BusterB: Random Thoughts

Random Thoughts About Women and Gender Politics

Men sometimes complain that women won't admit that they're wrong, but this misses the mark. In this case, the difference between men and women is that women think that it is they who get to decide whether they are wrong or right. Women believe this so completely, so utterly that they cannot even see it, and so cannot see it as an enormous advantage in the gender wars. Women live with the unshakeable, unspoken belief that they are the arbiters of right and wrong, and that although they can be wrong, they are only wrong when they decide that they are wrong. Men, on the other hand, know that sometimes it doesn't matter whether you think you are right or wrong. Sometimes someone else decides you're wrong and you just have to live with that decision. This is why husbands often apologize for things they didn't even do, just to appease their wives: they know that once she has made up her mind that she is right, nothing he can say will change it, because in her world, his opinions and facts don't figure into her sense of truth. This is also why men (like me) telling women that they are often wrong enrages women to no end: To admit that men have some right to pass judgment on their behaviour cuts to the very core of what they believe.
We often hear about how women love men much more than men love women, and how men are afraid of commitment. Certainly there are some men afraid of commitment, but the truth is that most women are not very loving, and most women are not worth committing to. In my experience, women are very picky in selecting someone to date, but, once they've made their decision, they fall "in love" very quickly. Men, on the other hand, seem to fall "in love" much more gradually and slowly. This is what most women complain about. What they don't mention, however, is that women fall "in love" very quickly at the beginning of the relationship and then that is about as deep as their love will ever get; men take longer to get there, but they go deeper. This is why, after a divorce, a woman will pick herself up, dust herself off, and get on with life, whereas after the same divorce, her husband may lead a completely aimless and despondent life for decades. It is also why a woman will die to save her children, but a man will die to save his wife or his children. I've never heard of a woman dying to save her husband, and I doubt that I ever will.
Women and women's groups complain endlessly about the supposedly subtle things that men do to keep women down and make their lives more difficult. Depending upon who you talk to, we are either evil patriarchs doing these things on purpose to thwart women's true potential and maintain our control over society, or these subtle things we do are just so deeply programmed into us that we don't even realize that we're doing them. So now we have "sensitivity training" courses for government officials, judges, and regular-Joe employees, courses that try to point out these subtle, often unconscious actions and their terrible consequences. Women feel oppressed by the way that men talk, argue, physically position themselves, work, and joke. We have to watch all of our little habits because, hey, everything we do has a consequence, even if we don't intend it. On the other hand, try to point out that the way that women dress and the way that they carry themselves has sexual connotations for men, even if the women don't intend sexual advertising, and you'll be screamed at for being a Neanderthal and a lecher. "Obviously there is no sexual connotation if the women in question don't intend that there be one." You can talk about these two things within the same minute and no woman you are talking to will get the connection. Given this and a hundred other inconsistencies, I have no idea why society doesn't regard women as the worst self-serving hypocrites on the face of the planet. Perhaps sometimes something is so big and pervasive that it becomes invisible.
I sometimes think that my wife doesn't care how I feel, but upon reflection I think that this is wrong. My wife, and women in general, do care how men feel, which is exactly why they don't want to know. A woman wants to be able to treat a man badly when she's in a bad mood, and she doesn't want to be reminded that he's a human being with feelings who doesn't enjoy being treated like crap. Jack Kammer relates an episode in his book in which some men in a group started talking about the pain and frustration of their lives only to be shouted down by the women present. My reaction was, "Well, of course." Men make good emotional punching bags only when women can ignore the fact that men feel the pressure and the pain. So, my wife does care how I feel, and she'll be sympathetic when I open up and tell her, but she'll resent me for dropping my façade of strength, because it will force her to treat me better than she wants to do.
Women often accuse the men who date them of thinking, "What is the fastest way to get inside her pants?" Whenever I hear complaints like this, I look for the flip side. What is the female equivalent? In this case, Jack Kammer's book contains a clue. His clever parody about "verbal intercourse" shows that women can also be aggressive, intrusive, and insensitive: it's just that the area of interest is different. Where men are insistently interested in finding out about women's bodies, women are insistently interested in finding out about men's minds. Of course, a woman will tell you that sex is more invasive and "violating" than conversation, but then she has never gone nine rounds with another woman who wants to know how her brain ticks over, regardless of whether she wants to reveal anything or not. Some men do go on dates thinking, "What is the fastest way to get inside her pants?" (A few men think this purposely, the others despite efforts to think otherwise.) However, the woman across the table is just as likely to be thinking, "What's the fastest way to get inside his head?" Both of these approaches are intrusive and lacking in respect for the other person.
From time to time I hear that a woman has to work twice as hard at her job to be considered as good at it as a man would be. While I'm sure that there are some women in this situation, this doesn't fit with what I've seen in my lifetime. I see women doing the same things that men do at work, with more or less the same degree of success, complaining that the men are recognized for their achievements but that they (the women) aren't. In looking back on these complaints, two things come to my mind.
1. Men have been conditioned to expect very little recognition for their work. Men expect to have to work, regardless of the reward. While a man may weigh the work versus the rewards (pay, recognition, etc.) for a particular job , he does not think about work, as a whole, as a quid pro quo exercise. He may be lucky to have a choice of jobs, but he never thinks that he has any choice but to work at something. As such, if he isn't recognized for what he does, he may be dispirited, but he will not be surprised. Recognition, even in small ways, may surprise him. Women, by contrast, are accustomed to receiving constant recognition and affirmation just for being alive. They expect recognition. If you look at how women praise each other, you will see the kind of recognition that women consider "normal." So, for a woman to feel recognized at work, she must receive twice the recognition that a man receives.
2. Women judge the effort they are putting into a task by the amount of effort that a man appears to put into the same task. Women ignore the fact that most men are not demonstrative about effort and difficulty. If a man completes a task without a groan or a grimace, a woman thinks that it must be relatively easy. When she tries to do the same task, and discovers that it is harder to do than it appears, she assumes that she has done much more work than he has.
Women think that they are more feeling and more sensitive than men, but this is because they confuse lack of discipline when expressing their feelings with the feelings themselves.
Women assume that because a man doesn't constantly demonstrate his feelings, he doesn't have any, and that's how women like their men.
Women claim that they want to be judged on their merits, just as men are. They want to be equal. However, even women who profess this will, particularly within romantic relationships, flash a little leg, show a little cleavage, or otherwise make themselves look "sexy" in order to get out of trouble or get what they want. The problem is not so much that women are hypocrites. Rather, the problem is that this part of the traditional female role—the part in which she uses emotion or sex to get whatever she wants—is so easy and so tempting that would be difficult for anyone to resist. What man would go through the hard work of discussing, reasoning, and debating with his mate if he knew that all he had to do was show a little skin or cry and he could have whatever he wanted in a few minutes? It is this caving in to the temptations, the advantages of the traditional female role that men are complaining about when they say that modern women "want it both ways."
A common mistake men make when trying to figure out women is assuming that women think like men, are concerned with the same things men are, and approach life in the same way that men do. In particular, men like abstract principles for their own sake, and believe that women do, too. It may come as a shock to many men that women are not interested in equality, or even feminism, in and of itself. Feminism, to a woman, is not a principle, a golden rule, a point of honour to be upheld in all seasons, in all situations. Feminism to a woman is instead a way of getting things that she wants. When feminism ceases to give woman what she wants, or is not the correct tactic for the moment, she will change to a different (and perhaps conflicting) philosophy. A man sees a woman as a hypocrite for following one philosophy today and another tomorrow, because he thinks that her guiding light, like his, is philosophy. The truth is that her guiding light is her desires, and in that context feminism is just a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Random Thoughts Up Dating Attitudes Violence against Women Random Thoughts
	Random Thoughts About Women and Gender Politics Men sometimes complain that women won't admit that they're wrong, but this misses the mark. In this case, the difference between men and women is that women think that it is they who get to decide whether they are wrong or right. Women believe this so completely, so utterly that they cannot even see it, and so cannot see it as an enormous advantage in the gender wars. Women live with the unshakeable, unspoken belief that they are the arbiters of right and wrong, and that although they can be wrong, they are only wrong when they decide that they are wrong. Men, on the other hand, know that sometimes it doesn't matter whether you think you are right or wrong. Sometimes someone else decides you're wrong and you just have to live with that decision. This is why husbands often apologize for things they didn't even do, just to appease their wives: they know that once she has made up her mind that she is right, nothing he can say will change it, because in her world, his opinions and facts don't figure into her sense of truth. This is also why men (like me) telling women that they are often wrong enrages women to no end: To admit that men have some right to pass judgment on their behaviour cuts to the very core of what they believe. We often hear about how women love men much more than men love women, and how men are afraid of commitment. Certainly there are some men afraid of commitment, but the truth is that most women are not very loving, and most women are not worth committing to. In my experience, women are very picky in selecting someone to date, but, once they've made their decision, they fall "in love" very quickly. Men, on the other hand, seem to fall "in love" much more gradually and slowly. This is what most women complain about. What they don't mention, however, is that women fall "in love" very quickly at the beginning of the relationship and then that is about as deep as their love will ever get; men take longer to get there, but they go deeper. This is why, after a divorce, a woman will pick herself up, dust herself off, and get on with life, whereas after the same divorce, her husband may lead a completely aimless and despondent life for decades. It is also why a woman will die to save her children, but a man will die to save his wife or his children. I've never heard of a woman dying to save her husband, and I doubt that I ever will. Women and women's groups complain endlessly about the supposedly subtle things that men do to keep women down and make their lives more difficult. Depending upon who you talk to, we are either evil patriarchs doing these things on purpose to thwart women's true potential and maintain our control over society, or these subtle things we do are just so deeply programmed into us that we don't even realize that we're doing them. So now we have "sensitivity training" courses for government officials, judges, and regular-Joe employees, courses that try to point out these subtle, often unconscious actions and their terrible consequences. Women feel oppressed by the way that men talk, argue, physically position themselves, work, and joke. We have to watch all of our little habits because, hey, everything we do has a consequence, even if we don't intend it. On the other hand, try to point out that the way that women dress and the way that they carry themselves has sexual connotations for men, even if the women don't intend sexual advertising, and you'll be screamed at for being a Neanderthal and a lecher. "Obviously there is no sexual connotation if the women in question don't intend that there be one." You can talk about these two things within the same minute and no woman you are talking to will get the connection. Given this and a hundred other inconsistencies, I have no idea why society doesn't regard women as the worst self-serving hypocrites on the face of the planet. Perhaps sometimes something is so big and pervasive that it becomes invisible. I sometimes think that my wife doesn't care how I feel, but upon reflection I think that this is wrong. My wife, and women in general, do care how men feel, which is exactly why they don't want to know. A woman wants to be able to treat a man badly when she's in a bad mood, and she doesn't want to be reminded that he's a human being with feelings who doesn't enjoy being treated like crap. Jack Kammer relates an episode in his book in which some men in a group started talking about the pain and frustration of their lives only to be shouted down by the women present. My reaction was, "Well, of course." Men make good emotional punching bags only when women can ignore the fact that men feel the pressure and the pain. So, my wife does care how I feel, and she'll be sympathetic when I open up and tell her, but she'll resent me for dropping my façade of strength, because it will force her to treat me better than she wants to do. Women often accuse the men who date them of thinking, "What is the fastest way to get inside her pants?" Whenever I hear complaints like this, I look for the flip side. What is the female equivalent? In this case, Jack Kammer's book contains a clue. His clever parody about "verbal intercourse" shows that women can also be aggressive, intrusive, and insensitive: it's just that the area of interest is different. Where men are insistently interested in finding out about women's bodies, women are insistently interested in finding out about men's minds. Of course, a woman will tell you that sex is more invasive and "violating" than conversation, but then she has never gone nine rounds with another woman who wants to know how her brain ticks over, regardless of whether she wants to reveal anything or not. Some men do go on dates thinking, "What is the fastest way to get inside her pants?" (A few men think this purposely, the others despite efforts to think otherwise.) However, the woman across the table is just as likely to be thinking, "What's the fastest way to get inside his head?" Both of these approaches are intrusive and lacking in respect for the other person. From time to time I hear that a woman has to work twice as hard at her job to be considered as good at it as a man would be. While I'm sure that there are some women in this situation, this doesn't fit with what I've seen in my lifetime. I see women doing the same things that men do at work, with more or less the same degree of success, complaining that the men are recognized for their achievements but that they (the women) aren't. In looking back on these complaints, two things come to my mind. Men have been conditioned to expect very little recognition for their work. Men expect to have to work, regardless of the reward. While a man may weigh the work versus the rewards (pay, recognition, etc.) for a particular job , he does not think about work, as a whole, as a quid pro quo exercise. He may be lucky to have a choice of jobs, but he never thinks that he has any choice but to work at something. As such, if he isn't recognized for what he does, he may be dispirited, but he will not be surprised. Recognition, even in small ways, may surprise him. Women, by contrast, are accustomed to receiving constant recognition and affirmation just for being alive. They expect recognition. If you look at how women praise each other, you will see the kind of recognition that women consider "normal." So, for a woman to feel recognized at work, she must receive twice the recognition that a man receives. Women judge the effort they are putting into a task by the amount of effort that a man appears to put into the same task. Women ignore the fact that most men are not demonstrative about effort and difficulty. If a man completes a task without a groan or a grimace, a woman thinks that it must be relatively easy. When she tries to do the same task, and discovers that it is harder to do than it appears, she assumes that she has done much more work than he has. Women think that they are more feeling and more sensitive than men, but this is because they confuse lack of discipline when expressing their feelings with the feelings themselves. Women assume that because a man doesn't constantly demonstrate his feelings, he doesn't have any, and that's how women like their men. Women claim that they want to be judged on their merits, just as men are. They want to be equal. However, even women who profess this will, particularly within romantic relationships, flash a little leg, show a little cleavage, or otherwise make themselves look "sexy" in order to get out of trouble or get what they want. The problem is not so much that women are hypocrites. Rather, the problem is that this part of the traditional female role—the part in which she uses emotion or sex to get whatever she wants—is so easy and so tempting that would be difficult for anyone to resist. What man would go through the hard work of discussing, reasoning, and debating with his mate if he knew that all he had to do was show a little skin or cry and he could have whatever he wanted in a few minutes? It is this caving in to the temptations, the advantages of the traditional female role that men are complaining about when they say that modern women "want it both ways." A common mistake men make when trying to figure out women is assuming that women think like men, are concerned with the same things men are, and approach life in the same way that men do. In particular, men like abstract principles for their own sake, and believe that women do, too. It may come as a shock to many men that women are not interested in equality, or even feminism, in and of itself. Feminism, to a woman, is not a principle, a golden rule, a point of honour to be upheld in all seasons, in all situations. Feminism to a woman is instead a way of getting things that she wants. When feminism ceases to give woman what she wants, or is not the correct tactic for the moment, she will change to a different (and perhaps conflicting) philosophy. A man sees a woman as a hypocrite for following one philosophy today and another tomorrow, because he thinks that her guiding light, like his, is philosophy. The truth is that her guiding light is her desires, and in that context feminism is just a means to an end, not an end in itself.