. Heck, just think about the concept of make-up for a moment (something that has been around since the beginnings of recorded history 5,000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics#History). It’s primary function has always been to enhance beauty – “steroids” of the appearance world; false advertising if you will. Yes, some men wear make-up to enhance their appearance for their professions (perhaps even a few in their personal lives), however, the majority of all women in American society (be it for their profession or not) wear make-up on a daily basis. Their clothes are more expensive, their hair cuts are more expensive, their shoes are more expensive, their accessories are more expensive, their wedding rings are more expensive, and on and on. All of this tied to their physical appearance – and though some prefer not to think about it or recognize it, but all of this (subconsciously) is tied to the objectification of women.
And we are raised and conditioned – in our “neighborhood” (society) – to believe this is okay, or as our female friend from the Super Bowl party in Part I said, we just “have to accept it”. Such words make me shudder and think of Pavlov’s dogs (a link if you are unfamiliar: https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html). But let’s go even further. Is this simply an American issue? No, not at all. It’s a human “problem”.
I’m sure you’ve all heard of Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”. But if not (or if you need a refresher), it is a theory in psychology that every individual begins at the bottom of his identified hierarchy of needs and as one level is secure or stable in their life, they may begin working at the next level. If any previous level becomes compromised, the individual usually goes back down the hierarchy of needs to stabilize before being able to move forward. Here is a basic picture of Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”:
In Pathways to Bliss, Joseph Campbell writes about Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”: ‘These are values that we share with the animals. We have an animal body…and we live the animal life in the human mode. Let’s not flatter ourselves into thinking that [Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”] is the highest aspect of our humanity. We want to hold on to life, just as animals do. We have sex urges, just as animals do. And we have the desire to win and defeat opposition and put down what’s blocking us, just as animals do.’ (90)
But it’s clear that Campbell alludes to something beyond our inherent “animal instinct” to survive, procreate, and establish dominance. It’s what separates humans from being just like most other animals. It’s what I like to call “human intellect”, and it’s an aspect of our species that is able to develop and thrive when our “animal instinct” needs are being properly met. To put it simply, our “human intellect” is the capacity or ability to think and act beyond our basic “animal instinct” needs.
Campbell goes on to say that ‘today, we have the idea of a two-story psyche. Down below lies the unconscious, while the conscious individual is above…now, down in the subconscious is an “I want” machine called the id…all it knows is that you are a human animal and that you have needs. In other words, it is sheer organism, wanting something.’ (53)
In the animal world, think of functionality. In most cases, males challenge one another to be the head of a pack or herd or what have you. That male keeps many females for himself and asserts his perceived dominance until another male – usually younger, stronger, and healthier – displaces him. The females involved are motivated primarily by survival. “Human intellect”, unfortunately, has not changed this much over time. Men get over-protective of their wives or girlfriends when other men who they perceive to be a threat come near. Women ultimately want to attract a spouse that will make her feel “safe” in all respects – in modern society, this is not generally shown through muscle and force as it would be in the natural world, it is primarily shown through wealth. As every guy has rationalized at least once in their life: “How did a guy like that end up with a such a gorgeous wife?…He must be rich.” And what better way to make sure men are superior to women than to pay them less and to make their products more expensive? But in a way, most women play into this. They buy make-up and breast implants and high heels and fake nails. Their subconscious id is fueled by survival and calculates the best way to do this is to play into the objectification game of society to attract a suitable partner (usually correlating with wealth, though some default to the idealistic construct of “happiness” when attracting a wealthy spouse becomes tiresome or discouraging).
So while female-based discrimination may have been established by males several thousand years ago, women – by and large – play into it. Whether it is because of societal conditioning or because of fear. And fear is the other factor which keeps the establishment of men above women in place. Fear of not being able to support themselves financially, or fear of the men themselves. A lot of men, unfortunately, aren’t above the use of physical force to get their way if things turn for the worse.
In Part I of this discussion, I found it fascinating that so many women in American society opposed an awareness march about discrimination against their kind. Of course, if you remember, one of the commonalities between the first ten women I found on my social media account that opposed the marches was the fact that they were all either married to or in a serious relationship with a white male who had a steady and secure job allowing the minimum of a middle-class or higher living.
Perhaps the answer was much simpler than I thought. I mean, if you think about a herd of elk, what female is going to complain that they are being mistreated if the male leader they follow is a great provider for them and there is no fear for survivability? They aren’t going to care as long as the male continues to lead them to abundant pastures and protect them from predators with their big antlers. For the first ten women I found who opposed the women’s marches, they were quite happy and comfortable being objectified and subconsciously subdued by their significant others because they got security of survivability in exchange. They are all okay “accepting” the discriminatory rules and commands of our American “neighborhood” (even to the point where they would be fooled to think that female-based discrimination doesn’t exist in their “local neighborhood”).
So what can we do? Especially in light of the fact that societies all over the globe for as long as we can remember have functioned this way – discriminating based upon gender?
Awareness is always a good start, but movements and marches and speeches only generate temporary momentum that if not acted upon, mean very little in the grand scheme of things. I believe that it has to start with educating each individual about the difference between “animal instinct” and “human intellect”, and how each one plays a role in their lives. Instead of teaching kids how to identify similes and create matrices, we should be teaching them how the brain works, and why the brain works the way it does. American society does little (if any) developing of “human intellect” between the ages of 0-18, and very few seek such development after the age of 18. Yet, that’s the only thing that separates us from animals – our potential to think on a higher level. But in a way, it’s all cyclical. This “neighborhood”, most all “neighborhoods” through the history of civilization are – for the most part – deliberately set up to keep the masses functioning for “animal instinct” needs instead of encouraging the development of “human intellect”.
But this doesn’t mean that you can’t start thinking about your motivation to do things – that you can’t start putting conscious thought into why you do the things you do every single day, and make necessary adjustments to go beyond your own “animal instinct” needs.
And although I’m generally a pretty optimistic person, when it comes to human beings denying the self-centered, pleasure-seeking desires of their own id for the sake of the greater good, I have but little hope. But perhaps – hopefully – I’ll be wrong. Happily wrong.