Women Don’t Shoot

Friday night I watched “Michael Moore in Trumpland.”  The title is a bit deceptive.  It has very little to do with Trump, and a lot to do with feminism.  It’s funny, educational, moving, and it is a spirited discussion of the struggles of Hillary Clinton, through which, it touches upon the struggle of all women and extols their power.

trumplandMichael Moore’s film is a record of a one-man show he performed in October at the Murphy Theatre in Wilmington, Ohio.  Over the course of sixty minutes, Moore spends a considerable amount of time going over the attacks, the abuse Hillary Clinton has endured over the years, most all of it, of course, coming from men.  I remember how she was humiliated for heading the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in the 1990s.  But I had forgotten how nasty it was, and perhaps dulled to how nasty it has been ever since.

In 1994, at a rally in support of the health care campaign, as the First Lady spoke, protestors held up signs that read “Heil Hillary” and nearly booed her down.  For the first time, the Secret Service was successful in persuading Hillary Clinton to wear a bulletproof vest.

It is obvious that Michael Moore likes Hillary, he admires her because she has character, that is, good character, one thing many voters doubted.  She took all the abuse heaped on her, never complained (at least not in pubic) and kept moving forward.

About halfway through the performance, Moore looks into the camera and says,

hillary-clinton-019bMy hope, my optimism for this . . .  Hillary, if you’re watching this right now (I have a feeling that someone is going to slip you a tape of this), I just want to tell you something, I know you’ve been waiting . . . but you’re not alone, a whole  bunch of the rest of us have been waiting for that one glorious moment when the other gender, the majority gender, has a chance to run this world, have some real power and kick some righteous ass.”

We men have been in charge far too long, and as a result, our world is out of balance.  We need to adjust the axis in favor of gender equality.

Now, it’s amazing how certain things fall in place . . . Just Friday morning I was reading these words by Barbara E. Reed: “The Tao Te Ching uses feminine imagery and traditional views of female roles to counter destructive male behavior.” *

Tao is a complex principle.  Tao means “road or “path”.  Philosophically, it is the “Way”, and for now, let us just say that it is about the way of living.  The classic Chinese text, Tao Te Ching, can be translated as “The Way and its Virtue.”

According to one scholar, the origins of the Tao Te Ching were “ideas from anonymous people (not intellectuals) of the 6th – 4th centuries BCE, probably including local elders (“lao-tsu”), possibly including women . . .” He mentions also that the early layers of the teachings emphasized “natural simplicity, harmony, ‘feminine’ behaviors”.  **

I am intrigued by the notion that women may have influenced the formation of these teachings.  The doctrine of Taoism has always showed a preference for feminine “behaviors”, and at times, it seems the Tao Te Ching is saying that the feminine is the purest form of life.

In ancient China, women were largely illiterate and subjugated.  Yet, there were periods in China’s history when Buddhist and Taoists movements welcomed women as both practitioners and leaders, and there were teachings (“Inner Alchemy”) specifically for women.

One modern woman, Ursula K. Le Guin, an American author known for her works in the genres of fantasy and science fiction, published a translation of the Tao Te Ching in 1998.  In an interview some years later, she said,

Lao Tzu feminized mysteries in a different way from anybody else.  These are not “feminine mysteries,” but he makes mystery itself a woman.  This is profound, this goes deep.  And the most mystical passages in the book are the most feminine.  This is something women need, I think, and long for, often without knowing it.  That’s undoubtedly one reason why all my life I’ve found the Tao de Ching so refreshing and empowering.”

This is something that everyone needs, and that everyone has.  Feminine energy (yin) is not separate from masculine energy (yang).  The feminine and the masculine give rise to each other; they are interdependent and universal.  Water and the earth symbolize feminine energy.  The feminine is soft, yielding, receptive, fluid, creative, intuitive, transformative, and nurturing.

The masculine is associated with activity, creativity, hardness, logic, and control.

tai-ji-symbol3As we seen in the tai ji symbol, yin and yang are enfolded within one another.  Every person has yin and yang energies.  For instance, I’d say Hillary Clinton has some significant yang energy, while her former opponent has too much.

In chapter 42, the Tao Te Ching says, “All things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by balancing these energies.”  The best way of living is living in harmony with nature and each other, and the more we can harmonize the feminine and masculine within ourselves, the more effectively we can check compulsive and extreme behavior, the more we can counteract negative forces within the mind and even the body.

Gentleness is another quality of feminine energy, and in the film, Michael Moore points out that women are mostly non-violent.

“Women generally don’t shoot you,” he says.  “Unless you deserve it.”

– – – – – – – – – –

* Barbara E. Reed, “Taoism”, Women in World Religions, Ed. Arvind Sharma,  SUNY Press, 1987 162

** Russell Kirkland, Taoism: The Enduring Tradition, Psychology Press, 2004

Hillary Clinton photo: Wellesley College Archives

Share

Deplorables and Name Calling

Some people think Hillary Clinton’s remark about “basket of deplorables” was a strategic mistake.  Others are making the argument that she was setting a trap for Trump, forcing him into the position of having to defend racists like David Dukes.

On CNN, Pence was asked if Dukes, the former KKK leader and a Trump supporter,  was a deplorable. Pence said the Trump campaign was “not in the name calling business.”  That’s a laugh.  Name-calling seems to be an obsession with Trump. His behavior has been, um, deplorable.

Well, this is nothing new.  Name calling has always been a part of politics.  According to Wikipedia, “Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices . . . “  There is nary a politician alive who has not engaged in it.  From what I’ve read name calling in presidential elections used to be much worse, but I don’t recall that in my lifetime.  I have not seen nothing like the 2016 election.

peanuts-sticksandstonesName calling is actually a form of bullying.  And it’s not just politicians.  People everywhere, young and old, from the schoolyards to the boardrooms engage in name calling, perhaps not always directly or consciously or with malice.  This is an important issue  given that racial slurs have become more prevalent than ever in American society.

In trying to stem the use of racial slurs and name calling, I think we may be going about it the wrong way.  We want to prevent people from name calling, but we need to also toughen our skin so that names won’t hurt or cause outrage.  They’re just words.  We can also try to diminish the power of certain words.

Nagarjuna told us that words are only signs, dependent designations ( prajnaptir-upadaya ), and names nothing more than derived names (upadaya-prajnapti).  They exist as convention designations and have no real substantiality.

As I mentioned once before, legendary outlaw comedian Lenny Bruce used the N-word 22 times in a routine.  At the end of the bit he said, “Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it’s the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness.” He went on to say that if you used the word repeatedly until it “didn’t mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.”

Lenny’s point coincides to some extent with the Buddhist teaching on this subject.  In his essay on Nagarjuna, German existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote,

The final step is to perceive the untruth of all signs and hence of language.  Once it is understood that a word is a mere sign without any real meaning, the word disappears and that is deliverance.  Consciousness, which created suffering by shaping emptiness into many worlds, is carried back to its source.

The aim of all true thinking is a return from the unfolding of thought to nonthinkng.  What happened through the unfolding of thought can be undone by better thought in the dissolution of thought.”

Clinton is right, of course.  Many of Trumps supporters are worthy of strong condemnation.  But then, they feel the same way about us.  Liberals, left-wingers, extremists, tree huggers destroying America . .  .  It all depends on your view . . . and hopefully you recall from previous posts Nagarjuna’s injunction about the emptiness of views.

Share