Villainous Company

I like being a woman and thus have no problems with men. I worked as an engineer for twenty years, 8 in Japanese company, and never had a problem getting promoted nor with sexism.

I'm sure if I had been born a man I would have embraced that too... probably would have been a Marine.

Short answer, I'd normally go with woman, simply because I think it'd be more fun to look in the mirror, but that's the Neanderthal in me. But honestly, I don't know. Both have advantages, and both have disadvantages.

Hold a gun to my head, I'd pick woman.

I think that if I got to remember everything I have done in this life, I'd like to be a man next time.

It has bothered me, all the times I've been told, "No, you can't do that because you're female" in my life. And there are absolutely things I've wanted to do that I can't do, either by biology or operation of law. So there is that. But I would not want to give up many of the experiences I've had as a woman. I think in many ways women have richer lives emotionally, and I'd hate to lose that.

On the other hand, I have felt constrained ever since I was a little girl by being female.

I HATED when I was a little girl and I wanted to go somewhere the boys went and I was told, "No, that's not safe for girls", or "Let the boys look out for you". What crap. I lied, more than a few times, in order to go places and do things I wanted to do, but I found that incredibly demeaning and to this day I hate lying worse than anything for that reason. I will tell the truth even when it hurts me because it hurts my pride worse to lie.

It made me angry when I was a girl when I was just as good as the boys as neighborhood sports (better than many of them, really, except for baseball which I unrepentantly sucked at). And most were glad to have me on their team because I got picked before many of the boys. But there were always boys who were mean just because I was a girl and would hit harder or play dirty just to try to get you to cry or quit. And that pissed me off. The only fistfight I ever got into was with an Italian boy who always picked on me for being a girl and wanting to play with the group of boys in our neighborhood. He was so mean and he was bigger than I was and I hated his guts. And he picked on my little brother, too.

And it bothers me when people attribute things that are (to me) just self respect to feminism. I think men are particularly prone to that. They will label the very same actions they applaud in a man as "feminism" in a woman. Yet they would never respect a man for not standing up for himself.

I think I will go to my grave not understanding this. Women have to walk such a fine line in life.

I respect a woman's traditional role. I lived it for most of my adult life. But I truly am glad women have some choices now, too. I wish I had had some of those choices. I don't think I would have chosen differently. But I love that young women don't have to push so hard to have a career or an education. I also think they need to be honest with themselves about what they DO want in life, just as men do.

There are always trade-offs. Always. For men, and for women. Men give up a lot to support their families, and so do women if they choose to stay home and raise their kids. Society should honor both choices and the ones in between, too to the extent that people live up to their responsibilities. In the end, that's all that truly matters. Anything else is really none of anyone's business.

Long response:

Ok, you brought up a LOT of stuff that touched on my life, so I figured I'd contribute. I never had any problem with the idea of being a stay at home husband... until I had no choice. After my wife and I were first married, I left the Army, finished college and got my first job. Within a year I was out of work (the company was losing money and IT was an expendable resource). For nine months my life consisted of house work, yard work, and looking for a job. And I hated every minute of it. What I thought being a house-husband meant bore no relation to reality. I wouldn't do it again for anything.

But then later, the roles were reversed. Shortly after taking the job I currently hold, my wife's health took a nose-dive and she's been unable to work since. I'm now the bread-winner for the family, and I must say I could take or leave it. My masculinity was not threatened when my wife out-earned me, nor do I feel muy macho now that I earn all the income. Sure, more income would be nice, but it's not an option right now.

And I think it goes to what you mentioned specifically Cass. Respect. My wife respected me when she was the sole earner, and she respects me now that I am. Our self worth is NOT based upon our income. Nor is the worth I have for her, and vice versa, based upon our income.

The really unfortunate thing is we wanted to have kids, and medically, that's not really possible anymore. Adoption is too expensive, and that pretty much is the only two ways (legal ways at least) I'm aware of having children. So sadly, we're not upholding our end of the reproduction deal. Sorry. :(

I don't think I could stay home unless there were kids to take care of, Mike. Just taking care of the house was never enough to keep me occupied. Even when the kids were around, I always had other projects: I took in extra work, I did volunteer work, I had other interests. My husband and I have discussed my quitting work now, but if I ever did that, I'd have to do something. I couldn't just do housework.

I'd go mad :p I always sort of assume that is combined with other things, but then that's just me.

When I was a housewife and mother, I never watched soap operas. I was very busy 24/7.

On the other hand, I have felt constrained ever since I was a little girl by being female.

See, now that's interesting to me, Cass. I mean obviously I'm aware that discrimination was more rampant and blatant the further back you go (and NO that is NOT a snide comment on your age, or anyone elses :P ), but I figured you were closer to my sister's generation (you're certainly too young to have been in my mother's). And my sister has never (to my knowledge) had problems with gender based discrimination. She's a pretty high muckty-muck in the State Department, which thrilled our grandmother to no end. Shortly before she died, she told my sister how very proud she was that my sister was a diplomat. Our grandmother had wanted to be in the State Department when she was a young woman, but that simply was not done in the 1930's. She could be a secretary or some such, but never an actual diplomat.

But times are vastly different. And were even for my mother. She had the option to be an officer in the Army when my father was a 2nd LT. She had just finished her degree in Occupational Therapy and the Army had a shortage. They offered to commision her as a Captain (and would then outrank my dad). And remember, she was born before WWII.

So I guess what I am saying is that it suprises me that you faced those attitudes as a little girl, but honestly, I do believe times have changed. Oh sure, kids may still be mean, but actual discrimination and "you can't do that because you're a girl"? I doubt there's too much of that around any more.

I don't think I could stay home unless there were kids to take care of, Mike. Just taking care of the house was never enough to keep me occupied. Even when the kids were around, I always had other projects: I took in extra work, I did volunteer work, I had other interests. My husband and I have discussed my quitting work now, but if I ever did that, I'd have to do something. I couldn't just do housework.

I'd go mad :p I always sort of assume that is combined with other things, but then that's just me.

When I was a housewife and mother, I never watched soap operas. I was very busy 24/7.

It wasn't boredom per se. I mean there WERE occasions (few and far between) when I didn't have housework, and I had exhausted all my avenues for job hunting for that day/week. Generally speaking, I read or went online. Boredom wasn't a problem. It was the endless repetition of housework that never seemed to accomplish anything that drove me mad.

I'd sweep and mop the kitchen, and it'd need to be done again within a few days. I'd was the dishes, and they'd just need to be washed again the next night. I'd mow the lawn, and the grass just kept coming back. I'd clean the bathrooms, a week later you'd never have known I'd cleaned them. It was the constant losing fight with entropy I couldn't stomach.

I can't imagine wanting to be a woman. I love women, and enjoy them as friends and companions, but I am what I am and I like it that way. I think if I were given ten thousand more lives, I would choose to be a man every time.

Of course, the example posits a kind of soul that is neither male nor female, but has the potential to be both. It's just choosing a body to ride in. That makes the example questionable to me; I see no reason to believe that our souls are sexless, and can opt to be male this time, and female the next.

That position is sound for a Hindu, or a Theosophist, but it doesn't work well for most of Christianity. 'God created them male and female,' not both or neither; and when we die and are raised for judgment, we are taught that it will be in a perfect form of our body, not as some sexless, disembodied being.

Good point about the demographics issue. It's clear that is the real nut of the whole problem. We've achieved a society where everyone, male or female, can do what they want... but we haven't figured out how to achieve a society where what they want is to make the sacrifices involved in having children.

That's a problem, and it's a very big problem.

Yep :)

re: 'discrimination'. Everyone faces discrimination. FWIW, I have faced little of it other than when we were first married, when I was *always* asked on job interviews who was going to watch my baby while I worked (Illegal, but what are you going to do about it? Funny...my husband was never asked who was watching the baby). I had to move out of the apartment I lived in with my husband, sublet our home, and move in with my parents in another state to get hired, just so I could answer an illegal question to the satisfaction of these jerks. Nice. I've never forgotten that, though conservatives like to gloss that sort of thing over now that it doesn't happen so often.

Anyway, that's a strange word. I don't mean that in the sense of being a victim. But I do think that it still exists (often for good public policy reasons) even now, though to a far lesser degree.

For instance, say I wanted to become an artillery officer in the Marines. Can't do it. Period. I'm a woman. I can't be an infantry officer either. By law. So there you have it. That is de facto employment discrimination even if I happen to agree with it 100%.

Years ago when my husband went overseas for a year, there was a job on base I wanted to apply for. It was running the base alcohol rehab center. I could have done that job. You would have thought that I had said I wanted to take off my clothes and run naked down Broadway. What I found interesting wasn't the argument, "Hey there are better jobs."

No, the argument was, "Your husband is overseas, if you take that job the mean sailors will pick on you."

*Sigh*

Likewise, I wanted to be a Va. State trooper when we were first married. Again, the argument was (and keep in mind that I have been married to a Marine for 29 years): If you are killed in the line of duty, your children will be traumatized.

OK. So children are not traumatized when their Dads are killed in the line of duty? Oh, but you see children are closer to their mothers and it would be all my fault and why would I take such a risk? To be clear, I am not laying this on my husband. There were many people in my life making this argument, and I was very young (and arguably foolish).

Again, *sigh*

All right. I bought off on that one because when you love your kids, even unborn ones, you don't take a chance with their welfare. But if I had a dime for everything I have not done in my life merely because I am female on that type of argument, I'd be independently wealthy. That is biology talking, and it is a difficult force to argue with if you have kids. But as I said before life is full of tradeoffs and I made my decision.

I can't imagine wanting to be a woman. I love women, and enjoy them as friends and companions, but I am what I am and I like it that way. I think if I were given ten thousand more lives, I would choose to be a man every time.

Well of course you do! :) That is not surprising in the least, Grim, because in the world you write about, women will never have any kind of freedom or independent scope for their actions free of men. So why would anyone WANT to be a woman?

This is what I often think, reading your descriptions of what you call chivalry. In the world you describe, women are dependent on men. Why would you want to give up your freedom for a life in which your very security depends upon the goodwill of someone else? I wouldn't.

We've achieved a society where everyone, male or female, can do what they want... but we haven't figured out how to achieve a society where what they want is to make the sacrifices involved in having children.

That's a problem, and it's a very big problem.

I couldn't agree more, Grim. You've nailed it.

I would elaborate upon that:

We've achieved a society where everyone, male or female, can do what they want... but we haven't figured out how to they can do what they want and still raise children responsibly.

That's a problem, and it's a very big problem.

And it's still, by virtue of biology, a bigger problem for women than it is for men.

I'm sorry if you've interpreted anything -- let alone everything -- I've written in that way. I've never opposed women having freedom or independent scope of action.

And I'm less discriminatory than you are yourself, if you indeed oppose women being artillery officers as you say above. I used to feel that way, but observing women soldiers in Iraq, I've decided that was wrong.

In no way am I against women being free or independent. I like the ones who are far better than the ones who want to be dependent. Hey, judge me by the company I keep. ;)

I do believe that men are genuinely different from women, down to the bone -- and even deeper, to the soul. I think that men will want to protect women they love, and that this is normal and natural.

I never meant to suggest that women shouldn't also be able to protect themselves, however; and I've taught more than one how to use a gun, to be sure she could. I've also taught some to drive, who had previously been too scared to learn, so they could get out and experience things the world had to offer.

Sovay, for instance; she was 26 at the time, and too scared to drive. So I taught her how, and the next thing I know she's going off to Ohio to work for Presidential campaigns for idiot liberal candidates. Not what I'd have wanted, but am I sorry I taught her? Not at all -- I'd much rather she be free to follow her heart than bound up by fear.

By the way, men do occasionally make sacrifices for their families, too -- even in the job sphere. I had an offer to got to Africa this month. I really wanted to go, but it was a three-month contract, and I'd just walked back in the door from a six-month contract in Iraq; and I'd been home a week from the Philippines before I went to Iraq. I felt like my wife and son deserved a bit more of me than to have me leave them again right away, so I turned down a job I really wanted.

I had another offer last week, for something I wanted to do that would have put me back in Iraq for a year. Again, I turned it down to be with my family, because I know they need me right now.

I've got regular offers to do things if I'm willing to move back to DC, but I don't do that either. I want to give my parents the chance to be with their grandson while they're still around to do it, and I want to give him the chance too. That means being in Georgia. So I've taken far-less paying positions that allow telecommuting, or done without work and lived off what savings I've had and what I could scrape up locally, in order to keep the family together.

There's a lot of stuff I could be doing out there, if it weren't for the family and the need to be tied down. But the family is what matters most. Even for a man like me.

I'll go again, someday, on one of these jobs. I have duties to my country as well as my family. But don't think this is quite as one sided as it may appear. Men do make sacrifices, in their careers and otherwise, for their wives and children. At least good men do.

An interesting discussion and one where, as you say, there are pros and cons with either choice. Of course, the original premise, that you would be born in the US (or other western country for that matter) makes the decision more difficult. Having lived in Africa and Asia, I would never choose to be a woman, or at least a poor woman, in either of those continents. They live difficult, backbreaking lives full of heartache and abuse. A woman I knew in Africa worked day and night and endured the loss of two of her children to illness (my guess to AIDS, but no one did an autopsy). Her husband was an unemployed, drunken lout who routinely beat her and wasted her money. How she made it through the day amazed me.



But back to the premise being born in the US, the pros to being a man are more freedom (I think nothing of going out late at night alone, or eating out alone, etc) and a self autonomy that can perhaps called selfish -- e.g. I can think of myself first and not feel immediately guilty. Lastly, I'm guessing living through the menstrual cycle must be a real drag. Not having to go through that for 40-50 years is a real advantage. A disadvantage of being a man is the constant testing -- grades in school, sports prowess, which university you go/went to, sexual conquests, better job, better lawnmower, it goes on and on. And if you don't measure up to male and female expectations you're considered weak, useless, less than masculine. Once you hit 18 you can't hide behind mommy/daddy/husband like women can. Also, you really don't have a choice, you have to work -- as Tim Allen said, women today have loads of choices as far as work or home is concerned. A man's choice is work or prison.



Now weighing the pros and cons, if I had to choose, I would choose, in order: attractive woman, attractive man, plain man, plain woman. While it's no picnic being a plain man, it must be doubly difficult being a plain woman. I've always envied pretty women who were able to pick and choose who they wanted to be with and as a man I find being the sexual pursuer to be difficult. Again, I've never experienced it (being a leaning to plain man), but it must be amazing to walk into a room and have every member of the opposite sex be attracted to you. Is that the case Cassandra?



Putting aside sex, there is much to be said about a woman's emotional advantage over men -- being able to express and feel emotions and not bottle them up until they explode. I also envy the closeness my wife and her best friend has. While I've and many male friends, they just acquaintances in comparison. (On the other hand, there is much to be said for male bonding. Some of my best memories are of the intense closeness I felt being in an all male unit in the military. But, only if you "pulled your weight." One slip up or show of weakness and you found yourself outside looking in.)



So, to answer the question, I would chose to be a middle to upper middle class, attractive (but not too attractive) American woman in my next life, more out of curiosity than any conviction of which is best/worst.

Grim, The Hammer. Nails the problem.

Actually, as individuals, we have figured out "how", it's just that many people narcissistically resist making choices that don't maximize their own supposed immediate gratification.

Immediate gratification vs. postponed gratification.

But raising my sons never quite seemed like some kind of deferred gratification, to me or my wife.

Every age of their lives has brought some new wonder, something new to see, and a different pleasure in watching them grow.

Sure, I kinda wish they were still the little guys that ran around the beach on Lake Michigan those years ago at the foot of Little Sable Lighthouse. That was a golden day that will never come back. But we enjoy the NOW. It's here, and won't come again.

So I think it is self-centered (inward looking)vs. outward looking.
Wretchard at the Belmont Club was writing something similar about this, in the context of Good and Evil a few days ago. In an introductin to a version of "Paradise Lost", C.S. Lewis wrote about the difference between Man (Adam) and Satan (Lucifer).
Adam wanted to know things, explore the world, look at the heavens. Even as a fallen creature, he looked outside himself to understand and apprehend the world.
Lucifer only was concerned about all the "wrongs" done to him, how he should have ruled in Heaven; he had seen Heaven, and the universe, the world and now Hell. But it was all about him.
We all struggle with the notion of how much of our lives "belong to us", and how much we owe 'others'. As a parent, you owe EVERYTHING to your child, until they can take care of themselves in the world. Implicit in that is your growth as a mature human being. Which might explain the falling birthrate in some cultures, and the philosophy of self-absorbtion that it implies.

But I couldn't see myself as a woman. I guess I just too self-centered to think THAT far out of the box. :D

Viva la difference!

I guess I over did it on the line breaks. But it didn't look like that when I previewed it...

Everyone faces discrimination. FWIW, I have faced little of it other than when we were first married, when I was *always* asked on job interviews who was going to watch my baby while I worked (Illegal, but what are you going to do about it? Funny...my husband was never asked who was watching the baby). I had to move out of the apartment I lived in with my husband, sublet our home, and move in with my parents in another state to get hired, just so I could answer an illegal question to the satisfaction of these jerks. Nice. I've never forgotten that, though conservatives like to gloss that sort of thing over now that it doesn't happen so often.

Frankly, I'm horrified at this. First of all, that you (knowing what I know of you from this blog) did not rise up indignantly and rightfully call them on their rudeness and breach of law. And secondly that you stated the standard response "Illegal, but what are you going to do about it?" Now please do not misunderstand. I am not berating you, I am merely shocked. And to answer the question, "what are you going to do about it?" I'd have to go with my gut and say 'report em'.

If some employer were stupid enough to ask me my religious beliefs, ethnic background, or similar off limits question, I'd report their behinds to the EEOC in a heartbeat. I don't need a job so badly as to condone unlawful behavior. Mind you, I have no children. So clearly the pressures are not nearly so great on me as they were for you. Which is why I specified I was not judging you specifically, Cass. Circumstances make fools of us all. But yeah. That's revolting that they did that to you.

RE: Women in combat arms. Personally, I have no problem with it as long as they can shoulder the same burden as a male soldier. And this is where I see the biggest problem. I've known male soldiers who could pass the PT test who probably were poorly suited to combat arms. Air Assault qualification required a 12 mile ruck march with a mere 25 lbs in your pack and weapon. The modern infantryman carries over 85 lbs of gear. If a man or woman can shoulder that burden and operate in that environment, I don't care what their plumbing is. But the problem as I see it is that the pressure would be to allow female soldiers to live up to different standards to qualify. Don't believe me? Look at the current PT test requirements. Women have to do less than half the push-ups, fewer sit-ups, and can pass the 2 mile run with times that I could complete at a speed walk. That is as of 1997 at least. If things have changed, I am unaware.

So first, they'd need a unified standard that both men and women would need to meet to qualify for combat arms. Yes I know women are physiologically different than men, but some men would fail to meet those requirements, and some women would pass just fine. Physiology is not universal anymore than any generalization is always accurate. Second, allow no waivers. Either you qualify according to those standards, or you don't. If those two elements are adhered to, I don't give a rat's patootie about any other distinction between the genders.

"...less than half the push-ups..."

This has to do with upper body strength (UBS). If I remember the numbers correctly, the 90th percentile for women on UBS is the same as the 50th percentile for men. Thus, only the top 10% of women can compete with men who are average. Average men rarely become paratroopers, so...

One might reasonably offer a standard that was calibrated to the job -- the 85 pounds and heat, etc. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a push-up standard, or UBS-linked.

Now, understand that an "artillery" officer these days is highly likely to be doing something other than artillery. There is far less need for artillery on a COIN battlefield than in a major combat operation.

As a result, artillery has been folded into a larger context of what is called "Fires & Effects," which can include things like information operations, foreign internal defense (i.e., training foreign police and military for their missions), public affairs, and other things. For example, the 215th Fires Brigade -- formally an artillery unit -- controls FOB Delta in al Kut, Iraq. Their mission is not to provide fire support to anyone, but to support the development of Iraqi security forces and governance in the area.

Women offer a lot of advantages in such units, especially in Muslim countries where there are hard gender roles. It's not a question of whether or not they can do the job; often, it's a job that can't be done without them.

"Why would any sane person allow anyone else to tell them what a real man or real woman is supposed to look like?"

Yes! There's the answer I like to the 'Real Man/Woman' question. If you have to let other people define that, then it's time to do some soul searching.

In regards to being a man or a woman in another life -- I must admit curiosity. But quite frankly, I like who I am and am pretty confident that I'd like whoever I'd be if I were someone else elsewhere.

Having said that, though... I will emphasize I really DO like being a man. There are an amazing amount of benefits that are impossible to list completely here -- somewhere in the middle being able to write my name in snow, and another being able to open jars, and up towards the top the general thrill and love of women.

I did object, Mike. The first time that happened, I was so surprised that I just sat there for a few seconds, and then said, "My husband will be taking care of the baby... and oh by the way, would you ask him this question if he were sitting here?" The interviewer didn't even bat an eye.

But I think you have to understand this was 1979, I was 19 years old in a semi-rural area with a saturated job market and I was applying for minimum wage jobs. What are you going to do? Get a lawyer and sue when you are living below the poverty level? (and we were). Employers know you can do the math. There is no use rolling a rock uphill. I thought it over and went somewhere where I was more competitive.

You can be horrified about all you want, but that sort of thing went on all the time. It wasn't a big deal. I didn't get my butt up on my shoulder, but at the same time it definitely colors my view of how conservatives in general talk about feminism. I was just lucky I had parents who were willing to help me out for a year.

Sure, now that a lot of laws have been passed that put employers on notice that this kind of BS won't fly conservatives love to rail against feminists, and it's definitely true the pendulum has swung too far the other way. But they forget how things used to be.

I am always a bit distrustful of extremists arguments, whether they are found on the far left or far right. I know that doesn't always make me too popular around here, but on the other hand I pay the light bill :p

Well...frankly, I couldn't plow through the entire entry, nor the many lengthy responses which, on skimming, brim with thoughtful insight.

I, as a man, would certainly choose to be a woman next time, as long as I had a killer bod. Then I'd spend all my time looking at myself and (EXPLETIVE DELETED) repeatedly until I was exhausted. Then I'd do it again. It's grrreat to be a girl!

Kevin, I agree,

I think I'd probably *like* the experience of being a woman better than being a man.

It's just that if I had it to do over again, I would want some variety and the chance to do things I haven't had a chance to do. I get bored easily and don't see why I'd want to do the same thing twice - that's all :)

I also think it's really interesting that few men want to try being women. I really think that despite what a lot of men say, it's because you all do realize you'd have less freedom to do what you want. I think being a woman, while more rewarding (IMO) in some ways, is a more limited kind of life for biological and societal reasons.

Grim once again hits the nail squarely when he says that some men pass on career opportunities for the sake of something more important, that of family.

During the first three years of my marriage to my dearest Walkin' Boss, I lived out of a suitcase in hotel rooms boarding flights easily 60-80%+ of the time. I sought relief by changing employers and spent the next 8 years as the district's will-not-say-no guy. Finally I decided that my oldest daughter, six by then, ought to know her dad and so I opted to turn down career advancement opportunities 3 times, which was equal to 3 strikes in that particular advancement opportunity pool. The long/short of it was that more 15+ hour days, 6 days a week did not fit into the family model I had in my head and wanted for my little tribe.

Do I feel that I sacrificed anything meaningful? Not at all. We have a hit this point in space with a good deal more fulfillment than we ever would have imagined when Walkin' Boss and I wed. So I would say that it is quite the opposite.

"We all struggle with the notion of how much of our lives "belong to us", and how much we owe 'others'. As a parent, you owe EVERYTHING to your child, until they can take care of themselves in the world. Implicit in that is your growth as a mature human being. Which might explain the falling birthrate in some cultures, and the philosophy of self-absorbtion that it implies."

Now if I were forced to make a prenatal choice of sex, I would have to go with male... It's all that I can claim to know, and I am quite content with my knuckle-dragging lot in life. And after seeing what Walkin' Boss has endured, giving birth to children, making the spot where we live a home, making so many sacrifices of her own for all of us among so many other wonders of her nature, I think I would have to admit that I do not believe I am man enough to be a woman. Of course, at my age I can admit that without compunction, not feeling compelled to convince anyone of the rightness of my views or shoulder any guilt not of my own making. =8^}

Grim,

as I said, I recognize that women (in general) do not have the upper body strength that men (in general) have. I also am aware of the exceptions to that (men who don't and women who do). And that's exactly my point. I do not object to allowing the women who do have the upper body strength to perform AS WELL AS a qualified man to perform the same job. But if they do not have the UBS to perform to the same standard, then they are not qualified to perform the same job. That's not sexist or discriminatory (except in the positive sense), it's just simple logic. If a man who lacked the UBS to load 155mm artillery shells is placed in that position, he will be a drag on the unit. Yes, he CAN perform other jobs that do not require that UBS, and my point is, that he should be doing one of those jobs rather than the one that requires it. As should a woman. Plumbing and general physiology should not be a factor. If you can lift the shells all day then you're qualified. If you can't, you're not. And that's all I'm asking for.

I am completely aware that especially in the Middle East there are jobs that our men cannot do specifically because of their gender (searching female suspects being among the most common). And I also have zero problems with women performing those roles. But again, that's not really the job of an artilleryman or infantry soldier. I know that they do it anyway, but that's properly an MP job. What I AM against is the idea that because an infantryman (or woman) might be pressed into a duty they're not trained for but have to do anyway that you'd allow a man or woman normally unqualified for the primary job (i.e. being an infantryman) to be in that role. To put it more simply, you don't put someone into a job they're unqualified for simply because they're qualified for a duty that job MIGHT have to perform. It's not the infantry's primary mission, so all I ask is that the soldiers placed into the infantry are identically qualified for that mission.

As for the fact that they're there anyway, that's the same reason I don't have a problem with women being in combat arms. Not currently being allowed in combat arms hasn't kept women out of combat, so the distinction is moot. But I still think that only the most physically qualified (regardless of gender) should be in the most physically demanding roles the military has. Mind you, I think several 'combat arms' professions could be completely exempt from physical requirements. And you've already seen some of that with female Apache pilots and Blackhawk pilots. An Abrams driver or commander probably doesn't require a whole lot of UBS (though a loader probably does). A Bradley or Stryker crewman probably doesn't need a lot of UBS (but an infantryman/cav scout probably does). An arty fire-control officer isn't a strength intensive role, but a mortar crewmember would be. It just depends.

FWIW, I oppose women being in the combat arms because I have not seen any evidence that women (by and large, and we don't make decisions like this based on individual cases) can hack it physically.

A woman needs to be able to lift very heavy things over her head to be on a gun line. In infantry, few women can carry the gear needed. My husband was in recruit training for 3 years. I watched women get stress fractures. Before that I was an unabashed believer that women could do these jobs. Now, I'm not.

How does a combat unit deal with privacy issues when they're out in the field for months on end? Showers? Menstruation in the field? (sorry, you asked for it) Pregnancy? With fraternization? This is introducing a whole new burden that isn't needed.

Sorry Grim. While I definitely have seen individual women who can do the job, I don't think the benefit to the service outweighs the hassles of accommodating women in the combat arms.

But I think you have to understand this was 1979, I was 19 years old in a semi-rural area with a saturated job market and I was applying for minimum wage jobs. What are you going to do? Get a lawyer and sue when you are living below the poverty level? (and we were). Employers know you can do the math. There is no use rolling a rock uphill. I thought it over and went somewhere where I was more competitive.

I REALLY was trying to avoid making you think you needed to explain Cass. I DO certainly understand that circumstances are different now than then and I even pointed out that you had different pressures then than I have now. PLEASE please please understand that my being horrified is because this happened and that the Cass of 2008 would probably take none of this nonsense. But because you were Cass of 1979 it was different. Gawd. Now I feel terrible. :(

You're entitled to a different opinion, Cass; no need to apologize. I only mention it because it's emblematic of a broad misunderstanding that exists in our society. I've often written in defense of men, and their natures; but never against women.

Yet our society holds this to be a zero-sum game, and a power struggle. A man who defends men is presumed to be opposed to womens' independence or freedom; yet in this case, I am in fact in favor of greater independence and freedom than you are. I've often encouraged women to develop greater independence and freedom, and to overcome fears.

I don't believe that the reason that men don't want to be women is that they 'believe it would restrict their freedom.' I believe they don't want to be women because they are men. Down to the soul.

That's the way it's supposed to be. There's nothing at all in that fact that should be anti-woman; the best sort of man is very pro-woman. But he's also very much a man, and couldn't be anything else.

But I never suggested men don't make sacrifices, Grim. In fact, if you go back and read what I did say, you'll find that I specifically said men DO make sacrifices :p

There are always trade-offs. Always. For men, and for women. Men give up a lot to support their families, and so do women if they choose to stay home and raise their kids.

I didn't say you want to limit women, Grim. But you seem unable to see that the practical consequence of your world view *does* limit them. If men are unable and/or unwilling to deal with women for whatever reason (it doesn't really matter what their reasoning is, even if it springs from the best motives) in the same way they would deal with another man (i.e., as full and equal business partners) the practical implication of that is that women will not be trusted by men and men in general, regardless of what you may do in particular, will avoid dealing with them.

If men believe a woman will go running to her brothers and father at the first sign of trouble, who would ever want to deal with a woman? This is little different from the tribalism of the Middle East - a man, in dealing with a woman, is always dealing with unseen 'silent partners' who may be treacherous, dishonest, or violent. No one in his right mind would contract on that basis.

My husband pointed that out the first time I brought that up to him, and I did not even have to say it. And he does not even completely agree with me on this topic, yet he saw the practical implications of the argument, all the same.

*******

Ed, I agree with you 100%. I can't say I know what it's like to have every man in the room attracted to me :p

I was lucky enough to be attractive enough to get the men I wanted, but not so good looking that I had to constantly fighting off too much unwanted attention or feel that guys only wanted to date me for my looks. When I was very young I wished to be beautiful.

By the time I was about 15, I realized it was better not to be beautiful. Shallow men pursued you only for your looks but didn't care about you as a person. It was better not to be quite as pretty because that forced you to develop something that might keep a guy interested later in life. Looks don't last and not all men are shallow :) Guys, I've found actually, are really pretty nice people. They want a woman who makes them feel happy and aren't as picky as women seem to think about looks.

How does a combat unit deal with privacy issues when they're out in the field for months on end? Showers? Menstruation in the field? (sorry, you asked for it) Pregnancy? With fraternization? This is introducing a whole new burden that isn't needed.

Privacy would be the first to go. Currently there is none anyway. At basic training I shared six showerheads with 29 other guys. Not a whole lot of privacy available. They'd either have to get over it or get out.

Menstruation in the field is also (please forgive me) a red herring. Women deal with it currently, and I really hope our big, strong, brave men could get over the fact that their battle buddy might be unwounded but still bleeding. It's an inconvenience for the woman, sure. It shouldn't be any more of a burden than it currently is.

Pregnancy. Same same. I'd have to believe it'd put you in an undeployable status, and really it probably might need to be a requirement that the female soldier be on Depro-Provera or some similar long term birth control to maintain her MOS. But that's honestly the trickiest one of the bunch, merely because you're talking about making individual soldiers able to pull themselves out of combat by getting pregnant. But that could be addressed as another form of self-inflicted wound and thereby disciplined (sorry for the comparison, but it's what I got to work with).

Fraternization. Well, it happens currently anyway. I don't see how putting women in a combat arms unit would be any different than putting her in an MI unit. It's a violation of the UCMJ either way. So I don't see why it should be any different there.

And again I disagree that it's a new burden. It's just a burden that currently exists everywhere else in the military. I dunno. The Air Force and Navy seem to have a pretty good handle on it.

Antiquated gender rules

Very kind of you, but we are *not* PC. You have our permission to refer to us as an "ol' man"...

How does a combat unit deal with privacy issues when they're out in the field for months on end? Showers? Menstruation in the field? (sorry, you asked for it) Pregnancy? With fraternization? This is introducing a whole new burden that isn't needed.



I strongly agree with Cassandra on women in combat arms for all the reasons she listed; and I think a man's innate nature to protect a woman would interfere, at least some of the time, with the kind of thinking that is required in combat.



I mean, how does a guy feel when the enemy holds a female soldier as a hostage? Some might say no different than if it were a male hostage, and perhaps that would be true some of the time. But what about the few times it would interfere with one's judgement?



Women have many things to offer in every part of life, including combat. However, that doesn't mean that our roles have to be identical to the roles of men in order to make important contributions.

Cass:

You are misremembering what I said. What I said was not that I would not deal with women; it was that I would not deal with bad women. I think I was very clear that one could "fully engage" good women, such as yourself.

Even as regards bad women, you convinced me that I might sometimes have to do so, the last time around; I've been trying to understand how I could reasonably correct bad women without running afoul of my own deeply held principles.

I am reasonably sure that there is no woman anywhere who has had to deal with me, who would say that my worldview limited her life. I have been told by many just the opposite: that they appreciated the encouragement, support and friendship that has let them do things they might have been afraid to try otherwise.

Now, it's true that I wouldn't trust a bad woman to be a fully equal business partner. But I wouldn't trust a bad man in that role, either. My reaction to the two might be different -- I might be combative towards the man, and merely distant (but polite) toward the woman -- but I'm not going to try to do business with either of them.

FWIW, I have faced little of it other than when we were first married, when I was *always* asked on job interviews who was going to watch my baby while I worked (Illegal, but what are you going to do about it? Funny...my husband was never asked who was watching the baby). I had to move out of the apartment I lived in with my husband, sublet our home, and move in with my parents in another state to get hired, just so I could answer an illegal question to the satisfaction of these jerks.

I'm aghast. Firstly, that you were asked, and secondly, that you moved in with your parents and sublet your apartment to get the job!?! Where the heck were you trying to get work? A nunnery?

I don't know how old you are but I'm 51 years old. I've worked since I graduated college, including through two pregnancies, and NO ONE (across three states) ever asked me who was going to watch my kids during an interview. I doubt it even crossed their minds: That was my *problem* to handle.

Once an interviewer kinda wondered aloud whether I planned on having more babies but the question was open enough to dance through (yes I got the job, and yes, I had my second baby working there). Honestly, sometimes, I would have liked it if my employers expressed more concern about who was going to watch my daughters when they asked me to work late but that's a different pickle we working moms face.

Grim, where did I ever say that not wanting to be female was "anti-woman"? Also, where did I suggest men should be anything but men? Or that you have written anything that is "against women"? I have no idea where you are getting this.

You are reading something into my words that is not there. Anywhere. I have no problem understanding what you have written.

What I think you don't understand is that if the world were the way you seem to want it to be, women wouldn't be free to do as they pleased because they would always have to act by proxy as they do in the Middle East. In a world where men don't feel free to deal with a woman honestly and openly, or to reprove her if she deals badly with them, women aren't prime movers. No one will deal with them. They will simply move around them and seek the person with the real power. A woman whose husband is deployed will not be able to contract business. They will just wait for her husband to come home. When he dies, they will freeze her bank accounts and wait for her father or brothers to step in as it was when I got married and women used to have to worry about this nonsense all the time.

A woman isn't being treated as an equal if a man does an end-run around her when she screws up; if he goes to her father or her brother as if she's a little girl who needs to be disciplined by proxy. She will never be seen as an equal if she runs to someone else every time she gets in trouble, or is seen to have done so.

My problem with so many of your examples is that you don't really deal with the negative cases, but those are often the ones that drive public policy. It isn't the contracts that go off without a hitch that make law, but the ones that are breached, where there is fraud or deception. You HAVE to deal with those cases, and women have to be dealt with equally under the law (and equally harshly) or injustice results to the detriment of all. And not to put too fine a point on it, but women themselves are often hardest hit (heh...) when the law shields them from their own misdeeds because then men view us as irresponsible malingerers who can't be trusted.

Surely you must see this? We can argue reasons all day long, but this is the practical consequence of your philosophy. I don't see it as anti-anything.

I just see it as the way it is.

Felicia, I've seen this happen in several states.

In California in the 1980's I saw another lovely situation: in an all female office, three women and a man were interviewed for a supervisor's position. All three women had kids. The man was single.

All three women currently worked in the department and had experience. The man did not and was younger to boot, so he had to be trained.

Guess who got the job? The man.

After he was hired, my direct boss told me that the deciding factor was that he did not have kids and it was felt that he would be "willing to work long hours because, you know, men do that while women are always asking for time off when their kids get sick".

Never having asked for a single sick day (yes, I was one of the applicants) I was floored.

After he started work, we noticed that every Friday he disappeared at 1 pm.

He was playing golf. Every Wednesday he took off early. No one knew why. No woman in that department EVER did that.

Whatever.

Just as a coda, about a month later some stomach bug was going around the office. I was so ill I left my desk and went to the lav where I spent about 15 minutes throwing up. I returned to my desk. An hour later, I was throwing up again. I never left work. The next day, I called in sick b/c I was still throwing up. I had my full 2 weeks of sick leave on the books.

Guess who called me into the office and warned me severely that I was "skating on thin ice" and that though he was not going to write it up because it wasn't breaking any official rules, my absence was not looked on kindly?

Prince Charming. Yeah.

The thing is, I don't attribute this to his being a man. I attribute it to his being a jerk. I've known men I couldn't stand and women I couldn't stand. People will use whatever lever they can find if they are of that type. That's why I don't buy into the whole sexism, woe-is-me argument. It's just another lever.

There are so many, though. Still doesn't make it right. But I get aggravated when people say it doesn't happen, because it does. I've seen women do it to men, too.

Cass:

A woman who isn't trustworthy isn't anyone's equal. She isn't supposed to be a 'prime mover.' She's untrustworthy.

I'm not talking about doing an end-run around her to discipline her. I'm not talking about going to her father or brother or husband. I'm saying, if she can't be trusted, I won't deal with her.

That's the only kind of woman I'm talking about not dealing with. You say I should reprove her; well, it may be that I'm reproving her by refusing to do business with her. In the market, in fact, that is the usual way to reprove someone.

I can understand your contention that a man in a corporate or military structure, who inherits a bad female subordinate, must do more. That doesn't apply to me, however; I do my business as an independent actor. I have neither bosses nor employees, and want neither.

For me, if you're a good person, we can deal. If you're a bad person, we won't. If you're a man, I might insult you if you betray your word in a contract; if you're a woman, I'll tip my hat on the way out the door. Either way, however, you've seen the last of my business.

That seems to me to honor the two principles I want to honor: equality of opportunity, but also genuine chivalry. Women have an equal chance at my business, but I am never rude to them.

Now, you say I should also sue them; but I sue equally, which is to say, never. I've been around the courts and the law too much to trust them. I cut my losses and do business with the honorable, only. A man (or a woman) may take advantage of me once, but only once; so I hope they got what they wanted the first time.

Cass, I lean towards Dr. Helen's perspective. You cannot overemphasize how much changes in the law have affected mens' behavior. When you can be deprived of life, liberty, and property by the force of the govt., this becomes more than merely a "social" change in behavior.

Having gone through a divorce a few years back, and having many friends and professional colleagues who have done so as well, the law does indeed play a man for a "chump" for getting married. Any other type of contract which imposes the type of one-sided penalties and obligations on a party would be deemed unenforceable on the grounds of unconscionability under normal business law or commercial law principles.

A wife nowadays can call a marriage quits anytime and for any reason she wants. Perhaps she likes nailing the pool boy, is tired of caring for a family, or simply needs to "find herself". She is instantly rewarded with at least half, and oftentimes far more, of the marital property. She also gets rewarded by all manner of "mommy welfare" which women's groups have been able to pass through the legislature.

First, she gets alimony so that she can "maintain the lifestyle to which she has grown accustomed". Oftentimes, this can equal or exceed the mortgage payment on the family home. She is not, however, required to provide any services to former husband to which HE may have grown accustomed (i.e. cooking, cleaning, etc.). Despite explicit statutory language saying there are to be no gender preferences in awarding child custody, the courts nevertheless routinely give mommy the kids. Usually, the rationale is something along the lines that daddy is such a good and successful earner, that he cannot devote sufficient time to proper childcare.

Then comes the child support. The state child support guidelines are so ridiculously inflated that daddy must provide 2 to 3 times the amount, per child, that even the most spendthrift families would provide a child in an intact marriage. Naturally, mommy has no obligation or responsibility to ensure that the money actually is USED for the child's benefit. This is just another backdoor way for mommy to have more party money, to buy a new wardrobe, or feed her coke habit.

So, let's recap. A "traditional" man who devotes himself to a successful career and family not only suffers all the traditional health consequences of stress, etc. associated with successful career men, but stands to lose most of his accumulated financial wealth, his family, his kids, and become a personal guarantor, perhaps for the rest of his life for the well-being of his former family. Indentured servitude indeed!

If, on the other hand, he is a "feminized" man then these negatives are reversed. With less work responsibilities and effort, he presumably has less pressure and stress, and can boost his health. Furthermore, because he has a non-demanding job flipping burgers, he might actually stand a chance at getting custody because of his copious free time (which presumably could be spent devoted to the children). Because he makes so little, alimony is litle to non-existent. Ditto child support. He never had much to begin with so losing the K-mart blue light special couch to his ex-wife is not a great loss.

Similar scenarios exist in the workplace where lack of feminization may force a "traditional" man to be subject to the Bataan Death March of sensitivity training by the PC Kommissars.

Conservatives have always been strong believers in Mills' "invisible hand" of the marketplace, as well as the unforeseen consequences of govt. intervention. For example, most conservatives would agree that raising taxes to confiscatory rates will negatively impact govt. revenues and the economy by causing massive tax avoidance and tax evasion by the public. Similar instances of public reaction are well-documented such as the rise of cigarette smuggling as cigarette taxes increase, etc. Why should social changes or reactions be any different? The changes in the law by the govt. making men indentured servants of women if they are foolish enough to get married has caused a similar reaction. Naturally, different men react in different ways, some give up and become feminized, others, like me, simply will not enter that trap a second time. None of this bodes well for the institution of marriage.

Well, if the same standard is applied I don't have a problem with that Grim.

I got the brother/father thing from something you said on the prior post about not feeling comfortable correcting a woman but feeling more comfortable saying something to a male relative. My point was (and remains) that I felt you were mixing the social mores with business ones.

While I completely understood the feeling, I also thought that it didn't make sense from a broader societal standpoint.

Women feel that way all the time in dealing with men at the office. It's just that we can't let that get in our way. We have to learn to set the personal feelings aside and work in a business context vs. a social context.

Cassandra, Wonderful post, but I hope the real "diamond" in this post doesn't get lost in all the other gems the post contains! I found this quote that really says everything that needs to be said:

The key is simple: mutual respect and support. If those two elements are present, everything else will fall into place.

I think that was Mike who said that, Cass. I'm sure I've never gone to any woman's brother to complain about her. :)

One of the disadvantages of being a man is that you don't get to wear pretty shoes.

Well, most of us, at least.

I always wonder why women get to wear outrageous clothes - things in reds and yellows, and things that require 3 handmaidens to get in and out of.

Women can wear skirts or pants, but not men. Unless you're a Scot, and even then, you'd better demonstrate an authentic brougue and have some skills with bagpipe and caber.

ONE OF YOU EEEEEEEVIL MEN SAID IT :P

"So..... that said, if you had it to do all over again, would you rather be born a man?

Or a woman? And why?"

If I go with woman, then I would also have to be a lesbian, preferably a Lindsey Lohan type lesbian, not an Ellen DeGeneres type!!! ;P

I always wonder why women get to wear outrageous clothes - things in reds and yellows, and things that require 3 handmaidens to get in and out of.

Oh, that is so true :p

I love clothes. And *pretty, high-heeled shoes*! And earrings! And make-up. And wispy, lacy little, to-die-for lingerie items! And ball gowns. And doing my hair.

Most of the time, of course, I can't be bothered with any of this stuff. But when I want to get dressed up, I want to get dressed up and I WANT MY HUSBAND TO LOOK AT ME!

I like being a man. I can't honestly seen where it has given me any advantages. I like women who are women. Unfortunately that hasn't given me any advantages either. Frankly either way I am sh*t out of luck.

I think there are probably as many advantages as disadvantages to being either male or female :p

I'm not sure either one is preferable, all in all.

As I said, if I had to chose one and only one, I'd want to be female.

If I could remember this life as a woman but had a chance to have another life, I'd want to try being a man. But that may well be because I see no reason to do the same thing twice!

Cass,

It was me, but to be fair, I was NOT advocating going to the woman's father/brother/husband. I was saying that was the OLD way of dealing with a badly behaving woman. Since a spouse/child/sibling was (and still is, let's admit it) a reflection on the other spouse/parent/other sibling, shaming that person into correcting the badly behaving woman's behavior was the acceptable means of correcting her (but really is no longer acceptable).

The major downside to being a woman as I see it is you'd have to date and marry men. We're hairy, lumpy, uncouth and gross. Women are soft, curvy, and nice to touch. I have NO clue why y'all are attracted to us, but thank god you are!

If I could choose, I'd be a man. I barely have to think twice. Some of the benefits would be:

No breasts. Sure, they're pretty, but really limiting if you have to haul them around 24/7. I can't run without a 30% lycra sports bra on top of a regular bra. It pretty much keeps me from doing anything that is really active.

No bras. Bras are better than no bras, but see above.

No menstruation. I think this should not need any explanation.

Angry response vs. Crying response. I really hate it that my first response to anger is tears. I am not a girly girl, and yet, I can't shake this. A guy gets mad, and he's an just seen as an asshole. A gal like me gets mad and starts trembling and blinking back tears, and she is seen as weak and unstable.

It's not like it's all bad being female. I have turned a room full of heads once in a while, and enjoyed that.

But I like man-type of work better than woman-type of work. I've worked in male-dominated fields for 25 years. Men, in my general experience, are more straightforward and less backstabbing (this perception is null with men in offices, btw).

I would have liked to work with my dad in excavation. Instead, when my brother went to college, he quit that work because he didn't want to do it by himself anymore. I wish I had spoken louder and told him I really did want to learn to run the bulldozer.

Amen, April. Amen :)

I enjoy the attention sometimes. Well OK. Lots of the time, though it can be annoying too. I don't like not being able to go into a bar and just sit and have a beer.

Just as guys don't like having the pressure to make the first move, there is nothing worse than that feeling of going all nervous FOR them when you have to find a way to turn an advance down without hurting someone's pride. Or worse, when someone won't take a polite hint and you don't want to be rude and they think you are playing hard to get, but you are not. You sympathize, because they don't know you and it's not always easy to read clues. But you wish people would just take you at face value.

And I really do not like it when some other woman's date or husband pays attention to you. That is rude and embarrassing, for you and for her, and there is no easy way to handle that except walking away as fast as possible. I have never understood why anyone would do that.

But most of all, this:

I really hate it that my first response to anger is tears. I am not a girly girl, and yet, I can't shake this. A guy gets mad, and he's an just seen as an asshole. A gal like me gets mad and starts trembling and blinking back tears, and she is seen as weak and unstable.

Is spot on.

Mike, we like men because you all are big and hairy and adorable and mostly confusicating. That is why we women worship men, and rightly so.

I find it interesting that all three of these women describe a universe in which men essentially have their maleness determined by the actions of women.

Of course they do. What's so interesting about that? Women do determine maleness, just not exclusively. But nothing you've quoted suggests any of the three posit such a position.

Men determine maleness for other men through standard Skinnerian processes of reward (respect, admiration) and punishment (insults, exclusion, physical force). But women reward and punish as well. And jokes to the contrary, the mating aspect (not just the sexual part) is one helk of a reward. Guys will generally try to be what women want them to be. I think ya'll have a lot more power in this than ya'll realize.

But to think that the actions of women have almost no consequences to the definition of maleness is, quite frankly, unsupportable.

I don't think they should have *no* consequences. But neither do I think they should (and I guess I disagree with you here, because I thought Melissa was advancing the notion that feminism had demoralized men to the point where they had essentially thrown their hands up and turned into women.

Not only do I not see any evidence of that, but I think that's kind of nonsense even if it were true. What kind of adult allows his whole motivation to come from other people?

Carrie and I were talking about this several weeks ago, Yu-ain. We hear the same crap come out of Family Services in the military. To hear these jokers, we're all delicate flowers who didn't have any freaking lives before our husbands came along and rescued us!

And when they deploy! Lawsie me! We just fall apart! We need psychological help to get through the day, because heaven forbid that we fix a washing machine (we can't dial up a repair man on our own! When our husbands are home, they come RIGHT HOME FROM WORK AND DO THIS FOR US!!!)

Yeah. Right :p

Come on. Adults need to take responsibility for their own happiness, first and foremost. Your wife does not determine your maleness. Yes, she is important to you. But if you "get" your self-esteem from her, there is something seriously wrong. We have *influence*, not control.

And that is all I ever want with my husband. And all any woman or man should ever seek.

What I find attractive (personally, and I cannot speak for other women) in a man is that he is not sitting around to see whether I approve of him. He is himself, and though he is always considerate and polite, he will do what he thinks is right because he has to look at his big hairy mug every morning in the mirror.

My husband really cares what I think of him, but he's not at all afraid to cross me when he thinks I'm full of beans. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I love him and trust his judgment implicitly. I admire his intelligence. And he grants me the same liberty of action.

I argue and fuss with Grim because I respect his intelligence and wit and I like sparring with him. He's a big old bear, and I hope he won't get mad at me when I sass him, but he seems to take it all in stride :p

Guys will generally try to be what women want them to be. I think ya'll have a lot more power in this than ya'll realize.

Actually Yu-ain, I'd tend to say any woman who doesn't realize she has this power isn't playing with a full deck :)

Women are *born* knowing this. Baby girls know it in their bones. They start practicin' on you all when they're about 8 months old. The really quick ones start at 6 months :p

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks so much for the link. I don't have the time to read this post and comments right now, but I can see just from skimming it that this is something I'll definitely be reading in the future when I do later posts on the same theme. It's great to see that my post has sparked so much discussion. Thanks again.

"I also think it's really interesting that few men want to try being women. I really think that despite what a lot of men say, it's because you all do realize you'd have less freedom to do what you want. I think being a woman, while more rewarding (IMO) in some ways, is a more limited kind of life for biological and societal reasons."

That may be the case, although I'm not sure how to really support that theory. I myself am merely curious -- sort of like I wonder what it would be like to own a Ferrari and drive it full speed on a lonely stretch of desert road. Frankly, the lack of freedom is only a minor issue however. The biggest one being...

... well... that it's just a bit too weird to fathom properly. But then, I'd be used to it if I was born that way I suppose.

I don't mean to be trite, but it sure would be nice to go out in the boat fishing, have a few beers and not have to go all the way back to shore to pee! (And no, the water is still to cold up here to jump in....it's all about being able to stand up and pee!)

I don't think it's fair to exclude race as well as gender. I'm not sure I'd want to be a woman (I know about being a man) but I do know that I would not want to be a black woman -- the current social system does not favor them being rational, behaving rational, or being treated rationally. The number of college-educated, intelligent males open to them is becoming seriously problematic, and, while there is social status for black-men-white-women, there isn't really much social status to encourage the other way -- white-men-black-women. So their options with regards to men are seriously bad.

OTOH, if you were going to be an oriental female (sorry, I refuse to use the idiotically wrong term "asian" -- I'm talking anyone whose ancestry is the region once called "The Orient" -- don't like it, then bite me), I'd say you're probably better off. I think that there is social status for white-male-oriental-female -- there is a certain "exotic" element there which black women don't get "in" on. So you would have more than your "standard" set of options as a female.

So race isn't something I'd want to be in the dark on if making the choice. If I can't pick race, then a male, by all means -- if nothing else, the plumbing is a lot simpler. If I could be aware of the race, I might consider being female.

I think, for females, the first 25 years is much easier. Then you have to deal with aging and the loss of desirability which applies. The time in which your place and position in society is most confusing, most problematic, is when you have it easiest.

Males, on the other hand, have a distinct advantage when 25-50, as that is their most desirable years. But that first 25 is a bitch. Even good looking guys still have to figure out how to "play the game", and that's not trivial.

ONE OF YOU EEEEEEEVIL MEN SAID IT :P

Now *that's* funny.

Because it's late here, I'll answer your question by quoting Grim. I've just made a couple of minor changes ;-)

I can't imagine wanting to be a man. I love men, and enjoy them as friends and companions, but I am what I am and I like it that way. I think if I were given ten thousand more lives, I would choose to be a woman every time.

My Dad use to have this saying. I assume he got it from someone else but he might have made it up. "The measure of a man is not what he is or does, but what he has given up for those he loves." I may not be very "manly" in the traditional view.

You make a lot of good points, OBH.

I remember thinking when I was a teenager that black girls and women had so much poise and style. I was always a little bit overawed by them in school, and I've always been surprised that you don't see more interracial couples nowadays than we do. That always seemed the most obvious answer to the race problem.

Re: age and gender, you're probably right, although I have to say that as I've gotten older I've gotten more self confident. I don't think I lacked confidence as a young woman, but as I've aged I have grown to accept myself. I may not be as pretty as I was when I was younger, but I am happier and I think that, in many ways, makes up for a lot.

Men do have it easier as they age because women (as a general class of people) aren't so obsessed with looks as men are. But I've found that many men, as they grow older, also mellow and become very kind. They accept that we all get older, and if someone makes them happy, I don't think they really see the little signs of aging so much in someone they love. That is why guys rock :p

ryan:

I think that's very manly.

I also think a man should choose wisely, or (as Dr. Helen pointed out) he can get taken to the cleaners. But that's just part of being smart.

I just hate it when people start going on as though marriage was dead (DON'T START IN ON ME, AFE :). Just because some marriages don't work out doesn't mean they all won't, or society is coming to an untimely end. And women get a raw deal in divorce too - I've seen it happen more times than I can count.

It's happened to many of my friend's daughters - they've married men who don't fulfill their responsibilities, and the courts don't make them, either. And their kids suffer for it. So divorce can hurt everyone. Good reason to work as hard as you can at your marriage. I'm not saying that to blame anyone, or point a finger. It's just common sense to avoid that train wreck if you possibly can, as I'm sure afe will agree. Sadly that is not always possible.

What kind of adult allows his whole motivation to come from other people? ... But if you "get" your self-esteem from her, there is something seriously wrong.

Careful here. A lot of abused people fall into this category and to suggest that they are intrinsically broken is dangerous ground.

I've known you long enough to know that's not what you really mean, but I think a better choice of words are in order.

/stern voice

All people seek validation, we are social creatures and do not exist independently. We develop our sense of what is and is not appropriate from those around us. Only later do we internalized it. And when doing what we consider to be right leads to consistently negative outcomes we do this amazing thing called learning and we adjust.

While The Unit may not sit around waiting to see if you approve, don't you think that all of those years of either approving or disapproving actions has had an effect? That is, afterall, what you were saying earlier about spouses learning from each other.

Society also has that same effect. While one might not think, specifically, "women won't approve", years and years of social approval/disapproval takes it's toll and people adjust.

AFE is not weak because he has allowed a woman/women "to determine" his course of action with regards to (re)marriage. He has simply seen enough evidence that the risk is not worth the reward. Why? Because gender-feminism has taught so many women that men are tools to be used. Tired of your husband, throw him away, take his stuff and get a new one.

So, in a sense, feminism has caused him to throw up his hands and quit. But this isn't really because he's letting them "control" his life. What he's done is given up on letting women have any influence at all.

Which is, strangly, what you are saying you want.

Thank you for the kind words, Cassandra. I admire you, also; I suppose everyone here understands that, but it's worth saying again.

Yu-ain:

1. A lot of abused people fall into this category and to suggest that they are intrinsically broken is dangerous ground.

I am not sure that abused people is the model we want to say is normal and desirable, is it? You confuse my talking about what I think the ideal is with the notion that I am looking down on someone because of a bad experience they may have had.

There is a huge difference between a person who reacts in a certain way because they have suffered abuse, and someone who reacts that way, never having done so. Either way, are you suggesting this is a desirable state of affairs? Would it not be better in all cases for them to be able to be more self-sufficient? That is, after all, what an abuser seeks: to break the spirit of the abused person so that she (or he) is not able to build his or her own self up, but must rely on the abuser. Not really healthy, in my opinion. But that is just my opinion, I will grant you.

2. Again, there's a vast difference between someone who has never been married deciding ït's "not worth the risk" and afe, having been through a painful divorce and damaging property settlement, having done so. Different risk calculation entirely.

Grim, they are not kind words :)

Simply true ones.

I agree with you, FWIW, about society both positively and negatively reinforcing our actions Yu-ain.

But I also strongly believe we have some independent willpower as well. It's rare that we get all positive or all negative reinforcement: there is some choice involved in interpreting the signals. Otherwise there wouldn't be liberals and conservatives.

By and large, women do not give men respect. A man who wants to "get a job, find a decent, responsible woman, and have children" do not want to do those things with an insufferable bitch. And yes, most women today are insufferable bitches. Hence, the decline in marriage rates.

Ask any man who dates women. Better yet, read "Self Made Man" by Norah Vincent. She impersonated a man and even dated women as a man. She reports very accurately how women treat men these days.

Women today are feel entitled to things from men, but they feel no sense of obligation towards men.

I used to think modern women hated men, but now I know they just hate masculinity. That's why so many women love hanging out with gay men. Women love men, but not manliness.

The only mature, sensible thing for a man to do is to abstain from long-term relationships with women. The alternative is to be treated like trash, be financially exploited, and treated as a second-class citizen under the law in any dispute with a woman.

No thanks, toots. That's a word few women hear these days: no.

Your article is well thought out and useful, but you're addressing only one demographic (or perhaps "demographic" is too limiting a word). Men's roles change as they age and enter into retirement, and so do women's.

My husband and I are the children of intact marriages where our mothers had outside jobs most of our childhoods. I was more or less expected to find a job to help make ends meet, and I never questioned this. I worked full-time jobs, raised the children, kept the home, and achieved an advanced education, and after all that, I'm tired. But now that we are retired, our roles have changed, almost reversed in some ways. Expectations have become uncertain and probably unrealistic, which has caused some problems. I don't want to make decisions anymore. I tried to lapse into the traditional wife role and it doesn't work, because I expected safety, and he wanted to explore. What do we do now?

At this point, I wouldn't choose to be born at all, man or woman.

> Some women limit themselves because they make good money and feel they need a man to make more than they do in order to respect him.

"Some" women? No, "Most" women. I'll amply grant it's not "all" women, but any guy who goes into any relationship with a woman expecting her not to care that she makes more than he is a fool.

And any woman who enters into any relationship where she has a significant percentage of the mutual income and retains the mental constructs of "Our Money" and "My Money" but not "His Money" is equally a fool. Assuming you're making enough between the two of you to pay all the bills, You really do need to make sure you allocate a percentage of that excess of "Our Money" to both "His" and "Her" money -- to be spent without justification or supervision on anything that person wants to spend it on (Hopefully, both have enough of a clue to realize some of it goes towards spending on the S.O., too, mind you).

This solves the obvious arguments (or should) over "Shoes? What the hell do you need another pair of shoes for?" as well as the equally silly "Why do we need a 50" TV? And what does '1080p' mean?". Both stupid questions get to be answered with a politely worded "It's my money, I'll spend it how I want!" -- preferably not more than once in a blue moon, as the stupid question doesn't get asked anytime again soon.

> I've always been surprised that you don't see more interracial couples nowadays than we do.

Must be the circles you are in. I never saw them very often before visiting Denver briefly in 1993, where they were all over the place (sufficient that I noticed them over the course of a week's time).

I suspected then that they would become more common, which I've noticed has been the case. This is a college town, so that may also be relevant.

I will point out that it's almost always black guys with white women, often blondes. I am fairly sure there's a black status element there, and I've always presumed that black guys are, as the stats suggest, bigger than white guys, hence the reason for the women's preference.

All the evidence I have (given the codicil that I'm not exactly researching it) says that black guys don't have a particularly good view of women in general, I've always wondered if the trade-off is worth it, but that's not my decision in any event, and I'll never be faced with it, so it's nothing more than gossippy curiosity on my part.

I see such couples all the time, or the unavoidable suggestion of it, as when you see a white woman with obviously black children she's treating as hers.

I note such more as a matter of novelty (less significant as time passes) than due to any sort of issue with it. They do still stand out from the background in the USA.

> It's happened to many of my friend's daughters - they've married men who don't fulfill their responsibilities, and the courts don't make them, either. And their kids suffer for it. So divorce can hurt everyone.

Not to discourage the recognition of this sort of jerk, but I'd call attention to the fact that not all "official deadbeats" are deadbeats.

I knew one guy who officially was supposed to provide $xxx in child support. He knew, however, that the mother was not responsible and did not use such payments properly for the child. He stopped making them, but he would take the girl out and make sure she had clothes and food and things she needed. In short, while he was technically, and legally, a "deadbeat", he was, in fact, very much doing his job as father of the girl.

I just wanted to make sure that, when you thought about such, you grasped that there are women who fail their duties as parents, too, and a father may choose to be more directed in his contribution than the legal system typically encourages. Not every man who fails his support payments is such a man, but it is possible.

And it's still, by virtue of biology, a bigger problem for women than it is for men.
Nonsense. The problem of too few children resulting in the death of a culture impacts men and women equally, it's not a "bigger problem for women".
"Western culture dies - women most greatly impacted."
Oy.
However, "by virtue of biology", women are more responsible for the problem. They have the babies - or choose not to have them. Unless you can show that men are either grabbing women off the streets and aborting their children or that men are driving around in vans darting women with Depo-Provera.
Face an unpleasant, inconvenient truth - tens (hundreds?) of millions of fetuses have been redirected from personhood for the "convenience" of women.
An even uglier truth is that many women have opted not to carry the next generation because it would have meant forever giving up expensive shoes. Or cool cars. Or cool vacations.
Yes, there are certainly many less ugly reasons women have opted for the demise of Western Civilization. But really, none of these reasons can possibly be painted as noble.
And what can any man or all the men in Western Civilization possibly do to halt this cultural suicide?
Not snark. I'd really like an answer if there is