BlogHer - psychology - Comments

Adam and Apple

mavishuffmathews — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:29:29 -0500

ADAM AND APPLE Mavis Mathews

In the familiar allegory of the first relationship between a man and a woman there was a significant apple. The story contends that the eating of this apple brought about the "fall of man,” and that it was served up to him by a woman.

To this day we tend to believe that a properly displayed temptation, such as the flash of a pair of thong panties, can bring a man down from the highest pinnacle of achievement.

The unmistakable similarity between this more recent display of temptation in the Oval Office and that first one in the allegorical Garden of Eden is all too obvious. But, who would dare to suggest that such a man, or any man for that matter, could actually be beguiled by a clever female and still think of himself as a man?

And so, once again tradition holds: Adam finally accepts full responsibility for eating the apple, apologizes, and sets himself up to pay the price for his indiscretion. The unutterable alternative would have been to acknowledge that he had been seduced or brought to degeneration by a mere woman.

But then, some women seem to agree, don’t they? "It’s always the man’s fault,” they proclaim, because he's what? Bigger than she is? They love to bitch and complain about the advantages men have over women. They may even say that they want equal rights, but do they really? Do they want equal answerability as well?

Some authors like Naomi Wolfe in her book, "The Beauty Myth," promote the theory that women have been completely dominated by men all along—implying that it was men who made women into the helpless “sheep” that they had become.

Well, if it’s true that women can be so easily brainwashed by the workings of the more generative male mind, perhaps they need to take another look at that. It won’t be easy. To begin with, they’ll have to bring themselves to consider the possibility that he might actually have a more generative mind. Only then can they seriously consider a real-life example of how it works in everyday life.

A woman must never underestimate the persuasive powers of the male mind. It's one of the things she finds so attractive about him, isn't it?

She may not always like it very much like when she wakes up some morning and realizes she’s "been had" the night before. Or even that she’s bought something that she neither wanted nor needed. She’s simply had an experience with the more generative male mind. But, even then, she can't help but admire the way he managed to get what he wanted—how an ordinary man can transform into some kind of genius when he sets out to con or seduce a woman. It’s a gift and it has a counterpart in female.

She still has the capacity to completely captivate an unsuspecting male and to lead him astray. It takes more than an apple, more even than a pair of thong panties. Women have always been a mystery to men, and they had better hope that it stays that way.

Sex, in and of itself, does not satisfy the voracious appetite of the male ego (although they'll never quit believing that it will.) But what is it that female holds over male? What makes her such a mystery?

She holds the possibility of a more enduring fulfillment—one that can only be administered by a woman. It is non-threatening and it is non-competitive. It can come, exclusively, from a woman who is confident and happy in her own feminine form. It comes naturally when a woman matures and truly understands and appreciates the masculine gender—free of envy, anger or resentment.

This woman understands that his needs are not that different from her own. She knows that he seeks to be desired, respected and cherished. He needs to be made to feel singularly special like Adam must have felt when Eve offered him the forbidden apple.

Delayed Response

mavishuffmathews — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:17:11 -0500

Dear Alyssa,

Forgive my long delay in figuring out how to answer a comment. Techie, I'm not. I have been given some very deep insights into the differences between male and female.

Truly all of us are both masculine and feminine in various degrees - our innate strengths alternate - within each of us who are alone AND in relationships with each other when we are not.

It will never cease to amaze me that women still expect to be protected when physically threatened and haven't a clue that men need to be protected emotionally. I wrote a book about that in 1981 and it's still the best kept secret in the world.

Thank you so much for your comment. My instinct is to protect men emotionally.

Best regards,

Mavis

Partnership

mavishuffmathews — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:00:55 -0500

Dear Liz,

You're exactly right. I suppose that you can find that perfect balance without even knowing where men'a and women's strengths differ. Consider yourselves very lucky.

I'm 82; this teck stuff is WAY beyond me. That's why it has taken me a year to get back to you - to, in fact, ever read your comment. I'm so sorry.

Equal partnership is what everybody needs. Life was created to be lived in pairs. Rare is the woman who knows where a man's vulnerabilities lie. Learning that is the key to knowing how to achieve an equal partnership.

May yours continue to thrive.

Mavis

oh...

nightsdarkness — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:18:57 -0500

Dear Nordette! It's not only women who collect them, but men as well! (in fact, some were upset it did not mention men in the article)

I myself (who is female however) am saving for this beauty

http://www.iplehouse.net/shop/step1.php?number=10

who will cost nearly $700 after shipping (she'll be coming to me in the us from Korea)

There are plenty of us BJD collectors, ranging from below 13 years old to over 60! I HIGHLY recomend checking out

http://www.denofangels.com/forums/index.php

as you will find the answer to ANY question you could ever think of about these dolls there.

It is rather funny they call this the "latest craze", as people have been collecting them for some time now. It's only that recently the number of collectors have reached such that non bjd collectors notice them.

BJD owners do buy things for their dolls, do throw them parties, and yes.. they do matchmake- sometimes matching their dolls with a friend's. Something I dont think the article made real clear was that owners can also paint their dolls own makeup, which will come off with a quick scrub of a wet Mr. Clean Magic Eraser. Back to the subject of parties, there is a anual trip a group of Ball-joint doll owners that go to Disney's Epcot, and do take their dolls.

as an ending note (for i've ranted enough), my drive to collecting them is 1) their high level of costomization, and 2) their WONDERFUL realism. I have yet to find another type of doll which has both humanoid posability & high realism

No more Slinkys?

Nordette — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:40:52 -0500

Thank you, Denise. I'll keep that in mind. :-)

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

Dust, dust, and dust some more

Nordette — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:39:11 -0500

Yeah, books and CDs do get dusty, but they're not nearly as difficult to spruce up as an intricate, porcelain piece of bric a brac. My mom had these little items in her house and I hated cleaning them.

One of my aunts collects Miss Martha's Originals. I could see having some of those for myself, but oh, those dusty nooks and crannies. Of course, I'm exaggerating the dust factor b/c all material possessions require maintenance. :-)

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

I'd call that love

Nordette — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:28:26 -0500

When people take the time to collect stuff for you, then it's love. :-) Or maybe they think you're "the woman has everything" so they want to get you something useless but fun.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

Speaking as a collector

fibro_witch — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:55:59 -0500

First off they become my little family. I talk to them change their outfits, Create rooms for them. The works. Mostly I collect Barbie dolls. Both the fancy dolls who wear outfits I could never afford or fit into. I have one small house, barbie has many big ones. I have one old car, Barbie has several cool new ones and some fab old ones.

The dolls are a chance to have fun, To create a world where my rules apply. A world that never gets dust, because it does not hold still long enough for dust to collect. Unlike my books or cds which need regular maintenance.

Jan D

http://fibrowitch.blogspot.com/

I can relate Virginia

Denise — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:29:41 -0500

Family members and friends have always made assumptions about my "collections" and so I now collect all sorts of things that I never intended to collect.

1) smiley faces
2) dolphins
3) snow globes
4) painted cows (much like your painted ponies)
5) cats
6) flamingos

I really only consider myself a collector of:

1) books
2) slinkys (but please don't send me any if you're reading this!!!)
3) magnets (which is sort of an accidental thing like above, but I do really like my magnets)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

What about things people collect for me?

Virginia DeBolt — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:35:28 -0500

Several years ago New Mexico had a state-wide art project called "Trail of the Painted Ponies." Life-sized horses were painted by numerous New Mexico artists. Time passed, and Hallmark stores started selling small reproductions of these horses. I bought one, because I knew the artist. My family grabbed onto the idea like super glue and now I get a new pony on every occasion. I don't know what the inner meaning is in this. Luckily, I still have a little room on the shelf for more ponies.

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology Contributing Editor
Web Teacher
First 50 Words

Thanks for tackling that article.

Liz Rizzo — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:15:25 -0500

I had to just walk away after I read it.

I'm so sick of my innate characteristics like ambition and competitiveness being described as masculine, and being told that I am supposed to be nurturing and prefer cooperative activities.

I've got a dead plant and a 1st place Warrior Knights ribbon to show you. (It's a board game.)

I'm not masculine; This Is Women, Too.

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

I see what you're saying.

Bill Cammack — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:32:17 -0500

I see what you're saying. Allowing people to trend towards "the middle" if that's their natural inclination. That's different from deliberate attempts at behavior modification by people who have an agenda of getting the masses to conform.

Obviously, the more diversity, the better, because there's more likelihood of the concept "There's someone for everyone" coming true. However, the way American society tends to work is that it can't or won't move forward without villifying its fomer stance.

It's not good enough to say "let people trend towards the middle". What comes along with that is that the fringes are "bad". Attempts are made to make people feel unprogressive or behind the times if they don't subscribe to the direction the stream is flowing now. If it were just a situation of "let people be whomever they feel like they are", then I'd agree with you. There's a type of male that's being pushed by the media at this point, similar to how the media has been pushing types of females forever. Even female models can't retain the physiques of female models, and they still push American females to aspire to be skinny and tall in ways that their bodies will never ever match. Whether this new male 'style' will lead to a better American society, time will tell. We can only HOPE! :D

~ Bill
I blog at billcammack.com

Wish others...

nelle2nelle — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:42:47 -0500

would join in, this is an interesting discussion, and I thank you for taking the time to discuss.

On the point of moving towards androgyny... that isn't really how I see it, though of course many do embrace such. Heck, it was my first way station in crossing gender lines.

Instead of moving towards, it is more expanding outward to incorporate androgyny into the mix. As an example of what I mean about expanding to incorporate, I'll raise a simple, one element item. Hair styles.

When I was a child, a guy had no hair, a quarter inch of hair, or maybe... hair no longer then 2 inches. That changed. Now a guy can shave his head, wear dreads, or wear it any length that suits him. His range of possibility with hair expanded, giving more choices.

And that is how I see tearing down walls on gender. We aren't simply exchanging one set of rules for another, we are trying to give everyone the freedom to assemble their particular package in ways that best suit and appeals to them. This creates greater diversity, not greater homogeneity or a reshuffling of the deck with the same stringent rules, just different individual elements.

If we tear down the walls, then we allow individuals to thrive, to be all they wish to be and feel they are. We tell each child they aren't weird or wrong for not being like another child, but that they are appreciated for their own particular package of self. When we teach to kids by knowing their strengths and weaknesses, if we know what pushes their buttons and what turns them off, we make huge, huge progress.

None of this necessarily renders men like women and vice versa. It expands the possibilities, increases the diversity... and appreciating diversity is one of the greatest things that comes with sentient life.

nelle

llhaesa

The Times, They Are A-Changin'.....

Bill Cammack — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:17:48 -0500

I'm the FIRST one to say that societal constructs upset and confuse individuals that don't fit into the cookie-cutter mold. Definitely, "making" people declare one affiliation or another causes a lot of them to choose 'walking the line' instead of doing what's natural to them. Agreed there.

Agreed that schools are cookie-cutter, because they teach you useless stuff like Calculus. Unless you go into a field that relies upon it, there's no reason for anyone to learn it, but it's still in the curriculum.

I think where we appear to disagree is on the concept of convergence. You're talking about convergence as, let's say, "the ability for anyone to be able to do anything and receive the same credit and amount of pay, regardless of whether they're male or female". IMO, nothing's lost as that box gets torn down. Also, you bring up things like one side being strong and the other side being weak. I don't feel anything's lost by tearing that box down either. I'm sure there are lots of guys who date women who can beat them up for instance... or who are smarter than they are or went to a better school or have a more complicated and demanding career. Nothing wrong there, AFAIC.

What I think is lost is kind of tough to explain. :) It's the same thing that's lost when guys are brought up in all-female households and have no male role models. The only experience of life that they grow up understanding is the female one, and I'm not putting THAT into a box. I'm not saying that a woman raising a man makes him automatically weak or effeminate or whatever. I'm sure there are lots of women raising male children on their own who are better, smarter, stronger and faster than the deadbeat dads or whatever the case may be. I'll have to think about *exactly* what it is, so that's an excellent question, Nelle. :) You've basically asked me to explain how I walk, which I can't explain to you other than the obvious surface reference of "I put one foot in front of the other", because I started walking as a baby and it's something that I do without understanding HOW I do it. Breathing applies as well. I'll definitely keep thinking about it and post an update here if I come up with something, but, yes... I believe the American trend towards androgyny is a downhill spiral as women lose their point of reference by having ZERO exposure to anything but these watered-down versions of males, similar to a male having no point of reference from being raised by females.

Having said that, and looking at it from your point of view, a trend towards androgeny is useful for women in other ways, and actually *does* signal a shift away from a traditional patriarchal society. The less men expect from women, the less women will feel pressured to stay in shape or look good or be sexually enticing to their man or make less than he does or be physically weaker than he is, etc etc etc. So it's definitely better for you than a system that's caused you to hide for 4 decades. Also, with shows like "Dr. Phil", they're spoon-feeding y'all this type of guy as if he's what guys should strive to be, so women are getting more and more used to it. So.. Yeah... "The Times, They Are A-Changin'..."

The other examples you mention are symptoms of misogyny for sure. We're indoctrinated (or at least we USED TO BE, haha) with "Men are great!" and "Thank GOD we're men!" and "Male > Female" from ages before I think our first long term memories allow us to recall. This is why "you play like a girl" is the WORST thing you can tell a player. It's like saying he's ineffective... useless on the field. Is that fair to women who can play football well? No. It's another one of those things that miiiiight go away as men and women trend towards similarity.

Anyway, I agree with you on most of your points about patriarchal society. Back in February, 2008, I wrote "It’s The End of The World as We Know It! :(" about how guys' leverage in the dating game goes to ZERO if scientists figure out how to make babies utilizing female bone marrow. I'm joking... kind of... But the point is that the whole game's about control, and the less control there is, the better it will be for people that don't fit into those boxes.

~ Bill
I blog at billcammack.com

Still disagreeing...

nelle2nelle — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:12:13 -0500

there are some differences between men and women; what we have to to take care with are societal construct issues. Those get in the way and harm women and men, forcing them into boxes that not everyone who happens to be male or female will fit into.

Our schools are cookie cutter in approach, one of the reasons why so many get left behind. When you force kids to exist in boxes they are naturally inclined not to be in, it creates issues. Been there.

When someone suggests men and women are converging, well... what is converging? Setting me aside, one who has in fact crossed gender lines, how in fact do men and women converge such that it is detrimental to both? What exactly do you feel is lost as we tear down these boxes?

On patriarchy... you will fiind rantings and such scattered in places in my blogs, and I tackle a fictional heavily patriarchal society that is sort of A Handmaids Tale-ish in some ways on my fiction blog.

Patriarchy expects us to conform to gender roles, and while I do not wish to speak for you, think you hint that some of the roles might be worthy. I'm listening.

It is what forced me to hide for 4 decades, what still depresses salaries and finds us with our second major ticket female candidate, none for the top spot. It's what forced my boss to go in the back door of an all male lodge when the company president held a meeting there (20 years ago.) What led my new boss 30 years ago, moments after he hired me - to ask 'how will you like working with a bunch of bitchy women?' Or the comments within this very decade but before I crossed gender lines - someone ranting to me about his spouse in ways that boiled me blood, but I tempered it into a redirect to ponder a different outlook - which he promptly dismissed.

It is what spurs outcry from the left or the right - misogyny can be found on both sides - when Palin was nominated. What makes fun of a man if he is perceived as effimininate - an entirely social measure. Is there truly anything to laugh about there? Looks like a human being, thinks like a human being, but he's... well he's... he acts like a girl!

And using that to segue into Bill Parcells and his infamous comment to Terry Glenn a decade or so ago 'you play like a girl.'

It is what assumes women are weak and men are strong. Identical resumes to find the one with a male sounding name gets selected more often. Or pregnant women to be fired because... they are pregnant (one I see occasionally in my employment.)

What deters some young men from embracing education - it isn't a macho thing to do. It is what leaves men having a harder time grasping and accepting gay or transgender, because of some vague perception of it threatening their masculinity. Patriarchy harms men, because not every man fits into its boxes...

now if a guy loves a particular box framework, wishes to live by it etc, more power to him. But just as I view choice as carrying a full range of options and any individual can go the route of the one that suits them, so to would I like to see a wide open playing field for everyone, and let them go where they are naturally inclined, rather than by being shoved there by artificial selection and forced redirection.

Many in the lgbt community have done the whole closet thing, it isn't very much fun. I know what those unwanted boxes are like, and don't really wish to see anyone categorised against their wishes.

Patriarchy is unbalanced and the unbalance creates problems. We need to bring back a strong and equal feminist element so that we have room for people to grow and be all they can be.

nelle

llhaesa