Villainous Company

I got in touch with my Inner Woman. She's a Forest Ranger in Tucson, banding rattlesnakes.

Uhhhh -- and she likes gurlz...

First off, screw fashion. If it's not fashionable to admire virtue, then who needs fashion? Give me a virtuous woman over some bubble-gum model any day. And virtue is not code for virginity here either. My wife was divorced prior to our meeting. I had no illusions as to her 'chastity'. But she was (and is) a woman of virtue. I sought a partner who was my equal. I dated women who met that standard, and some who fell short (I can NOT abide a stupid person, woman or man; but I have dated a few ditzes). But I married a woman smarter than I (and really, it shouldn't have been that hard to find one, except I needed one smarter than I that was willing to marry down).

A 'real woman' is NOT the fading hothouse flower that has the sole responsibility of looking pretty and being silent. A 'real woman' is the same as the pioneer woman. She had to defend the home when the husband was not there. She had to care for the young and make sure everyone was fed. She had to keep the books and watch the budget. And don't try and tell me that's demeaning, or less important than what the man does. It's different, and in many ways harder. Rasing children is NOT demeaning. I personally blame the women's lib movement that defined domestic work as beneath women, and cash earning as important. No, it's just different. And anyone who thinks domestic work is easier than cash earning hasn't really tried it. I was unemployed for nine months and was the stay-at-home husband while my wife worked. I cleaned, I cooked, I did the laundry, and I HATED it. Of a paid job and housework, I consider the paid job easier and less demanding. I wanted to work in some analogy to a mother bear working MUCH harder than a father bear, but I've talked enough.

Bill darlin' there are times when you *do* scare me...

Heh.

And fwiw, I don't mean for a moment to suggest (because sooner or later someone will go high and to the Reich and decide that I did) that a woman must be a mother in order to be a real woman.

That was just one example of the type of woman who I find worthy of the title. I just get annoyed when people want to unisex womanliness.

I think most admirable traits are applicable to both sexes. But I also think men and women are different, and I believe the composite traits we find most admirable in men and women are probably slightly different, though there is a great deal of overlap.

"I think most admirable traits are applicable to both sexes. But I also think men and women are different, and I believe the composite traits we find most admirable in men and women are probably slightly different, though there is a great deal of overlap."

Typically, when I think of someone as admirable, man or woman, it tends to be those folks that are rational or experienced or practical enough to take care of themselves and those around them. I guess, as it is mentioned in the article -- real adults.

It isn't to say that I am a helpless waif, however, there is little in the way that scares me more than the helpless 'panicky' feeling that occasionally happens and usually accompanies the words, "What the HELL am I doing?!" So anyone who can move through those times smoothly and with grace or with little fanfare -- and without sticking their head in the sand -- are quite admirable.

Bill darlin' there are times when you *do* scare me...

That should be a constant.

*sigh*

I need more practice...

You know, I was persuaded of the strength of your feelings on the subject a few years ago. I don't think I've mentioned it since 2004.

My point (since you mention it) was only that women (like men) have social strata, and that how they look seems important in transmitting to other women where they stand; and that was why women take an interest in the subject that far passes male capacity even to understand or notice (my wife, for example, chided me just the other day for complimenting her pink blouse. "It's coral," she informed me). That attention to details far beyond male capacity suggests that it is female rather than male observers who are being considered; as does the fact that the issue is addressed at length when male preferences run strongly in the direction of efficiency (as, for example, going to the grocery store).

Nevertheless, you've argued so long (and with such outrage, over what always seemed to me more of an anthropological observation than any sort of moral judgment) that I long ago set the matter aside.

I am prepared to believe, or at least never again to argue with the suggestion, that all of this is done exclusively because you care about what men think; and that any discrepency in our ability to notice is simply because you care so very much that you go to the utmost lengths.

(Although, my sense of honest philosophy will not let me leave off without noticing: the Maxim etc. argument is badly flawed. Men also wear makeup for the camera, when they otherwise never would. It has to do with getting even skin tone even and whatnot, as you probably are aware. It can be overdone, of course. Maxim, from what I've seen, does horrid things to the women it shoots, esp. with their hair, for reasons totally lost on me; I haven't seen a copy of Playboy or any of the others in many years.)

Now, here's what I have to say about the Real Woman thing:

I suspect most men, like me, feel very secure about telling a man that he's a piece of trash (however politely), and being willing to fight to enforce that view if necessary. I don't feel the same security in enforcing a judgment against a woman.

In fact, some of the worst people I've ever known are women, but I've never said an unkind word to any of them.

Insofar as that experience is typical of what decent, successful men are like, 'real men' exist because we enforce the standard on each other (and for good reasons, not limited to the reproductive ones you mention: if a man's word is no good, I cannot do business with him, which has opportunity costs for both of us; or if I do, he steals; he makes a terrible neighbor; and so his viciousness impacts my life as well as his own).

Now, I realize that you hate it when I say things like, "Men won't fight girls," but really: at least I won't, and I've observed lots of other men letting bad women get away with their bad behavior, even in the military, but without question in civilian life. If a woman is bad to me, she gets away with it; the worst thing I will do is try very hard not to deal with her again.

Insofar as that observation is true (and I think it is true at least for the best men, the ones we'd want setting a standard), that does put it down to women to enforce standards on their own. To a certain degree, this strikes me as fair and equitable. Moreover, it's what I've been told by feminists my whole life: don't try to force your male values on us.

Which means that Lucas is right, more or less: if women want a standard for "Real Women," it's up to women to enforce it. The best kind of men won't be party to it; and the worst kind shouldn't be anyway. You don't want their values enforced on you.

Now, I do have my opinions, which are probably clear in my associations -- the kind of women I like are the kind I seek out as company, not the kind I avoid. That's as far as I mean to go, though; and my sense is that the kind of women I don't like didn't like or want me around anyway, so I don't think they're much bothered by my lack of attention.

So it's up to you. :)

But at the end of the day, I have always suspected that what really drives all of this is biology.

See, you womyn always bring a feminist debate around to size matters. Never fails!

I just get annoyed when people want to unisex womanliness.

Hmmmmm, I've never unisexed and considering I'm the resident pervert I seem to have a failing! Is there a book or video on how to unisex? I feel just so... so... so... INADEQUATE!

I feel like I should need a shower!

Ruh-Roh! :-o

Grim and JHD, together again, eh, old son? Poor Cass.

I'm not interested in a standard for real women :p

But then I've never been much interested in being defined by other people, or even in being defined by the fact that I happen to be a woman. I just thought that she was wrong to say that men defined their own standard all by themselves. I think it evolved in response to societal forces and biology - it's what "works" and is rewarded: the good father/husband model.

I think that what we view as the ideal woman, for the most part (or what we used to, before being virtuous fell out of fashion) was the good wife/mother model. Now, of course, it is simply not "done" to be a good wife. It is looked down upon.

Well screw that. I was a wife and mother for nearly 20 years. Now I have a career. I didn't feel at all "diminished" by my role as a homemaker.

Oh, and regarding your 'not having said anything on this subject since 2004'...

From a post you wrote in February of 2007:

This should settle forever the debate Cassandra began and I joined against my better judgment.

For those keeping score, the question was: women do terrible things to themselves in pursuit of beauty. Are they doing it for men (the bastards), or for themselves and other women?

The answer: it's not for men.

****************

Ummm.

Yeah.

That took me all of 20 seconds.

February 2007, eh? Seems like longer ago than that. Oh, well.

I never claimed that a powerful memory was among my virtues. :)

(With my luck, you'll now Google my blog and find that I once said, "Of course, as a powerful memory is among my many virtues...")

:)

Anyway: you're welcome to assert that you don't want to be defined by other people; or that you don't want them defining you; or that you don't want to create a standard for "real womanhood." I've got no problem with any of that.

I'm not trying to do it either. I'm glad to leave the question of womanhood to women.

It's just, Lucas is maybe right to say that women choosing not to do this is why it doesn't exist.

Although I think you're right to say that the definition isn't what she proposes -- that there is some 'womanly' standard that makes 'real men' a different concept from 'real adult.' I just don't try to meddle in exactly what that standard might be.

It's like old times 'round here--subject and participants.

And as usual, I got nothin' to add to the conversation. :P

I would just note that my mother and my father taught me about life, and raised me. The basic traits of a good man are the same as a good woman, that is to say a good parent.

I am a real woman. I am not a clinging vine. I work hard every day and enjoy my life.

I agree that women are territorial and protect their territory with the way they dress and act.

They also dress to show their status as well.

I am not intimidated: I just don't care about it at this moment in time. I have other things to do. When some of that is finished, I will commence to be scary.

Until then, help yourselves to the chicken drummettes, spinach, strawberry and goat cheese salad with pecans and grilled vegetables.

'Bout time you mentioned food.

Cass, I read your post and oh did it bring back some intense memories! Happy ones and some sad ones, but yes, you do grow to become the best of each other. I think that is part of the becoming one flesh (as well as the more obvious meaning).

My husband is honorable. To the point where less well informed induhviduals would call him stupid.

Three weeks ago, he was laid off. No biggie; we have an emergency fund and some food storage.
He went out and got a job within two weeks.

His dream job was given to a younger man. So, he
took what was available that he liked. The point of all this? He refused to let me look for a job because he wants me to finish school so I can put him through retirement.

He has always wanted to be a kept man...

"And as usual, I got nothin' to add to the conversation. :P"

Oh shoot :p

I don't know whether I'm right or you are or she is. I just like to discuss ideas, Grim. Writing is how I explore what I think about things.

re: With my luck, you'll now Google my blog and find that I once said, "Of course, as a powerful memory is among my many virtues..."

Heh... Nah. I was relying on my memory for that other, and just wanted to twist your tail a bit :)

*****

Everybody dresses to show status, male or female.

That is not the same thing as enhancing your secondary sexual characteristics (making your boobs look bigger, lips look poutier, butt look rounder, eyelashes look longer, etc.). In general, these are not things which enhance a woman's "status".

In fact, numerous studies of both men's and women's attitudes have shown that whether the viewer is male or female, they think less of a woman who enhances her appearance in this way, at least as far as social status, desireability as a job candidate, or intelligence are concerned. Now sex appeal is another matter entirely.

And that's why I've said over and over and over again that women don't do these things to impress other women.

Grim and JHD, together again, eh, old son? Poor Cass.

Oh no, not me. I'm just doing drive bys! ;-)

'Sides, you know how she is when she gets like this. And she's on a roll! :-o

Running low on egg salad? :p

Running low on egg salad?

Since it's in theme with the discussion of ancient music at Grim's Hall, some lyrics from the Renaissance England ballad, "Watkin's Ale":

...

For I will, without faile,
Mayden, giue you Watkins ale;
Watkins ale, good sir, quoth she,
What is that I pray you tel me?

2. Tis sweeter farre then suger fine,
And pleasanter than muskadine;
And if you please, faire mayd, to stay
A little while, with me to play,

I will giue you the same,
Watkins ale cald by name,--
Or els I were to blame,
In truth, faire mayd.
Good sir, quoth she againe,
Yf you will take the paine,
I will it not refraine,
Nor be dismayd.

He took this mayden then aside,
And led her where she was not spyde,
And told her many a prety tale,
And gaue her well of Watkins ale.

...

4. When he had done to her his will,
They talkt, but what it shall not skill;
At last, quoth she, sauing your tale,
Giue me some more of Watkins ale,

Or else I will not stay,
For I must needs away,--
My mother bad me play,--
The time is past;
Therfore, good sir, quoth she,
If you haue done with me.
Nay, soft, faire maid, quoth he,
Againe at last

Let vs talke a little while.
With that the mayd began to smile,
And saide, good sir, full well I know,
Your ale, I see, runs very low.

All right Grim.

I am going to take on what you said earlier, because it is just about as wrong as wrong can be.

I am deadly serious about this.

I suspect most men, like me, feel very secure about telling a man that he's a piece of trash (however politely), and being willing to fight to enforce that view if necessary. I don't feel the same security in enforcing a judgment against a woman.

And I am about to tell you why I think that is not only grossly unfair but profoundly immoral on a number of levels, Grim. In fact, it made me so angry when I read it that it took me quite some time to regain enough composure to respond with equanimity.

In fact, some of the worst people I've ever known are women, but I've never said an unkind word to any of them.

Well, all I can say there is that I'm not sure what good you thought you were doing. Plato said that the greatest evil one human could do to another was to allow error to go uncorrected. Why on earth would you do that to another human being?

The answer, of course (and we'll see this in a moment) is that you don't really see women as your equals or as fully human. Hence my pissed-offness. I blame your upbringing.

Insofar as that experience is typical of what decent, successful men are like, 'real men' exist because we enforce the standard on each other

Oh really. And if "decent men" enforce the standard on each other because it is just and right and generally has a good effect, why on earth wouldn't they enforce it on women?

Care to 'splain that one? I thought not.

(and for good reasons, not limited to the reproductive ones you mention: if a man's word is no good, I cannot do business with him, which has opportunity costs for both of us; or if I do, he steals; he makes a terrible neighbor; and so his viciousness impacts my life as well as his own).

Ah yes. But women, of course, can be vicious and evil without hurting anyone?

Or is it that women don't need to do business with anyone?

Or that you simply will avoid doing business with women because everyone knows they cannot be trusted?

What, precisely, do you think the logical consequence will be if "decent men" like yourself all refuse to hold women to the same standard as themselves? Easy. No one will do business with them because they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Essentially you have relegated adult women to the realm of children.

Thanks.

Now, I realize that you hate it when I say things like, "Men won't fight girls,"

Only because it's patronizing.

but really: at least I won't, and I've observed lots of other men letting bad women get away with their bad behavior, even in the military, but without question in civilian life. If a woman is bad to me, she gets away with it; the worst thing I will do is try very hard not to deal with her again.

Thereby proving my earlier point. America is a free nation, and freedom includes the right to make bad decisions.

Insofar as that observation is true (and I think it is true at least for the best men, the ones we'd want setting a standard), that does put it down to women to enforce standards on their own. To a certain degree, this strikes me as fair and equitable. Moreover, it's what I've been told by feminists my whole life: don't try to force your male values on us.

Lovely. So now feminists speak for all women? Who in the holy hell gave them that power? Not me, that's for damned sure.

Human society is complex. It is made up of men AND women, and they interact, Grim. I don't buy that only men set male standards of behavior: that doesn't stand up to common sense. Every day I see men do things that men don't naturally do, and they do them to please the women in their lives. And vice versa. And men also do things to compete with and impress other men, and so do women.

Which means that Lucas is right, more or less: if women want a standard for "Real Women," it's up to women to enforce it.

Maybe she is right. I don't know. I put forth my idea and people are free to debate it.

The best kind of men won't be party to it; and the worst kind shouldn't be anyway. You don't want their values enforced on you.

Actually I don't believe in "male" and "female" ideas or values. They are just ideas. To the extent that they have merit or utility to me, I'll buy.

But it really bothers me when you assert this whole idea of how wonderful it is to "spare" women the onerousness of being held to standards you think good and right for men to be held to. Integrity is not just a male quality and I find it deeply insulting that you seem to think it should be.

Reasonable people (and friends) can, of course, disagree. But it's hard to see how a person could not take it amiss to be told that they belong to an entire class of people who are not expected to have any honor.

I didn't say it was wonderful 'to spare women.' What I said was that I didn't feel comfortable trying to assert standards on women. I feel comfortable smacking down a man who needs it, through argument if possible, physically if need be; I don't feel I have that perogative with women. I don't, in fact, want that perogative.

Oh really. And if "decent men" enforce the standard on each other because it is just and right and generally has a good effect, why on earth wouldn't they enforce it on women?

Care to 'splain that one? I thought not.

Why won't you? You said you didn't want a standard for "real women," that is, a standard of this type.

If you won't say that women ought to live by a universal standard, how should I, who has never been a woman, and has only a husband's understanding of their interests?

I'm sorry if it makes you angry, but here we are. You don't want to enforce a standard, one that defines how women should be; and I'm not going to take it on myself to try to tell women how to live.

Essentially you have relegated adult women to the realm of children.

Not so. I've given them the chance to do well or badly; and the ones who've done well, I've engaged fully. The ones who've done badly, I've left alone, which seems to be what they wanted.

I don't see how I can be faulted for that. Either way, I'm respecting their wishes -- which is what one does with adults, not children.

Some of the worst people I've ever known have been women; but also some of the best. I think Lucas is right to say that women have more freedom in that regard, because men won't enforce standards on them and women won't either.

Some choose the right anyway, which makes them the more praiseworthy because they were less coerced.

Some don't.

Who will make them? Not I: and if I did, all I would hear about it is what a misogynist I am for trying to force women to accord with my will.

Well, I won't. You're responsible for yourselves. Do right, or don't. Win my respect, or leave it on the table.

Your choice. I can offer you no greater respect than to give you a free choice, and let you have what comes of it.

Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how we're supposed to do a smack down on a woman and not get a lawsuit or end up in the brig. If we verbally tell them things the way we would a man we are harrassing them. Heaven forbid we should ever take a fist to one, we'd end up under the jail with the keys tossed. There IS a double standard and there should be. We treat men differently because...... wait for it...... THEY ARE!

I've never struck a woman in my life and don't intend to start now. None of my sons have either. If a woman pisses me off to that extent she ceases to exist. What would you have me do? Treat her like I would a man and whip her ass to within an inch of her life?

Does that men I respect women any less? No, it certainly does not but there is a double standard for behavior and there is no way I'd treat a woman the same way I'd treat a man. And you can blame that on MY upbringing as well. Although I see no fault in it.

Now if you're thinking as a sex toy or erotic object then yeah, maybe we can talk. ;-) (that was prevert humor in case you missed it!)

I'm really curious to see how you think we should bridge the "Great Divide". From what I gather you think it's alright if I cut loose on a woman the same as I would a man and that is not only inherently wrong in my book but it's genetically upside from every gene in my body. I don't know where I'd even begin to do that? :-(

Of course I'll tell a woman off if she deserves it. I'll put her in her place as I would a man but without the challenge. I'll challenge a man in a heartbeat and be damned if I care how he takes it. His choice of weapons. Not so with a woman. I find myself very carefully choosing my words and throttling back my emotions. Like a wary predator I will pay strict attention to what I'm doing. Not so with a man. You just simply cannot let the chips fall where they may in today's society with a woman. What really gets me is why would you want to?

I don't get it??????

Or I have missed the entire point again? Per usual?

I'll echo that.

I carry a Bowie knife and a revolver for the purpose of "asserting my values" on other men. Not for no reason: something like 95% of violent crime is carried out by males, most of them between 15 and 35.

Women aren't the same thing at all. They just aren't. I've spent a fair amount of my life training to kill other men who need it. Because I've done so, and other men like me have done so, fewer men feel like they want to live the sort of lives that will bring them into conflict with us.

Women aren't like that. Better, worse, or just different, they're not. Women ought to have different rules. They ought to have different standards.

There's some who are horrible. But you can leave them be. There are some who are wonderful. You can love them.

I don't see a problem with taking that reality as we find it. We didn't make the world. But here we are.

I won't completely call BS on you, Neanderthal, b/c I happen to know who you are and I know that you have a habit of resolving personal disputes with your fists.

But the fact of the matter is that most adult men I know do not. I can't think of the last time my husband got into a fist fight. Or my father.

OR ANY OTHER ADULT MALE OF MY ACQUAINTANCE. PERIOD.

Now perhaps I travel in different circles than you do. I will grant that. But last time I checked, whether you and Grim like it or not, it is a crime to work out petty disagreements with your fists. You're supposed to try talking first. Personally I don't involve myself in any of this, and neither should the police unless someone presses charges.

No one was suggesting that you should punch out a woman just for crossing you.

On the other hand, I happen to think that anyone (including you) that resorts to fighting when words will do is missing something rather basic. Surely that is not what you meant?

And "asserting your values" with a Bowie knife or revolver in Georgia is likely to get you locked up.

There is absolutely no reason to stab or shoot anyone over a minor dispute. We have police, courts, and other means of resolving problems and if you're looking to me to cut you some slack on that one, you're looking in the wrong place.

That is not what we were talking about earlier and you know it.

You aren't getting the point at all.

Men kill. Women don't, or at least almost never -- you get an Andrea Yates who drowns defenseless children now and then, or a woman who poisons, like the wife of one of my old firefighter friends, who put antifreeze into his drinks for the insurance. But you don't get physical confrontation.

With men, you do. The reason I've had so few physical confrontations over the years is that I've been ready for them, not because it's odd.

I doubt I know a single man who's never been in a fistfight. I think I'd hold it against him if I knew he never had.

I can think of exactly one of them who ever got arrested, and that was for fighting a cop.

Alexandre Dumas wrote, "Fight on all occasions. Fight the more for duels being forbidden, since onsequently there is twice as much courage in fighting."

As far as I can tell, that's what young men do. And I don't think the law is in any way successful in restraining them. I think a great deal of the violence of society is completely masked from you, and others, because you have no way of recognizing how rarely the law is able to intervene.

When seconds count, the cops are minutes away. That's not just a piece of anti-gun-control rhetoric; it's a reality. The law is a myth. By the time the police arrive, everything is over; and they are too busy to find out tomorrow what happened yesterday.

You've lived in neighborhoods where that isn't true. Good: someone made them safe. I hope to put my own wife and children in safe places like that.

For now, my wife also carries a gun everywhere she goes. If you want to try your line on her, do so sometime.

Care to 'splain that one? I thought not.

That's real nice, hammering a guy for not answering a question he had not yet been asked.

And while Grim has answered it already, albeit indirectly, I'll "'splain it" directly.

There is an old addage: "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes".

Any man would proceeds to tell a female she's not being a "Real Woman" will invariably receive some form of this one reply: "So...based on your *vast* experience of being a woman you think you know better than *me*, do you? Look, you don't know a F*&^ing thing about being a woman, now get the hell out of my face".

And you know what? She'd be right.

He isn't considered authoritative on the subject and would be dismissed rudely from presuming he was.

Don't worry about it, YAG. A lady can holler profanities at us -- "BS!" in response to an argument, and then say "Oopsie!" to give herself permission.

Just another way that ladies and gentlemen operate under different rules. We love her anyway; it's the way of things. I wouldn't trade her for ten of anyone else, in spite of it all.

*sigh*

That's not what we were talking about, though. At least I didn't think that's what we were talking about (criticizing a woman for not being a 'real woman').

This is what Grim said:

I suspect most men, like me, feel very secure about telling a man that he's a piece of trash (however politely), and being willing to fight to enforce that view if necessary. I don't feel the same security in enforcing a judgment against a woman.

The old movies are full of men telling women just that (i.e., that they are not worth a warm bucket of spit). They didn't have any problem holding a woman up to an ideal, because they respected both the ideal and women, generally.

And Grim, you're being patronizing again. That is annoying.

If you don't like something I do, say so plainly.

And by the way, if you have an opinion on a matter, you ought to be willing to defend it.

And you know what? She'd be right.

No, she wouldn't.

I know what qualities make a good man, but I'm not a man.

I know what qualities make a good police officer or a good President, but I've never been either. The idea that you have to have personally experienced a thing to express an opinion on it doesn't carry much water with me. There are plenty of subjects upon which it is quite possible to have a fairly informed opinion without have personally lived through something.

"The old movies are full of men telling women just that."

Here's my old movie.

"I guess I kissed you because you remind me of Destarti. Or maybe it's because I hate to think of your hair hangin' from the center pole of an Apache wikia. But a long time ago, I made me a rule. I let people do what they want to do."

So do I.

"If you don't like something I do, say so plainly."

That wasn't plain? How's this? I don't curse at you, woman.

"And Grim, you're being patronizing again."

As are you, dear lady. "OR ANY OTHER ADULT MALE OF MY ACQUAINTANCE. PERIOD."

Well, fine: but there's some of us who have, just from time to time. And women likewise.

HEY! I tweren't hidin'. Just being cutesy! (don't go there!)

And again you are wrong. I settle things with OTHER people's fist against MY face! And shoulder. And Back. And........ :-o

Like I thought, I absolutely do not understand your entire thesis. I'm just dense I guess. At no time would I NOT tell a woman where to get off. I'd just do it in a different way than I would a man.

Now I feel even more inadequate because I'm a man that doesn't back down when a line has been crossed? Just damn! Guess I ought to let all these punks run over my sorry butt and thank them for it eh? "Thank you Sir, may I have another?" Heh! Were it I just minded my own business and just allow the annointed ones to do just whatever the hell they please huh? I'm supposed to walk away because words won't suffice and not stand up for what's right? Personally I prefer throwing them through plate glass doors. It may be so old fashioned and out of touch with today's reality but they sure do make funny sounds when they hit the ground on the other side! That alone makes me smile. Heh!

Ah yes, you can take the boy out of the trailer but you can't take the trash out of the boy huh?

Thank God I didn't teach any of my old fashioned BS knuckledragging morals to my sons. Whew! They might of grown up to be friggin' Marines or Cops or RNs or Master Techs or something. I am quite sure they are ashamed of their old man but it sure as hell isn't for my propensity to not backing down.

Oh well, I'm just totally lost in all of this. I have that problem with you womyn anyhoo. Y'all never let me up when you're done! ;-)

I formerly surrender! :-)

I am a “real man”, secure in my own “manliness”. Even though I’m a woman.

Heh.

The answer: it's not for men.

There is social competition, though, Cass. When women start shaving their legs or wearing makeup, other women wish to be competitive and thus do the same things. They aren't doing it for each other, but social pressure does play a part.

I never claimed that a powerful memory was among my virtues. :)

Cass fees too strongly to ever forget notable.

A sandwich and a cold beer would be nice right about now.

Try my buffalo chili. And cold beer: We have that here, most days.

ooh Biiillll...I have had an epiphany. I love men. Especially ones with 27" zippers.

*toodle!*

The last time I saw a 27 inch zipper it was attached to the left leg of a cheap running suit. His clothes were pretty cheesy too.

I have a question for all y'all guys who say you'd never fight a girl. What if she started it? I've known a few guys who've said they won't throw the first punch against a woman, but if she started it, all bets are off. And, to a certain extent, I agree. You going to let a female beat the crap out of you because you "don't hit women"?

And, IMO, any "lady" who hollers profanities is no lady at all. I very rarely use profanities, even when I'm really pi$$ed off. I think there are standard for being a lady (or "real woman", or wharever you want to call it) - it's got nothing to do with social status and everything to do with being an honorable and respectful person. There's a scene from Blast from the Past:

Eve: Now hold on, hold on just a minute! In the first place I do not fall in love with weirdos who I've only known for four or five days!

Troy: Yes you do.

Eve: And I don't fall in love with grown men who collect baseball cards!

Troy: Yes you do.

Eve: Or pee in their pants when they see the ocean!

Troy: Yes you do.

Eve: Or have perfect table manners!

Troy: You know, I asked him about that. He said, good manners are just a way of showing other people we have respect for them. See, I didn't know that, I thought it was just a way of acting all superior. Oh and you know what else he told me?

Eve: What?

Troy: He thinks I'm a gentleman and you're a lady.

Eve: [disgusted] Well, consider the source! I don't even know what a lady is.

Troy: I know, I mean I thought a "gentleman" was somebody that owned horses. But it turns out, his short and simple definition of a lady or a gentleman is, someone who always tries to make sure the people around him or her are as comfortable as possible.

Eve: Where do you think he got all that information?

Troy: From the oddest place - his parents. I mean, I don't think I got that memo from mine.

There are plenty of subjects upon which it is quite possible to have a fairly informed opinion without have personally lived through something.

And there are plenty where you can't, as well.

And there are many more where you may, but which does not mean that your reproach will be well received. I have played many years of baseball. Some of which for pay. I can walk on most any baseball field with those credentials and have near universal respect with my criticisms. But that is not to say that I could walk up to the soccer fields and do the same thing without being treated rather rudely. In much the same manner, David Beckham, while being a soccer stud, could tell me my swing looks like shite, and my response would be to tell him to go the helk away. I don't exactly see anyone offering to pay him to swing a bat.

Or for another example: ask The Unit sometime what his reaction would be if some 20 year old hippie started to lecture him about Duty.

Dear Cssandra;

I'm afraid I'll have to go with Grim on this one. Men are generally fine with the idea of beating on each other if somebody dishonours a code of conduct. I know that I am prepared to back my words with my fists if necessary, although, as you point out, sometimes it is better to jaw, jaw first.

The fact of the matter, however, is that like it or not, men do treat other men and women differently. And women treat other women and men differently also. This is not a function of sexism or patronising; it is an acknowledgement that there are different standards to be upheld.

For example, and going back to previous blogposts of yours, men tend to be more ribald and, um, well, manlike, in their own company. And you yourself say that mens hould not behave like the Neanderthals they are when in mixed company - thus illustrating that in this matter, at least, there are different standards. Nor is it just public vs private - a pub/bar is as public a place as you want and I don't need to tell you what goes down in those places. No, it's same company vs mixed company. And oh, brother, women have very drastically different behaviours when in same vs mixed company also. I know. Man, do I ever know.

It's all part and parcel of the same thing - we don't generally hit back if girls start hitting us. At least, I know I would not. It's considered uncouth, unmannerly, and unmanly. Although, if you now say this is not the case, there are a few women who could do with a really good decking in my church, oh yes there are.

As for shaving, I do that at night, before I sleep, when I take my shower. Usually. On weekends, sure, I do it in the morning.

WRT the dressing up for other women, I know at least some of it (jewellery, wedding dresses, celebrity nonsense, etc) is true. Normal, everyday stuff, well, that's something else. Lesbians presumably dress for other women too, so, you know, it's not a universal law.

But beyond that, yes, I don't doubt there is a 'real woman' standard. It's just not normally a standard enforced by male standards.

Think about it. At least amongst my crowd, there is at least one unwritten rule NOBODY breaks - you don't f* with another guy's girlfriend. Failure to adhere to this may result in some breakage - and this is enforced by ALL the guys!

We're not going to see women do this sort of thing soon. There are probably more subtle, less 'manlike' in-your-face enforcement going on with whatever codes of conduct women possess.

Hmm, well, speaking of, do you know that for 5 years until last April, I was a woman? Quite interesting, since I didn't know it. But the almighty Immigration Department had decided I was and had my passport reflect that reality. On biometrically-chipped passports, too.

Maybe I should have exhibited some gender dysphoria and milked it for what it's worth. Ladies' Night, for instance. But the lines outside the women's is always so much longer...

I dress because I'll get arrested if I don't....
0>;~}

The last time I saw a 27 inch zipper it was attached to the left leg of a cheap running suit.

We hang around in different milieux, spd. We don't usually run on the flight line unless the 122mm express is inbound.

Personally, I've got nothin' against the unisex look -- there are some *hawt* ladies in flight suits 'n' digi-cammo who drop by for coffee...

This is where we start to have a *huge* disconnect.

Grim has written (regretfully) several times about how he thinks the law ought to be changed to allow men to solve things by fighting it out.

So he is *clearly* aware that the vast majority of men do NOT do this now. Because currently, it is against the law for anyone, male or female, to use their fists (much less Bowie knives or guns) to solve interpersonal disputes.

This is not surprising because it ought to be common knowledge. Maybe I have been living on Mars for the past 48 years, but when I walk down the street I do not see men having fistfights, knife fights, or gun battles.

Go figure. So much for generously refraining from "hitting a lady" when she crosses you. Men aren't hitting other men, either. It's against the law and more trouble than it is worth in most cases (and obviously we're not talking about self-defense here - that is a special case - we're talking about using force to 'assert values'.) And in those places where people *do* use their fists, guns, or knives to "assert their values" on each other are really not worth living. Try Washington, DC. The obvious problem with using force to assert your values on other people is that they are also free to use force to assert their values on you. And you may not agree with their values. This is why we have laws.

I'm sorry, but in my experience, men simply do not go around hitting other men to "enforce standards of manliness on them". Grim is intentionally exaggerating to try and win an argument. And so are some of you.

When was the last time you saw a fist fight in your office? (JHD is disqualified :)

At the grocery store checkout line?

When was the last time you punched out a business competitor because you didn't care for his business practices? Or did you just pull your knife on him? Or was it a gun? If you have done, or regularly do, these things, I guess I am wrong.

About a lot of things.

To bring this back to reality, I'm not saying men don't ever fight.

Obviously they do.

My husband has been in fights, though not recently. There is really very little reason to get into a fight 99% of the time, but I do understand that there are times (especially for men, who have a different social code) when a man cannot back down from a confrontation with another man. But that is not at all what I was talking about earlier, and not what I objected to.

What I objected to in Grim's statement was his saying that he will let a woman get away with ANYTHING, just because she is a woman, but he cannot "afford" to let a man get away with the same thing because he has to do business with him and his dishonestly and viciousness affect the community.

Now JHD seems to understand what I meant (now) perfectly:

Like I thought, I absolutely do not understand your entire thesis. I'm just dense I guess. At no time would I NOT tell a woman where to get off. I'd just do it in a different way than I would a man.

I have no problem with that. None at all.

You don't have to treat men and women exactly the same.

But if you come up with some standard that says, essentially, that you will ignore destructive and unacceptable behavior from women but not from men, you harm your own community and treat women like children instead of the adults they are, and that offends me. I told my husband about this last night and his reaction was simple:

He has just said (essentially) that he does not care to work or deal with women.

That's exactly how I saw it. If you won't hold women accountable the way you would a man, you can't trust them and you can't make a deal with them. And that harms all women. It harms people like me who have to try and negotiate in their husband's names when they are deployed.

And I am sick and tired of dealing with people who have that unspoken attitude. You can't call them on it and you can't fight it without looking like a whiner. I've dealt with it all my life. You just shrug your shoulders and move on, but it makes me angry and I won't pretend it doesn't.

And yes, maybe I will swear a bit when I'm angry. Some people don't like swearing, and if that offends them, I am sorry. But, my place, my rules. I don't swear a lot, so it's hardly a constant diet.

And in any event, I did not swear "at" Grim. I didn't call him names. Let's just make that distinction. He has the right to his values and I respect them, however he does not have the right to 'enforce' his values upon me on my site.

Even with a Bowie knife :p And that is something I have no problem fighting over, even though, as he would be quick to remind me, he doesn't stoop to fight with 'girls' :p

And Gregory:

Just to be clear (and to respond to your points) again, I have absolutely no problem with men treating women somewhat differently than they treat men.

Also, I don't dispute that women enforce certain standards amongst themselves and men do likewise.

What I'm arguing against is the proposition (which I think is extreme and wrongheaded) that ONLY women have an interest in policing the actions of women and ONLY men have an interest in policing the actions of other men.

That just doesn't stand up to common sense.

In fact, it sounds like something out of the Dark Ages. Society is mixed. Both women and men exert social pressures on each other, and there are good reasons for this. If Grim's idea were true, boys would only need a father and girls would only need a mother, but this isn't correct. Children need both a father and mother because the influence of both parents is needed to raise a healthy child. Children of both sexes need to learn to understand and get along with both men and women. I hardly think that this is a radical proposition.

There is a disconnect, that much is clear: I don't feel that I'm exaggerating at all. I think the disconnect is here:

A man who goes about armed has no business getting into fistfights, or escalating situations. Unless there is already violence happening, or an imminent threat of it happening to someone, he won't begin. He will simply be prepared to use force if the others don't stand down.

However, the fact that he is prepared to use real physical violence is itself coercive. It draws a line that will not be crossed. And 100% of that coercion, at least for me, is directed at men.

Why don't we have fistfights in the street more than we do? For the simple reason that enough men are armed that it is too dangerous. Social order is maintained by -- something I've written about often enough -- dangerous old men.

Look at the UK, where that is not the case, and you do have fistfights in the street, violent attacks, brawling, and otherwise deeply disorderly behavior. They've got lots of cops, lots of cameras, but violent street crime is very high. The same is true in China, where I saw the biggest brawls I've ever seen over things like who got to ride in a taxi. Again, there's no shortage of police, military police, and other authority figures. There's also no shortage of violence.

When I think about enforcing standards of behavior on men, I mean that I am willing to go all the way; and that I am likewise equipped to do so. That fact, spread across millions of American men, is why you have the peaceful and orderly society we have.

When it comes to women, I am not willing to go all the way; I'm not even willing to go halfway. The absolute most I will do with a woman to have an effect on her standards is just what I'm doing now: if I find one who is already good, I'll talk to her about questions of ethics and so forth.

Such a woman was already good when I got here, however. I'm not making her good. I'm not really even making her better. I'm just telling her what I think. Insofar as she changes her behavior, its because she wants to.

When I meet a woman who really is bad, I don't even do that. I just leave her alone.

That's the fundamental difference.

There is more violence than you apparently see, even at that -- ask your son the cop how many fights he's broken up lately; or how many he's arrived to find have already broken up. We probably do all know people who have been in fistfights within the last year, even though you may not be aware of it because it's not discussed in polite society. We probably all at least met someone who has been attacked with a knife at one point or another, though it is less common. I can think of several non-police persons I know who either have been shot or have shot people in civilian life.

American society is remarkably peaceful, however. A large part of that peace comes from the fact that, if a brutal young man breaks into someone's house or attacks them in the street, you're apt to get shot. Even if a young man just gets drunk and starts yelling and screaming at women or families in public, he's apt to find himself surrounded by peaceful-looking men, some of whom may have pistols under their coats, all of whom are prepared to use physical force, and they will tell him it's time to go home.

They likely won't shoot him. But if they don't, it's because they drew a line, and he didn't cross it. Violent coercion is present, and more, it's valuable.

When was the last time you saw a fist fight in your office?

Gotta disqualify myself. My *office* usually hosts fights involving high explosives and cyclic rates of fire...

"In fact, it sounds like something out of the Dark Ages. Society is mixed. Both women and men exert social pressures on each other, and there are good reasons for this. If Grim's idea were true, boys would only need a father and girls would only need a mother, but this isn't correct."

What idea are you talking about? I'm not aware that I'm defending a propositon that boys don't need mothers. I'm not even arguing that women don't have an effect on men, or vice versa.

I believe I'm only asserting that there's a hard standard for "real men" because adult men require it of each other, using means and methods that are far stronger than any employed to coerce women; and there's no similar, hard standard for women because neither men nor women do. That was Lucas' point, and I think that she's right that far.

I'm also agreeing with her concept that, if such a standard is desirable (about which I am neutral), women will have to enforce it on each other. I'm not prepared to do so, and in fact am completely unwilling to do so. The tools that underlie such a standard aren't appropriately directed at women, and I simply won't have anything to do with pushing women around.

Even if I think they're horrid people, which some women sometimes are (and some women always are). I just choose to associate with the good ones.

If your thesis is correct as I understand it, women modify their behavior to attract men; so that should be all I'd have to do. But I haven't noticed that the women I don't like really seem to want me around. :) So I'm not sure it's a very effective method of adjusting them -- not that adjusting them is my intention anyway.

and there's no similar, hard standard for women because neither men nor women do. That was Lucas' point, and I think that she's right that far.

Ummm.... anyone who thinks women don't enforce their values on each other has never been treated to the way women treat anyone who doesn't conform to what 'the group' wants.

This is why I refuse to hang around groups of women. In general, I rarely agree with their values and don't wish to subject myself to that kind of social pressure, because it is intense and unrelenting. My guess from the small peek I had at Ms. Lucas is that she doesn't hang around groups of women either.

That doesn't mean this kind of 'enforcing' doesn't exist. Women are extremely cliquish and they use the power of approval (or withholding of approval) to enforce their values on each other.

So I disagree with you there, too. I can't imagine where anyone gets the idea women don't use coercion to try and enforce their values on each other.

Re: ideas, I'm talking about the idea that most social coercion is of a non-violent nature Grim.

You are doing something that I find incomprehensible: you refuse to deal with women who are intractible.

To illustrate my puzzlement, let me use an example from a novel, Dune. In it, the young Paul Atreides is tested by the Bene Gesserit. He is ordered to put his hand inside a box. The box induces intense pain by nerve induction. If he removes his hand from the box, he will die by poisoned needle.

The test is to see if he can, by reason, master his animal instinct to withdraw his hand. She explains: "What is the difference between a human and an animal? If an animal is caught in a trap, he will chew his own leg off to escape. A human, on the other hand, would remain in the trap, hoping to catch the hunter unawares and remove a threat to its own kind."

In other words, the animal thinks only of itself and the immediate circumstance. The human thinks of the consequences to society and its own kind.

Applied to your situation, you assert that you 'cannot afford' to allow a man who is vicious or dishonest to go unchallenged because his vices will damage the community and moreover, you cannot do business with him. And yet you will allow a vicious and dishonest woman to go unchallenged.

"Let the women deal with her", you say. "It is not my place and I don't feel 'comfortable'."

I am frankly astonished that no one but me seems to be bothered by this. First of all, as JHD pointed out, there are many ways to deal with such a woman without resorting to violence, but ignoring the situation and saying "Let someone else deal with it" is not the right answer.

It would never in a thousand years occur to me, should a vicious or dishonest man cross my path, to leave him free to prey upon my neighbors because I'm a woman. I could certainly plead womanly weakness, but what kind of world am I leaving for my children if I turn away from trouble on such pretenses? The injury was done to me - to expect disinterested parties to take on the responsibility of righting that wrong not done to them seems naive at best. They might not even know of it. It is my job to take this person to court, bring in the police, tell him exactly what he has done wrong, do whatever I need to do to make it clear to him that his behavior won't fly.

I would never say, "Let the *men* deal with him. It is their business to attend to such matters." That is just pushing my problems off onto someone else.

And you'd best believe my problems *will* become someone else's, because that person will go on to do EXACTLY the same thing to someone else because they were never opposed when they did it to me. Nothing succeeds like success.

I think, as usual, that to some extent we're talking about different things here Grim.

I keep saying that I'm not talking about hitting or beating on women. I've made that point over and over - that most social and professions interactions do not culminate in violent exchanges. And yet somehow that is always where you end up. I don't get this at all.

I get your point that men are always prepared for violence. Fine. But the fact of the matter is that in everyday life (and during the entire span of an average person's life) the number of times that you get into a violent altercation just aren't going to be that many. And I'm sorry, but if you are constantly getting into violent altercations, I kind of wonder what the heck is going on?

I have lived in rough neighborhoods. I know that fights and stabbings and shootings go on.

I also know that you think it would be a "good" thing if more people could solve their disputes this way.

I disagree, because you assume there is a good-hearted basis for this. I happen (based on living in some of these crappy neighborhoods) to believe otherwise. What happens is that the bullies take over and terrorize everyone else. I happen to like being able to walk down a street and not worry about stray bullets whizzing past my head. Call me weird.

You are responsible and moral, but many people are not, and you continue to attribute your values to people who don't share them. Many good hearted people refuse to stand up for themselves. They are sheep, and unfortunately that means if you have laws that say it's perfectly fine to solve every dispute with a knife, it won't be the good people who mostly do this.

It will be the bullies.

I don't want to live in a country where I have no defense in law if someone decides to stab me because they wish to 'assert their values' upon me. What if I disagree with their values?

OK, let's look at this more deeply.

You mentioned your peaceable business types above. When was the last time they attacked each other over a business question?

Not often! Why?

Partially because they know other men won't permit it, as we were describing w.r.t. any other antisocial violence (as opposed to socializing violence, I suppose, the 'good' coercion I am talking about). Some men in the business world are not good people.

However, success in business really is more likely if you internalize these values. For that reason, many of them are the dangerous old men. They are the ones who have succeeded at internalizing the values well enough that they are now are the enforcers. They don't need to be made to do right anymore.

How did they get there? By having the code enforced on them from the time they were young, by fathers, father-figures, and older men. One of the chief messages they will have had enforced over and over is, "Don't hurt the girls." That's a critical element of the code in America: as is, "Don't bully," which means, don't take advantage of your strength to push around those who are physically weaker than yourself.

So you end up now in the business world, and you've got a bad woman. What are you supposed to do with her?

The whole model of confrontation is based on underlying physical threat, and you have been taught from birth not to use that against women. Plus, in most cases, the woman is physically smaller than you, so you don't wish to do things that might intimidate her.

If she's a good woman, you can engage her and try to talk her through this or that problem; but that relies on her being good to start with.

If she's genuinely bad, what am I supposed to do?

You make the point, sometimes, that in society we depend on each other. Well, we do: and sometimes we depend on each other by each doing different jobs. I depend on doctors to know how to fix my organs; I don't try to fix theirs, but I do serve in other ways.

I agree it's important: but it's not for me. I am restrained by the very code we are talking about. That code is good. It's valuable. It is the only way to produce good men, the men that society depends upon, the men who maintain society and defend her.

If I'm in a situation where a woman is being mean and cruel to someone, I don't mind to voice an opinion that they're being unjust. I'm not, however, going to try to fix them as a person. If I encounter a man being mean and cruel, I will. I will try to stand him down in a way that lets him know he can never do that again, at least not while I'm around; and that, if he wants to be respected, he'll have to do better.

Why won't I try to fix her? Because the model that I know rests on violence, even if actual violence is rarely necessary: and I won't use violence against women (barring extraordinary circumstances, of course; I might use limited violence to stop a woman from killing herself or someone else, but it would be strictly restrained to stopping the particular danger. The underlying problem, whatever it was, I would leave to someone else).

That means someone else has to be the woman-fixer. I'm not a doctor, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's important to have doctors. It's just that surgery is something that my training doesn't permit me to do.

I've made that point over and over - that most social and professions interactions do not culminate in violent exchanges. And yet somehow that is always where you end up. I don't get this at all.

I've addressed this, but it may be that the connection isn't clear or explicit. The model of male confrontation rests on violence. Even when actual violence does not take place, it underlies the model. The point is, when men confront one another, it is understood that violence is possible if a settlement cannot be reached.

A settlement almost always is reached, and in fact violence is rarely necessary. We've built huge layers of conflict-resolution mechanisms to prevent us from getting from "conflict" to "violence." But every confrontation between men includes the prospect of violence, if the several systems should completely fail. If a man absolutely refuses to abide by the negotiations, the agreements, the rules or the laws, eventually there will be violence. I may not perform it myself -- I may delegate the task to a policeman, who will violently arrest the other man and violently put him in prison. But the model is a model that rests on violence. Violence underlies everything, which is why -- as you said -- we always come to it.

That's one reason we value men who tell the truth, shake hands, and keep their word. It keeps the number of confrontations to a minimum. We value men who don't require it of us.

[shaking head]

I still think you are eliding past a point you don't like, Grim.

No one, anywhere, whether it be in business or in the social realm, would get much done if every confrontation escalated into violence. People manage to cooperate precisely because they learn to steer conflict into socially acceptable paths.

We have substituted law and the implied threat of police and jail for physical coercion between people who disagree. In this, there is really very little difference between men and women. Whether you pull a knife on a man or a woman during a dispute over a breached contract, you have still committed assault. We can argue about what happens next, but there is one definition of assault and you just committed it.

And what you said earlier (and I'm willing to grant that this may not have been clear, but I objected to what you said explicitly, not what you may have meant, which I cannot have known and I have several times pointed out my objection) was that you "won't even say an unkind word", even to a vicious or dishonest woman.

That doesn't seem to convey to me that you are even willing to oppose the actions of someone who would damage your community. And I think that's wrong.

No one asked you to "fix" her. No one asked you to treat her exactly the same as a man.

The objection was to your refusing even to deal with the situation because she's a woman. As you point out above in your 'model of male confrontation', most times the actual violence never takes place.

This is my point exactly: in modern society, 99.9% of the time police and courts are substituted in, and therefore there is really no reason for you to refuse to deal with a vicious or dishonest woman.

I don't say unkind words to vicious or unkind women. I say, "I don't think that you're being fair."

That's not unkind, is it? I still try to avoid it, because in my experience it makes them angry; and every woman I've ever encountered in that way has thereafter hated me forever. Even (especially?) if I was defending another woman that they were being cruel to or about. I have still done it on occasion, because I hate to see cruelty, but I certainly haven't benefitted from it. And I haven't seen that it's changed their behavior, either.

"We have substituted law and the implied threat of police and jail for physical coercion between people who disagree.... most times the actual violence never takes place."

I think this may be a fundamental difference of opinion between us; perhaps between male and female perceptions of the world. I would say we haven't substituted law for physical coercion; and I would say there is nothing "implied" about the threat. A letter from a lawyer is an actual threat, backed by the power of courts and armies of police, and is therefore real coercion. Just as the fact that you carry a gun and are ready to use it is violent coercion even if you never draw the gun, so is the fact that the courts really will seize your property and/or hurl you in jail also violent coercion. Even if it never gets that far.

The Japanese say, "Business is war." It's not for no reason that Sun Tzu and Musashi are bestselling books for Japanese businessmen (and American ones, back when we were worried about Japan). The male mind perceives all of this as a sort of maneuver warfare: a positioning of powers to achieve your aims. As in real maneuver warfare, the highest prize is to put your opponent in the position where you never really have to fight the war -- he is so badly outmaneuvered, and in such danger of utter destruction, that he submits.

Now, you may say, "That's foolish," but it's not foolish. It's the way the brain is wired. All of this stuff, in the male brain, is a form of violence -- not "actual violence," but a form of violence, with real armies (of police) and real threats (such as seizures of property if you default on your contracts). The parts of our brain that evolved for actual conflict are the parts that do the thinking about all of this stuff. It isn't, therefore, possible to conceive that this is "not violence" or "substituted for violence." It is violence -- at least, insofar as it is processed in the same way as violence, it is something we cannot separate.

The one thing that doesn't 'feel like' violence is when you talk something through pleasantly, come to an agreement, and shake hands. That's the model we want, but it doesn't always work. Every other type of conflict -- everything that might be called "conflict" -- is sorted out by the violence-handling part of the brain (I speak without having studied this by MRI imaging, obviously; but I do speak empirically, based on how it "feels" to think about these things. It feels like violence).

In fact, thinking about it philosophically, I'm not sure exactly where the breaking point would be between "law" and "violence." It's easy to see the extremes: the settlement of a difficult question by men in suits who, having finished, go to lunch together, versus terror and blood. What isn't easy to see is exactly where the one stops and the other starts. Law appears to me to rest so completely on violence -- threats that are real, not implied, if you do not obey the settlement -- that I'm not sure there is a real break between them. It may be a single thing, of which "law" and "actual violence" are the opposite ends of the scale.

I'm not sure we have a word for that -- "conflict," I guess, but that's not quite right either. In any event, as re: women, because my brain perceives all of this stuff as being a sort-of violence, I don't like to direct it at women. I'll use kind words if I have to, and I can contemplate using violence in extraordinary cases to address a particular problem; but I don't feel it's right to use it in the kind of heavy-handed way that I feel perfectly free to use on other men.

To put this in the terms of your favorite Men/Women video, all of this stuff goes in the Violence Box. And I was trained, carefully and by very good men, not to go to the Violence Box when dealing with women.

In any event, hopefully that explanation will resolve why 'these discussions always come back to violence,' and why you found that your male readers were all strongly endorsing a view that you considered a gross exaggeration. It may be that our perception of the whole issue is affected by the difference in male/female brain function. For us, it really all is part of the violence issue: it's a violence issue from the start. For you, violence is very far away from what you're talking about, and you can't understand why we keep mentioning it.

That may well be.

I can easily understand how the situations could be perceived differently. What continues to confuse me is that, regardless of where you may subjectively think any encounter might end up, the fact remains that 99.9% of the time it is not going to end up violently. Therefore, any rational actor weighing the odds ought to look at the situation and conclude that it isn't really all that reasonable to treat women in a radically different way (i.e., refusing to hold them accountable for fear of that .01% of the time it "might" lead to violence) on account of something that isn't statistically likely to happen.

The potential harm to your community from not acting outweight the potential harm from acting. That has been my point all along.

IOW, this seems to me an example of one of those many times where men are not acting in what I consider to be a particularly rational way.

Women are always accused of being irrational.

Well, to me when you look at this rationally, I don't see the "male position" (at least as stated) as very rational.

A woman confronting a vicious or dishonest man has more to fear from him because in that .01 percent of the time, he is bigger and stronger and she won't win the physical confrontation. And even in a non-violent confrontation, men are often more aggressive and she may not win. But I don't excuse her from her social duty to oppose vicious and/or dishonest behavior in men. She owes it both to herself and her neighbors to do so.

And so do men, when they encounter such behavior from women. That is my position. I think it a fair and just one.

Hmmmmm, Cassie? You're using your "literal" brain. Try using your "philosophical" brain. I actually get Grim's point from the philosophical standpoint but you want to take it as a literal interpretation. The two are vastly different.

Let's take the example of Paco, Taco, and the Five Illegal Burrito Brothers I had an altercation with as an example and dissect it. To begin with the chances are the young lady would've never been assaulted by American youths that have grown up in our society knowing men will not allow that type of behavior. Enforced either through the violence of police action or a physical confrontation on the spot. They are raised in a society where they know this to be true. It is a fact.

Now, the illegals I faced had no such upbringing. They looked on me as an old man and therefore easy prey. They did not have that American societal upbringing that should have made the warning bells go off in their heads knowing I would stand. In their world a sheep, which they considered me, would back down and be subservient. The speed to which I responded absolutely shocked them. They had no concept anywhere in their minds or experience of old Amurican guys that don't back down. I could literally see the shock on their faces and used it to my advantage. Sometimes violence and brutality are required.

Now, back to the philosophical. If those would've been American youths all I would have had to do was look at them in a certain way and there would've been absolutely no conflict. Maybe a word or two. A lot of puffed up peacock strutting and jawing yes, but the chance of physical conflict very minimal. They would know that violence lay beneath the surface and they would not chance the confrontation. Simply because they were raised that way and they KNOW how it works. See the difference? Very rarely do we EVER have to resort to physical violence because that threat IS there. Always.

I got to talking to Da Grunt when he got in this morning about violence and how much confrontation he sees. We even broke it down by affluent areas and age. Last night was a slow night and they only took in 11 guys for fighting. He's had as many as 38 in one evening. Of the 11 3 were from affluent areas. All were young. What can you draw from this? My interpretation is that these young guys are learning the cause/effect/consequences of outright confrontation. As they age the tendency to violent behavior is lessened by massive percentages because of what they learned from their actions this time. Conflict resolution develops into another arena entirely as they age and gain experience but the fact is simply that violence is always the underlying factor. Your definition of violence is literal and mine is philisophical.

Society's norms have got to be enforced. The fact that you do not see that happening as violence under the surface is a major difference between the sexes. I believe you understand it but it is not a part of you. Not so with us. Societal behavioral enforcement has been around since I first took a teradoctyl leg away from Bubba The Cave Man in my youth. ;-)

Now think about this society without this inner layer of enforcement. That should give you some food for thought!

And yes, I have restrained women before. I have confronted women before. I have put women in the same place I'd put a man before. But I would never treat a woman as I would a man. I did so totally restrained and without the force I would use with men. Men have a tendency to simply cut a bad woman out of the herd and close any doors of opportunity she may have had. Don't go away mad - just go away! We do the same with bad men but there is usually a high level of confrontation involved. And yes, that is a double standard. And no, I'm rarely condenscending to women as I would be to a man. The whole "Little Lady" thing is not me. I enjoy being around women. Y'all think in a way that would never occur to me as a general rule. Plus you have no "stand-by" mode in your brains. When you ask The Unit what he's thinking about and he replies, "Nuthin'", he means it. Women do not have that capability. We may go into standy-by at any given moment. Not so with y'all.

Your literal brains can be tiresome at times though. :-o

JHD:

1. That was a different situation. I specifically excepted self-defense from this earlier.

2. To extend your point on Paco and Taco though, what happens when no one opposes vicious and dishonest women?

You have lots of Pacoettes and Tacoettes running around. No, you don't have to hit a woman if you are not comfortable doing that (and in fact that would get you arrested most times). But you can confront her verbally. You can file charges if she has done something illegal. You can embarrass her so she experiences the negative consequences of her actions.

What you do NOT do is let her get off scot free so that she learns (as Paco and Taco did) that such actions will go unopposed.

And by the way, I am scared to death of men in a lot of situations. I have been intimidated any number of times.

But I will not back down when I think that I am right about something and I have found that no 'threat of violence' is needed. Even rapists do not pick on women who make eye contact with them, JHD. They don't want someone who looks like they will fight back. They go for the easy victim.

All that is needed is that people show they are willing to oppose such behavior. It is not on any one person to "fix" the perpetrator. But neither is it right to turn a blind eye.

It's not about where a situation may end up, but about what part of the brain is dealing with it. In other words, it's not that 99.9% of the time there's no violence; it's that, this is in fact a form of violence. I was raised not to use violence against women, and have internalized the rule so deeply that I now enforce it on others.

As a result, it's hard to do more without weakening the rule. In your calculations, then, you should probably factor in what it's worth to have men who firmly believe that it's wrong to use violence against women, and will restrain other men who don't believe that.

Now, that's not to say I am not willing to take more action; it's just, I don't know how.

What, beyond polite but firm corrections when necessary, and refusing to speak to or deal with the person, would you have me do?

That's a serious question. I saw a female Major in Iraq destroy her unit -- every single member of the unit she commanded is ETSing, rather than risk being assigned to an officer like her again. The only one who reenlisted was the one who was able to get a transfer out. She was treacherous, manipulative, had no care for her subordinates, incompetent, and prideful to boot.

I am absolutely sure that the reason she wasn't destroyed by her commanding officer was that he didn't feel comfortable destroying a woman's career. He is a very decent man, and just couldn't bring himself to do it.

So he tried to manage her, and to move her responsibilities around so she had less direct control over her soldiers' lives; but she still managed to destroy the unit. He did everything he could do to mitigate the problem without actually removing her from command or otherwise destroying her career, and it wasn't enough. He probably should have done the other -- perhaps it was even a duty, in the case of a military officer in command -- but he just couldn't.

So yes, I accept that this is a serious problem. I would very much like for there to have been a way for him to deal with her that neither weakened the rule against hurting women, nor left her in command.

What should a good man do with a bad woman, if it isn't what I do? The rule is valuable, and I want to preserve it -- I think it probably creates a greater social good than is outweighed even the harm we're discussing here.

But I'm willing to hear ideas. For the sake of these ideas, by the way, the example of an officer in command is probably not very useful -- that is a unique situation, because a commander has a special duty to command. Let's talk more about civilian life. I mean, what should I do, beyond polite disagreements and avoiding bad women?

Good ideas will improve the situation without making women in the workplace feel like I'm a man who suppresses women with whom he disagrees -- that (as you know) is something that women in the workplace are sensitive to, and so I try to be sensitive to their sensitivity, so to speak. The ideas also won't weaken the rule (or the strength of the example I'm trying to set for younger men about how to be respectful to women).

What do you think?

I don't say unkind words to vicious or unkind women. I say, "I don't think that you're being fair."

Well actually you've told me on any number of occasions that you didn't think I was being "fair". And then you've proceeded to say something far harsher than I ever did :p

So I suppose that makes me vicious and unkind? :) And yet I didn't hate you. I merely said that I didn't agree with your assessment. Which is my right.

I might be hurt by your thinking that I am unfair, but there is no point in my getting my nose out of joint. You are entitled to your opinion, and in the final analysis your saying a thing does not make it true. My position is that I am either unfair or not. I take your opinion into careful consideration even when I disagree with it because I respect you.

I am absolutely sure that the reason she wasn't destroyed by her commanding officer was that he didn't feel comfortable destroying a woman's career. He is a very decent man, and just couldn't bring himself to do it.

Then he is derelict in his duty.

How many people did he hurt by his actions.

You have just proved my point Grim, and I rest my case.

Perhaps this might clarify things a little more.

When a person takes it upon themselves to correct another, there is always the risk that the person being rebuked responds to the criticism with violence or the threat thereof. I've seen it happen, quite a lot. Twice in the last 5 years, it has concluded in getting the police involved.

Therefor, if correcting another person takes the risk that violence may be used against them, the person doing the correcting *must* be prepared to defend themselves, violently if necessary.

The "Mancode", for lack of a better word, does not permit a man to fight back if the woman he has criticized resorts to violence unless that threat is life-threatening. Otherwise, he must take it.

Not so when dealing with a man. Any man who responds to correction with violence deserves the beating he takes.

Maybe it isn't fair, but it is the way things are. And dealing with things the way they are, and not as one would wish them to be is part of "being a man".

All that is needed is that people show they are willing to oppose such behavior.

Can I stand up and cheer now? That is the point we've been making all along! A woman that makes eye contact with a rapist is willing to do violence in defense of herself. "Underlying violence to enfore societal behavior." ;-)

And it tweren't self-defense. I instigated it based on their behavior.

I am scared to death of men in a lot of situations.

And that is simply wrong. Which is the "other" part of the argument. You should never have to be scared to death of any man.

Get it?

Like your example of the buttmunches that gave you a hard time growing up. If I was in skool with you at the time that would've never happened. Period. Whether I knew you or not if I witnessed that type of behavior. If I did know you then and you came to me with the problem it would've gone away. Instantly. "Underlying threat of violence to enforce societal behavior."

Why is it I like to be called, "Honey" by my favorite Waffle House waitress? Talk about your double standards and men being from Mars! Heh!

Cass:

It isn't only bad people who are sometimes unfair. I say that to you not as a last resort, but because I have faith in your decency. It's part of a discussion with someone I already respect, not someone I think needs to be "fixed."

As for resting your case, I think I was trying to conceed the point and ask for help. :)

I realize that's unusual behavior for me, so I can understand how you might have missed it. :)

But yeah, I'm talking about bad women, not good ones. Good ones you don't have to worry about -- they're good because they want to be. You can dispute with them all day and night. Women like that are one of the great joys of life, or at least my life; many of my best friends, over the years, have been women like that.

The bad ones are apt to hate me no matter what I do, but I want to look beyond that. I want to look for ways to deal with them that doesn't weaken the example I want to set for younger men, doesn't give other women (who are probably not bad) a false-positive on male chauvanism that might make them feel uncomfortable even though they aren't the target, and doesn't weaken the rule against using violence towards women. Just walking away -- cutting them out of the herd, as JHD says -- is what I've been doing, with a polite but firm rebuke at the limit (you say I'm harsh when I do that; believe me, I get a lot more harsh than you've ever seen :) ; you want something more.

I'm willing to talk about how I can do more, as long as these concerns are addressed.

Cass,

I think you've nailed the problem right there:
"Therefore, any rational actor weighing the odds ought to look at the situation and conclude that it isn't really all that reasonable to treat women in a radically different way (i.e., refusing to hold them accountable for fear of that .01% of the time it "might" lead to violence) on account of something that isn't statistically likely to happen."

Rational, reasonable, statistically likely... these are words of logic. But men DO perceive confrontations as potential violence. I mean that. I am a fairly passive guy. In my life I've only been in a handful of fights, and I tend to be more of a peacemaker. However, interpersonal conflict DOES fire off the fight or flight mechanisms. I've had disagreements with co-workers in my office environment where I've had the adrenaline start to flow, the heart begins to race, and that "smell of blood" that I always seem to get when a fight's about to start appears. Now there's no way in hell I'm about to start a fist-fight about which team's responsiblity it is to handle a particular project. But the key point is, my body DOES NOT KNOW. It reacts exactly as if I was about to fight. And in many cases, that prevents rational, reasonable thought.

And it is for that very reason that some of us will not verbally (even just verbally) confront a bad woman. Because it kicks off the fight-or-flight mode, and we've been raised NOT to use violence upon women. Even if it's not ACTUAL violence, Cass... it FEELS like it physiologically. And that's uncomfortable. Hell, I don't like confronting my wife when she's being unreasonable with someone else. But I have (because I feel a sense of responsibility for her actions). Even then, I have to approach it very carefully, or it feels like violence, and that's something I won't abide.

Call it misogynistic if you must, but I cannot stomach violence against women. But to answer Miss Ladybug's question "What if she starts a physical fight," I'd have to say I'd either withdraw, restrain her, or if all else fails, attempt to end the fight with as little force as required.

A woman confronting a vicious or dishonest man has more to fear from him because in that .01 percent of the time, he is bigger and stronger and she won't win the physical confrontation.

True, but the men present *would* respond with violence should that vicious or dishonest man choose that option. *That* is the threat of violence that Grim is talking about.

But I will not back down when I think that I am right about something and I have found that no 'threat of violence' is needed.

Not from you, because the threat of violence I just mentioned has already been ingrained that he dare not use violence against you.

However, If she is alone, I would not blame a woman for avoiding the issue at that point in time if she believes that proscription has not been sufficiently ingrained.

Even rapists do not pick on women who make eye contact with them, JHD. They don't want someone who looks like they will fight back. They go for the easy victim.

Right, because that eye contact sends the message *Threat of Violence* to the rapist. It says "I will fight back".

Damn, took me to long to read and respond, so I'm late... now I gotta catch up.