Does this Dress Make My Butt Look Fat? (Animation)
The fast moving comedy is surprising truthful as attractive lovers say what each of them really means instead of what is expected and proper.
Adapted from You Still Don't Understand by drD with Dr Nancy Ann Davis
See website MenandWomen101.com
See website MenandWomen101.com
Why So Much Harsher toward Men? The Chivalrous Imperative
A recent 2008 Gallup poll in Great Britain finds that 33% of women "often or very often" feel resentful of men, compared to 14% of men who often feel resentful of women. So fully a third of women carry with them an ongoing resentment toward their opposites, as compared to about a sixth of men. By my own careful calculations, that is a truckload of anger.
Most men are so involved with the accusations and with the anger itself, the harm it does, and the unfairness of it all, that we seem to miss a fundamental question. Just where does such a truckload of anger come from? Is it simply an unfortunate and unintended outcome of our modern culture? Are women treated worse than men? Or is it somehow programmed into human nature? I suggest that women are naturally more inclined to condemn their opposites, and perhaps more surprisingly, that men themselves are harsher toward men than toward women.
Men Are More Stressed in Arguments
Researcher John Gottman at the University of Washington observes couples arguing, and measures pulse rate, blood pressure, and related stress indicators. He finds that men are more stressed, intimidated, and emotionally overwhelmed than women, and tend to concede, placate, or withdraw. "In the sea of conflict," notes Gottman, "men sink and women swim." Men are not blindfolded and gagged in arguments with women— it just seems that way.
Women, in contrast, are more comfortable in personal arguments and are more inclined to air their grievances. "I have become increasingly angry," comments Gloria Steinem, "as the alternative is depression." Anger for this feminist pioneer seems to be an emotional elixir, which most men find truly incomprehensible.
Innate Tendencies
Gottman and other relationship researchers note that women are more emotionally combative, but leave the "why" question unasked. The workings of natural selection are apparent from even a brief glance through modern evolutionary principles.
Sexual interest is higher in young males across all cultures, primitive or modern, and across the vast array of animal species as well. Those who invest less in each offspring, meaning males, stand to benefit genetically by multiple matings, while those who invest more in each offspring do well to go slowly, choose carefully, and gain the maximum benefit from each mating.
Insistence has been a viable tactic for women, to test the strength of a commitment, while a reluctance to offend has been a more viable tactic for men, who must rely on women to transport their genes into the next generation. Nature selects for women who are more comfortable in arguments and willing to insist, and for men who make allowances and try to avoid offending.
Chivalrous Standards
We hear little of chivalry, and some consider it nothing more than a flimsy folk-tale. Yet human passions are highly chivalrous, supporting women and protecting them from men who might harm them.
An illustration or two should suffice. A man and a woman are in a nightclub, and quarrel. If he throws an ounce of whiskey at her, it is clearly an assault, and an undercover policeman would arrest him on the spot and jail him. If she throws a splash of whiskey at him, it is merely a rebuff or perhaps an expression of exasperation. Who would want to jail her? Surely, anyone who did would not be welcome back at the nightclub. Men who understand women gain their admiration, and perhaps their sexual favors as well, whereas men who oppose and offend women are treated accordingly.
We are not chivalrous simply because men are physically stronger. A Justice survey asked men and women to judge the seriousness of various transgressions. If a man stabbing a woman to death with a knife is rated a 10, meaning truly heinous and indeed unforgivable, then a woman stabbing a man to death with a knife is rated only a 6, meaning surely serious but perhaps understandable under the circumstances. Why so?
Men have been expected to protect women, and the lowlife who knifes a woman is hardly a man at all. On the other hand, a woman who just whacked her mate is still very much a woman, and furthermore, she may be quite available, although a tad risky. A man who understands her situation gains her favor, and may join with her to sire rug-rats with similarly understanding attitudes.
Men who catch a few blows file police complaints only a tenth as often as do battered women, and so seldom come to our attention. Here again, our public conduct follows our genetic interests. What sort of fool would hand his wife over to the men in authority and probably lose her, just because she takes a swing or two? A woman, on the other hand, must count on a man for her safety, and she benefits from punishing the reckless egotist who goes too far over the line.
Chivalrous Chimps
Chivalrous alliances are seen among various social animals, including chimpanzees. In one incident, an offended female chimp calls upon a male companion for assistance. Using high-pitched barks, she points toward her assailant with her whole hand (rather than just a finger), at the same time kissing her companion and patting him. As her pleas become more insistent, he charges out to battle her antagonist while she stands by and watches approvingly. Thus is rescued another damsel in distress, and her champion becomes the hero of the hour. Call him Champ Chimpski.
Chivalry is a social imperative, and Champ here acts to uphold an unspoken standard of justice. Like a real man, although a shave short in stature and light on brain power, he enforces one of our highest and noblest moral callings. He stands by fair maiden, and uses his power to punish the beastly bastard who has so callously offended her.
A chimp such as Champ who supports the damsel may gain opportunities to mate with her later, while one who refuses his support will also be remembered and treated accordingly. And so too among our own. Men who uphold women against offending men gain their respect, and perhaps their favors, while men who refuse women lose out. So nature programs men to support women in distress and to stand strongly against the dastardly scumbags who cross them.
Chivalrous Custody
A general policy of equal parenting rights for both parents improves marital stability, reduces animosities between parents who do separate, benefits the children and makes a separation easier on them, and allows custody lawyers a much needed respite from their demanding legal work loads. When fathers want to remain involved, we might figure that joint custody would be a no-brainer.
Yet we have two competing standards here. Surely, we want what is best for the children. But chivalry is programmed strongly into the human animal, and we feel that it is highly moral to uphold women and to punish the men who wrong them. So the judge tends to side with the woman in her hour of greatest need. His inner Champ Chimpski charges in to support the fair damsel in distress and to punish the worthless lowlife who has wronged her.
Chivalrous Lenses
Human culture appears to be naturally chivalrous, supporting women against offending men, more than it is sexist, as is commonly claimed, supporting men against women. Why do so many believe otherwise?
We are now expected to compliment women on their multiple talents and many achievements, while it is considered sexist and terribly improper to notice limitations or moral failings. And it is now somewhat improper to honor men for any special strengths and virtues, as it can offend women, while it is conspicuously commonplace to condemn men for the many ways men mistreat women. So social propriety exaggerates some facets and conceals others, yielding a highly biased impression of men and women.
" A man defending husbands vs. wives or men vs. women
has got about as much chance as a traffic policeman
trying to stop a mad dog by blowing two whistles."
-Ring Lardner
An Innate Mechanism
Chivalrous standards are harsher toward men than toward women. It is not merely a matter of cultural happenstance, which could go the other way just as easily. Women are born to expect something for their favors, and men are born to support those who can carry their genes into the next generation. Innate inclinations contribute to our chivalrous standards, and harsher treatment towards men serves to enforce those standards.
Innate leanings do not mean that something cannot be changed, only that passions run high and must be managed. Advocates for more equal treatment for men wrestle against a chivalrous moral imperative that most of the population hardly knows exists. We should wish them well.
Adapted from "You Still Don't Understand" by drD and Nancy Ann Davis.
Sensitive Cave Man
<>
Video release:
Sensitive Cave Man
Why Men Feel Compelled to Fix It.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101886146
"Sensitive Cave Men" offers a comic sketch and an answer to this commonplace question.
by drD with Nancy Ann Davis, PhD.
<>
<>
Video release:
Sensitive Cave Man
Why Men Feel Compelled to Fix It.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101886146
Sensitive Cave Man
Why do women want to talk about a problem, on and on, while men want fix it as quickly as possible and be done with it?
"Sensitive Cave Men" offers a comic sketch and an answer to this commonplace question.
Click on link below picture
<>
<>
Is the Feminist Culture Harmful to Women?
News brief:
Women's happiness declines over last 35 years.
Is the feminist culture harmful to women?
A recent analysis finds that happiness and the sense of well-being and satisfaction has declined among women, both in constant terms and also in comparison to men. The decline is found across various investigations, across various measures of subjective well-being and satisfaction with life, across various demographic groups, and within numerous industrialized countries.
The findings are from the General Social Survey [i], which is the largest sociology project funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and is considered highly authoritative. Aside from the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.
How strong is the decline for women relative to men? In 1972, in the initial surveys, the average woman had a 3+ percentile happiness advantage relative to the average man, while in 2006, in the last samplings, she was 1+ percentile behind. The figures add up to a 4½ percentile decrease in happiness for women in comparison to men over the 35 year span of the study. The investigators note that a change of such magnitude should be considered quite substantial.
While various explanations are proposed, we look here at the feminist position that women are oppressed and always have but are a special class of humans who can accomplish wondrous things once the forces of oppression have been overthrown. In spite of widening workplace opportunities, women find that it is not easy to accomplish great things and still raise a family and have a free moment to oneself. It is a tough world out there, indifferent to our fantasies and barely responsive to our best efforts. Inflated expectations are a standard recipe for failure and despair.
What about the ideology that women are oppressed? "Women are oppressed" usually means "oppressed by men," so in the active voice the message is that "Men oppress women." Naturally, the more one believes that, the more resentful she will be toward men, and the less understanding she will be toward her alleged oppressors.
A recent survey found that 33% of women "often or very often" resent men, while only 14% of men are highly resentful of women. Public condemnation towards men has obviously increased over the last 40 years, and surely contributes to the pandemic of personal resentments toward men.
Angry women tend to feel empowered when they express their anger, but then returned to the blahs and emptiness once the anger is spent. "I have become increasingly angry," comments Gloria Steinem, "as the alternative is depression." Overall, anger is a quick fix followed by a lingering headache.
Psychotherapists who challenge anger and seek to reduce it are not as popular with their clients but have better outcomes, while therapists who support anger and encourage its expression are more popular but have worse outcomes. Anger reduction, reconciliation, and a heartfelt understanding and appreciation of family and friends is fundamental to healthy living. It is a mainstay in Christianity and in most other religious teachings.
The hardships and general meaninglessness of life are problems that we all confront and probably always will. Yet increasing animosities toward our opposites is hardly a viable solution and appears to broaden a general malaise among women and nudge possible solutions farther out of reach.
by drD
author of "You Still Don't Understand" with Nancy Ann Davis, PhD.
See commentary at Tikkun
[i] Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, "The paradox of declining female happiness." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2009, 1:2, 190–225.
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/WomensHappiness.pdf
<>
<>
Women's happiness declines over last 35 years.
Is the feminist culture harmful to women?
Is the Feminist Culture Harmful to Women?
A recent analysis finds that happiness and the sense of well-being and satisfaction has declined among women, both in constant terms and also in comparison to men. The decline is found across various investigations, across various measures of subjective well-being and satisfaction with life, across various demographic groups, and within numerous industrialized countries.
The findings are from the General Social Survey [i], which is the largest sociology project funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and is considered highly authoritative. Aside from the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.
How strong is the decline for women relative to men? In 1972, in the initial surveys, the average woman had a 3+ percentile happiness advantage relative to the average man, while in 2006, in the last samplings, she was 1+ percentile behind. The figures add up to a 4½ percentile decrease in happiness for women in comparison to men over the 35 year span of the study. The investigators note that a change of such magnitude should be considered quite substantial.
While various explanations are proposed, we look here at the feminist position that women are oppressed and always have but are a special class of humans who can accomplish wondrous things once the forces of oppression have been overthrown. In spite of widening workplace opportunities, women find that it is not easy to accomplish great things and still raise a family and have a free moment to oneself. It is a tough world out there, indifferent to our fantasies and barely responsive to our best efforts. Inflated expectations are a standard recipe for failure and despair.
What about the ideology that women are oppressed? "Women are oppressed" usually means "oppressed by men," so in the active voice the message is that "Men oppress women." Naturally, the more one believes that, the more resentful she will be toward men, and the less understanding she will be toward her alleged oppressors.
A recent survey found that 33% of women "often or very often" resent men, while only 14% of men are highly resentful of women. Public condemnation towards men has obviously increased over the last 40 years, and surely contributes to the pandemic of personal resentments toward men.
Angry women tend to feel empowered when they express their anger, but then returned to the blahs and emptiness once the anger is spent. "I have become increasingly angry," comments Gloria Steinem, "as the alternative is depression." Overall, anger is a quick fix followed by a lingering headache.
Psychotherapists who challenge anger and seek to reduce it are not as popular with their clients but have better outcomes, while therapists who support anger and encourage its expression are more popular but have worse outcomes. Anger reduction, reconciliation, and a heartfelt understanding and appreciation of family and friends is fundamental to healthy living. It is a mainstay in Christianity and in most other religious teachings.
The hardships and general meaninglessness of life are problems that we all confront and probably always will. Yet increasing animosities toward our opposites is hardly a viable solution and appears to broaden a general malaise among women and nudge possible solutions farther out of reach.
by drD
author of "You Still Don't Understand" with Nancy Ann Davis, PhD.
See commentary at Tikkun
[i] Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, "The paradox of declining female happiness." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2009, 1:2, 190–225.
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/WomensHappiness.pdf
<>
<>
Unequal in Arguments
<>
<>
<>
News Brief:
Unequal in Arguments
Unequal in Arguments
Why men concede, placate, or withdraw.
by
Richard Driscoll, Ph.D.
Insistence: While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments, the research shows just the opposite, surprising our expectations.
Women tend to be more insistent, according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. Women argue more forcefully in almost half again as many marriages as men.
In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent, by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent. So in these most severe arguments, we see an almost complete separation between men and women.
Overwhelmed and confused. Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and feel trashed and bitter for longer afterward, while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts, recover from them more quickly, and are ready for another round. Generally, it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around.
Men are not blindfolded and gagged in arguments with women
— it just seems that way.
Origins: Insistence has been a viable tactic for women, to test the strength of a commitment, while a reluctance to offend has been a more viable for men, who must rely on women to transport their genes into the next generation.
Suggestions: Marriages are better when men and women participate about equally. Amid our typical arguments, we offer a few obvious suggestions for men and for women:
To better resolve conflict, you must learn to be more comfortable with it. Recognize that it is normal for women to be more easily upset and irritated than men, but that women also get over it faster.
Do not interpret it as a great catastrophe when your mate is bothered about something. Stay involved, and try to talk it out.
Be careful to accurately gauge how much stress your accusations inflict, and make allowances.
Implications: If men were ordinarily more forceful in marital squabbles, then an increase in female power would promote equality. But since women are ordinarily more forceful, as observations indicate, the same solution pushes us farther apart. Men withdraw in the face of female accusation, leaving marriages emotionally barren and inhospitable. The challenge is to strike a proper balance, so that men and women can participate together and gain the best from each other.
Adapted from "You Still Don't Understand" by drD with Nancy Ann Davis, Ph.D.
<>See comments by Mr. Thoughtful and friends at Unfiltered Minds
<>
[i] J. Gottman and R. Levenson, "The Social Psychophysiology of Marriage." In P. Noller and M. Fitzpatric (eds.), Perspectives on Marital Interaction (Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1988), 182–202.
Misandry = Twice Misogyny
News brief:
Misandry = Twice Misogyny
Recent survey reveals that women resent men about twice as often as the other way around.
Misandry = Twice Misogyny
Recent survey reveals that women resent men about twice as often as the other way around.
Article:
Misandry = Twice Misogyny
Misandry = Twice Misogyny
Ideological feminists have long accused men of being misogynists, filled with loathing and contempt towards women and unwilling to allow women a fair chance. More recently, "masculinists" or men's rights activists accuse women of being "misandrous," which is an odd and seldom used word for loathing and contempt towards men.
So, which is it? Are we more often misogynists or more often contemptuous toward men? Admittedly, one or the other or both shows its ass often enough to pollute a fair share of modern conversation. But which is more commonplace? And how can we provide a reasonable comparison?
So, which is it? Are we more often misogynists or more often contemptuous toward men? Admittedly, one or the other or both shows its ass often enough to pollute a fair share of modern conversation. But which is more commonplace? And how can we provide a reasonable comparison?
A recent 2008 Gallup poll in Great Britain finds that 33% of women "often or very often" feel resentful of men, compared to 14% of men who often feel resentful of women. [i] So fully a third of women carry with them an ongoing resentment toward their opposites, as compared to about a sixth of men.
In an effort to specify our terms, "often or very often resentful" of the other sex is probably about as close as we can get to the basic meaning of misogyny and misandry. While we commonly argue that women have more reason to be resentful, the comparison here is not about our reasons but about our ongoing attitudes. Twice as many women as men acknowledge often resenting their opposites, suggesting that ill will blows from "W" to "M" more strongly than from "M" to "W".
So why is "misogyny" such a familiar word while "misandry" is so odd and unfamiliar except on out-of-the-way websites such as this one? Some of the explanation is in the paradox of accusation. Women are more inclined to accuse men of malfeasance, while most men are uncomfortable arguing against women and keep their counsel. As in politics anywhere, the harshest and most repetitious accusations usually paint the strongest portrait, leaving the misandrous impression that men frequently resent women while women are innocent commentators to that sad state of affairs.
Another explanation lay in the unusualness of the condition, as we comment on what we find noteworthy and take the rest granted. In an earlier era, the psychiatric term "nymphomania" was applied to the woman who had an inordinate interest in sex, as she was the odd woman out. The complementary term "satyriasis" was seldom used for men, as it was so widely assumed that most men had an inordinate interest in sex that no such psychiatric nomenclature was required.
Back to "misandry." In that fully a third of women are highly resentful of men, and perhaps another third are somewhat resentful, do we really need a special word for it? Or is it so familiar that we take it for granted?
In an earlier era, men referred to women who bash men with the familiar slang words such as "scold," "shrew," "bitch," and so on. Today, now that such strong words are so severely censored, we are left with "misandry," which seems an unfamiliar, highly sanitized, and somewhat technical sounding excuse for a hearty epithet. Is the "misandrous" woman not merely a cleaned-up version of the rock-solid, salt-of-the-Earth shrew of old, that inspired Shakespeare to bring a fiery woman to the stage and pleased a younger Elizabeth Taylor to portray her?
Of course, men can be misandrous too. But we save that for a later time.
Richard Driscoll
author of "You Still Don't Understand" with Nancy Ann Davis
[i] The battle of the sexes continues according to new Gallup poll." 2008. See http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=57662
<>
<>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
