Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00545)

Paul wrote:

> So it isn't so much that male *persons* are running amok as that the male
>*principle* if you will is doing so in *both* sexes.

Agreed.  We can identify with a group, involve ourselves in "group
politics," and still manage, quite skillfully, to dodge looking inward - god
forbid, we may discover that we are "like those we despise."

>For example,
>more than once I have seen women ignore, or throw over, a
>sensitive, egalitarian, kind man in preference for a brute who
>is guaranteed to break their heart, if nothing else.  Even when
>the nice guy is better looking and richer than the brute!

I believe this has more to do with a person's self-esteem; what they feel
they "deserve."  It isn't that women do not want these sensitive,
egalitarian, and kind men - it's just that, sometimes, never having such a
rare and fine man is easier to deal with than to fight the feeling you will
be unable to keep him.

There is also that familiar notion that we gravitate toward what we know -
if we grow up in a dysfunctional household, we often re-create the same
dysfunction in our own household.

>I don't mean to shift blame here, or maybe I do.  It's *all*
>our problem, and not one in which all the guilt is on men.  I
>once lived in an apartment above a fighting couple, and she
>always started screaming at him the minute he got home from work, getting
>more and more abusive, until I'd hear things crashing, and
>assumed he was hitting her to shut her up.

Excuse me here!!!!  "Hitting her to shut her up?"  I do not believe that was
the reason he was hitting her, Paul.  He was hitting her because he could
not handle his anger - he should have left for the night, or left
permanently.  There is no justifiable reason to strike someone, save
self-defense.

>Another comment, and I will close.  Male nurses and librarians
>are every bit as financially disadvantaged by belonging to a
>"traditionally female" occupation as female physicians and
>lawyers are advantaged by belonging to a "traditionally male"
>one.

Which proves: jobs that are considered "woman's work" are still thought of
as having less value, regardless of the contribution to society.

>We're in the same boat, sister.

Yes, and thanks for rocking it. . .  ;-)


Kym