When CBS unveiled its short-lived series “Love Monkey” in January, leading male television critics could barely contain their enthusiasm. The New York Times’ Alessandra Stanley was far less impressed, especially with its lead male character, thirty-something music producer Tom Farrell, whose “endearing foibles” included “self-absorption, wanting what he cannot have and an inability to commit.” Based on the eponymous 2004… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (59)Page 1 of 1 pagesI think men and boys are in need of the “you’re not crazy” vindication that women got from the third wave of feminism.
I would like to kick it off with, Yes. You do cradle the baby like a football.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 17, 2006 at 12:42 PM >>A stoic John Wayne has been replaced....
Thank god for it, too. That’s the type who believed guns solved problems, might could make right, and women didn’t know what they wanted until they met a man who’d could dominate her and tell her.
I’ll go for the new metrosexual--the idea that anyone can be “grown up...settled, comfortable, stable, responsible...” in a world where nothing is settled or stable, where comfortable means looking the other way at global problems such as war and polution, and responsible is the idea of being a good tax payer home-owner is insane.
It’s about time things changed, so, yeah, I’ll take the boys. Long may they fly like Peter Pan!
Posted by shandy on Mar 17, 2006 at 12:59 PM Frankly I have always looked at the lad boy/men phenomenon as being an example of reverse sexism and the creeping misandronism that is enveloping our society rather than an example of atavistic machismo. If that sounds hypersensitive, I once sat down with girlfriend and dared her to show me one TV commercial in which a man was portrayed in a good light in a TV commercial involving a TV family. We are still waiting. I shudder to think what this is doing to boys who constantly see images of stupid oafish dads as the “norm” in TV land.
Point two the endless self-absorption of lad lit is matched only by the endless self-absorption of chick-lit. Can anyone honestly tell me that the Sex in the City characters are any less materialistic and narcissistic than the Love Monkey characters?
Alas it seems that both men and women are Peter Pans in TV land nowadays.
Posted by xetere on Mar 17, 2006 at 1:43 PM Hi, shand, I think the idea of maturity as “settled, comfortable, and stable” is the old marketing cliche to build suburbia. I can’t argue with “responsible” as an important part of maturity, so long as “responsible” for what? is on the table for discussion.
Hi, xetere, I agree that boys and men are being dogged. I’ve been feminist since I was eleven, but now I’m looking for a new word for it. A couple of years ago I was a nanny for a child I walked to school. A lot of kids in the neighborhood wanted to walk with me and my charge because they knew I wouldn’t allow them to be bullied. The girls were surprized, at first to find out I wouldn’t let the girls bully the boys either. I met remarks like, “boys are nasty” and “boys are stupid”, with “NO THEY ARE NOT! Boys are cool. Girls are cool, and this badmouthing is NOT.” I only had to say it once. But I have no doubt that they said the same things out of my ear shot.
That is not what I wanted feminism to accomplish.
Nevertheless, capitalism demands consumerism, and divide-and-conquer is just the kind of lose/lose strategy that keeps the masses distracted with personal issues while they are being socially engineered en masse.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 17, 2006 at 3:31 PM Hi wileywitch,
I think one of the best articles about feminism written in a long time is at http://www.lipmagazine.org I think that Lisa Jervis’ article “If Women Ruled The World, Nothing Would Be Different” may be in line with what you are thinking (based on what I have read here). I urge anyone who feels like they have given up on feminism (or, in your case, wanting to change its name) to read it.
I, myself, have experienced issues with the concept of feminism myself over the years. But after reading articles such as the aforementioned one, I am feeling hopeful about the movement again.
I indeed agree that men and boys are in need of the “your’e not crazy” vindication, too. Thank you Third Wavers, for keeping me “sane.”
Posted by forwardfem on Mar 18, 2006 at 4:21 AM Hi, forwardfem I never thought it would be better if women ruled the world. The valorization of a group is one thing, proposing that they become dominant is another. I’ll confess that I went through a male-bashing stage in the eighties. There was a lot of blatant mysognyny in the media then, but now, as is addressed in the article it’s turned around. Fortunately, a friend called me out on my bashing and I stopped. Then I started to see nice men hanging their heads and looking confused, and hang-dog, like--am I crazy? while women carried on about how “bad” men are (and how much better the world would be if women ran it) and I recognized the state and realized that encouraging a nice person into that state is a crock; that doesn’t further the cause. It leads to backlash.
Won’t argue that the U.S. doesn’t have a problem growing up.
If men---being half the race---are fully responsible for patriarchy, then they really are superior. It’s time to call out women when they collaborate, and to give men credit where credit is due, and stop looking at them every time something breaks.
I never stopped calling myself “feminist”. My favorite is “The Mermaid and the Minotaur”, by Dorothy Dinnerstein (?). Her thesis is that we won’t have parity and mutual understanding until men do half the parenting. And not just the fun half. i’ll check out your article.
thanks
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 18, 2006 at 10:27 AM Hey all,
This article sort of dovetails perfectly with a book I am reading..."Is the american dream killing you?” The book is overwrought in its assertions at times, but the basic premise is that the Market has immense power over our lives, and is the force of change in our society(usually for the worse).
The key word I found in the article above was “atomized”. This is what happens to everything the Market touches.
Posted by pepcorn on Mar 18, 2006 at 10:43 AM Solid article, forwardfem.
I bookmarked
http://www.lipmagazine.org/
and put it in my news folder. It makes me happy to see an argument against feminist qua women telling women what they ought to be because they are women.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 18, 2006 at 11:07 AM forwardfern, I followed your advice and read the article. Funny, while I was about to open the page, I was thinking about Condoleeza and Thatcher. But I still have some doubts. Ever since I can remember, masculine members of our species have had the leading roles, as regards battles, enterprises, politics, economic tendencies, and I have to make an effort to remember some famous woman ever mentioned. Even existencialism immediately brings to mind the name of Jean Paul Sartre, while Simone de Bouvoir comes second by far ( unjustly,in my opinion ). Among the few exceptions are Madre Teresa de Calcuta, Mme. Curie and Joan of Arc. The world such as it is is has been going from bad to worse and there seems to be no limit as to destruction of nature, greed, exploitation of the weakest, warmongery and other niceties, the visible faces of which are predominantely males. If a woman wants to make a career in practically any branch, she is expected to act mercilessly, show no feelings, just push her way up with any means she may find fit and above all, beware of crying or showing empathy or compassion to others. The world seems to be increasingly cruel, no mercy, just go, go, go, draw your weapon and down with anyone who is on the way. Forgive me if I feel that’s a man’s attitude, it’s just what I see on the TV and in everyday’s life. The theorists of globalization, consummerism, oil addiction, and other destructive policies have not many women on the list. Unfortunately, in an attempt to be treated like equal, women have taken the wrong path by imitating men or trying to gain control by resorting to sexual appeal.
While this unbearable state of affairs was created, many men haven’t hesitated before turning into predators, their hands haven’t trembled when they had a trigger to pull, but at the time they are supposed to take a commitment with the true meaning of life itself, they suddenly pretend they are not ready yet, they are boyish, and rather leave in feminine hands the care of children, of nature, of life. Grow up, boys, sit up and watch what mainly you have been causing.
Posted by Maria on Mar 18, 2006 at 4:45 PM Maria, I see your point and I surmise that anyone who takes a feminist perspective has the same struggles, but think about it---whose hand rocks the cradle? I can’t count the number I’ve times I’ve seen a mother tell her two year old boy not to be a “baby”.
Who just loves a man in uniform?
Also, if women weren’t competing with other women, men would not be able to dominate. This is a generalization, but I think it’s fair to say that women tear other women down. If you don’t see that out of whack “feminine” energies that are destructive, then maybe you’re not looking. Women hurt women. Women hurt children. Women hurt men.
As far as the famous men coming to mind first, goes, as long as you remember the women, it’s not such a big thing. Few, if any, people are ever going to be completely free of sexist thought and gender bias. We just keep slogging on.
Right now, young men are being royally screwed over by women and judges in family courts. I would like to see society treating men like they have feelings too. Maybe they’d be kinder if they felt like it was O.K. with women for them to have feelings of their own.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 18, 2006 at 9:22 PM While I’m not holding my breath for it, I think it’d be ideal to start seeing ourselves as multigendered beings. That might end this pointless binaried banter vis-a-vis men and women.
It’s why the term “feminist” - while I greatly appreciate the movement - gets under my skin. The genetic difference between men and women is infinitessimal. I think of that Far Side with two jellyfish outhouses, the caption reading “Only they know the difference.”
We obviously have sexual and intellectual proclivities which differ, due to the way we evolved, but we are incredibly adaptive. Think of all the hermaphrodites, bisexuals, asexuals, etc.
But it’s only been a couple hundred years since humanity drastically departed from the way life was lived for the 10,000 where evolutionary adapation wasn’t so necessary. Our technology has leveled the playing field (the world is flat!) for men and women in the social order, and these old instincts of ours die hard. Best course of personal action IMO is to let go of one’s own identifcation with one’s own gender.
Insomma, I agree with Rent Boy in Trainspotting - in the future, they’ll be no men, no women, just a bunch of wankers.
Posted by rocco on Mar 19, 2006 at 11:32 AM Rocco, if you look at gender differences worldwide, you’ll see a lot of different sets of “differences” that often contradict our Western view of gender.
I’m sure there are sexual and intellectual proclivities that differ, but those are differences on a scale. I’m not arguing with you, just want to make a point. Like there are a lot of people whose body temperatures are usually 97.3 Fahrenheit. It would be a mistake and an abuse of a mean to think that these people are “off”.
Women who are more “masculine” in tone (according to our cultural codes) and men who are more “feminine” (ditto) are not necessarily genderly disturbed. They’re probably just being who they naturally are, and not violating a natural law.
If boys, girs, men, and women weren’t still being bombarded with messages (consciously or unconsciously) about who they are and how they should behave, the proclivities might look a lot different. Men still won’t get pregnant, and pregnancy creates a host of issues, but otherwise, I think that conclusions are being hastily drawn in the scientific community about what is biological and what is social in male/female behavior. How many cultures have been tested with any of these methods used in gender studies and produced the same result?
It’s like the studies that look at one parent or aunt of someone they’re diagnosing, and decide that their condition is “genetic”. If they all lived in the same area, drank the same water, ate the same diet, etc....the scientists seem, for some reason to be very quick to rule out environmental causes.
And biologists and neurologists are too quick to conclude that differences in men and women are genetic, even though most of them must know that much of our human relatedness is hard-wired in our brain by our caretaker in infancy. This is so crucial, that babies who are not held and treated with affection die.
Scientists are especially quick to conclude that men are naturally wired to have sex with as many women as possible and women are wired to have sex with only one man. This doesn’t make any sense, at all. I don’t see how they can take themselves seriously. So rape is a biologial imperative? What? Somehow, I doubt that prehistoric women were coy. I also don’t doubt that women lie, even to themselves, about their sexual desires and (due to the risks of pregnancy, disease, and “bad” reputations) how often they have them, and how often they would have sex if no risk was involved.
In a study done on an island populated only with men (the study started when the men first arrived) what we call “gendered behavior” changed over time, until roughly half of the island were “feminine” and half were “masculine”. Maybe we need a balance of certain energies and behaviors to function.
Our mind isthe physical structure of our brain, and it is always moving. As you said, we are adaptive.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 19, 2006 at 12:19 PM wileywitch - Yeah, I agree with you. I was generalizing for the sake of brevity. Sexual proclivities are of the two the easier to agree upon (men not having babies, women not fertilizing)...intellectual is the sticky one. Look what happened to what’s-his-name at Harvard who suggested men might be genetically better at math.
I am no expert on this, nor even a well-informed lay person, so I’m not going to hypothesize on a touchy subject. I do know a few interesting facts due to my fascination with ambidexterity and brain function: men are predominantly left-brained, which controls linear thinking, while women are predominantly right-brained, which controls gestalt thinking(however women often test better verbally, which is a left-brain function).
Even more interesting to me, as a left-handed male: only 10% of the male population is right-handed, whereas only 5-8% of women are (there are a lot of conflicting numbers, but the general trend of them are the same). A study recently published in “Psychology Bulletin,” finds homosexual men and women are more likely to be left-handed than their heterosexual counterparts. Canadian researchers say these findings indicate sexual orientation, like handedness, may be determined before birth. But as you say, scientists always say that. Maybe they’re wrong.
A statistical analysis of 20 studies involving more than 23,000 men and women had found that gay men were 34 percent more inclined toward left-handednesss than non-gay men while the chances were even greater among homosexual women, where they were 91 percent more likely to be left-handed than heterosexual women.
My take: we are born with certain proclivities, and the environment molds that clay. Personal anecdote: I was ambidexterous as a baby, and some asshole told my parents that was bad, so to make me choose a hand. I leaned left...(progressive website humor).
Lastly, I like your ‘island’ experiment. More info? It sounds illegal. At any rate, it reinforces my preference of Chinese philosophy’s yang and yin, rather than male and female. According to them, a young woman has more yang, i.e. more active energy, than an old man.
Posted by rocco on Mar 19, 2006 at 12:57 PM I meant 10% are left-handed.
Even more interesting postscript: 98% of chimpanzees are right-handed. So maybe left-handedness is a prerequisite for evolving?
Posted by rocco on Mar 19, 2006 at 1:00 PM wiley - one last thing: about the only thing you posted with which I have a bone of contention was on sexual patterns. Not really out and out disagreement, but still: because this is, from what I’ve read, a fairly complex scenario.
First, a glance at primates - bonobos, our closest cousins, have rampant orgiastic sex romps. Males on males on females on males. They’re pretty kinky. It keeps the society tight. And how!
So we definitely have a promiscuious gene, as Las Vegas can tell you. However, the bonobos are in their natural habitat, and are largely free from predators. Humans weren’t so lucky. The Pleistecine kicked us out of our sweet arboreal digs, and we were big cat fodder. Our evolution was pretty gritty, and took some pretty ugly turns. Switching from vegetarian to meat-eating, killing, and yes, raping.
Scientists break at this point, but I believe it’s still largely accepted that we survived by forming hunting tribes of 30-40 people - 10 hunting men, and 20 to 30 domestics: women, children, and elderly. Scientists have speculated that roaming men had a 2-fold dilemma: not being at home to protect their mates and progeny, but able to spread their genes by raping other unprotected women. Prehistoric women may not have been coy, but I doubt they liked being raped any more than today’s women. Plus women have more invested in the final product, so they logically would be more selective. Desire and practice are two different things.
Where I agree with you is on female promiscuity. Women would always want the best possible genetic carrier, and the best rearer. In other words, marry the old billionaire and sleep with the pool boy. Not trying to be crude, but I think true instincts often emerge in the amoral. Anyway, I believe this is explored in Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal (which I’m not 100% a fan of).
I always had for a short story idea the tale of the first prostitute. Maybe an orphan that everyone resented because she took food away from ‘real’ people. Until she grew up and noticed that they all wanted to have her, which she would only trade for a good slice of caribou…
Posted by rocco on Mar 19, 2006 at 1:42 PM I am personally sick and tired of ads, TV shows, and movies alternately representing men either as pliable spineless jellyfish tripping over themselves to please their significant other or as pleasure-seeking, responsibility-avoiding, idiots with nothing to offer this world and even less of substance to offer in a meaningful relationship.
Don’t get me wrong, please. I am in a long-term (14 years), meaningful relationship / marriage with a best friend / lover in which we do achieve real communication. We read some of the same books together and love to discuss and hear each other’s thoughts on them. We argue, we laugh, we fight, we make love. BUT, I will not make excuses for who I am which includes that I am a man, in order to fit our culture’s view of ‘what a man should be’. No apologies. I resent my half of the human race being represented as worthless non-contributors. We are men. Sometimes selfish, sometimes noble, sometimes valiant and brave, at other times afraid. Many of us strive to better ourselves, to sacrifice our wishes and desires, and to bring benefit to society and to those we love. It is what makes us human and raises us above simple animals.
I also have three boys which may help explain why this subject is so near and dear to me.
Posted by aquraishi on Mar 19, 2006 at 5:35 PM Rocco, I am taking a mini-break from spring cleaning and cannot go into the intricasies of your post right now. I hope to get to them by Thursday. It’s a fascinating topic.
aquraishi, it is ridiculous how marketing belittles and cheapens us all. It is not to our credit that this sells and that’s why they do it.
I’m glad that we can see men cry in movies now, and even on live telecasts sometimes. I’m glad to see men snuggling with their baby. I’m tired of seeing men being dogged too.
If you have a penis and your an adult, you’re a man in my book. How silly to be made to feel like that’s something that needs to be proven.
But why are men, especially (according to the article) being infantilized now? Hmmm. Maybe it’s to blame them for losing that job that went overseas. Just a thought.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 19, 2006 at 9:41 PM wileywitch:
I am surprised that you liked that article, I mean it’s basic thesis is women are just as sucky as men. It goes to great lengths to demean women’s strengths, because such strengths assume there are real differences in men and women based in biology not culture.
The article’s inane reasoning is best expressed when she speaks of her ideal world ...it’s the obliteration of rigid gender categories themselves, not any kind of elevation of the feminine, that is our best hope for an end to gender discrimination....
Inferred is the question will say, gender roles are the problem. How she gets that I don’t know. In the places where we can see such expression, the results are not pretty (and I’m not talking looks). To state as she does that society should look to transgender and genderqueers for the true path to social equality is utter stupidity and idiot idiology.
Overlooked in this debate of nature vs. nurture is an aspect of nurture that is rarely divided out and given proper credit.
Genetics truly doesn’t play a direct role in human behavior. The lack of overt direct behavior is a key reason why people think we are products of culture. But just because humans have few instinctual behaviors doesn’t mean genetics doesn’t have other ways to control our behavior. In humans genetics exerts control via proxy. One key method is hormonal, and the sex that is most influenced is men (NOT women despite the stereotypes.)
I had a health condition that gave me insight that few people get. It caused my testosterone levels to plunge to that of a woman’s, and about 1/20th to 1/30th of a typical man.
The changes in my mindset, behavior and beliefs during that time when I had minimal testosterone levels showed me just how much of my behavior is NOT due to culture but hormones.
I used what I learned to look around at men and women in general, and with this new perspective, I saw the same pattern repeated in our culture on a grand scale. I also looked up info on others who had what I had, and their stories were the same. Men deprived of testosterone gradually developed a female mindset (though it’s rarely described exactly that way). Once restored the male mind was restored.
The strong bias in favor of nurture over causes many to not even examine the possible role of testosterone in regards to male behavior. This despite it’s influence being proved essential from our time as a fetus.
It’s scientific fact that Without testosterone everyone would be female mentally AND physically.
During that time the brain is when the brain is wired to develop along the male blueprint that later explains the differences between the sex.
Yet because it happens so early in our development researchers failed to make any connection until recently.
The potency of this direction shows up in studies of children raised in “gender neutral” environments.
In such environments boys and girls still choose games and activities similar to children in culturally influenced settings. the obvious hormonal influence is ignored in favor of illogical cultural reasons.
Personally I see no evidence of dramatic variations in male behavior in the world that indicate culture is the driving force in male behavior.
What exactly have you seen that I miss so completely? I’m curious and not being sarcastic ;-)
It’s the mindsets of men and woman that make them different. This mindset is what drives culture. Culture is a group expression of the differences between men and women.
In short, truer than anything else, Men are products and slaves to their hormones!
It would take overturning the cultural teachings of millennia to accept how overwhelming testoserone’s influence is in creating and directing the male mind. For we are all taught we are special because we are creatures of choice and reason.
To accept we are not is a tall task especially when asked ot do so in regards to the behavior of men, not women. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 19, 2006 at 10:54 PM wileywitch & johnnyincentx:
I think much of the infantilization of men is related to men’s suppression of women through the 50s and early 60s. It is a backlash generated by valid grevances not just by women but by men. I have at times been ashamed of being a man given the treatment of women - at work, the objectification as sexual objects. Hey, I’m a normal guy and have always appreciated femaile fiminity and sexuality. The place to enjoy that aspect of our respective sexes is in committed and not in using relationships. It was in my 30s that I started to rail against my shame, realizing that in the process of recognizing the female plight I was undermining my sex, myself. I have come to believe that in both sexes is found what is wonderous and excellent. Men need women and women need men; not just for balance but for tenderness and romantic love.
Posted by aquraishi on Mar 20, 2006 at 7:26 AM johnnyincentx - Your comments re testosterone beg a question. Is the cushy life of the modern man - the lack of a need to fight, or dig ditches - lowering our testosterone levels? There is such as thing called ‘psychological castration’ among animals which aren’t alphas and therefore can’t reproduce. Is equality making gammas of us all? Could this be related? Thus the metrosexual?
Maybe Love Monkey - while obviously corporate and lame - is more a product of nature than we’d like to believe…
Posted by rocco on Mar 20, 2006 at 10:42 AM I’ll get back to you on that Thursday, johnny----Wednesday night if I’m lucky.
In a nut-shell I do not believe that women are inherently morally superior, I don’t believe that one should believe that they should have or amplify, or should not have or should minimize any human personality trait based on the accident of the sexual organs they have.
I also, believe that no one is “liberated” until everyone is “liberated” among groups that live together.
Auquraishi, backlash is an interesting thought in this context. That’s why I have such a problem withovercompensating, and over-valorizing tactics, they naturally lead to a backlash.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 20, 2006 at 10:48 AM Wileywitch:
No problem. I agree with you though, women are not inherently morally superior. That’s not part of my position.
What I do believe is that the inherent biological differences, like a far lower testosterone level, a differently ordered brain result in a decision making process that is less prone to stupid mistakes like men are.
Women are more likely to think 2 or 3x before making a risky move, again not linked to moral superiority but a virtual hard-wiring laid down during our days in the wilderness.
No one questions the fact that our diet is unhealthy for us now, in sigificant part due to the fact that our metabolism is geared to a feast and famine feeding pattern seen in hunting and gathering societies.
Our biology and physiology are lagging far behind the advances in civilized society and technological advances that make life so much easier for us all.
So what is interesting is the knee-jerk response some have when the possibility that differences between men and women in society are a product of certain basic hard-wiring meant to reflect society that no longer exists in the civilized world.
The fact that men are bigger, stronger and are more prone to aggression fits in nicely with the pre-historic roles of protector and hunter. The greater desire to compete fits in snugly with the need to hone their skills in time of rest, and to prove their fitness as mates.
So many of what we assome are culturally derived relationships are much more explained in a basic animal model in line with other mammals. Some fit so nicely any philosophical reason or explanations assuming choice become unnecessary.
Women in a hunter/gatherer society would be ill-equipped to hunt, fight as aggressively as men. To have testosterone levels as high as men would make women want to fight and do other things that are seen as “culturally male” desires, but are actually the profound and absolute effects of testosterone’s influence on the development of the male mind.
High testosterone levels give men shorter tempers, a higher willingness to resort to violence and fight, a greater interest in sports (yeah it really does) and directs the mind to engage in play as children that develops skills for such endeavors.
Of course the big wild card that confuses everyon is sexuality. Again when placed in the “wild animal” setting of hunter gatherer socieities, the effects of testosterone on men clearly enables the men with higher levels to get more partners and produce more children. Women’s lower levels resulted in them depending on intelligence to create their role. Coy, sly, subtle techniques were their counter to the hormonally driven male.
This view is not popular at all though, because of the supreme notion that most of humanity has that we are different from any animal, because we think and make choices in the abstract.
Ironically what we really when we reason and make choices is often just come up with an explanations that justify actions and choices that seem so appealing for no apparent reason.
Of course unlike animals if there is a great need we can alter our preferences, but only with incredible effort. This is why in my view people are so prone to inertia. It requires a tremendous amount of effort to change our natural tendencies to want this or that.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 20, 2006 at 2:06 PM rocco
Hmmm, well I’d say to your begging question that it going the wrong direction.
Inherent in what I wrote is men still have a testosterone level required to compete and survive in primitive non-civilized hunter/gatherer societies.
In today’s more civilized nations, this level is far in excess of what a man needs to deal with the modern world.
Testosterone is relentless driver though, and will not let down just because there is no need to defend, hunt, fight Etc.
Lacking the normal activities that justified the high levels of testosteron, modern man created war and violence and sports as a substitute.
Of course this theory is hard to test, because it would require large groups of men allowing their testosterone levels to be dramatically lowered to that of a woman’s for an extended period a year or more.
In our patriarchical societies such an experiment would be decried as absolute stupidity and a crime against nature.
Still the evidence that is out there, in the many medical cases where men suffer an absolute decline in testosterone levels demonstrates a marked change in the mental aspects of such men. Their desires became more female in every way. (By the way I do NOT mean they wanted to wear dresses or makeup LOL just their perspectives and reactions changed)
This data is usually ignored, because it serves no purpose in “fixing” the condition. Fortunately the effects are reported nevertheless in various ways.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 20, 2006 at 2:18 PM Rocco:
There is some mammelian evidence that is far stronger. Certain male mammels undergo a dramatic change in their hormone levels after mating to levels usually seen in females.
When their testoserone levels drop, and certain other supposedly “female” hormones rise the males exhibit dramatic changes in behavior and desire. It’s almost black and white.
In place of aggressiveness, the males become cuddly and nurturing both to his mate and his cubs.
In place of competitiveness he becomes cooperative and goes out of his way to provide for his mate.
The selfishness that is part of being in survival mode is replaced by a kind of altruism in which he is willing to put his family first.
Animal behaviorists of course dismiss this as INSTINCT in animals. They are driven to reproduce only, and have no emotional component that drives them to do this.
Ironically the same patterns are observable in humans, but when we do it we always ascribe our actions to thought out choices and decisions we made, and because of our self-evident emotional components we declare them to be absolutely not related to instinct or genetics.
Once the cubs are raised to adulthood, the desire for monogamy in the male varmit disappears and he leaves his mate, and goes back to his solitary life fighting other males for territory, and hunting for food.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 20, 2006 at 2:25 PM Some time ago I was lucky to meet a John G. Brand on the net who had written a remarkable book called “Shaking the Foundations: Coming of Age in the Postmodern Era “published by 1st Books Library.
He was kind enough to send me a copy and I translated it to Spanish, so he could publish it. Unfortunately, before I could send it to him, he vanished from the web (presumably he died).
I strongly recommend it to all because it deals with human behaviour in relation with his triune brain (descending from reptiles, mammals and incorporating a third part, the neo-cortex which is strictly human).
It is really very enlightening and helps a lot in the understanding of our behaviour and how to improve it by simply analyzing which of the three brain-drivers is acting at every moment. The present condition of the world would suggest the reptile brain in well and alive. This part of the brain deals with territory, hierarchy, ritual and deceit (doesn’t it sound awfully familiar?) The third brain would be in develpement and would focus on empathy and compassion. I hope you can get it and enjoy it. This is the utmost contribution I can offer to this discussion, specially after reading mostly excuses about the mess we have turned the earth into.
Posted by Maria on Mar 20, 2006 at 3:22 PM johnnyincentx,
Since we’re on the same page as far as humans vis-a-vis the rest of our mammalian counterparts, I’m going to defend my newly devised little theory with the logic which you’ve presented to me.
If in fact testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior (in both men and women, as I’ve read), and the aggressive behavior of men has quelled in civilized quarters, I must wonder if the lack of threatening stimuli in one’s environment lowers the necessity to produce abundant levels of testoterone.
Environment need not equal culture. Outside influence are part of a natural cycle...plants even release chemicals in response to dangerous insects or bacteria. No threatening bugs, no release. Of course, culture can affect environment, but that’s another topic.
To return to the theory: perhaps men are becoming more feminine in a direct response to a lack of danger. Sure, it’s going to be on average higher than women, but lower than our ancestors. It could help explain shellshock, or why the barbarians eventually break down the gates...they’ve got raging testoterone levels. I don’t believe there is an Afghani version of Love Monkey.
A propos of your comment that our biology is lagging behind our technology:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1143003600&en=e11 10e1200bdba39c&ei=5070
Posted by rocco on Mar 20, 2006 at 5:12 PM Correction: I should say a lack of immediate reasons for aggressive behavior, rather than a lack of danger. Danger is everywhere…
Posted by rocco on Mar 20, 2006 at 5:17 PM Maria:
It’s interesting that those who use Thatcher and Condolezza Rice as examples of women being as ruthless as men are failing utterly to take into account how their personal politics is influencing their perspective.
What makes women different “generally speaking” is how women approach things and decide things. It’s how they thing things through and have a multi-faceted perspective vs. the typically linear thinking of men.
Their processing is not AS friendly to aggression, attacking, violence as a solution.
This is NOT the same thing as saying women do not do that. They do, but that’s a different subject.
This does not prevent many women from coming to the same conclusion as men either, but it does influence and the gender gap is a clear indicator of this.
From what I’ve read and observed, Condi, exercises her power in an extremely female way. In dress she prefers subtle but very sexual suits. A good example is her all-black outfit consisting of a tight skirt and form fitting top and tall almost stilleto heeled boots. It emphasized everything about her that was distinctly physically female.
America has strong biases about the beauty of women of color and women in power. So most here ridiculed her. Lookists called her ugly.
In Germany and Europe where American black sexuality is considering exotic she got very good reviews. The attention was more positive, especially from the male members of Gov’t. with whom she dealt.
She may have strong, clear cut opinions, but she always calm and soft-spoken when she expresses them.
Anytime she is confronted directly by protesters her technique is to state their beliefs as valid and defend their right to express them via protesting. This “diffusion technique” is very female.
Condi also seems to relentlessly pursue consensus for her direct subordinates at the State Dept. We never hear a dissenting voice or leaks like we did under Powell.
Thatcher I don’t remember well, but I have a feeling her right wing politics color our perceptions of her.
Of course there are a few extreme examples who are supposedy female in gender, that individually defy all expectations. Understanding them only takes understanding that there are always exceptions, sometimes a lot, but exceptions do not make the rule. Individuals do not define the group.
Ann Coulter is one such exception. So is Filly Shafterly. The overiding dertermining factor in those two women is pure, undeniable evil that utterly obliterates any influences on behavior and mindset being female might have. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 20, 2006 at 5:42 PM rocco:
I think I understand your perspective, but where I diverge is i do NOT agree that men are softening up or becoming more femmy.
Men are still the way they have always been, and are quick to show you how manly they are. IF any opportunity presents itself.
The issue this article addresses are simply not visible in men outside of urban centers. In the mid-sized cities to rural areas, the roles are almost unchanged.
one thing I think you may be doing is assuming testosterone fluctuates in our body like another hormone adrenaline. It does not.”
Testosterone levels are pretty steady vs. adrenaline. Which can spike in a few seconds under sudden stress. We always have a level of testosterone in our bodies to keep our behavior consistant.
To see the changes a low testoserone level will cause in a man requires two things that rarely happen purposely. First the low level has to last for a long time - a year or more. It also has to fall dramatically to the levels seen in women something like 1/20th to 1/30th of the typically healthy male, and STAY that low the entire time
Even with the normal fluctuations men experience in their test. levels, this simply doesn’t happen in a healthy man,and in sick men, they usually seek treatment far before a year passes.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 20, 2006 at 5:54 PM johnnyincentx: I’m admittedly addressing a subject out of my ken; however, I’ did find this article in a medical journal in a quick google search:
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/josephs/pdf_documents/Testos_Enc cyclo_Entry.pdf
It says: “Social experiences such as competition can cause testosterone levels to rise and fall.”
I am speculating that if an evironment were of a certain kind for a long enough period of time - in this case, less dependent on aggressive behavior - the human species may indeed adapt accordingly. So, overall levels of testorone may drop. I have no evidence for this, nor do I know if anyone has ever followed this line of thinking to experiment or conclude upon.
It’s why I placed the link to the NY Times article on evolution, which in a nutshell speaks to how rapid evolution can be, and that we are still evolving, contrary to the opinion of some. Indeed, evolutionists have more or less shifted from a belief in gradualism to one of spikes due to drastic environmental changes. We adapt when we have to.
So I don’t believe unreasonable to hypothesize that civilized men may adapt to be less aggressive (or femmy, as you say). If rural or urban (as opposed to urbane) men do not follow this trend, it may be because the law of the jungle is more applicable.
To reiterate, I don’t know, nor do I necessarily believe, this is happening. Only placing out a possible evolutionary reason for a definitely noticeable trend. But rainbows within rainbows, of course, as always.
Posted by rocco on Mar 20, 2006 at 9:27 PM rocco
I think I’m being more specific than you are that’s all. All body functions of any type have high periods/low periods and cycle naturally between them.
Testosterone is no different.
What I was addressing was the seeming perspective you seemed to have this natural cycling of the levels of testosterone had “immediate” effects on a person, like adrenaline does. YOu seemed to assume this cycling inferred that testosterone has the potential to affect behavior like adrenaline does.
That article definitely doesn’t say that or infer that. It actually backs up what I said about testosterone in every way.
Of course the article is light on details, so assuming that testosterone can affect behavior like adrenaline is easy.
However, when it talkes about elavated levels of testosterone in response to stress, it talks about it in “ongoing” situations.
The overall rise in the level of both peaks and lows takes time to occur, and it does not necessarily affect the behavior of the person.
Again this backs up what I said about the normal levels of men seem to always make us ready to behave in a certain way.
Testosterone is a master hormone and also plays an important role in immunity, energy utilization and muscle development. Ongoing stressful situations require more energy, are a strain on our immune system and if it’s physical stress it will require more muscle mass.
Knowing this it’s easy to see any rises in testosterone we see in regards to ongoing stress is more likely related to those functions rather than altering a person’s behavior on the fly.
The article on the second page makes a point of saying that the effects of testosterone increases or decreases have only been seen in men who have suffered dramatic collapses in their testosterone levels for long periods of time. Exactly what I said happen to me.
For men who have a normal range of testosterone levels no discernable change in behavior can be seen.
Again this ties into what I said that men’s high levels of testosterone predispose us to behave in a certain way in all situations all the time.
The only comment they made that hinted a quick testosterone rise was in response to something was in regards to winning and losing, but again this wasn’t like an adrenaline response. Which “prepares us to an emergency quickly and decisively.”
Rather the testosterone rises in response to something good, kind of like dopamine or seratonin, and again they in no way state the rise affects the contestants immediate behavior.
The assumption that testosterone can influence behavior immediately and rise and fall in response to a situation instantly does make sense, but it isn’t accurate. Testosterone is a broad spectrum hormone that creates the context for men’s behavior.
It affects everything, it isn’t focused on one thing like adrenaline.
That really was my only point in regards to your comments. Testosterone can dramatically affect men’s behavior, but whatever effects it has it’s an over time thing. It doesn’t work like adrenaline. It also takes dramatic departures from the normal levels. Women to be affected by testosterone, need levels similar to that of a man. That most certainly almost never happens except in cases of cancer or artificial suppliments like women body builders take.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 20, 2006 at 11:49 PM Dang! Dang! Dang! I wish I had more time, it’s going to take me a couple of hours to catch up on this thread and respond to all these posts.
Have fun. Keep it hot.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 21, 2006 at 12:13 AM johnnyincentx: I am unsure why you’ve presumed that I’m referring to immediate actions due to testosterone levels, since I’ve tried to stress that I’m talking about aggregate effects in the species.
This could arise from 2 different scenarios:
1) The aggregate levels, which can be altered by social events (as the article describes), remain low due to lack of proper stimuli. Such as being born and raised in the suburbs, getting a corporate job, and watching a lot of TV (including sports, which is no substitute for bludgeoning people with spiky clubs).
2) The lack of necessity of the types of aggressive behaviors found in males lowers its social value, and men of lower testosterone levels have more chances at reproducing, thus passing on more genes for lower testosterone in males.
Both of these would over time lower the levels of testosterone, and (if the correlation is true) aggression. That’s all I’m saying.
But, for the sake of argument: I think you dismiss the “winning and losing” variable in this equation too quickly. For if 2 animals of similar levels fight, and the loser’s testoterone drops below his vanquisher, then the loser would be by comparison “less masculine” - hence more feminine, and less likely to reproduce. That seems like a fairly immediate reaction.
Posted by rocco on Mar 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM wiley - is that your adrenaline or your testosterone talking?
Posted by rocco on Mar 21, 2006 at 12:23 AM I have to admit that I find this discussion on testosterone fascinating but I do think in focusing on this one element we are missing the forest for the trees.
Firstly I challenge the assumption that we can prove testosterone as being the defining factor in men. I do believe that it can be proven to be an influencing factor and of having significant influence over our behavior. I do not believe that either male or female behaviors are deterministic. Males are influenced by genetic makeup, environment, family, other males, social pressures. It is too simplistic to say that we are the chemicals that make us up. There is as much diversity in males as in females. I know women who are more ‘male’ than many men I know in terms of aggressiveness, competitiveness, ambition. I know some personally and have had enough discussions to learn that that is how they were raised. Their mothers or fathers or both impressed it on them that they had to be excellent, succeed - and even more so because they are women. I know men who are more nurturing than most women I know. I also know their background and how important kindness and family were in their upbringing.
In Quebec, a province that is strongly feminist, I have seen many boys / men grow up in an environment that cheapens manhood. Feminism itself does not do so but some of its by-products include the blaming of men and male culture for the problems women have. Yes, men participated in it and were to blame but today’s men are not to blame - this is where we are screwing up the current generation. Accusations and blame, especially when consisting of consistent messages targeted at men showing them to be worth less, animalistic and irresponsible - have an effect. If you treat someone like a loser and you have influence over them they will fulfill your expectations. We can safely say that society’s values influence us. In Quebec I see a crisis for men. They are aimless, without purpose, without courage, emasculated. Being masculine does not equal male chauvinism. To be male does however include aggression - in a healthy way this is seen in sports and in business. It does include being wired differently from women. We are more single-minded and focused. This is a positive way of looking at what I have heard described as ‘women considering more options then men’, ‘being more open-minded’ etc. There are two sides to every coin. Open-mindedness or lack of focus? Both men and women are necessary for a healthy society. Men should not be women and women should not be men.
Posted by aquraishi on Mar 21, 2006 at 7:16 AM “Men should not be women and women should not be men.”
aquraishi: what if one is transgendered, i.e. both man and woman? What should they be?
Perhaps we went a bit too far out on the testosterone thing, but I did so initially to make a case that our genders aren’t written in stone. You make good points throughout your post, but then conclude in the same dualistic tradition that I believe our sciences have taught us is no longer relevant.
For me, the myriad of chemical possibilities paradoxically demonstrates how similar we all are at our core composition. E pluribus unum indeed.
Biology loves diversity while society abhors it. Perhaps it’s time we try to shape our society around biology, and not the other way around. The latter requires force, and violence begets violence…
Posted by rocco on Mar 21, 2006 at 11:23 AM rocco
Don’t get me wrong. Yes, there is diversity and no perfect line in the sand seperating genders exists. I am referring to the masses, perhaps - or the mean of the range of each sex if you will. There are more genetic differences between sexes than between between members of the same sex or members of the same sex and different races.
Posted by aquraishi on Mar 21, 2006 at 11:33 AM Being a willful mesomorph, I’m guessing that it’s probably a little bit of both rocco. We do all have the same hormones, we just be different cocktails at different times, depending on the bar, and crowd, and accidents of our births.
I am busy with spring cleaning that would make Hera proud. I guess I’m 50-50 androgynous genderwise, and 100% heterosexual female sex wise. T(hat surprised me.)
According to tests I took recently, I’m 50-50 left/right brain as well.
What’s important to remember with generalizations, statistics, and trends is that that’s what they are. A person who doesn’t understand this might look at a particular man and woman and believe that the man is better at math. That is a common, unwitting stupidity in our culture.
BTW, briliant mathematicians, I hear, are only brilliant in their youth. Like supermodels, and pro-athletes, they should probably prepare for a second career.
I think we can recognize tendencies of the sexes honestly, but when we codify those tendencies and label variations from a mean or average as deviant or substandard, or even supreme, then I think we’ve caught ourselves in a word and statistic trap that separates us from reality through presumptuosness and poor thinking that is often confused with “objectivity” that is being proven mathematically.
My trusty assistant has reassembled the vacuum cleaner. It’s really going to suck now.
Later.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 21, 2006 at 6:22 PM wileywitch: we are in accord on this subject. Statistics are tools (often, so are statisiticians), and should only be referenced as tendencies within delineated contexts, not as hard and fast proof of anything.
I have to wonder what Ms. Chaundry thinks of this thread, since she was really writing about corporate warping of masculinity in order to sell products. But I suppose what we’re all doing, by taking the discussion to the biological realm, is asking the old “chicken or the egg” question. Could the most talented marketer in the world sell face cream to Hell’s Angels? Why is there this metrosexual, or at least Peter Pan, market out there in the first place?
I myself am targeting this demographic (men 26-40) in my own work, and many have advised me to focus on gay men as a target audience - yet I see the same trends in Maxim, GQ, et al. aimed at straight men. For me it has to do with the amount of extra income one has. Since men are waiting to get married, there’s a lot more money that used to be spent on families floating around out there. A marketer’s job is to get some of that aimed their way. So Mephistopheles keeps telling me, anyway.
In the end, Love Monkey is more about vapidity and egocentricity than anything. Ditto Sex and the City. I’m more worried about our social values than our gender identification.
I’m still for consolidating pronouns into non-gender specific ones, though. Time to start consciously evolving our language, folks. ‘Sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ should go as well, while we’re at it.
“The quality of our thoughts can only be as good as the quality of our language.”
- George Carlin
Posted by rocco on Mar 21, 2006 at 7:04 PM wiley - what test did you take which gauged brain dominance (or in your case, equilibrium)?
Am skeptical, though, of the mathematician thing. What about Newton, Da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, Hawking, Barbour, Bell, Poincare? All made significant contributions in the second half of their life. Are these guys exceptions to the rule?
Posted by rocco on Mar 21, 2006 at 7:11 PM aquraishi:
I think you are arguing with a straw man, if you were replying to things I supposedly wrote. LOL
Firstly I challenge the assumption that we can prove testosterone as being the defining factor in men.
Who made that assumption?. I referred to it several ways as a “influencer.” The way you describe it is exactly how I feel.</i> I think you were skimming not reading what I wrote, or you would have caught that early on LOLI do believe that it can be proven to be an influencing factor and of having significant influence over our behavior. I do not believe that either Feminism as people are speaking about here is a total failure. Mmale or female behaviors are deterministic. Males are influenced by genetic makeup, environment, family, other males, social pressures.
Umm, again that is what I said, but in a different way. Genetics make us men or women. Genetics says men will have have more testosterone, 20-30x more. Such a dramatic difference in nature always has a reason for being.Where I might disagree is in the feeling that we are somehow super-special. This feeling that we are “different” from any other animal is rooted in religion, not science. People all to often read the “conclusions, hypothesis” of studies and treat them as fact. In regards to our being special, most of what is known is all couched with “we aren’t sure, but it is our belief.”
. I always find it interesting that so many secularists hold on to the belief that we are very different in animals. We are creatures of our mind, not our biology (this is NOT the same thing as blind instinct.)
We are animals first and formost. We are mammals. It would be a striking act of evolution if out of the blue it produced humans whose behavior had absolutely no anticedents in the animal world. The same things we think make us special are very evident in the animal world, but thanks to this super strong bias rooted in religious teachings, we almost always explain nearly identical behaviors in animals as instinct driven and thoughtless, and in humans we do the opposite.
It is too simplistic to say that we are the chemicals that make us up.
I certainly didn’t say that. LOL Again, I said Testoserone plays a big role in men’s behavior. To be more clear, it is key in men’s moods, and directing how they think. It gives context. Context is not control.It’s also something that causes the development of the male IN all ways. So it has a static, permanent effect and many ongoing effects.
That being said, a man if he tries hard enough can choose to go against it. HOWEVER the problem with that is few men are aware what those influences are.
I know women who are more ‘male’ than many men I know in terms of aggressiveness, competitiveness.......”
As I always say there are always exceptions, but it’s a mistake to make rules from the exceptions. I definitely did not imply or say that the division was absolute. It’s a bell curve like all things. Where the bell curves overlap you will see men and women who don’t fit the “general pattern.” Anecdotal evidence is very interesting but it is a terrible way to try to figure out a group. “The group” is a construct we can never know personally. Individual relationships will bring out behaviors in people we know that are never seen in “the group.” Group behavior is more like a general context, but individually we often step out of that context to deal with our personal relationships.For example a homophobe could still love his son, and get along with a gay couple next door, while also hating gays in general. He makes an exception for the ones he knows, because he sees them as individuals. The group, he cannot know. So he has no problem continuing to hate homosexuals in general.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 21, 2006 at 11:06 PM rocco, I think this is the same test I took. My alpha amigo had it downloaded for a class, so I didn’t go through all that registration stuff. I also score in the middle of thinking/feeling on the Meier Briggs.
Johnny I’ve got a lot of catching up to do and do not want to respond to your posts without careful reading and thought. I do want to point out that women have testesterone, and men have estrogen. As far as hormones and behavior goes, I can’t take birth control pills because they either make me royally depressed, or violent. I nearly kicked in my apartment door once because I couldn’t find my keys fast enough. Was that because of the hormones themselves? Or because of the incompatibility of the artificial hormones with my body?
I surmise that high levels of testerone can lead to great football, and a hard day’s work landscaping (my personal fave).
I surmise that high levels of estrogen can lead to unsolicited mothering/smothering, it’s not what you said it’s how you said it melodramas, and weird emotional tirades.
Too sum up, I don’t think it’s the hormone level so much as how it is channeled and other factors. When it’s channeled through stereotypical behavior....well, I just avoid that crowd.
Medical and pharmaceutical problems causing dramatic changes in hormonal levels is probably the exception. I understand your point, but I doubt that, in most cases not involving physical disorders or taking pharmaceutical hormones, that there would be such a direct and describably cause and affect relationship between behaviors. I surmise that all human hormonal levels rise and fall for both physical and social/emotional reasons. Pheremones are very powerful. Our hormones are influenced by all kinds of physiological signals that we aren’t particularly aware of. Knowing thyself is a good bromide for dealing with one’s own hormonal escapades.
Hormone disrupting chemicals is another issue (and boy is some cosmetic crap loaded with those), but I’ll say no more on that for now.
Men have a cycle btw, it’s just longer---like 50 to 60 days. I’ve seen men on the rag, and it’s not a pretty sight.
I want to return to the media topic, but I think it’s good to challenge gender and sex assumptions along the way----the chicken and egg thing rocco mentioned. How and why does the media make these gender trends? Ads at Christmas time are so gender polarized it makes me want to chuck up my ovaries.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 22, 2006 at 11:19 PM <a href="http://www.mindmedia.com/links/personality_tests_left_brain_right_brain_te ests.html">the direct link to the test<a>
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 22, 2006 at 11:21 PM wileywitch - Regarding your final question, there are a couple things to consider. One is statistical analysis. This tells us which are viable markets and which are not. For example, if I am selling Lexuses, I am obviously going to target people who can afford them.
They break down the demographic of, say, the top 1/10th of 1% of the market, and analyze who they are through purchasing trends. Hence the classical music, black and white style reminiscent of a Cary Grant movie, and charming white-haired men and their younger wives. You sell an image of class aspiration, and associate a Lexus with it. This is all pretty clear stuff at the high end.
The low end gets pretty stark and ugly, but I think it’s a telling mirror. Turn on your TV at 1pm on a weekday, if you can bear it. Tell me how many men are portrayed mopping the floor or washing dishes. Know why? Because Proctor & Gamble have run the numbers. Women predominantly buy these products, presumably because they’re still the ones doing the housework. Ditto men and beer. This is made worse by realizing that most advertisers are horribly unimaginative corporate types who have no business writing narrative, and paste a crude story and a jingle upon skeletal market data. It’s pathetic.
The middle of the road is trickier, and perhaps more interesting. This brings up another point of consideration - manufacturing markets. The art of illusion. It is more creative, if also more Machiavellian. I would place most fashion and beauty accessories in this category. A shrewd salesperson once tried to sell me cufflinks by telling me ‘it makes a statement.’ Does it really? If enough believe it does…
In conclusion, sometimes the media follows an existing gender-specific trend, and sometimes it creates them. I think the male fashion and beauty industry has grown mostly from organic means (see my arguments above), but niches have been created by clever and not-so-clever marketers.
Let us also not forget two other points: no one ever lost money by pandering to the lowest common denominator, nor by underestimating the masses.
Posted by rocco on Mar 23, 2006 at 12:02 AM I haven’t had television reception for about four years. I occassionally see something at a friend’s house. Women in manic states over pine oil is weird.
I still have uncompleted missions and have been lame all day. Though my progress is wunderbar. The house is cosmetically lovely.
You wouldn’t believe how much work tomato, pepper, and basil plants are when they’re toddlers.
Johnny, I’ve been thinking of you and a way to approach what you’re saying. I’m not one to say “I’m not feminist but...”. I’m feminist, but I want to see men liberated too. If men aren’t liberated, how can women be liberated, and vice versa.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 23, 2006 at 10:42 PM wileywitch - i’ve tried to respond, but my replies keep getting obliterated LOL This is a test to see if this goes through.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 24, 2006 at 1:02 AM johnnyincentx, it really is unimportant to me that Mrs. Rice may wear feminine garments or speaks with a soft voice. Her message contiues to be “the voice of the Empire” telling the rest of the world (billions of us) what is acceptable and what isn’t, what countries should do, or else…
and is only a continuation of the iniltial “you are either with us or against us” which I have been trying to digest for the past years.
While you are sitting pretty developing new sophisms to divert attention from the main point, the boys in war outfit continue to threaten and destroy people and civilizations they don’t know anything about and, despite the sly trick of putting black faces (Colin, Rice) or latins (Gral. Sanchez,) to deliver the message, we all know who are behind the scheme. It’s easy to theorize when you are not under siege or fire. There is a banalization of what violence, war and hunger really mean. The world seems to be entering the Iced Sensitiviy Age and your country has a lot of responsibility in it and I don’t see most of you taking their share.
Posted by Maria on Mar 24, 2006 at 12:44 PM Johnny, I’m still having difficulty getting focused and reading all these posts. I would like to point out a couple of things.
1) Most interpretations of the prehistorice hunter-man, gatherer-woman stuff is crap---it’s projecting the fifties and sixties on prehistoric cultures. Most likely, in most groups, all members who were able to work, helped to encircle and trap an animal while anyone who had the weapons and talents went in for the kill. If a prehistoric woman had a 100% kill rate with a spear, I doubt that the tribe would keep her from hunting because it wasn’t “lady-like”.
And rocco, this is true for the sexuality conclusions as well. Notice how shocked European occupiers and travelers were to find out how sexually open women were on Pacific islands? Without paternity issues, and land inheritence issues, vive le difference (sp?).
2) I do think women suck as much as men, and that men’s individuality is as stunted by fossilized and continually advertized gender roles. Women are just (generally) more underhanded and backstabbing in their destructiveness.
3) It is important to remember that the U.S. is a very chauvinistic culture that thinks it defines the world. Most studies we read that “prove” this or that about men and women were done on Americans.
4) It is important not to take the general conclusions of these studies and impose them on individuals. I rush in where angels fear to tread. I don’t typically think things over 2 to 3 times. I’ve known a lot of women who were almost as impulsive as I am. I tend to get involved with men who are very deliberative and orderly in their thought processes.
More than one quality or another, we need balance and the ability to negotiate.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 24, 2006 at 1:18 PM Maria: of course I disagree.
You’re hopeless in that you see this issue of male roles from a political perspective.
It’s not political. Even if politicians try to manipulate the issues that define the situation.
Where you go wildly astray is dismissing the effectiveness of “looking the part.” Your desire to see everything as political, totally destroys your ability to see why it’s so important.
Of course for you, dress doesn’t matter in any way. That’s why you dress up as a clown every day, yeah right.
Condolezza Rice understands that “appearance” to the visually obsessed human being counts for a lot. That is not a “political” point of view. It’s an observation of obvious human nature.
What do you think C. Rice should do? I guess for you the Sec. of State should somehow steer a separate course in order to prove “her worth.” Of course this is absurd.
Blinded by your own righteousness, you make Condoleezza Rice’s appearance on the scene relate to nothing more than her acts in office.
I despise Bush and his policies, but that cannot diminish the profound effect appointing her as SoS had on public perception of the roles of Women. She is the highest female in Gov’t. who hasn’t neutered herself in order to do the job.
As SoS she has a job to do. Doing it doesn’t mean she 100% agrees. Of course since you are so far on the other side, you see her as doing less than nothing. It is not certain that Condoleezza Rice is a die-hard conservative in any regard save for international affairs. She is NOT a Neo-con that’s for sure. She is responsible for effectively tearing off the deceptive masks neo-cons were hiding behind while claiming success in Iraq
What has been interesting is she has performed her role without neutering her sexuality. Of course to you it seems this is selling out. I guess only women who look and act like diesel dykes are authentic. LOL
She has pursued a separate course, and she has avoided the confrontational style typical of previous male heads of states. The DoS is not the pansy division it was under Powell.
She restored the strength of the Dept. Under her direction there has been a clear moderation of the previous helplessness in the face of the neo-cons idealistic extremism. Who knows what hell Team Bush would have created if C. Rice wasn’t there to encourage him to think about it and decide later.
You miss how effective she is, because of her distinct female style. She isn’t telling her team “my way or the highway” or “making public announcements of I’m in control!.”
That was my point and it related to how the behavior of men and women differ for various reasons.
To go on further would be pointless, since we share no common ground. You are so blinded by your own righteousness. You miss the extreme irony in slamming the “with us or against us” mentality, while you use it against me. What total hypocrisy. LOL
Of course you have the last word, because lacking any sense of realism, your points are pointless, and there is nothing to reply to.
As far as taking responsibility, there are effective ways to make that happen, but a “holier than thou” screed condemning most of an entire nation for the problems of the world is NOT one of them.
No matter what though, whatever responsibility Americans have, very few of us will ever be willing to have it determined by someone who feels as you do. Being foreign doesn’t give you ability to see the truth any more than an American. You have your own strong biases which make you unfit to decide fairly for anyone here. Because your position is so absolute, you give strength to the worst here. Who use your stands as an excuse to just ignore the issue completely.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 24, 2006 at 1:38 PM wileywitch
My personal mantra is “exceptions don’t make the rule.”
I will never understand the tendency of very intelligent people to point to exceptions in order to disprove what is overwhelmingly true for the rest of the group or country or world.
Truth is relative, not absolute. It is decided by the context. Unfortunately so many try to boil complex, multifaceted issues like what makes humans behave as being due to one thing.
Testosterone/the interplay of hormones is only one “influencer.” I am NOT saying it’s in control. I am talking about it in that context alone.
All humans produce all human hormones. . What makes the difference is how much of a particular hormone each sex makes, and how they interact. Adult men produce 20-30x the testosterone an adult woman does. There is a reason greater for that greater than making men go bald. LOL
I am aware of the various indigenous groups who have maternal societies. I’m also aware of the guerrilla school of archeological thought in regards to pre-history human society being mostly maternal in nature.
Actually I tend to believe it was, but the ancient past is long gone. The remnant cultures that still exist ceased to influence the overwhelmingly testosterone driven paternal cultures that rule the world today.
I always endeavor to avoid the gross, absurd generalizations that were so popular in the mid-fifties.
To presume that what I say is based on that is actually almost insulting. I’m just not that stupid. LOL
I always endeavor to get as close to the original discovery as possible. To do this often requires some intense careful reading in order to filter out what the scientist truly saw versus what he perceived.
What I say grew out of my own experience. Which helped me re-interpret what I saw around me. Then I looked for information to indicate it was actual or false.
I am totally aware of how much of what’s written in scientific research is actually conjecture, and not fact. .
I do NOT rely on researcher’s conclusions. You will find almost no researcher who actually says what I do.
Women and men do NOT have the same strengths and weaknesses as men do.
I would never describe one sex as better, but I would say the strategies women employ in the “group setting” are far better for the group, than the “individualistic Strategies” men prefer.</b>
Cultures, countries Etc. are all forms of groups.So women will have the better strategy when it comes to them. I can’t think any nation in the world that was worse off after a woman ruled it, not even Argentina. LOL
you miss my point, because you draw from individual experiences observing how women interact.”
How the individual interacts with others is an extremely poor indicator of the tendency of the group, and that’s the perspective I take.
Our “individual personalities” are primary drivers on the personal level. In group behavior, the determining factor is which behavior or view is shared by the greatest # of any particular group. It’s not absolute, but it will be more accurate in telling you what a particular individual will be like than any other method.
The notion that we are solely creatures of our own creation is such a strong bias in and of itself that exploring perspectives that might indicate otherwise is made impossible.
We are not driven by instinct, but our genetics embed in our behavior “urges” triggered by things like hormone levels and their interaction. These urges can be denied, but it takes lots of effort. And for some it’s useless as in homosexuality
Ironically the same illogic of “nurture” over “nature” allows one to believe that homosexuality is a choice, not pre-determined as well.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 24, 2006 at 2:28 PM Johnny, I know you’re not stupid. And I trust that if you were a woman, you’d see a side of women you don’t normally see, and you would understand why you should decline the invitation when two women who haven’t seemed too thrilled with you lately, invite you to lunch. (Assuming that you’re dealing with American women, in an American setting).
You’re romanticizing women. One of the reasons you may see women “agreeing” so much, is because it’s often seen as an act of betrayal to disagree with the alpha female, or other women in a pack. That’s why I preferred to play with boys when I was a kid, they accepted differences in opinion.
Girls insisted on conformity and agreement on everything. They would agree on the most stupid, meaningless things, and treat them as some sacred pact. Have you ever been confronted with a woman who was serious as a heart attack about lip liner? I think it would pop your pretty red balloon about women running the world.
We could all be better educated and learn how to negotiate intelligently at a young age, and it would be better for everyone.
Condeleeza Rice shopped for eight hundred dollar shoes while the people in her home state were being hit with a hurricane, and New Orleans was drowning. So much for feminine sensitivity and empathy. She can stay off my side, thank you---I’m not impressed with her, just because she’s a woman.
So am I. Big deal. It was an accident of birth, and thanks to the third wave of the feminists movement, I’ve had far more freedom, choices, and latitude in my life than my mother did.
Now, I think the fourth wave needs to liberate men from women who don’t take responsibility for their lives and choices.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 24, 2006 at 9:37 PM The romanticization of women is a common thread in American media. We’ve discussed the doofuses that are to be found on television, but this was also apparent in the Dick Van Dyke show, or even the Honeymooners. It is interesting: why would ‘the weaker sex’ be portrayed as more competant? Is it a consolation prize?
It took me until I was about 19 before I realized how fallible women were. I recall a friend putting on lipstick before meeting her boyfriend with the comment “Lipstick is power.” No sane person could possibly believe that.
But I digress. I don’t think either sex is genetically better to be a leader, in the case of Condi Rice, but balance is another issue. And we are way out of balance, historically and contemporarily, in the representation of the population. And perhaps there is something to the notion that a greater balance of testosterone and estrogen would lead to wiser overall decisions.
We’re not a matriarchal society, and we’re shedding our patriarchal past. It would be a good sign to be free of such mental boundaries.
<b>wiley<>, regarding your comment about Pacific Islanders: there’s a tribe in I believe Papua New Guinea where all the men have multiple husbands. In fact, the male marriages are considered more important than the male-female. Plus, they’re a hunting society, and fairly warlike. Go figure.
Posted by rocco on Mar 25, 2006 at 12:08 AM WileyWitch
I have no alpha female complex. LOL That’s hysterical. I do not romanticize them in the least. Believe me I’ve had plenty of personal experiences with women that I could use to justify feeling women were worse than men. On my trip to SF, both ways I ended up sitting next to vapid college babes. All they talked about was who was cutest, who was fat, who was ugly Etc. My sisters are pure evil. LOL I’ve suffered a lot of personal harm thanks to some extremely stupid decisions on the part of “individual women” in the workplace.
On this topic, there is no middle ground. You draw your conclusions from personal experience. I don’t. You believe it’s 100% nurture.
I do not I believe in nature/nurture with nature having the distinct advantage.
“I’ve been consistant, for various reasons, I feel women due to the inherent biological differences: different hormonal balances vs. a vs. men; different brain organization more general vs. the more clearly divided male brain; being much weaker physically; Ability to handle several things well vs. a male’s general preference for 1 thing at a time; are better suited for a variety of tasks, for example governing. They should leave the warmaking to the men. LOL
The list is long, and it’s not speculation. It’s what the results of neurological and biological studies over the last 40 years are telling us. Studies of the brain, studies of hormone level variances, twin studies, child rearing in isolation, obvious physical differences Etc are making it clear men and women are NOT the same mentally or physiologically as 70s feminist dogma insisted.
We can have no middle ground, because you insist your mostly personal, individual experiences answer my views on what to expect from women when they act as a single group. That is my perspective.
<b> Group Identity is NOT the same as individual identity.
An individual can act 100% contrary to the typical group behavior.
I try as hard as I can to avoid making conclusions about what a group is like based on personal experiences.
The “urges and tendencies Etc. that rooted in our genes are best observed on the group level, NOT on the individual level.
Understanding the group will not do what you think it should. It will NOT explain individual anomolies we experience in our personal lives.
Some people call the manipulation of this information marketing. LOL </i>
In regards to Condi: she is the best example of women backstabbing and engaging in petty hate that I can think of.
What she is, what she accomplished <b>is NOT just political, Prolib women ignore her tremendous achievements; her overcoming some of the longest odds any American can deal with (being a black woman in the deep South)
She beat racism on it’s homeground. How easily prolibs ignore this makes me wonder how opposed to racism we are.
<u>It’s hypocrytical for prolibs who claim they’re feminists to treat her this way. Going by the original feminist agenda she is feminism’s greatest acheivement in government so far. Her politics do NOT negate that. She has claimed positions that no woman of any color has.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 25, 2006 at 1:50 AM Johnny, I’ve been consistent too, but I haven’t had enough time to write carefully enough to get across.
It’s odd, but I just quit one of my jobs and now I’m really busy. It’s also March. For a gardener in my zone, March starts out like tra, la, la--- spring is coming, and somewhere in the middle it turns into get up and shine your boots! (or watch two months of work go down the drain---I do a lot of starting from seeds indoors).
And, as I am whenever the war drums are beating, I’m a little overwhelmed by the prospect of nuclear war, right now. The demands of my present and immediate world are all I can handle well at this time.
So, I’ll see you guys around from time to time, but not get into the issues deeply. This, especially, is one of my favorite topics; but I can’t do it justice right now. And nothing but the present and immediate can compete (in my mind) with war and the threat of nuclear war. I tried to distract myself with other issues of consequence, but it didn’t work.
See ya round. It’s been nice talking to you all. Fight the good fight.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 26, 2006 at 11:06 AM wileyWitch
Oh you’ve been very consistant. That’s why I said there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground between what we thinks are the facts regarding this issue.
No harm done. It’s not like we’re talking about the biggest, singularly most important civil rights issue of this century, marriage rights which will lesson the burden of oppression on ALL the oppressed, especially single mothers and poor children, as well as reinvigorate the struggle to stop overpopulation, kyoto Etc.. ;-)
As far as the precarious state of the world. I am a bit more optimistic I guess, considering we survived the cold war, the 1950’s 1960’s, Vietnam and on and on. We went quite a while without a period of regression. Don’t you think?
(I’m not trying open up another topic. I know what you are saying. You ain’t gots the time.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM I’m glad we’re cool. It’s all real. It’s all important. It all counts.
I see your point, and I will not say all of the things I could say to make you feel less optimistic about the precarious state of the world.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 27, 2006 at 10:25 PM wileywitch
I don’t know if you’d call it optimism for what I’m relying on is the inertia and chaos that is life to make it impossible for the forces of disctruction to reach their goal.
The current stumbling of Team Bush the flounderingRepugnican hegomony seem to fit nicely with the eventual outcomes of even the best laid plans to bring about world destruction. LOL
Somehow someway, and totally without any effort, our inablity to adhere to organization and follow through eventually spoil the efforts who think they will win because they do exactly that. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 27, 2006 at 10:31 PM I’m not a big movie watcher. I can think of only one movie in which there was a Dad that was involved in a positive way with his 12 year old. the movie was Contact. Other movies, at best, the Dad was ambivalent. Most are abusers, goofy, disturbing, bumbling idiots, or worse. But then again, those type of characters make for a more dramatic movie. That is part of why I quit going to movies.
Anyone have any recommendations?
Posted by happytom on Jun 28, 2006 at 3:10 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lakshmi Chaudhry
- The Godless Fundamentalist
In The Root of All Evil, biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his own lust for certainty - The Power of Mean
Fuller argues that the moral power of Rankism = that everyone experiences being a somebody and a nobody - can overcome the innate force of bullying? - Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
The Bush administration's pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperial - The True Temptations of the West
Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond is a travelogue by Pankaj Mishra about the shadow of poverty in South Asia. - Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit
Women read more fiction than men. - What Not to Watch
Makeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demons
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
