Despite the fact that he never married, Henry Adams held women in the highest possible regard and often, in his autobiography, tells the reader how he was “rescued as often before by a woman.” In most cases it was Senator Cabot Lodge’s wife, who, with her husband and children, accompanied Adams on many of his travels. Indeed, it was with the Lodges that Adams first visited Mont St. Michel and Chartres and later wrote his remarkable study. He spends the bulk of one chapter in his autobiography taking about the plight of women in his age and says, in passing, “Adams owed more to the American woman than to all the American men he ever heard of, and felt not the smallest call to defend his sex who seemed able to take care of themselves. . . . woman was the superior.” In addition, Adams wrote two novels that center around women: Sybil and Madeline Ross in Democracy, and Esther in the novel by that name. In the former, Madeline Ross finds herself unable to “purify politics” in all-male Washington because she discovers “an atrophy of the moral sense by disuse.” Indeed. For the most part the women stand head and shoulders above the men in the novels as they did with the women in Adams’ life. I suspect that it was Adams’ high regard for women that drew him to the Chartres Cathedral which was built as homage to the Virgin Mary. As I suggested in an earlier blog, the Virgin represented to medieval men and women the Earth Mother from whom we all came and whose warm embrace will enfold us all in the end. What is this all about?
I would suggest that this has nothing whatever to do with modern feminism. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that modern feminism has helped to effectively eliminate from common discourse any discussion of the woman as she was viewed by such men as Henry Adams. Some would insist that this is for the better. But let us pause and reflect. To Adams, women represent the softer and more gentle side of life, the intuitive and emotional, caring and loving side. Woman represents feeling, man represents reason and cold, hard logic. And despite the fact that Adams himself had a mind like a steel trap and could reason with the best, he preferred feeling which he insists brings us all closer to one another and to life itself. His heroes and heroines show extraordinary sensitivity and he himself was drawn to beauty in all its forms. Adams would have agreed with Jung who insisted on the duality within each of us and tended, for his part, to prefer the side of feeling, the compassion and love that was represented by women and which he was not himself afraid to acknowledge in himself. In fact, he seems throughout his autobiography to regret deeply not having lived in the medieval period when the Virgin Mary was very real and gave meaning to life; she was available to all as a source of comfort and succor.
But what of this duality? Why is it that so much of what is written and spoken about women and men today seems directed toward a categorical denial, a leveling down, an insistence of no difference where differences clearly exist? Why is it that today women so often must seek success in men’s terms, by wearing pants and being assertive and tough enough to break the “glass ceiling”? The male is hard and repellant in so many respects. As Karl Stern points out in his interesting book Flight From Woman,
“Just as in the function of the spermatozoon in its relation to the ovum, man’s attitude toward nature is that of attack and penetrate. He removes rocks and uproots forests to make space for agriculture. He dams up rivers and harnesses the power of water. Chemistry breaks up the compound of molecules and rearranges the position of atoms. Physics overcomes the law of nature, gravity, first in the invention of the wheel — last in the supersonic rocket that soars into the stratosphere. . . . Man’s activity is always directed against nature.”
Men are leading the onslaught against the Earth Mother today: why would women want to be like men? The answer is that society demands it. We have defined success in monetary terms and the only way women can be successful, as we define that term today, is to play a man’s game. and play it as well as or better than the men. However, it is not demeaning to women to insist that they are different, especially if that difference amounts to a superiority. And it assuredly doesn’t imply that women should be denied the same rights as men. For centuries, of course, they were denied a voice and recognition as morally equal to men. It is certainly understandable that women have become defensive about being set apart: they want the recognition they deserve and have been so long denied. But perhaps the fight has progressed a few steps too far. That is one of the consequences of the trend toward equality that slowly emerged from the age of Enlightenment when people first started thinking about moral equality and the need to recognize the rights of all. But moral equality does not translate into sameness: we should eschew any leveling down, recognize difference and accept it.
As Stern insists in a remark that would offend many women today, women “act and react out of the dark, mysterious depths of the unconscious, i.e., affectively, intuitively, mysteriously. This is no judgment of value, but a statement of fact.” This does not mean that women should not pursue mathematics and science or become police officers, which are supposed to be more “manly” activities, but simply that we should all acknowledge that there are differences between men and women and that every one of us is an intriguing combination of the two natures. Some women make better physicists or mathematicians than men and some men make better poets or writers than many women do. Recent testing suggests that young girls do as well as or even better than young boys in tests involving math and science. But that does not mean that there are not differences between the two aspects of the human psyche or that women and men are not different from one another in ways that subtend the physical. It is precisely because we come to this topic with bags choked with prejudice and suspicions that when differences are pointed out we insist that value judgments are being made; we refuse to acknowledge the facts that stare us in the face.
But if in the end we insist upon making those value judgments, rather than simply to acknowledge that there are ineluctable differences between the sexes, then perhaps we should simply agree with Adams that the female is superior to the male. Love trumps aggression every time. As Joseph Conrad would have it, women are “not the playthings of Time,” they shine forth with “an unearthly glow in the darkness.” And that darkness is the result of man’s unfettered rapaciousness over the centuries.
But as I write these words I wonder if we have come to the point where they simply no longer make any sense.
“An atrophy of the moral sense by disuse.” Too funny, too sad, too true. It is not ironic that women senators led the collaboration last fall to cease the government shutdown by stubborn men, one in particular who hails from Texas. Two women senators also led the debate doing something about sexual harassment in the military. I think we would be better governed with more women in the mix, as we would focus more on issues than “gotcha” politics. I found the previous speaker to be an exception to the above examples, as she preferred to govern more like a man would per your point.
Thanks, BTG. And I do think Elizabeth Warren is emerging as one of the truly bright lights in the Senate — if she can just continue to resist the filthy influence of the corporations and special interests.
I agree about Elizabeth Warren. She was on two talk shows last week about her latest book. She said something telling. When she is told she is anti-Wall Street, she said no. I am anti-cheating.
You are a brave man to have written this! While feminism has its place, and the women’s liberation movement was and still is necessary, it is true that there are differences between the sexes. I always say that the world would be a better place if women ran things, or at least had an equal place at the table. The reality is that women still do not have that place, in so many arenas.
The archetypal “Feminazi” is a reaction to so many men who have denied the importance of female perspective and influence. Women feel they must subdue that part of them that threatens just to make it in the professional world. At the same time, women have an unrealistic ideal of beauty to strive for and often a loudly tickling biological clock that urges procreation. We are ruthlessly hard on ourselves, and keenly sensitive to the criticism of others. We must be sex goddess, breadwinner, and supermom in order to feel successful.
It doesn’t help that the professional world makes few accommodations for working mothers. The constant assault on women’s reproductive rights makes us feel like second-class citizens.
It will be nice when more men like Henry Adams and Hugh Curtler recognize that feminine intuition and compassion are gifts to society. When we no longer deny that which makes us human, male or female, the world will indeed be a better place.
Thank you so much for the kind words. I was worried about posting this piece, but I thought it needed to be said. And your perspective helps fill in a great many gaps. By insisting the women become more like men we have thrown out so many essential qualities that women have always brought to the table.The problem is not with the women themselves, but with a culture that measures success in such a narrow frame.