The Last Supper

--Cherish Perriwinkle, 
died 6.21.2013

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled
was convincing the world he didn't exist.
And like that, poof. He's gone. 
--The Usual Suspects (1995) 

So long as little children are allowed to suffer,
there is no true love in this world
--Isadorea Duncan

Bless the beasts and the children
for in this world they have no voice,
they have no choice
--Bless the Beasts and the Children, 
The Carpenters

It's a jungle out there
Violence and danger everywhere 
It's brother against brother
Pounding on each other 
--It's a Jungle Out There,
Randy Newman
_________________________

[In honor of International Women's Day.]

Funny how things come back around, sometimes with new meaning the second time. 

This time it is one of the harrowing and absurd tragedies visited upon the little people in life, in out-sized proportion to the rest of us.

RAW wrote in 2013 about the local rape and murder of 8-year-old Cherry Perriwinkle ["Prelude to the Finale"]. While in  Jacksonville recently, her story was back in the news Valentine's Day 2018, only adding to the grotesquerie of her story. 

To recap: the man who killed this girl predated upon her mother's indigence. His offer of food and a $50 Walmart gift card must have seemed like a small lottery win for the poor mother. Except, poor people do not often hit the jackpot.

Would you entrust your daughter to a stranger in the hopes that she might get her cheeseburger? While it is easy to say that her mother made a poor choice, the fact is undeniable: Cherry lost her life due to her family's economic insufficiency.  

The Jacksonville Times-Union devoted ran a four-paragraph piece (not online) of her killer's sentencing, offering some grim details offered by the public defender:

"He gagged her, he raped her, he sodomized her, and then he strangled her," State Attorney Melissa Nelson said in her opening statement. "He gagged her with such force her gums and her nostrils bled, he strangled her with such force her eyeballs bled. She did not die quickly, and she did not die easily, in fact, hers was a brutal and tortured death."

Please do not save all of your ire for the defective misfit who committed this crime, for if you do, any lesson is lost.  

People today have become too emotional and outraged at the drop of a dime. After the angst du jour is gone, it is off to the next fire. We might do better to stay rational in the face of what we might like to claim is "outrageous" behavior.

A simple thought: What people call outrageous happens with such regularity that they might lower their reactivity and ask simply and with deliberation, "This is factual, so, what now?" 

Cherry Perriwinkle's murder is monstrous, unspeakable. But too many people now become outraged over things against which they are impotent; worse, against things which are ill-defined, and sometimes, are not actually problems.

The hominid family contains myriad genetic freaks and perversions. Some members harbor violent impulses, and some act upon them; these are not concealed facts. Some might say that the most egregious behaviors result from genetic mutations, but more likely, we are all somewhere on a universal behavioral spectrum, and given the right circumstances are capable of things we don't want to confess.

To vent outrage upon a discrete actor like Cherry's rapist-murderer would be to tie a nice Hollywood bow around this actual story of want and depravity, and life is not tidy like that. The subtext to this murder trial is just as compelling as the actual crime, for without it, this particular murder could not have happened.

Lisa decided to conduct a perhaps macabre thought experiment: what does Cherry's story share with the accusers in the #metoo movement? Are the shared elements valid, and do they help illuminate any of the public angst being expulsed in all media outlets regarding female exploitation?

No disrespect is meant to any players, and this is not to victim shame or blame. And certainly, this girl's story and the cohort she represents is more horrific by orders by orders of magnitude than, say, any accusation against a Harvey Weinstein or Charley Rose.

We will consider only the female's who describe sexual predation. [Certainly males, albeit in fewer numbers, also find themselves in similar situations.] The challenge is to uncover the connections, connect the dots and to determine when and if the chain of connectivity breaks. 

Further, how should we define the problem? Does #metoo represent any cohesive cohort?  Do they present a clear platform, and is it actually a problem? If so, is it one of perpetration or perception alone, or both? Is it soluble?

The media has fatted us all winter on a glut of sordid exploitation tales of attractive females climbing the ladder of success on the coattails of powerful men. These "sexposes" exacted the requisite banal outrage of the viewing audience. 

The usual suspects were netted (predominately powerful older men). A social media movement was born (#metoo) and the media has been devoted to covering the "new" female outrage. Eventually, predictably, just like after Watts or Ferguson, the furore will die down.

There will be nor furor for the child in Jacksonville, though much like the actresses in Hollywood, her mother appealed to a more powerful male figure for assistance.  Certainly the perpetrator was a criminal in a way that the men of the #metoo movement are not.

One might also say Gwyneth, Salma and Uma also made poor choices regarding Hollywood producer Weinstein, but they were operating from farther along the power dynamic curve. At the least, they had transportation or cab fare, and could have left the scene of their reported exploitation.

But operating on a principle of charity, on a sliding scale as far as egregiousness, what is the commonality among these offenses?

Whether it is for want of a McDonald's cheeseburger or a part in a Hollywood film, the attempt to gain favor from a powerful male is the constant, and concomitantly, the desired liberation or power that comes with that. Because such transactions are entered from a position of a power imbalance, they must by needs end that way.

Maybe we are trained early on to pay obeisance to an all-powerful God the Father, and that is a hard archetype to smash. But if children like Cherry had economic sufficiency, and their parents were given proper education parenting skills, such children could at least grow old enough to face the next hurdle of potential exploitation, like those faced by their economic betters in Hollywood or Washington D.C.

Maybe men and women both would be served by a unit of moral education in primary school (reinforced later in secondary). Of course, values clarification is heretical to most public school boards who must honor and protect diversity. Further, who would be our Solomon?

For many of a more liberal bent, if a person who has achieved the age of consent and wishes to trade his or her body (much as we trade our mind-power in the workplace) for goods, who is to say otherwise? To them, the body is owned exclusively by the inhabiter thereof, and can be bartered into another fungible asset as long as all parties are on board with the terms. 

But for those who buy into that construct, there must be allowance made for the emotions entailed by a quid pro quo gone awry. This is where the disingenuousness and hypocrisy enters, for if one has economic security and the exchange is a discretionary one, who is to criticize either party? 

Moreover, is it that element of shame which makes the female in such a transaction "reveal all" at some future time? What is the impulse to both partake in the "crime" (for those who do so discretionarily), and then to condemn it? Is she seeking moral absolution via support groups, and the subsequent denigration of the male?

If you focus on the nugget, you cannot see the big picture. You cannot fight an effective battle if you don't know what you are fighting for. You can expulse your angst, if that feels good to you, but you will not accomplish much.

We are all somewhere on the green brick road: Cherry was at the beginning, and met her demise in her desire for a McDonald's cheeseburger. Gwyneth, Salma and Uma were a little farther along the path, their desires, a bit more lofty. 

The question is, how do you move along it, and how far will you go? Are you willing to use yourself, and how will you do that -- by creating something, or by trading yourself in a direct exchange for goods?

Humans have free will and often make poor choices. Some are up, and some down. And thus ends the lesson on why parity shall never be reached.

Submitted for your consideration.

A Room of Her Own, III

--Brave (2012)

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake and morally straight
--Boy Scout Oath

 I knew I wouldn't be there to help ya along.
 So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's the name that helped to make you strong 
--A Boy Named Sue, Johnny Cash 

 I am strong
I am invincible
I am woman
 --I Am Woman, Helen Reddy
 ____________________

It seems sensible and modern to allow women in the combat arms -- after all, we haven't exactly been Johnny-on-the-spot about according women their rights. It was less than 100 years ago U.S. women were given the vote, and grudgingly, at that. So Ranger seems positively Paleolithic when we oppose placing women on the Forward Line of Own Troops (FLOT), or whatever the equivalent is today. As a society, we look at Beyonce and Hillary (not at once) and figure, women can do anything, right?

Moreover, some argue that such a placement would simply be a repatriation (pardon the phrase) to a long-lost status, since women were once warrior princesses, right? But the reality of our lives today is far removed from those often incomplete and sometimes apocryphal tales. We will address this archetype later.

Our reality is that on the fields of athletic competition, men and women are separated in recognition of their different potentials. Title IX guaranteed girls could compete in sports to the degree that boys could, but their teams are gender-specific. When the feminists fronted the "Battle of the Sexes" in 1973 -- Billie Jean King against Bobby Riggs, 26 years her senior -- it was a put up, as the age gap could not possibly be overcome. Such showmanship should not be confused with the reality as played out in the Olympic games, where each sports competition is gender-specific.

One may argue for the politically-correct social-construction view of gender, but there is no confusing the proclivities of children at play. Even boys from the most pacifist families usually demand their toy guns, and girls are all about networking, communication and keeping their fictional houses in order. There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about either proclivity (see Tannen's, You Just Don't Understand) -- it just is.

Girls join the Brownies and Girl Scouts; boys, the Boy Scouts. There are notions of honor and duty implicit in carrying on the sacred duty of these brotherhoods or sisterhoods. We will not argue about the effectiveness of such separation, but there is something in the sexes which enjoys the fraternity with its own, especially when conducting projects to which each group feels a certain affinity.

--even Samurai Girls are just girls, after all

The feminine warrior archetypes often include the martyr (Joan of Arc) or the helper, like Native Americans Pocahantas or Sacajawea. Their power is more at being faithful servants who facilitate communication. They may also be crusaders like Clara Barton or Carrie Nation - warriors for God and soul. The true strength vis-a-vis the male is held by the Siren-crone-witch archetype, but this is not a pretty face and it is often destructive, especially to the male. Hence, our glamorizing society doesn't have much use for them.

The female archetype we are most familiar with is the needy wench (Rapunzel, Snow White or Cinderella), or the religious "good woman" (unlike the "bad" ones who leads men astray, like our very own Eve.) In Christianity, Mary is revered for her long-suffering status and for abiding; she is not part of the Trinity (godhead), though she served as the vessel, midwifing Jesus into this world. The faithful sing hymns to her virginity, which implies she is good by virtue of not reveling in her true sex.

The feminine warriors we have access to in the media today are tarted-up Barbies overlaid with deltoids, worthy of Hans'n Franz's designation, "girly-men": Wonder Woman, Lara Croft -- Tomb Raider, Xena the Warrior Princess, Japanese Manga, or Brave (Pixar). They are either Eddie Bauer Women on steroids, or they could be carrying Hello Kitty! purses across their chest. Like "The Bride" in the film Kill Bill they are striking a pose, and are fashion set pieces moreso than gritty warriors. The BESM ("Big eyes, small mouth") fetish of Manga depicts the woman as the baby doll of so many men's dreams: big baby eyes, and a small mouth for ... whatever one would use a small mouth for.

It may smack of paternalism and Old Boy's club to suggest that women ought not be on the FLOT, but we would not be the only civilized nation to take this stance. We like being  first, but being first is not always a good.

If the military institution is incapable of erasing the sexual subjugation of its service members while they not facing dire life-or-death scenarios, why would we imagine their burden would be any less so while facing challenges that already tax the frontiers of their brother's physical and psychological limits? It seems cruel and inefficient, in the most pragmatic sense. 

We are a free society, but we do not necessarily have liberal minds that are free from their apetitive animal desires and sense of entitlement and resentment and the whole lot of malignancies which plague our interpersonal relations. Even the boxing ring has the Marquess of Queensbury rules to ensure a fair fight, yet have not demonstrated the attainment of any such set of intrinsic rules governing our congress between the sexes. We stumble through life haphazardly making decisions we hope will not be too detrimental, but it's mostly a crapshoot. At our best, respect is the watchword; all too often, we are sneaky animals looking for our best angle -- that goes for both men and women.

Recent scandals show putting women in the military is like putting Tweety bird in front of Sylvester the Cat with no cage door. The documentary "Invisible War" confronts the culture of sexual assault in the military: "A female U.S. soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire." This is not some quaint relic of a Neanderthal past but your Army, today. Feminists say, don't cage us in or out, but it might just be an enlightened move of self interest to choose not to enter the boxing ring with the men when the gloves are off, and no holds barred.

Child psychologist Piaget argued for the necessity of the phase in which children would touch a hot stove and react to the pain, thereby learning an action not to repeat. Unfortunately, when it comes to the relations between men and women, we demonstrate no such ability to learn. Putting the sexes into perhaps the most fraught situation a civilized society sanctions should not be a social experiment, and it is bound to not turn out well.

If placing women in the combat arms were a situational necessity (as in a young Israel, Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany) Ranger would support it. But we have a society of X-Box playing slobs just ripe for the picking (the draft) if we need to flesh out our military ranks.

We can barely face the returning caskets of our male soldier's bodies, and their presentation in the media is still fraught with indecision.  Bad enough we accept our men may come on their shield -- will adding women into the fray reduce our anxiety and discomfort?

A woman, regardless of her designation on the masculinity index (she could be the most thoroughgoing XXY in the book), still holds the staff for her sex. In her we see our mothers and every other woman who has nurtured us, as well as those for whom men hold (subliminal) destructive impulses. When she will be killed in action, we believe it will unleash a flurry of repressed responses.

Until such time as the sexes gain true parity, why would we add insult to injury, using women both as vessels for self-gratification and sending them off to be killed? Would we think it a good if women in Afghanistan went from being a handmaid to being fodder on the battlefield, before achieving full personhood?

Mind you, we are not nearly that bad, but we are not that evolved on this topic, either.


[Final installment: A Room of Her Own, Finis.]

A Room of Her Own II

 --Princess Kitana,  
Mortal Kombat video game 

Every day I wake up, then I start to break up
Lonely is a man without love
Every day I start out, then I cry my heart out
Lonely is a man without love 
--Lonely is a Man Without Love, 
Englebert Humperdinck 

Sometimes I feel I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away 
--Tainted Love, Soft Cell 

 Under my thumb
Her eyes are just kept to herself 
Under my thumb, well I
I can still look at someone else 
--Under My Thumb, Rolling Stones
__________________

[Pt. II of series ...]

 

The disconnect in our original piece (Sex and Violence) came in the concluding paragraph:

"The same people who would criticize porn (overtly) are the same [sic] who would argue for (someone else's) women to kill, fight and die in the depravity and degradation of war. How is having sex with strangers and pretending to enjoy the encounter less socially acceptable than fighting?"

In fact, the truth is neither so neat nor so partisan. Both liberals and conservatives avail themselves of porn, usually on the sly. Additionally, both would also claim to champion women's rights. Conservatives are no longer all of the Phyllis Schlafley stripe, and presumably accept women in both "Houses" now (though their numbers are still pathetically small.) Liberals give lip-service to women's participation in all walks of life, though neither political party has yet  managed to achieve economic equality for women.

Our main point was, it is hypocritical to argue against the objectification of women in porn, while also arguing for their objectification in the guise of an Infantry soldier. Just as in the identity-less world of porn, so a fighting woman would be separated from her personhood (save on her dog tag.) Just as most men enjoy porn, but would not want their wives or daughters to make a career of spreading her legs before the camera, so, too, would their views of women's roles on the battlefield be conflicted. 

Just as on Ranger's workshop floor, where the Union accord said "no" to helping women, but for the real live woman on the bench next to you, the rules get broken.

If true equality were to be granted, fighting women would become fighting personnel and expected to fully carry their own weight (literally). They would become sexual eunichs and alter their physiology accordingly, a physical impossibility.

Here are the things Ranger knows:

--Men and women are different, and possessed of different strengths

--Like many of his fellows, he has viewed porn and so can state that he feels it to be an objectification versus a glorification of women; it is, however, something men do

--In male's compartmentalized brains, there is also a place for "his" women -- actual women. These women elicit a different response

--There are some spaces and subjects which are the chosen domain of men (see, Fight Club for the idea.) In his life, the Army's Combat Arms was such an area -- their real-world "Outward Bound" in which men tested their limits against their fellows and the enemy, and lived the Jungian warrior archetype.

--We have no warrior princesses today, no Boudiccas, outside of Hollywood or cartoon versions of Zena the Warrior Princess and ilk. For most girls today, that image has been superseded by Snow White or Cinderella. For most women, their reality lies somewhere in between (They can bring home the bacon, serve it up to a man, all the while retaining their ineffable femininity.)

What we wonder is, what of the male-female dynamic? Are men suffering a la feminist Faludi's anthem to men in the age of feminism, "Stiffed"? If women walk onto the battlefield shoulder-to-shoulder, will they fall into line as genderless automatons, one-each? Teams will not be gender-separated -- there will be no women's Field Artillery Unit.

They will fight on a biologically unequal playing field, and to whose benefit?


[more to follow ...] 


p.s. -- Here is a little debate on the topic @ debate.org.

A Room of Her Own

 --"Safety Last!" (1923)

 It's physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that 
--What's Love Got to Do with It?
 Tina Turner 

I don't know what you think I am
I'm not no magician I tell you no I ain't
Maybe I can open your pants  
But big fucking deal 
--I'm a Boy, I'm a Girl,  Johnny Thunders 
________________ 

When blogwriting, one has the tendency to expostulate, to grandstand and even proselytize (though we're neither Mormons nor Seventh Day Adventists), and Ranger was perhaps not fully exploring every aspect of the issue in a recent presentation, "Sex and Violence"; we may charitably chalk that up to a sin of omission rather than commission.

Comments to the piece @ sister site Milpub have provoked some dialog amongst the principles here at RAW. Friend FDChief is correct: our analogy does not quite hold. Moreover, he states the observation that a member of a democracy only obtains full citizenship when he or she may participate in every aspect of maintaining that democracy, which may mean full participation in the military, if not in the porn industry (though women's role there is guaranteed.)

The result will be several days of looking at the issue through different eyes -- both mine and Rangers -- seeking to clarify the problem, shore up the analogy and to explore any possible resolutions. No one installment will be complete, so we what follows will be a series of posts looking at different facets of the issue.

So let's define the topics and what porn and war share as far as opportunities, causal effects and requirements (of all players).

Since at least the Venus of Willendorf 20,000 years BCE, men have enjoyed viewing representations of the female body (head not always needed, thanks). Humans enjoy gaping at protuberances, the more grotesque, perhaps, the more fascinating. Ranger is amongst the crowd of his fellows who has enjoyed the same. However, he also recognizes the necessary objectification and frequent degradation often involved in these depictions; this is an acknowledged tension for perhaps many viewers.

His thoughts actually stemmed from what he sees as the evolution of porn from fairly innocuous early 20th-century blue movies to the more violent representations of recent decades. Crush films -- the brutal murder of animals -- is but one perverse incarnation in an industry that has few bounds on its impositions upon the human body. They, along with "snuff films" -- the human equivalent -- have ostensibly been banned, and represent probably the outermost limit of what has been achieved in this genre. What remains is often not pretty. 

(As an aside to the crush films, a Florida Representative even proposed a ban on the cruel practice of "cow-tipping" in 2004 [it did not pass], yet we may do the same and worse to our women, fat or otherwise, any day of the week. But that is a topic for another day.)

We know what is cruel and what is exploitative, but that does not slake our taste for such things. Most pornography, besides the actuality of the sexual representation, is an exercise in power, both that imposed by the viewer and the producer/exploiter (film industry; actors, etc.)

When commenter "ael" writes @ milpub, "This ability to empathize makes pornography inevitable. Watching people have fun is also fun", he is showing himself a man of compassion, but perhaps not recognizing the darker impulse behind porn. Is "fun" truly the thing sought? Perhaps in the way that self-gratification is "fun" to the narcissist (and with that comes the additional destructive resentment of his need for porn, but that again is another topic.)

A recent piece, "The Conspiracy of Pornography Exposed", indicts porn consumption as a narcissistic retreat from reality and a controlling experience of a simulacrum representation. As such, it cannot move beyond a physical response to the impersonal yet universal carnality spooling out before him. Viewing porn is a release into the libidinal free from the superego (unless mom breaks into your room, or your mind.) 

So porn is basically an avenue for self gratification, at the expense of having to actually engage with the sex partner up close and personal. It does not extinguish the libido of course; it is merely a temporary physical release. The partner used to achieve that end is obviously a projected objectification, a facsmilie of a woman who is used to self-gratify. 

But along with man's desire to own and expropriate the feminine is his strong drive for protection of the female, something which often fuels his lust to fight, presumably for his society's protection (as explained in books like What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II.") In fact, this is one of the main arguments against having women on the front line, namely, that man's protective instinct will kick in and he will act on those intrinsic impulses, ignoring good soldiering and endangering himself and his fellows in the process. 

Ranger spoke with a combat medic yesterday who said his biggest fear is that he would treat a less severely-wounded female soldier before he would a male, thereby violating his triage training. This favoritism on the basis of gender is a very real and indwelling impulse. 

Women seek parity with men when they seek equal pay -- Senator Elizabeth Warren is fighting now for a Paycheck Fairness Act (how many decades after the Equal Rights Amendment Failed?) -- and this is rightly so when one is thinking equal pay for equal work. But what about those domains in which men cut women a break due to their lesser physical capabilities, a reality for most women in strenuous, physically demanding work environment -- an environment like being an Infantryman on the front line of a fight. How would this play out on the battlefront?

When Ranger worked in a machine shop as a young man, he watched as the male workers lift heavy buckets of material for the female workers -- something which was the women's job -- even as this was in violation of union agreements. It's just the way it is. 

So let us summate the truths we have: Men watch porn, a media which is by necessity an objectification of women. Men also have an innate protective feeling toward actual women in their lives. Men are competitive, and excel in certain physical arenas against most women. 

Add into this mix Equal Opportunity measures which force the entrance of women into previously all-male domains (the first female SEAL is expected soon, for instance.) Many men, including Ranger, have enjoyed the combat arms as being the last bastion of male camaraderie; this will be gone once women enter their ranks. The time-honored protective impulse will be challenged, and the possible fall-back if uniformity in ranks is to be maintained will be for men to change women into the unfortunate object, a position which they themselves occupy in war.)

The conundrum: How to allow women to escalate through the military ranks sans combat or Special Forces experience, the traditional means of gaining respect in that world, but jobs in which they will not necessarily perform well, and perhaps not even due to their own shortcomings? Their success seems doomed from the outset, and there is no reality game simulator which will be able to definitively represent the actions of the players on the ground once actual fighting starts. 

Just because something can be done, should it? It asks the question, "Where is a woman's place?" The feminists say, "Anyplace she wants to be." 

Maybe, but stand on L street SE in Washington, D.C. at night and even G. I. Jane would be at risk.

More to come ...

--Lisa and Jim

War Between the Sexes

--Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

Was he at hand with a word of good cheer?
To bring back a smile or banish a fear?
--The Measure of a Man, Anon

In all of living have much fun and laughter.
Life is to be enjoyed, not just endured
--Gordon B. Hinckley

Grace is the absence of everything that indicates pain
or difficulty, hesitation or incongruity
--William Hazlitt

By “guts” I mean, "grace under pressure"
--Selected Letters, Ernest Hemingway

Mr. Duffy lived a short distance from his body
--A Painful Case, James Joyce

___________________

What is the measure of a man?

That was the question posed by the recent post, Metrosexuals. It prompted the following off-site dialog, which seemed worthy of sharing. One could say the topic is a breather from more dire discussions, but maybe not. The philosopher Krishnamurti said we carry war within us: War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday living.

What if we could extinguish that antagonism and turmoil, within and between us? We not only need to fully inhabit ourselves, but also bridge the chasm between us. Ranger never weighed in on the topic, but I will.

A man is a joy to those whose lives he touches. He is helpful and straight. He does not whine or complain. A man does the right thing, and is not resentful in the doing.

I know two men exactly the same age (they are not young) but diametrically opposite in demeanor. One brings strife wherever he goes, and keeps the focus on himself. The other said recently, "I continue to grow and improve . . ."

His life is one of service, bringing happiness if he can to those with whom he comes into contact. He is productive and happy. He furthers himself and seeks pleasure, but does not seek it by wringing the joy from others. The world is a little better for his having been here. (If you are reading this, Captain, it is you. My hat is off.)

Now to my dialog with reader Jay. As always, interaction is welcome:


Dear Jay,

I hope this find you well. I wanted to say "thanks" for joining the recent chat. We needed a woman's perspective, and what you say is spot-on:

. . .

"A man fulfills his duty even when that duty is burdensome and unwanted. man has an understanding of personal honor (integrity or principle) and tries to keep his honor intact. A man tries to be rational and just and that usually is demonstrated as generosity in fact and in spirit.

"I must have led a very peculiar existence as I have never found "anger" to be a male characteristic."

Brava! Anger is most definitely not a good male (or female) characteristic. I would call foisting one's anger upon another -- whether by raised voice or gesticulation -- violence.

Some women demonstrate the drama queen/Barbie thing, and so some stupid men presume tantrums = true emotion (they do not). I have seen this, so can vouch for it. It is either in emulation of a former "baby doll", or it is of their own creation, born of hatred and disregard of the other, who is simply a receptacle for all of that ugliness. I notice the one who dishes it out feels much better afterward; the vessel, worse.

I have found the only solution is to walk away from it. Anger is living and seething, and it seems to burn out. Sad thing is, it's seeds remain, so it lives to rear its ugly head another day.

But no, if you have not seen angry men, then you have been blessed to see only "real men", which I think was the point of this exercise, as we all know what brutes look like.

Lisa

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Lisa

As to defining men.... I think that most of the good qualities are shared by men and women but are sometimes expressed a bit differently by the sexes. A good/real woman fulfills her responsibilities, has integrity and honor, and tries to be rational, just, and generous but it sometimes looks a little different when done by a woman.

I really do think of simple, direct speech and action as a primarily male characteristic. Women are certainly capable of it but, in my opinion, it is a male characteristic. Male = Action. :)

My little story would be that if you have some difficulty in your life and tell a man, he immediately casts about for a way to act so as to resolve the problem. If he cannot take action on the problem, he will probably feel uneasy and would prefer not hear more about it. The same story/problem told to a woman will elicit sympathy and reassurance and she will not feel uneasy about not being able to correct the problem. Voila! The difference in men and women.

As for "good" or "real" men. I've certainly never known a perfect one and that's a good thing. Why would a perfect man even speak to such a flawed woman as I! Everyone has a flaw and a vice and usually more than one of each. The important thing, for me, is will the flaws and weaknesses undermine his character in such a way that he cannot be trusted at all? It is my belief that we can only be trusted in those areas where we are strong and it's a fool's game to trust a person where he has a known weakness.

For instance, if a man is a womanizer it is entirely possible and even likely that you can trust him with your money, your valuables, your children, and your reputation - just don't trust him with women. Simple. If a man's weakness is money, he can probably be trusted with women but not your money. I'm sure you get my idea.

Perhaps because I am a woman, I usually find it easier to "read" men than women. Maybe I don't actually read men that well; it could be that I am just more forgiving toward men than I am toward women. By the way, I think that cuts both ways. I believe men are more forgiving toward women than they are toward other men.

Anger... Surely, surely not a "male" characteristic. There are far too many angry women for this to be foisted off as a male characteristic. *I'm not talking about being a little short-tempered. Anger is an abiding and corrosive thing if it is diffuse and a personality trait. Anger has its proper place as a reaction to gross injustice and cruelty.* I've heard for decades about "angry" men and always been a little nonplussed. Did this start with the women's lib activity in the late 60's and through the 70's? I really don't know.

However, it did seem to me that men were put in an impossible position and anything they might do was subjected to intense and withering criticism. I think there is continuing sniping at men that undermines their best intentions and best efforts. Of course, I'm really partial to men and they have always had my genuine sympathy because the burden of action falls on them. I could probably write a chapter on "anger" but I contend it is not a specifically male characteristic.

I confess that I view malice, whining, backbiting, etc. in men as "feminine" characteristics. :) I can hear the scream of protest from here! :) A nice autumn afternoon, a bottle of excellent Margaux, a pack of cigarettes for me, and I would tell a few of the experiences that brought me to this point of view. :)

I've known a few really excellent women. I've known many really excellent men. We've all heard "a good man is hard to find." Well, a "good woman" is damned rare!

Big grin... Had about enough of this, have you?


P.S. Brutal men are weak men who are careful to bully and brutalize those who are weaker than they and vulnerable - NOT good breeding stock.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I agree -- good men and women share most of the same qualities. The difference is in expression and coping mechanisms. I really like this:

"It is my belief that we can only be trusted in those areas where we are strong and it's a fool's game to trust a person where he has a known weakness." The proof's in the pudding. Your concept of being more forgiving of men is interesting. I believe we are raised to see men as flawed (for instance, my grandfather was a profligate womanizer, but mom says, "Well, he must've had the testosterone of 10 men!") So, it's their hormones, you see? This may be because we needed their protection. Humans are nothing if not resilient and ingenious with explanations/coping mechanisms (denial, anyone?!!)

And I guess we do the same for women, expecting them to be touchy, hysterical, whatever. However, in my fantasy, people respect each other enough to react with sensitivity to other's needs, or express their need directly.

"Anger is an abiding and corrosive thing if it is diffuse and a personality trait. Anger has its proper place as a reaction to gross injustice and cruelty" -- Amen, sister! No sex has sole ownership of this toxic emotion, most often set to wring the joy from a life when habitual.

"I confess that I view malice, whining, backbiting, etc. in men as "feminine" characteristics. :)" Again, brava! I cannot bear entitled drama queens of either sex. Oh, the Margaux could be supplied -- I'd love to hear your tales :)

The 3rd point we agree on: Good women are HARD to find! I have few, but they are gems. Sober and real people. I can't bear tittering and posturing...

My theory: About 70-80% of men are in the acceptable range, far as decent habits and morality; only 30-40% of women can pass muster, IMHO! Hormones are but a small part of it; socialization, designing behavior, nattering ... Just plain not interesting, how 'bout that! Okay, so the men on the tales of my bell curves might be a little dull, but they're sound, do-right men. Women often lack a core of integrity, and again, this may well be socialization: They are pragmatists, trading up when they can, improving their position by hook or by crook.

Women, due to their egos and silly vulnerability to flattery, will turn hither and thither, ruining many a good man in the process. Many of the bad men out there are the flotsam and jetsam of their process, and are left as buckets of fear and insecurity as a result. Now -- bad men can do the same to a women, but generally, I feel men favor the fairer sex. I have not met many unkind men, but I have met or heard of many unkind women.

Oh, I've enjoyed this little jaunt into the behavior of the sexes -- thanks for indulging me. Looks like we're on the same page pretty much. Love your p.s., btw -- spoken like a true farmer!

L.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[Just visiting our old correspondence here, and wondered if you would be opposed to my posting it to the site? IMHO, there is much here, and I'd love if anyone else got on board, an addition to our two level heads :) ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


It is my stripped down opinion that men are breeding males like all other mammalian breeding males and have the same basic instincts and behaviors. I really believe that most of what we are individually is less reason and more hard wiring than most of us like to think. We flatter ourselves that we decide and choose mindsets and behaviors and I suppose we do within fairly narrow limits. Hardwiring determines and defines the array of choices available to each person.

Yep, I come down hard on the nature side of the nature vs nurture argument - an opinion radically different than the one I held from teen years through my twenties.

I could talk about this for many long afternoons and evenings and enjoy myself thoroughly. :)


P.S. Be aware that my perspective on men and definition of a good man is modeled on my father, his close friends, my uncles, brothers, cousins, etc. It seems reasonable to me that I defined a "man" by my father at such an early age that such conscious thought was beyond my ability but the template was set nonetheless ???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I, too, am a staunch naturalist. It's not too p.c., but if one reads the studies it is obvious that one can only shift so much from one's genetic set-point.

We're an upright (though not always straight-up) chemical soup that runs about like squirrels after nuts, yet we fancy we're each quite unique. Now, I do believe we are strongly impacted by our programming (which alters our genes). So, one may exit the hamster wheel with GREAT effort; few do, I feel.

I am amazed at the brilliant and kind people I have met via this military boys site

L.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, so there are two women's points of view. (Sorry -- didn't mean to imply military boys were not thinkin' sorts.) What have we missed?