Understanding America's Rage Problem
America has a rage problem that laws can't fix. If we want to fix it, we have to first understand where it comes from.
In 2003, Bell Hooks wrote in her book The Will To Change, that the term patriarchy was rarely used outside of academic circles. Today, it is firmly entrenched in the public vernacular, yet will still have difficulties identifying exactly what it is. Many believe that the patriarchy consists solely of men (although not all men) but the truth is, patriarchy is a system which encompasses both men and women.
Even more importantly, while many women want to “overthrow the patriarchy” the truth is, women actually participate every bit as much as men do in protecting the patriarchy. To understand why this is true, it’s important to understand what the patriarchy is exactly and why it is the source of so much rage. Only then can we understand how to fix it.
From the very earliest days of humanity, scholars and thinkers have continuously proposed the idea that man is comprised of four elements. While some schools of thought have narrowed them down to three and others have expanded to five, over and over four seems to prevail. And with good reason.
Around 300 BC, Hippocrates (often thought of as the father of modern medicine) was the first to relate the four elements of the nature of man to the physical body. He called these elements the four temperaments and believed that the key to good health was in balancing these four elements, which he called the four humours.
In the New Testament, when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied that the whole of the law could be summed up in two commandments: to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength, soul, mind and your neighbor as yourself. As promised, these two commandments contain everything we need to understand about patriarchy and how to start overcoming the rage problem it is creating. Jesus himself identified the four elements of man.
Heart (Emotional)
Strength (Physical)
Soul (Spiritual)
Mind (Intellectual)
Throughout modern psychology, we find these four elements repeated again and again. For instance, Jung proposed that the psyche consists of four basic functions.
Sensation (Physical)
Intuition (Spiritual)
Thinking (Intellectual)
Sentiment (Emotional)
Jung was also among the first to propose that what we call the “masculine” and “feminine” are actually present in both men and women. He called them the animus and amina. In truth, a whole human being (both male and female) should look something like this:
Every human being is comprised of these four elements and a healthy human being is one that would be able to equally access all four elements of themselves. What has happened, however, is that women have been reduced to only inhabiting two of these elements and men the other two, which looks something like this:
What’s interesting is that although women have been relegated to the spiritual, (things you can’t touch, feel or measure - sometimes referred to as God and other times as “intuition”) men still dominate religion. What they have done, however, is pull religion over into their area of dominance. Which is to say they have turned it from a spiritual practice into an intellectual exercise.
This is why they go to school and study books to get degrees in order to be religious leaders. “Church” consists of singing some songs and a man relating his knowledge of scripture. You will also notice that when men discuss religion, it is almost always an intellectual debate. They rarely speak of the mysteries and wonders of God but rather debate sets of concrete rules, most of which were created by them.
If this is what we were left with, this would already be bad enough. This model in and of itself is textbook co-dependency. What we should be is two complete, whole human beings, but instead, men are essential stunted or “retarded” in two areas of their being, while women are stunted or retarded in the other two areas. In the mid-90’s, women swooned when a young, brash Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) looked deep into the young, innocent eyes of Dorothy Boyd (played by Renée Zellweger) and uttered three little words that every woman longs to hear: “You complete me.”
The problem is, this is the very essence of co-dependency. Co-dependency is what happens when we literally need someone else to fulfill roles in our life that we are incapable of fulfilling for ourselves.
Both women and men are raised to be co-dependent.
This is why, as much as we are beginning to understand how dangerous the patriarchy is, we will still actually fight against anything that upsets the balance. It is a system we are mutually locked into. To make matters worse, however, man also creates hierarchies. So, while the above example is bad enough because it represents co-dependency, the reality of patriarchal relationships looks something more like this:
Patriarchy is a hierarchical system, which not only includes placing men above or over women but also magnifying the importance of their perceived traits and qualities while diminishing those of women. Women are raised stunted in the areas men offer, which causes us to just keep right on entering into abusive, unhealthy relationships. We believe we need what they have to complete us and they believe we have what they need.
This is how we get locked into co-dependent relationships, which will always be unfulfilling because no one can “be” for us the parts of ourselves that we need to be for ourselves. Conversely, however, when we don’t have the ability to fulfill all four areas of need for ourselves, we will protect a relationship that provides any small part of what we need no matter how great the cost to ourselves.
Patriarchy is a system of less than/ greater than dynamics.
Whenever this dynamic is in play, there will always be abuse. In American we have a complicated hierarchical system looks something like this:
So, a rich, white, straight, Christian male is going to be perceived to be at the very top of the American hierarchy. What’s interesting is that many people looking at this chart may disagree as to the way they perceive themselves to be placed. For instance, a Black man may feel that he is not in fact equal to a White woman in America or a gay man may resent be placed below a lesbian.
The reality is, however, none of these hierarchies exist except in our own mind. Hierarchies are, by nature, oppressive systems, that everyone participates in maintaining. Anyone that perceives themselves to be above someone else will constantly feel the need to fight to maintain their position while simultaneously fighting to achieve a higher one. What is interesting, however is that no one will ever actually feel like they have reached the top. Why? Because the hierarchy doesn’t actually exist anywhere but in your own mind.
There will always be someone that you perceive as having “more” than you, which means no matter how high you climb, you never reach the top. Conversely, those that perceive themselves to be on or near the bottom will always find someone they can consider to be lower than themselves. When Jesus distilled the entire law down into two very simple laws, he outlined a very different type of hierarchy. One that looks something like this.
Whenever there is an oppressor/ oppressed dynamic, the fear of the oppressor is always that if they give up power, they will simply become the oppressed rather than the oppressor. When people are trapped in an oppressor/ oppressed dynamic, they can’t imagine anything else, so they will always believe those are the only two options. If they are not oppressors, they naturally believe they will simply become the oppressed. Conversely, the oppressed are always trying to align themselves with the oppressors in order to minimize their own oppression.
The greatest fear of the patriarchy is that if they give up any of their power to women, women will simply turn the tables and oppress men.
History has shown, however, that this isn’t how women work. Throughout history, there have almost always been only two types of societies: patriarchies and egalitarian societies. Although men love to fictionalize matriarchal societies that resemble patriarchies; such as the Amazon warriors fictionalized by Homer and Wonder Woman’s native Themyscira created by William Moulton Marston, these are not actually the type of societies women create when given the chance. While women certainly have their own achilles heels, the quest for power is not one of them.
Men and women are, in fact, truly complementary. Women are strong in the areas men are weakest and vice-versa, which is actually a part of the reason men are so afraid of women in power. They don’t want to give up their vices. The truth is, things on earth are not the way they were “meant” to be. We live in a fallen world. Whether you believe the Bible or not, it does offer a very profound explanation as to how we might have arrived where we are today - and how to get out.
How did we get here?
Most people are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve but many have been taught some very twisted version of the story. What is interesting to me, is that in my entire 30+ years of going to church, not once did I ever hear a pastor preach about, speak about or teach what I have come to believe are some of the most important aspects of the Adam and Eve story. This is the problem with only ever hearing the story as told by the patriarchy.
As the story goes, God created Adam out of dirt, sometimes referred to as dust, but basically the ground. Then God “breathed life” into Adam. There’s already a lot there that deals with modern life, but I’m going to skip over that for now. The first important thing to note in this context is that the first thing God does is give Adam a job, which is to name the animals. Now, I don’t think the animals actually needed names but this tells us two very important things about the nature of Adam and the nature of God. The first thing God did was give Adam a job, a purpose - something to do every day.
The Bible tells us that God is a better parent than even the best earthly parents, so the nature of earthly parents can also point us to the nature of God. So, let’s say that a dad is going to build a deck or change the oil in the car and his child wants to help. What does a good dad do? He finds a task for the child that allows them to feel they are providing valuable assistance. Does the dad actually need the child’s help? No. So this is a critical aspect of the nature of God that we need to understand. God does not need our help but allows us to participate in what They are doing.
Although Adam had companionship (the animals) and a purpose, it still wasn’t enough. Adam was missing something, so God created Eve. In Eve, God gave Adam relationship. This should also tell us something about the difference between relationship and companionship. Companionship is easy, uncomplicated. It doesn’t “rub up against us,” which also means it doesn’t help us grow.
The Bible calls Eve Adam’s helpmate or helper, which the patriarchy has often defined as some combination of a secretary, personal assistant, maid and nanny to his children. I do not believe this is what God intended. I believe God created Eve to be more like an opponent in chess, someone to butt heads with Adam, to challenge him and help him grow. I believe that also remains “Eve’s” role to this very day. Obviously, that’s not a role today’s Adams like much but that’s just too damn bad.
Ultimately, however, I believe this story tells us something about the nature of life. That human beings were created for and have two primary needs: purpose and relationship.
So what happened?
By all accounts, Adam and Eve had everything they needed in the garden. They had food, they didn’t need clothing or shelter, they had a purpose and they had relationships with each other and with God. So what more could they possibly need or want? We know that a serpent appeared and somehow managed to tempt them into breaking the one and only law in the garden, so what could it have possibly offered them? There was no money and nothing to buy, so that wasn’t it. There was no one else in the garden to have dominion over, so what could the serpent possibly offer them?
The power of God.
And what was the power of God? To be the “decider” - to decide what was “good” and what was “bad.” Judgement. You ever notice how much we love Court TV or judge and jury shows or watch every minute of trials like OJ Simpson or Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. There is nothing in the world that we love more, that gives us a greater sense of power, than to be the deciders of guilt or innocence.
Even more importantly, we love to decide what is better or best. That’s the power of God. In man’s hands, however, the “power of God’ became competition. One thing being better than the other. Which also birthed hierarchies. How many hours do men spend arguing about who is the GOAT? In fact, it is recorded at least four times in the New Testament that Jesus caught the disciples arguing about that very thing! This is the result of the fall.
So Adam and Eve ate the fruit and suddenly realized they were naked. Perhaps even more importantly, Eve probably felt for the first time that her thighs were too big and her breasts too small and Adam probably felt self-conscious about the size of his penis for the first time ever. That is what they tried to cover. For the first time, shame entered the world. Without competition, there is no shame. If there is no better, there is no worse, and if there is no better or worse, there is no shame.
Many people interpret what happened next as God “cursing” Adam and Eve, but I don’t think that’s true. I think what happened instead is that God simply identified the new reality that they had created for themselves. The new reality that they now had to live under until they chose differently.
The New Reality
Imagine that you are the parent of a teenager who goes out and gets absolutely shit-faced for the first time ever. They come home drunk off their ass and you tell them “Tomorrow my love, you are going to hate the world. Your head is going to pound relentlessly, your eyes will feel as if they are going to explode out of your head and you will most likely spend a good portion of the day praying to the porcelain god.” Then you give them some aspirin and a big glass of water and send them to bed.
First off, you are not cursing your child, nor are you punishing them. You are simply apprising them of the very real consequences of their choices. In addition, a hangover is not the way things are “supposed” to be. A hangover is not the state you are meant to spend the rest of your life in.
I believe the same is true of the situation in Genesis. I believe God simply apprised Adam and Eve of the new reality they were going to have to live in, but I don’t think it’s a reality we have to stay in. I believe it was at this point we simply became divided and our purpose is to find our way back to being whole.
What’s interesting is that when interpreting Eve’s “curse,” Biblical translators chose to add in “I will make” - as if God were causing the outcome. The verb that is used, however, is called an infinitive absolute because it doesn’t actually have a subject. It simply means something along the lines of “it will happen” rather than “I will make it happen.” Interestingly, Adam’s curse was not translated as “I will make this happen” but rather simply “this is what will happen.” And I think there is a very specific reason the male authors and translators of the Bible chose those two very different translations or interpretations for the same discussion.
Eve’s “curse” had to do with childbearing and her relationship to Adam. Once again, it is always important to remember that the Bible was written and translated by men. What they interpreted was simply that Eve (and the daughters of Eve) would have pain in childbearing but I think it is much bigger than that. Our pain relates to everything having to do with the bearing and raising of children, including not being able to have them.
In addition, Eve was told that “her desire would be for Adam and he would rule over her.” The patriarchy generally views this as being concrete proof that God intended for Adam to rule over Eve but I don’t think that’s the case. I think that instead, Eve’s identity was now tied up in her relationships. She would burn with desire for Adam’s attention and approval and her desire for him would cause him to rule over her much like a heroine addict’s life is ruled by heroine.
Adam’s “curse” had to do with causing the earth to “bear fruit” or that he would “toil” for the rest of his days. What I believe this means is that Adam and Eve became divided. Instead of two people that equally pursued purpose and relationship, Adam now became obsessed with building and creating and accumulating - or “pursuing his purpose” - and Eve became obsessed with Adam and with bearing his children - or with relationship. Adam’s identity would now be tied up in his need to “produce” the same way Eve’s was tied up in her relationships.
Does any of this ring any bells?
What does this have to do with our rage problem?
Whether you believe in the Bible or not or even whether my interpretation is correct, the bottom line is we are where we are. How we got here doesn’t matter as much as where we go from here, but how we got here does play a pretty important role in how we get out.
However we got here, male/ female relationships tend to look something like this.
Whether we are born this way or society creates this situation, as girls grow into women, they are purposefully cut off from the half of themselves that are ascribed to be “masculine” qualities, while men are purposefully cut off from the half of themselves that are ascribed to be “feminine” qualities. The truth is, there is no such thing. What we call “masculine” qualities are simply those most related to building, creating and accumulating in the physical world, while “feminine” qualities are those most related to building, maintaining and establishing relationships. The truth is, however, women still have a need to pursue purpose, while men still have a need for deep, intimate relationships.
To make matters worse, however, thanks to the fall, Adam has made his qualities and attributes better or more important than Eve’s and thanks to our desperate need for the approval and acceptance of Adam, we let him. Unfortunately, this stunting means that we feel driven or compelled to mate in order to find the incomplete part of ourselves. This is what we mean when we say “you complete me” - only it’s not true. For true health, happiness and thriving, we need to be whole and complete people on our own, rather than having to rely on someone else to “be” the parts of ourselves that we have been cut off from. Healthy relationships would look like this:
I believe that the purpose of relationships is not to be the part of the other person that they are missing, but rather to help each other grow in the areas that have been stunted. What we are seeing, however, is women making stronger and stronger strides towards developing the parts of themselves that have been stunted, but we’re not seeing a similar move on the part of men to grow in the areas they have long considered to be “female” arenas, possibly because they view those arenas to simply be less important than their own. They continue to invest in developing in two arenas and simply expect women to “fill in their blanks.”
Conversely, however, it is also possible that women themselves may be the stumbling blocks to men moving into the realm of spirit and emotion. Particularly considering that when men start to make movement into these arenas they are likely to be very bad at it. If women don’t pay attention and take care to be encouraging, they can send men scurrying right back into their comfort zones, never to emerge again. Whatever the reason for it, what we’re seeing is women becoming more whole and complete, while men are remaining stunted. As a result women are becoming less compatible with men.
This means that not only are men becoming more isolated on the whole, they are also being cut off from what has become their only source of emotion. This leaves them almost no outlet but rage, which is the only emotion often allowed to men, which can ultimately have no other outcome than an explosion of violence. Men have simply not been taught to deal appropriately with emotions because they’ve never been taught that it’s okay to have them in the first place.
Although men have claimed the mental/physical arenas as their own, that doesn’t mean all men are born strong in these areas or that women aren’t. The truth is, we all have different strengths and weaknesses, which is why personality profiles like the Meyers-Briggs are so important. Rather than labeling traits as masculine or feminine, they help people see their innate traits outside of the realm of gender.
It is fairly well known that lesbians hate when someone asks them who the “man” is in the relationship and this is why. The traits that men have claimed as being “masculine” are not. In lesbian relationships, you will often find one woman who excels in the arenas men have decided are “masculine,” who connect more easily and naturally with women who have the qualities men have decided are feminine. Unlike men, however, women have a far greater willingness to grow into the areas of strength of their partners. Thus, they often more easily end up looking like this.
This does not mean, however, that the same is true for gay men. While gay men may enjoy indulging in the qualities they perceive to be “feminine,” such as wearing bright clothing or makeup, they are once again simply engaging in the physical aspects of womanhood as they perceive it. In truth, gay men seek the blessing of the patriarchy just like every other man and can be every bit as misogynistic as straight men.
So, this is (I believe) how we got here, but how do we get out? How do we fix it? I think it goes without saying that it’s complicated, but that is what I will begin to address in my next article.