I believe there are two basic reactions to things we dislike:
1: to face with it and communicate about or with it.
2: to beat it with a stick, hoping to kill it, or try to put a lid over it.
The first one is far more difficult, for every person on this planet, as well as mankind itself, has many demons, and they are real, made of real energy. But. It is the only one which works.
The horror movies know it well: the real monsters can't be killed with force. And they keep coming back from the grave. The only solution is to find out how they work.
-----
Featured comment by Laurie (the female one):
I'm reading this book now entitled "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" by Warren Farrell. I am very interested in the topic of how men and women communicate (or not). Warren Farrell makes clear the point that men have been programmed even biologically, definitely culturally, to suppress feelings, to protect the woman, to kill the "enemy." Vulnerablity is considered "the enemy." Women, we say we want men to express their feelings, to communicate in words more freely, but in truth this makes us nervous, and we dish up a double standard. We distance ourselves or get into a fighting mode when men express their feelings or criticize us (even kindly). So, To suppress or to deal? Since the 60's, women are liberating themselves not to suppress themselves, and asking men to support us in this. But let's be honest, are we women really making a safe emotional environment for our men "not to suppress"? I'm not bashing women here, I'm wanting to grow in understanding of men, and the male/female dynamic.
-----
Featured comment by Pascal:
More seriously, the recent U.S. laws regarding Guantanamo and stuff inspired me this thought : convict rights are meant, first of all, to protect THE INNOCENT. To ensure that somebody who's only suspected will not be inhumanely mistreated, and convicted in advance by the simple fact of his indiction.
Besides, what kind of civilization are we, if we declare it okay to be barbaric toward some people "because they deserve it"? How does this make us different from them, who always consider their victims "deserved it" too? It is illegal toward animals for a reason, you know.
Should we do like Zarqawi, and decapitate with a knife those we deem unworthy of living? I wouldn't do that to Zarqawi himself, if I caught him! Otherwise, I would disgust myself. Lock him away for life, throw away the key, he's harmless for good, end of problem. Let God judge and punish and make him suffer later, since we believe in divine Justice after death! Spite is like dirt : to inflict it, you get yourself dirty too. It's a vicious circle. Would you become a vampire to gain the power to destroy vampires?
The bottom line is : we can argue till the end of time about whose beliefs are right or wrong. Only actions, not justifications, are undisputable and set us apart from those who are, potentially or definitely, barbaric. Everybody will treat well those they like (in theory!). It is how we treat those we dislike or don't care about that tells who we really are, and may make them reflect. "Love thine enemy"? Hey, it's not just a hippie "spaced out" thing, dude. It is extremely deep and meaningful. We do not treat them well/decently to please them, but to keep our souls unsoiled from savagery. If we stoop to their level, then Evil wins, and everybody is a loser no matter who's finally in charge. Why do you think Christianism spread so widely? Because it gave some amazing new principles that were incredibly ahead of their time.
(Note : I'm certainly not claiming it was the ONLY intelligent belief, nor that the Church always stayed true to these beliefs.)
I am reminded of the film "Fortress" with Chris Lambert, a futuristic prison where the DREAMS of the inmates are monitored, and they are punished when they have one that is "not allowed". Punished painfully.
Total freedom of speech makes me uneasy too. I once read a presumed incest story that was both irresistibly explicit and nauseating. (I couldn't reach the author, "silentalltheseyears", to find out whether it was based on an actual trauma, it WAS very disturbingly convincing.) But one person's fantasy is another one's education.
At worst, consider it like this : Know thine enemy. The nazis were not incomprehensible extra-terrestrial robot mutants, they were "ordinary" hateful racists who just went too far. Ignoring that fact puts us at risk of falling straight back in the very same horrible error. It can happen again, to you, to me, if we aren't wary of our natural tendancies. Everybody is capable of hating.
I believe Bin Laden is a blessing in disguise. His shameless hate and violence lets the cat out, and reveals what many hypocrits would love to conveniently conceal : that religion (islam in this specific case), can be and sometimes is hijacked to justify the worst. His hate preachers should be forbidden from "teaching" their crap in religious schools and mosques, especially to the young and trusting minds. But they should NOT be silenced entirely and everywhere (merely driving them undergroud, d'uh!). Let them warn us that there exists such madmen who are ready to murder unknown innocents anytime and anywhere. Knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness.
To somebody who's able to withstand his nausea, a child-abusing fantasy will, at worst, be a useful insight to how the real criminals think and act. (To the others, just don't read it! Me, I can't stand Barbara Cartland.) Doesn't the police have a special section to read all crime stories and learn from them? In France at least, they do.
The whackos responsible for the Columbine High School massacre played violent videogame "Doom". Does the game make you violent? I believe it was just a symptom : they didn't become violent because they played it, they played it because they were violent and liked to fantasize about it. Let's not ignore the importance of education, people. Banning Doom will only deprive us from a warning dign. "Grand Theft Auto made me do it"? Sorry buddy, but if you're not clinically psychotic, the only devil that made you do ANYTHING is the one within you, answering to your name!
Restrict hazardous stuff from those too young and immature to handle it, like porn for the under 15, but PLEASE stop finding excuses for treating the whole adult population as if they were eternally babies in diapers!
Controlling mere fantasy/fiction is very dangerous. A zombie movie like "Night of the Living-Dead" has no practical interest whatsoever, it teaches nothing, it's just there to give you a good (and cheap) scare. Okay, so it's clear and pure bad taste. Is "nobody in their right mind will miss it" an excuse for forbidding it? Think of the implications! Think of China and the USSR.
In most muslim countries, reading the Bible or the Gospel is prohibited and may have you jailed. Changing religions for a muslim is assimilated to the crime of apostasy, deserving death under the Charia. Fundamentalism has instated the absolute thought police. I don't want to be like that. I want to give them the opposite example by my sensible deeds, and maybe this'll give the brightest of them the idea to try and make reforms. "Doing like the other does" à la G.W.Bush is no way to inspire amending.
Peace and goodwill to all mankind. Even the jerks.
20 comments:
love this topic Eolake. Pascal, I'd take your class if you were a professor. Do an online course :)
I'm reading this book now entitled "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" by Warren Farrell. I am very interested in the topic of how men and women communicate (or not). Warren Farrell makes clear the point that men have been programmed even biologically, definitely culturally, to suppress feelings, to protect the woman, to kill the "enemy." Vulnerablity is considered "the enemy." Women, we say we want men to express their feelings, to communicate in words more freely, but in truth this makes us nervous, and we dish up a double standard. We distance ourselves or get into a fighting mode when men express their feelings or criticize us (even kindly). So, To suppress or to deal? Since the 60's, women are liberating themselves not to suppress themselves, and asking men to support us in this. But let's be honest, are we women really making a safe emotional environment for our men "not to suppress"? I'm not bashing women here, I'm wanting to grow in understanding of men, and the male/female dynamic.
His hate preachers should be forbidden from "teaching" their crap in religious schools and mosques, especially to the young and trusting minds.
As should be the hate preachers who spread this pathetic conspiracy theory of 19 young guys with box-cutters defeating the US air defence system to single-handedly bring down the twin towers and attack the pentagon - who's to believe that?
And of course they are blaming it on "the muslims" (or some ominous organisation which they themselves created and stuffed with money front and back) - wouldn't that be a criminal organisation, and hate-mongerers?
(related:)
The nazis were not incomprehensible extra-terrestrial robot mutants, they were "ordinary" hateful racists who just went too far.
Even worse, most of the people who kept the system running were not even openly hateful or racist - they were just believing what the government told them about dangerous people who were threatening their very lifelyhood and way of life (with the Reichstag fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire> leaving no doubt over the calibre of the threat) and/or following their policies without questioning... - dunno why that all seems so eerily familiar to me...
Well as Sting said: "history teaches us nothing"
I am very interested in the topic of how men and women communicate (or not).
Extremely interesting topic, I find, too - the whole "Mars and Venus" stuff (in particular the later ones, like "together forever") did provide some really interesting insights for me, even though much of it is way too stereotypical for my taste it still provided quite valuable.
Another book I read was from Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz about how social behaviour is ruled by aggression. He explains why it is absolutely necessary for a stable society, and how failing to adapt to changing circumstances endangers it - absolutely fascinating read, very clearly and competently written.
http://www.amazon.com/Aggression-Harvest-Book-Hb-291/dp/0156687410/
Ya, it'll be interesting to see how 9/11 develops over the next decade.
There is lots of evidence very foul play. But there is also a very, very deep-rooted unwillingness to look at an ideas a grotesque a that of official Americans being involved in a crime of that size. It is too monstrous.
Hiring 100 more cops, 100 more cops, etc., is an example, in the US, at least of Number 2.
What is causing much of the violence throughout the world is the War on Drugs.
The solution is to remove the lid.
In response to Signalroom("women can't hear what men don't say") I feel overly generalized and therefore wish to respond.
I frankly think that the reason I avoid discussing emotions with women, is that IT DOESN'T WORK to bond the woman more closely to me. In fact, it has generally caused an attractive woman to think of me as another woman. When I was emotionally open, women to whom I was attracted thought I was "a great guy," wouldn't date me, made me their best friend, and told me I just hadn't found "the right one" yet.
For years I believed this twaddle. Watching women I wanted, as those women dated emotionally unavailable men, and in tandem dating women I wasn't as attracted to, as I had been to the women who were busy dating emotionally unavailable men. Then I wised up.
Now I keep my dumb yap shut and get laid a whole lot more than when I was some manipulative chick's emotional tampon, soaking up her negative experiences for her. And also sometimes, out of this act of getting laid, I might get a wonderful girlfriend or longer-term relationship with someone who respects and appreciates my emotional strength, and my ability to cut THROUGH HER CRAP and tell her, when she is rolling bad ideas over and over in her head, or when she wants me to "express my deepest fears," that she should just shut the fuck up and get over herself because she's acting self-indulgent, and all those supposed feelings are just excuses to CLAIM closeness when in fact it's just a PRETENSE, because words like "meaningful" and "connected" and "deep" and "commitment" were used.
Why do men lie? Why do men shut up about emotions? Why are men gruff, distant, horny as hell, annoyed with women, and basically blunt edged rather than soft? BECAUSE IT WORKS, and because the behaving in the opposite manner leads to a PAINFUL LONELY DEATH.
So there. I didn't read the rest of this thread. I disagree with torture, want my government to be better, like small animals, never broke a mirror without having seven years of bad luck, and believe we should all eat more apples and other healthy snacks. Did I hit the major points?
Bram,
I agree with you : the whole concept of prisons should be revised from scratch, keeping only the "separating the criminals from the rest of society" definition. Zoos have come a very long way since the days of sinister concrete cages. I'm sure we can also find something better than "cages" to put away the dangerous people. Something much more human (pun intended). And which wouldn't forget the necessary efforts to amend the great many that can be amended. For starters, all those who are not violent, ergo they are simply "misbehaved" in a way. Or irresponsible. But not intrinsically bad, yo!
Abraham Lincoln was once talking with a woman about how the North must treat the South.
She disagreed with him, and said that she felt that we must destroy our enemies.
Lincoln replied, "What, madam? Do I not destroy them when I make them my friends?"
There is a rather wise Arab proverb (from the famout poet Al-Mutanabbi) that says :
"Treat the honorable man well, and he'll be yours forever.
Treat the vile man well, and he'll turn against you."
Well, even without counting the innocent (and we really should do something about THEM, too), I'm positive not all who are in prison are vile, far from it. Many just ask to be given, not a second chance in life, but sometimes their FIRST chance. Giving it to them is what I'd call REAL justice. Social, human, AND penal justice.
Today's prisons really feel like we're conveniently brushing our "trash" under the carpet. A ragged carpet, with many holes, that often let the real/worst trash slip through... unless it is just too big to go under the carpet in the first place! (I'm not going to give names.)
Ronald,
I'm sure you'll forgive me if, when we are in total agreement, I don't have tons and tons of things to add or correct to what you said.
[A collective sigh of relief is heard among the public. Pascal scowls.]
Signalroom,
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I'm sure if I could make a living of an online course sharing my thoughts and beliefs, I'd go for it. Although giving them for free here doesn't bother me. :-)
(It's just that I could use some cash.)
No worries, I'm on a different, yet hopefully efficient way to... "give class"!
David,
I'm just a bit worried, considering the hidden pressure that's been building up underneath, that when we "pop the lid" we may fall victims to the Champagne effect. You know, a lot of foam comes gushing out, but very little ends up in your glass.
Not that there are many solutions other than popping the cork (or the lid). It's just that I've seen the bottle shaken quite enthusiastically very recently... <:-o
Perhaps we should lay it to rest for a while before getting on with the wild party? I don't know. I'm sure, though, that we should stop mistaking the hornets' nest for a punching-ball. The "war on Terror" has taken... terrifying proportions!
Yeah, I read you, Final. Sometimes, behaving differently from the typical macho jerk gets you labeled as "gay". Been there, heard that. Sometimes VERY un-subtlely.
As if it were my fault that GUYS don't turn me on, only babes! :-P
I'm straight AND deep, so sue me!
(Um... somehow, this didn't turn out like I wanted to say it.)
Of course, it can also have positive effects (albeit not on my sex life): I once became close to a gay colleague, and he too regarded me as just a friend. So for once everybody was happy. Especially considering he badly needed a friend. Lebanese society, you know...
Still, Final, try not to become too bitter from it. If a woman can't see that you're really okay and sincere toward her, then SHE probably isn't all you thought her to be. Mindlessly swallowing the stereotypes of society is not a good sign. The unsubtle person I mentioned? Well, I'm certainly lucky we never became a couple, don't you think?
I might be dumb, and naive, but I still hope to meet a woman with whom I can be my true self. There have to be some, just like there are guys such as me. Otherwise, I'd rather be my true self all alone, thank you very much! As my late grandpa used to say often: "Better be alone than in bad company!"
I miss the old nag...
Did I hit the major points?
Well, apples are good, and your government COULD be better. Whatever your country. ;-)
"I might be dumb, and naive,"
... Weren't you the guy just berating Wonko for self-belittling? :)
Well, um, er... "It takes one to know one!" So there! :-)
Final,
After sleeping on it, the basic idea came clear to me in words : women who can't accept that understanding -a.k.a. friendship- is essential to a serious lasting love relationship, are simply being immature, and there seems to be a lot of that going on these days.
Naturally, we should reflect whether this isn't partly the men's fault, for tending to drive them there by being immature casanovas. Maybe other women are not the only ones deserving the blame, and MCPs deserve some of your gripe too.
When you're outside the "norm" (the current standards), you become a misfit... even if you ARE better than the norm. (ESPECIALLY when you are better than the norm.) It should comfort you to think you're being treated like a social mutant because you are above the average mediocrity. Please, don't lose ALL hope in (wo)mankind. You've told us you've had some sad experiences that made you understandably hypersensitive. Apart from the misinformed, only a fool would pass judgement on you. Just don't let closed-mindedness get the best of you, too, by convincing you that the majority is the unanimity. Valuable things are rare treasures, and unless you're one damn lucky SOB, you'll have to deserve them by searching long and hard. Diamonds are found in the mud. Deep down in the mud. Keep the spirit up, remember what your mind knows when your mood sometimes forgets it, and I'm sure you should find just the right person. Eventually. It IS worth it.
In the meantime, if you're reasonably happy having brief relationships with uncommitted pretty women who LIKE immature casanovas, by all means, don't let me talk you out of it! :-)
I just feel this happiness is far from complete. It's okay, but there must be something better waiting to be discovered by you. Let's just say I have faith in this. Faith doesn't need prior certainties.
Here's a quick, pithy reply:
the issue isn't what the women would want, it's what they'll respond positively to in the INITIAL phases of courtship.
Doesn't matter what will make me or her happy in the long run, or what a "good choice" is. All that matters is what will get me through the door. And, I'm sorry to report, the criterion for door-entry is VERY different from the remaining criteria for decent partnership.
Don't blame me. I just report reality as I see it.
Final identity, I understand *exactly* what you are talking about.
Let me tell you that the books I mentioned helped me a great deal because they explain what's going on and why, and, most importantly, how to address the problem in a constructive way, i.e. without shutting yourself up and denying your own personality and needs.
The main thesis of the "Mars and Venus" books is that men and women function differently in the way they process communication, as if they were speaking different languages even when using the same vocabulary - they may say the same thing and mean something completely different.
This is pretty subtle stuff and you wouldn't stand much of a chance of discovering it for yourself because in human communication when someone has similar interests to you, talks in similar ways and behaves in similar ways, the assumption that they *think* in the same (or at least a similar) way completely takes over. That's normal, because you cannot look into someone else's mind.
However that assumption is false and everything else follows from there, only getting worse on the way.
As I said I find some of text a bit too stereotypical but regardless when reading it a whole lot of these strange situations I just didn't "get" before started making sense.
Click!
In a way it is substituting one assumption (they work the same way as you do) with another (they work differently in a particular way), which *is* stereotypical to an extent (but no more than the original assumption) but it works. Suddenly you understand what's going on, which helps a great deal in resolving any problems with the situation.
The Book "On Agression" (in German it's called "The so-called Evil") was an eye-opener, too - it explains the role of aggression in social interaction. The interesting thing is that certain forms of aggression are necessary to keep an interaction going, but it needs to have the right form and direction.
The wrong amount, form or direction and it quickly becomes harmful. In short-term interaction, this might not become apparent and any aggression similar to the one needed might lead to the effect you're after, but in the long term that doesn't work so it really helps to have an idea how it is that this stuff works. (Helps a lot to understand other things going on in as well, not just with that one person in your life.)
And I can tell you from my own experience that the same criteria which are important for the initial period (or "door-entry", as you say) also apply for a long-term partnership, only in a much more refined way (and of course, there are more then). I.e. you *will* need a certain amount and type of aggression to maintain it - touchy-feely (for lack of a better word - no offence) is important but it needs to be part of the right mix.
Or, the other way around, refining those skills you need to maintain a long-term partnership will help you with door-entry, too. Rather than playing a role, which is not going to make you a happy man in the longer term, you need to work out the right balance in how you communicate; one that works for both you and your woman. I believe it all boils down to communication skills - you may need to go out of your way (at first) about how you say or do things, but certainly not with regards to who you are.
It's actually quite simple once you get the hang of it, and it's not bending yourself - in fact I feel freer as a result because it gives me more ways to express myself, too.
Anyway, take it for what it's worth to you; I'm just saying it works for me (well I'm still working on it but have made obvious progress, and quickly) so I could just as well pass it on in case it helps someone else.
Thank you very much.
I have ordered those two books.
I doubt anybody has no problems with understanding aggression or the opposite sex, lord knows I have.
Eolake, I'd be interested to know (once you've read them) what you think.
I find it quite hilarious that John Gray gets quite some flak from both male and female critics for allegedly being too hard on their respective gender and blaming it all on them. Which means to me that he can't be too far off the mark... ;-)
Ronald,
I'm quite criticized for saying the same thing about Al-Jazeera's attitude on jews and arabs...
Freudian Slip,
That wasn't one (freudian slip, that is) from my behalf. Basically, everybody has the fundamental right to peace, security, etc. Even the jerks. Would you suspend someone's civic rights because he's gay, liberal, muslim, or some other category that's frequently unpopular?
I didn't think so.
Maybe that's why I feel I'm rather popular. :-)
A pityh reply? To me? Final, you hurt me deeply, man! ;-)
"Doesn't matter what will make me or her happy in the long run, or what a "good choice" is. All that matters is what will get me through the door."
Well, what will get you through the door SHOULD be this, precisely. (Thank you for the support, Ronald.) The criteriae shouldn't be different, except maybe for one-night stands. This is what I meant about seeking that rare treasure : a smart woman who's got that sense.
"Don't blame me. I just report reality as I see it."
Yeah, well, reality sucks. And it isn't even good at it! ):-P
It's none of your fault, of course. Seeing the sadly predominant situation and adapting to it is nothing to blame you for. Seems much wiser than trying to redo the world single-handedly. Which I still intend to attempt... :-)
On my spare time, preferably!
"when someone has similar interests to you, talks in similar ways and behaves in similar ways, the assumption that they *think* in the same (or at least a similar) way completely takes over."
It's taken me some time to find that out for myself. But today, I defuse arguments between my parents caused precisely by this difference of understanding. The reward comes by itself : nothing beats a calm home to live in! :-D
"Suddenly you understand what's going on, which helps a great deal in resolving any problems with the situation."
Indeed. Just realizing that SOMETHING is going on is already a roadsign sending you on the right track. I love eye-opener books.
"Rather than playing a role, which is not going to make you a happy man in the longer term"
This is also what I was trying to express. Short-term happiness is important, but it's not all that life is about. One day, you might look behind at your life and see it terrifyingly hollow. I know I don't want that.
"I believe it all boils down to communication skills"
You could take on blogging to hone those, for instance. ;-)
You could take on blogging to hone those, for instance. ;-)
Doesn't quite give you the immediate feedback of a personal exchange, but certainly still a good exercise. In fact I've been intending to do that for some time - should spend less time here and rather get going, I guess! :-o
Final Identity, I hear the truth about women's hypocrisy in a lot of what you are saying. I wholeheartedly concur that many women, myself included, SAY they want sensitive men, but what we really want is men sensitive to US. To OUR feelings. It's very true, I'm not proud of it. I know guys have as deep feelings as women, and I have begun to learn (and be attracted to) how men express their feelings in such different ways from my women friends and me. My boyfriend seems to have a verbal "feeling" vocabulary of 3 or 4 words; but when he plays his guitar, I can detect such incredible emotion, it renders me dumb, and I just sit there and listen, amazed. I hear him. Or, when he works with his hands, rigs up the lawnmower in some wacko ingenious way, not saying a word, just out there by himself working, there is often a feeling level -- a simplicity and honesty -- that I cannot go near with my emotinal neediness. Guys do have an emotional strength that blows me away, it is something we need to learn from you. If you can bare to listen to us, (yeah, we use our emotional vocabulary of 8,000 words), we just need to get the energy out to a living beating heart (it's rarely personal), not fix our feelings, but simply listen, you'll have a mate for life. OR, at least for a wonderful evening.
Final Identity, we women are just learning how to listen to you guys as well, and we have to learn not to try and make you into other "us'es". Is that a word? Forgive us, okay? We'll let you in the front door (especially with that mug, love your picture, can't believe you're single), but hope you don't hang on to too much anger against us. We'll come around. We want it as much as you want it.
Laurie
"many women, myself included, SAY they want sensitive men, but what we really want is men sensitive to US."
And there you have it, my brothers! Courtesy of one friendly and open lady, the answer to THE great question about the mysteries of women's nature and expectations.
God, to think all along it was SO simple! Now, we know what to do to get a relationship to work!
The face of the world may just be about to change forever.
(And I'm half serious there!)
Thank you so much, Signalroom.
"I know guys have as deep feelings as women"
No, no, NO! You've just ruined everything! SOME guys have as deep feelings as women. (Some guys apart from the fags, that is.) The rest of us are exactly the neandethals we appear to be. Beer, sex, TV, cars, and evenings in town with the guys is all we usually require. Plus the occasional virile fight.
This is precisely the usefulness of our hard to understand (from the outside) "male bonding" rituals, A.K.A. the "guy things". It eliminates useless sensitivity for the benefit of pure testosterone-fueld strength and non-verbal communication. Booya, baby!
"Or, when he works with his hands, rigs up the lawnmower in some wacko ingenious way, not saying a word, just out there by himself working, there is often a feeling level -- a simplicity and honesty"
Right on, lil' Missie. See? We Martians are not complicated to understand, really. You Venus lasses were looking for convoluted explanations all along!
(Burp!) Beggin' your pardon. :-)
"If you can bare to listen to us"
Seriously now, this precise point has led to a very special relationship with my mother. And I don't just listen, I sometimes understand too! ;-)
As I mentioned recently somewhere on the blog, I just love to defuse misunderstandings born from the stereo use of same vocabulary with two conceptions of it.
"we women are just learning how to listen to you guys as well"
Hey, guys, I think this is one clubhouse where we might welcome girls after all, whaddaya think? Welcome to the common bridging effort, miladies. :-D
"and we have to learn not to try and make you into other "us'es". Is that a word?"
Well, looks like it is now, you've just used it! ;-)
"Forgive us, okay?"
Aw, you know we can never stay mad at you very long! You're the one and only weakness of those proud and powerful males.
Post a Comment