The story of Adam and Eve plays a huge role in our society as it has influenced a lot of people to believing that woman was made for man to have company. That is why I prefer the ancient Philippine creation myth which makes more sense. It portrays a more realistic relationship between man and woman as well as their own individual qualities in the society.

Here's an excerpt from that creation myth called Si Malakas at Si Maganda:

Now at this same time the Land Breeze and the Sea Breeze were married, and they had a child which they named Bamboo. One day, when Bamboo was floating against the sea, it struck the feet of the Kite. Shocked, hurt, and angered that anything should strike it, the bird furiously pecked at the bamboo until it split in half. Out of one section came a golden-bronze colored man, named Malakas (Strong One) and from the other half came a similarly hued woman, named Maganda (Beautiful One).

This is just one of the many other versions of this story, as it varies from each region in this country made up of 7100+ islands. However, all the versions have the same idea--Malakas and Maganda were created equally as symbolized by the way they came from one bamboo at the same time unlike in the story of Adam and Eve where Eve was made out of Adam's need for company.

The fact that in this myth, the man was named after strength and the woman after beauty might make one think that it does not seem equal at all. Still, I think it's really fair, for the myth only emphasizes each sex's best quality which I don't think we should deny. Man has always been a figure for strength despite how women these days manage to do the same difficult tasks only men used to be able to do which is the same as the woman being the embodiment of beauty which could also be a man's thing these days.

Let's face it, on Tinder women swipe right not simply on good-looking men but on good-looking men who look strong (if not physically, maybe financially at least) while men swipe right on women who look attractive (and that is a subjective matter, but basically it's all about aesthetics). Obviously men use their innate strength to survive as they hustle in the workplace, sports, etc. while women could easily get away with anything just by working their natural charms. It's all fair, isn't it?

Now, given all these facts, why is it that people still strive for a vague concept of gender equality that is not even in the economic or political aspects anymore? Could it be that it's because we're all closeted bisexuals who are just dying to come out?

Bisequality

Carl Jung's Theory

Earlier in my Theories of Personality class, we discussed Carl Jung's Analytical Psychology. This man believes that our lives are influenced by an occult phenomena or by experiences and emotions inherited from our ancestors. It does sound crazy at first, but since I have always read about Jung's theories, I knew that my classmates were crazy to react to the theory like they just heard a joke.

See, according to Jung's theory, there is what we call a collective unconscious which roots from the ancestral past of the entire species. Yes, he believed that our ancestors' experiences with a deity, parents, the earth, etc. are all psychic potential that could be passed on to the next generations. So I guess we're supposed to know better by now?

The collective unconscious has this thing called archetypes which are ancient or archaic images that are emotionally toned collection of associated images. Now there are 8 conceptualized archetypes according to Jung which all possess different personalities many people could relate to. Two of them are the anima and animus.

Jung believed that all humans are psychologically bisexual--that each person possesses both masculine and feminine side. Anima is the feminine side in men that does not usually reach a man's consciousness because like in Alfred Adler's theory, femininity is usually perceived as weakness or inferiority. Now, anima could be traced back to a man's early experiences with women in his life that create a generalized concept of what a woman is, and in this case the woman is viewed as predominantly irrational and emotional.

In animus, the stereotypical masculine thing, thinking and reasoning are acquired by a woman although according to Jung, it is never hers. For him, even the animus in women produce irrationality making women permanently irrational in this perspective. That is because he believed that the logical arguments women have are ready-made materials they have only adapted from their dreams and other forms of collective unconscious that makes their reasoning not really well thought of.

My Theory

Going back to my question,

Now, given all these facts, why is it that people still strive for a vague concept of gender equality that is not even in the economic or political aspects anymore? Could it be that it's because we're all closeted bisexuals who are just dying to come out?

Gender equality began as a fight for equal socio-economic opportunities, but recently it has gone a little far down the state of absurdity with all the vague demands of people when it comes to the perceiving gender roles that actually come natural and are just turned into a problem when unnecessarily brought up. This is obviously a passive reaction to the fact that people are conflicted with their own issues in accepting the anima/animus in them or in others.

Another archetype called shadow is how the anima/animus sort of becomes. A shadow is the personality we don't show the people around us, and when we deprive ourselves of expressing our anima/animus, it turns into that. According to Jung himself, this creates a problem in our lives, for as long as we don't face our shadows, we just inflict suffering in our own lives. Obviously, if we keep stopping something within us that is dying to get out there, we hurt ourselves, our freedom.

For me, the irrationality of woman only comes from the fact that she is pressured into not allowing the thinker within her to get out there. Sure, that thinker is a ready-made thing that doesn't belong to her according to Jung, but it shall remain like that if and only if not allowed freedom to be explored.

As for men, irrationality is inevitable in both sexes anyway, so they are allowed to have it. However, neither of the two sexes should allow emotions to overrule reason. That's all I have to say about that.

Our psychological bisexuality is an understanding between each other rather than an identity, thus we continue to adapt to the opposite sex's traits and I think that's the key to the equality people have been vaguely fighting for. In Alfred Adler's perspective, this could be sort of a defense mechanism of our innate feeling of inferiority, and don't we all feel intimidated by strength and/or beauty?

references:

Si Malakas at Si Maganda
Theories of Personality 9th Edition (Feist, Feist,‎ & Roberts)

Bisequality: Is Bisexuality the Answer to Gender Equality?

Bisequality

Carl Jung's Theory

My Theory

references:

img sources: