Male sexuality is really very easy to understand. Men feel a tie to the natural world and natural forces whether they realize it or not. The force that drives young men to find young women attractive and to try to mate with them is the same force that causes flowers to bloom, and crops to grow, and is responsible for every bit of life on earth: the drive to survive, the quality and essence of life itself. No amount of veneer of civilization can change the nature of life. No matter how many insane notions humans dream up about the way life"should" be, life will remain as it really is until it all is destroyed.
Almost all multi-celled life on earth is the result of sexual reproduction. For a longer discussion of this see the pages titled Biology1, and Biology 101. Our very ability to have things to eat is directly due to the natural force of life driving a member of one subset of a species, called the "male" to fertilize a member of another subset of the species, termed the "female", in order to produce offspring. This drive is manifested in human males to the same extent that it manifests in male animals and the male parts of plants. Its primary characteristic is urgency. In the natural world the male is the reproductive servant of the female. He stands ready at all times to deliver the male element of sperm as soon as the egg is fertile. When she lets him know she is ready, he must be ready. Males everywhere stand ready to rise to the task.
What is much more difficult to understand is the behavior of men in the contexts which are not in themselves sexual but which our culture has attached to sexuality in order to make its expression "acceptable". Civilization today consists of nothing but fictions about life. Men and women have been cut off from their ties to the natural world so they no longer understand the forces that move them and move within them. They have attempted to substitute fictions and illusions, and the results are the same as if they tried to eat fictional and illusionary bread.
Nowhere is this more apparent and painfully destructive than in the area of our lives related to sexuality. Female sexuality has already, for the most part, been destroyed. The natural partnership and division of labor which evolved as a result of very real biological differences between men and women has been twisted by revisionist fanatics into a fiction about history-long and world-wide conspiracy by men to "oppress" and harm women. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a result of this incredibly insane fiction, relationships between men and women, already severely strained by the cultural fictions which dominate sexuality, are breaking down almost completely. Cut off from the history and reality which created the practices, cultures have made fertility control practices into traditions and belief systems which are not only obsolete in today's world, but which have begun to destroy the very social structures they were initially developed to preserve.
Men and women tend to very naturally fall into partnerships. Within the partnership there is also a natural division of labor which evolves based on differing abilities and preferences. In pre-industrial, non-urban societies these divisions tend to be more informal, far more flexible, and based more on individual choices than on strictly enforced social roles. The inability of an urbanized and industrialized society to tolerate normal individual variations created rigid definitions of roles and enforcement of conformity to them. What before had been done by choice, people were now being forced into doing because someone like them had once done it and the expectation got transferred to them that they would (must) do the same.
The natural tendency of humans to resist being forced into anything was countered by the fact that each role had certain rewards that came only with that role and no other. Men, due to the fact that they were unhampered by periodic interruptions of "productivity" due to childbirth, were the obvious choice of the gender to force out of the home and in the factories. Women, due to the fact that their so-called "careers" or "productive output" would be stalled by childbirth, were the natural choice to provide maintenance of the homestead, staying at home to care for the children that the men were now isolated from. Each was compensated for isolation from the other's worlds by culturally sanctioned power and recognized authority in their own. Men had power in the world of work, women had power in the domestic world and the world of relationships. Over time the knowledge that they had ever been comfortable outside their cultural niche got lost. What had once been a comfortable and convenient arrangement for providing the environment necessary to raise children to maturity became a prison cell of roles and expectations based entirely on the plumbing one displayed at birth. None of this changed the basic urge to merge, it just made it infinitely more complicated, increased the severity of the consequences, and in general drove everyone crazy.
Women were backed into a corner where their sexuality was their only economic asset. This separated women from their sexuality as completely as men were separated from a sense of intrinsic value to their work by being forced to work in intolerable conditions to earn the wages to fulfill their culturally indoctrinated role as providers. Still, there was a lot of pride in fulfilling that role for men. Being able to provide for a family was the only accomplishment that most men of the industrial age are able to point to as the result of an entire life's work. For most men of the past 2 centuries, the price of an outlet for their own sexuality has been a life of indentured servitude in the factories and offices of Consumer Society.
It should be regarded as a measure of the value that men have placed on their sexuality, as well as its incredible power and persistence, that they have been willing to do so. Men are required by the structure of society to purchase an outlet for their sexuality by turning over economic assets. Women have been required by the structure of society to deny themselves an outlet for their sexuality, except in a culturally sanctioned exchange of economic assets. Thus society has turned all women into prostitutes, and all men into johns.
The extended period of childhood dependency enforced by industrial and post-industrial society, makes it nearly certain that both genders will be denied a culturally sanctioned outlet for their natural drive to mate for a period of several years after its onset. During this period, the mechanisms of the exchange of money for sex become so ingrained in the mentality of both men and women, that they continue to follow them even when they are no longer necessary. Women routinely withhold sex and intimacy as a means of gaining power and favors. Men bitterly resent this and retaliate by seeking to get sex without having to pay for it.
Both end up feeling used, taken advantage of, violated, and "oppressed" by the other. No trust or intimacy gets built. The foundation of mutual respect, trust, and regard which used to develop in most marriages never gets built today. Having had their own needs denied and fucked with by the other gender for so long, men and women begin by seeing each other as being diametrically opposed to their interests, an obstacle to be overcome. Men, suckered so many times into turning over hard earned money in response to signals of sexual receptiveness, become angry when their responses have been triggered only to be exploited. Women, so estranged from their sexuality that 50% of them are unable to respond orgasmically even when all the cultural conditions have been met, are often not even aware that is what they are doing, so the man's behavior is totally confusing and frightening.
This whole process of breaking down the pair bond which is the heart and foundation of the family structure has greatly accelerated in the past 30 years. The delicate balance of power in the worlds of work and domestic relations was completely destroyed when women began to demand the same degree of power in the workplace that they had always enjoyed in the home, and which they assumed, because they had never seen it, that men had as much power there as women did in the home. When they encountered the fact that it wasn't there to be had, they didn't go "oops, never mind" like Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live, they blamed men. It wasn't because men did not have the power they were being demanded of to share, it was because they were "backlashing". The last reason that men had to voluntarily enter into the institution of marriage and commit their lives to supporting a wife and children was gone. The only thing left was the sex drive, and men began to pursue a strategy of gratifying it as inexpensively as possible.
This is not to say that men consciously set out to exploit women, they in fact do not. Men have a deep and sincere desire to love and be loved by women. They have made themselves totally crazy trying to live up to their part of the bargain, but always find nothing under the shell they've picked once the money has been laid down. Men distrust and fear women and the way that women have abused their sexual power over men. Men are learning how to deny their own sexuality in the same way that women do, because it is the only means they have to protect themselves from being exploited by it. More and more this is the only aspect of men that women see. This and the unrestrained and angry expression of it which takes the form of forced sex or rape.
You see, to paraphrase the NRA bumper stickers: when sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have sex. Women simply do not see any other aspect of male sexuality, because it makes men too vulnerable to women's manipulation.
Psychology of Sex
Romance
Love
Biology Basics
The Socio-Cultural Context
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”
Showing posts with label Eye of the Mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eye of the Mind. Show all posts
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Friday, April 08, 2005
EOTM: Healing Men - Going to the Valley*
( * In honor of Ayn Rand. )
1. Shoot your television.
Television is the most destructive force in the world today. By turning it on, you invite into your home and into your mind a conspiracy by some of the most brilliant minds in the world to undermine your sense of self-esteem and your ability to be happy. Advertising relies on 3 principles: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This is referred to as the FUD factor. Advertising intentionally undermines these and ties the product being sold to solving the dilemmas of these universal human emotions. Television also contains the "Fundamental Lie of Media" which is that what you are seeing has any relationship to reality whatsoever, and particularly that it is a true and accurate representation of reality.
2. Rid yourself of guilt and shame.
Guilt is "I did something wrong." Shame is "I AM something wrong." The concept of "Original Sin" is a means of social control, and a very effective one. Children get infected with the virus of shame before they learn to walk, talk, or control their bowels. Many spend the rest of their lives trying to atone for something over which they had no absolutely no control. Of course, this means they waste all the time and energy which they might have used to change things over which they did have some control so the cycle feeds itself.
3. Reclaim your own moral authority.
Learn to rely on your own sense of ethics and internalized value system to judge the rightness or wrongness of anything you do. Before the 10 commandments was the law: Love is the law, love under will. Harm none, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Act in love, love of life, choose every action for the best of those affected; and you will live free from guilt and shame.
4. De-mythologize women and men.
Both have a light side and a dark side, just like duct tape. Women are NOT the "fairer" sex. Men are NOT universally violent, exploitive of abusive.
5. Decide what you really want.
Its your life. Everybody gets only one. Practice responsible stewardship of this great and mystical gift.
6. Educate yourself on the issues.
Don’t be suckered by lies: particularly feminist lies.
7. Don’t be afraid/unwilling to fight.
This is how men harm themselves most. Remember the bullies in grade school who would beat up kids and take their lunch money. Kids who challenged them sometimes got a bloody lip or a black eye, but then usually ended up keeping their lunch money. If you are dealing with someone who consistently refuses to fight fair, then -
8. Don’t be afraid to walk.
The power to leave is seriously underutilized. Remember the old country and western song "You can take this job and shove it." People who abuse their power are often abetted by simple voluntary submission to that power. Remember that all relationships except marriage and child-support are purely voluntary.
9. Hold women accountable.
Name it, demand they claim it, tame it. If you catch someone cheating, call her on it. If she refuses to own it, then walk.
10. Do not be fooled by the tyranny of the weak.
It is the most subtle form of power. The ultimate shell game of power. There are no sins of omission, only commission. Any phrase in the form of "I need you to … " Is a foul lie and designed to trigger the reflexive protect/provide male role. Some one may need human contact, or reassurance. Saying that they need you to call them every day is a control game masked by weakness. Leave these people to grow up or disintegrate on their own.
11. Do not fall for mix and match logic.
"So?", "So What?", and "What does that have to do with it?" will get you somewhere. Argument, defensiveness, or justification will not.
12. Demand your right to want what you want and participate in the definition of the relationship.
The female does NOT "make the rules." Any fool can make a rule, and only fools will mind it.
13. Practice civil disobedience in the face of the social demand that you bear all the responsibility and risk for initiation.
14. Look honestly at the power games you play and put them behind you.
15. Learn the law of the harvest.
16. Understand the entire secret of male power: Just do it.
Shut up and shovel the fuckin’ gravel.
17. Never trash a woman for free expression of her sexuality. Remove the word "slut" from your vocabulary.
18. Never tolerate being trashed for your sexuality.
You are alive because of sex, the person attempting to trash you is alive because of sex. People who trash sex are trashing life and in a very real way are part of the death worshipping cult which dominates the national consciousness today.
19. Learn to recognize man-hating. It is poisonous and all pervasive.
20. Reclaim your own self esteem by ridding yourself of attachment to its substitutes: ego and status.
These are socially based and very fragile and can be taken away from you in an instant. A deep understanding in the true inherent value of the self cannot.
21. Study the use of makeup and jewelry.
Do not consider a relationship with a woman who habitually wears either and particularly avoid women who habitually wear both.. Don’t spend much time with a woman who is afraid of her own face. Understand that lying about her face is just the tip of the iceberg: she will also lie about a great many other things.
22. Study the matriarchy of family and the educational system.
Most men as well as women grow up with men largely absent from their lives until they reach High School, by which time basic personality and social attitudes are completely entrenched. With the father emotionally or physically absent, mothers often engage in an unconscious form of "emotional incest" with their sons, asking them to fill the role in the mother’s life that the father failed to do. Thus young males start life with an emotional debt to pay off which was incurred by someone else. (Think about the biblical phrase "Visiting the sins of the fathers on the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation.) This is the emotional equivalent of the $27,000 of national debt which is the share that each child born today must pay off, with accumulated interest in his/her lifetime.
23. Do not allow yourself to be tricked into acting simply to prove something.
This is one of the most subtle and effective forms of manipulation. A denial of a wrong is not the same as an affirmation, even if if does move you in the same direction. Many people try to manipulate others by "accusing" them of the opposite way they want them to behave, so that the denial of the accusation will involve some action to prove that it is false. The prototype of the way men use this against men is "Whassmatta, are you chicken (afraid, a wimp, ...)?". The prototype of the way women use this against men is "Do you think I look fat?" or "I'm afraid you're going to leave me." A killer 1-2 combination is "Are you AFRAID to make a commitment?" Attempts to prove these accusations false are always more destructive than saying "Yes, and this is why...".
24. Spend time in the company of men.
Men’s groups, men’s work, men friends. And among women who do not hate maleness.
1. Shoot your television.
Television is the most destructive force in the world today. By turning it on, you invite into your home and into your mind a conspiracy by some of the most brilliant minds in the world to undermine your sense of self-esteem and your ability to be happy. Advertising relies on 3 principles: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This is referred to as the FUD factor. Advertising intentionally undermines these and ties the product being sold to solving the dilemmas of these universal human emotions. Television also contains the "Fundamental Lie of Media" which is that what you are seeing has any relationship to reality whatsoever, and particularly that it is a true and accurate representation of reality.
2. Rid yourself of guilt and shame.
Guilt is "I did something wrong." Shame is "I AM something wrong." The concept of "Original Sin" is a means of social control, and a very effective one. Children get infected with the virus of shame before they learn to walk, talk, or control their bowels. Many spend the rest of their lives trying to atone for something over which they had no absolutely no control. Of course, this means they waste all the time and energy which they might have used to change things over which they did have some control so the cycle feeds itself.
3. Reclaim your own moral authority.
Learn to rely on your own sense of ethics and internalized value system to judge the rightness or wrongness of anything you do. Before the 10 commandments was the law: Love is the law, love under will. Harm none, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Act in love, love of life, choose every action for the best of those affected; and you will live free from guilt and shame.
4. De-mythologize women and men.
Both have a light side and a dark side, just like duct tape. Women are NOT the "fairer" sex. Men are NOT universally violent, exploitive of abusive.
5. Decide what you really want.
Its your life. Everybody gets only one. Practice responsible stewardship of this great and mystical gift.
6. Educate yourself on the issues.
Don’t be suckered by lies: particularly feminist lies.
7. Don’t be afraid/unwilling to fight.
This is how men harm themselves most. Remember the bullies in grade school who would beat up kids and take their lunch money. Kids who challenged them sometimes got a bloody lip or a black eye, but then usually ended up keeping their lunch money. If you are dealing with someone who consistently refuses to fight fair, then -
8. Don’t be afraid to walk.
The power to leave is seriously underutilized. Remember the old country and western song "You can take this job and shove it." People who abuse their power are often abetted by simple voluntary submission to that power. Remember that all relationships except marriage and child-support are purely voluntary.
9. Hold women accountable.
Name it, demand they claim it, tame it. If you catch someone cheating, call her on it. If she refuses to own it, then walk.
10. Do not be fooled by the tyranny of the weak.
It is the most subtle form of power. The ultimate shell game of power. There are no sins of omission, only commission. Any phrase in the form of "I need you to … " Is a foul lie and designed to trigger the reflexive protect/provide male role. Some one may need human contact, or reassurance. Saying that they need you to call them every day is a control game masked by weakness. Leave these people to grow up or disintegrate on their own.
11. Do not fall for mix and match logic.
"So?", "So What?", and "What does that have to do with it?" will get you somewhere. Argument, defensiveness, or justification will not.
12. Demand your right to want what you want and participate in the definition of the relationship.
The female does NOT "make the rules." Any fool can make a rule, and only fools will mind it.
13. Practice civil disobedience in the face of the social demand that you bear all the responsibility and risk for initiation.
14. Look honestly at the power games you play and put them behind you.
15. Learn the law of the harvest.
16. Understand the entire secret of male power: Just do it.
Shut up and shovel the fuckin’ gravel.
17. Never trash a woman for free expression of her sexuality. Remove the word "slut" from your vocabulary.
18. Never tolerate being trashed for your sexuality.
You are alive because of sex, the person attempting to trash you is alive because of sex. People who trash sex are trashing life and in a very real way are part of the death worshipping cult which dominates the national consciousness today.
19. Learn to recognize man-hating. It is poisonous and all pervasive.
20. Reclaim your own self esteem by ridding yourself of attachment to its substitutes: ego and status.
These are socially based and very fragile and can be taken away from you in an instant. A deep understanding in the true inherent value of the self cannot.
21. Study the use of makeup and jewelry.
Do not consider a relationship with a woman who habitually wears either and particularly avoid women who habitually wear both.. Don’t spend much time with a woman who is afraid of her own face. Understand that lying about her face is just the tip of the iceberg: she will also lie about a great many other things.
22. Study the matriarchy of family and the educational system.
Most men as well as women grow up with men largely absent from their lives until they reach High School, by which time basic personality and social attitudes are completely entrenched. With the father emotionally or physically absent, mothers often engage in an unconscious form of "emotional incest" with their sons, asking them to fill the role in the mother’s life that the father failed to do. Thus young males start life with an emotional debt to pay off which was incurred by someone else. (Think about the biblical phrase "Visiting the sins of the fathers on the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation.) This is the emotional equivalent of the $27,000 of national debt which is the share that each child born today must pay off, with accumulated interest in his/her lifetime.
23. Do not allow yourself to be tricked into acting simply to prove something.
This is one of the most subtle and effective forms of manipulation. A denial of a wrong is not the same as an affirmation, even if if does move you in the same direction. Many people try to manipulate others by "accusing" them of the opposite way they want them to behave, so that the denial of the accusation will involve some action to prove that it is false. The prototype of the way men use this against men is "Whassmatta, are you chicken (afraid, a wimp, ...)?". The prototype of the way women use this against men is "Do you think I look fat?" or "I'm afraid you're going to leave me." A killer 1-2 combination is "Are you AFRAID to make a commitment?" Attempts to prove these accusations false are always more destructive than saying "Yes, and this is why...".
24. Spend time in the company of men.
Men’s groups, men’s work, men friends. And among women who do not hate maleness.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
EOTM: The Rules for Guys
Dear (zenpriest):
I know you do despise "The Rules" and other such dating traps, but when I got this tongue in cheek Rules for Guys, I just knew I had to send a copy along to you
---------------------- The Rules for Guys --------------------
1. Be a "creature unlike any other."
However, in particular think in terms of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" (Universal 1954), a dark monster that conquers her. Beauty and the Beast. Chicks love that shit.
2. Don't talk much to a girl (but do take her dancing.)
She only wants to talk about relationships and girl stuff. So take her dancing. They go nuts for this. Learn enough to get by and look cool, though you won't need it much after you have her hooked. In the meantime you can flirt with the other girls on the dance floor.
3. Pay her way on the date, but expect to get back in kind.
Buy her a nice meal, so that she knows what she owes you in exchange for the meal. In addition, if you buy her a fancy schmancy $50 dinner at some ritzy place, she won't be able to turn down your request for a $300 "loan" until you can "get to the cash machine." Good investment.
4. Don't call her after sex.
Make her wait a few days. Girls do this stare at the phone thing, makes them all anticipatory. Don't give them what they want. Call her in a couple of days or if you get horny again. Also, after sex, just roll over and go to sleep, even if she hasn't had an orgasm yet. You did a lot of work and you're tired, and you have important work to do tomorrow.
5. Always end phone calls first.
Especially if she's read the Girl's Rules that tell her to do this, you won't have to worry about long phone calls. I mean girls can yak so long on the phone.
6. Don't give her any warning about a date.
Make sure she stays free all the time in case you call. And more to the point, keep yourself free in case something comes up elsewhere, if you know what I mean. If you call and she's not available, act real hurt, make it seem like you will end the relationship if she does this a lot.
7. Tell her what she wants to hear (i.e., Lie.)
You like long walks on the beach. You love kids. You like to cook. You're looking to settle down in a country home with that one special girl. You love horses, paris, chick movies, sushi and Meryl Streep. You support her goals. Tell her you're rich, famous, whatever. She'll figure out the more ridiculous ones eventually but if you play this right you'll get laid first and have her captured. Don't be scared to eventually talk to her about "the relationship" -- girls go for this. Just be sure not to believe it yourself.
8. Stop dating her if she doesn't put out by the second date.
Pretend like you're not super eager to get laid but drop the hint with gentle physical contact. It is nice to date easy chicks and all and get laid on the first date, but some of the hottest ones like to wait a date. However, if she doesn't at least give you a blowjob by date #2, #3 at the latest, there are better investments out there. On date #3, remind her of the "third date rule."
9. Tell her you love her.
This is the big corallary of rule #7. Don't do it right away but definitely do it if she's showing reluctance on that blowjob. Practice saying it like you mean it. As the old saying goes, "Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
10. No more than casual sex on the first, or 100th date.
Definitely don't get too involved, as she might wanna be monogamous or something. Make sure that you never let yourself get tied down.
11. Tell her what to do.
Hey, in the end they all want to be dominated. So make all the decisions and see how she goes for it. If so, you can probably get this to continue in the bedroom. No girl is perfect, but most of them like to please a man so you can change the one(s) you have to fit your needs.
12. Be the bad boy.
Girls love the "bad boy." They hope they can "reform" him, or they're a case of point #11 above. Either way, you can be as bad as you like. Treat her like she doesn't exist. Be mysterious. Dangerous. Wear cuffs and a leather motorcycle jacket, even if you drive a Hyundai. (Park the Hyundai somewhere else and walk to where you meet her, though.) Remember, nice guys don't get laid.
13. Don't let her know anything she can pin on you.
Girls like to get close to their guy, and "communicate." But later, if you break up, she might try and get back at you so for crissake don't let her know anything she could use or spread to others. Invent deep intimate stuff you can tell her in bed, she'll go for it. If you can't think up your own, buy one of those books with Fabio (the guy from the "I can't believe it's not butter" commercials) on the cover and be one of those guys. (God, this guy can't tell butter from margarine and chicks swoon over him? Something strange going on here.)
14. Don't tell her you're married!
For some reason they get really upset. When you take off your ring, get some tanning lotion or put your hand under a sunlamp to make sure it's not visible where you took it off. Or tell your wife you just don't want to wear a ring; invent some sort of bizarre hand disease or rice picker accident. Anyway even the ones who haven't read the Girl's Rules don't want to date married guys so don't let her (or your wife) know.
15. Be a pain to live with.
Well, this isn't a thing to so much try to do as a reminder to be yourself. If you shack up, don't alter your own life just to make it easier for her. One exception, which is admittedly a royal pain, but worth it -- put the toilet seat down after you take a wizz. She sees that and she'll think she's found god's gift to girls, and she'll give you better sex than a $300 hooker. Compare -- 5 seconds of your time each day to put down the seat vs. $300 blowjob. No brainer!
16. Don't get caught staring at her tits or other girls'.
For some reason girls don't like it when we stare at their tits when we talk to them. And they don't like us staring at other girls' either. As if we have a choice! Anyway, they're watching for this so don't get caught. Check their eyes, then do your looking.
17. Don't let her leave your things in your apartment.
Or give her a key, until you're sure you can count on her or very regular nookie. Otherwise they might try to insinuate themselves into your life before you are sure of this.
18. Even if you're engaged or married, you still can play around.
I mean, do they own you or something? This rule is the most fun.
19. Do The Rules even when your friends or parents think you're nuts!
Truth is, you're getting laid, and they are just jealous.
20. Don't give her the ring, but make her think you will -- or give her a fake ring.
Drop hints and pretend like some day you want to be married to her, but don't actually do it. You can even get engaged if you want to lock in some regular pussy. There's no law that says you actually have to follow through with the ceremony. Plus, it takes an expert to tell cubic zirconia from a diamond, and if she takes her ring to an expert she clearly doesn't trust you and is a lost cause anyway. You can get one of these rings for about $100 and trust me you'll get a fuck worth far more than that out of it.
21. Double check the birth control.
There's a trade off here. On one hand you don't want to use condoms, so get her on the pill ASAP. On the other hand if she runs the birth control she might blindside you with something annoying like a kid just to hook you. You decide. If she gets pregnant, take the new "morning-after" pill for guys. (It alters your blood type.)
22. Don't discuss 'The Rules for Guys' with girls.
Like I need to explain this one to you? Do they explain their rules to us? Thought not.
22a. Don't discuss 'The Rules for Guys' with your therapist.
Because if you have a therapist you've really missed the point of "The Rules for Guys."
23. Figure out her romantic dream.
Almost all girls have one. In 90% of cases it's the knight in shining armour, the handsome prince or the tall, dark and handsome mysterious stranger. Harlequin Romances isn't exactly growing broke selling girls books about how a guy comes into the girl's life and does something as simple as fixing her car to make her life right and sweeps her off her feet. You would be amazed at the "mileage" you can get just by taking her car down to the shop. Though if you can find a good mechanic, let me know, OK? Anyway, subtly find out her own personal romantic dream, and play-act it. On the cheap, of course -- you only have to play-act. While she may dream of a billionaire who whisks her away to his ranch in his jet, she'll settle for a $60 rental limo and a $40 1-hour rental horseback ride.
24. Sometimes ya gotta break The Rules.
Hey, Burger King said it best. And it's a great place for a cheap date (use $4 from the $300 she "lent" you.) But in this case I mean you gotta break the Girl's Rules.
25. Do "The Rules" girls. Yes, you can!
If you suspect that some really attractive girl is following "The Rules" for girls, take heart. I mean if she's a dog, lose her. But if she's got a great set or you have some other reason to particularly want her, you now know her exact game and can use it to get her. The book tells these girls to follow its rules religiously, even when they don't make sense. You will have to wait 6 dates, but the authors do tell girls over 30 it's OK to have sex, so they will. Forget young "Rules" girls unless you are really keen on virgin-plucking. You only have to date 'em once a week -- if you date them Friday then you are free as a bird on Saturday; they'll end calls and dates; they won't call you when you have other girls over -- a lot of advantages, and as long as you see past all the manipulative "hard-to-get" tricks you won't be fooled, just laid.
First, you have to check if she's a "The Rules" girl or just a stuck-up bitch. Sometimes it can be hard to differentiate them. Test this by first telling her how much you admire a girl who sticks to her principles, and then call her Thursday telling her you just got front-row Orchestra seats to the Boston Pops (a classical musical group) concert on Friday. If she says yes she's the stuck-up bitch. Say, "Did I say Boston Pops? I meant Iggy Pop!" and dump her.
If she says a reluctant no, she's a "The Rules" girl. The book tells them never to accept a weekend date after Wednesday. Rush out to the bookstore to get a copy of "The Rules." You'll find it in the dating /relationships section. Since you've never gone near it before ask at the cashier's desk. When you get there you'll know why you've never been to this section before from the titles of the books. "Venus and Mars Together Forever." "Men who hate women and the women who love them too much." Like Dave Barry says I am not making this up. You're the only guy in weeks to go to this section other than to laugh at the titles, so if you're lucky some chick might even hit on you. But if not, go buy the book, and then read it. It's short.
Now you'll know her exact game. Problem is, as noted, it will be 6 weeks until you get laid. Be sure you have something else on the side during those six weeks.
But look at the advantages.
Other than those noted above, you'll learn that she won't bring up crap like "marriage" or "kids" or "the relationship." She expects you to bring these things up. Soon the book will tell her to dump you. Track this, and make sure to start dating another "Rules" girl before the breakup -- 6 weeks before the breakup if you can time it right.
26. Do 'The Rules For Guys' and you'll get laid.
Don't forget this. You may be tempted to break them, to be "nice" or "sensitive" or even listen to her. But everybody knows that nice guys don't get laid. You want to be nice or in the sack? I thought so.
I know you do despise "The Rules" and other such dating traps, but when I got this tongue in cheek Rules for Guys, I just knew I had to send a copy along to you
---------------------- The Rules for Guys --------------------
1. Be a "creature unlike any other."
However, in particular think in terms of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" (Universal 1954), a dark monster that conquers her. Beauty and the Beast. Chicks love that shit.
2. Don't talk much to a girl (but do take her dancing.)
She only wants to talk about relationships and girl stuff. So take her dancing. They go nuts for this. Learn enough to get by and look cool, though you won't need it much after you have her hooked. In the meantime you can flirt with the other girls on the dance floor.
3. Pay her way on the date, but expect to get back in kind.
Buy her a nice meal, so that she knows what she owes you in exchange for the meal. In addition, if you buy her a fancy schmancy $50 dinner at some ritzy place, she won't be able to turn down your request for a $300 "loan" until you can "get to the cash machine." Good investment.
4. Don't call her after sex.
Make her wait a few days. Girls do this stare at the phone thing, makes them all anticipatory. Don't give them what they want. Call her in a couple of days or if you get horny again. Also, after sex, just roll over and go to sleep, even if she hasn't had an orgasm yet. You did a lot of work and you're tired, and you have important work to do tomorrow.
5. Always end phone calls first.
Especially if she's read the Girl's Rules that tell her to do this, you won't have to worry about long phone calls. I mean girls can yak so long on the phone.
6. Don't give her any warning about a date.
Make sure she stays free all the time in case you call. And more to the point, keep yourself free in case something comes up elsewhere, if you know what I mean. If you call and she's not available, act real hurt, make it seem like you will end the relationship if she does this a lot.
7. Tell her what she wants to hear (i.e., Lie.)
You like long walks on the beach. You love kids. You like to cook. You're looking to settle down in a country home with that one special girl. You love horses, paris, chick movies, sushi and Meryl Streep. You support her goals. Tell her you're rich, famous, whatever. She'll figure out the more ridiculous ones eventually but if you play this right you'll get laid first and have her captured. Don't be scared to eventually talk to her about "the relationship" -- girls go for this. Just be sure not to believe it yourself.
8. Stop dating her if she doesn't put out by the second date.
Pretend like you're not super eager to get laid but drop the hint with gentle physical contact. It is nice to date easy chicks and all and get laid on the first date, but some of the hottest ones like to wait a date. However, if she doesn't at least give you a blowjob by date #2, #3 at the latest, there are better investments out there. On date #3, remind her of the "third date rule."
9. Tell her you love her.
This is the big corallary of rule #7. Don't do it right away but definitely do it if she's showing reluctance on that blowjob. Practice saying it like you mean it. As the old saying goes, "Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
10. No more than casual sex on the first, or 100th date.
Definitely don't get too involved, as she might wanna be monogamous or something. Make sure that you never let yourself get tied down.
11. Tell her what to do.
Hey, in the end they all want to be dominated. So make all the decisions and see how she goes for it. If so, you can probably get this to continue in the bedroom. No girl is perfect, but most of them like to please a man so you can change the one(s) you have to fit your needs.
12. Be the bad boy.
Girls love the "bad boy." They hope they can "reform" him, or they're a case of point #11 above. Either way, you can be as bad as you like. Treat her like she doesn't exist. Be mysterious. Dangerous. Wear cuffs and a leather motorcycle jacket, even if you drive a Hyundai. (Park the Hyundai somewhere else and walk to where you meet her, though.) Remember, nice guys don't get laid.
13. Don't let her know anything she can pin on you.
Girls like to get close to their guy, and "communicate." But later, if you break up, she might try and get back at you so for crissake don't let her know anything she could use or spread to others. Invent deep intimate stuff you can tell her in bed, she'll go for it. If you can't think up your own, buy one of those books with Fabio (the guy from the "I can't believe it's not butter" commercials) on the cover and be one of those guys. (God, this guy can't tell butter from margarine and chicks swoon over him? Something strange going on here.)
14. Don't tell her you're married!
For some reason they get really upset. When you take off your ring, get some tanning lotion or put your hand under a sunlamp to make sure it's not visible where you took it off. Or tell your wife you just don't want to wear a ring; invent some sort of bizarre hand disease or rice picker accident. Anyway even the ones who haven't read the Girl's Rules don't want to date married guys so don't let her (or your wife) know.
15. Be a pain to live with.
Well, this isn't a thing to so much try to do as a reminder to be yourself. If you shack up, don't alter your own life just to make it easier for her. One exception, which is admittedly a royal pain, but worth it -- put the toilet seat down after you take a wizz. She sees that and she'll think she's found god's gift to girls, and she'll give you better sex than a $300 hooker. Compare -- 5 seconds of your time each day to put down the seat vs. $300 blowjob. No brainer!
16. Don't get caught staring at her tits or other girls'.
For some reason girls don't like it when we stare at their tits when we talk to them. And they don't like us staring at other girls' either. As if we have a choice! Anyway, they're watching for this so don't get caught. Check their eyes, then do your looking.
17. Don't let her leave your things in your apartment.
Or give her a key, until you're sure you can count on her or very regular nookie. Otherwise they might try to insinuate themselves into your life before you are sure of this.
18. Even if you're engaged or married, you still can play around.
I mean, do they own you or something? This rule is the most fun.
19. Do The Rules even when your friends or parents think you're nuts!
Truth is, you're getting laid, and they are just jealous.
20. Don't give her the ring, but make her think you will -- or give her a fake ring.
Drop hints and pretend like some day you want to be married to her, but don't actually do it. You can even get engaged if you want to lock in some regular pussy. There's no law that says you actually have to follow through with the ceremony. Plus, it takes an expert to tell cubic zirconia from a diamond, and if she takes her ring to an expert she clearly doesn't trust you and is a lost cause anyway. You can get one of these rings for about $100 and trust me you'll get a fuck worth far more than that out of it.
21. Double check the birth control.
There's a trade off here. On one hand you don't want to use condoms, so get her on the pill ASAP. On the other hand if she runs the birth control she might blindside you with something annoying like a kid just to hook you. You decide. If she gets pregnant, take the new "morning-after" pill for guys. (It alters your blood type.)
22. Don't discuss 'The Rules for Guys' with girls.
Like I need to explain this one to you? Do they explain their rules to us? Thought not.
22a. Don't discuss 'The Rules for Guys' with your therapist.
Because if you have a therapist you've really missed the point of "The Rules for Guys."
23. Figure out her romantic dream.
Almost all girls have one. In 90% of cases it's the knight in shining armour, the handsome prince or the tall, dark and handsome mysterious stranger. Harlequin Romances isn't exactly growing broke selling girls books about how a guy comes into the girl's life and does something as simple as fixing her car to make her life right and sweeps her off her feet. You would be amazed at the "mileage" you can get just by taking her car down to the shop. Though if you can find a good mechanic, let me know, OK? Anyway, subtly find out her own personal romantic dream, and play-act it. On the cheap, of course -- you only have to play-act. While she may dream of a billionaire who whisks her away to his ranch in his jet, she'll settle for a $60 rental limo and a $40 1-hour rental horseback ride.
24. Sometimes ya gotta break The Rules.
Hey, Burger King said it best. And it's a great place for a cheap date (use $4 from the $300 she "lent" you.) But in this case I mean you gotta break the Girl's Rules.
25. Do "The Rules" girls. Yes, you can!
If you suspect that some really attractive girl is following "The Rules" for girls, take heart. I mean if she's a dog, lose her. But if she's got a great set or you have some other reason to particularly want her, you now know her exact game and can use it to get her. The book tells these girls to follow its rules religiously, even when they don't make sense. You will have to wait 6 dates, but the authors do tell girls over 30 it's OK to have sex, so they will. Forget young "Rules" girls unless you are really keen on virgin-plucking. You only have to date 'em once a week -- if you date them Friday then you are free as a bird on Saturday; they'll end calls and dates; they won't call you when you have other girls over -- a lot of advantages, and as long as you see past all the manipulative "hard-to-get" tricks you won't be fooled, just laid.
First, you have to check if she's a "The Rules" girl or just a stuck-up bitch. Sometimes it can be hard to differentiate them. Test this by first telling her how much you admire a girl who sticks to her principles, and then call her Thursday telling her you just got front-row Orchestra seats to the Boston Pops (a classical musical group) concert on Friday. If she says yes she's the stuck-up bitch. Say, "Did I say Boston Pops? I meant Iggy Pop!" and dump her.
If she says a reluctant no, she's a "The Rules" girl. The book tells them never to accept a weekend date after Wednesday. Rush out to the bookstore to get a copy of "The Rules." You'll find it in the dating /relationships section. Since you've never gone near it before ask at the cashier's desk. When you get there you'll know why you've never been to this section before from the titles of the books. "Venus and Mars Together Forever." "Men who hate women and the women who love them too much." Like Dave Barry says I am not making this up. You're the only guy in weeks to go to this section other than to laugh at the titles, so if you're lucky some chick might even hit on you. But if not, go buy the book, and then read it. It's short.
Now you'll know her exact game. Problem is, as noted, it will be 6 weeks until you get laid. Be sure you have something else on the side during those six weeks.
But look at the advantages.
Other than those noted above, you'll learn that she won't bring up crap like "marriage" or "kids" or "the relationship." She expects you to bring these things up. Soon the book will tell her to dump you. Track this, and make sure to start dating another "Rules" girl before the breakup -- 6 weeks before the breakup if you can time it right.
26. Do 'The Rules For Guys' and you'll get laid.
Don't forget this. You may be tempted to break them, to be "nice" or "sensitive" or even listen to her. But everybody knows that nice guys don't get laid. You want to be nice or in the sack? I thought so.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
EOTM: The Law of Thelema*
"Love is the Law, love under will."
Except as motivated by love and the need to express love, all acts are unlawful. Most unlawful of all, are those acts which seek to extort love by pretense: by denying one's own will or self to deceitfully appear to be food for another's appetites. Next come those acts which are based on will, but not on love. If both of these two types of unlawful acts were purged from humanity, we would live in utopia.
Harm none, and beyond that take the responsibility to choose your own actions based on wisdom regarding their consequences, is the only rule a non-fool really needs.
( * Thelema is the Greek word for will and is related to the Greek for love, Agape. The Greeks did not recognize romance as a form of love, they had an entirely different word for it, Eros. )
Except as motivated by love and the need to express love, all acts are unlawful. Most unlawful of all, are those acts which seek to extort love by pretense: by denying one's own will or self to deceitfully appear to be food for another's appetites. Next come those acts which are based on will, but not on love. If both of these two types of unlawful acts were purged from humanity, we would live in utopia.
Harm none, and beyond that take the responsibility to choose your own actions based on wisdom regarding their consequences, is the only rule a non-fool really needs.
( * Thelema is the Greek word for will and is related to the Greek for love, Agape. The Greeks did not recognize romance as a form of love, they had an entirely different word for it, Eros. )
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
EOTM: "The Rules" are for Fools!!!
"Any fool can make a rule, and EVERY fool will mind it."
One of the saddest phenomena of recent years is the appearance of a book called "The Rules", only surpassed in its stupidity by its popularity and the enthusiasm with which its message was received and adopted by women. Nothing more than a cookbook for women obsessed with marriage containing recipes for lying and manipulation: this book promises true love and eternal happiness as the reward for women turning themselves into a commodity and manipulating the market to create an artificial scarcity of that commodity.
Several immediate knock-offs capitalizing on its popularity immediately appeared. One was a satire called "The Code", which outlined an equally reprehensible system of manipulation for men. "The Code" was mostly tongue-in-cheek, like the email sent to me by a female journalist as a part of a correspondence we had on the issues of dating.
However, I find no humor whatsoever in this type of thing. I have not yet heard back from her about whether she actually found it funny or was sending it to me as an example of some of the issues which I have written about. Underneath any humor that men might find in it, is a deep and bitter resentment over the type of manipulation which has been used against them and to which each rule is a suggested counter-measure. Underlying any humor that women might find in it, are demeaning and obnoxious stereotypes of men, plus likely some of the same bitter resentment.
The best response to "The Rules" was by couples' therapist and author Barbara DeAngelis, Ph.D. Entitled "The REAL Rules"; this book starts out with what used to be called the "Golden Rule", really the only "rule" anyone ever needs: "Treat everyone the way you want them to treat you." All the rest of her "rules" are just guidelines for implementing the first rule.
In a world filled with horrors, it is easy to become numb to atrocity. This is the first step toward death: the death inside and the social and spiritual death which so often preceed actual physical death. Those who follow "rules" such as those originated by the author of the referenced email, and by the authors of the book "The Rules", are the walking dead. So are the people who have written those rules: zombies which live in a state which is neither completely dead nor completely alive.
When one takes instructions on how to conduct one's life from a dead person, one embraces death over life. How could there possibly be a greater fool than that?
The Law of Thelema
One of the saddest phenomena of recent years is the appearance of a book called "The Rules", only surpassed in its stupidity by its popularity and the enthusiasm with which its message was received and adopted by women. Nothing more than a cookbook for women obsessed with marriage containing recipes for lying and manipulation: this book promises true love and eternal happiness as the reward for women turning themselves into a commodity and manipulating the market to create an artificial scarcity of that commodity.
Several immediate knock-offs capitalizing on its popularity immediately appeared. One was a satire called "The Code", which outlined an equally reprehensible system of manipulation for men. "The Code" was mostly tongue-in-cheek, like the email sent to me by a female journalist as a part of a correspondence we had on the issues of dating.
However, I find no humor whatsoever in this type of thing. I have not yet heard back from her about whether she actually found it funny or was sending it to me as an example of some of the issues which I have written about. Underneath any humor that men might find in it, is a deep and bitter resentment over the type of manipulation which has been used against them and to which each rule is a suggested counter-measure. Underlying any humor that women might find in it, are demeaning and obnoxious stereotypes of men, plus likely some of the same bitter resentment.
The best response to "The Rules" was by couples' therapist and author Barbara DeAngelis, Ph.D. Entitled "The REAL Rules"; this book starts out with what used to be called the "Golden Rule", really the only "rule" anyone ever needs: "Treat everyone the way you want them to treat you." All the rest of her "rules" are just guidelines for implementing the first rule.
In a world filled with horrors, it is easy to become numb to atrocity. This is the first step toward death: the death inside and the social and spiritual death which so often preceed actual physical death. Those who follow "rules" such as those originated by the author of the referenced email, and by the authors of the book "The Rules", are the walking dead. So are the people who have written those rules: zombies which live in a state which is neither completely dead nor completely alive.
When one takes instructions on how to conduct one's life from a dead person, one embraces death over life. How could there possibly be a greater fool than that?
The Law of Thelema
Monday, April 04, 2005
EOTM: Escape from the Dating Trap
Men and women today are trapped in a cycle of manipulation and counter manipulation which few of them understand. Throughout the 20th century, all reality and substance have been slowly leached out of everyone's lives and have been replaced by addiction to, and narcotization by, an unfufilling cycle of acquistion, achievement, and disappointment when that which they acquire and achieve fails to fill the emptiness inside. Then a new cycle begins to acquire more and achieve more in hopes that it will be enough, followed by a cycle of even more disappointment when it fails to be. In the process, both men and women have been stripped of their humanity and turned into objects to be acquired, then disposed of.
The devastating effects of mass media have created homogenized caricatures of men and women which do not reflect the reality of any woman or man, yet which both sexes have been subtly conditioned to expect of the other. Trapped in sets of roles and expectations of appearance, mislead about what the other sex wants and expects, completely lacking role models except the fictional characters fed to them under the disguise of "entertainment", people are leading fictional lives and choosing fictional mates. When the day comes that one or both can no longer maintain the fiction, or one either discovers or reveals the degree to which their shared fiction departs from reality, the result is emotional carnage and hate. We see more of this around us every day than we ever see of real love.
The societal pressures and demands for pairing and mating, combined with the biological pressures to do the same, are slamming men and women up against each other and have trapped both into living scripts which are fallacies and fantasies and have no relationship to real lives. These scripts have extensively defined, restrictive, and unrealistic roles and are enforced by an inflexible set of social "rules". The dating script traps people into trying to be different than they really are and expecting the other to be different than s/he really is. When the deception is finally revealed, everyone feels betrayed.
In order to escape from the dating trap, which I call the "first stop on the train to stupidville"; one must avoid being railroaded by social expectations, or deluded by wishful thinking which cannot separate fantasy from reality, long enough to understand who s/he really is and what s/he really wants and whether the other person is likely to have what you want and want what you have.
The moment two people enter into a social relationship called "dating", they become trapped into social roles which were historically adaptive, but have not changed in adaptation to a changing environment. At that point it is too late to be talking about expectations, because they have already been built. The very use of the term "date" or "dating" carries with it all the baggage of expectations that this is a "special" kind of friendship or relationship. "Specialness" is the most addictive drug known; once addicted, like any other addict, the "Specialness" addict will sacrifice all self, all integrity, and all other relationships to keep getting a "Specialness" fix.
As the "old" social roles and structures have been eroded by the changing realities of the 20th century, most notably the protector/provider roles for men and the materially-dependant/nurturer roles for women, both sexes have struggled to forge new roles out of the wreckage of the old. Neither have suceeded very well nor are faring very well. The rage and hatred which is the inevitable result of frustration and betrayal are mounting. We have reached the point of "Counting bodies in the gender war", as a woman journalist recently put it.
The white flag of surrender is not possible. The chilling suggestions that cloning makes it now possible to create a race with only one gender are among the most frightening statements ever made. Like the nuclear weapons stalemate which threated to end the human race for much of this century, the nucleus of the cell stalemate will bring the race to the brink of total destruction.
Men and women alike must step out of the trap which keeps throwing them up against each other in the growing cycle of frustration, rage, and hate. We need a demilitarized zone where we can sit down at the peace table and negotiate a peaceful resolution to our differences. We need delgates to a peace process which neither denies the war, nor believes that it is inevitable. Once conscripts, we need to become diplomats. Once foot soldiers, we need to become negotiaters. Once fools following rules which do not serve us, we need to become enlightened and realize that rule-ish is foolish: so we must create new roles which do not follow the old rules.
The cycle of blame must stop.
Most web sites I see are mostly about throwing the grenades of blame into the emotional life of the other gender. Unfortunately, most men's issues sites are devoted to throwing back the grenades that feminism has thrown at them, and a tragic number of the women's sites are devoted to throwing more grenades.
For anyone ready to become a draft resister, a conscientious objector, in the new "Emotional and Gender Vietnam" - listed below are some Radical Alternative Raradigms, based on Reason, Accountability, and Purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason Accountability Purpose
”The Rules” are for Fools!!!
Healing for Men
The devastating effects of mass media have created homogenized caricatures of men and women which do not reflect the reality of any woman or man, yet which both sexes have been subtly conditioned to expect of the other. Trapped in sets of roles and expectations of appearance, mislead about what the other sex wants and expects, completely lacking role models except the fictional characters fed to them under the disguise of "entertainment", people are leading fictional lives and choosing fictional mates. When the day comes that one or both can no longer maintain the fiction, or one either discovers or reveals the degree to which their shared fiction departs from reality, the result is emotional carnage and hate. We see more of this around us every day than we ever see of real love.
The societal pressures and demands for pairing and mating, combined with the biological pressures to do the same, are slamming men and women up against each other and have trapped both into living scripts which are fallacies and fantasies and have no relationship to real lives. These scripts have extensively defined, restrictive, and unrealistic roles and are enforced by an inflexible set of social "rules". The dating script traps people into trying to be different than they really are and expecting the other to be different than s/he really is. When the deception is finally revealed, everyone feels betrayed.
In order to escape from the dating trap, which I call the "first stop on the train to stupidville"; one must avoid being railroaded by social expectations, or deluded by wishful thinking which cannot separate fantasy from reality, long enough to understand who s/he really is and what s/he really wants and whether the other person is likely to have what you want and want what you have.
The moment two people enter into a social relationship called "dating", they become trapped into social roles which were historically adaptive, but have not changed in adaptation to a changing environment. At that point it is too late to be talking about expectations, because they have already been built. The very use of the term "date" or "dating" carries with it all the baggage of expectations that this is a "special" kind of friendship or relationship. "Specialness" is the most addictive drug known; once addicted, like any other addict, the "Specialness" addict will sacrifice all self, all integrity, and all other relationships to keep getting a "Specialness" fix.
As the "old" social roles and structures have been eroded by the changing realities of the 20th century, most notably the protector/provider roles for men and the materially-dependant/nurturer roles for women, both sexes have struggled to forge new roles out of the wreckage of the old. Neither have suceeded very well nor are faring very well. The rage and hatred which is the inevitable result of frustration and betrayal are mounting. We have reached the point of "Counting bodies in the gender war", as a woman journalist recently put it.
The white flag of surrender is not possible. The chilling suggestions that cloning makes it now possible to create a race with only one gender are among the most frightening statements ever made. Like the nuclear weapons stalemate which threated to end the human race for much of this century, the nucleus of the cell stalemate will bring the race to the brink of total destruction.
Men and women alike must step out of the trap which keeps throwing them up against each other in the growing cycle of frustration, rage, and hate. We need a demilitarized zone where we can sit down at the peace table and negotiate a peaceful resolution to our differences. We need delgates to a peace process which neither denies the war, nor believes that it is inevitable. Once conscripts, we need to become diplomats. Once foot soldiers, we need to become negotiaters. Once fools following rules which do not serve us, we need to become enlightened and realize that rule-ish is foolish: so we must create new roles which do not follow the old rules.
The cycle of blame must stop.
Most web sites I see are mostly about throwing the grenades of blame into the emotional life of the other gender. Unfortunately, most men's issues sites are devoted to throwing back the grenades that feminism has thrown at them, and a tragic number of the women's sites are devoted to throwing more grenades.
For anyone ready to become a draft resister, a conscientious objector, in the new "Emotional and Gender Vietnam" - listed below are some Radical Alternative Raradigms, based on Reason, Accountability, and Purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason Accountability Purpose
”The Rules” are for Fools!!!
Healing for Men
Sunday, April 03, 2005
EOTM: The Destruction of Little Girls' Sexuality
In her book, "Warrior Marks", Alice Walker explores the practice common throughout much of Africa, the Middle-East, and some of Asia, of chopping off the genitals of little girls. Collectively known as "FGM", or "Female Genital Mutilation", these practices range from cutting off the tip of the clitoris to complete removal of the clitoris and inner labia and scraping the flesh off of the outer labia to create an open wound. In this extreme procedure, termed "Pharonic", the sides of the wound are bound together and a small stick inserted to leave an opening to pass urine and menstrual blood once the remains of the outer labia have healed together with scar tissue.
Much confusion about this procedure is generated by the fact that it is often referred to as "female circumcision" which leads people to regard it as similar to male circumcision. After centuries of this ignorant and brutal practice, it is not difficult to understand how entire peoples could lose any knowledge of what an adult woman's intact genitals look like.
Before inhabitants of so-called "civilized" western culture indulge themselves in too much smug self-congratulation, they need to ponder whether in fact western culture does not do much the same thing in a hidden, covert, and dishonest fashion. These so-called "civilized" western mothers hide their intent to destroy their daughters sexuality by leaving their genitals attached ( in most cases ) but by severing the mental and emotional connection which the little girls have to them. I call this westernized version of FGM by the term "Female Genital Mindfuck."
I know a man who has been married over 25 years and has never once SEEN his wife's genitals, nor even seen her naked. She dresses and undresses in the closet. They do have 3 children, but so do the women whose genitals have been chopped off have children. The parts of female anatomy which are functional for reproduction are fortunately beyond the reach of the circumcizer's knife, and somewhat beyond the reach of the knife of fear and shame which western women use to detach their daughters from their own genitals rather than detaching the genitals from the girl.
This is how one 19 y/o woman described the experience in a correspondence with me:
"My mother told me that most men were after one thing...and she just look down between my legs (which didn't seem very interesting to me...I was probably 10).
"I read Songs of Solomon where he talks about how splendid he saw the womans body, and how incredible he viewed sex.
"I never told you about my grandmother. The word Sex is spoken as a nod of the head. She wouldn't have a clue what "going down" or "giving head" implies and she dang sure wouldn't let you talk about sex. She probably would have gotten on to me for reading the Songs of Solomon had she ever caught me and gave me some big lecture about that.
"Talk about mixed messages! How do you know to believe! So you know what I did?? I sheltered myself. I stayed away from those stupid Seventeen magazines and I never joined "girl talks."
"I saw older men out there who weren't looking for a cheap thrill, and wanted more than that "weird" thing between my legs."
This young woman was so dissociated from her own sexuality that she referred to her genitals as "that 'wierd' thing between my legs." I wonder if it is possible to grasp the enormity of that level of dissociation by using an anology of her referring to her eyes as "those 'weird' things below my eyebrows" or to her ears as "those 'weird' things hanging on the side of my head."
Another woman I know, one who was doing her level best to harass me into a "romantic" relationship in which I had no interest whatsoever, responded to my challenge of her assertion that she was a "sensuous woman" by actually looking at her own genitals FOR THE FIRST TIME AT AGE 42. This woman had deep and serious disturbances when it came to her notions of relationships, and particularly of her own sexuality. I saw her once get so egged on by some "you go, girl" types that she made an absolutely obnoxious fool out of herself by not letting go by any comment about an object which was longer than it was wide without making some comment about inserting it in herself. Since this happened to be a May Day celebration, at one point she suggested mounting the 16 ft long X 6 inch around Maypole. In a very misguided attempt to let her "sexual nature" out, several times she stood up and proclaimed to the crowd "Big ones, line up. Little ones, bunch up."
One might be tempted to leap to all kinds of conclusions from "See what happens when female sexuality is unrestrained by social convention" to the "See, men really dislike and are threatened by a woman freely expressing her sexuality" of the "you go, girl" grrls. However, what this woman was expressing was most decidedly NOT any form of intact healthy female sexuality, but rather a twisted and perverse caricature of the sexuality that SHE THOUGHT OTHERS WANTED HER TO EXPRESS. And herein lies the key: by first depriving a young female of access to her sexuality, then by destroying it in many cases, there is a void left into which ridiculous notions of "romantic love" or any other socially constucted fictions can be placed.
As the target of all this contrived display, I was disgusted both by her performance and by her stupidity, as were two of her friends who happened to be in attendance. They kept asking themselves "Why doesn't HE get her out of there? Can't he see what those people are doing to her by egging her on?" ( Why doesn't he RESCUE her? )
There are a whole lot of answers to this question, I'll try to be brief. First, I long ago stopped resuing women from the consequences of their own stupidity. Rescuing is the primary means whereby this culture destroys little girls' competence. In this woman's particular case, she had been so belligerent, obnoxious, and agressive in her attempts to bulldoze her way into my life and dictate to me the script of a ridiculous romantic fantasy which she wanted me to fulfill for her, that I really didn't care what happened to her. In my opinion, the more painful the consquences the better because this woman had been stubbornly refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for her own actions for more than two years at this point. I wanted it to be as painful as possible for her so that the pain would penetrate the wall of denial which so far had been impenetrable. In addition, there were more than a dozen WOMEN around her who were allowing this to continue or actively participating in egging this woman on. Fascinating that they were either sitting on their passive asses watching this woman completely humiliate herself, or actively participating in encouraging her to do so. But I, as a MAN, got assigned the "responsibility" of rescuing her amidst a bunch of women who took no responsibility themselves. I don't think so.
However, I was not completely without compassion since I knew about the way this woman had been raised and the fact that her mother had seen to it that she had been dissociated from her sexuality at a very young age. While stories such as the woman whose parents subjected her to a clitorectomy as a barely preadolescent girl, as well as the persistence of the practice of male circumcision, show that Genital Mutilation is alive and well in the United States, it is this more subtle form of destruction of a young female's sexuality that haunts these women as well as the men who try to love them and connect with them sexually, their marriages, and their relationships with their own children and the culture as a whole.
Over the years, I have repeatedly tried to sew those severed connections back together, only to encounter time and again the same type of resistance to my efforts that the man mentioned above, whose wife undresses in the closet, experienced. The cruel paradox is that, with the advent of the mythological "sexual freedom for women", there are a lot of women who have been giving out the message that they would LIKE TO BE reconnected with those feelings. However, any man who is foolish enough to take them at their word will get slammed for it.
Women still retreat and hide behind the fictions of "true love" as a means of deceiving both themselves and men about the true nature of their wants and needs. Despite the economic gains of women over the past 3 decades and, contrary to all the bullshit about women only making 75 cents per dollar a man makes, achieving essential wage parity when factors of experience and time in the work force are compared; women still expect to be "pampered" and showered with affection and tokens of male devotion. They still want and expect to get their sexual needs met, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own sexual needs and usually manage to make the man responsible for them at the same time they hold the man in contempt for having his own needs.
I am constantly astonished at the attitude of women who are supposedly "seeking relationships" with a man. I make something of a hobby of reading personals ads and surfing "romance" web sites just to keep my blood pressure up and remind myself why I never have married and never intend to. No wonder women get their condescending view of men confirmed if they only meet the type of men who will tolerate the following kind of arrogant condescencion.
"Okay, so I went to the "tips on writing ads". That helped!
"I am seeking to find someone out there who is honest to a fault, not too hard to look at, rather tall, great personality, loves to pamper women, opps, erase that, I meant, loves to pamper a woman, knows how to give and take, will understand that most women will, one way or the other, get in that last word, understands that sex is not everything (I realize that will exclude 90% of you guys), understands that sex is an important part of things, (what can I say, I'm a woman, you're not suppose to understand what that meant).
"I know, I sound like an awful person, but I'm really not."
I would say that this woman needs to retake her "tips on writing ads" course. If it had not been one of those "pay for your grins" sites, I would have sent back the following response:
"Yup, sure enough, I'm one of that 90% of guys you wanted to 'weed out'. I would suggest that you re-take your 'tips on writing ads' course. Surely they didn't suggest that slamming 90% of all men was a sure-fire tactic for catching the attention of that small fraction of the remaining 10% who can meet all your other criteria. Now, let's see what you have demanded so far: 1) honesty, nothing wrong with that; 2) attractive, tall, and great personality, you and every other woman in this country. Since you've already ruled out 90% of all men, and the men who have such a killer combination of desirable attributes as you require will likely have their pick of women, you are fishing in a pool which is small indeed. 3) "Loves" to pamper women, no make that "A" woman, obviously you. Since men in the age range you are prospecting often have kids, ex-wives, and often colleges to support, the ones with enough money left over to "pamper" you are becoming small indeed. Now, lessee, 10% of 10% of 10% works out to 1/10th of 1%. Now, let's look at what you are offering such a rare man. Passionate sex? Nope, you've already made it quite clear that YOUR assessment of the significance of that activity is going to be the prevailing standard of the day. Understanding and emotional support? Nope, again. You are going to demand the "last word" in ANY argument, and you're gonna retreat behind the old feminine mystique and just say I'm not supposed to understand what you mean. Well, I gotta tell you that even if I were such a man as fit all your demands, this is sizing up to be a pretty bad bargain. You yourself even admit as much when you end your ad with 'I know, I sound like an awful person, but I'm really not.' Whether you are or not doesn't matter. Your ad makes you sound like someone who will do until the real thing comes along. Maybe you should think about retaking the 'tips on writing ads' course and re-writing your ad?"
Obviously, this woman's mother told her that "men are only interested in one thing" and she has held onto this notion until her late 40s. And just as obviously, she is only interested in men as crippled in their self-esteem as she is so they will tolerate her smug arrogance and absurd demands while practically spelling out the fact that she has no intention of giving the man anything he might want in return.
A few years ago, I would have felt sorry for this woman. Now, all I can manage to do is to feel sorry for the poor bastard that she gets her hooks into.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
Much confusion about this procedure is generated by the fact that it is often referred to as "female circumcision" which leads people to regard it as similar to male circumcision. After centuries of this ignorant and brutal practice, it is not difficult to understand how entire peoples could lose any knowledge of what an adult woman's intact genitals look like.
Before inhabitants of so-called "civilized" western culture indulge themselves in too much smug self-congratulation, they need to ponder whether in fact western culture does not do much the same thing in a hidden, covert, and dishonest fashion. These so-called "civilized" western mothers hide their intent to destroy their daughters sexuality by leaving their genitals attached ( in most cases ) but by severing the mental and emotional connection which the little girls have to them. I call this westernized version of FGM by the term "Female Genital Mindfuck."
I know a man who has been married over 25 years and has never once SEEN his wife's genitals, nor even seen her naked. She dresses and undresses in the closet. They do have 3 children, but so do the women whose genitals have been chopped off have children. The parts of female anatomy which are functional for reproduction are fortunately beyond the reach of the circumcizer's knife, and somewhat beyond the reach of the knife of fear and shame which western women use to detach their daughters from their own genitals rather than detaching the genitals from the girl.
This is how one 19 y/o woman described the experience in a correspondence with me:
"My mother told me that most men were after one thing...and she just look down between my legs (which didn't seem very interesting to me...I was probably 10).
"I read Songs of Solomon where he talks about how splendid he saw the womans body, and how incredible he viewed sex.
"I never told you about my grandmother. The word Sex is spoken as a nod of the head. She wouldn't have a clue what "going down" or "giving head" implies and she dang sure wouldn't let you talk about sex. She probably would have gotten on to me for reading the Songs of Solomon had she ever caught me and gave me some big lecture about that.
"Talk about mixed messages! How do you know to believe! So you know what I did?? I sheltered myself. I stayed away from those stupid Seventeen magazines and I never joined "girl talks."
"I saw older men out there who weren't looking for a cheap thrill, and wanted more than that "weird" thing between my legs."
This young woman was so dissociated from her own sexuality that she referred to her genitals as "that 'wierd' thing between my legs." I wonder if it is possible to grasp the enormity of that level of dissociation by using an anology of her referring to her eyes as "those 'weird' things below my eyebrows" or to her ears as "those 'weird' things hanging on the side of my head."
Another woman I know, one who was doing her level best to harass me into a "romantic" relationship in which I had no interest whatsoever, responded to my challenge of her assertion that she was a "sensuous woman" by actually looking at her own genitals FOR THE FIRST TIME AT AGE 42. This woman had deep and serious disturbances when it came to her notions of relationships, and particularly of her own sexuality. I saw her once get so egged on by some "you go, girl" types that she made an absolutely obnoxious fool out of herself by not letting go by any comment about an object which was longer than it was wide without making some comment about inserting it in herself. Since this happened to be a May Day celebration, at one point she suggested mounting the 16 ft long X 6 inch around Maypole. In a very misguided attempt to let her "sexual nature" out, several times she stood up and proclaimed to the crowd "Big ones, line up. Little ones, bunch up."
One might be tempted to leap to all kinds of conclusions from "See what happens when female sexuality is unrestrained by social convention" to the "See, men really dislike and are threatened by a woman freely expressing her sexuality" of the "you go, girl" grrls. However, what this woman was expressing was most decidedly NOT any form of intact healthy female sexuality, but rather a twisted and perverse caricature of the sexuality that SHE THOUGHT OTHERS WANTED HER TO EXPRESS. And herein lies the key: by first depriving a young female of access to her sexuality, then by destroying it in many cases, there is a void left into which ridiculous notions of "romantic love" or any other socially constucted fictions can be placed.
As the target of all this contrived display, I was disgusted both by her performance and by her stupidity, as were two of her friends who happened to be in attendance. They kept asking themselves "Why doesn't HE get her out of there? Can't he see what those people are doing to her by egging her on?" ( Why doesn't he RESCUE her? )
There are a whole lot of answers to this question, I'll try to be brief. First, I long ago stopped resuing women from the consequences of their own stupidity. Rescuing is the primary means whereby this culture destroys little girls' competence. In this woman's particular case, she had been so belligerent, obnoxious, and agressive in her attempts to bulldoze her way into my life and dictate to me the script of a ridiculous romantic fantasy which she wanted me to fulfill for her, that I really didn't care what happened to her. In my opinion, the more painful the consquences the better because this woman had been stubbornly refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for her own actions for more than two years at this point. I wanted it to be as painful as possible for her so that the pain would penetrate the wall of denial which so far had been impenetrable. In addition, there were more than a dozen WOMEN around her who were allowing this to continue or actively participating in egging this woman on. Fascinating that they were either sitting on their passive asses watching this woman completely humiliate herself, or actively participating in encouraging her to do so. But I, as a MAN, got assigned the "responsibility" of rescuing her amidst a bunch of women who took no responsibility themselves. I don't think so.
However, I was not completely without compassion since I knew about the way this woman had been raised and the fact that her mother had seen to it that she had been dissociated from her sexuality at a very young age. While stories such as the woman whose parents subjected her to a clitorectomy as a barely preadolescent girl, as well as the persistence of the practice of male circumcision, show that Genital Mutilation is alive and well in the United States, it is this more subtle form of destruction of a young female's sexuality that haunts these women as well as the men who try to love them and connect with them sexually, their marriages, and their relationships with their own children and the culture as a whole.
Over the years, I have repeatedly tried to sew those severed connections back together, only to encounter time and again the same type of resistance to my efforts that the man mentioned above, whose wife undresses in the closet, experienced. The cruel paradox is that, with the advent of the mythological "sexual freedom for women", there are a lot of women who have been giving out the message that they would LIKE TO BE reconnected with those feelings. However, any man who is foolish enough to take them at their word will get slammed for it.
Women still retreat and hide behind the fictions of "true love" as a means of deceiving both themselves and men about the true nature of their wants and needs. Despite the economic gains of women over the past 3 decades and, contrary to all the bullshit about women only making 75 cents per dollar a man makes, achieving essential wage parity when factors of experience and time in the work force are compared; women still expect to be "pampered" and showered with affection and tokens of male devotion. They still want and expect to get their sexual needs met, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own sexual needs and usually manage to make the man responsible for them at the same time they hold the man in contempt for having his own needs.
I am constantly astonished at the attitude of women who are supposedly "seeking relationships" with a man. I make something of a hobby of reading personals ads and surfing "romance" web sites just to keep my blood pressure up and remind myself why I never have married and never intend to. No wonder women get their condescending view of men confirmed if they only meet the type of men who will tolerate the following kind of arrogant condescencion.
"Okay, so I went to the "tips on writing ads". That helped!
"I am seeking to find someone out there who is honest to a fault, not too hard to look at, rather tall, great personality, loves to pamper women, opps, erase that, I meant, loves to pamper a woman, knows how to give and take, will understand that most women will, one way or the other, get in that last word, understands that sex is not everything (I realize that will exclude 90% of you guys), understands that sex is an important part of things, (what can I say, I'm a woman, you're not suppose to understand what that meant).
"I know, I sound like an awful person, but I'm really not."
I would say that this woman needs to retake her "tips on writing ads" course. If it had not been one of those "pay for your grins" sites, I would have sent back the following response:
"Yup, sure enough, I'm one of that 90% of guys you wanted to 'weed out'. I would suggest that you re-take your 'tips on writing ads' course. Surely they didn't suggest that slamming 90% of all men was a sure-fire tactic for catching the attention of that small fraction of the remaining 10% who can meet all your other criteria. Now, let's see what you have demanded so far: 1) honesty, nothing wrong with that; 2) attractive, tall, and great personality, you and every other woman in this country. Since you've already ruled out 90% of all men, and the men who have such a killer combination of desirable attributes as you require will likely have their pick of women, you are fishing in a pool which is small indeed. 3) "Loves" to pamper women, no make that "A" woman, obviously you. Since men in the age range you are prospecting often have kids, ex-wives, and often colleges to support, the ones with enough money left over to "pamper" you are becoming small indeed. Now, lessee, 10% of 10% of 10% works out to 1/10th of 1%. Now, let's look at what you are offering such a rare man. Passionate sex? Nope, you've already made it quite clear that YOUR assessment of the significance of that activity is going to be the prevailing standard of the day. Understanding and emotional support? Nope, again. You are going to demand the "last word" in ANY argument, and you're gonna retreat behind the old feminine mystique and just say I'm not supposed to understand what you mean. Well, I gotta tell you that even if I were such a man as fit all your demands, this is sizing up to be a pretty bad bargain. You yourself even admit as much when you end your ad with 'I know, I sound like an awful person, but I'm really not.' Whether you are or not doesn't matter. Your ad makes you sound like someone who will do until the real thing comes along. Maybe you should think about retaking the 'tips on writing ads' course and re-writing your ad?"
Obviously, this woman's mother told her that "men are only interested in one thing" and she has held onto this notion until her late 40s. And just as obviously, she is only interested in men as crippled in their self-esteem as she is so they will tolerate her smug arrogance and absurd demands while practically spelling out the fact that she has no intention of giving the man anything he might want in return.
A few years ago, I would have felt sorry for this woman. Now, all I can manage to do is to feel sorry for the poor bastard that she gets her hooks into.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
Saturday, April 02, 2005
EOTM: Female Sexuality
It should go without saying that a man's experience of encountering female sexuality is nothing like a woman's experience of female sexuality as an aspect of herself. Men have been being steadily flogged for years over some ill-advised comments about female sexuality which Sigmund Freud made decades ago. The most unfortunate aspect of Freud's theories has been that, as a "founding" theorist in a fledgling science, his theories have been far more influential to the science than they merit.
A far different, and in my male experience a far more accurate, picture is given in Rufus Camphausen's work, ”The Yoni: sacred symbol of female power” His wife, Christina Camphausen, produces some of the most subtle and beautful images of the gateway to life for all human beings. In many ways, the awe, wonder, and mystery which a man feels towards the female power to create new life is in directly proportion to how he experiences those emtions towards his own life. Norman Mailer put it beautifully in his 1971 "Prisoner of sex".
"If he began this remedial reading with the firmest male prejudice of them all, which is that women might possess the better half of life already, he was never to encounter any comprehension among female writers that a firm erection on a delicate fellow was the adventurous juncture of ego and courage. One attitude in Women's Lib remained therefore repellant: precisely the dull assumption that the sexual force of a man was the luck of his birth, rather that his finest moral product, or if not his - here, full blast, came genuine conservatism - then a local gift passed along by something well achieved in his mother, his father, or farther back down the line."
Sexual desire, in the male side of the human race, is a reflection of the degree to which a man feels alive. In a field of food grains, the most vital, the most vigorous, the most full of life themselves, produce the most offspring. Sexual drive, that overwhelming desire to engage in the act that creates new life, is the ultimate expression of life itself: both the meaning and the definition of life are the same - life is what creates new life out of itself.
The feelings that men have in response to this creative potential in women is like the experience called in some christian faiths by the name "the Rapture." It is a total experience which integrates mind, body, emotion, and spirit. It is no accident that many people have been known to cry "Oh God!" at the moment of sexual release, because the notion of god the creator imbues the act of creation itself as an act of Godliness, and the experience is as close to a direct encounter with the creative force as most people get in their lifetimes.
Many of the ancient religions treated the sexual union of man and woman in just this way: as a holy act of creation. The earth itself was seen as female, and the ability to generate life out of one's own body as the most distilled essence of uniquely female energy. Male energy was seen as complementary to female energy, and they joined for the purpose of creating life. Both were essential, and essentially different.
The notion of these energies as pure and perfect complements of each other is expressed in the Chinese symbol of yin and yang, also called the Tai Chi, or "Grand Ultimate."
.
A far different, and in my male experience a far more accurate, picture is given in Rufus Camphausen's work, ”The Yoni: sacred symbol of female power” His wife, Christina Camphausen, produces some of the most subtle and beautful images of the gateway to life for all human beings. In many ways, the awe, wonder, and mystery which a man feels towards the female power to create new life is in directly proportion to how he experiences those emtions towards his own life. Norman Mailer put it beautifully in his 1971 "Prisoner of sex".
"If he began this remedial reading with the firmest male prejudice of them all, which is that women might possess the better half of life already, he was never to encounter any comprehension among female writers that a firm erection on a delicate fellow was the adventurous juncture of ego and courage. One attitude in Women's Lib remained therefore repellant: precisely the dull assumption that the sexual force of a man was the luck of his birth, rather that his finest moral product, or if not his - here, full blast, came genuine conservatism - then a local gift passed along by something well achieved in his mother, his father, or farther back down the line."
Sexual desire, in the male side of the human race, is a reflection of the degree to which a man feels alive. In a field of food grains, the most vital, the most vigorous, the most full of life themselves, produce the most offspring. Sexual drive, that overwhelming desire to engage in the act that creates new life, is the ultimate expression of life itself: both the meaning and the definition of life are the same - life is what creates new life out of itself.
The feelings that men have in response to this creative potential in women is like the experience called in some christian faiths by the name "the Rapture." It is a total experience which integrates mind, body, emotion, and spirit. It is no accident that many people have been known to cry "Oh God!" at the moment of sexual release, because the notion of god the creator imbues the act of creation itself as an act of Godliness, and the experience is as close to a direct encounter with the creative force as most people get in their lifetimes.
Many of the ancient religions treated the sexual union of man and woman in just this way: as a holy act of creation. The earth itself was seen as female, and the ability to generate life out of one's own body as the most distilled essence of uniquely female energy. Male energy was seen as complementary to female energy, and they joined for the purpose of creating life. Both were essential, and essentially different.
The notion of these energies as pure and perfect complements of each other is expressed in the Chinese symbol of yin and yang, also called the Tai Chi, or "Grand Ultimate."
.
.
Female Sexuality is such a powerful force that most cultures either celebrate it or suppress it, or sometimes both.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amidst the constant bashing of men with accusations of sexual harassment and all types of "rape"- marital-rape, date-rape, even "mind-rape" and "symbolic rapes" - there has been a subtle and complete disconnect between male and female sexuality. As a male, I simply cannot understand why women in general allow the sex-haters to speak for them. Unless, of course, it is because that women generally do hate sex and their own sexuality.
The brutal suppression of female sexuality by other women is generally very subtle and covert in western cultures. Throughout Africa and the Middle-East, however, the female hatred of female sexuality is proven to millions of girls each year when trusted older women take them away, often without telling them what is about to happen to them, and chop off these little girls' genitals in the most brutal and callous manner possible. When women from these cultures immigrate to others where these assaults on little girls, collectively referred to as FGM or "Female Genital Mutilation", are not generally practiced, they still carry the grisly tradition with them. Somewhere on the web, ( I lost the link when my bookmarks file became corrupt ) there is a story of 3 women who could not bear to perform this horrible act on their own daughters, so they did it to each other's daughters while the mother went outside so she could not hear the little girls' screams.
I cannot adequately describe the rage I feel when such practices are blamed on the desires and preferences of "MEN" in general.
The Worship of the Yoni
The Destruction of Little Girls’ Sexuality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 01, 2005
EOTM: Male Sexuality
Introduction
In the past 30+ years millions of books have been sold on the topic of male sexuality. Very few of them have contained any "insider" information. While the detached and scholarly works usually miss the point, they are far more palatable than the the thinly disguised male-hating tirades written by women for consumption by women. Most of what has reached print has been women holding forth with great authority on topics in which they have never had any first hand experience. Women interpret, explain, judge, and condemn men for their conduct of sexual relationships without examining the role and conduct of women; as though those relationships were conducted in a vacuum without interaction with women. In the classic form of "do as I say, not as I do", some of these works have been in reaction to and contained vicious attacks on the psychologist Sigmund Freud for his condescending view of female sexuality, while their own condescention is both less based on empirical investigation and more extreme and oversimplified.
What has been largely missing from the public discourse is the male voice regarding male sexuality, love, mating, romance, and marriage. The results have been tragic for both men and women. As one of the less extreme of the feminist authors put it: "Women cannot hear what men do not say". This page and the ones which follow it are one small attempt to remedy the lack of a male voice speaking for males in the whole confused area of gender relations. Not that there have not been male voices speaking about males, there have been some. However, they have tended to take the supplicative "Uncle Tom" posture of remaining focussed on the female perspective and basically carrying the message "what's wrong with men". They have remained about males, not for males. Notable exceptions to this are the works of Warren Farrell, Andrew Kimbrell, and Robert Bly. There are other authors as well, many of which are noted in the reading list, but these 3 stand out for the clarity with which they see and present the issues.
While it is tempting to respond to the 30 years of male-bashing by bashing women back with the same intensity, doing so will hardly de-escalate the hostilities. Yet there has been far more nonsense published purporting to represent women's interests than works of any real merit. I'm a great believer in allowing people to learn from their own mistakes and experience. As I expect anyone with a brain to choose persons to represent their interests based on how well those representatives understand those interests and how consistently they work for them, I hope that women are beginning to wise up to how their pied pipers have sold them a bill of goods and led them down the road to isolation and unhappiness. Those who refuse to apply the acid test of sanity deserve the results they are getting.
However, it would be a disservice to men to not express the anger and exasperation that men feel over the absolute confusion, impossible expectations, and infantile tantrums which they have been putting up with for most of their adult lives in the area of their own greatest needs and vulnerability. For the most part, I will make no attempt at presenting a balanced view. When the average book store has a Men's Studies section the same size as its Women's Studies section, I will start writing in a balanced fashion. I have yet to see a book by a woman author which made more than a passing attempt to overcome her own female biases and present a balanced view. When women begin to abandon feminism for equitism and start shouting down women who are presenting gender hatred with the same fervor that they shout down men who say "Wait a minute, there's 2 sides to this", I will become their advocate to the same degree that I am now men's advocate. Until then there are far more and louder advocates for women than for men. It is time to provide a bit of balance.
It is my fervent hope that women will begin to examine their own behaviors and attitudes, following the christian dictum of dealing with the beams in their own eyes before getting so eager to take an axe to the specks in the eyes of their male brethren, and realize that they have changed far less than they believe in their spasms of self-congratulation and self-adoration. Male sexuality exists only in relation to female sexuality and women must get over their compulsions to play the passive and helpless victim, blaming men for every bit of their unhappiness, and venting limitless bile on men if things are to ever change for the better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Sexuality - the male perspective
The most elegant description of male sexuality I have ever read was in Norman Mailer’s "Prisoner of Sex" published in 1971. By then feminist publishing was in full swing and the book was written mostly in response to feminist critiques of male sexuality and men's conduct of their sexual relationships with women.
"If he began this remedial reading with the firmest male prejudice of them all, which is that women might possess the better half of life already, he was never to encounter any comprehension among female writers that a firm erection on a delicate fellow was the adventurous juncture of ego and courage. One attitude in Women's Lib remained therefore repellant: precisely the dull assumption that the sexual force of a man was the luck of his birth, rather that his finest moral product, or if not his - here, full blast, came genuine conservatism - then a local gift passed along by something well achieved in his mother, his father, or farther back down the line."
Very different from the picture of male sexuality presented by such media favorites as "The Burning Bed" and "Sleeping With the Enemy" and the views expressed by leading feminists. First the use of the term "delicate fellow". Here is Mailer, the ultimate Macho Male Chauvinist Pig, speaking of men as "delicate". What gives?
The truth that women seem to have dismissed entirely is that men are delicate in many respects. Men have the same depth and range of emotions that women do. Women do incredible levels of violence to men with their words, particularly in their distortions and outright lies, yet never seem to consider the possibility that these verbal assaults on men leave scars. It is part of what I call the chain of violence. The fact that the violence is verbal and emotional rather than physical allows it to be double-thought away with reasons, excuses, whys, and becauses. And the violence is aimed directly at the two essential elements according to Mailer: ego and courage. When I remembered this quote, I substituted optimism for courage. It holds equally well. The optimism that a man might find a relationship with a woman who accepts him for what he is, has something to offer in her own right, and will keep HER commitments, is fading in most men.
All this seems to be founded on the belief that the center of male sexuality is the phallus. This is a phallus-see. *groan* The center of male sexuality is that IS his finest moral product. Sexuality is about reproduction, society seems to have completely lost sight of that. The sexual drive is mother nature's way of insuring that there is a next generation, and a next after that. Mom nature certainly wants the best and brightest children, just like any mother, so the urge to mate is strongest when the self-esteem, ego, is highest. Male sexuality at its heart is a holy offering, a "finest moral product". Yet all we seem to hear is how awful and ugly it is and how it must be contained by such institutions as marriage and romance.
Given the bad name that lust has in our culture today, most readers will probably be surprised that the word lust comes from the same root as luster, to shine. How many times have we all heard that confidence is sexy? One of the definitions of lust is ardent enthusiasm, passion. How incredibly schizophrenic it is that, in this culture, passion is glorified, but lust is spit upon. Only those men who are so incredibly insensitive and thick skinned that all the male bashing hasn't beaten them down still pursue women with the enthusiasm that men did 40 years ago. These men hardly make for satisfying lovers in the longer term.
Men I've talked with do view their sexuality as a great gift which they keep trying to share but keep getting told that it is the wrong size, or the wrong color, or too often, or too seldom, or too exploitive, or inherently harmful. Everything about male sexuality has been redefined in the last 30 years in terms of how well it meets the woman's needs. Men's needs are totally denied and negated. Men are increasingly being seen as mindless beasts of burden whose lot in life is to drag a family around financially and emotionally.
In 1996 a book came out which epitomized the dilemma facing men these days in trying to develop relationships with women which may become sexually intimate. Titled "The Rules", this book outlined strategies to minimize the elapsed time between "hello, my name is..." and "I do." Men have known for a very long time that this was what many, if not most, women were out to accomplish, but what made this book noteworthy was the completely cold and calculated, openly dishonest and manipulative manner in which the exploitation of male needs was presented and was advised to be pursued.
There were several immediate responses to this book, capitalizing on its notoriety. One of these, a humorous response called "The Code", was much more honest in its approach and advice, but sadly not any less manipulative. Both sides treated the whole question of mating as a game to be played where one must win at the other's expense. Neither of them even mentioned the concept of a developing a relationship of mutual trust and support. Each in its own way advocated a life of lying.
Men and women seem to be caught in a reaction, counter-reaction, counter-counter-reaction spiral. The dishonesty and manipulation in "The Rules" is excused by the lame justification that women have to act this way because men act the way they do. So men start acting according to "The Code" justifying it as self defense against "The Rules". And on and on. In this race to not be the eploitee, by being the exploiter if necessary, the whole point of pairing up and marriage is lost.
Male sexuality cannot be separated from the male roles and roles of men in our culture, nor from the attributes of maleness itself. For the last 500 years there has been an increasing "enclosure" of men away from the land to which they were once bound toward the cities. Industrialization and then servicization demanded uniformity and the definitions of what is acceptable have become narrower and more rigid. Much which was previously considered normal has become deviant. The body is even often referred to as a machine and expected to perform like one. Andrew Kimbrell, in “The Masculine Mystique”, provides an excellent description of the transformation of men from homesteaders to housing unit dwellers and the progressive dehumanization of men which has occurred.
The last behavioural holdout was in the area of sex. Until the 60s, the fact that men had a sex drive was simply considered one of those "facts of life". Many social mechanisms sought to control it, but the fact that it existed was generally accepted.
Then in the 60s and 70s two very odd things happened. Just as the advent of the pill promised sexual freedom for women without the fear of pregancy, sexuality became both a means by which men oppress women and something that men do poorly for women. The model of the perfect man became one who turns on when the woman flips the on-switch, stays on as long as she wants, turns off the moment she wants it off, and stays off until she wants it on again, courtesy of Masters & Johnson. Not that I am ridiculing their work, it was groundbreaking, but some of the interpretations and conclusions drawn from their work are somewhat off-base. Gone were the days of "I felt good, she felt good, it was ok". The orgasm counter was clicking, but not fast enough to suit everyone.
The orgasm quota was kinda weird but ok. What really was strange was the manner in which the expression of attraction toward a woman changed from a pretty good thing into a very bad thing. In 1974 a woman author indicted every man in every culture for rape and things have never been the same since. It is simply not possible in the 90s to discuss sexuality without discussing rape and its implications. What used to be demanded of men as simple courtesies or be welcomed attention are now described as variants of rape. Several credential-less self-appointed "experts" went so far as to declare than there was no such thing as normal human sexuality and declared ALL heterosexual relationships to be rape.
Male sexuality has taken a serious beating in the media and in private interactions. Man bashing comments are as endemic to our culture today as racial slurs were prior to the 50s. Male sexuality is portrayed as exploitive, violent, and abusive. At one point it became very trendy for females to "recover" lost memories of childhood sexual abuse. These were accepted as incontrovertable fact until research was done which showed that the so-called therapist could lead someone into believing that she was experiencing a memory when in fact it was something suggested by the therapist. In her excellent book on the female side of relationships, ”Lip Service”, Kate Fillion shows how, in the 90s, the difference between a date where sex occurs and a date rape is a phone call the next morning which begins the type of romance leading to marriage which the woman is expecting. It has now become a criminal offense for a man to not live up to a woman's expectations. Male sexuality has come to be defined purely in terms of the woman's wants, and any behavior which does not meet those wants is becoming criminalized.
This is the other set of jaws in the vice of marriage. Warren Farrell in his excellent book, “Why Men Are the Way They Are” shows how it is universally accepted in this culture that MEN OWE WOMEN FOR SEX. Lizard Amazon in her "Slut Manifesto" talks about the crazy extremes that a woman is excused for going to when her expectations of a long-term committed relationship are not met. The message is clear to men. DO NOT have sex with a woman unless there is a serious possibility of marrying her or unless you are ready to be a complete Code Cad and treat the woman like a non-person while taking grave personal risks with your career, your finances, and your freedom. The temptation to do so because, if she is a Rules kinda girl, that is the way she is treating you is tempered by the dire potential consequences.
So much to think about before even considering the questions of attraction and what really does turn men on. And what is the difference between a woman he wants to have sex with RIGHT NOW and a woman with whom he feels comfortable spending the rest of his life?
Hopefully an honest examination of the answers to these questions will lead to more balanced and improved relations between the genders and improve everyone's chances for finding a mate with whom they can lead happy and satisfying lives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nitty Gritty
The Bitch
Rape
Men, Are You Sick of It?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”
In the past 30+ years millions of books have been sold on the topic of male sexuality. Very few of them have contained any "insider" information. While the detached and scholarly works usually miss the point, they are far more palatable than the the thinly disguised male-hating tirades written by women for consumption by women. Most of what has reached print has been women holding forth with great authority on topics in which they have never had any first hand experience. Women interpret, explain, judge, and condemn men for their conduct of sexual relationships without examining the role and conduct of women; as though those relationships were conducted in a vacuum without interaction with women. In the classic form of "do as I say, not as I do", some of these works have been in reaction to and contained vicious attacks on the psychologist Sigmund Freud for his condescending view of female sexuality, while their own condescention is both less based on empirical investigation and more extreme and oversimplified.
What has been largely missing from the public discourse is the male voice regarding male sexuality, love, mating, romance, and marriage. The results have been tragic for both men and women. As one of the less extreme of the feminist authors put it: "Women cannot hear what men do not say". This page and the ones which follow it are one small attempt to remedy the lack of a male voice speaking for males in the whole confused area of gender relations. Not that there have not been male voices speaking about males, there have been some. However, they have tended to take the supplicative "Uncle Tom" posture of remaining focussed on the female perspective and basically carrying the message "what's wrong with men". They have remained about males, not for males. Notable exceptions to this are the works of Warren Farrell, Andrew Kimbrell, and Robert Bly. There are other authors as well, many of which are noted in the reading list, but these 3 stand out for the clarity with which they see and present the issues.
While it is tempting to respond to the 30 years of male-bashing by bashing women back with the same intensity, doing so will hardly de-escalate the hostilities. Yet there has been far more nonsense published purporting to represent women's interests than works of any real merit. I'm a great believer in allowing people to learn from their own mistakes and experience. As I expect anyone with a brain to choose persons to represent their interests based on how well those representatives understand those interests and how consistently they work for them, I hope that women are beginning to wise up to how their pied pipers have sold them a bill of goods and led them down the road to isolation and unhappiness. Those who refuse to apply the acid test of sanity deserve the results they are getting.
However, it would be a disservice to men to not express the anger and exasperation that men feel over the absolute confusion, impossible expectations, and infantile tantrums which they have been putting up with for most of their adult lives in the area of their own greatest needs and vulnerability. For the most part, I will make no attempt at presenting a balanced view. When the average book store has a Men's Studies section the same size as its Women's Studies section, I will start writing in a balanced fashion. I have yet to see a book by a woman author which made more than a passing attempt to overcome her own female biases and present a balanced view. When women begin to abandon feminism for equitism and start shouting down women who are presenting gender hatred with the same fervor that they shout down men who say "Wait a minute, there's 2 sides to this", I will become their advocate to the same degree that I am now men's advocate. Until then there are far more and louder advocates for women than for men. It is time to provide a bit of balance.
It is my fervent hope that women will begin to examine their own behaviors and attitudes, following the christian dictum of dealing with the beams in their own eyes before getting so eager to take an axe to the specks in the eyes of their male brethren, and realize that they have changed far less than they believe in their spasms of self-congratulation and self-adoration. Male sexuality exists only in relation to female sexuality and women must get over their compulsions to play the passive and helpless victim, blaming men for every bit of their unhappiness, and venting limitless bile on men if things are to ever change for the better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Sexuality - the male perspective
The most elegant description of male sexuality I have ever read was in Norman Mailer’s "Prisoner of Sex" published in 1971. By then feminist publishing was in full swing and the book was written mostly in response to feminist critiques of male sexuality and men's conduct of their sexual relationships with women.
"If he began this remedial reading with the firmest male prejudice of them all, which is that women might possess the better half of life already, he was never to encounter any comprehension among female writers that a firm erection on a delicate fellow was the adventurous juncture of ego and courage. One attitude in Women's Lib remained therefore repellant: precisely the dull assumption that the sexual force of a man was the luck of his birth, rather that his finest moral product, or if not his - here, full blast, came genuine conservatism - then a local gift passed along by something well achieved in his mother, his father, or farther back down the line."
Very different from the picture of male sexuality presented by such media favorites as "The Burning Bed" and "Sleeping With the Enemy" and the views expressed by leading feminists. First the use of the term "delicate fellow". Here is Mailer, the ultimate Macho Male Chauvinist Pig, speaking of men as "delicate". What gives?
The truth that women seem to have dismissed entirely is that men are delicate in many respects. Men have the same depth and range of emotions that women do. Women do incredible levels of violence to men with their words, particularly in their distortions and outright lies, yet never seem to consider the possibility that these verbal assaults on men leave scars. It is part of what I call the chain of violence. The fact that the violence is verbal and emotional rather than physical allows it to be double-thought away with reasons, excuses, whys, and becauses. And the violence is aimed directly at the two essential elements according to Mailer: ego and courage. When I remembered this quote, I substituted optimism for courage. It holds equally well. The optimism that a man might find a relationship with a woman who accepts him for what he is, has something to offer in her own right, and will keep HER commitments, is fading in most men.
All this seems to be founded on the belief that the center of male sexuality is the phallus. This is a phallus-see. *groan* The center of male sexuality is that IS his finest moral product. Sexuality is about reproduction, society seems to have completely lost sight of that. The sexual drive is mother nature's way of insuring that there is a next generation, and a next after that. Mom nature certainly wants the best and brightest children, just like any mother, so the urge to mate is strongest when the self-esteem, ego, is highest. Male sexuality at its heart is a holy offering, a "finest moral product". Yet all we seem to hear is how awful and ugly it is and how it must be contained by such institutions as marriage and romance.
Given the bad name that lust has in our culture today, most readers will probably be surprised that the word lust comes from the same root as luster, to shine. How many times have we all heard that confidence is sexy? One of the definitions of lust is ardent enthusiasm, passion. How incredibly schizophrenic it is that, in this culture, passion is glorified, but lust is spit upon. Only those men who are so incredibly insensitive and thick skinned that all the male bashing hasn't beaten them down still pursue women with the enthusiasm that men did 40 years ago. These men hardly make for satisfying lovers in the longer term.
Men I've talked with do view their sexuality as a great gift which they keep trying to share but keep getting told that it is the wrong size, or the wrong color, or too often, or too seldom, or too exploitive, or inherently harmful. Everything about male sexuality has been redefined in the last 30 years in terms of how well it meets the woman's needs. Men's needs are totally denied and negated. Men are increasingly being seen as mindless beasts of burden whose lot in life is to drag a family around financially and emotionally.
In 1996 a book came out which epitomized the dilemma facing men these days in trying to develop relationships with women which may become sexually intimate. Titled "The Rules", this book outlined strategies to minimize the elapsed time between "hello, my name is..." and "I do." Men have known for a very long time that this was what many, if not most, women were out to accomplish, but what made this book noteworthy was the completely cold and calculated, openly dishonest and manipulative manner in which the exploitation of male needs was presented and was advised to be pursued.
There were several immediate responses to this book, capitalizing on its notoriety. One of these, a humorous response called "The Code", was much more honest in its approach and advice, but sadly not any less manipulative. Both sides treated the whole question of mating as a game to be played where one must win at the other's expense. Neither of them even mentioned the concept of a developing a relationship of mutual trust and support. Each in its own way advocated a life of lying.
Men and women seem to be caught in a reaction, counter-reaction, counter-counter-reaction spiral. The dishonesty and manipulation in "The Rules" is excused by the lame justification that women have to act this way because men act the way they do. So men start acting according to "The Code" justifying it as self defense against "The Rules". And on and on. In this race to not be the eploitee, by being the exploiter if necessary, the whole point of pairing up and marriage is lost.
Male sexuality cannot be separated from the male roles and roles of men in our culture, nor from the attributes of maleness itself. For the last 500 years there has been an increasing "enclosure" of men away from the land to which they were once bound toward the cities. Industrialization and then servicization demanded uniformity and the definitions of what is acceptable have become narrower and more rigid. Much which was previously considered normal has become deviant. The body is even often referred to as a machine and expected to perform like one. Andrew Kimbrell, in “The Masculine Mystique”, provides an excellent description of the transformation of men from homesteaders to housing unit dwellers and the progressive dehumanization of men which has occurred.
The last behavioural holdout was in the area of sex. Until the 60s, the fact that men had a sex drive was simply considered one of those "facts of life". Many social mechanisms sought to control it, but the fact that it existed was generally accepted.
Then in the 60s and 70s two very odd things happened. Just as the advent of the pill promised sexual freedom for women without the fear of pregancy, sexuality became both a means by which men oppress women and something that men do poorly for women. The model of the perfect man became one who turns on when the woman flips the on-switch, stays on as long as she wants, turns off the moment she wants it off, and stays off until she wants it on again, courtesy of Masters & Johnson. Not that I am ridiculing their work, it was groundbreaking, but some of the interpretations and conclusions drawn from their work are somewhat off-base. Gone were the days of "I felt good, she felt good, it was ok". The orgasm counter was clicking, but not fast enough to suit everyone.
The orgasm quota was kinda weird but ok. What really was strange was the manner in which the expression of attraction toward a woman changed from a pretty good thing into a very bad thing. In 1974 a woman author indicted every man in every culture for rape and things have never been the same since. It is simply not possible in the 90s to discuss sexuality without discussing rape and its implications. What used to be demanded of men as simple courtesies or be welcomed attention are now described as variants of rape. Several credential-less self-appointed "experts" went so far as to declare than there was no such thing as normal human sexuality and declared ALL heterosexual relationships to be rape.
Male sexuality has taken a serious beating in the media and in private interactions. Man bashing comments are as endemic to our culture today as racial slurs were prior to the 50s. Male sexuality is portrayed as exploitive, violent, and abusive. At one point it became very trendy for females to "recover" lost memories of childhood sexual abuse. These were accepted as incontrovertable fact until research was done which showed that the so-called therapist could lead someone into believing that she was experiencing a memory when in fact it was something suggested by the therapist. In her excellent book on the female side of relationships, ”Lip Service”, Kate Fillion shows how, in the 90s, the difference between a date where sex occurs and a date rape is a phone call the next morning which begins the type of romance leading to marriage which the woman is expecting. It has now become a criminal offense for a man to not live up to a woman's expectations. Male sexuality has come to be defined purely in terms of the woman's wants, and any behavior which does not meet those wants is becoming criminalized.
This is the other set of jaws in the vice of marriage. Warren Farrell in his excellent book, “Why Men Are the Way They Are” shows how it is universally accepted in this culture that MEN OWE WOMEN FOR SEX. Lizard Amazon in her "Slut Manifesto" talks about the crazy extremes that a woman is excused for going to when her expectations of a long-term committed relationship are not met. The message is clear to men. DO NOT have sex with a woman unless there is a serious possibility of marrying her or unless you are ready to be a complete Code Cad and treat the woman like a non-person while taking grave personal risks with your career, your finances, and your freedom. The temptation to do so because, if she is a Rules kinda girl, that is the way she is treating you is tempered by the dire potential consequences.
So much to think about before even considering the questions of attraction and what really does turn men on. And what is the difference between a woman he wants to have sex with RIGHT NOW and a woman with whom he feels comfortable spending the rest of his life?
Hopefully an honest examination of the answers to these questions will lead to more balanced and improved relations between the genders and improve everyone's chances for finding a mate with whom they can lead happy and satisfying lives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nitty Gritty
The Bitch
Rape
Men, Are You Sick of It?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”
Saturday, March 26, 2005
EOTM: Feminism in the Context of U.S. Social History, 1890-1999
1890
I'm going to start in 1890, for one reason. That was the year that the US "frontier" was officially closed. All the land stolen from the native aboriginals by right of conquest had been parceled out to the European immigrants. It is important to understand that this event reflected a COMPLETE change in conditions. We "hit the wall" in terms of available resource pool, and from that moment on the expansionist nature of the country had to change to one of competition for a share of a FINITE resource pool. Up until then, the US had almost open immigration policies and was doing almost everything it could to expand population as fast and as much as it could. In colonial days, it had even been illegal for unmarried persons to live alone, which was about as close as they could really get to legally FORCING people to get married and have kids.
For agrarian people, which was about 98% of the 76 million total population, having more kids, particularly more SONS, meant more hands in the fields in a few years, which meant MORE production, which translated directly into family wealth. Without agricultural machinery, farming was backbreaking-labor intensive. Women did not see being spared this as "oppression" of any form. While women did tend the chickens, the garden, and did all the cooking, the hard manual labor that was farming was mostly done by male muscle and horse or oxen drawn implements.
There was no national economy, everything was regional. Women did often take work in small manufacturing concerns outside the urban areas, particularly BEFORE their family grew to include enough sons to make the family prosperous. Transportation was limited and expensive enough that almost all goods were manufactured and sold on a regional basis.
An interesting side note here - The poorer immigrants, those without even the financial resources or social connections to settle westward where land was still to be had for the asking, worked in the factories and mines of the industrial and urban east. These were the "proles" of the late 19th century. The labor union movement and the women's suffrage movement competed for the attention of the social reformers. Mother Jones, the legendary labor organizer, was very outspoken in her criticism and contempt for the women's suffragists because she viewed them as privileged elites too spoiled to know how good they had it. Blue collar and lower socioeconomic-class women did not even embrace the first wave of feminism: they were too busy fighting to survive.
From 1890 to about 1916 can be characterized as "infrastructure building" - electric plants and distribution systems, roads, bridges, telephone and telegraph systems. In 1890, most of the country was still pretty isolated and, by necessity, self-sufficient. This will become an increasingly important point.
WW I jumpstarts economy
In 1917, the US finally got drawn into the European war when it became apparent that it was inevitable since US ships were being targeted. This was the first of 3 major agrarian to urban displacements which were to culminate in the suburbia of the 1950s, which spawned feminism and number of other social trends. A huge number of farm boys went off to join the army and fight the good fight and came back to the US to settle in the cities. Farmers replaced this lost muscle power of their sons with the new technology of farm equipment, much of it bought on credit, which was to lead to another massive agrarian->urban displacement beginning about a dozen years later when the economy collapsed and banks foreclosed on the mortgages and forced the farmers off their land. The enclosure which began in England about 1500, and was reversed from the mid-1600s to the mid-1900s by Europeans fleeing from the high population densities of Europe to the lower population densities of the US, came to the US in full and major force in the 1930s.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
The war jump-started the US industrial machine as it stepped up to producing armaments and other war supplies. War is GREAT for an economy. This particular war was so ideological, spelling as it did the end of the great hereditary ruling elite houses of Europe, that was a great global morality play about the forces of good and evil. Democratic capitalism, US style, won. However, the war left a new ideological enemy firmly entrenched in Europe: the Bolsheviks and COMMUNISM. The US would spend the next 70 years shadow boxing with this bogeyman. This too will become important as we go along.
The victory of the Bolsheviks was bad news for the US labor union movement. Simple self-selection of who had undergone the grueling challenge of immigration had assured that self-reliance and independence were the real US religion. (one of these days I'll have to go into what this country did to the Mormons) ANY form of collectivism was frowned upon, and since many who supported the unions also supported the Red army, and were declared socialists, they were all treated as heretics by worshippers of the religion of US brand industrial capitalism.
This was also very bad news for the blacks, because their first refuge after the civil war had been the industries of the north which, under the grip of true Marx-style capitalists, weren't all that much better than slavery.
Like I said above, nothing like a war to stimulate an industrial economy. Coming out of war with our industry intact, a plentiful workforce which included many returning soldiers, ready markets in Europe, countries anxious to give us their raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods (since they had nothing else to barter), and a host of new war-inspired technologies, in the 1920s the US was on top of the whole damn world. Industrial capitalism was the solution to all the ills of the world. Just give us machines, raw materials, labor, and markets and we were ready to transform the whole damn world.
Floating in a sea of cash, a totally new concept got born: "disposable" income. That would have seemed like a complete oxymoron at any time before in history. Only the hereditary upper, or leisure, classes of Europe could ever conceive of having any significant amount more money than it took to eat and stay warm. Two major new industries were spawned as garbage bins into which urban workers might "dispose" of this unnecessary wealth: luxury consumer goods and entertainment.
Utopianism was real popular. "Labor saving devices" abounded and glowing pictures of the future got painted. Industrial capitalism was going to turn every citizen into an aristocrat. It would take so few hours per week to earn enough to live the life of luxury that EVERYONE would become a "Renaissance Man" (or woman). The arts would flourish, literacy would be universal, people would spend their spare time painting great art, and writing and acting in original plays, and reading and writing great works of philosophy, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Not everyone shared this utopian vision. Some social critics foresaw a two-tiered world of haves and have-nots, with the have-nots living underground in the bowels of the city working like slaves and the capitalist and bureaucratic living above ground in all this luxury. "Metropolis" is a wonderfully realized silent film portraying this.
Other critics saw people losing their humanity - becoming interchangeable like the parts of the machines they spent their days operating. Charlie Chaplin was so biting and perceptive in his satire, such as that of "Modern Times" that he made MANY enemies and would find himself exiled from the US 25 years later for "un-American activities" and "communist sympathizing."
Aldous Huxley wrote the first dystopian novel of the modern era: "Brave New World" showing that all-consuming consumption might lead to a world where sex and reproduction were completely separated, children were reared in state-run facilities, and the population routinely narcotized itself. People laughed him off saying he was preaching gloom and doom. They were just having so much FUN.
But there was trouble brewing in paradise. Money was so plentiful that in a country long conditioned to subsistence level living, making do, making things last as long as they could be made to last, and doing without things they didn't need, once men reached a level of comfort just slightly above where they were used to living they ceased being motivated to work as hard.
Enter - Andy Consumer!
Andy was the composite everyman profile which the new science/business of advertising used to predict and shape the buying habits of the nation. And Andy had a WIFE, Mrs. Consumer! So, while Andy was away at the factory, advertisers waged psychological war on Mrs. Consumer to make her dissatisfied with her life as it was and make her yearn for more consumer goods which were the guaranteed key to happiness. When Andy got home from a hard day at the factory, Mrs. Consumer was just FULL of newly planted ideas on how they (she) could spend his money and JUST COULDN'T WAIT to tell him about them. And, of course, Andy wanted to make the "little woman" happy so, of course, he'd be just HAPPY to work those extra hours to buy her all those goodies she wanted.
And here is where the first of the seeds of the great feminist explosion of the 1960s and beyond were planted. Up until this time, life had been a full time occupation requiring the dedicated effort of BOTH partners. That was life. People washed their own clothes, cut their own hair, and were very much generalists in the occupation of life. Only among the affluent urban elite did women have the luxury of ruminating on their oppression and lack of rights. Agrarian women, and men for that matter, often lived so far from polling places that suffrage for either sex was a non-issue. But women did get suffrage in 1920. During the 1920s, the flagship feminist issues of the 1960s were in full evidence: sexual freedom for women, birth control, and greater freedom from social restrictions on their behavior.
The Depression
The party lasted exactly 10 years. Speculation, over-extension, and the lack of expected growth in overseas markets once essential reconstruction of Europe was done, stalled the US economy and in 1929 over half the "wealth" in the country went "poof" almost overnight. The next 10 years were to be grim indeed. Capital dried up, banks failed and closed, unemployment reached 25%, millions of farmers couldn't make the payments on their farm equipment when their markets failed, the banks foreclosed and they were forced off the land into the cities to swell the already long bread lines. People became afraid of their own family ties as destitute relatives showed up at their door with no where else to go.
Here were the second, third, and fourth of the major social forces which would go into creating the 1950s and the explosive rejection of them of the 1960s and feminism: 2) massive geographic displacement toward the urban centers. 3) massive disruption in family and kinship ties 4) a pathological fear of failure and poverty which would later be mistaken for obsession with money and success.
And the fifth major force, which would later develop a symbiotic and incestuous relationship with the first, luxury consumerism, mass media was born. The generally miserable life conditions of most people made them crave escape to a better world. For a nickel they could escape for two hours into a perfect world where their every fantasy was fulfilled. Cinema in the 1930s was nothing but "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". The more UNLIKE the reality of their everyday lives, the better, so glamorous actors and actresses populated the silver screen, their fantasies and their dreams.
People had not lost touch with reality, yet. They still knew the difference between what they saw in the theater and the lives they lived outside it. The blurring of the distinction would come 20 years later when television invaded every home and sold them a lifestyle which it told them they COULD afford, if they worked hard enough. Movies had been popular enough during the 20s with the urban crowd, but the addition of sound in the 30s, and the desperate need for escapism, combined to make them a national social phenomenon. And this phenomenon would become the 6th major force which went into the social fragmentation which would be the legacy of the 1950s and beyond: mass culture.
Mass media spelled the end of true regional culture, and began a force of homogenization and conformity that would become crushing in the 1950s, provoke a reaction in the 1960s, and turn into a gender war by the 1990s.
One particular aspect of cinema which was one of those simple cases of happenstance being revised into malice was the use of cosmetics. Most of the early cinema actors and technicians had begun their careers on the theatrical stage. Heavy stage makeup had been necessary for the players to have faces at all under the harsh lighting necessary for theater. Classic theater, such as Shakespeare had actually developed a set of conventions which associated characters with a particular set and configuration of facial features. Any production of "Othello", for example, staged by people with classic theater training, will use a standard set of makeup elements for the title character.
Other conventions were soon established. How many vampire movies have you seen where the vampire is played in ANY WAY OTHER THAN the way Bella Lugosi played Dracula? Or when was the last time anyone played the Frankenstein monster other than the way that Boris Karloff played it?
Women in particular seemed to have a desire to emulate the "sirens of the silver screen", so there were thousands of Betty-Davis-Vamp clones to be seen. I think there is a very significant issue to be explored here that has to do with identity formation and explains the rapid spread and adoption of feminism. Kate Fillion, Deborah Tannen, Katie Roiphe, and others have all observed female identity formation and socialization characteristics which lead women to want to be alike. Cliques of girls will all dress similarly.
I contend that Naomi Wolfe's "Beauty Myth" could not have possibly been more wrong. Without the abdication of responsibility, absolute denial of the role of women's choice, and the demonstrated market appeal of "HE MADE ME DO IT" victimism, it becomes obvious that women, seeking to emulate and identify with the women on the screen, and coveting the sexual power they had to capture the attention of equally unreal men, cast themselves in those roles and replaced their real lives with playing out the scripts to those movies.
Since you seem to feel the need to make sure that men get equal blame, I think the effect on men started later but is no less significant. I can't count the number of young Marlon Brando or James Dean slouch-and-sulk-alikes that were around during the 50s and 60s.
But, just to give men a break, what attributes did those leading men of the 30s and 40s have, WITHOUT EXCEPTION? Answer: money, financial success, charm, and charisma.
My contention is that in the 30 year period between 1930 and 1960, that mass culture replaced real life and created a totally unrealistic set of expectation among BOTH MEN AND WOMEN regarding the lifestyle they were going to lead and the type of mate they were going to attract. And that during that period that marriage was completely redefined in a way that made it impossible to work in the majority of instances.
People did not make movies about boring stuff - they made movies that played on people's emotions. Romance and action, sex and violence, and the trappings thereof, are the staples of mass media entertainment. And since everyone sees the same things, they compare their lives to what they see and are vaguely dissatisfied. Into this void, consumer capitalism pours endless offers of instant solutions and magic pills. Forty or fifty years before, the "average" man might have seen a couple of hundred women in his lifetime, and the "average" woman about the same. Love was something that was expected to develop over time as people learned to trust and depend on each other. A farmer choosing a wife would look at her hands and ask whether she could milk a cow. A woman would look at how industrious he was, whether he was prone to drunkenness and fits of anger, and was he kind. That was how people chose mates.
I DO think that there has been a change in sexual behavior which will result in social catastrophe, but 60 years ago, not recently. And, as I have been verbose as hell in developing, that it was far from the only force. In addition to the 6 already mentioned, there is one more: the development and rise of "Big Government." None of the escapism of the cinema would have seemed so attractive had not so many peoples day to day lives been so oppressive in reality.
"Capitalism has failed us, socialism is the answer" came the cry. I won't go into all the ideological wars that got fought, but in the end the country opted for a great father figure and a modified hybrid of socialism and capitalism based on some new economic theories. One could call this "pump-primed" capitalism because it was dependent on government spending and taxes to make it work. The individual income tax, which was instituted at this time, provided the vehicle to extract capital from the pockets of individual wage earners which would never be returned to them. Government spending slowly dragged the economy upward, but it took another war to jump-start it again.
While the US was obsessed with first its success, then its own problems, the bitter drubbing that Germany had taken during the first world war, and the excessively punitive and humiliating conditions imposed on the German people for the mistakes of their leaders had been festering. A charismatic madman preached the gospel of regaining their national pride, and THEY LISTENED. There was also a petty tyrant in a funny hat over in southeast Asia dreaming dreams of world domination.
War too
Once again, the country had a common cause, a reason to sacrifice, and a tangible goal beyond their next meal. The industrial machine kicked back into high gear. There was one madman running loose in Europe who really did personify evil, and one in the south Pacific who was nearly as bad. Once again, American boys signed on to fight the good fight. This was the last time the US would experience any sense of unity.
In one very real respect, WW II created the real beginning to the end of racism. I'm not going to get into an argument about how much residual racism there is, a hell of a lot of what we see here now is opportunistic victimism. I live in a completely integrated middle-middle-class neighborhood where people are not necessarily colorBLIND as much as they are colorINDIFFERENT. We still see each other as black and white, it just isn't significant. We're all just people. If only we could manage the same thing with feminist sexism.
Anyway, WW II was the most equal opportunity war to date. Both black and white GIs came back owing their very lives to members of the other's race. Some of them raised kids who marched together for civil rights 20 year later. It was the beginning of the end of complete acceptance of apartheid in the US.
Once again, the US rode in on their white horses wearing their white hats. WE were the heroes. WE won the war. OUR industrial technology. OUR determination and self-sacrifice. Industrial capitalism was VINDICATED. It WAS the WAY TO SALVATION.
While the war had caused us to make strange bedfellows with Stalin, as soon as it was over we could go back to him being our ideological nemesis. If there was one thing the war taught us, it was that we were more prosperous while there was a war going on than while there wasn't, so we contrived to be in, or on the verge of, war for the next 40 years. With Hitler dead and Hirohito history, the "bad guy" seat was open, so we put Stalin in it. While we weren't at war with him TODAY, we might have to do so on any given day, so we stayed at a state of "readiness."
The 1950s
By the early 1950s, were chasing commies all over the globe, and even here in our own country. We became the UN's junkyard dog, and went charging in wherever we thought any of those "dirty commies" might be hiding. Even though Eisenhower was a military man himself, he saw how the military industry had attached itself to the teat of tax dollars and was growing quite fat. He warned us about the "military-industrial complex" and was instrumental in establishing NASA as a civilian agency and preventing the militarization of space.
But wartime paranoia persisted and spooks were everywhere. The most crushing conformity requirements since the inquisition descended on the country. An accusation of "communist sympathizer" could ruin a career then, just like an accusation of "Sexual Harasser" can today. Spies were found, tried and executed.
The war produced the third major displacement and social fracturing of the century, and by far the largest, as well as setting the demographic trend that would dominate the rest of the century: suburbanization. Anxious to reward the survivors who had risked life and limb defending "freedom and the American way", the country provided them education, jobs, and low cost home loans. They just wanted those boys to be real happy, so they would see that it had been worth the risk of being blown to bits.
Where during the war there had been a labor shortage, technology, both industrial and agricultural, had boosted productivity so much that there was now an incredible labor surplus. Women who had been a mainstay of wartime industrial production were shooed out of the factories to make room for hubby and told to go home to make that new house he'd bought her comfy for him when he got home all tired from a hard day of work.
Of course, to make her life easy and pleasant and palatable, hubby would spend some of those wages on labor saving devices to make her life so much easier and drudgery-free than her grandmothers. Besides, it provided a ready market for all those washing machines and clothes dryers and other consumer products that those converted wartime factories were churning out.
Ah, life was sweet. With less than 2% of the population, the US consumed over 50% of its industrial output and nearly 95% of its energy. Of course, the "little woman" and the kids didn't have much to do except sit around and wait for dad to come home so they could make him happy, which was pretty difficult because deep down inside he hated the repetitive and boring work he did for 8 hours per day.
In less than 40 years, the life of the "average" American male had narrowed from a variety of skills and activities, every one of which was directly related to his life and survival, to doing essentially the same repetitive and meaningless thing 8 hours per day.
Men went crazy.
Suburbia in the 1950s was a fertile breeding ground for pathology. "Business" was conducted over the "3 martini lunch", and a 4th was just the thing he needed as soon as he walked in the door to unwind from a "hard day at the office." His wife, having spent her day devoid of any mental stimulation whatsoever and anxiously anticipating his return home, would pounce on him the moment he walked in the door with what were to her the most significant events of her day and were to him monstrously trivial. We have your basic "conflict of interest" brewing here.
Alcoholism was rampant, as was a deep and confusing cognitive dissonance. All this stuff that was supposed to make him happy, and he wasn't happy. Every night he would collapse into his "easy chair" and watch as television told him more things he could buy, any one of which would make him happy, therefor in the aggregate they should make him VERY happy.
All day his wife had watched the same boob tube, but with a brand of brain-pablum specifically tailored to her tastes and emotional preferences. The term "soap-opera" was coined to describe those cheezy contrived dramas that gave her a surrogate life and were supported by advertisements for household cleaning and laundry products, which everyone knew were a woman's primary concern because she wanted to continue to make hubby extremely happy so he would keep working to buy the stuff that made her happy. At least that's the gark that the television spewed into her brain every day.
This is the view of the world that Betty Friedan saw. And from this came...
"The Feminine Mystique".
(From the cover notes on a early copy of "The Feminine Mystique") -
"Today American women are awakening to the fact that they have been sold into virtual slavery by a lie invented and marketed by men." (emphasis added)
Friedan was fond of hyperbole and was very adept at using and twisting language. She likened the suburban housewives' boredom and lack of meaning in their daily lives to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. (Interesting now that some contemporary feminists are claiming that women suffered worse deaths than men did in the Holocaust. Women's sensitivity, and the greater power, depth, and significance of women's feelings has become well established in the cultural zeitgeist.) Also worthy of note was the fact that a disproportionate number of early feminists were Jewish. There is a cultural stereotype called the Jewish American Princess, JAP, of which Monica Lewinsky is a perfect example. Phillip Roth also wrote about this type in "Goodbye Columbus." Boredom and thrill seeking are indeed the bane of the JAP. As are kvetching, complaining, and making extreme statements simply for effect.
Friedan's work set both the form and tone of the feminist argument - "women... sold into virtual slavery... by men." Women were the victims of men. Women's own choices had nothing to do with it. Women had no free will. Men forced women to do everything that woman did, and women hated it.
The complete poverty and aridity of feminist thought is best illustrated in how, over the next 28 years, men selling women into slavery got escalated to men waging war on women. Susan Faludi took Friedan's well-worn plot, dusted it off, added updated statistics, and sold the same tired old nonsense as "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."
For some unknown reason, what neither Friedan nor Faludi, nor thousands of women writers who came between and very profitably mined the tired old theme of women as victims of men, were able to see, or willing to admit, was that men and women were EQUALLY trapped in a world not of their own making and struggling to do the best they could under the circumstances. Faludi was right in one respect: between the early 1960s and early 1990s, relationships between men and women had deteriorated significantly and were characterized by a far greater degree of animosity than they had been 30 years earlier.
However, there have been a few women writers who viewed the war differently. Robin Blumner, writing in the St. Petersburg (FL) Times, puts it this way:
"What this comes down to is a group of militant feminists who have declared war on men and their sexual desires."
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelter in the UK, says:
"Men, realizing that they had been cast in the role of sexual monsters, retaliated."
Instead of the two vast and homogenious sexual armies portrayed by Friedan and Faludi, there are at least five separate and ideologically distinct groups lobbying to make their particular point of view into the majority view and have it reflected in public policy. For lack of any better terms, I'm going to call these 5 groups: the modified traditionalists, male and female, the progressives, male and female, and the heterophobic separatist extremists.
What women in general seemed absolutely unwilling to acknowledge was that in declaring war on men and their sexual desires, these militant feminists were also declaring war indirectly on the majority of women. And, most bewilderingly, they seemed to be enthusiastically joined and abetted by the majority of women who didn't seem to realize that they were participating in a war on themselves.
Men were completely unprepared for the bitter hatred toward them that boiled out of the women's movement. Furthermore, the behavior of women seemed absolutely schizophrenic. In her book on man-hating, "My Enemy, My Love", Judith Levine perfectly summed up this two-faced visage of women in the title of one of the sections: "private love, public hatred."
The message that men got from women was that we had a terrible debt to pay off, and that women intended to make us pay, and pay, and pay, and pay some more.
As Wendy Dennis observed, nothing was more indicative of the contradictions of this mentality than the woman who would bitterly and loudly complain about every aspect of men, then morosely wonder why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. Men would observe such women and the paradoxes in their behavior which they seemed incapable of either seeing or understanding and draw the conclusion that women were none too bright, dishonest to the core, and essentially selfish and exploitive.
Added to this was the frequently discussed notion that women were going to demand EVEN MORE of men.
So men indeed begin to retaliate. the two assets that men had and could withhold until they got what they wanted were the last two things that women seemed to want or need from men: money and committment. As the legal situation swung more and more against men, they became increasingly resistant to voluntarily submitting themselves to marriage.
The loss of family and social networks caused by the major displacements and social fracturing of the two world wars and the Depression, had two devastating results on the stability of marriage. The first was to destroy the oral tradition of transmission of cultural and life knowledge parent to child, or more accurately elder to younger. The destruction of the connection to multi-generational family and community networks deprived people of access to a vast storehouse of practical knowledge in the day to day conduct of their lives. As always, commercial capitalism stood by ready to profit from their loss.
The process that would eventually result in the mountains of garbage which were foisted on a confused and uncertain public in the form of "self-help" books which appeared by the millions during the 70s and beyond, began in full force with the work of Dr. Benjamin Spock. This P.T. Barnum of child development hawked himself as the ultimate expert on raising children. He was certainly not the first, child rearing how-to advice is almost as old as writing itself, but he was the first to achieve true mass acceptance in the newly developing phenomenon of mass culture.
He was also the first to fully exploit another emerging phenomenon of consumer capitalism: brand labeling, recognition, and franchising. Dr. Spock books became a brand by themselves, and his name itself began to have value. While his intentions were probably good, or at least benign, Spock established two trends, or cultural notions, which would eventually come to be applied in broad scale social engineering: 1) the art of child rearing could be reduced to a set of instructions much like a recipe, and 2) there were experts who understood how to raise children much better than the collective wisdom of thousands of generations of parents.
The first of these notions would eventually be applied in a wholesale restructuring of the education system in an attempt to implement the misguided notion that kids could be conditioned out of sexual differences. When the child failed respond to this re-structuring of personality in the desired manner, the failure was seen as lying in the child not in the theories which were being applied.
But, the far more destructive effect was to produce a reliance and faith in "expertise" which encouraged people to substitute the judgement of these "experts" for their own, and allowed the production glut of self-help books which put forth preposterous notions which were nothing more than personal biases represented as cultural panaceas.
The second devastating effect on the stability of marriage caused by displacement and social fracturing was to make make mating and mate selection an essentially capitalistic, or marketplace, process. There was a subtle but distinct shift from mate selection based on "who will make a good life partner" to "who will give the most and best of what I want?"
An odd sort of selection process began to take over the mating game. The regional and community based life which was characteristic before the urban and suburban migrations had been filled with social structures which would introduce unmarried people to potential mates. Extended family and social network matchmakers would either exploit existing opportunities or contrive ones to bring them together. Since there were always many other people involved, they always got to know each other socially before coutrship ever entered the picture. And if it did, there were be protocols to be followed. Mate selection was complex and often had as much to do with family as it did with the indivual. The character of other members of someone's family was most times an excellent predictor of his or her behavior.
Deprived of social networks which allowed low pressure low risk getting to know, an ever increasing level of aggression on the part of men was required. The general level of hostility that women projected toward men simply amplified this effect. The most aggressive men with the most bulletproof hides were the only men who put themselves in women's faces. And, not surprisingly, the women these men singled out to approach were the ones advertising their availability and interest in the most outrageous manner. As women became more entrenched in their passivive attractive strategy, all but the most aggressive men became invisible to them.
This both put an incredible burden on women who now bore the sole responsibility for finding herself a mate, but it also distorted the way they viewed the various aspects of themselves and their personalities. The female view of this is Naomi Wolfe's "Beauty Myth. The male view of this is epitomized by trying to tell a woman about what you find attractive and having her argue with you and tell you that you are wrong, then proceed to tell you what you think and what MEN find attractive.
By the early 1990s, the percentage of the adult population which was married was declining every year as divorce ripped through the boomer generation and the effects of that disproportionately large segment of the population more than offset the rate of marriage of the twenty-somethings.
----------------------------------------
As women became integrated into the workforce, they began to take on the characterisitics which men had years earlier which had made them less than pleasant spouses. These coping strategies with the stresses of careers did not mix well with developing the intimacy and cooperation necessary to create a successful partnership.
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
I'm going to start in 1890, for one reason. That was the year that the US "frontier" was officially closed. All the land stolen from the native aboriginals by right of conquest had been parceled out to the European immigrants. It is important to understand that this event reflected a COMPLETE change in conditions. We "hit the wall" in terms of available resource pool, and from that moment on the expansionist nature of the country had to change to one of competition for a share of a FINITE resource pool. Up until then, the US had almost open immigration policies and was doing almost everything it could to expand population as fast and as much as it could. In colonial days, it had even been illegal for unmarried persons to live alone, which was about as close as they could really get to legally FORCING people to get married and have kids.
For agrarian people, which was about 98% of the 76 million total population, having more kids, particularly more SONS, meant more hands in the fields in a few years, which meant MORE production, which translated directly into family wealth. Without agricultural machinery, farming was backbreaking-labor intensive. Women did not see being spared this as "oppression" of any form. While women did tend the chickens, the garden, and did all the cooking, the hard manual labor that was farming was mostly done by male muscle and horse or oxen drawn implements.
There was no national economy, everything was regional. Women did often take work in small manufacturing concerns outside the urban areas, particularly BEFORE their family grew to include enough sons to make the family prosperous. Transportation was limited and expensive enough that almost all goods were manufactured and sold on a regional basis.
An interesting side note here - The poorer immigrants, those without even the financial resources or social connections to settle westward where land was still to be had for the asking, worked in the factories and mines of the industrial and urban east. These were the "proles" of the late 19th century. The labor union movement and the women's suffrage movement competed for the attention of the social reformers. Mother Jones, the legendary labor organizer, was very outspoken in her criticism and contempt for the women's suffragists because she viewed them as privileged elites too spoiled to know how good they had it. Blue collar and lower socioeconomic-class women did not even embrace the first wave of feminism: they were too busy fighting to survive.
From 1890 to about 1916 can be characterized as "infrastructure building" - electric plants and distribution systems, roads, bridges, telephone and telegraph systems. In 1890, most of the country was still pretty isolated and, by necessity, self-sufficient. This will become an increasingly important point.
WW I jumpstarts economy
In 1917, the US finally got drawn into the European war when it became apparent that it was inevitable since US ships were being targeted. This was the first of 3 major agrarian to urban displacements which were to culminate in the suburbia of the 1950s, which spawned feminism and number of other social trends. A huge number of farm boys went off to join the army and fight the good fight and came back to the US to settle in the cities. Farmers replaced this lost muscle power of their sons with the new technology of farm equipment, much of it bought on credit, which was to lead to another massive agrarian->urban displacement beginning about a dozen years later when the economy collapsed and banks foreclosed on the mortgages and forced the farmers off their land. The enclosure which began in England about 1500, and was reversed from the mid-1600s to the mid-1900s by Europeans fleeing from the high population densities of Europe to the lower population densities of the US, came to the US in full and major force in the 1930s.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
The war jump-started the US industrial machine as it stepped up to producing armaments and other war supplies. War is GREAT for an economy. This particular war was so ideological, spelling as it did the end of the great hereditary ruling elite houses of Europe, that was a great global morality play about the forces of good and evil. Democratic capitalism, US style, won. However, the war left a new ideological enemy firmly entrenched in Europe: the Bolsheviks and COMMUNISM. The US would spend the next 70 years shadow boxing with this bogeyman. This too will become important as we go along.
The victory of the Bolsheviks was bad news for the US labor union movement. Simple self-selection of who had undergone the grueling challenge of immigration had assured that self-reliance and independence were the real US religion. (one of these days I'll have to go into what this country did to the Mormons) ANY form of collectivism was frowned upon, and since many who supported the unions also supported the Red army, and were declared socialists, they were all treated as heretics by worshippers of the religion of US brand industrial capitalism.
This was also very bad news for the blacks, because their first refuge after the civil war had been the industries of the north which, under the grip of true Marx-style capitalists, weren't all that much better than slavery.
Like I said above, nothing like a war to stimulate an industrial economy. Coming out of war with our industry intact, a plentiful workforce which included many returning soldiers, ready markets in Europe, countries anxious to give us their raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods (since they had nothing else to barter), and a host of new war-inspired technologies, in the 1920s the US was on top of the whole damn world. Industrial capitalism was the solution to all the ills of the world. Just give us machines, raw materials, labor, and markets and we were ready to transform the whole damn world.
Floating in a sea of cash, a totally new concept got born: "disposable" income. That would have seemed like a complete oxymoron at any time before in history. Only the hereditary upper, or leisure, classes of Europe could ever conceive of having any significant amount more money than it took to eat and stay warm. Two major new industries were spawned as garbage bins into which urban workers might "dispose" of this unnecessary wealth: luxury consumer goods and entertainment.
Utopianism was real popular. "Labor saving devices" abounded and glowing pictures of the future got painted. Industrial capitalism was going to turn every citizen into an aristocrat. It would take so few hours per week to earn enough to live the life of luxury that EVERYONE would become a "Renaissance Man" (or woman). The arts would flourish, literacy would be universal, people would spend their spare time painting great art, and writing and acting in original plays, and reading and writing great works of philosophy, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Not everyone shared this utopian vision. Some social critics foresaw a two-tiered world of haves and have-nots, with the have-nots living underground in the bowels of the city working like slaves and the capitalist and bureaucratic living above ground in all this luxury. "Metropolis" is a wonderfully realized silent film portraying this.
Other critics saw people losing their humanity - becoming interchangeable like the parts of the machines they spent their days operating. Charlie Chaplin was so biting and perceptive in his satire, such as that of "Modern Times" that he made MANY enemies and would find himself exiled from the US 25 years later for "un-American activities" and "communist sympathizing."
Aldous Huxley wrote the first dystopian novel of the modern era: "Brave New World" showing that all-consuming consumption might lead to a world where sex and reproduction were completely separated, children were reared in state-run facilities, and the population routinely narcotized itself. People laughed him off saying he was preaching gloom and doom. They were just having so much FUN.
But there was trouble brewing in paradise. Money was so plentiful that in a country long conditioned to subsistence level living, making do, making things last as long as they could be made to last, and doing without things they didn't need, once men reached a level of comfort just slightly above where they were used to living they ceased being motivated to work as hard.
Enter - Andy Consumer!
Andy was the composite everyman profile which the new science/business of advertising used to predict and shape the buying habits of the nation. And Andy had a WIFE, Mrs. Consumer! So, while Andy was away at the factory, advertisers waged psychological war on Mrs. Consumer to make her dissatisfied with her life as it was and make her yearn for more consumer goods which were the guaranteed key to happiness. When Andy got home from a hard day at the factory, Mrs. Consumer was just FULL of newly planted ideas on how they (she) could spend his money and JUST COULDN'T WAIT to tell him about them. And, of course, Andy wanted to make the "little woman" happy so, of course, he'd be just HAPPY to work those extra hours to buy her all those goodies she wanted.
And here is where the first of the seeds of the great feminist explosion of the 1960s and beyond were planted. Up until this time, life had been a full time occupation requiring the dedicated effort of BOTH partners. That was life. People washed their own clothes, cut their own hair, and were very much generalists in the occupation of life. Only among the affluent urban elite did women have the luxury of ruminating on their oppression and lack of rights. Agrarian women, and men for that matter, often lived so far from polling places that suffrage for either sex was a non-issue. But women did get suffrage in 1920. During the 1920s, the flagship feminist issues of the 1960s were in full evidence: sexual freedom for women, birth control, and greater freedom from social restrictions on their behavior.
The Depression
The party lasted exactly 10 years. Speculation, over-extension, and the lack of expected growth in overseas markets once essential reconstruction of Europe was done, stalled the US economy and in 1929 over half the "wealth" in the country went "poof" almost overnight. The next 10 years were to be grim indeed. Capital dried up, banks failed and closed, unemployment reached 25%, millions of farmers couldn't make the payments on their farm equipment when their markets failed, the banks foreclosed and they were forced off the land into the cities to swell the already long bread lines. People became afraid of their own family ties as destitute relatives showed up at their door with no where else to go.
Here were the second, third, and fourth of the major social forces which would go into creating the 1950s and the explosive rejection of them of the 1960s and feminism: 2) massive geographic displacement toward the urban centers. 3) massive disruption in family and kinship ties 4) a pathological fear of failure and poverty which would later be mistaken for obsession with money and success.
And the fifth major force, which would later develop a symbiotic and incestuous relationship with the first, luxury consumerism, mass media was born. The generally miserable life conditions of most people made them crave escape to a better world. For a nickel they could escape for two hours into a perfect world where their every fantasy was fulfilled. Cinema in the 1930s was nothing but "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". The more UNLIKE the reality of their everyday lives, the better, so glamorous actors and actresses populated the silver screen, their fantasies and their dreams.
People had not lost touch with reality, yet. They still knew the difference between what they saw in the theater and the lives they lived outside it. The blurring of the distinction would come 20 years later when television invaded every home and sold them a lifestyle which it told them they COULD afford, if they worked hard enough. Movies had been popular enough during the 20s with the urban crowd, but the addition of sound in the 30s, and the desperate need for escapism, combined to make them a national social phenomenon. And this phenomenon would become the 6th major force which went into the social fragmentation which would be the legacy of the 1950s and beyond: mass culture.
Mass media spelled the end of true regional culture, and began a force of homogenization and conformity that would become crushing in the 1950s, provoke a reaction in the 1960s, and turn into a gender war by the 1990s.
One particular aspect of cinema which was one of those simple cases of happenstance being revised into malice was the use of cosmetics. Most of the early cinema actors and technicians had begun their careers on the theatrical stage. Heavy stage makeup had been necessary for the players to have faces at all under the harsh lighting necessary for theater. Classic theater, such as Shakespeare had actually developed a set of conventions which associated characters with a particular set and configuration of facial features. Any production of "Othello", for example, staged by people with classic theater training, will use a standard set of makeup elements for the title character.
Other conventions were soon established. How many vampire movies have you seen where the vampire is played in ANY WAY OTHER THAN the way Bella Lugosi played Dracula? Or when was the last time anyone played the Frankenstein monster other than the way that Boris Karloff played it?
Women in particular seemed to have a desire to emulate the "sirens of the silver screen", so there were thousands of Betty-Davis-Vamp clones to be seen. I think there is a very significant issue to be explored here that has to do with identity formation and explains the rapid spread and adoption of feminism. Kate Fillion, Deborah Tannen, Katie Roiphe, and others have all observed female identity formation and socialization characteristics which lead women to want to be alike. Cliques of girls will all dress similarly.
I contend that Naomi Wolfe's "Beauty Myth" could not have possibly been more wrong. Without the abdication of responsibility, absolute denial of the role of women's choice, and the demonstrated market appeal of "HE MADE ME DO IT" victimism, it becomes obvious that women, seeking to emulate and identify with the women on the screen, and coveting the sexual power they had to capture the attention of equally unreal men, cast themselves in those roles and replaced their real lives with playing out the scripts to those movies.
Since you seem to feel the need to make sure that men get equal blame, I think the effect on men started later but is no less significant. I can't count the number of young Marlon Brando or James Dean slouch-and-sulk-alikes that were around during the 50s and 60s.
But, just to give men a break, what attributes did those leading men of the 30s and 40s have, WITHOUT EXCEPTION? Answer: money, financial success, charm, and charisma.
My contention is that in the 30 year period between 1930 and 1960, that mass culture replaced real life and created a totally unrealistic set of expectation among BOTH MEN AND WOMEN regarding the lifestyle they were going to lead and the type of mate they were going to attract. And that during that period that marriage was completely redefined in a way that made it impossible to work in the majority of instances.
People did not make movies about boring stuff - they made movies that played on people's emotions. Romance and action, sex and violence, and the trappings thereof, are the staples of mass media entertainment. And since everyone sees the same things, they compare their lives to what they see and are vaguely dissatisfied. Into this void, consumer capitalism pours endless offers of instant solutions and magic pills. Forty or fifty years before, the "average" man might have seen a couple of hundred women in his lifetime, and the "average" woman about the same. Love was something that was expected to develop over time as people learned to trust and depend on each other. A farmer choosing a wife would look at her hands and ask whether she could milk a cow. A woman would look at how industrious he was, whether he was prone to drunkenness and fits of anger, and was he kind. That was how people chose mates.
I DO think that there has been a change in sexual behavior which will result in social catastrophe, but 60 years ago, not recently. And, as I have been verbose as hell in developing, that it was far from the only force. In addition to the 6 already mentioned, there is one more: the development and rise of "Big Government." None of the escapism of the cinema would have seemed so attractive had not so many peoples day to day lives been so oppressive in reality.
"Capitalism has failed us, socialism is the answer" came the cry. I won't go into all the ideological wars that got fought, but in the end the country opted for a great father figure and a modified hybrid of socialism and capitalism based on some new economic theories. One could call this "pump-primed" capitalism because it was dependent on government spending and taxes to make it work. The individual income tax, which was instituted at this time, provided the vehicle to extract capital from the pockets of individual wage earners which would never be returned to them. Government spending slowly dragged the economy upward, but it took another war to jump-start it again.
While the US was obsessed with first its success, then its own problems, the bitter drubbing that Germany had taken during the first world war, and the excessively punitive and humiliating conditions imposed on the German people for the mistakes of their leaders had been festering. A charismatic madman preached the gospel of regaining their national pride, and THEY LISTENED. There was also a petty tyrant in a funny hat over in southeast Asia dreaming dreams of world domination.
War too
Once again, the country had a common cause, a reason to sacrifice, and a tangible goal beyond their next meal. The industrial machine kicked back into high gear. There was one madman running loose in Europe who really did personify evil, and one in the south Pacific who was nearly as bad. Once again, American boys signed on to fight the good fight. This was the last time the US would experience any sense of unity.
In one very real respect, WW II created the real beginning to the end of racism. I'm not going to get into an argument about how much residual racism there is, a hell of a lot of what we see here now is opportunistic victimism. I live in a completely integrated middle-middle-class neighborhood where people are not necessarily colorBLIND as much as they are colorINDIFFERENT. We still see each other as black and white, it just isn't significant. We're all just people. If only we could manage the same thing with feminist sexism.
Anyway, WW II was the most equal opportunity war to date. Both black and white GIs came back owing their very lives to members of the other's race. Some of them raised kids who marched together for civil rights 20 year later. It was the beginning of the end of complete acceptance of apartheid in the US.
Once again, the US rode in on their white horses wearing their white hats. WE were the heroes. WE won the war. OUR industrial technology. OUR determination and self-sacrifice. Industrial capitalism was VINDICATED. It WAS the WAY TO SALVATION.
While the war had caused us to make strange bedfellows with Stalin, as soon as it was over we could go back to him being our ideological nemesis. If there was one thing the war taught us, it was that we were more prosperous while there was a war going on than while there wasn't, so we contrived to be in, or on the verge of, war for the next 40 years. With Hitler dead and Hirohito history, the "bad guy" seat was open, so we put Stalin in it. While we weren't at war with him TODAY, we might have to do so on any given day, so we stayed at a state of "readiness."
The 1950s
By the early 1950s, were chasing commies all over the globe, and even here in our own country. We became the UN's junkyard dog, and went charging in wherever we thought any of those "dirty commies" might be hiding. Even though Eisenhower was a military man himself, he saw how the military industry had attached itself to the teat of tax dollars and was growing quite fat. He warned us about the "military-industrial complex" and was instrumental in establishing NASA as a civilian agency and preventing the militarization of space.
But wartime paranoia persisted and spooks were everywhere. The most crushing conformity requirements since the inquisition descended on the country. An accusation of "communist sympathizer" could ruin a career then, just like an accusation of "Sexual Harasser" can today. Spies were found, tried and executed.
The war produced the third major displacement and social fracturing of the century, and by far the largest, as well as setting the demographic trend that would dominate the rest of the century: suburbanization. Anxious to reward the survivors who had risked life and limb defending "freedom and the American way", the country provided them education, jobs, and low cost home loans. They just wanted those boys to be real happy, so they would see that it had been worth the risk of being blown to bits.
Where during the war there had been a labor shortage, technology, both industrial and agricultural, had boosted productivity so much that there was now an incredible labor surplus. Women who had been a mainstay of wartime industrial production were shooed out of the factories to make room for hubby and told to go home to make that new house he'd bought her comfy for him when he got home all tired from a hard day of work.
Of course, to make her life easy and pleasant and palatable, hubby would spend some of those wages on labor saving devices to make her life so much easier and drudgery-free than her grandmothers. Besides, it provided a ready market for all those washing machines and clothes dryers and other consumer products that those converted wartime factories were churning out.
Ah, life was sweet. With less than 2% of the population, the US consumed over 50% of its industrial output and nearly 95% of its energy. Of course, the "little woman" and the kids didn't have much to do except sit around and wait for dad to come home so they could make him happy, which was pretty difficult because deep down inside he hated the repetitive and boring work he did for 8 hours per day.
In less than 40 years, the life of the "average" American male had narrowed from a variety of skills and activities, every one of which was directly related to his life and survival, to doing essentially the same repetitive and meaningless thing 8 hours per day.
Men went crazy.
Suburbia in the 1950s was a fertile breeding ground for pathology. "Business" was conducted over the "3 martini lunch", and a 4th was just the thing he needed as soon as he walked in the door to unwind from a "hard day at the office." His wife, having spent her day devoid of any mental stimulation whatsoever and anxiously anticipating his return home, would pounce on him the moment he walked in the door with what were to her the most significant events of her day and were to him monstrously trivial. We have your basic "conflict of interest" brewing here.
Alcoholism was rampant, as was a deep and confusing cognitive dissonance. All this stuff that was supposed to make him happy, and he wasn't happy. Every night he would collapse into his "easy chair" and watch as television told him more things he could buy, any one of which would make him happy, therefor in the aggregate they should make him VERY happy.
All day his wife had watched the same boob tube, but with a brand of brain-pablum specifically tailored to her tastes and emotional preferences. The term "soap-opera" was coined to describe those cheezy contrived dramas that gave her a surrogate life and were supported by advertisements for household cleaning and laundry products, which everyone knew were a woman's primary concern because she wanted to continue to make hubby extremely happy so he would keep working to buy the stuff that made her happy. At least that's the gark that the television spewed into her brain every day.
This is the view of the world that Betty Friedan saw. And from this came...
"The Feminine Mystique".
(From the cover notes on a early copy of "The Feminine Mystique") -
"Today American women are awakening to the fact that they have been sold into virtual slavery by a lie invented and marketed by men." (emphasis added)
Friedan was fond of hyperbole and was very adept at using and twisting language. She likened the suburban housewives' boredom and lack of meaning in their daily lives to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. (Interesting now that some contemporary feminists are claiming that women suffered worse deaths than men did in the Holocaust. Women's sensitivity, and the greater power, depth, and significance of women's feelings has become well established in the cultural zeitgeist.) Also worthy of note was the fact that a disproportionate number of early feminists were Jewish. There is a cultural stereotype called the Jewish American Princess, JAP, of which Monica Lewinsky is a perfect example. Phillip Roth also wrote about this type in "Goodbye Columbus." Boredom and thrill seeking are indeed the bane of the JAP. As are kvetching, complaining, and making extreme statements simply for effect.
Friedan's work set both the form and tone of the feminist argument - "women... sold into virtual slavery... by men." Women were the victims of men. Women's own choices had nothing to do with it. Women had no free will. Men forced women to do everything that woman did, and women hated it.
The complete poverty and aridity of feminist thought is best illustrated in how, over the next 28 years, men selling women into slavery got escalated to men waging war on women. Susan Faludi took Friedan's well-worn plot, dusted it off, added updated statistics, and sold the same tired old nonsense as "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."
For some unknown reason, what neither Friedan nor Faludi, nor thousands of women writers who came between and very profitably mined the tired old theme of women as victims of men, were able to see, or willing to admit, was that men and women were EQUALLY trapped in a world not of their own making and struggling to do the best they could under the circumstances. Faludi was right in one respect: between the early 1960s and early 1990s, relationships between men and women had deteriorated significantly and were characterized by a far greater degree of animosity than they had been 30 years earlier.
However, there have been a few women writers who viewed the war differently. Robin Blumner, writing in the St. Petersburg (FL) Times, puts it this way:
"What this comes down to is a group of militant feminists who have declared war on men and their sexual desires."
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelter in the UK, says:
"Men, realizing that they had been cast in the role of sexual monsters, retaliated."
Instead of the two vast and homogenious sexual armies portrayed by Friedan and Faludi, there are at least five separate and ideologically distinct groups lobbying to make their particular point of view into the majority view and have it reflected in public policy. For lack of any better terms, I'm going to call these 5 groups: the modified traditionalists, male and female, the progressives, male and female, and the heterophobic separatist extremists.
What women in general seemed absolutely unwilling to acknowledge was that in declaring war on men and their sexual desires, these militant feminists were also declaring war indirectly on the majority of women. And, most bewilderingly, they seemed to be enthusiastically joined and abetted by the majority of women who didn't seem to realize that they were participating in a war on themselves.
Men were completely unprepared for the bitter hatred toward them that boiled out of the women's movement. Furthermore, the behavior of women seemed absolutely schizophrenic. In her book on man-hating, "My Enemy, My Love", Judith Levine perfectly summed up this two-faced visage of women in the title of one of the sections: "private love, public hatred."
The message that men got from women was that we had a terrible debt to pay off, and that women intended to make us pay, and pay, and pay, and pay some more.
As Wendy Dennis observed, nothing was more indicative of the contradictions of this mentality than the woman who would bitterly and loudly complain about every aspect of men, then morosely wonder why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. Men would observe such women and the paradoxes in their behavior which they seemed incapable of either seeing or understanding and draw the conclusion that women were none too bright, dishonest to the core, and essentially selfish and exploitive.
Added to this was the frequently discussed notion that women were going to demand EVEN MORE of men.
So men indeed begin to retaliate. the two assets that men had and could withhold until they got what they wanted were the last two things that women seemed to want or need from men: money and committment. As the legal situation swung more and more against men, they became increasingly resistant to voluntarily submitting themselves to marriage.
The loss of family and social networks caused by the major displacements and social fracturing of the two world wars and the Depression, had two devastating results on the stability of marriage. The first was to destroy the oral tradition of transmission of cultural and life knowledge parent to child, or more accurately elder to younger. The destruction of the connection to multi-generational family and community networks deprived people of access to a vast storehouse of practical knowledge in the day to day conduct of their lives. As always, commercial capitalism stood by ready to profit from their loss.
The process that would eventually result in the mountains of garbage which were foisted on a confused and uncertain public in the form of "self-help" books which appeared by the millions during the 70s and beyond, began in full force with the work of Dr. Benjamin Spock. This P.T. Barnum of child development hawked himself as the ultimate expert on raising children. He was certainly not the first, child rearing how-to advice is almost as old as writing itself, but he was the first to achieve true mass acceptance in the newly developing phenomenon of mass culture.
He was also the first to fully exploit another emerging phenomenon of consumer capitalism: brand labeling, recognition, and franchising. Dr. Spock books became a brand by themselves, and his name itself began to have value. While his intentions were probably good, or at least benign, Spock established two trends, or cultural notions, which would eventually come to be applied in broad scale social engineering: 1) the art of child rearing could be reduced to a set of instructions much like a recipe, and 2) there were experts who understood how to raise children much better than the collective wisdom of thousands of generations of parents.
The first of these notions would eventually be applied in a wholesale restructuring of the education system in an attempt to implement the misguided notion that kids could be conditioned out of sexual differences. When the child failed respond to this re-structuring of personality in the desired manner, the failure was seen as lying in the child not in the theories which were being applied.
But, the far more destructive effect was to produce a reliance and faith in "expertise" which encouraged people to substitute the judgement of these "experts" for their own, and allowed the production glut of self-help books which put forth preposterous notions which were nothing more than personal biases represented as cultural panaceas.
The second devastating effect on the stability of marriage caused by displacement and social fracturing was to make make mating and mate selection an essentially capitalistic, or marketplace, process. There was a subtle but distinct shift from mate selection based on "who will make a good life partner" to "who will give the most and best of what I want?"
An odd sort of selection process began to take over the mating game. The regional and community based life which was characteristic before the urban and suburban migrations had been filled with social structures which would introduce unmarried people to potential mates. Extended family and social network matchmakers would either exploit existing opportunities or contrive ones to bring them together. Since there were always many other people involved, they always got to know each other socially before coutrship ever entered the picture. And if it did, there were be protocols to be followed. Mate selection was complex and often had as much to do with family as it did with the indivual. The character of other members of someone's family was most times an excellent predictor of his or her behavior.
Deprived of social networks which allowed low pressure low risk getting to know, an ever increasing level of aggression on the part of men was required. The general level of hostility that women projected toward men simply amplified this effect. The most aggressive men with the most bulletproof hides were the only men who put themselves in women's faces. And, not surprisingly, the women these men singled out to approach were the ones advertising their availability and interest in the most outrageous manner. As women became more entrenched in their passivive attractive strategy, all but the most aggressive men became invisible to them.
This both put an incredible burden on women who now bore the sole responsibility for finding herself a mate, but it also distorted the way they viewed the various aspects of themselves and their personalities. The female view of this is Naomi Wolfe's "Beauty Myth. The male view of this is epitomized by trying to tell a woman about what you find attractive and having her argue with you and tell you that you are wrong, then proceed to tell you what you think and what MEN find attractive.
By the early 1990s, the percentage of the adult population which was married was declining every year as divorce ripped through the boomer generation and the effects of that disproportionately large segment of the population more than offset the rate of marriage of the twenty-somethings.
----------------------------------------
As women became integrated into the workforce, they began to take on the characterisitics which men had years earlier which had made them less than pleasant spouses. These coping strategies with the stresses of careers did not mix well with developing the intimacy and cooperation necessary to create a successful partnership.
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
