The Man Who Loved Women

21 Responses to The Man Who Loved Women

1. Paul says:

   December 12, 2007 at 00:53

   Dave, maybe you’re jumping into therapeutic mode too quickly and need to remain in exploration or investigation mode longer. Ask your friends why they do the “foolish” things, see if they can imagine an alternative or might be resisting that alternative for some reason. Perhaps you will get some insights.Of course it could be awfully difficult, since so often our motivations are unconscious, and “rational” explanations of our own behavior can merely be coverups to fool ourselves into retaining the conditioning and not changing.Anyway, congratulations on making the connections. Through further caring dialog there’s a chance that you and your friends will allow yourselves to change, perhaps in unexpected ways. That’s what I hope for myself, anyway.
2. Mariella says:

   December 12, 2007 at 08:05

   ….these are moving sands….I guess there are many “takes” for this issue…. For instance…when you speak about polyamory, i find it fun in one hand, but in the other i don´t picture myself loving and being loved (not only sex) by a group… so this makes me wonder about the dynamic (i mean action, change) of this group love and why does it bothers me…. the commitment to one person, one family, and maybe one lover too…. has a link with “very basic” feelings and needs of security, protection, company, belonging and similars… Even if I know I can provide for myself and my family…And I think it has a cultural side as well as a biological program …I must link my basic energy to one.(no matter how many “one” we have in our life ) .. one man.. one group..In our societies we do not find “groups” that provide that… this kind of relations may loose the bonds.. make them more “light” and so, more dynamic… but maybe, anyway, I would develope this same kind of feeling towards groups too… (Remember “age” .Our inner needs change with age also…)
3. joan says:

   December 12, 2007 at 10:32

   Daaaaaaaaaaave!!!!!!!! how can i put this so that you will hear it? in our society, men have power over women. power plus discimination equals sexism. sexism has much to do with how women behave. if you want to do something to help, do the work to get rid of sexism. as i see it, this will consist of two broad actions: support women (that is, do something to raise the status of female – get rid of the idea that male is superior to female) and give up your power. is that radical enough for you? or do you feel safer leading us women into realizing what we’re doing wrong?
4. Anant says:

   December 12, 2007 at 11:33

   I have thought for a long time now………without the unnatural imposition of religion, marriage or some other social institutions on humans..we would naturally form a society that was like elephant scoiety. Elephant herds are composed of several generations of females, all contributing to the nurture of young and each other…males are driven out when they reach puberty….returning to the herd only to find receptive females. No forced co-habitation, no expectations of happily ever afters!With the removal of social/religous/personal restrictions to free association, an elephant society is what is emerging, naturally, with the rise in numbers of single parent families and several geneartions of mothers caring for our young.Sorry Dave you should naturally be out in the cold!
5. Janene says:

   December 12, 2007 at 12:53

   Hey –hmmm… I’m getting the sense of two different questions merging again… just like when you brought this question up in open thread. The stories from the news… horrible, totally unacceptable, indications of a broken culture and perhaps, as Joan says, a function of patriarchy and sexism……But the rest of the article, that struck me on a personal level. Why do strong, comfortable-with-themselves women *still* give the men in their life that extra pass? I suspect if you took a step back and really looked closely, that you would find these women do the same for *everyone* that they love. Whether parents or siblings, children or friends. I think that women are more inclined, as a function of nurturing behaviors, to *see* and strive for, their loved ones *potential* over and above their active behavior patterns. Because that is the nature of nurture… “foster: help develop, help grow; ‘nurture his talents'”Does this tendency lead to disappointment? Of course… but so does any optimistic strategy or belief structure. But like love it is better to try and fail than to never try at all….Janene
6. Siona says:

   December 12, 2007 at 14:38

   So now it’s woman who “need to change”? :)Seriously, though. I think Joan makes a good point.
7. CB says:

   December 12, 2007 at 14:52

   Dave, the Australian story you mentioned isn’t entirely a matter of sexual politics (though that’s there too). You omitted the crux, which is that this happened in an Indigenous community. After two centuries of casual slaughter and officially-enforced cultural genocide, Australia’s Indigenous peoples are amongst the most soul-blasted, demoralized people who have ever existed. Read Hugh Brody’s ‘The Other Side of Eden’ to understand why farmers (us) have always smashed hunter-gatherers. Read the IPCC report to see how farmers (us) are about to destroy themselves, thankfully, and not a moment too soon.
8. Melinda says:

   December 12, 2007 at 17:00

   Phew! First: nobody should give up their power. Not women. Not men. The power to understand, to see, and to act in the best interest of oneself and those we love. The problem is not that men have power. The problem is that women have less or none (depending on social context and geography). When you KNOW that you’re going to lose, you don’t pick a fight. You don’t assert. When you think you can win, you make your move. The trouble lies with what you THINK (or know) you can do.Mostly, women are right: there’s not much they can do unless they want to (a) destroy a relationship (b) experience negative economic consequences, or (c) experience violence to themselves or their children. Where women’s power is roughly equal to that of men, they take more risks in their relationships with men. It’s as simple as that. But even when the threats of violence and economic loss have been eliminated, the simple loss of a relationship is still a tough cookie. Many men (and how many women?) would rather have a constricted version of their partners than the real person right there in front of them.Love is infinitely better than power, but when love fails, you better have power on your side.
9. deb says:

   December 12, 2007 at 21:13

   I was definitely conditioned for self-sacrifice, both by my mother’s example being married to a controlling tyrant and by my father’s bigotry against all women.I married unwisely (twice) due to low self-esteem. During both 14-yr marriages, I tried to hold my ground and heal conflicts thru nurturing and reason. I naively thought love would conquer all; and I was not well emotionally. Being a victim was so familiar I didn’t even recognize the fact. By the end of both marriages, I felt I absolutely had to leave to salvage what little was left of my soul. My mates weren’t interested in co-creating and perceived my wisdom and strength as a threat.I’ve suffered the attacks of rape, other physical abuse, seemingly endless verbal abuse; and I’m possibly the world’s leading expert on how many ways there are to be told to “shut up”.As a result of my stubborn refusal to obey, I’m finally going it alone and struggling financially, emotionally, and physically (without health care). On my good days I believe in my abilities and worth; but I have “triggers” and voices in my memory that often tell me otherwise. I’m over 50 yrs old and was recently told by my father that I had no business changing my last name without my ex-husband’s approval. Cripes!!!!I’m intelligent and articulate and under-educated (on paper) due to my early desire to please. I’m also angry (I’m working on it) and lost (working on that too) jobless (looking for earth-friendly employment) and mostly worried…. about our Earth.I quit my office job with employers who used mega chemicals, treated migrant workers and women poorly, and thought Bush is the best ever. I bought a diesel car and used biodiesel for over a year. Then I moved to a city and sold the car to upgrade to a bicycle.I’m still nurturing and using reason; except now my precious energies will be used on an entity that responds in loving fashion: EarthSee ya in SL
10. Dave Pollard says:

    December 12, 2007 at 21:18

    Wow…now *that’s* a conversation! Thank you all for your comments, which are wise and perceptive. When I read Joan’s comment, my immediate response was “yes…and *how* do I do that?” I know Joan lives in the same part of Canada as I do, so perhaps I’ll have the chance to meet with her and have a conversation to explore this with her. If so, I’ll follow up with another article.Anant’s portayal of elephant society as matriarchy is a fascinating model, though in the story The White Bone that society is portrayed as more complex, with the role of the male being more supportive, which I think would be ideal, close to what bonobo society is described as being.Thanks to Janene for re-articulating my key point more clearly than I did. I agree that it is sensible and responsible for women to take this optimistic tack, but I still sense that women settle too often too easily for too little, and try to make the best of a bad situation when a better situation might be found that is more fruitful and personally fulfilling.Siona is either making fun of me (which is probably deserved) or has misconstrued my ‘let-self-change’ point — that all meaningful change (not just that by women) comes when people stop trying to change the existing system and let themselves change to discover or create a better one that renders the existing system obsolete. It is progress by workaround, and it works. Women don’t ‘need’ to change, it’s just smarter if they change themselves and work around unchanging and impossible-to-change male attitudes and patriarchy. “Be the change” and all that.CB, I’ve written about The Other Side of Eden, a brilliant book. I agree that genocide underlies the Aussie case, but I think it’s also true that if the victim were male the outcome would have been different. And there are equal horror stories of atrocities committed against women every day in every culture on the face of the planet. And not surprisingly I LOVED Melinda’s comment. Part of the reason I love women is that so many of them (so many of you) have this capacity to be both resolute and pragmatic. Yet both women and men idealize, in remarkably different ways, those they love. I have always been an idealist but I’ve grown very suspicious of idealism. It can exhaust you, immobilize you, make you miserable. I’ve been so fortunate all my life it’s easy for me to say, but do you really need power to make the world a better place, and has power ever been put to such use? It seems to me power only has sway if we all agree to acknowledge that it does, and if we refuse to recognize it, like the emperor’s new clothes it reveals itself to be an illusion, impotent. No?
11. Crispin says:

    December 13, 2007 at 18:03

    Fortunately, the Australian case is far from over. There has been an outpouring of outrage here that is being taken seriously by government. In some ways this shows how quickly things can change. Australia has been utterly lost to itself in a horrific congeries of xenophobia, hatred of the natural world, and mindless consumerism, for the last decade. In rejecting the hateful Howard government, the populace here is showing stirrings of unease over much of this. We even have a female deputy PM, quite remarkable for what has been, for all the fake ‘celebration of diversity’ stuff, quite a woman-hating culture!
12. Jessica says:

    December 13, 2007 at 18:55

    Dave,What is your name in SL? I would be very interested in seeing your profile, the locations you frequent, etc. I am fairly new to SL and I’ve found your posts on your experiment there really intriguing.
13. joan says:

    December 14, 2007 at 08:39

    Two things you said in your comment concern me, Dave. “Women don’t ‘need’ to change, it’s just smarter if they change themselves and work around unchanging and impossible-to-change male attitudes and patriarchy.”So men get to have “unchanging and impossible-to-change” attitudes then? And women get to be smarter and work around that. Hooray equality!and “It seems to me power only has sway if we all agree to acknowledge that it does, and if we refuse to recognize it, like the emperor’s new clothes it reveals itself to be an illusion, impotent. No?” Uhhh… no. Well, o.k., maybe in this lovely little forum where we all tend to agree about stuff, we can agree about this too. But then we have to convince billions of other people to agree. I’m not really that optimistic.i’m open to conversations, virtual and otherwise. but i’ll only be in the same part of Canada until next March.
14. lugon says:

    December 15, 2007 at 11:05

    off-topic, but one i know interests you (courtsey of ishmael.org) http://www.panearth.org/panearth/world%20food%20&%20human%20population%20growth/player.html
15. Jon Husband says:

    December 15, 2007 at 17:03

    I agree that women do humanistic, socially purposeful, relationship-based activities better. They (as a vast generality) are “nicer” human beings .. less competitive, less boastful, less insensitive.Almost all of our institutions and dominant social processes are (IMO) designed to be competitive and adversarial, to fit to the male mode of functioning. Regardless of rational analysis and design, most of these institutions and processes are accumulated prismatic reflections of the evolution of social processes through history (let’s all please remember that only 100 years ago, for example, we were all just coming out of the aftermath of the Victorian era, and our great grandparents are likely to have been born in say 1860 or 1875).The combination of the male-ish, engineering-oriented structures and processes coming out of that era and the following 50 years, our slow social evolution, the fact that much of what and who we learn to be is accomplished by socialization under authority figures and institutional processes during our first 15 years … means that although there has been much positive influence from women (thank goodness for the strong and assertive women (individuals and groups) who have been pushing all these years, the dominant processes and attitudes remain overwhelmingly male.I have often been struck, over the past decade with a general observation that younger women today seem more confident, more “clear”, more self-reliant than many young men. And clearly, effective education is a critical element in addressing these issues as well … uneducated and poorly-socialized males are often only a half-step away from …. well, cretinism … and they are often dangerous to women (and other men). Much has been written about this by more astute observers than me .. but offering young men sports and financial celebrities as role models doesn’t help in growing and helping to develop a critical mass of aware and somewhat evolved people. Yes, I know young women are not given much better in the way of tole models .. but many have their mothers, aunts, sisters and other inspiring examples of giving, practical humanism to look to.Anyway, I am rambling .. but yes, I’d like things to change in the directions you suggest even more than they have or will.
16. Janene says:

    December 15, 2007 at 20:07

    Hey –ummm… maybe I am breaking gender taboos, here…. but Jon’s comment struck a nerve for me…Women are less competitive from the perspective of men. Bt that is NOT to say that they are less competitive. In some ways, I tend to think women are *more* competitive than men, although perhaps only in a single sphere of life… that of lovers/mates.I cannot tell you the number of women that I have spoken with and *gotten along with* because they, like me, often don’t *like* other women because of this competitiveness. Most of my friends, throughout my life have been male, as a result. Male competitiveness is simple whereas women are much more inclined to be decietful and backstabbing………Just as an example… I have recently been caught in the crossfire with a woman that is socially and intellectually naive — a product of a birth defect… but let me tell you, however naive she may be in most ways, she is *quite* adept at this female competitiveness. And the man in our lives is completely unable to conceive of it, much less see or believe it. Point is, realize that however much men might like to imagine it, women are *not* the gentle, enlightened or superior gender men want us to be………………Janene
17. Jon Husband says:

    December 15, 2007 at 21:23

    Women are less competitive from the perspective of men. Bt that is NOT to say that they are less competitive. In some ways, I tend to think women are *more* competitive than men, although perhaps only in a single sphere of life… that of lovers/mates.I cannot tell you the number of women that I have spoken with and *gotten along with* because they, like me, often don’t *like* other women because of this competitivenessGood point, Janene. I am remembering a book I read long ago (about 15 years, maybe 10) by Kate Filion, titled “Lip Service : Challenging the Sexual Script of the Modern Woman”. It was about the issue(s) you raise. I thought it was smart, well-researched and written, and under-appreciated.But I don’t really know, do I and I should not pretend to so much, as I am not a woman.
18. Gayle says:

    December 16, 2007 at 04:40

    Weren’t most of us taught as children, that the men in our lives and our leaders in church, government and work, are men of integrity, honesty, strength and heroism? As a young girl and woman I looked at the glass as half full when it came to believing in the good of men and women. Perhaps that view enables some women to be victimized like you describe since it’s difficult(when you strive for integrity and high character yourself) to accept that other humans would deliberately lie, deceive and hurt others. I’m older now and wiser too, but I still have an idealistic belief that most of us want to be decent human beings.
19. Jon Husband says:

    December 16, 2007 at 06:03

    Weren’t most of us taught as children, that the men in our lives and our leaders in church, government and work, are men of integrity, honesty, strength and heroism? That’s one of the key elements of our massive problems, right there. We still (want to) believe this too much, and in many ways a much less regulated and much more corporate-friendly media help to keep it that way. And ethics, morals and integrity often get in the way when almost everything, seemingly, is driven by quarterly performance .. quarters are only 12 weeks long, or about 90 days. What a way to keep someoene, or all of us, somewhat anxious if not rabid ?And in the past, leaders being men (and fewer women than today) one could look up to may have been, to some degree, the case as well. But there weren’t the equivalent of large-dollar bonuses around then, there wasn’t job-hopping and career self-management, there weren’t nearly as many instances of evidence that it pays (well, and in several ways) to lie and cheat. There were also only a third as many people around on the planet only 60 years ago or so.I too think that the large majority of people on the planet want to be good decent kind helpful, etc. I’ve seen (and been the recipient of) examples of this drive far too often not to believe it.But I also believe that for virtually all of us our behaviours on a daily basis are much more driven by the design of the system of systems in which we now live and work, and that trying to minimise its effects, and as Dave likes to say Let-Self-Change is really very very hard for the vast majority of people. IMO Dave has had both conditions and gifts that have allowed him to explore Let-Self-Change more deeply than most people might be able to.
20. Siona says:

    December 16, 2007 at 18:26

    Jon; Janene.At the risk of contributing to the vast generalizations going on here, I’ve read that it depends a bit on the circle of comparisons used. Men tend to exert themselves in broader realms than do women: men will be more aggressive toward strangers, more concerned with power and prestige in the world at large, more willing to engage sexually with unfamiliar partners. Women are experts within smaller, more intense and intimate spheres: they can be hypercompetitive with those in their circle, are more likely to kill (their) children than men, and are more comfortable with the language of close relationships. Women are more sensitive when it comes to intimacy, but I’ll speak from experience and say that this allows us, too, to be more viciously manipulative. To my mind, it’s not at all that one gender is ‘good’ and another ‘bad,’ merely that our general evolutionary (and / or cultural) areas of expertise differ.
21. communicatrix says:

    December 17, 2007 at 15:43

    It’s the patriarchy, baby. Until that changes, no other change of the kind of scale you’re discussing can happen.What to do?1. Educate yourself. I recommend “I Blame the Patriarchy” for those brave enough to dive right in to the ugly, ugly truth of several thousand years of men on top. The main site portal is down, but you can access it via the archives and click around; the pages seem to be there. A wealth of great info, smart writing and lively, eye-opening discussion. I considered myself to be fairly well awake until IBTP; hoo boy, was I in for a strawberry alarm clock:http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/archives/There’s also a great starter site for baby feminists (and the feminist-curious) set up to answer some of the basic questions that get asked over and over:http://www.finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/2. Don’t try to fix it, unless you’re talking about legislation.The only way to change this is from the inside out. One person help one person. Live by example. You were gifted/cursed with being born at the top of the food chain (straight Western Anglo male); nothing to be done. Support change by being change. I know it sounds kinda lame, but there it is.

Comments are closed.