Shrinkwrapped has some interesting thoughts on trauma, passivity and the fear of aggression.
posted by Helen at 6:54 PM
Monday, October 16, 2006
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Blog Juice
- Let's Roll
- A Word on Podcast Transcripts
- So, the Amish school house where ten girls were sh...
- Podcast with the Secretary of the Army
- Podcast with LT Smash
- Is Passivity and Forgiveness an Aphrodisiac for Mu...
- Give that Kid an EKG
- Podcast on Voter Fraud
- School Killers--Evil, Sick or Socially Toxic?
34 Comments:
This is a pretty good piece. Also makes a good jumping off spot for a fellow trying to recover from foot-in-mouth disorder. ;)
I believe I've been misunderstood in some of my previous posts by folks who have mistaken my advocacy of caution in the face of a materially superior enemy with a significant tactical advantage as a sign of passivity.
Don't mistake inaction for passivity or assume that fighting begings with the first round-house right. I don't. Maneuver, feint & when necessary, an orderly & efficient retreat--military officers with the knack for conducting the last of these three are greatly valued in our military.
Threat recognition--the ability to distinguish the nature & degree of enemy capability in relation to one's own capacity, is the most crucial of all strategic skills. When you have the edge, you present your strength against weakness. When you are outnumbered, outgunned, out-manuevered, you move to a new position, a new tactic, a new technology, a new politics.
You shift.
You unmask your enemy at the material, psychological, tactical, or economic level. Wherever he is weak and you are strong.
And then you kick him in the nuts.
I won't waste my time reading anything that begins with a sentence blaming "feminization" for whatever ails them at the moment.
I still have to wonder what Dr. Helen has against women, independent women, feminists.
I read the article and afterwards felt like Cham, what a waste of time. What is it that feminists have done but become independent? Just because we no longer submit graciously to the male dominated world we are men-haters.
JW says, "We're in a culture in which true hatred of all males and all things male is quite acceptable while at the same time demanding that any critique of female is by definition evil. What a mess and what a shame."
I don't know what "culture" he is stuck in, but I don't see this all encompassing hatred. Maybe JW should get out more and interact with women (and men) on a level of equality to learn more about the change in our society. Change is inevitable. Try to embrace it or try to influence further change.
Anonymous 6:21:
You state: "I still have to wonder what Dr. Helen has against women, independent women, feminists."
I have nothing against independent feminists, at least those who want true equality, but that is not what the article that Shrinkwrapped linked to is about.Take a look at the article on men being men etc. that Shrinkwrapped links to, it states in the last paragraph:
"I don't think the planet can long survive if the current conception of masculinity endures. We face political and ecological challenges that can't be met with this old model of what it means to be a man. At the more intimate level, the stakes are just as high. For those of us who are biologically male, we have a simple choice: We men can settle for being men, or we can strive to be human beings."
The author of this article states that the planet can't survive if men keep behaving like men? And you think I have something against women? Give me a break. This author is clearly prejudiced against men, so much so that he believes their "negative" characteristics will destroy the planet? If you are a feminist who promotes this type of drivel, are you really about equality or are you against anything that is not feminine?
Cham said...
I won't waste my time reading anything that begins with a sentence blaming "feminization" for whatever ails them at the moment
Hmmm, make a deal with you. You go ahead and read that article, and I promise to read one you suggest! Promise. I found the article interesting and well writen. What is offensive to you about the idea of "feminization?"
Trey
Tmink:
I don't like biased accusatory statement based on one's personal opinion at the start of any article, especially ones filled with either sexism or racism. If you want to convince me of something, then outline your belief in a nonthreatening manner at the start, then back yourself up with details and statistics in the body of the text.
If you start something off with inflamatory words, I'm not reading it.
Anonymous 6:21 here:
Helen,
The ShrinkWrapped link you reference starts with
"Two recent news items are related to an aspect of the femininization of America, an outgrowth of radical feminism allied with toxic dependency. The radical feminists pathologized all forms of "unacceptable" (ie male) aggression and the nanny state promulgated an increased passivity among those who were maintained in a dependent position. "
Later in the blog entry, right before your quote to me, ShrinkWrapped says:
"Now the big, bad Bush administration, with thier hyper-masculine aggression, has made Kim frightened and angry and he exploded an atomic bomb. The only fault lies with those aggressive men. "
I think this person shows to much aggression towards feminists and does not understand diplomacy, as does not the big, bad Bush Admin.
Hey Cham, so I guess no deal huh?
Here are the first two sentences of the article in question:"Two recent news items are related to an aspect of the femininization of America, an outgrowth of radical feminism allied with toxic dependency. The radical feminists pathologized all forms of "unacceptable" (ie male) aggression and the nanny state promulgated an increased passivity among those who were maintained in a dependent position."
Hmmm, isn't the author criticizing the IDEAS of radical feminism? He does not mention Catherine McCkinnon (sp) or others like her by name, so I am thinking he disagrees with an idea. Is that sexist?
What were the inflamatory words? Nanny state? Toxic dependency? Certainly NOT "radical feminist" as this is a lable some feminists use to describe themselves. I remember going to a therapist to deal with some divorce issues and she had a button on her purse that read "If you ever wondered what a radical feminist looks like, now you know." By the way, she was a wonderful therapist, very humanist in her approach to me, a man.
So what is the inflamatory sexist part? It looks like you disagree with the ideas of the article, but isn't that different from the article being sexist and inflamatory?
Trey
tmink:
I couldn't tell you whether I disagree with the ideas of the article because I didn't read it beyond the first two sentences.
The words that offended me are:
Feminization
Radical Feminism
Male Aggression
Toxic Dependency
Nanny State
tmink:
I couldn't tell you whether I disagree with the ideas of the article because I didn't read it beyond the first two sentences.
The words that offended me are:
Feminization
Radical Feminism
Male Aggression
Toxic Dependency
Nanny State
Thanks Cham! By the way, I checked out your blog. You have some wonderful photos on it! Very cool.
I can comment on a couple of the terms you found offensive. "Male Aggression" and "Toxic Dependency" are psychologese.
Male aggression is measurable, and it can be a WONDERFUL thing! I remember an older teen broke into our house when I was young, my dad chased him out of the house and up the street! I did not know he could run so fast! It felt safe seeing my loving father chasing a burglar down the street, to see the aggressive side of him. It is our socialization and also our testosterone (I am a man.) Dad never hurt anyone in his adult life after he left the airfoce where he shot down Italian and German soldiers. But he was prepared to get Midevil if his family's safety required it. That is the blessing of Male Aggression. Women can do it too of course.
Toxic dependency is something I see every week in my practice. Think of the person that stays with an abusive spouse when they should leave. Not all dependency is pathological, but some sure is.
What struck you as sexist or inflamatory about those terms? I wonder if believing in actual gender differences feels sexist? Male aggression is certainly a gender loaded term. But I think that pathological dependency is more gender neutral. What do you think?
Trey
tmink:
Why use the term "male aggression"? Everyone has the capacity to be aggressive, so slapping a gender identity on this word is silly, as if only men have the capacity to be aggressive. "Toxic dependency"? There is no need to put "toxic" before dependency. Toxic means physical poison, as "The toxic cleaning fluid proved fatal for junior". You can just use the word "dependency" to get your point across that someone has an emotional dependency on someone else.
It isn't necessary to hit the reader over the head with a figurative baseball bat.
Hey Cham,
some folks believe that some feminist thinkers are sexist, and that they are quite negative toward male aggression while championing female aggression. Also, male aggression has a long history in the literature of psychology, because well, we are more aggressive more often statistically.
I agree about the baseball bat! ANd I think radical feminist has definitional value, and many people use it to communicate their beliefs. Once in a blue moon I call myself a radical Christian to make the point that my spirituality is important to me. I stole it from the term radical feminist. Too bad radical Islam has screwed the term!
Trey
And toxic dependency is used to distinguish between it and healthy dependency. I depend on my wife for friendship, support, challenge, that sort of thing. Our children, three of whom are small, depend on us for almost everything! These are healthy dependencies. Addiction is a toxic dependency, codependency is another. These terms have floated around in the psych literature for decades, and the writer of the article in question is steeped in that tradition and language.
tmink:
I am more than happy to let those that are steeped in the psych literature wade through the article to figure out what the writer has to say. I'll just stick to those articles that are written in non-offensive english.
Who knows? There might have been a nugget or two of worthwhile read in there but I'm not going to find out. If the article does discuss aggression, I will agree that US residents are getting more and more violently aggressive and I have my opinions as to why this is. However, since I am very careful now with whom I interact and I don't see the government, the schools or anyone else getting concerned about the increase in aggression I'm not going to worry my pretty little head about it.
Hey Cham, I think that we disagree about what is offensive english. I think there are strange and wonderful gender differences that are cool and essentially neutral.
We also disagree about your pretty little head. While I have no idea about how pretty it is (I did not check you out in your blog) I have read enough to know your head is big enough to hold a competent, potent brain. Peace and thanks for the conversation. Keep taking and posting pics!
Trey
I don't look for echo chambers, but I do look for articles that outline the writer's position in reasonable form and under the assumption the reader is a mature intelligent adult. When a writer uses inflammatory terms I assume that he/she has issues, issues I don't care to explore.
Yes, cham, as both a lawyer and a sometime writing instructor, I understand your point. Loaded words may have their place, for example, when I am trying to persuade a jury. But this experience of mine then permits me to see that when others use such language, they assume that I am easily led, that I am more liable to succumb to their rhetorical tricks than to appeal by straight-shooting reason, language and facts.
Folks who use that sort of language need to know that there are those who realize that it reflects poorly on the validity of the argument. And the credibility of the speaker.
Andrea
Folks who use that sort of language need to know that there are those who realize that it reflects poorly on the validity of the argument. And the credibility of the speaker.
Sometimes. But extreme situations call for realistic descriptions of them, which wind up being extreme by definition. If you're not bright or objective enough to parse that perhaps your credibility is the one that should be questioned. Perhaps an agenda, or misandry, or fear of confronting pathology, criminality, and evil.
tmink-
But he was prepared to get Midevil if his family's safety required it.
Of course if someone was a troublemaker that went around baiting and harassing people and then assaulting them because he said he was concerned for his "family's safety" it would be an entirely different story. He would just be a sniveling little baby that was using his "family's safety" as an excuse to assault people.
And of course the opposite would be true - the people he assaulted would be justified in taking measures to protect themselves, their family, or their future family. And of course to collect justice on what he had already done to them.
anon 5:51:
"If you're not bright or objective enough to parse that perhaps your credibility is the one that should be questioned. Perhaps an agenda, or misandry, or fear of confronting pathology, criminality, and evil."
Yes, anon. This statement certainly makes you sound very bright and objective.
Yes, anon. This statement certainly makes you sound very bright and objective.
I focus on relaying the facts, the truth, and my ideas. I'm not running for office and I don't craft my communications in response to polls, so I pay little attention to how I "sound."
A burglar is an agressor, the baiter you describe is an agressor. You both believe it is viable to defend against an agressor. What, exactly, was your point? Sounds like you were attempting to portray his father as in the wrong.
No, I was merely illustrating how the dishonest and criminal can use "defending my family" to try to avoid responsibility for what they do and manipulate public opinion.
Anon wrote: "Of course if someone was a troublemaker that went around baiting and harassing people and then assaulting them because he said he was concerned for his "family's safety" it would be an entirely different story. He would just be a sniveling little baby that was using his "family's safety" as an excuse to assault people."
Well, I would not call my father a sniveling little baby if he did that, I would call hima dangerous sociopath! They exist, I often wonder how different my practice would be without them. I am willing to see, but facts are facts and dangerous men are part of our life.
It did seem a little as if you were trying to insult me or my father. He is dead sadly, but was rarely a sniveling little baby! Well, not since he was a sniveling little baby. I agree that people excuse behavior using silly reasons though.
My point was that male aggression is a WONDERFUL thing when used for the right cause. Male aggression pushed the firefighters into the World Trade Center buildings, it stopped the Nazis, it stands up to tyranny, it keeps little children safe. Female aggression does as well, they are both formidable tools. Of course, male aggression also blew up those buildings, tried to exterminate the jews, and threatens families. So perhaps it is a question of how we use our male aggression.
Trey
On another subject: It is not the words, it is the ideas! I am a southerner, I talk funny. People would be mistaken to think that I think funny jess cause I talk funny.
Same way with gender in words. Don't be tricked into confusing words with ideas! It is a distraction used to divert your attention from important ideas. Language is neither a virus nor a form of violence. It is a tool for communicating ideas, and they are the problem or the solution.
Trey
tmink-
My comments weren't made to insult your father, if they were perceived that way I apologize.
I'm very skeptical about separating male and female aggression, because female aggression is improperly used just as often as male aggression is. And often it goes unrecognized and unpunished. Often it comes with the same silly justifications that illegal male violence comes with - from the same kinds of sociopaths.
When it comes to aggression, in both men and women, it's increasing, however, our nation's tolerance for aggression is decreasing. Excuses like "boys will be boys" or "she has PMS" don't work anymore. Now everyone is screaming "personal responsibility".
Hey Anon 11:31 - no problem! But you are kind to set me straight, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so! But it was OK, dad is safe in my heart with his flaws, even if someone had been taking a pot shot at him.
Now about your point: We agree about some aggression being problematic in humanity. I think testosterone and cultural factors do make it different in the large picture. Kind of like the way men commit suicide, we do it in a big, dramatic, and deadly fashion. Different than women who use less deadly means. In general of course.
And the focus on male aggression is a reaction to how we felt demonized by some social critics of the 70s and since. I was called a rapist in print because I have a penis. That deserves some reaction, and the claiming of the positive aspects of male aggression is a reaction to the misandry, not excluding women from the ability to aggress for good and for ill.
But we agree, I just had a different point of emphasis.
Again, thanks for the clarification!
Trey
Agreed Cham. And sometimes, rarely, it is my personal responsibility to get aggressive. Usually in my life, this means testifying in court to save abused children from parents or perpetrators who would abuse them or other children again.
One time it was when a 13 year old boy kept asking my 9 year old daughter to go for a walk with him outside. "Boy, she is 9, and if you ask her one more time to go on a walk outside you and I are going to have a walk outside." The boy's mother (he had no father in his life) said "You better listen to that man" and winked at me.
God forbid, it could be using my father's 12 gauge. But in order to protect my family, nuclear and extended, I have to feel comfortable with the appropriate use of my aggression. And mine is male! I hope you feel comfortable with your aggression, and I hope you rarely have to dust it off. But when you need it, when I need it, when our neighbors need it, I want it to be there. In as small a dose as is necessary, but as needed. And God give us the wisdom to get the dosage right.
Trey
tmink-
Of course you had better not break the law, violate rights, or assault an innocent person. Regardless of whether you feel "comfortable" with it and regardless of who it is "for".
Anon wrote: "tmink-Of course you had better not break the law, violate rights, or assault an innocent person. Regardless of whether you feel "comfortable" with it and regardless of who it is "for".
Hmmm, the rule of law? Ethics? Hmmm, I don't know, ya know it feels so good just to pummel someone. (Sarcasm off.) What is up with you anon that you react to ideas about healthy, moral, and LEGAL aggressiveness with fears of acting out? Sounds like a personal issue to me Anon. Read the posts, understand the ideas, don't react to the words. Engage your brain a bit. The posts have all been about pro-social aggression. Read the posts! Stopping Hitler stuff. Read the posts!
Sheesh.
Trey
tmink-
Because in this day and age a lot of aggression that people claim is "legal" actually isn't. If I use fraud to commit "legal" violence against you it really isn't "legal", is it? In fact it's quite the opposite - I would be committing illegal violence under cover of the law AND fraud.
There's some more of that sounding like making the defense of family somehow illegal again. Defending family is not fraud. Don't read in -- or project.
If you commit a crime or tort and say it was to "defend your family" it doesn't matter - you still committed a crime or tort. Self-defense only applies to imminent threats. Sorry - not projecting.
Anon: Big time projection going on. The posts were talking about healthy aggression. You brought up illegal behavior out of the thin air. OK, that is not true. You brought up illegal activity from your own concerns, thoughts, and experiences. That is why it is indeed projection.
Trey
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home