The infected aren’t the only predators in the story. There are also men who are cannibals who would most likely eat Ellie after raping her. Joel is the typical masculine hero whose job it is to protect not only a female but a child in a world overrun by monsters of one kind or another—a world not so unlike ours, especially if one lives in a society in the thrall of masculine aggression such as Ukraine. Joel does his job—killing infected monsters, evil men who aren’t infected, and even the medical personnel who seek to sacrifice Ellie as Agamemnon scarified his daughter Iphigenia and as Abraham would have sacrificed his son Isaac on God’s say-so. Joel refuses to allow Ellie to be sacrificed for the greater good, even against Ellie’s wishes. It is his absolute commitment to her that makes him a hero to the fans of the game. The game has many similarities with 1883. Joel embodies characteristics of both James Dutton and Shea Brennan, and Ellie’s role in the story is similar to that of Elsa’s.
At
the end of The Last of Us 2 Ellie
ends up alone and depressed in a world still filled with evil monsters and evil
men, but with no one to love and protect her. Her hero is dead. The emotional motif of
the first The Last of Us was love,
just as love is the dominant motif of 1883.
The emotional motif of The Last of Us 2
is hatred. I never played the sequel because doing so would be like repeatedly watching
Laszlo Toth hammering away at Michelangelo’s Pietà. Instead I relied on game reviews such The
Last of Us Part 2 Is Worse than You Think by Zaid Magenta and The Last of Us Part II - Angry Review by
Angry Joe. Both are on YouTube and are extremely insightful and entertaining.
What is revealed by the two episodes of The Last of Us is that misandric feminism is simply another us-versus-them ideology of hatred. What is most interesting about The Last of Us 2 video game is that the viewer can see the negative transformational effect an ideology can have on a story or society. The tone and mindset of the second game is totally different from the first. And unlike Top of the Lake the second game doesn’t offer a hero or a workable solution for dealing with masculine evil. In Top of the Lake an evil man is killed by the story’s female hero. In The Last of Us 2 the hero is killed and the murderer is allowed to escape. Thus, The Last of Us 2 is as nihilistic as Grand Theft Auto games. Its negativity gives nothing to believe in, whereas the first game gives a realistic scenario for how to confront evil but more importantly a way of life infused with love that inspires protecting that which is most important in life represented by Ellie as it is represented by Elsa in 1883. She gives Joel’s life primordial meaning that is worth living and dying for.
In Top
of the Lake there are three categories of evil men. The first and largest
are the knuckle-draggers. These are brutes whose Stone Age DNA is impervious to
humanizing cultures. (They do exist.) The second group is the police force which
is made up of male pedophiles and rapists who target young girls or any other
females. As cops they represent the idea that men are not to be trusted even
when they wear uniforms that say they can be trusted. Then there are the
miscellaneous male scumbags that look harmless or even pretend to be friends
but will rape a woman who drops her guard because she is too trusting.
Apparently that happened to Detective Robin Griffin, which would explain her
chronic depression.
The
focus of the story is Griffin’s investigation of a twelve-year-old girl who
tries to commit suicide and later runs away into the forest. She had been
repeatedly raped apparently as a victim of a pedophile ring run by cops. Young
girls are drugged and offered as sex toys for a price, of course. (Such
organizations do exist in the U.S. but they’re not run by cops, though they might be ignored by some cops for a price.) Nature is a better
place than any place populated by men if only because nature, though harsh and even deadly, is honest.
I recall 20 year old Cara Evelyn Knott who was raped and murdered by police
officer Craig Alan Peyer, in San Diego, where I lived at the time. At the trial
it came out that he had made predatory sexual advances on multiple female
drivers. His uniform said “You can trust me.” But he couldn’t be trusted and
used his uniform as a ruse for unsuspecting women. And who would they report Peyer
to, the cops? Not the women. Still, one dirty cop doesn’t mean all cops are dirty.
However, the Top of the Lake logic of the misandric feminism is as follows:
The
fallacy of assuming all men are bad because some men are bad is called the
fallacy of composition. The problem for women is that some bad men can give the
impression that all men are bad or at the very least cannot be trusted. And the
rape statistics for the U.S. is 16% of women have been victims of rape or attempted
rape. In his book The Non-Suicidal Society
Andrew Oldenquist argues that that an indication of societal breakdown is the
increasing inability to predict the behavior of other members of the society
toward oneself. In such a society a woman who finds herself among men may perceive
all of them as potential threats. My own view is that women in the U.S. have to
view men they do not know with cautious suspicion.
I sound as if I agree with the misandric feminism of Top of the Lake. I don’t. Misandric feminism is a categorical condemnation of all men. In the series, there is simply no room for good heterosexual men. The only two good men are a gay and a Māori. The male heterosexual European offspring are all bad. That is the view of New Zealand men presented by the series. What is puzzling is that New Zealand ranks 7th in U.S. News and World Report’s “Best Countries for Women.”
Other
countries are Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands,
Australia, and Germany—all European. What makes these countries the best
countries for women? The answer is complex, involving the legal and political
systems and the culture. However, one reason has to be that the men of the
countries want women to have the same rights and opportunity as they do and to be safe and
happy. In Top of the Lake men are for
the most part rotten and it is a woman cop who achieves justice. But in the
real world women alone are incapable of creating best countries for women
without the help of men. And there are many such countries in the world. Of
course, a misandric feminist's utopia would be no male inhabitants, represented
in the series by the Paradise cult.
Top of the Lake hardly offers inspiring women. There
is the Paradise cult of women who live in railroad cars. They are damage
merchandise who seek to separate themselves from the world. When the sun
shines, they play nudist camp. The rest of the time they do group therapy led
by a woman named GJ who calls the women on their delusions but has nothing else
to offer. How could she when she, so it appears, has given up on life. They
have no purpose in life beyond themselves, kind of like the Eloi in H.G. Wells’
The Time Machine except they are all
women. The detective seems as if she is on Prozac while pursuing her case.
Visuals of her face suggest that she is chronically depressed. Other than her
case, she doesn’t have a life. I don’t count as a having a life having occasional sex with a former boyfriend who apparently set her up to be raped. And her mother didn’t press
charges against the men who raped her daughter, and being Catholic she force
her daughter to give birth to the offspring of the man who raped her. Okay, she
has good reason to be depressed. For women, religion is of no help at all.
Most likely the woman would be condemned as a seductress. Watch The Magdalene Sisters, a compassionate
film written and directed by a man Peter Mullan.
The
tonality of the series is similar to film noir, dark and depressing without
beautiful women and handsome men or a hero. Is the detective a hero or just
wants revenge against those who raped her? Perhaps that doesn’t matter, but
what does matter is that I expect movie heroes to be inspiring and the detective
is anything but inspiring. She’s dreary like the entire series. What about rape
victim Tui? She becomes feral creature living in the forest. She is a survivor,
not a hero. Movie heroes should be inspiring.
Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in Alien
and Aliens is massively inspiring. In
the the second film she is devoted to saving a young girl. She too is
disillusioned by masculine evil in the form of corporate evil. Then there is Emily
Blunt as a FBI agent in Sicario (also by Taylor Sheridan). She
encounters masculine evil that ranks with the Xenomorphs Ripley has to contend with.
And Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor of Terminator
2: Judgment Day. These three characters/actresses are inspiring. I don’t
fine Elisabeth Moss’s detective inspiring or even realistic. She has her
moments. At times she looks silly wearing a gun too big for her. And the chronic
frown doesn’t help. She is a depressed personality that is inconsistent with an
inspiring hero. I’m certain that in real life are many heroes—male and
female—who are depressed (dealing with evil people would be depressing), but
we’re talking about movies. Watching Top
of the Lake is like reading the obituaries. Hardly inspiring.
I
see two problems with Top of the Lake
that have to do with its misandric feminist ideology. First, the traditional
source of meaning—boy meets girl, the two fall in love, marry, have children—is
out of the question because a boy is involved. In addition, feminism sees
marriage as a trap for women, a way for men to get free a live-in maid, cook,
and sex toy. A good novel that explores the issue of domesticity being a trap
for women is Kate Chopin’s The Awakening.
In the novel Edna Pontellier wants to be an artist. In the story art—painting
and music—offer a meaningful option to domesticity. In Top of the Lake the only option offered is to become a cop hunting
down evil men. Its theme seems to be women are trapped by masculinity. Even the
rescued Tui must face, as did cop Robin Griffin, giving birth to the child of
the man who raped her.
The first epic based on a
journey was the Mesopotamian The Epic of
Gilgamesh, followed by Homer’s Odyssey.
But unlike the events of those two poems, the American westward movement was a
historical epic; thus, epic status came naturally to western stories about wagon
train journeys. Raoul Walsh’s The Big
Trail was the first and perhaps the best until 1883, which is significant because the transition from the male
protagonist (John Wayne’s character Breck Coleman) to the female as the central
protagonist (Isabel May’s Elsa Dutton) involved a leap over a thousand western
movies. What makes the American western epic unique other than being based on
recent events is that it is about the heroic struggle of ordinary men and
women, not larger than life Homeric and Arthurian superheroes.
Bazin’s characterizing the
conflict of the western as Manichean is of interest. Three religious ideologies
that see the world as involved in a supernatural cosmic conflict between the
forces of good and the forces of evil are Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and
Judeo-Christianity. That view of reality continues to remain popular among
Christians who believe the forces of Satan are at war with the forces of Christ.
It was the other two religions along with us-versus-them Judaism that
caused Christianity to adopt the “us-versus-them” cosmic war scenario.
The two founders of Christianity are Apostle Paul and Augustine of Hippo. The latter had been a Manichean before converting to Christianity, and his Manichean thinking—along with Paul’s war of the spirit against matter/flesh—greatly influenced negativity of Christianity. Historian Charles Freeman says in The Closing of the Western Mind, “It was Augustine who developed a rationale of persecution” (295) and that “Augustine’s rationale for persecution was to be used to justify slaughter (as of the Cathars or the native people of America” (Freeman 299). Except for his mother, Augustine was also a woman hater, most likely an attitude he adopted from his mentor Apostle Paul. Thus, after becoming a Christian he sent away the mother of his son. Manicheaism also found its way into Marxism with the global conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Bazin believes that the best western movies capture the mythic conflict (with and without the religious context), and they are unique for doing so with a popular genre. Good versus evil is a central theme in the ever popular gangster movies and in film noir crime stories. However, these two popular genres never achieved mythic status, and the reason for that, I believe, is location. Crime movies take place in the confines of cities, whereas westerns take place in the great outdoors, the “immense stretches of prairie, of deserts, of rocks to which the little wooden town clings precariously (a primitive amoeba of civilization)” (Bazin 145). To know what Bazin means, one must visit Monument Valley:
Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail included locations such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and the giant redwoo
Atomized people swirl about
like atoms in cities, and the conflict between good and evil isn’t cosmic but one
involving criminals, victims, and cops. There is no journey or quest. The
series Naked City open with this
line: “There are eight million stories in the naked city.” Lots of little
stories but no big story. A city like New York City has mythic proportions but
its stories do not. To be fair, the best crime stories do emphasize the larger
than life presence of the city, but the characters themselves are not involved
in a mythic conflict, perhaps because there is no goal beyond survival. Another important difference between big-city crime stories and the western is the preponderance of people in the big-city and the comparative absence of nature—landscapes; lakes, rivers, and streams; arching sky; and plants and animals. In a sense, cities are prisons that cut their inhabitants off from nature. The natural environment—in particular wilderness—has a mythic character without the need of narrative. Nature has mythic presence. Naturalists such as Edward Abbey and Ansel Adams recognized nature’s mythic character. So does Elsa.
What Bazin Gets
Wrong
Bazin missteps when he says,
“The (1) Indian, who lived in this world, was incapable of imposing on it man’s order. He mastered it only by identifying himself with its (2) pagan savagery. The (3) white Christian on the contrary is truly the conqueror of the new world. (4) The grass sprouts where his horse has passed. He imposes (5) simultaneously his moral and his technical order, the one linked to the other and the former guaranteeing the latter. The physical safety of the stagecoaches, the protection given by the federal troops, the building of the great railroads are less important perhaps than the (6) establishment of justice and respect for law” (145).
What
Bazin gets right historically is that the Christians conquered the new world with guns, germs, and steel.
He uses the word “conquered” as if the conquest was a good thing. For white
Christians it was. For the Indians it was a disaster. And ditto that for South
America and Canada. Number (4) implies that nature rejoiced in response to the
invasion. Tim Flannery’s The Eternal
Frontier offers a different view, describing deforestation, the shooting
into extinction passenger pigeons, the population of which was 3 billion to 5
billion, and the shooting almost into extinction the bison, with 30-60 million bison reduced to
about 675. That’s a lot of killing. And the killers were all men.
Trees were also hit hard by
pioneers. Less than 4% America’s original forests remain in existence, most in
protected public lands. That’s a lot of cutting. So, I don’t think nature
rejoiced at the arrival of the Christian conquerors, who showed no restraint in
their conquest of nature because the Book of Genesis told them that nature was
given to them as a commodity, not as an object of reverence which only God
deserved: “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it.
Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature
that moves on the ground’” (1:28). And they did just that. Of course, the
decimation of the native people was included in the conquest. They belonged to
nature, not to God, and would be treated as such. Like the ancient forests they too live on reservations protected by the U.S. government.
(3) Thus, Bazin is correct when
he says, “The white Christian on the contrary is truly the conqueror of the new
world.” Here comes the irony, offered by another wagon-train story How the West Was Won. The French title
is less euphemistic: La Conquête de
l'Ouest. Bazin calls such westerns “superwesterns.” I call them Cadillac westerns—bloated with mega-famous movie stars. It’s disappointing to see that
John Ford, inventor of the lean mythic western, took part in the project. But
Hollywood has the Midas touch. The irony comes at the end with the film with an
epilogue narrated by Spencer Tracy that shows how modern America grew away from
that vision of creating a bucolic paradise with images of Hoover Dam, a
four-level downtown freeway cloverleaf interchange in Los Angeles, and the
Golden Gate Bridge. The hoped for pastoral paradise became the technological
nightmare depicted in Godfrey Reggio Koyaanisqatsi.
“The (1) Indian, who lived in
this world, was incapable of imposing on it man’s
order. He mastered it only by identifying himself with its (2) pagan savagery.” The wisdom of the
Native Americans was learning how to live in harmony with nature. Nature is primordial
reality, and as Leonard Susskind points out, humans mess with nature at their
peril. The Indian world might have endure a few more thousand years had the
white man not showed up with his advance technology—in particular guns—and
unlimited religion-fueled hubris. It’s problematic that modern civilization
will finish the present century without being disrupted by nuclear warfare or a
catastrophic climatic shift.
Apparently, Bazin knew little
to nothing about the way of life of Native American pagans. Their goal was
never to impose man’s order on nature. That concept would have been foreign to
them. Their goal was to live in harmony with nature, which they believed they
were a part. It was not until reason became a tool of masculine aggression did
the assaulted on nature occur in earnest. The mastermind was Francis Bacon. He
rationalized the Genesis project of subduing nature. According to Carolyn
Merchant, Bacon saw nature as feminine, adding another justification for the
assault. She says, “Due to the Fall from the Garden of Eden (caused by the
temptation of a woman), the human race lost its ‘dominion over creation.’” The
idea here is that nature became like Eve—inherently unruly. Thus, says Bacon, “she
[nature] is [to be] put in constraint, molded, and made as it were new by art
and the hand of man; as in things artificial.” To quote Merchant, “’By art and
the hand of man,’ nature can then be ‘forced out of her natural state and
squeezed and molded.’ In this way, ‘human knowledge and human power meet as
one’” (The Death of Nature, 170).
More accurately, masculine
reason and power become one and impose themselves on nature in a manner
justified by God. Only a God that is supernatural (existing outside of nature) could command that nature to be subdued. The pagans—demonized by the masculine
minds of the Abrahamic religions—worshiped deities inherent within nature; thus
any attempt to subdue nature would be an affront to the gods and would result
in tragedy for humans. The Hopi word Koyaanisqatsi
means life out of balance. I believe
that is an accurate description of the modern world. Today’s world is not
totally out of balance but is moving in that direction. Unlike the ancient
peoples, technological man has the power throw the world way out of balance.
This is actually suggested in 1883 with its references to the Civil
War which killed over a half million Americans. The killing took four years.
Today, a nuclear bomb can kill that many in a matter of minutes. Masculine aggression
existed among Native Americans, but their weapons killed each other one at a
time, not thousands in the blink of an eye. Two archaic a-bombs killed a
hundred thousand Japanese in minutes. (MIRVs are missiles that can carry up to
10 nuclear warheads! That’s progress?) An estimated total of 70–85 million
people perished in World War II, about 3% of the 2.3 billion people on Earth in
1940. Both the atomic bomb and the war reflect modern man’s ability to create life-destroying
disorder. Also, of interest is that the human population went from 2.3 billion
people in 1940 to 7.8 billion people today. I don’t see that as an indicator
that world is moving toward a more orderly state. As the Native Americans
discovered in 1883 more people can
result in an increase in disorder. Big cities seem to indicate that as well. In
1883 Fort Worth is a dangerous city
full of dangerous men. Today, the city’s crime rate is 40% higher than the
country’s average. Americans completed the conquest of the west just seven years later (1890), and
look at the country now—a paradise only when compared with secular and
religious totalitarian states. About two million jailers, detectives, security
guards, and cops are needed to keep order. And still 16,425 people were
murdered in the country in 2019. That's more than double the
Thus, Bazin’s complaint about
pagan savagery rings a hollow as does his claim (5) that the white Christian “imposes
simultaneously his moral and his technical order, the one linked to the other
and the former guaranteeing the latter.” The two World Wars, the Vietnam War,
the Iraq war, and the Russia war against Ukraine are just a few of the more
recent examples that prove white Christian nations are quite capable of
immoral, savage behavior. And it started 1,700 years ago with the first
Christian Roman emperor Constantine I. Here is how Ramsay MacMullen describes
the man so beloved by Christians: “The empire had never had on the throne a man given to such
bloodthirsty violence as Constantine” (Christianizing
the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400, 50). The Abrahamic religions are notable
for their ability to exacerbate masculine aggression simply by divinely justifying
aggression. Of course, the masculine will to power plays a central role in all
three religions. The epiphanic irony of Judaism is that Yahweh “himself”
illustrates the masculine will to power.
In the context of the feminism
of both Top of the Lake and 1883, this carnage indicates that men
are the problem. Yet, they are also the only realistic solution to the problem,
which Top of the Lake ignores and 1883 recognizes. However, we know that good men fighting bad men is only a stop-gap solution. The best solution for
everyone would be for all men to control their propensity for violence. And both
series seem to conclude that solution is wishful thinking given masculinity’s incorrigible
aggressiveness. However, 1883 does
suggest that the best solution resides with women—though it can be realized only by good men. Women will have to inspire men to recognize that what women
represent is humanity’s primordial value—a celebration of life and nature
rather than violence, death, and destruction. Women such as Elsa Dutton (and
others) are able to inspire good men to protect women, children, and community
from bad men. However, if masculine aggression is an absolute as both series
imply, it is problematic and perhaps wishful thinking to believe that bad men
can ever be inspired to be good men.
There have been many cultures
that considered women, children, and community the primary value of human
existence because they are the primordial values of existence. God is an invented
value, abstract and otherworldly in the sense that unicorns and mermaids are
otherworldly. They are simply not a part of Earthy life in the way nature’s
creatures are. In addition, all the Abrahamic religions introduced a
demonization of women that did not exist among the ancient Greeks and Native
Americans. Those religions corrupted the cultures of the ancient Greeks and
Native Americans that respected women and by doing so protected women against
masculine aggression. Yes, the lack of respect leads to aggression toward women.
Luther Standing
Bear says, “The woman of the household had no ‘lord and master’ when it came to
deciding where she and her children were to live.... The furnishings of the
tipi home were all the handiwork of the women. Women and children were the
objects of care among the Lakotas.... A man’s family was his first thought” (Land of the Spotted Eagle 83 & 91).
About the treatment
of children Vernon Kinietz says about the Huron in The Indians of the Great Lakes: 1615-1760 that “Punishment of no
kind seems to have been used, the children growing up in complete liberty. This
condition and the resulting small show of respect for their parents shocked
Sagard [Gabriel, a missionary], Champlain, and others” (92).
The same is
illustrated in Deloria’s Waterlily.
So, what did Native American societies have and didn’t have that created a
culture in which women and children were safe from masculine predation (except during warfare), which is not the case for many so-called civilized
societies as indicated by both Top of the
Lake and 1883? First of all,
though Native American children’s showing “small respect for their parents”
does not mean they didn’t respect their parents and other members of the tribe.
It means that they were unruly as children often are. They learned to respect
(have admiration for) their parents and other members of the tribe by observing
them. This kind of relationship between parents and children is clearly
illustrated by independent-minded Elsa’s relationship with her parents and
other adults such as Shea Brennan and Thomas.
Second, Native American cultures did not encourage children to disrespect their parents and other adults, as Hollywood-dominated American culture has been doing for decades. On the other hand, American adults encouraged being disrespected as illustrated by white adults’ treatment of blacks in the South during the Civil Rights movement and by the idiocy of white politicians (Kennedy, Johnson, et al.) who sanctioned the Vietnam War, drafting 58,220 young American men of all colors to their deaths and killing a million or more Vietnamese men, women, and children. Here is an image of a Vietnamese child severely burned by napalm:
Native American
cultures were culturally and morally far more restrained toward other people
and nature than American culture has ever been. Rules of behavior came from the
culture itself and the people, not from an authoritarian book or authoritarian
males, such as Texas judge William Adams’ who alludes to the Bible as he
viciously beats his disabled 16-year-old daughter, Hallie. One reference was to
Paul’s Ephesians 6:1: “Children, obey your parents as in the Lord.” The judge
was simply following the advice of Proverbs 13:24: “Those who spare the rod of
discipline hate their children.” (The video is available online.)
This is an excellent example of how the Bible can be used to condone violence by transforming cruel and vicious acts into an expression of love. Abraham would have sacrificed his son Isaac out of love for God. And let’s not overlook the Bible’s sentencing to death homosexuals: “they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them”(Leviticus 20:13). Thus, it’s okay to kill homosexuals because God says it’s okay. And in Texas Adams did no wrong because “The Texas Penal Code states [with biblical consistency] that the use of non-deadly force against a child is justified if the person using force: Is the child's parent or stepparent,” etc. Native Americans were without the Judeo-Christian Bible that condemns women as inherently sinful and says that use of violence is acceptable if God gives permission as “he” gave LBJ and George W. Bush permission to go to war.
This is how religion leads do moral nihilism by having God-centered ethics overrule human-centered ethics. Of course, men are the ones who decide what are God's ethics. However, even if God “himself” condemned to death homosexuals doesn't mean the condemnation is ethical. God's flooding the world and destroying cities were immoral actions. When God is placed above human morality, morality becomes nihilistic because any action can be justified by claiming God condoned it—such as the extermination of pagans, members of other religions or no religion, and heretics like Jesus.
Masculine
aggression was still present but directed toward enemy tribes and animals that
needed to be killed for food. What was most importantly absent from Native
American tribes was a hate-filled deity that created enemies where none existed
before. Women are condemned from the very beginning of the Bible with the
condemnation and punishment of Eve—a negative view of women that that would
continue with all the Abrahamic religions, but truly reaching an apex with pinnacle
with Apostle Paul. This hated of women illustrated by the murder of pagan
philosopher Hypatia by a mob of Christian men. She was, according the Abrahamic
religions thrice damned: first as a pagan, second as a woman, and third as an
educated woman who was infinitely more intelligent (as a philosopher,
scientist, and pagan) than the men who murdered her.
Native Americans
had enemies, but no enemies created by an ideology. There was no condemnation of people as infidels or heretics for what they believed or did not believe. Ramsay MacMullen and Catherine Nixey tell us
in Christianizing the Roman Empire
and The Darkening Age: The Christian
Destruction of the Classical World, respectively, how Christian religious
ideology tore the empire apart. The titles are misleading. The conflict was
between Roman citizens, those who converted to the Christian religious ideology
and those who wanted to remain pagan until they were forced to either convert
or die.
Christianized Roman
pagans simply did what Jesus wanted them to do: “I have come to set a man
against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own
household” (Matthew 10:35-36). Family and tribal members turning against one
another was unheard of among the Native Americans. The Greek city states fought
one another but not over ideology. In her book The Greek Way Edith Hamilton says that in Greece there was no
dominating church or creed. She said religious persecution was so slight in
Greece that it would not have been considered had Socrates not been its last
victim (175 & 181). Ditto that for Native Americans. Another kudos for
Native Americans is that they possessed no slaves, whereas the Bible condones
slavery. Runaway slaves were adopted into Native American tribes. In 1883 Christian (I assume) Elsa becomes
betrothed to Sam, a Comanche, a pagan warrior.
I believe the best
of all possible worlds for women and children can be created from elements of
ancient Greek and Native American cultures—both pagan. One big obstacle is the popularity
of the religions that hate pagans, infidels, and heretics and condemn women as
inherent sirens of corruption. The origin of this notion is Eve’s so-called
corruption of her boyfriend Adam because she didn’t want to hang out with a dummy.
The ancient Greeks and Native Americans offer cultural elements out of which a
civilized society in which women and children are safe and respected can be
constructed. A society that doesn’t respect women and children and endangers
them is at best less than civilized, at worst barbaric.
There are two
obstacle that to creating a civilized society—the origin of both being
masculinity. The first are the masculine knuckle draggers that appear in both
series. The society itself may not be the problem but an abundance of men who
act as predators toward women and children. If a society falls under their
influence, it becomes criminalized beyond the salvation of good men. How should
such men be dealt with? Both Top of the
Lake and 1883 suggest
termination. According to Immanuel Kant’s foundational moral principle of autonomy, the lives of
people should not be interfered with unless
those people violate the principle—by aggressing women or children. If they do,
their moral right to autonomy is rescinded.
However, if the
obstacle is an ideology that defines the culture, then the civilizing process
encounters an insurmountable obstacle. The idiocy of George W. Bush’s nation
building project show showed that much. The problem here is that aggression
breeds aggression in its most destructive form—war. The U.S. has tended to use
war as a political tool to get what it wants. Wars consist of invaders and
defenders; the actions of the former are immoral and the actions of the latter
are moral. Simply illustrated: invading a home is immoral; defending one’s home
is moral. And, of course, the men who invade are immoral and the men who defend
are moral. Also, helping a neighbor to defend his home is moral in the Good
Samaritan sense (altruistic), as in the case of helping Ukraine defend itself
against invading Russians.
Thus, the best
responses to nations that are defined by inhumane ideologies do not include
aggression except to defend one’s own nation and other humane nations against
aggression. Having friends is essential to surviving in a world constantly
threatened by masculine aggression. The first response is to isolate evil nations. One
justification for this is moral—again Kant’s principle of autonomy. The other is
practical. Nations that are evil because they have succumbed to some form of
aggressive-oppressive masculinity must be tolerated not because they are good
but because interference in the form of aggression could very well end up being
evil.
The unfortunate
lesson here is that some evil nations must be tolerated as long as their evil
remains within the nation’s borders. Attempting to save the nation from itself
could very well result in a greater evil being committed by the so-called
liberating nation. However, a response that does not involve invasion and war
is isolation. Civilized nations should shun uncivilized nations as much as
possible. However, greed and humanitarian fanciful thinking often results in
benefiting thus empowering evil aggressive nations—such as Russia and China.
China hasn’t invaded Taiwan yet, but most likely will in the future because
that is what masculine aggression--unrestrained by morality—does. Thus, the
only reasonable and moral response to nations ruled by oppressive masculinity
is isolation and preparation, with the hope that change will come from within.
Which might be wishful thinking given aggressive masculinity seems as absolute
as gravity. It is interesting that both the Russian and Chinese revolutions
simply replaced one masculine authoritarian government with another. Ditto that
for the overthrow of the communist regime of the USSR. After the demise of
Stalin the communist regime seemed almost civilized compared to the mad man now
in control of the country.
In 1883 we watch Elsa struggle to live the
life she wants for herself against conventional demands represented by her
mother and her aunt, Claire Dutton. In part, the wide-open spaces (being away
from the restraints of social convention) not only allow her the freedom to realize her life as she wants but offer her options rooted in the organic world
of nature. Thus her self-realization has primordial depth that it would not
have in a society defined by an artificial ideology. To a certain degree that
goes as well for men. William Blake sums up the natural life contra the
artificial life in the poem “The School Boy”:
Like Elsa, the school boy finds nature sweet company.
Why? Because nature is his primordial origin and doesn’t impose artificial
restraints on his life. He wants to be in nature for the same reason people go
camping and hiking in nature—to get away from the structure society imposes on
its members. It is also a return to the primordial world, the mysterious and enchanting
Earth-world that gave birth to mountains, valleys, deserts, plains, rivers,
lakes, oceans, rain, clouds, wind, snow, and all the creatures we share Earth
with. Nature is our primordial home. In Top
of the Lake 12-year-old Tui finds safety in nature away from masculine
predators. It is also a place of freedom and openness rather than the
organized, confining space of a city or a school room. Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi shows the transition from the primordial natural space
and time to the artificially created space and time in which life becomes
externally regulated. According to Koyaanisqatsi the city is a
grid-like structure similar to a computer chip that totally organizes life.
In western movies
the open spaces of nature are associated with freedom. This mental and physical
space is celebrated by the scenes of Elsa riding her horse. The desire for
greater freedom is represented by the German immigrants in 1883. Of course, greater freedom comes with risks. Space and time
are rationally organized for the purposes of productivity and safety. Bridges
are built so rivers can be safely crossed. Outlaws seek to escape the law and
order associated with a civil society. Society is a process of using reason to
organize time and space and people so that they are more easily managed and less threatening.
But as Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi shows, unbridled
rationalization of space and time produces the technological city that can harm
people in other ways. A topic addressed by Robert Wright in his Time magazine article “20th
Century Blues.” The problem is illustrated in 1883 by the city of Fort Worth where Elsa almost gets raped. So it
seems the pastoral paradise of the story is ever elusive. And the town and
country divide has some relevance to feminism if one considers the city to be
the product of masculine reason seeking to control time and space whereas the
time and space of nature is considered feminine, occurring naturally. Watch Koyaanisqatsi with attention to reason’s
geometrical transformation of space and its quantitative compression of time.
In “The School Boy” the school house can represent the city, the teacher government and bureaucracy, the books and learning social conditioning or indoctrination in extreme cases. What the school boy wants is what Elsa briefly achieves and would have had for a lifetime had violent masculinity not taken her life. Returning to Elsa’s simple wisdom about eudaimonia or the good life: Being the in world and love are all that are needed.
In his The Spirit of Modern Philosophy Josiah Royce says about Schopenhauer that his “pessimism is actually expressive of a very deep insight into life” (229). Schopenhauer’s view of reality is that it is the product of an irrational cosmic Will that produced and infuses everything in the universe. He was inspired by Kant’s noumenon, the ultimate reality behind the phenomenal world that we live in. It is believed that ultimate reality is nothing like the reality of time and space that people live in that seems so rational in its design—at least as seen on Earth before the age of telescopes.
Kant’s philosophy
suggested that ultimate reality (the noumenon) was completely alien—beyond our
comprehension, more so than the Christian God, which is a ghostly humanoid, but because the human mind is
not designed to comprehend absolute chaos or absolute irrationality. Kant’s
philosophy along with everyday experience caused Schopenhauer to develop his pessimistic philosophy that understands the world we live in to be the product of blind,
irrational Will. In Royce’s words, it is a terrifying view: “that life is
through and through tragic and evil.” Elsa discovers that as we should have by
now. And both Schopenhauer and Royce didn’t believe that the tragic truth
should be annulled by creating an alternate divine reality that explains the
imperfections of life as the result of a mischievous waif in the Garden of Eden. And the solution to Schopenhauer’s problem, says Royce, “surely cannot lie in any
romantic dream of a pure and innocent world far off somewhere, in the future,
in heaven or the isles of the blessed” (232). That is the reality Elsa
encounters and must come to grips with.
Royce’s response to Schopenhauer’s pessimism and the reality that inspired it is relevant to masculine feminism—though no feminist himself: “I think that the best man is the one who can see the truth of pessimism, can absorb and transcend that truth, and can be nevertheless an optimist, not by virtue of his failure to recognize the evil of life, but by virtue of his readiness to take part in the the struggle against this evil.... If these men are brave men, their sense of the evil that hinders our human life will some day arouse them to fight this evil in dead earnest...” (231). Important here is the role that Royce sets out for men, illustrated in 1883. The series makes pretty clear that evil is an inherent problem that humans must face. This evil is natural, not supernatural. If it were supernatural in the form of Satan and his bad boys, then why would God allow it, as he allowed Eve to be conned by wily Satan? Why does God allow bad boy Satan to exist? Being invincible to pain, injury, and death, why doesn’t “he” do what good men do who are not invincible to pain, injury, and death—fight evil? The answer is actually pretty simple. God is an invented ghost in the machine.
The good brave men
that are needed are men like the good men in 1883. There are, however, two types of evil. The first is natural evil
that comes in endless forms from nature, which is as Galileo and Schopenhauer
reveal and Elsa discovers, far from perfect. Natural evil is “anything that causes
injury, anything that harms or is likely to harm.” But this evil is not immoral
or wicked because it lacks the intent to harm. That describes the other form of
evil—men who knowingly seek to cause harm. Such men are the greatest and most
disgusting threat to humanity. In a sense, their evil is natural because it is
rooted in their biological DNA, to which they choose to be slaves. That DNA
exists in good men as well, but they choose not to live as slaves of their DNA
but as Good Samaritans, that is, they choose to liberate themselves from their
bestial tendencies by choosing to live morally. Thus, morality—in this sense—is
a form of freedom.
Second,
Schopenhauer's solution to counteract the cosmic Will was for humanity to adopt
an attitude of resignation and passivity. He got the idea from the Orient—Hinduism
and Buddhism. Both are life-denying religions that focus on the afterlife. Essentially, it is the solution of the Lotus-Eaters in Homer’s Odyssey or Timothy Leary’s solution “drop
out and tune in with drugs” adopted by hippies. A person waves the white flag to
life by dropping out. Shakespeare puts the choice this way: “To be or not to
be? Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing
end them…” (act 3, scene 1 Hamlet).
To passively suffer the slings and arrows of life is Schopenhauer’s selfish,
ignoble choice. “To take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end
them” is Royce’s choice and the choice of the heroes of Top of the Lake and 1883.
For Schopenhauer
there was also losing oneself in the contemplation of art. Such an idea might
seem strange until one experiences the beauties of Paris—its woods and parks,
architecture and museums, in particular the Musée d'Orsay. As with the ancient
Greeks, the French know the transporting power of art, so did Schopenhauer. Yet
there is a sadness that comes with experiencing great works of art produced by
humanity. It comes not from knowing the imperfections of the world of nature
but knowing the imperfections of men. Just to think, Paris was almost destroyed
during World War II. How ironic that Paris was spared destruction by a Nazi—Dietrich
von Choltitz, “Saviour of Paris.” “Hitler did not completely give up on the
destruction, with the Luftwaffe conducting an incendiary bombing raid on August
26, and V2 rockets fired from Belgium, causing extensive damage” (“Dietrich von
Choltitz,” Wikipedia). And today Vladimir
Putin has threaten to send nuclear warheads to Paris and London, delivered by
his favorite new missile “Satan II.” The name is appropriate for Putin
as well. It seems that if evil men acquire enough destructive technological
power not even good men can prevent them from destroying civilization. I think
this is resonated in the killing of Elsa. Who’s the pessimist now!
Elsa also learns
the dark side of love in an imperfect world. Just as love pulls her out of her
depressing pessimism her beloved cowboy is murdered. From such a loss one
cannot completely recover. This is most clearly illustrated by Shea and her aunt
Claire Dutton. The loss of her cowboy lover Ennis create a hole in her life that
cannot be filled, just as it could not for Shea. That loss makes Shea a harsh
overseer, not out of bitterness but out of concern for others. Neither that
concern nor Shea’s altruism heals the wound caused by the deaths of his wife
and daughter. The role of Good Samaritan doesn’t give him a new life but only
purpose enough to continue to live, which was not the case for Claire.
Elsa finds love
again and in that love reason enough to continue living. However, she is no
longer the optimistic girl who began the journey. In this sense, the story is a
bildungsroman, a growing up or “coming of age” story. Elsa begins the story as
a child and ends as an adult having suffered disappointment and loss. Yet, her
journey is also shared by the audience who wants everything to work out for
Elsa and want a happy ending. But the audience, like Elsa, has to face the fact
that reality is indifferent to human expectations. With the loss of Elsa the
story shifts from being a bildungsroman to a tragedy. The ancient Greeks were
the first to understand that life is a glorious yet tragic affair. They
believed correctly that humans bring tragedy upon themselves unnecessarily by acting
unwisely. That type of tragedy exists in 1883.
But the tragic view of Taylor Sheridan’s 1883
goes beyond that of the generally optimistic Greeks who believed the world was perfect but humans weren’t. Let’s call it an
existential tragedy. Tragedy that is unavoidable in an imperfect world.
Judeo-Christianity
attempts to eliminate tragedy from life with a deus ex machina happy ending in a postmortem life. By doing so,
cheats Elsa’s death of its tragedy—with such platitudes as “She’s with Jesus
now.” No, she is simply gone. The loss of her life is absolute. There is no
getting around it except in memory—as Shea does. However, because she was cut
down in the youth of her life, memory of her bring more pain than joy. Her
death resonates though the entire story. That is the poignancy of 1883 and is why I will watch the series
only once. Yet, that is the purpose of 1883.
It is not only a return to the western but also a return to reality.
He is in deep despair at the loss of his wife. In his pursuit of power he lost that which he loved most. There are two important ontological observations in the passage. The first is that dusty death awaits all things. The Second law of thermodynamics says the same. Second, the all—the Universe—is a tale told by an idiot of sorts. The meaning is that it has no grand purpose. Thus, in the great scheme of things the Universe is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing. It is without purpose. As physicist Carlo Rovelli puts it in his book Reality is not What It Seems, “There is no finality, no purpose, in this endless dance of atoms. We, just like the rest of the natural world, are one of many products of this infinite dance” (9). The irony here is that he is stating the view of philosopher-scientist Democritus who revealed twenty-three centuries ago the truth of human condition in a world made up of atoms. It’s not surprising that he was known as the “laughing philosopher.”
The life of the ancient Greeks and Native Americans were equally demanding and hazardous or more so. And their mythologies don’t make them the purpose of the universe. Yet, both celebrated joyfully living in the Earth-world that did not celebrate them.
Yes, that is also the ontology of 1883. However, what we also learn from Elsa is that the ontological condition that humans are thrown into does not preclude humans giving it and their existence meaning. It is a hard world, but it is also beautiful and full of potential meaning that make one’s brief existence meaningful. That is summed up in Elsa’s beauty and loving nature. Beauty and love are absolute values that can give absolute meaning to life—as they do to Elsa and to those who know her. Her role in the film is to represent all that is good and meaningful in life. And instead of complaining that life is cruel and imperfect and leads only to death, she embraces the fullness of life—the good and the bad. And, as Shea notes, she lives fully during the brief time of her life.
Kant said that “God
is a useful fiction developed by the human mind” (Will & Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization: Rousseau and Revolution 550).Yes, the fiction has had many
uses such as serving the wills to power of such men as Constantine I and
justifying men lording over women. It also has served as a palliative for what
Gilbert Murray calls in his Five Stages
of Greek Religion “the failure of nerve”—to face reality. So an artificial reality—a religious security
blanket—was created in which death need not be final. Elsa—like Schopenhauer—faces
reality as it is. She doesn’t allow grief, sadness, and disappointment to cause
her to lose her nerve.
Religion not only
cheats life of the tragedy but of its value. First of all, the invention of God
demotes the value of the material world—our world, the Earth world—the one we actually
live in, the world that sustains and entertains us and gives our lives concrete
purpose. The invention of God created an eclipse that cast a shadow over the
lifeworld because the invented God logically becomes the more important than
the world “he” supposedly created and manages. But Elsa chooses to live in the
realm of red-pill reality rather than in a blue-pill make-believe made from
words. She, like the school boy, prefers to be outdoors in nature surrounded by
mountains, fields, and forests. The loss of Elsa’s life is an absolute loss—as
seen in the faces of her mother and father and her friends. But the absolute
loss of her death reveals the absolute value of her life. Death is a more
honest teacher than a Christian preacher. It says value life, value existing in a world
that is as magnificent as it is terrifying. Death and her own heart are Elsa’s
teachers. She learns to appreciate life in the here and now while she can.
Without God life becomes an adventure. With God it becomes a tall tale with a predetermined end told by men who knew nothing about life because they lived in the house of religious myth, a house made of words without windows. Nuns are women who live according to the myth and escape from the world by confining themselves in convents. The houses are churches, mosques, and synagogues. But like the school-boy confined in a school house, Elsa prefers to live in the real world in spite of its dangers because she wants to live freely and truthfully. And she finds the real world to be a glorious adventure that reveals the multiplicity of its reality to the senses, the windows that open upon the world, rather than in words and the imagination.
The Bell Curve of Masculinity
Freud would characterize masculine aggression as a primary instinct of the most primitive part of the human personality—the id. It is an evolutionary weapon that evolved to protect and feed humans for most of humanity’s existence. It became encoded in the genetic makeup of men. A bell curve would categorize some men as violently aggressive, some not aggressive, and most falling in the middle range. Carl Jung would characterize the situation in terms of the anima (subconscious feminine psychological qualities) and the animus (subconscious masculine psychological qualities). Men and women possess both to varying degrees. Important here is that aggression in men seems to be a deadly absolute like gravity.
The
Bell Curve of Femininity
In the DNA bell curve of women,
aggressive women are a minority—though abuse and culture can cause women to act
inconsistent with the genetic tendencies. The German philosopher Martin
Heidegger became a Nazi because doing so served his will to power ambition. A philosopher
who would uncritically become a Nazi is a sham philosopher. Philosophy is
essentially a discipline of skepticism that is supposed to prevent thinkers
from succumbing to nonsensical claims (illogical, non-empirical), especially
those of religious and secular ideologies. In addition, philosophical ethics
would be especially critical of such claims when they encourage violence toward
others. However, most shocking is that his wife Elfriede also became an avid
Nazi. By doing so, she acted contrary to the genetic tendencies of women. She
became a Nazi before her husband did and remained a Nazi longer than he did. Rüdiger Safranski says in his biography of
Heidegger, Martin Heidegger: Between Good
and Evil, that as a party activist, she brutally mistreated women, having “no
scruples in ‘sending sick and pregnant women to dig entrenchments’” (387).
Judaism’s
Demonization of the Feminine and Deification of Masculine
Generally, the psychology of
women can be characterized as caring, compassionate, kind, and altruistic. The
Old Testament is a celebration of and testament to masculine aggression, but
occasionally the qualities of the female shine through, even at the very
beginning. The female Eve discovers a tasty brain-boosting fruit and the first
thing she does is share it with her boyfriend Adam. And aggressive masculinity
also appears in the first book of the Old Testament in God, aka Yahweh. The
most interesting thing about Yahweh is that “he” is pure aggressive masculinity.
In Genesis “he” punishes all of humanity with suffering and death because of
the behavior of the two youngsters who gave birth to the human species and
humanity’s first human, male murderer Cain—with whom God sided with after
Cain murdered his brother Abel.
Yahweh also causes an extinction event with a flood. "He" is supposed to be forgiven because "he" saved a boatload of humans and other creatures, but all the drowned humans and other creatures remained dead. "He" destroys cities full of people "he" dislikes (and children are unable to avoid the holocaust), and, as the rest of the Old Testament tells us, "he" found all of humanity except for his chosen people to be an abomination. And "he" often found them to be abominable as well. Later on, "he" encourages his people to carry out his wrath against the people "he" hates (pagan nature worshipers) by exterminating them and destroying and looting their cities. That looks a lot like what Putin is doing today. Even gentle Jesus gives into masculine aggression:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).
So,
if one wants to investigate masculine aggression, the Bible is a good place to
begin. Generally, the Old Testament doesn’t show much respect for women while
often praising the despicable behavior of the men—even the so-called great
heroes such as King David who had a loyal soldier Uriah killed in order to take
Uriah’s wife Bathsheba as his eighth wife. David’s son King Solomon with
a harem that included 700
wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3) makes Hugh Hefner look like an amateur.
Solomon wasn’t wise, just a dirty old female-molesting man. See Giovanni
Venanzi‘s painting King Solomon being led astray
into idolatry in his old age by his wives (1668) and note who gets the blame. Of course,
his real crime isn’t idolatry but unbridled lust that leads to the reification and subordination of women.
Really,
how many of those wives and concubines wanted to be part of his harem?
Question: Were the wives and concubines of David and Solomon in reality sex
slaves? King David’s treatment of ten concubines suggest the answer is yes: “When
David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had
left to take care of the palace [sex toys and maids] and put them in a house
under guard.... They were kept in confinement till the day of their death,
living as widows” (2 Samuel 20:3). And Christians believes Jesus is ennobled by
being a descendant of the line of David forever ruling in righteousness. David
was hardly a righteous man, in reality the opposite.
Ruth: The Embodiment of
Feminine Goodness
The Book of Ruth is a notable exception to the endless descriptions of the disgusting behavior of men in the Old Testament. Loving, devoted, good-girl Ruth is a big surprise in a very big book filled with hateful, aggressive, sex-obsessed, and often evil men like King David and his sex-addicted son. Ruth's altruism serves as a foil to the Old Testament’s central theme of predation. In story Ruth and Orpah of Moab had married two sons of Elimelech and Naomi. After the husbands of all three women die, Naomi urges her daughters-in-law to return to their families. Orpah does so, but Ruth will not abandon her mother-in-law, saying quite movingly, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried” (1:16-17). It’s significant that Naomi advises that her daughters-in-law return to their families. That the role of family in life is essential was considered axiomatic by ancient cultures. The importance of family in Native American cultures is beautifully described in Ella Cara Deloria’s Waterlily, which explores family life among Dakota (Sioux) Indians.
Ruth represents pure
selflessness. She isn’t worried about death but about her mother-in-law Naomi.
The painting Naomi with her
Daughters-in-Law by Henry Nelson O'Neil (1817-80) captures feminine love
and beauty. It’s noteworthy that the story and the painting illustrates that
life has profound meaning without God. The film 1883 illustrates that as well. Raphael’s painting Madonna in the Meadow shows that—unlike
God—women, children, and nature are tangible sources of meaning that inspire
love and appreciation. God exists only in words, and those words have had a
negative effect on how people treat one another.
In
addition, Ruth’s feminine altruistic, selfless human-centered ethics—motivated
by love—are superior to Yahweh’s hate-filled, God-centered ethics. I will add
at this point the altruistic ethics of the Good Samaritan. His ethical
motivation isn’t love but duty (but maybe love as well). Doing one’s duty is a
great virtue as long as it is altruistic—helping creatures vulnerable to
suffering. Good Samaritan altruism is also often illustrated in 1883. In the film we see that family has
a humanizing effect on men. It doesn’t feminize them so much as it gives their
lives a raison d'etre that is
motivated not just by duty but also by love.
Altruism in 1883
James
Dillard Dutton’s altruism is motivated primarily by his love for his family,
yet this love widens over time to include others. James is an important male
character because he is an instinctive killer. Bazin says,
“If it is to be effective, this justice must be dispensed by men who are just
as strong and just as daring as the criminals” (146). James is certainly that, but his family life repurposed his masculine killer
tendency to protect others. Shea Brennan seems primarily motivated by duty,
which he sees as convincing others to act prudently and wisely and in a
disciplined manner because not doing so results in tragedy, which it often does
in the story. The consequences of not acting prudently are illustrated early
the in the series. James shoots dead a drunk man who attempts to rape his
daughter (being drunk is no excuse for rape) and by Claire Dutton’s throwing
rocks at dangerous men with guns. Shea Brennan often expresses too harshly his
demands for sensible, disciplined behavior in part because he is a former
military officer, and the settlers are ordinary people, not disciplined
soldiers, as his friend Thomas, a former soldier and slave, has to remind him.
However, his concern for others seems to be rooted his love of his wife and
daughter. He fears that the settlers’ lack of discipline will bring disaster
upon them, and it does. However, duty is
not an inherent good: duty to good is good; duty to evil is evil.
A Good Woman Isn’t Hard Find
In
my long life I have met many good men and a few bad men, some capable of evil
behavior. I have also met many women—family members, colleagues, friends,
lovers, and acquaintances. Each was, in her own way, beautiful. Yes, as 1883 illustrates with Claire Dutton some
women can be meanspirited, angry, and verbally abusive. However, Claire’s
mean-spiritedness most likely resulted from having lost six children and
apparently a husband. Endless hardships and disappointments can make the best
of people angry and spiteful. I’m arguing that Claire’s negativity didn’t come
naturally but as a result of having lived a life of hard knocks and
disappointment. When a group of masculine thugs ride into camp she unwisely
throws rocks at the leader causing the men’s barely repressed masculine aggression
to flare up. The men murder a number of settlers including Claire’s daughter. Still,
as the series indicates with other women, Claire’s negative thinking and
behavior are an aberration. The other women in the series are kind, caring, and
compassionate.
What
I am claiming is that 1883 is an
example of masculine feminism, a feminist perspective expressed by a man. This
is more than moderate philosophical-political feminism because it is an
expression of love—if you will—for women. The writer of the series is Taylor
Sheridan, and given its feminist (feminine is a more precise word) themes I
believe it can be considered an example of masculine feminism. He is married to
Nicole Muirbrook and she might have been an influence on his thinking about
women. Before 1883 he showed
masculine feminism in his movie Wind
River, which depicts the aggressive behavior of evil men toward a Native
American woman and the role of the masculine hero to seek justice.
Though
Sheridan returned to the traditional western, he did so with greater emphasis
on the significance of the female presence. The traditional western portrays
the conflict between good men and evil men in which women play a passive though
essential symbolic role (Stagecoach, Shane, and My Darling Clementine) representing love, marriage, family, school,
and church—masculinity's raison d'être.
Nevertheless, they receive greater value than Mary does in the New Testament. Mary—the
so-called mother of God—is a minor character in the New Testament. She is
mentioned by name twelve times in the Gospel of Luke, five times in the Gospel
of Matthew, once in the Gospel of Mark, and once in the Book of Acts. Judaism
and Christianity played a dominant role in marginalizing the value of women in society.
In a sense, Sheridan returns to the valuation of women by pre-Christian
societies such as that of Native Americans and the ancient Greeks.
The Feminine Inspiration for
1883
It
is said that Isabel May was Sheridan’s inspiration for 1883, an inspiration that recalls Dante being inspired by Beatrice
to write the Divine Comedy. (See the
painting Dante and Beatrice by the
artist Henry Holiday dated 1883.) The Divine
Comedy is a journey among the dead. Entering into the realm of the dead is
the central theme of Judeo-Christianity—not life. Elsa Dutton is the central
figure of 1883. Hers is a journey
into what she represents—life—in all its complexity, beauty, enchantment, possibilities,
successes, failures, euphoric moments, and ultimate tragedy, not death, though
death is ever present.
The Haunting Presence of Death
and the Glory of Life
Contrary
to what Christianity would have us believe, death is nothing to look forward to. It is the end of all that is good,
sublime, and wonderful—all bundled in the character Elsa Dutton. Unfortunately,
that is also why Elsa must die—to remind us to appreciate (and protect) life
while we are alive. Elsa’s role in 1883
similar to the female in Eugène Delacroix’s painting Liberty Leading the People. However, what Elsa represents is not
leadership or liberty (yes a little of the latter for women) but the raison d'être for human existence,
especially for masculinity. She represents glorious femininity. She is
beautiful in the way nature is beautiful. Her beauty is organic, not
artificial. She inspires love and returns love—as a lover but also as a child
and friend. Her loss as a lover, child, and friend is terrible. The film is
designed in such a way as to make her loss unsettling to the viewer. Elsa’s
story deeply depressed my wife who is a mother of a daughter and granddaughter.
Elsa’s Haunting Death
The
death of Elsa reminds one of the Marabar cave incident in Forster’s A Passage to India. Poor Mrs. Moore hears that terrifying
echo: bou-oum ou-boum. Everything exists, yet nothing has absolute value. All
had emerged from a dunghill created by the Big Bang. She wanted there to be
more. Poor little talkative Christianity, she thought. In that echo, as in
Elsa’s death and the death of her beloved cowboy, humanity is stripped of its
guise of transcendent, eternal value. Her death embodied perhaps the most
painful truth of human existence: that ultimately nothing lasts and nothing
matters in the great cosmic scheme of things. (This is the central theme of literary naturalism,
which 1883 echoes.) That is the hard
lesson Elsa learns. With her death it becomes a tragic lesson for the viewer as
well. Yes, she has loved and valued, but she was denied fulfilling her love and
self-realization. And it was not only her pain. Her death shakes to the core of
the being those who survive her. At her death, Shea Brennan attempts some
consoling words—true and wise—yet they cannot bring Elsa back nor fill the
terrible emptiness caused by her absence.
There
is no consolation except perhaps that of having known her. It is a loss that
was experienced by Shea when he lost his wife Helen and daughter to smallpox. As accustomed
as he is to loss, he too is traumatized by Elsa’s death. The film reminds us
that loss is a universal, inescapable part of the human condition—of everything
really. To express this aspect of the human condition the ancient Greeks invented
tragedy, which is essentially what 1883
is. As the film shows, there is no escaping the tragic side of existence. It
comes to everything. And thankfully Sheridan
doesn’t try to soften tragedy with religion. There is in the film no indication
that the dead are on their way to a glorious afterlife. They are buried in the
dirt, to which they will return; then they will be forgotten once the
generations that knew them are also gone.
Death
is not evil. Men who cause unnecessary death are evil. That is the hardest
lesson Elsa has to learn. Death is not evil because it is the very nature of
reality that everything that exists must come to an end. The stuff that makes existence
possible is unable to preserve that which it creates or even itself. Physics
tells us that the primordial stuff out of which the cosmos and its inhabitants
are made will deteriorate and dissolved into nothingness. Democritus believed
his atoms were forever. They’re not. The word “atom” means cannot be cut, but
they can be cut and are by atom colliders. Thus they, like everything else, are
composites that disintegrates and disappear. Even our magnificent
planet—Earth—will be killed, ironically by that sustainer of life the Sun.
Unlike Christianity, the Greeks
Loved Femininity
Like
Taylor Sheridan, ancient Greek civilization was one that was very much inspired
by women. Their art, in particular their pottery and sculpture, along with
their numerous goddesses testify to their love of the feminine. Homer’s Iliad is about a war fought over a
woman. And his Odyssey is about the
journey of one of the war’s heroes, Odysseus, who seeks to return home to his
wife the faithful Penelope, who is being assaulted by mischievous suitors.
During his journey he encounters notable females such as Helen, Nausicaa, and Circe.
Of the greatest importance is that for the Greeks women were to be celebrated, not
condemned, as they are by Judaism and Christianity.
According to those religions, a single woman—a girl really—was the cause of all of humanity’s problems—a female Pandora’s Box. In the New Testament Jesus spends a good deal of his time protecting women from abusive Pharisees. The Pharisee who was the most hateful of all toward women was Apostle Paul. He never mentions Mary in his letters. In addition, he was a hater of the flesh, which he considered inherently sinful. He associated women most closely with sinful flesh:
“Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want” (Gal 5:16-17).
“If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (Gal 6:8).
Like the invention of God, the invention of the spirit demoted the material Earth-world. All matter is despicable flesh to spirit worshipers like Paul. Spirit is pure no-thing. Actually, however, sowing the flesh produces children, not corruption. But Paul had little use for children. All he can say about them is, “Children, obey your parents as in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1).
He also tells slaves to obey their masters: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). American slaveholders would use the passage to justify slavery. And, of course, he tells women to obey their husbands: “Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord. The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church people” (Ephesians 5:22-23). Husbands are the lords of the family and women are their vassals. What is clear here is how Judeo-Christianity is used to religiously justify masculinity’s oppression and exploitation of others.
For the Abrahamic religions, rooted in Judaism, obedience is everything. Whereas in 1883 freedom and children are celebrated. The immigrants seek to escape the oppression of their homeland and Thomas is a former slave. Elsa’s father encourages freedom rather than discipline. Her mother is more of a disciplinarian but her motivation isn’t loyalty to God but to Elsa’s welfare. Jesus wasn’t much better than Paul. He says,
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:14-16)
Again
it’s all about God, not the children themselves—who are an inherent value
associated with the female. His message is twofold: (1) do not hinder the children
from embracing my religious ideology, and (2) adults accept my religious
ideology as obedient children. There is no ideology—religious or secular in 1883. The bountifulness of life is all
you get, and it is more than enough to people like Elsa who experience life with
appreciative awareness. And children are one of the primordial values of life
as Elsa and her brother John Dutton illustrate.
Artists—not God-centered religious ideologues—reveal most movingly the importance of women and children. Let’s begin with Raphael Madonna of the Meadow: mother, children, and nature are all that really matter in this painting. All the religion gets is a stick in the shape of a crucifix:
Better yet, Edward Henry Potthast’s beach scenes of women and children and
dads. Notably Happy Days, late
1890s. God isn’t needed for life to be enchanting. That is the message and
insight we get from Raphael, Potthast, and Sheridan. What Sheridan adds is that
that which enchants life must be protected, not just celebrated, because it is constantly
threatened.
In Romans (8:3–4), Paul says, “For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Thus, Jesus was born of the sinful flesh of Mary, but conception was miraculous—with God—in the role of dirty old man—impregnating Mary:
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.” But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus....” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.... Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:26-38)
Clearly,
Mary isn't thrilled about being impregnated by God. (The idea of a god impregnating a human woman was probably adopted from Greek mythology that has Father Zeus impregnated a number of human females, including Alcmene, Antiope, Callisto, Danae, Europa, and Lamia.) This incident was repeated
endlessly by kings/lords to servant girls, and they could use the biblical passage to
justify their sexual aggression. Mary does her duty. She is treated as a tool
and must behave as one. Compare this depiction of women as the servants of men,
angels, and God with the freedom allowed Elsa to live her life as she sees
fit—including giving herself to a cowboy and a Comanche warrior—and to ride,
shoot, and dress as men do. The values expressed in 1883 are human-centered rather than God-centered, i.e. masculinity-centered.
Apostle
Paul is disgusted by the fact that Jesus came into the world via female flesh
and worse had to live in the flesh. Paul says, “For Adam was formed first, then
Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived;
it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (1 Timothy 2:13–14).
Stupid women, they ruin everything! That is why he says, “As in all the
congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If
they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at
home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians
14:33–35). The message to women is STFU! And it should not be overlooked that Judaism and Christianity are
the products of the masculine mind.
The Ancient Greeks offered a Contrary
Attitude toward Women
Unlike the Jews, the ancient Greeks valued women for themselves because the Greeks believed women had intrinsic value. Appreciation and understanding of women were absent among the Jews, for whom women had only conditional utilitarian value, as the treatment of Mary illustrates as well has Eve having been created as a helpmate—not a lover—for Adam (Genesis 2:18). Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras, Epicurus, and Plato accepted women as students of equal merit. Plato considered women as equals and was in the process of liberating women as guardians of the state or philosopher-kings. What might the world have been like had nations been ruled by women? Marge Piercy explores that question in her novel Woman on the Edge of Time. Here is what Plato says via Socrates speaking with Polemarchus and Adeimantus in The Republic:
This
is a lesson that Native Americans learned from nature. Among lions and bears
the female is quite impressive. Ancient Greek society was defined by the heroic
idea. It was a warring culture; thus the participation of women in public
affairs was nonexistent except for festivals and religion. But these were
essentially practical restrictions determined by the conditions of life.
However, women having a subordinate role in public/political affairs did not mean
they were looked down upon as being inferior to men. Their value was equal to
that of men. As David’s painting reveals—women, children, and the home was what
the warriors defended. This is summed up in Hector’s farewell words to his wife
Andromache and son Astyanax. The Greeks have invaded Troy and Hector must
defend the city, though his wife does not want him to leave her and his son:
And
this from the heroic age of Homer (8th century BC) when all Greek
men were warriors and war was a common occurrence. The lack of progress toward
retiring war as a pastime over a period of twenty-eight centuries is both
amazing and disheartening. Homer’s poem and the myth of the Trojan War
celebrate brave warriors, not so much war itself. And archaeologist Heinrich
Schliemann has shown that the war was not necessarily fiction. His discovery of
Troy revealed the city was destroyed numerous times. In any case, the above
lines illustrate a Greek warrior’s love for his wife and son—28 centuries ago! He is
a good man fighting evil men who have invaded his city. He is the kind of man Top of the Lake overlooks. Without good
men like Hektor there would be no hope for human society.
Two
points need to be made here. First, we see sadness expressed in response to a
father and husband having to join the fight to save his city. However, there is
no pessimistic gnashing of teeth and whining about how evil life is. No failure
of nerve or concluding life is not worth living. Clearly, Hektor believed it
was worth living and even dying for. That failure of nerve will come much later
during the Hellenistic era that precedes the arrival of Jesus and his offer of
a better eternal life in the postmortem. This failure of nerve was based on
history and occurred among common folks who are feeling powerless against historical
reality.
The sentiment is expressed wonderfully ironically in the Old Testament’s Ecclesiastes. Which is interesting for two reasons. First, it strongly suggests that humans can’t rely on God’s help. That book expresses a theological pessimism and historical condition that sets the stage for the coming of Jesus with his reassurance to ordinary folks (the have-nots) that God has not given up on them. Ecclesiastes expresses a pessimistic sentiment in response to evil men thriving in society while good people suffer and with no help from God. The way I see it the problem is an absence of God and heroes. In 1883 masculine heroes (and a few heroines) pick up the slack caused by God's absence. Second, the preacher doesn’t give up on life or allow his pessimism to cause a failure of nerve. His advice is as follows. Okay, God isn’t going to do anything about evil men, but that is no reason not to enjoy life as best as one can:
Go,
eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God
has already approved what you do. Always be clothed in white, and always anoint
your head with oil. Enjoy life with your
wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has
given you under the sun.
This attitude to make the most of life because life offers a cornucopia of meaningful experiences (big and small) in spite of the evil caused by evil men is very much Elsa’s philosophy.
During the time of Ecclesiastes, the Hellenistic era, the Greeks were also addressing a loss of confidence that leads to a hopeless pessimism that can result in a failure of nerve, as occurs to Odysseus crew who then become lotus eating drug addicts who give up on life. The two most notable schools were the Stoics and the Epicureans. They were early forms of psychotherapy. Each used reason to find how to live a good (happy) life in an imperfect world. However, their rational approach (similar to Shea’s in 1883) couldn’t compete with the pie-in-the-sky fantasy of Christianity.
Most impressive is Euripides (480–406 BC) philosophical approach to life. He wasn’t a philosopher but an artist, a tragedian. No Greek understood the paradox of war better than Homer, but war sickened the wise and sensitive Euripides. It was a melancholy topic for him for two reasons. His love and appreciation of women, in spite of two failed marriages, was the first. He wrote many tragedies concerning women, including tragedies about women who suffered as a result of the Trojan War: Andromache, Hecuba, The Trojan Women and Iphigenia in Tauris. Second, war seemed unavoidable, which apparently it is. Here is what Werner Jaeger says in Paideia: The Ideal of Greek Culture about Euripides’ play The Phoenicians Women: Euripides “portrays most movingly and tragically the daemonic urge to power which rules all masterful men” (vol 1, 351). Jaeger’s views were most likely influenced by his times. He was a German scholar whose anti-Nazi views caused Nazi academics to sharply attack him. He emigrated to the United States because he was unhappy with the rise of Nazism (“Jaeger,” Wikipedia). He wrote Paideia during World War II.
Euripides
wrote four centuries before Jesus and really to no effect; otherwise, there
would have been no World Wars or Vietnam War or Iraq War or the war in Ukraine.
Euripides represented reason thus questioned the irrational thinking of
religion and unrestrained nationalism. Of course, Jesus’ religion eclipsed the
light of reason of the Greeks. Moral reason, in particular, still remains eclipsed by the shadow of unreason, as the war in Ukraine illustrates. And by the way, in
reference to the passage from Homer’s Iliad
neither Hektor, his wife Andromache nor his son Astyanax survive. Hektor is
slain by Achilles, and in Euripides’s The
Trojan Women Astyanax is thrown from the city’s walls by Neoptolemus who
then takes Andromache as a concubine. The lesson here is sometimes good men
can’t prevent harm done by evil men. As invaders the Greeks—like the Russians
today—are evil; as defenders of Troy and its occupants—like the Ukrainians
defending their homeland—are good men (along with some women fighters). One can
only hope that the Ukrainians fair better than the Trojans did. What is the
relevance of all this to 1883? All
the efforts of good men could not save Elsa. The lessons are evil men are not
to be underestimated, and to the misandric feminists don’t denigrate women’s
only salvation: good men.
Twenty centuries later the Second Coming hadn’t occurred, so Arthur Schopenhauer showed up with his cosmic pessimism and says it’s time to take the red pill. That is the second failure of nerve is related more to ontology than to history. In other words, pervasive evil and God’s no-show indicates indicate that the ultimate reality of the cosmos isn’t God but an irrational will that drives everything. I would add that this so-called drive can be very creative (it produced Earth and Elsa) but also overwhelmingly destructive especially when channeled through evil men.
Men, Wars, and the Butterfly
Effect
The Trojan War was started by one foolish man, Paris, son of the Trojan king, who runs off Troy with Helen, the wife of the Greek king Menelaus. Playboy Paris’ only excuse is that Helen was irresistible. Jacques-Louis David painted the two lovebirds:
His
action would result in a ten year war that would destroy his people. I don’t
consider Paris an evil man. He acted out of love and stupidity and had no idea
that his actions would have a butterfly effect, which is according to chaos
theory a minute phenomenon in a complex system having large effects elsewhere.
Individual foolish and/or evil men have triggered the butterfly effect
throughout history with catastrophic effects, most destructively war.
World War I was caused by the actions of a single man with the help of demented emperor of Austria Franz Joseph I. Hitler, more evil than stupid, flapped his diabolical wings and cause World War II. After that war was over the United States had an opportunity to become a Shining City on a Hill to the world had it stuck with civil rights, and other beneficial social programs; instead a single politician bloated with stupidity and hubris—LBJ—flapped is demonic wings and kicked off the Vietnam War, which did great harm to Vietnam but Vietnam recovered. America didn’t.
The war divided nation and put it on a path
of self-loathing and self-destruction. And then with God’s permission Gorge W.
Bush flapped his wings of lies and invaded Iraq, insuring that America would
never recover from its decline. And most recently narcissistic, diabolical Putin sent
his his army of sadists into Ukraine. Whereas politicians like of LBJ, Bush, and Putin wreck nations, flapping their wings Apostle Paul and Constantine I wrecked Western civilization—which was
not rooted in Judaism, a religion imported from the East—Egypt—but in Greek culture.
Stupid and/or evil individual men with armies have been to humanity juggernauts
horror, carnage, and destruction. The bubonic pandemic of the 14th
century wasn’t evil, just really bad. Men who start wars are evil. The
Abrahamic Gods—Yahweh, Christ, and Allah that encourage men to start wars of invasion or civil wars
are also evil.
The combined scriptures of the Abrahamic religions contribute nothing of value to the advancement of humanity because they are based on hate-inspiring myths. The number of wars each has caused is beyond counting. On the other hand, a single Greek philosopher had laid the intellectual foundation for Western civilization—Aristotle. He made important contributions to logic, physics, psychology, biology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and poetics. And he was a pagan who loved this world and wanted to understand it, not flee from it.
Aristotle
created his library at his school the Lyceum
and wrote as many as 200 treatises and other works covering all areas of
philosophy and science. And all this four centuries before the arrival of Jesus
who gave us not a single fact—logical or empirical—about the world.
Judeo-Christianity was a destroyer of knowledge, not a creator of knowledge.
Carlo Rovelli says, “But centuries dominated by monotheism have not permitted
the survival of Democritus’s naturalism. The closure of the ancient schools
such as those of Athens and Alexandria and the destruction of all the texts not
in accordance with Christian ideas were vast and systematic, at the time of the
brutal anti-pagan repression...” (20). And among those pagans were Stoics,
Epicureans, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Summing up this catastrophe to Western civilization, historian Charles Freeman ends The Closing of the Western Mind with “I would reiterate the central theme of this book: that the Greek intellectual tradition was suppressed rather than simply faded away.” According to Freeman, this was “an important moment in European cultural history” (340). That is the reason his book is titled The Closing of the Western Mind. It was more than that, though. It was the destruction of classical Western civilization that had been guided for centuries by free thinking philosophers, scientists, and life-loving artists, replaced by temple-based civilization controlled by closed-minded, superstitious priests. Thus, arrived the Dark Ages. And all the carnage and destruction was brought about by God-obsessed men who placed the value of God above the value of human beings. Thinking about evil men and the butterfly effect, it’s easy to become a pessimist.
Paul Was a Hater of Sexuality
And, unfortunately, his negative view of life would be the one adopted by the Catholic Church and forced upon Western civilization. Sex and the flesh were inherently sinful. That why priests and nuns are celibate. And it was all Paul’s doing. Considering sex inherently sinful Paul believed if at all possible it should be avoided. According to him it was best to adopt him as a role model and remain celibate: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Missing here is love! And he never considered how unnatural and unfun such a life is. He knew nothing about love because he was a narcissist—no wife, no lover, no boyfriends or girlfriends. Not even a pet, like Elsa’s horse. There was nothing in nature he loved. His life was truly empty—filled only with hate and a longing for death.
Following Paul’s advice means avoiding a relationship such as the one shared by Elsa and her cowboy Ennis. That means no falling in love, no boy-girl romance, no courting and getting married, no having children, and no becoming parents like Elsa’s parents. No life, as far as I’m concern. Paul lived in the land of make-believe like Dorothy in Oz, which was only a dream. The no-fun celibate Paul believed the Second Coming and the Rapture would occur during his lifetime. Two thousand years later, Christians are still waiting. The main thing here is Paul’s focus was on death. To him death wasn’t a tragedy but the first step to resurrection and spiritual existence in the postmortem. It really doesn’t qualify as a life because there is nothing to do in the postmortem. Elsa, on the other hand, makes the most of her life in the here and now—enjoying the paradise that is Earth, appreciating beauty, falling in love, working, being free, and having friends. She wanted children, clearly, because she wanted to participate in the organic creativity of nature, and by doing so fulfilling her potential as a woman along with doing all the stuff men do.
Paul is pure self-centered masculinity. He denies everything of value that is associated with femininity—flesh and brains. And, like or not, Jesus does the same by considering men to be the only people worthy of his company and by rejecting his family including his glorious mother Mary (who would be immediately embraced by Italian artists) but also James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, and unnamed sisters mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Michelangelo's Pietà celebrates Mary, not Jesus whom she dwarfs. She is a celebration of beauty and motherhood.
Misogynist Laszlo Toth attacked the statue with 15 hammer blows, breaking off Mary's arm at the elbow, knocked off a chunk of her nose, and chipped one of her eyelids. He was declared insane. This is exactly what Christians did to Greek and Roman statues of female goddesses. Ideologies can make men insane. Richard Dawkins says as much in his article “Viruses of the Mind”: “human minds are ripe or malignant infection” by ideologies. Such behavior illustrates Christian
In addition, the artist used light and location to make Joan the focal value in the painting, the only element of goodness and beauty. She is glorious compared to the Crucifix that serves to justify her immolation, a sacrifice to the Christian God. The Crucifix is an invented abstraction, a scepter representing the Church’s power. Whereas Joan is fleshly real symbolizing life, the Crucifix is a symbol of death, a tool used to justify controlling and destroying lives.
Jesus
even rejects his hometown for rejecting him as the messiah because he wouldn’t perform
miracles. In other words, he wouldn’t prove what he claimed to be. Here is his peevish
response to the rejection “Truly I tell you... no prophet is accepted in his
Hometown” (Luke 4:24). What is most important is that Jesus placed his personal
ideology above all else. And as a religious ideology it elevates the supernatural
above all the values associated with humanity’s Earthly way of life. This is
the masculine nihilism that lurks in the ideologies of the Abrahamic religions:
compared to the absolute, supreme value of God, all else is worthless.
The
invention of Abrahamic God introduced nihilism into the world. Native Americans
and the ancient Greeks had had their gods, but they were integrated into nature
and Earthly life. The Greeks especially had many of female goddesses:
Women
even served as priestesses, the most famous of which was the Oracle of Delphi. The best illustrations of the ancient Greeks’
love of the feminine are two statues of Venus: the famous Venus de Milo (2nd century BC) and The Callypigian Venus (1st century BC):
The
presence of the feminine is totally absent in the theology of the Abrahamic
religions. Because Native Americans and the ancient Greeks saturated nature
with deities, almost every aspect of nature had value. Nature does have
creatures that threaten life, but that is because life is energy dependent.
Carnivores get energy from other animals and herbivories get it from plants.
Plants are—with a few exceptions—the most peaceful organisms because they take
their energy directly from the Sun. Because life is energy dependent, predation
is unavoidable except in a world of plants and robots. Elsa becomes angry with
the world for being such a life-threatening place because it threatens and
kills people she loves.
What she doesn’t understand—at least early on—is that reality can’t be otherwise if life is to be present. Her complaint only makes sense if God created the world for humans. Then it’s possible to criticize God on moral grounds for not making the world more friendly to life. This is what is called the problem of evil, first serious address by Ecclesiastes and most recently discussed by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman’s God's Problem, which is the problem of evil existing in a world supposedly created by an all-powerful and all-good deity. Given God’s problem was first discussed in the Old Testament in Book of Ecclesiastes, the most insightful book in the Bible, and the Book of Job, it’s been a nagging question for over 2,000 years.
Alfred Tennyson confronted the question in In Memoriam, which was written in response to the death of his best friend Hallam at the age of twenty-two. This from In Memoriam:
And
humanity would soon find out via Darwin that nature isn’t so careful with the
“type” or species, given that “More than 99% of all species that ever lived on
Earth, amounting to over five billion species, are estimated to have died out”
(“Species,” Wikipedia). Confronted
with God's problem, Tennyson’s response was to ignore what nature logically implies
about God’s goodness or existence (the rational red pill) and make a (blue-pill) leap of
faith that accepts both God’s goodness and existence, regardless of the logical conflicts between empirical facts and biblical claims, perhaps thinking he would
be reunited with his friend Hallam in Heaven. Elsa doesn’t sidestep logical
implications—that if God exists then “he” did a lousy job creating the world
(thus is not all-powerful) and he doesn’t care about helping humans deal with
evil (thus is not all-good). She simply accepts the tragic side of life. She is crushed by grief when her cowboy is murdered. The invaders (represented by the bandits) who kill are murderers; the defenders who kill the invaders are heroes. Thus, Ennis dies a hero.
The
question of God’s problem comes down to if there is an all-powerful and
all-good God, why is there so much evil and suffering. Why not have created a
world populated by angels who are fleshless thus cannot suffer as humans and
other life forms do? The follow-up question is what kind of God gives curious
Eve who harmed no one a death sentence but forgave Cain who murdered his brother and tolerates so much suffering—especially
big-time suffering caused by wars and plagues.
Answers from a Poet, Two
Philosophers, Science, and Lao Tzu:
William
Blake addresses the problem in two poems: “The Lamb” and “The Tyger.” “The
Tyger” suggests that the reality of God is nothing like what people imagine—nothing
like the lamb that symbolizes Jesus:
In
other words, maybe God is more sinister than his priestly representatives would
have us believed. The Old Testament gives plenty of reasons for rejecting his
image as a benevolent deity.
The
philosopher Immanuel Kant suggests that God’s reality may be something not only
beyond human comprehension but totally alien—scary alien. The ultimate origin
of everything, Kant believed, cannot be known because the mind and senses
organize reality for us, and it is impossible to go beyond our perception of
reality to what it is in itself—the noumenal reality of the world we live in that is our origin.
The
philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer took a stab at expressing Kant’s noumenon. According
to Harald Höffding, Schopenhauer “breaks with the fundamental presupposition of
a harmony of existence on which western theology and philosophy had hitherto...
always been based.... Appealing to the
experience of the sorrow of life—he lays down the principle that the
innermost kernel of existence is blind, undisciplined” (A History of Modern Philosophy 214-215, vol. 2). There’s a little
bit of Schopenhauer in Elsa. Actually, more than a little. The pessimist
Schopenhauer loved life but saw its tragic side.
Science gets us much closer to the arché of our existence than Kant thought possible, to the original stuff out of which the world came to be. Nevertheless, ultimate reality still eludes science, but it knows enough to conclude origin of all things isn’t a benevolent, wise deity. Kant considered religions symbolic systems that were useful to keep order in society and perhaps to give blue-pill hope to people overwhelmed by the reality of life. There are characters in 1883 who feel that way as do the women of Paradise in Top of the Lake.
Genesis says in the beginning the world was without form. That is true. It was total chaos without the modicum of order the forces of nature provide because they didn’t yet exist. I say modicum because in his The Cosmic Landscape string theorist Leonard Susskind calls what goes wrong when gravity combines with the laws of physics a “grim tale” of “extreme violence” and that “Laws of Physics as we have understood them predict an extraordinary lethal universe” (61). Elsa's discovery of that fact is painful, and her response is heartbreak, not theoretical or philosophical. Genesis performs a deus ex machina with God coming to the rescue by organizing the whole mess into cosmos or order. Science knows what really happen:
The Origin of Everything in a
Nutshell
The Big Bang cataclysm generated space and time,
as well as all the matter and energy the universe will ever hold.
Inflation cause a vast expansion of space
filled with this energy and stopped only when this energy is transformed into
matter and energy as we know it.
Basic forces emerged: first gravity, then the
strong force, which holds nuclei of atoms together, followed by the weak and
electromagnetic forces, creating fundamental particles/energy: quarks,
electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. and less familiar types. Smashed together they
formed protons and neutrons.
Basic elements emerged when protons and neutrons
came together to form the nuclei of simple elements: hydrogen, helium and
lithium. 300,000 years later electrons would be captured into orbits around
these nuclei to form stable atoms.
Birth of Stars and
Galaxies emerged as
gravity forces the dust
to bunch together. More dust caused stronger gravity and hotter temperatures.
Once hot enough, nuclear fusion reactions trigger a new star formation.
The Sun emerged from a huge cloud of gas
and dust 9 billion years after the Big Bang and 5 Billion years before now.
Planets, moons, and
asteroids emerged
from vast disks of gas and debris that swirls around this new star.
Earth emerged when about 4.5 billion years
ago when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust into a ball that became the third
planet from the Sun. Like the other terrestrial planets it has a central core,
a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.
Earliest Life emerged about 3.8 billion years ago
as the Earth cooled and an atmosphere developed. Microscopic living cells
(overlooked in Genesis) evolved and flourished in earth’s many volcanic
environments.
Plants and Animals: Plant life began colonizing land 500 million years ago, around the same time as the emergence of the first land animals.
Lao Tzu tells us this about the origin of everything:
Chinese philosophy scholar Wing-Tsit Chan says this about this passage: “Taoist cosmology is outlined here simply but clearly. In the beginning there is something undifferentiated, which is forever operating; it produces heaven and earth and then all things.... At any rate, this naturalistic philosophy has always been prominent in Chinese thought...” (The way of Lao Tzu 25). The Tao is simply the way of all things. The Universe is self-emerging. Taoism should be treated as a philosophy, not as a religion.
God isn’t needed. Well, he is needed if you want the entire 14 billion year process to be all about humanity. What Elsa realizes is that nature isn’t all about humans. She says God didn’t make nature just for humans but for all of nature’s creatures. Of course, that contradicts Abrahamic scripture. What she means but can’t say is that nature didn’t create the world just for humans but for all creatures, though in fact nature creates without purpose.
In spite of nature's indifference to humanity, Elsa comes to realize is that what is created is magnificent (including humans such as Elsa and her family, friends, and lovers) and that humans are lucky to be a part of it. What Elsa doesn’t realize that her family and friends and the audience realize is that she is the quintessence of nature’s creativity. Contra Apostle Paul, she is pure beauty in the flesh, and her beauty glorifies the flesh. Paul cared nothing for beauty, neither did his people. Unlike for Greeks, Romans, and Native Americans, the creative arts were alien to them. He lavishes praise on the spirit, but being immaterial spirit is without form. That is why a thousand angels can dance on the head of a pin and why artists must give angels fleshy bodies.
The French artist William-Adolphe Bouguereau’s painting of two angels carrying a soul to Heaven (A Soul Carried to Heaven) does this beautifully. And notice that the Frenchman paints the soul as a beautiful female.
Bouguereau, like Sheridan, recognized the feminine as the
central source of value in life—love, beauty, marriage, children, and family.
Elsa embodies all of these. This is radically different from the God-centered,
God-obsessed Abrahamic religions that in the pursuit of God turn away from life.
Elsa represents not only the value of herself but the value of Earth, its
creatures (especially her horse), and the Earthly way of life. There are no
cowboys or cowgirls in Heaven.
The soul by definition is nonmaterial thus invisible. And that which is made of spirit (souls and angels) is without form; however, that which is without form logically cannot be beautiful. Thus, Paul could neither comprehend nor appreciate beauty. Elsa would mean nothing to him. She is the best of nature without the worst of nature. In that sense, she seems almost unnatural—thus especially precious. Yet, she is all natural, as the series makes clear. Yes, she is amazing, but everything in nature is amazing. Here is a simple example: two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom magically creates H2O—water, thus rain, snow, ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, and oceans. And oxytocin together with other hormones such as dopamine and serotonin combine to produce love—the primary theme of 1883. And don’t let the reductionists fool you. Love is as real as water. And like water love comes in many forms: romantic love, family love, philia love (friendship), selfless love (altruism), love of nature and her creatures, and so on with endless variations. That’s amazing and no miracles are needed because that is what nature does on its own. It is the way nature has given birth to new forms and ways of being for fourteen billion years. The Universe is a matrix of creativity.
Have
I digressed from the topic of masculine feminism? Not at all. Elsa represents
what good men value most—love, beauty, marriage, children, and family. The series
makes that very clear with the men who love and protect Elsa: her father, the
cowboy Ennis, Sam the Comanche warrior, and avuncular Shea Brennan. The series also makes
clear that the world is filled with threats that require good men to assist and
protect women, to create safe places where they can grow and thrive. And the
greatest threat to women—to everything really—is bad men, represented by the male
gangs of bandits. They are lawless, nihilistic, and threaten men, women, and
children. In the 1883 Slavery and the
Civil War are reminders of the horror immoral men are capable of creating.
In
the series, bandits are more of a threat to wagon trains than they probably
were historically. From the letters written by women who traveled on wagon
trains (men were not letter writers) the greatest threats were accidents and
illness. However, I assume the constant threat of vicious bandits is intended
to represent the threat of bad men—criminals of all stripes—that are everywhere
in the world we live in. In the U.S. women and everyone else are threatened by
gangs, drug and human trafficking cartels, mass murdering shooters, rapists,
child molesters, and masculine thugs of all kinds. In Europe Russian men on the
orders of a lunatic have invaded Ukraine and murdered endless men, women, and
children and have driven the women and children from their homes and communities by destroying their homes and communities.
Masculine
aggression is a global threat and always has been. Thus, the need for good men
to protect women, families, and communities from bad men. And that is what
Native American men do in the series—act aggressively to protect their women,
families, and communities from invaders. The irony, of course, is that
masculine aggression seems the only means capable of countering masculine
aggression. Morality is essential to guide good men; but as the series indicates, in a world of
evil men morality must be enforced with violence. The fundamental issue
recognized by both series is that the problem of masculine aggression is again like
gravity—seemingly here to stay and unavoidable. Thus, without good men who are
willing risk injury and death to confront evil men, there would be little hope
for the preservation of what we value most in life because it is most
vulnerable.
In conclusion, no man in the series represents the supreme values of life represented by Elsa—beauty, love, compassion, family, and children. She also represents a love of life and a love of simply existing in a world full of wonders. Of course, that love is found in men as well, in artists and poets and men like Taylor Sheridan. What the series says about the value of men is that they do not possess inherent value as women like Elsa do. To protect and preserve what Elsa is and what she represents is the raison d'etre of masculine existence. Protecting and preserving life, men become heroes. It is a yin-yang relationship. Without the feminine life loses its primordial meaning; without the masculine what the feminine represents cannot endure, cannot flourish. Good men and women need one another.