Maybe the world will be a better place when we all have virtual worlds to go to where we can realise ourselves.

Uh-huh. Sure.

Heh.

I think that comment had an earlier life as a movie with Kevin Spacey in it.

Really? 13 favorites for advice that boils down to "guys are angry, you don't want to know how angry he is all the time, so dump him"? Geez, I can't wait to live in a society where men and women hate each other this much.

I was reading that and hoping that I never wind up in a marriage where the guy feels the need to avoid me as often as possible. I'd rather be single forever that be in a marriage like that.

I think that comment had an earlier life as a movie with Kevin Spacey in it.

There's another movie all about that kind of mindset, only it's satire.

I think that comment had an earlier life as a movie with Kevin Spacey in it.

Hah. I love you.

I'm not going to comment on his comment, other than to say I sure didn't get the same thing out of it that you did, BTGOG.

yeah, I don't know that I can see paul's point here. Or actually I can, if you substitute men for women.

But his was by far not the worst answer in that thread. yuck.

Spacey is a misogynist? Huh...

It's a well-written comment, but this part:

the faces that enable men to kill elephants for sport, or butcher whales, or invent suicide bombing as a battle tactic. But those faces are all part of us

Makes me very sad. Not because it's true, but because there are people who think it is.

Heh. Unfortunately, I get it. I saw my dad doing much of what paulsc talks about. Leaving early before work for coffee and donuts. Staying late at work. Going and hanging out at friends after work. Starting a band, starting a hobby. To avoid being home with the badgering wife. (Not my mom, his 2nd wife - but it likely would have happened with my mom on some level.)

It's not about hate, it's about frustration.

Men aren't allowed to fully express themselves in a lot of arenas. We're not supposed to cry. We're not supposed to yell or shout, anymore, either. Displays of either are frowned upon, or signs of weakness, danger or instability.

As time marches on we're expected to not only curb thousands of years of (rather intense, combative) evolution - but to not express sadness or frustration, either.

I've experienced this directly a couple of times in my life recently, and I'm not actually particularly angry or particularly typically male, much less Alpha male.

It's very, very frustrating to want to simply scream and shout and maybe beat up a rock or a log or something - which, IMO, are all perfectly healthy outlets given the space and inanimate targets - but to have to lock it all down and NOT express it for fear of being considered a threat or being called "crazy" when all you really want to do is have some alone time so you can actually process some extremely intense emotions in a safe manner without being considered actually dangerous, or without being considered a "problem to solve"...

...well, that's dangerous. And it sucks. Me, in this particular instance, I ended up walking about 5-8 miles all told. As fast and as hard as I could stride. I did my legs and body a violence that day - because it felt good, because I needed it, because it wasn't socially acceptable to do what I really wanted to do which was yell a whole hell of a lot. Not at anyone in particular, really. Just at the sky would have been nice. A simple "Oh, God, why do you persist in fucking around with my head and heart!?" would have been nice. Not whispered, screamed. As loud as I could. Not discussed rationally in soft, dulcet tones with an understanding therapist in a cushy office. No, oh no. I wanted to scream at the fucking sky. That's all I wanted.

But, no. So I walked. Furiously. Sublimating the energy into the pain and effort of walking furiously. Burying it in the pain, burying myself in the pain.

Hiding from my self, from my own fury and righteous indignation and anger. Hiding. Sublimating.

That's supposed to be healthy? Fuck that. And fuck the calm, rational future, if so.

I have NEVER hit anyone. (Well, not since high school and middle school. And that was once, each. In defense of a much smaller friend from a much larger bully. And I always let the bully hit me more than a few times first before letting them have it.)

So, I've never hit anyone. Never, ever a partner or lover. Never. I've screamed into a pillow. I've yelled in anger or frustration - but not in abuse or cruelty. I've put my fist through drywall twice - and I wasn't imagining hitting my partner or anyone when I did it, at all.

I was actually imagining wanting to smash up a whole bunch of drywall. That's all. I'd reached a point where my words were unheeded and unheard or simply no longer adequate - I wanted to express myself with my body very, very badly. You could have given me a sledge and a mattock and I could have taken down an entire house.

I just wanted to express and process my emotions the way my brain and body were telling me to.

The feeling is one of being trapped by one's own emotions. Claustrophobia sets in. Anger pressurizes and re-pressurizes itself as it is bottled up for social acceptability. And is vented, then, where? In hobbies, in loneliness, in (however false) camaraderie down at the local diner/bar/coffee shop, in bitch sessions, etc. But never fully vented, really, because men are physical where women are emotional.

So. Women? If we men are supposed to allow you to cry or express emotionality at a whim, for no reason, just because it's healthy - why are we expected to curb our own version of it?

Your crying scares us probably just as much as our desire to smash things scares you.

How would you feel if we asked - nay - forced you to stop crying? How would you feel if we called the cops (or threatened to) just because you were crying? (Again, I'm not at all speaking of interpersonal violence, which deserves cops and/or interdiction, for sure.)

Betrayed, perhaps? Misunderstood? Confused?

Maybe even lonely?

Women, you're forgetting someone in your much deserved and hard-fought liberation. The men in your life. You're leaving us behind.


Meanwhile, and not at all adverse or orthogonal to my points, a message from the folks at CrimethInc:

FOR EVERY GIRL WHO IS TIRED OF ACTING WEAK WHEN SHE IS STRONG, THERE IS A BOY TIRED OF APPEARING STRONG WHEN HE FEELS VULNERABLE. FOR EVERY BOY WHO IS BURDENED WITH THE CONSTANT EXPECTATION OF KNOWING EVERYTHING, THERE IS A GIRL TIRED OF PEOPLE NOT TRUSTING HER INTELLIGENCE. FOR EVERY GIRL WHO IS TIRED OF BEING CALLED OVER-SENSITIVE, THERE IS A BOY WHO FEARS TO BE GENTLE, TO WEEP. FOR EVERY BOY FOR WHOM COMPETITION IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE HIS MASCULINITY, THERE IS A GIRL WHO IS CALLED UNFEMININE WHEN SHE COMPETES. FOR EVERY GIRL WHO THROWS OUT HER E-Z-BAKE OVEN, THERE IS A BOY WHO WISHES TO FIND ONE. FOR EVERY BOY STRUGGLING NOT TO LET ADVERTISING DICTATE HIS DESIRES, THERE IS A GIRL FACING THE AD INDUSTRY’S ATTACKS ON HER SELF-ESTEEM.

FOR EVERY GIRL WHO TAKES A STEP TOWARD HER LIBERATION, THERE IS A BOY WHO FINDS THE WAY TO FREEDOM A LITTLE EASIER.

loquacious, I agree with a hell of a lot of what you're saying, but not the conclusion, I think? I agree that "Men aren't allowed to fully express themselves in a lot of arenas," but that cultural conditioning seems to be at the root of the issue -- that if boys and men are told over and over again that they're not supposed to be emotional in any way, then all emotions are coded as "bad" and therefore any feeling of emotion gets turned into anger -- which, as you say, historically has been the one "manly" emotion.

But wouldn't it make sense to teach boys and men how to process their emotions better so it doesn't reach that point, so that it's not "100% OK vs. 100% angry" but being able to find (and admit, and deal with) the shades of gray? I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I'm really asking -- this seems to me, lately, a big obstacle in a lot of men's understanding in how feminism is actually trying to help these sorts of situations (not by saying "Anger is always bad!" but by saying "Men are allowed to have, and express, all their emotions").

But I/we are certainly coming at it from a viewpoint that emotional expression is good, so maybe I'm missing something?

(None of the above meant to imply that feminism is the *best* way to help men with this, just, as far as I can tell, the only one working on it now. I keep hoping there will be more of a real radical men's movement -- not one based on the re-establishment of gender norms, but on the overthrow of the constrictive ideas that currently hurt a lot of men -- and I think that would necessarily need to come from men themselves (with interested women doing all they can to help).)

What I feel you're missing is the validity of anger as an emotion in and of itself. And it is an expression. A valid one.

I'm not saying that it's the only emotion at all. I'm not saying that sublimating everything into anger is healthy.

But I am saying that men seem to use anger (and physical energy) the same way women use crying. And that there's differences between the two, and differences between men and women in how we wish and desire to process our emotions.

I'm saying that going out and beating on an anvil with a ball-peen hammer is every bit as valid as a good cry - it's cathartic as hell and very, very satisfying.

I have the same endorphin-afterglow after cranking out some miles on a bike or beating on a honking great chunk of metal or having a good yell that I do after a good cry - except it's often even better and more suitable and satisfying.

I frankly don't want to wallow in nor experience many of my emotions. I don't feel that my life would be any less complete without certain aspects of them, and that's probably a rather male viewpoint. I honestly wouldn't care if I was never sad, angry, frustrated or depressed ever again. There's probably an evolutionary reason for this.

So, "Men are allowed to have, and express, all their emotions" isn't always a solution.

And really, we aren't allowed. Sometimes we aren't allowed them even by feminists.

In this particular instance I mention above, I really, really just wanted to go down on my knees and scream. In frustration and confusion, not anger. What made me angry is not being able to express that. If I had done as I wished, right then and there in the middle of a fairly nice, civilized city, I probably would have ended up in jail or under psychiatric observation.

Just for yelling a whole lot (at nothing and no one in particular).

Yes, I wanted to yell, damnit. I didn't want to discuss my emotions in soft, reasoned, understanding tones, I wanted to express them.

The two were entirely mutually exclusive in that instance. If I had felt like I was free to express myself in this way, I'm sure the resulting reasoned, understanding conversation would have been much more satisfying and productive.

feminism is actually trying to help these sorts of situations (not by saying "Anger is always bad!" but by saying "Men are allowed to have, and express, all their emotions."

Ah, sweet crumbs of condescension from the matriarchical hegemon.

(That's a joke, just in case it isn't clear: I agree with what's being said here and I'm just nibbling at the corners. Don't make me feel guilty about it or this 450 lb hunk of granite gets it!)

I think I see what you're saying. And I do think women do feel that same anger (or perhaps a tamped-down version of it?) -- I know there have been many, many times when stomping through a three-hour walk was about the only way I could keep myself from punching someone. And I would agree that women often show too little anger (and get blasted a lot of the time when they show any), and then that creates problems in accepting and dealing with men's anger without seeing it as a horrible, unredeemable thing, because we've been taught that anger is such a big bad thing.

I think sometimes the crying happens because we feel we're not allowed to express our anger any other way. I certainly don't see it as a superior coping mechanism, at least in terms of enhancing communication.

Sigh. Full range of emotional expression for everyone, I say. Not sure how we work to understand each other otherwise. Perhaps we all need to beat on anvils while crying. :-)

"Hegemon" always sounds like Pokemon to me. Are there matriarchy trading cards? Cuz I want some if there are.

paulsc's post backs up a lot of my experience with men. Facets of which are why I love men so much, actually. (And the OP's communication technique would make ME want to smash things, and I'm a complete weenie.)

I'll trade you my Venus of Willendorf card for Barbaras Frietchie and Mikulski, straight up, occhiblu.

Actually, I think loquacious's analogy works well. I certainly know that when I cry, it's rarely for reasons of sadness. It's usually anger and frustration. (usually frustration leading to anger). I think that gender can probably be put aside in a discussion about handling anger, (or at least the "no we get just as angry as you" undertone). We all suck at handling/expressing/dealing with it. It seems like there could be a broad gender difference in the ways we sublimate it, but it's probably all unhealthy to some degree.

(short version: we're all fucked up)

I love comments that re-inscribe patriarchy with the men as the losers.

I just deleted a longish comment I was writing. Suffice it to say that I wondered if in some cases there wasn't adrenalin that needed to be purged through some strenuous activity before becoming calm enough to think rationally.

Perhaps we could have smashing threads in addition to shouting threads.

I love it when omiewise says in 10 words what I would have ineffectively and insufficently tried to say in 200.

I'm not sure how to express my response to the original comment by paulsc or the various responses to it, but suffice to say that I recognized a lot in what he and loquacious are saying. I have certainly experienced aspects of this in my own relationships and observed it for decades in my parents relationship, to the point where I greeted their divorce with relief.

At a somewhat broader level than the above, I feel that anger, the desire to express anger, and the pleasure I feel from "releasing" it (though I can't actally recall any instances of this right now) are all products of one's attachment to the self. The duality of self and other (ok, I'm dragging Zen Buddhist lingo into the discussion now) are essentially the cause of all this misery. I have to ask myself, who is feeling this anger? Is it "me"? My concept of myself, the person who can be injured, insulted, etc. is just the product of my consciousness, a cluster of ideas, and thoughts and memories. Guarding that cluster of ideas makes it easy for me to get angry and hurt. Relinquising some of that attachment takes the bite out of a lot of things that upset me.

Meanwhile, here's one of those things (wherein I get angry):
I love comments that re-inscribe patriarchy with the men as the losers.
posted by omiewise 05 June | 11:42
Omiewise, that was a useless, throw-away comment and I hope you realize that. Way to pop in to a thread and go "neener neener" with a smug moralizing tone. You're not helping anybody.



Back to my original thesis, omie, it's not really that big a deal, but I just don't think that was necessary.

Hey hellbient, do you mean "I just put a sweet little quacking duckling on an anvil and crushed it with a chunk of concrete"-style smashing threads, or "Smashing thread, my boy; jolly good show"-style smashing threads?

By the way, I love threads that contain multiple references to pooping, re-inscribe Curt Smith as the creative force behind Tears for Fears, or encourage users to breed their own armies of proto-human homo bonobos.

I'm going to assume that the parallel structure of omiewise and mudpuppie's comments implies that both of them are being sarcastic (or that neither are). Just because I'm in the mood to laugh.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Omiewise totally summed up my thoughts on the comment in question. (Even if he was being sarcastic.)

I realize that people have had different reactions to the comment, and that's perfectly okay. I'm not going to bother typing mine, because Omiewise was much more succinct and cogent than I could have been.

Sufficienly flippant and insulting, that is.

Exactly, mudpuppie! That's why I think it's funny to read it that way. Just cuzza the way they use the same structure, you know? But you're obviously using the italicized "love" to mean opposite things. I laugh at this kind of thing, not at any person, but at the way my minds shifts things around.

That said, for a ten-cent snark in the middle of an adult conversation, omiewise's comment was a pretty good one.

My ultimate goal is to store up all of my feelings, insecurities and resentments, never letting anything out, never showing any kind of feeling at all, until I fully fucking snap and end up naked and weeping, with streamers of snot running down my face, barbecuing a 37 ounce porterhouse steak in the middle of my street some rainy morning.


It will be my gift to the world.

Okay, since omiewise's comment didn't go over so well, and since it's inviting scrutiny of my comment that I didn't anticipate, I'll just plagiarize and rephrase:

I felt like the comment in question implies that in the patriarchy, men are the losers. I disagree with that assertion. Other people have different reactions and experiences, and I find them interesting, even if I don't agree with them.

Better?

I don't know if flippant is terrible here. Paulsc talks about these zombies of beaten-down husks of men haunting the suburban landscape because their wives don't talk to them right. And then the fiery anvils and stuff... I thought it was pretty funny.

Of course, I don't hang out in the suburbs much. It may all be true.

I love comments that re-inscribe patriarchy with the men as the losers.

I would have thought everyone here mature enough to understand that everyone loses in a patriarchy. And as such, exploring the aspects that are destructive to the male psyche should be encouraged, not mocked.

Speaking as someone who has barbecued naked - don't.

You're going to want to at least put an apron on. Or a loincloth or something.

*sizzle* OW FUCK *sizzle spatter* SHIT OW IT SMELLS SO GOOD *sputter* OH FUCK OW GOD I CAN'T WAIT TO EAT THIS *sizzle* FUCK GODDAMNIT OW MAN I WISH I HAD SOME FUCKING SHORTS ON OR SOME SHIT

I once burned my hand on a grill, and it smelled so good that I ate it, right down to the bone.

I would have thought everyone here mature enough to understand that everyone loses in a patriarchy. And as such, exploring the aspects that are destructive to the male psyche should be encouraged, not mocked.

That's categorically true, Flo. But the comment under the microscope here seems to imply that the 'aspects destructive to the male psyche' in this case are, well, the woman's fault:

"So, although I'm just a layman, I'm convinced, from long experience, that Ms. Anonymous most assuredly doesn't even want to hear what her husband might really think of her analysis of their problems. And he knows that. He's not passive - aggressive, he's sane, and "socialized."

And that argument is as old as the cavemen and, to me, not particularly laudable.

Again, other people are reading it with a broader eye than mine. That's fine. I'm just interpreting it differently, I guess.

I understand where you're coming from. The original comment struck me in two ways:

I felt so very sad for the marriages that gave so little pleasure to those described that they would so routinely flee from their partners.

But I totally understood the described need to find opportunity to fully express - or repress - dark emotions without fear of reprisals. I have a vey happy long-term relationship, but there have been many, many times when I wanted to say, "You don't really want to know what I feel right now, because if you knew this feeling, before I have a chance to exorcise the depth of this emotion, you would have me locked up, though I would never act on it." This in no way implies that the feeling is the woman's fault, it's that there's no appropriate public or interpersonal outlet for a that feeling.

Wow did I mangle that!

But I totally understood the described need to find opportunity to fully express - or repress - dark emotions without fear of reprisals.

Totally and absolutely. I have this same thing myself -- in relationships, and in life in general. It's really hard for me to express myself (believe it or not) without fear of sounding like an asshole. I don't like to get angry in front of people for fear of seeming irrational or shrewish or bitchy. I sublimate these natural emotions as much as the next person. I think we all do.

What I object to is categorizing it as a somewhat uniquely male thing, because I don't think it is. It's a human problem. None of us is supposed to show anger, and we all face repercussions when we do. The consequences might be slightly different for women than for men, and for men than for women, but they're not any more or less serious.

Speaking as someone who has barbecued naked

barbecued naked what? animals don't generally wear clothes. Except chimps. They like wearing pants and hats. and smoking cigars.

(as to the thread... people have messed-up relationships for all kinds of reasons, most of which have little to do with gender, IMHO)

Thanks pup, for restating that without the incindiary, polarizing, vocabulary this time. It does seem rather insulting when it appears that someone is telling you "someone who looks like me was opressed by someone who looks like you, so your ideas are less than valid." That may or may not have been the intent, but it can easily be read that way.

We create our selves through what we see as identifying signifiers, and gender is a big one of those. This creates the semantic vocabluary we use to process day to day experience. Therefore, it follows that people will attempt to understand their self-other dilemas in relation to this vocabluary.

as to the thread... people have messed-up relationships for all kinds of reasons, most of which have little to do with gender, IMHO

Yup.

What I object to is categorizing it as a somewhat uniquely male thing, because I don't think it is. It's a human problem. None of us is supposed to show anger, and we all face repercussions when we do.

While I agree that repressing emotion is hardly unique to men, I think you may be underestimating the extent to which that can transform into a deep rage in men, especially given the constancy with which we are currently told to show our emotions and "just tell me how you feel..." and yet are branded as abusive if we so much as raise our voices these days (and heaven forbid you smash some drywall or break something - that's considered assault now). We may all face repercussions, but they are not the same repercussions. What may be construed as bitchy in a woman is construed as borderline criminal in a man, anymore. And looking at it from the other side, expressing emotions can be physically dangerous to women in some relationships. So I'm not saying either situation is more or less difficult, just that I think they are different enough that it shouldn't be surprising if they (arguably justifiably) manifest in seemingly alien ways.

I would have thought everyone here mature enough to understand that everyone loses in a patriarchy.

I'm unconvinced that paulsc's comment warrants much discussion, or mature consideration. His views on social issues are consistently and persistently conservative in a way that's both predictable and widely represented. They may be well-written, and they may provide emotional touchstones for people who care about that set of reinforcing social constructions, but they don't strike me as either serious or persuasive.

Also, what jonmc said.

His views on social issues are consistently and persistently conservative in a way that's both predictable and widely represented.

and he has this weird...grandiosity that makes me second guess his intent all the time.

Also, what jonmc said.

"Animals don't generally wear clothes?"

Well they don't, now, do they? You can't really argue with that.

I think part of struggle lies in dealing with the rapidly changing social norms and expectations for both men and women. I mean, go watch A Date With Your Family. It was made 57 years ago, which is not all that long the scheme of things. Yet, it's like watch a group of aliens interact. Things were REALLY different then.

But what's expected of me as a man now? Am I supposed to be macho, sensitive, stoic, touchy feely? Am I supposed to change my own oil?

(So far I'm just trying to not make the same mistakes my father did. And he made a lot, so it's keeping me busy.)

I took paulsc's comment to heart - thinking about not just men, but about how ALL of us are strongly encouraged not to express our emotions, from a very young age, and about how horrible that is. Women are just as sat upon by socialisation as men are, kids get suspensions for using particular cuss words, parents are escorted out for cheering their kids' graduation, and the whole world's going to hell in a handbasket.

And hail grandiosity, I say. The world tries to make mice out of the lot of us - let's fight back.

Well they don't, now, do they? You can't really argue with that.

Actually, when I lived in Miami, my buddy Ralph's girlfriend had this dachsund that she's dress up in a pink sweater and a rhinestone collar. When I expressed mild dismay at this, he said "whenever she puts that stuff on the dog's tail starts wagging like mad." I'm just glad it was a girl dog. Canine cross-dressing would plunge us into Freudian depths better left unplumbed.

I hear you, omiewise. I think part of my response was based on the fact that by the time you commented, there were many long comments on the subject in this thread already, and it wasn't clear to me whether you were dismissing paulsc's comment, or the entire discussion.

His views on social issues are consistently and persistently conservative in a way that's both predictable and widely represented.

Well, I chose to read it on face value, because I'm more concerned with the ideas themselves than their authorship. But go ahead and discount people because you think they're conservatives, and that being such is irredemably bad and invalidates anything they have to say... Your comments in this thread seem oriented mainly at undermining other people's expressions of their experiences. This is not appreciated.

I hear what you're saying, Flo. It's easiest for me to respond to you using Otis' comment:

But what's expected of me as a man now? Am I supposed to be macho, sensitive, stoic, touchy feely? Am I supposed to change my own oil?

See? This is my problem. I personally have no such expectations for men. None at all. I know guys who can fix cars, and I've had guy friends who have asked me to fix their cars for them. The only real expectation I have about what it means to "be a man" is that guys shouldn't fall prey to that stupid notion that they are always, first and foremost, supposed to "be a man." Because that's bullshit. It's a set of empty notions.

I recognize that a lot of people in our society do still think that Men should be Men (and Women should be Women). But I kinda dislike those people, I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, and every fiber of my being hopes that they are members of older generations that will die off in my lifetime.

And I gotta vote against "hail grandiosity" in this particular case.

On preview: Pie, use your active voice. I understand you bristled at omie's comment, but don't speak for everyone by saying "This is not appreciated." I happen to agree with him, and I suspect others to too They can speak for themselves.

occhiblu, you mustn't have seen youngergirl44's thread! Animals are being opressed with clothes as we speak!!!

On preview: Pie, use your active voice. I understand you bristled at omie's comment, but don't speak for everyone by saying "This is not appreciated." I happen to agree with him, and I suspect others to too They can speak for themselves.

Sorry pup, I didn't get the memo re. snark. Let's all just be like mefi! Woo Hoo, Let's all be assholes, let the insults roll!!!!

A few points: I wish we could re-cast some of these relationship conversations away from "Men do this, women do that." Hasn't everyone experienced that bone-deep, need-to-smash-something-now-or-I'll-die emotion? Hell, that was my entire teenage experience. And it's true, that women are allowed to cry it out, and men are taught to find other outlets. But if Mudd-dude ever got angry enough to put his fist through a wall, I'd rather he did that than sublimate those emotions into hanging out at the bar to avoid me.

I hope that Mudd-Dude will always be my friend as well as my partner. I feel like a lot of those long-term marriages, where the husband really dislikes his wife and vice-versa, are lacking the friendship aspects of their relationship.

On preview: As always, mudpuppie hit it right on the nose with: "I recognize that a lot of people in our society do still think that Men should be Men (and Women should be Women). But I kinda dislike those people, I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, and every fiber of my being hopes that they are members of older generations that will die off in my lifetime."

and yet are branded as abusive if we so much as raise our voices these days (and heaven forbid you smash some drywall or break something - that's considered assault now).

This is the part that's hard to express - where equality currently breaks down between the male and female genders on this particular facet.

While I am in no way condoning any violence at all - particularly male on female - I have seen women assault men, and then the cops come and the man gets taken away.

Sorry, but that's fucking fucked up. Right now at this particular point in time women have more legal power than men - in this particular facet. Men are more likely to be taken to jail in a mutual conflict, or even one that's entirely female on male violence. I've seen (admittedly screwy) women actually damage themselves to make it easier for the cop to take the man away - even though he never did anything.

Women are also more likely to win custody battles during a divorce. They're more likely to win alimony settlements.

My mom's current husband is a really amazingly great guy. He's kind, patient, and exceedingly generous. He's neither verbally nor physically abusive.

But his ex-wife is. And she got the house, the kids, and the huge alimony settlement. She bad-mouths him to the kids all the time. She was crazy as a loon in court and he still lost - and he's a freakin' lawyer!

This isn't equality. The pendulum is swinging too far, too fast, and it's often being abused and misused.

Now, there is nothing that can "make up" for so many centuries of subjugation or oppression. By NO MEANS do I want to return to the old patriarchal ways or turn back the clock.

But I see a lot of "oh, suck it up, men! We've been dealing with this for eons!" - apologies - bullshit from women.

Sorry, that's dismissive and not helpful. I had nothing to do with that. I was raised post-liberation, with respect for women as human beings, capable of everything that men are capable of and then some. It feels like I'm being accused of partaking in slavery when I had nothing to do with it.

What I want is real equality, and we're still very far from it now. On both sides.

There's always Swans karaoke.

cut off the arms.
cut off the head.
cut off the legs.
get rid of the body.
heartache to heartache.
job to job.
dollar to dollar.
body to body. pus.
poison. blood.
shit: get rid of the body.
heartache to heartache.
heartache to heartache.
why hide
my heart pumps.
my legs move.
i sit down. i rot.
i hide my stink.
i follow directions.
i know how to work.
i keep my mouth shut.
i know my place.
i hide my stink.
i need you more than i hate myself.
you hurt me then you hurt yourself.
why hide the lie?

And I gotta vote against "hail grandiosity" in this particular case.

Me & pup agree whole heartedly. someone get the flavored coffee so we can celebrate this moment in our lives.

Because that's bullshit. It's a set of empty notions.

I used to disagree with this, but not so much anymore. The things I like in my male friends, I generally like in my female friends, and the same for what I dislike (although since I'm attracted to women, I'm sure there's the usual stuff going on, etc etc disclaimer blah blah whole other discussion), so ultimately it's...what makes a good human, I guess.

But go ahead and discount people because you think they're conservatives, and that being such is irredemably bad and invalidates anything they have to say

I'm sorry, I must have been unclear: while his social views are consistently and persistently conservative in general, I dismissed his comment in this case not because of that generality, but because the views expressed in the comment were consistently and persistently conservative.

Your comments in this thread seem oriented mainly at undermining other people's expressions of their experiences. This is not appreciated.

What about my expression of my experiences?

What loquacious said.

also...
"I recognize that a lot of people in our society do still think that Men should be Men (and Women should be Women). But I kinda dislike those people, I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, and every fiber of my being hopes that they are members of older generations that will die off in my lifetime."

But we don't have the option of just waiting for this to happen. And it may well never happen. This is because people who are able and willing to examine their itentity and its relationship to external determinants of self and other are in a distinct minority and probably always will be. Most people seem to be unable to reflect on their identies and therefore assume whatever they imbibe from their surroundings to be the truth.

What about my expression of my experiences?

Perhaps you could try a somewhat more mature form of expression, one which seems less bent on insulting others while contributing little if any substance to the discussion?

This isn't equality. The pendulum is swinging too far, too fast, and it's often being abused and misused.

Can't you also see it as the pendulum not swinging far enough? Why are men assumed to be the aggressors? Because we tell men that they have to be aggressive or they're not "real men." Why are women assumed to be the best parents? Because we tell women they have to be nurturing and motherly otherwise they aren't "real women," and we tell men they can't be nurturing and caring otherwise they aren't "real men."

You're presenting some fucked-up, patriarchal things and basically blaming the women's rights movement for them. Which I think is the tone that omie was objecting to in paulsc's original comment, and which I certainly almost always see as two victims turning on each other, holding each other back, rather than working together to go after the fucked-up systems that are screwing over both of them.

What about my expression of my experiences?

Experiences rich with snarky, dismissive one-liners? Do share.

*wonders how this petard works, finds out*

I recognize that a lot of people in our society do still think that Men should be Men (and Women should be Women). But I kinda dislike those people, I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, and every fiber of my being hopes that they are members of older generations that will die off in my lifetime.

Here's my dilemma: I totally agree with this statement. But...

In my observation, the current social pressures that aline with that statement tend to take a knee jerk opposite stance: Classic male and female behaviors are inherently invalid. I think that's an equally poisoners stance. Not that anyone here is espousing that position. In fact, I really like your stated approach: "I personally have no such expectations for men. None at all." I'm just describing what I see as a cultural tendency to keep the pendulum swinging over the same old tired ground.

*on preview - Holy crap, people - I can't keep up and still use spellcheck!

Comments going too quickly! Argh!

Anyway this!

But what's expected of me as a man now? Am I supposed to be macho, sensitive, stoic, touchy feely? Am I supposed to change my own oil?

See? This is my problem. I personally have no such expectations for men. None at all. I know guys who can fix cars, and I've had guy friends who have asked me to fix their cars for them. The only real expectation I have about what it means to "be a man" is that guys shouldn't fall prey to that stupid notion that they are always, first and foremost, supposed to "be a man." Because that's bullshit. It's a set of empty notions.

this does it for me. And I feel like a lot of times these discussions (here and in other places) end with some of the men throwing their hands in the air and saying "well! what do you want from me! I give up! I can't win!"

But (speaking only for myself, but agreeing with pups) I don't want anything from you in terms of "being a man". I want you to be yourself. You don't need to fulfil any gender roles for me, or present yourself in a particular way because that's the way you've deemed society is dictating you should be.

Oh god I never make sense in these threads.

*goes back to just reading*

1) the pendulum is indeed not swinging far enough; the ruling class has co-opted feminism and is using aspects of it to oppress people, meanwhile women struggle against the same shit they had to fight 50 years ago.

2) we are all being forced to pretend, even in our dreams and thoughts. thoughtcrime is real.

3) We want all the stereotypes to be gone. And one day they will be. Meanwhile, progressive folks sometimes feel guilty for expressing manliness if they're a man, etc.. and this is wrong. The social change is meant to make us all more comfortable in our own skin - as we are, and as we change, now, and in better times to come.

gaspode, you do make sense.

IRFH, get Firefox. Built-in spellcheck as you type!

Can't you also see it as the pendulum not swinging far enough?
Right about here, I think the pendulum ceases to be a usefull metaphor. What appears to be happening is a problematic divergeance between normative ethics, social expectations, and the legal codes which purport to mediate them, and are typically subject to periodic desproportionate influence by self-styled proponents of various and sundry "movements."

Classic male and female behaviors are inherently invalid. I think that's an equally poisoners stance.

I agree, Flo. I just wish we could get to the point where any given person could incorporate into his or her life the behaviors that best fit his/her personality, without having to worry about whether they're deemed vaild.

The Cute Girl is really tomboyish, but she paints her toenails. I love that.

Me & pup agree whole heartedly. someone get the flavored coffee so we can celebrate this moment in our lives.

Holy shit. Someone raise a fucking flag or something.

Someone raise a fucking flag or something.

I just flashed to an image of the dog from that anti-pot PSA. We can raise that flag.

Perhaps you could try a somewhat more mature form of expression

Mature like OMG Bunnies!!!1!!!, or mature and condescending like "THAT'S NOT APPRECIATED!"? I'd like to be sure to get it right.

Look, I'm sorry to have ruffled feathers, but paulsc's comment was BS, not to be taken seriously. It wasn't sociology, it wasn't psychology, and to the extent that it had anything to say about gender relations it was retrograde and boring. The views are everywhere expressed and lauded, and everywhere lamented as being poorly understood. His comments re: gender are the precise corollary to the conservative fundamentalist notion that Christianity is under attack in the United States. Engaging such an argument is a bad idea because there isn't really a way to do it without justifying it as an argument, while my point was precisely that doing so is harmful to everyone involved.

Now, this thread is different, but I was talking about his comment.

Living without grey areas; you must be in heaven!

omie, if telling you that I don't appreciate your snark is condecending, then so be it. I thought this particular comment (I haven't read any other comments made by paulsc in the past)said something that was valid. I don't agree with the correlation you see, and I do think there are have been some less than constructive side effects of social change in this country. Just because the bulk of of civil rights related law and policy have been positive, it doesn't rule out the possiblity that some unintended concequences and contradictions have arrisen as we have attempted to implement these policies and incorporate them into our normative ethics.

Because we tell men that they have to be aggressive or they're not "real men." Why are women assumed to be the best parents? Because we tell women they have to be nurturing and motherly otherwise they aren't "real women," and we tell men they can't be nurturing and caring otherwise they aren't "real men."

occhiblu, you've said similar things a couple of times before but really, this hasn't been my experience. I didn't grow up this way. I'm not sure I know anyone in my age group that grew up this way. I'm not invalidating your experience, but it may not be as general as you think it is. In fact, it sounds really alien.

Experiences rich with snarky, dismissive one-liners? Do share.

Living without grey areas; you must be in heaven!

So...which is it, the form of my expression, or the failure to agree with you?

On preview:
Just because the bulk of of civil rights related law and policy have been positive, it doesn't rule out the possiblity that some unintended concequences and contradictions have arrisen as we have attempted to implement these policies and incorporate them into our normative ethics.

Of course it doesn't. But I didn't see paulsc's comment making that argument, and it read to me as anecdotally dressed up version of Men are from Mars..., a book, which, after all, sold amazingly well. I just fundamentally do not buy arguments which begin from the premise that there is a biologically inherent male nature and precede from their to argue that "society" (always gendered female in these arguments, in contradiction to all but the anecdotal evidence) demands too much that is contrary to that nature for men to be comfortable. We all, every one of us, are expected to sacrifice elements of our natures that, even if we consider them to be fundamental, do not accord with social norms.

(But that's part of the reason I found his comment so unhelpful. How are we going to talk about it? In terms of psychology? Do we feel badly for pedophiles who aren't allowed to fuck little girls? In terms of sociology? Do we feel badly about poor people who get jailed for robbing others who are less poor? In terms of anthropology? Do we feel badly for Muslim men who are told not to burn their single, sexually active, sisters alive? The comment as written is rhetorically seductive, and part of that rhetoric is it's appeal to "experience" which, of course, cannot be contradicted and so cannot be really argued with.)

A want to offer an exuberant "word" to your first comment, loq. I really identified with pretty much all of it.

I'm a bit "lucky," I suppose. I'm emotionally ambidexterous: I can let out a lot of stress by smashing something or yelling, or by crying my eyes out. Not sure why. Unfortunately neither are "socially acceptable" for men.

It's very, very frustrating to want to simply scream and shout and maybe beat up a rock or a log or something - which, IMO, are all perfectly healthy outlets given the space and inanimate targets - but to have to lock it all down and NOT express it for fear of being considered a threat or being called "crazy" when all you really want to do is have some alone time so you can actually process some extremely intense emotions in a safe manner without being considered actually dangerous, or without being considered a "problem to solve"...

"Moderation in all things" comes to mind while reading that. The problem arises when you start pounding objects and breaking shit every time you get pissed off. Instead of building up steam for awhile, you just go straight into "break shit" mode. This leads to the other problem: progressing from objects to people. I doubt anyone would do this on purpose. But it becomes a knee-jerk reaciton. Angry=HULK SMASH. You've learned to completely bypass your "alright, get a hold of yourself" reaction and just go straight for the kill. This is, I think, when it crosses the line from healthy to unhealthy.

I went to a bit of therapy for just such a problem. Anger management I guess you could call it.

That said, I feel much better knowing that I can now control my anger with a few (read: several) deep breaths and some counting to ten (read: upwards of thirty) rather than demolishing yet another floor fan; those things are not very cheap, they are a bitch to clean up, and they really mess up the wood paneling when you throw them clear across the room and proceed to dissect it with the accuracy of a drunken bull (upshot: they do fit rather conveniently into a small wastebin if you're angry enough).

Overall, I'm on the fence as to whether such expressions of extreme emotion are healthy or unhealthy. It certainly doesn't seem healthy when you're having glasses and a coffee pot thrown at you (note: no worries folks, I deserved it, trust me). It doesn't feel so great when your father is yelling at you for every little thing. Nor does it feel very good after you've just broken a lot of your own stuff. However, I suppose it is an effective form of stress relief, but not nearly as efficient as more acceptable physical activities such as running or working out or biking (this is one of the top reasons I'm so into biking in the first place, actually). I've never regretted taking my bicycle out for a hard ride, nor have I ever adversely affected my relationship with someone or their mental wellbeing with particularly furious pedaling. As such I would choose riding my bike over screaming and fan throwing in most if not all situations.


While I am in no way condoning any violence at all - particularly male on female - I have seen women assault men, and then the cops come and the man gets taken away.

For the record, it was my mother who threw the glasses and coffee pot at me (luckily nothing hit me). Like I said, I deserved it, and we're over that now. It happened a couple years ago. However, had the roles been reversed, had she deserved it like I did or not, I'd have been in a squad car. Fair? I'm actually not sure. Maybe not.

Note: The personal examples I've cited were during a very rough time for everyone in my family for many different reasons and not an ongoing problem and certainly not representative of "normal" behavior in my family. My mother and I get on as good as ever, as do my father and I. Drinks and cigars out on the deck in the summer time and all that. Just want to make this all very clear so no one wastes any time worrying needlessly ;)

On preview: GOD y'all are posting way too fast.

So...which is it, the form of my expression, or the failure to agree with you?

Neither, really, but your studied myopia will prevent you from seeing why. If you're about winning, chalk up a victory. If you're about discourse, chalk up a loss.

Like you say, we're all losers here.

occhiblu, you've said similar things a couple of times before but really, this hasn't been my experience. I didn't grow up this way. I'm not sure I know anyone in my age group that grew up this way.

I take you've never worked in an office where people bring in their babies? :-)

My parents didn't really explicitly say that girls are X and boys are Y, but they certainly modeled it (my mother was artistic and "emotional," my father was rational and controlled). I like to think I picked up the best of both, and was encouraged to do so, more or less. (I get the distinct impression there was more pressure on my brother to live up to gender expectations, however.)

But I think most of that pressure, in my life at least, came from outside the family. So I would agree that I wasn't "raised" that way, in the strictest sense, but that it's certainly a big pressure in society in general. My ex-boss announced, loudly at an in-office all-staff gathering, that women can't date guys who don't like sports because that would "prove" the guy was gay. Just this past week my classmates acted like I was a freak because I didn't jump up on a chair when a two-inch field mouse scurried across the classroom floor. Such behavior, my classmate said, is "instinctual" in women.

Granted, I notice this "women act like X" pressure a lot more when I'm around women; when most of my friends were guys, they certainly weren't policing my femininity. (Not that my current friends do so; I just am now immersed in a very female office and course of study.)

That's a bit rambly... I mainly wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to restrict those pressures to within the family. (And I've been reading a lot of feminist bulletin boards where parents post, and I can't say I see any of those outside-the-family pressures ending any time soon.)

Most of male socialization in American society is about men learning to sublimate their real emotions, to be stoic, and to do the predictable, quiet thing. Most married men I know have been doing this so long, that their marriages are essentially contracts to keep doing it forever.

This is one of the funny things in paulsc's soliloquy, because it suggests that women have (and have had, for "so long") the power to dictate "socialization in American society" and have been so good at wielding that power that men, or at least "married men", are completely cowed and subordinate.

If this is true, why haven't women used this awesome power to actually make things better for themselves in terms of higher-paying jobs, or equal representation in politics, media, and industry, or at least making their men into toilet-scrubbing, dish-washing, whiter-than-white laundry bleaching slaves ... instead of just badgering them to such a degree that they must go eat breakfast at the diner? Oh noes!

(on preview, this is what omie was saying, but in a much more mature way. Damn him.)

Actually, I take back some of what I said about my family: My mother, upon learning I was moving in with my ex-boyfriend (I mean, he and I were dating at the time, but not now), her FIRST response to this was, "But how will he support you????"

I had an Ivy League degree. I had been living on my own, post-college, for three years. I had a well-paying full-time job. My mother always identified herself as a feminist, and spoke quite openly about it.

And yet, there was the immediate assumption that as a woman in a cohabitating relationship needed to be "supported."

And I guess that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Not big huge explicit lessons about "Now, this is how boys behave!" Just those random throw-away lines that indicate disapproval or dismissal of actions or feelings that don't mirror the gender norm, and those smiles or rewards for behaviors and feelings that do.

Can't you also see it as the pendulum not swinging far enough?

Right about here, I think the pendulum ceases to be a usefull metaphor. What appears to be happening is a problematic divergeance between normative ethics, social expectations, and the legal codes which purport to mediate them, and are typically subject to periodic desproportionate influence by self-styled proponents of various and sundry "movements."

Right, and agreed. The "pendulum" is a useless metaphor, and by all means I don't mean to say that Feminism has "won" or that the struggle is "over". Hell. No.

And I agree with the feminist "movement" being co-opted. Since when was Feminism supposed to be women embracing almost purely "masculine" traits, attributes and such? Great, so we've got a whole bunch more fucked up masculine energy in the world. Woo. Yay. Wrong! Next!

I'm generalizing terribly, but I think you get the gist and grist of it.

Yes, there needs to be more meeting in the middle. May I suggest naked co-ed rugby w/ beer? And then a nice, relaxing tea afterwards. After showers, of course.

On preview:


"Moderation in all things" comes to mind while reading that. The problem arises when you start pounding objects and breaking shit every time you get pissed off.

No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Moderation is indeed just about everything in all things.

I don't feel that it's currently acceptable to even do this moderately in today's culture - this is the problem I have.

Like I said, I've put my fist through drywall exactly twice. I'm not quick to anger, nor am I quick to smash things. I don't randomly smash things at all. I've never smashed up something that was still functional. I have, however, say, made a ritual out of smashing up a very bad, old computer that made me bleed - but it was a very cathartic and conscious decision to do so - not in a moment of anger.

In the particular instance I outlined above, I was a long way from home, very confused, very annoyed and frustrated. I had no one nearby to talk to. And I had - as I felt it - basically walked blindly into a whole truckload of heartache and woe - that probably could have been avoided if I had been clearer in my own intents and questions.

I really had few other outlets. No private space. No friend or companions who knew me or understood me. I was a stranger in a strange land.

Note that I neither engaged in yelling, nor did I smash anything. I went for a long, hard walk, instead.

If I was in a more permissive and understanding culture - or simply a larger, noisier city - I probably would have gone with walking off somewhere to do some yelling. And it would have been fine and good - but I didn't really want to tangle with the local constabulary, as I was so far from home and basically contactless.

I'm not talking about yelling AT someone at all. I'm not talking about targeting anyone and venting. I'm simply talking about the ability to go do some personal yelling for the purposes of therapy. Not all such displays need to be assumed to be directed at anyone.

Neither, really, but your studied myopia will prevent you from seeing why. If you're about winning, chalk up a victory. If you're about discourse, chalk up a loss.

Gimme a break Hugh. I'm not sure what I did to crumble your cookies, but nowhere have I snarked at you in this thread, while you've treated me to a couple of zingers. And, when challenged to more fully express myself (something I didn't do at first in part because it means talking a lot about paulsc, rather than too him, while my first comment seemed somehow less harsh than that to me) I've done so. I'm not sure how that gets me painted as somehow recalcitrant and myopic about these issues, unless it's simply because I don't see much validity in paulsc's comment.

Which is not to say that I don't have issues with the trade-offs that come with feminist politics. I've got plenty of issues, I've thought plenty about it, I've got plenty to say. I was raised by a single mother, with one sister, in a house where the pronouns in bedtime stories were routinely changed from "he" to "she" in order to counteract the horrors of "gendered language." That that left me without any (fictional or otherwise) male representations in the house seems to not have concerned my mother. I wouldn't generalize from my experience, and I'm no expert, but I know that I've been more aware for longer of many of these issues than most of the men I know. (Which, of course, doesn't inoculate me from myopia, but I'm still not sure where I've displayed that.)

I believe that a lot of the negative reactions in this thread stem from the conflict between proponents of the core of a social movement, in this case gender equality, and those who are disaffected with some of the consequences of specific instances of the implementation of that movement’s goals. This is entirely related to the backlash against “political correctness,” which to be quite frank, I sometimes agree with. The problem, as I see it, is that while a clearly articulated and nuanced philosophy generally underpins the social movement itself, those in a position to implement it generally have an incomplete understanding of this philosophy and lack convictions or commitment either way.

A movement sweeps to prominence and brings with it an ethos which is in part constructed by the language of that movement. Those charged with implementing the actual day to day consequences of the movement’s goals tend to be the bureaucrats and the middle managers. Without any significant stake in the outcomes, these decision makers will generally blow with the prevailing breeze around them.

For example (and I’m describing a scenario loosely based on the one mentioned by loquacious upthread), a lot of men abuse their wives and children. In order to prevent this sort of thing, policy makers have made it a priority to separate children from abusive male guardians, because the numbers imply that this is typically what’s happening. Generally, this is what’s going on, and the figures bear that out. Every case is different however. But for the self-interested and intellectually lazy decision maker, considering nuance is unnecessary work. These people gauge that the prevailing language of policy and in this case, it’s saying, let’s just go ahead and give the woman the benefit of the doubt, etc. The lazy bureaucrat or decision maker perceives that mouthing the language of gender equality seems to be producing positive outcomes for his or her peers (in this case in the legal system) and therefore apes it in daily practice. The result is that this person attempts to rubber-stamp the outcomes of such cases without bothering to look at the constituent elements which lead to those decisions. This is where the ideology-movement-policy-implementation chain gets derailed with results that are profoundly unsatisfactory for all involved.

small_ruminant: here's an anecdote. I work. My fiance stays home: he cooks, cleans, etc. When people at work ask what he does for a living, I always say, "He's getting his master's degree." (which is a small fib - he will start school later, but right now he's not doing anything outside the house.)

Why do I feel the need to justify my fiance's joblessness? If he was the one working, and I was staying at home, I'd be a "housewife". I would be seen as positively contributing to the relationship. Does it make him less of "A Man" to stay home and keep up the house? My parents certainly didn't teach me this - due a medical condition, my father stayed home with us while my mother worked. Society certainly has taught us that, and even I find it difficult to buck that assumption.

Does paulsc know about this thread?

I believe that a lot of the negative reactions in this thread stem from the conflict between proponents of the core of a social movement, in this case gender equality, and those who are disaffected with some of the consequences of specific instances of the implementation of that movement’s goals.

I kind of disagree. I understand what you're saying, but I think that we tend to hear about the poor policy decisions more frequently when men are on the receiving end. I know (and I recognize that this is just anecdote, but so are most of these things) that women still get beat up all the time and the cops don't do anything when they're called. I know because I see it in my practice and in the practices of my colleagues. Regardless, the world is an imperfect place, and I do tend to think that it's better for it to be imperfect and respect statistics (most domestic abusers are men) than be imperfect and uphold the status quo.

More to the point, the trouble with the original comment was that there has never been a time when the kind of "emotions" paulsc described were acceptable behavior in society. That they may have been tacitly allowed to slide behind closed doors is a tragedy the demise of which should not be lamented. Which again raises the question of what the comment is really arguing for.

*never been a time in recent history in the US*

Emotions are not behavior, omiewise, and I could be wrong, but I got the impression the comment was arguing for recognizing the need for enough space to keep it that way.

Loq: Ah, my mistake.

Still. Just throwin that out there.

You're right, Flo, but the comment is muddied about what it argues for, essentially conflating the need to be aggressive (crack a counter, beat an anvil) with the right to have emotions.

I think the comment is arguing for emotional freedom for all of us, men and women. We all have lost the social right to express ourselves. The solution isn't violence - it's honesty.

I think another expression of the same problem is all the nonconfrontational AskMe answers we get. I find myself giving such answers too. We are conditioned, now, to avoid conflict (and such avoidance does not resolve conflict).

occhiblu & muddgirl, I can certainly see how, with your experiences, you'd have a different worldview than mine.

My dad is the less rational, more emotional one, or was when I was little. My mom supported the family, mostly. This was true for a lot of my friends and schoolmates- I never felt like my family was weird in that way. Of course, it was the 70s, and the whole world felt like it was in flux, and none of the old rules were relevant, even if you wished they were.

My office is not that way. My last job wasn't that way, and neither was university, that I noticed. My coworker just brought her baby in and it was the male bosses who were cooing all over it, and wanting to hold it, not us women, who mostly found Important, Time-Sensitive things that needed doing. I just haven't ever run into it, ever! Or if I did I was so oblivious I didn't notice it. Except in the gun store- it was pretty egregious there. But they were an odd crowd to begin with, and I didn't generalize anything from it.

Sorry, omiewise. Your insistence that paulsc's comments are worthless that got up my ass. Nobody's comments are worthless; even if you think you've heard it before, listen again. All these people here are having an interesting conversation about something that's usually contentious. Paulsc's comment sparked this discussion; there's some worth in that. Difference is great, even if it's intolerable.

But you continue(d, on preview) to insist that the post not be taken seriously, or be discounted, because it differs from the very stringent (and very debatable, though this isn't the place) set of criteria you have for how everyone should think about sex differences and sex roles in society.

That bugs me. It's much easier to deride another's stance than it is to stand on your own, and there are plenty of loaded words and concepts that carry massive weight; remember, we're here, and not in society at large, and many of the "if onlys" that we might have about a progressive society are true here. I didn't feel paulsc's comment, however grandiose it might have been, deserved the slapdown, and I felt that the slapdown extended itself to anyone who took paulsc seriously (certainly everyone who agreed, however tangentially, with him).

And no, you didn't snark at me, and I have no excuse for my snarking. It's bad behavior brought on by the usual pressures of posting from work, plus a feeling that I'm unable to post what I really mean, due to time constraints and the tendency of threads like this to put words in my mouth and then punch it.

In short, I have a host of bad excuses for my bad treatment of you, along with a couple of good reasons to differ with your ideas. I did a bad job of keeping it light and funny, as I try to do when I post here. I shouldn't be in this thread, anyway; it's a good place for bad blood. I hope I haven't created any with you, and I'm sorry.

I do tend to think that it's better for it to be imperfect and respect statistics

Sure, but we can still call a spade a spade. Intellectual honesty and consistency are important, and just because others are incaple of them is no excuse not to uphold them ourselves.

That they may have been tacitly allowed to slide behind closed doors is a tragedy the demise of which should not be lamented. Which again raises the question of what the comment is really arguing for.

Ultimately, what does it matter? A bunch of us saw something in the comment we identified with. What I read was a statement about alienation and the ways in which externally defined roles in our society foster it. I don't specially care what paulsc may have meant, and in any case, I can't be inside his head. I suppose you could read stuff like this with an eye to polarity and divisivenes, but I'm less interested in that than I am in learning about other people's actual experiences and feelings, because more often than not, I can see something of myself in them.

muddgirl, would you really feel okay being a housewife? It's also pretty perjorative, at least around here. I don't see that not having a (official, paying) job as easier for one sex than another. If you're the one raising the kid, that's an acceptable excuse for staying home for either sex.

Which again raises the question of what the comment is really arguing for.

I don't think the comment was for anything. It was just expressing a situation to which a lot of people can relate. Expressing it well. But it has no analysis of what should be done about people feeling that way, and only vague hints at why it may have come to be.

I'm glad paulsc shared. I'm also glad folks made the effort to deconstruct it. I just hope nobody is suggesting paul shouldn't have said what was on his mind. (I also glad btgog is here a little more everyday.)

aww, I'm glad to see you too, dan! What a delightful thing to say. I am grinning ear to ear.

"Does paulsc know about this thread?"
posted by danostuporstar 05 June

Yes, I do. It hasn't really discussed what Grace wanted to talk about initially, but there is some first rate, original writing here, and nothing I could add would change anyone's opinion about much of anything. So, y'all go ahead.

And besides, I've got a new 4 disc boxed set of Art Tatum recordings to digest!

Hugh, of course there's no bad blood as far as I'm concerned. With no one in the thread. Sure, I can see how my comments were dismissive, they were meant to be. That may well piss you off, and that's ok, as long as we're talking about it. The reason I don't feel as you do, or that I read comments like the one under discussion for "divisiveness" as pie intimates (I wonder if any disagreement equals willful bad reading) is because I see this, in particular, as an issue with material consequences. paulsc's comment seems to suggest that a man's right to express himself should extend to getting so violently angry as to break the counter top in his home! Anger is an emotion, displaying aggressive strength a choice, and I'm just not sanguine about the need to do that in the course of normal interactions with your spouse or kids. I'm not sure what kind of "honest" home is being advocated.

We all have lost the social right to express ourselves.

When did we have that right before? I mean, as it applies to this discussion. I'm really curious, because I think it's mythical, and located in a past that doesn't otherwise recommend itself to anyone who might consider themselves politically progressive (or even liberal).

I've been trying to pin down what exactly upsets me about pausc's comment (I refuse to read the rest of the thread, by the way, on the grounds that it will only hurt me). I think it's the sheer hopelessness of it. He doesn't offer any constructive advice. He tells a pithy story that insinuates something depressing about men. He makes a throwaway moral that insinuates something (which I think is essentially untruthful) about women. It boils down to the fact that for men it's somehow a natural right to fuck up their marriage by being emotionally manipulative.

Re: being a housewife. It's all cultural, of course, but in my city and profession, it's seen as perfectly OK for a woman to stay home and tend house if the man makes enough for both of them. Heck, I don't have a problem with it, either. I don't have a problem with men staying home and their wives working, but I'm afraid other people will, I guess.

There is no mythical golden age, much as we'd like to have had one. Furthermore, expressing ourselves is not, in my view a terribly positive thing, because I don't happen to believe that the self and it's feelings are the end all be all. Our attachemnt to themselves is intensely problematec and causes mostly suffering.

BTW, I still don't understand how "progressive" and "liberal" are different or what most people mean when they say them. :(

Omie, you have a right to disagree with me, but I just don't like that you said something that was calculated to piss people off. Most of us, (mudpuppie excepted, apparently) generally prefer that people keep that sort of interaction out of metachat. What positive outcome could you possibly have anticipated from such a remark? I don't understand it.

muddgirl, it's okay even if there aren't any kids? Just curious- it sounds like something off of a TV show to me.

expressing ourselves - I meant this in the broader sense, not what we're doing in this thread.

Well, a few of us (us = humans) had that right in the past. Not all of us, by far. Scroll up to the bit in my original post:

Not like it was any better in the past. Then a few got to express their anger all the time physically and otherwise, but most cowered upwards and whacked downwards, or died inside.

I guess that I should clarify: we didn't "lose" the right, we just didn't gain it as social mobility increased. And that pisses me off, because for me, free expression and self-actualisation - more poetry, more rocketships, more love affairs - is the entire point of progress.

Are we all reading the same comment? The comment that is saying that 90%+ of married men are so miserable because of their wives that they will do anything to keep from going inside their own homes at night, and leave as early in the morning as they possibly can because they're so miserable. Because they're married? To women? Who control the universe?

If you're not reading it that way, either I'm crazy, or you're skimming.

Most married men I know have been doing this so long, that their marriages are essentially contracts to keep doing it forever. Most guys on the street on which I live can't even raise their voices fully in their own homes. Slamming a fist on a counter-top hard enough to crack Formica is enough to get police to respond. But that level of expression isn't even a decent head of steam, isn't even enough heat for decent poetry, in the long march of normal male emotional expression. So the guys on the cul-de-sac across my street circle their driveways and yards for hours, 4 or 5 nights a week, piddling with their boats, or their cars, or the lawn tractors. Anything to avoid going inside until it's time to go to bed. And a lot of guys in the neighborhood are gone by 6:00 a.m. most workdays, so they've got time for coffee and a paper in the diners down on Atlantic Blvd. 50 to 100 trucks in most of those diner parking lots by 6:30 a.m., 5 and 6 mornings a weeks, and the clientele is 10 to 1 male that hour of the morning, and more and earlier in some seasons. Married men, 95% of that 90%. Single guys can sleep later, and regularly enjoy coffee and eggs at home, I guess.

The single guys don't have to get up early to escape the horror that is living with a woman, obviously. Why do so many people find this a laudable sentiment?

If you don't want to marry or have anything to do with women, don't. Don't ever do it, but don't make these sweeping statements about how all married men are just crumbling shells of zombie misery. Please.

Wouldn't married guys have to get up early because they're likely to have kids?

The other side of paulsc's comment, by the way, is the woman with 2 or 3 kids, stuck at home, making lunches, gettting the kids dressed, trying to get them to the bus on time, driving them to school when they're late, picking them up after school, doing the shopping, the cleaning, the cooking, the washing, putting the kids to bed. Trying to have a meaningful and civilized conversation with an adult. Getting shut down. Wondering when her husband started to hate her. Wondering where she went wrong. Most women also manage to fit in a 40 hour work week.

Both sides of the coin are bleak, and should be obsolete by now.

The single guys don't have to get up early to escape the horror that is living with a woman, obviously.

Laudible, not really, but likely to be true, yes. People just aren't very good at getting along with one another, or understanding one antother. Most people are crumbling shells of zombie misery, right? Or have I been living on a different planet?

Why do so many people find this a laudable sentiment?

I don't find it at all laudable, but I do find it very, very recognizable. I know a lot of these men. I also know a lot of women who would rather spend time with their friends than with their husbands. Never made much sense to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common occurance.

Okay, so you read it, you understood it, and it seems to represent a significant truth to you that married men - 90% of them - will do just about anything to keep from entering their own homes, where they might have to interact with their wives.

Interesting. I live in another country, obviously. And my parents are apparently aliens, or just part of the charmed American 5%.

Taz: Obviously, too, the men in this thread.

I said it was very recognizable - I didn't vouch for the math.

I don't think he's talking about 90% of married men - just that 90 percent of the folk in those diners at that hour are male, and 95 percent of those males are married. The overall percentage and demographic of all married men would still be quite small.

50 to 100 trucks in most of those diner parking lots by 6:30 a.m., 5 and 6 mornings a weeks, and the clientele is 10 to 1 male that hour of the morning, and more and earlier in some seasons. Married men, 95% of that 90%.

So the diner clientele is 90% men, 95% of whom are married, an undisclosed number of whom are presumably unhappily married. Yeah - I've been to those diners, too. It doesn't scale well as a generality, though.

Yeah, it's a vague demographic, but a very large one and very recognizable. I wouldn't venture to guess the percentages, but I see it in my co-workers, I've seen it in my dad, and even a bit in my last relationship - unlike these men, however, I decided that these costs outweighted the benefits. They apparently they have other factors which lead them to remain in their shitty relationships, or they're just too clueless to understand the situation they're in. I don't know.

I don't know either. It's creepy.

I would say to all young men, "Flee! Flee from these malignant American suburbs where wily women will ensnare you, then force you to inseminate them - only for the wicked pleasure of seeing you suffer.

I say again, you may be in it for the spicy scrambled eggs and hot waffles - but don't you depend on it. Four or five years down the line, you'll be getting cold Rice Crispies IF YOU'RE FUCKING LUCKY. If you're the other 95 percent, you'll find yourself down at the diner, where you can borrow paulsc's sports page and want ads, if you want em.

I'm glad I wasn't around when this thread was in full flight, because it would have touched off some very raw nerves in me. Me being me, however; means that there are a couple of things I need to respond to even though nobody is likely to be reading them.

Most of male socialization in American society is about men learning to sublimate their real emotions, to be stoic, and to do the predictable, quiet thing.
Not just in America. Not by a long shot.

paulsc's comment was BS, not to be taken seriously. It wasn't sociology, it wasn't psychology, and to the extent that it had anything to say about gender relations it was retrograde and boring.
The above may well be accurate. What you don't address is that his comment is truth. Inconvenient truth if you are a person who like to believe that the sexes are equal when they aren't, but still truth.

I'm not quick to anger, nor am I quick to smash things. I don't randomly smash things at all. I've never smashed up something that was still functional. I have, however, say, made a ritual out of smashing up a very bad, old computer that made me bleed - but it was a very cathartic and conscious decision to do so - not in a moment of anger.
I confess - I have also deliberately smashed things as a way to vent my absolute frustration with something that is happening in my life. I don't randomly target valuable things, I select something that I can afford to lose and let loose. It's as far from modern thinking about expressing emotion can get, but it is sometimes the only thing that works, because I am not allowed to express anger at a woman who thoroughly deserves it for fear of being reported for abuse.

For example (and I’m describing a scenario loosely based on the one mentioned by loquacious upthread), a lot of men abuse their wives and children.
A lot of men abuse their wives and children? How fucking dare you! A minuscule proportion of men do this and at least the same proportion of women abuse their husbands and/or children but, of course, that is because they are driven to do so by some monster of a husband, of course. You should be ashamed to make such a damning generalisation about men.

The comment that is saying that 90%+ of married men are so miserable because of their wives that they will do anything to keep from going inside their own homes at night, and leave as early in the morning as they possibly can because they're so miserable. Because they're married? To women? Who control the universe?
The comment didn't say that 90%+ of married men are miserable - paulsc was talking about a specific geographic area where he lives and was, I suspect, exaggerating at least slightly for effect. However, there is a not insignificant proportion of men who stick it out in relationships although they get nothing from them, who stay around even though they are not particularly wanted by their "partner", who continue to support their family despite continued abuse, who "do the right thing" because they can't see any other solution to what their lives have become. These are the men who go to work every day to bring home a salary to support a woman who hates them and kids who mean the world to them but who have been convinced that their father is a useless loser because their mother continually expresses that opinion in front of them, men who follow around to social occasions and family gatherings being miserable because they know everyone there has been told all sorts of stories behind their back. Why do they do it? They do it because they have a responsibility to those kids and they are not going to let them down, no matter the personal cost. They do it because it is what they have to do to be the best father they can.

You can all sit there and theorise about how the sexes are equal and isn't it wonderful that men are allowed express their emotions now and how men are free to pursue their goals in life without pre-conceived expectations about their role in life. You can sit there and theorise all you like, but don't ever think that it's true, because it's not. You can sit there and say "but nobody has expectations of anyone any more - we are all free to be what we want to be", but it's bullshit.

I don't have time to fuck around with fancy theories about equality and expressing emotion because I'm too busy working my arse off to support a family and doing all the things that I have to do to keep all the balls in the air. It's not because I'm clueless, it's because all the alternatives are worse.

I just don't like that you said something that was calculated to piss people off.

I think you sufficiently made this point several comments ago. Also, what evidence do you have it was "calculated to piss people off"?

How fucking dare you!
Seriously, wtf? And FYI, I am a man. Anyhow, a lot of people murder other people in this country. That's nothing like saying that most Americans are murders. They're not. Domestic violence is a problem, however, here and elsewhere. One instance is too much, tens of thousands of instances anually is WAY too much. I don't know why you read my comment to indicate that some high portion of us are abusive. I never imagined that someone could interpret it to say that most men do bad stuff. A lot do, and that's a problem. Why the angst?

Dano, I really don't get why you're asking me this. What else is snarking for if not to piss people off?

I never imagined that someone could interpret it to say that most men do bad stuff.

It can be interpreted as that, yes. You're saying that a great number of men do this. It's not a large number when compared to the number of men there are on earth, however. It's in leaving that comparison out that you leave it open to interpretation.

I'm not up to date on the exact figures, so I really can't comment on whether it really is "a lot" or if its "a little." However, either way it's still too much.

What else is snarking for if not to piss people off?

I think you're confusing "trolling" with "snarking." Snark. SNide remARK.

It may be a snide remark but it's usually an accurate reflection of one's opinion that isn't always intended to get a rise out of other people.

Thanks CitrusFreak12 - you took the words out of my mouth to some extent.

pieisexactlythree, your phrasing gave you away - you could have said "a small proportion of men" or "some men" but you said "a lot". The English language being what it is, "a lot" has connotations beyond its literal meaning. Of course any amount of domestic violence is too much, that goes without saying (or should, anyway), but if someone said "a lot of women abuse their husbands and children" publicly, there would be screams of outrage even though it is equally as true (or untrue) as saying the same thing about men. I am absolutely sick and tired of being characterised as a member of that portion of the population who abuses people, because I don't do that and nobody I know does that. I don't care if you are male or female - the principle is the same. The fact that you felt that was pertinent also gives you away.

gives you away.

as what?

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.
--Henry David Thoreau

Yet I experienced sometimes that the most sweet and tender, the most innocent and encouraging society may be found in any natural object, even for the poor misanthrope and most melancholy man. There can be no very black melancholy to him who lives in the midst of nature and has his senses still. There was never yet such a storm but it was Aeolian music to a healthy and innocent ear. Nothing can rightly compel a simple and brave man to a vulgar sadness.
--Henry David Thoreau

Disclaimer: never been married, never even been close. With that said, I'm not sure why certain posters above (I'm not sure who anymore) are assuming that paulsc's comment is somehow misogynistic or is blaming the female half of the loveless relationships he's describing. As someone (else) above said, I don't think his comment is for anything. At least I didn't read it that way.

Side topic: The semantics of "a lot": I'm not sure how you can get from "He said a lot of men are abusers" to "he called me an abuser" or even "he's carelessly lumping me in with abusers." I don't know that too many people would argue with the sentence "A lot of men in the US are HIV-positive." But proportionally, it's really pretty small: less than one million out of a population of 100 million or so. Less than 1% is a lot? In my book, it is.

I think I'm too close to this topic to make comments based on sound judgement. I'm shutting up. Sorry for any offence.

Omie, you have a right to disagree with me, but I just don't like that you said something that was calculated to piss people off. Most of us, (mudpuppie excepted, apparently) generally prefer that people keep that sort of interaction out of metachat. What positive outcome could you possibly have anticipated from such a remark? I don't understand it.

pie, I think you misunderstand me. I never calculated to piss anyone off. I'm surprised my comment touched a nerve. Really, honestly and completely surprised. It seemed banal at best. When it was made clear how offensive it was to some folks, I moved to clarify it, even though I don't much like to see the sentiments that I sought to counter here in MetaChat.

And, frankly, you can give the whole Metachat sacrosanct a rest. I've been a member here a long time, and I've acquitted myself just fine. The support offered me in this thread, explicit and oblique and the backchannel emails I got make it clear to me that I continue to do so.

Good for you, omie.

Oh, don't disappoint, I thought you were sticking to the high road.

I originally came in here to make a few points that I thought were relevant about what zen philosophy says on the subject of anger, and ended up squabbling over the minutiae of the discourse itself. That was major fail on my part.

Honestly, I can’t read the original comment without hearing echoes of all that Robert Bly/Iron John “gotta go beat drums and build a sweat lodge in the woods ‘cause Dad didn’t love me and American men have been pansy-ified” crap that was flying around in the early 90s.

To respond to just one of dg's points, I don't think we live in some rarified gender utopia, where people of all genders and sexualities live together in perfect harmony. Our lives suck, and then we die. It's like, a generalization about life, dude. It's not about men, or women (although some people will play it that way). It's about being a freaking human being. The STORY in the original comment didn't irritate me, because sure, some guys live like that. But the CONCLUSION: That we're hopeless, that we can't change, that we can't do one thing every day to make the shared shithole we live in a little better...

Well, I reject that outright. It's defeatest, and it's unhelpful.

Apart from all generalizations or observations about gender roles which I have desired to make but stayed my hand, the following remains true:

If you are deeply unhappy in life, you are likely to be angry. If you are often angry, it is likely that you are deeply unhappy. And if you are unhappy in your personal life, there is only one place to direct the blame - and it's not at 'society', not at a wife or husband, not at parents, not at children, not at an illness, not at a circumstance, not the boss, not geography, not The Man. It's yourself. Only you can fix your life. You are the only agent of change. If you don't like your life, change it. And if you choose not to, make sure you know where the responsibility of refusing the choice lies: with yourself only. There is no great reward in heaven for martyrs who soldier on in the face of lives they hate, and ask for sympathy for the terrible burden they bear. They have placed the burden upon themselves, and they are free to drop it at any time. Unhappy people are terribly poisonous to their families, friends, and co-workers, and they are fooling no one and winning nothing by staying that way. The human condition has its struggles, but except in its very rare extremes, those struggles do not preclude personal happiness.

The victim stance is quite a comfortable one, in that it locates the responsibility for change outside yourself. But it requires a hell of a lot of effort and may in fact be impossible to convince others - specific or general - that they have caused your misery, when in fact, most of the time, we are co-producers and agents of our own misery, or even actively seek our own misery.

I do not aspire to victimhood, and don't admire it in others.

Unhappy? Change.

I would completely agree with that, Miko, but not in the context of your answer in the AskMe*. A person in a relationship has a certain responsibility to both work towards the happiness of their partner and to adapt to their partner's shortcomings. Ultimately, you are responsible for your own happiness of course, but if you can't count on support or understanding from your partner who can you count on? Love is precisely about not having to go it alone, and some flexibility with/from your partner is not too much to ask.

* "To suggest that she needs to rephrase her questions or take a different approach is to again make her do his work in the relationship."

I stand by what I said in the AskMe, though I scurried out of that swiftly detiorating thread which became nothing but a string of personal projections.

I said they should both be in therapy, but that she shouldn't do his emotional work, and shouldn't be expected to adapt to an unhealthy communication style from someone else. That's exactly what I'm saying above, as well. Sure, she will probably discover in therapy that there are things she needs to work on, as well, but running interference on his emotional reactions would be a recipe for further unhappiness. It's the old Serenity Prayer thing.

Partnerships can be really unhealthy, don't forget, and people can get very confused about whose problem is whose. She doesn't sound unhappy; she sounds frustrated. Hesounds unhappy. She can only control her reaction to it, and I was interested in encouraging her not to see his problem as hers, which doesn't preclude her identifying her own problems.

I do not aspire to victimhood, and don't admire it in others.

Unhappy? Change.

*kisses Miko*

As usual, Miko, you are absolutely correct, but you miss one essential aspect - to heal a bad partnership (of any variety) requires the co-operation of both parties. When one party insists that the other party is totally to blame for the problems and refuses to entertain the concept of seeking external guidance, the other party is kind of screwed. The only viable solution in that case, to walk away from the relationship, is sometimes worse than the problem. This is what I'm talking about above and I am well aware that people in this position are there by choice. When you have a choice between a bad situation and a worse one, however; it's hard not to feel somewhat bitter about your situation in life. People in that position should accept that they are there by their own choice, of course, but it is important to remember that not everyone has a choice between good and bad - some people can only choose between bad and worse.

Life is not as simple as we would like to think and it is unfair to project your life experience on someone else and say "just change" to someone who is between a rock and a hard place.

Unhappy? Change.
Or, if that isn't possible, accept the good things that you do have (and everyone has at least some) and try not to let the bad stuff take over your life. Sure, it will bubble to the surface now and again, but it doesn't have to consume you unless you let it.

I think "Change your attitude" falls pretty squarely under the command to change if you're unhappy. And I think it's probably both a harder and a more important change to make than even just changing your circumstances.

Agreed with occhiblu.

When you have a choice between a bad situation and a worse one, however; it's hard not to feel somewhat bitter about your situation in life.

I've had experience with lots of the complications in life, and I know they can be hard. But life is also strangely more expansive and full of possibilities than we can imagine when we allow ourselves to see only a narrow range of choices. And interpersonal situations are generally much more shockingly fragile and temporary than we think, too.

The only viable solution in that case, to walk away from the relationship, is sometimes worse than the problem.

I guess the deepest questions would be (a) is that really the only viable solution? Try thinking of 10 solutions, the first being 'stay and suck up the misery' and the last being 'walk away, cut all ties and never look back,' and the other eight being something in between. And (b) how many possible outcomes can you imagine if the extreme walk-away solution were the solution you chose? Try thinking of 10 possible outcomes. Are they all worse? Is there not one outcome imaginable that leaves you and all other parties better off in some ways?

A lot of times we falsely limit our options because of our assumptions about others or our beliefs that we can make predictions about the future. Again, sometimes limiting our options is a mechanism to remove ourselves from the pain of decision making. If you're choosing to stay in a bad relationship, it's a choice. Embrace that choice! Acknowledge it as a choice. If leaving would really be a worse choice in all possible scenarios, then you can feel lucky you don't live in those realities.

I was in a relationship with an active alcoholic for several years. When I finally spent some time in Al-Anon, I realized how false some of these ideas were (that I couldn't be happy unless he worked on the relationship equally, fixed his problems, acknowledged my loyalty, blah blah blah.) I also met a lot of people living in situations that were hellacious, to my mind, but who developed an approach to life that allowed everything to happen as it should, allowed them to have rewarding lives and enjoy deep connections with others and so on and so forth. A bad situation is by no means a condemnation to a life of misery.

What doesn't help anyone grow is to project all the blame for life's circumstances outward, on others, and to walk through life angry and creating unpleasant situations for others around your anger.

You can do anything you want to. Anything.

I think occhiblu picked up something that I failed to mention - just because you are stuck in a situation that you don't like, doesn't mean you are totally miserable - this depends on your attitude to the situation. There are very few conditions that you can't take at least some positive from - staying around to be an integral part of the growing up process of your kids is a positive that makes up for a lot of negative energy that a bad relationship sends out. Sometimes the bad stuff boils to the surface and you feel like life just isn't worth it, sometimes the good stuff comes back and you are so glad to be alive you could sing. You have to take what you want and, as much as possible, push what you don't want into that dark space inside you that you never open.

I was in a relationship with an active alcoholic for several years.
Yeah, me too, so I can imagine some of the things that have led to you feeling the way you do.

I don't think that feeling like your life is shit equates to blaming others for your situation, though. I was thinking about this last night in bed and developed a picture in my mind of starting life faced with an infinite grid of one-way streets where every crossroad is a decision that you make in your life and an opportunity to continue on your path or go sideways to another direction but, because the streets are one-way, you can never go back once a decision is made, you have to change direction or go forward. As you move through life, choices you make close of certain roads from you in the future, but open up others. Always, though, the choices are ours to make and we have nobody to blame but ourselves if we find that we are travelling on a road that doesn't fit in with what we want or where we saw ourselves heading when we were younger. We are still in control, but the number of choices of eventual destinations diminishes as we get older.

Hmm, I'm rambling again. What I'm trying to say is that, while we make our own choices and are free to continue to choose our destiny, there are times when we have to make the best of a range of bad choices and we generally choose the one that will result in the least amount of pain. There is no path with a pain-free result, but we each choose the type of pain we would rather deal with - being alone is one type of pain, not being alone can be equally painful but the pain is easier to bear for whatever reason. When you start to add people who are dependent on you into the bargain, you have to factor in the pain that your decisions cause others and this is where it gets complicated. As parents, we have an obligation to factor the needs of our children into our decisions and, when their needs contradict with ours, we generally choose theirs because that's our job.

You can do anything you want to. Anything.
Of course you can. If you are prepared to pay the price.

Absolutely, and as the Buddhists will tell you, there is pain in all paths - all life is suffering. It's just that there is a lot to be done in the approach.

the number of choices of eventual destinations diminishes as we get older.

I don't think this is necessarily true. In many ways, the destinations actually expand as you get older -- you know more people than you used to, you have more life experience, your children get older and more self-determined, you may be able to retire -- a lot of possibilities open up. Again, we tend to limit our opportunities when thinking about the future -- "Well, given my life, I could never up and move/go to graduate school/leave this relationship/start a business because..." when in fact the choices aren't limited. As you say, the choices are infinite, but we choose one or another based upon the consequences. I can think of many people whose lives changed drastically, in midlife, through tragedy, divorce, illness, or an inner motivation to do something wildly different. There is nothing predetermined or required about anybody's life.

The kind of thinking I'm arguing against goes this way "I have no choices, so I am angry and bitter." In my experiences, that's just never true. Some people DO choose things that cause themselves and others pain in the short term, but end up happier in the long term. Some choose things that cause others pain, but would have caused worse pain had they not made the choice. I think of my cousin's first husband. Fairy tale courtship, 9 years marriage, 2 children, to all appearances a happy and united couple. Or so she thought. One day, out of the blue, turned out he had had a longtime girlfriend secretly on the side. She ended her marriage. Much pain and misery in the short term, and it definitely altered the kids' lives.

But it did not ruin anybody's life. The kids are grown today, happy and doing fine. Their mother has remarried - someone she loves and who loves her. They have a very stable life and a much broader one than would have ever existed with the first guy, who was a fundamentalist Christian and really restricted their opportunities and activities.

Life is rarely a black and white proposition: "Everything must go exactly as I wish, or I'm utterly miserable." The key to surviving in a world in which everything doesn't go as you wish is to figure out where you have control, and use your power of choice to change the things you can -- to borrow a time-worn, but effective phrase. Some changes might be painful, disruptive, difficult. Others might be simple and easy. But contentment and peace is such a valuable goal, that difficult change toward that goal is very much worth it. Or simply changing nothing about your circumstances, but accepting that this is the choice you actively make, and prefer, and then enhancing your life in any other ways that bring you joy -- that can bring contentment, too.

You can do anything you want to. Anything.

No. No I can't. You can't either. And a majority of the world's population don't have a fraction of our choices. A heartbreaking number of people have virtually no control over the circumstances of their lives. Sorry, but unrealistically positive affirmations bug me just as much as overly negative surrender. [Like when people say, "God never gives you more than you can handle." Really? I guess Darfur is just a test, then.] Free will should never be discounted, but it isn't magic.

I respectfully disagree with you, IRFH. You can do pretty much anything you want in the context of relationships, which is the basis of this discussion. I'm not suggesting anyone can easily take a luxury spa vacation or become an astronaut or anything else regarding material resources. And I'm not suggesting you can stand up to the janjaweed without getting your head cut off - that's an extreme situation, one of real victimhood. Though free will still exists in Darfur, the consequences of exercising it are needlessly terrible.

No, we're talking here about people who are not victims of organized, violent oppressive regimes. The circumstances of personal life are completely within the realm of free will. They really are, every single one of them, and I include all the choices that are miserable, hurtful, illegal, scary, and uncomfortable as well as those that are easy, productive, and joyful. I have confined my comments to the realm of personal relationships, and the truth remains that barring bound slavery or imprisonment, there is no kind of relationship between adults which you are being forcedto stay in.

In any case, it's really helpful to remind yourself, when you feel stuck, that you actually can do anything you want. You might not like the consequences, but the existence of consequences doesn't negate the free will.

I know you're having trouble with the word 'anything,' and I should avoid it, because any third grader would have a predictable field day with an absolute word like that.("Anything? Like fly? Like have a pet cheetah? Breathe in space?")Sure, ok. But I want to sound emphatic. Most people are choosing among alternatives all the time, but rarely do they look at it that way. They say to themselves "I have to stay with my spouse" or "I could never live in another country" or "This is the best job I can get," when in fact what they mean is that they've already considered and rejected other alternatives. By rejecting a lot of alternatives out of hand, they're downplaying their choice and overemphasizing the external control.

I'm no New Age loony ball, but no one has to keep the relationship, family, friends, job, house, or attitude they have now. It is possible for us to live - even to live happily - in many more ways than we allow ourselves to imagine. People need to learn to recognize when they're making a choice, or they're likely to be bitter, because they won't realize they ever had one. And they'll feel like...a victim. When they aren't.

he kind of thinking I'm arguing against goes this way "I have no choices, so I am angry and bitter." In my experiences, that's just never true.
And you won't get any argument from me in that respect (although I can see why you would think that). There are lots of people who are angry and bitter because they feel they have no choices, but there are also a lot of people who, while accepting that they have choices and while acknowledging that they have made their choices as an act of free will, still feel angry and bitter at least some of the time because none of the alternatives they have had to choose from are particularly palatable to them. Your story is lovely and it appears to be pretty much a win-win result in the long-term - kudos to your friend for making the hard decision.

I don't agree that our options increase as we get older, though. Some opportunities are there for us as we mature and gather experience that wouldn't be at a younger age, but many choices we make shut future doors for us. Once we have children, we are shut off from just packing a bag and walking off into the sunset (while they're dependent, anyway), as an example. Of course the choice is still there (and plenty of people take that choice), but the decision to walk out on children is one that would never be palatable to me under any circumstances so, as far as I am concerned, that option is shut off to me for the window of time when they need me. For me, that window is something like 35 years because of the spread of ages of my children. As a result of choices I have made, of course and I'm OK with that.

The key to surviving in a world in which everything doesn't go as you wish is to figure out where you have control, and use your power of choice to change the things you can ... Or simply changing nothing about your circumstances, but accepting that this is the choice you actively make, and prefer, and then enhancing your life in any other ways that bring you joy -- that can bring contentment, too.
Very true - even if you can't change anything, you don't have to "own" the things that make you miserable and, by letting them wash over you as much as possible, you can focus your attention on things that make you happy or at least that give you enough pleasure to have sufficient balance in your life to cope with the shit.

"They flutter behind you your possible pasts
some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost
a warning to anyone still in command
of their possible future, to take care"

Yeah - I was totally rocking the third grader argument to reign in the absolutes, Miko. I know (or assumed I knew) you're not a "New Age loony ball," and I know (or assumed I knew) you really meant "in the context of relationships.... barring bound slavery or imprisonment." But I still thought it would be better to make those qualifications. Because you're making a very good point that I hope no one fails to take seriousy merely because overstatement makes it impossible to take literally.

Carry on. Spitballs don't make themselves! ;-)

But dg, you could just pack up a bag and leave. You don't want to. You're choosing not to. That's not the same thing, at all, as "can't." And I think the point that Miko is making (not to put words in her mouth) is that when you start confusing "don't want to" with "can't," that's when you're likely to feel stuck. Whereas if you reframe things from "I can't do what I want" to "I'm choosing to do this, every day, I'm choosing to stay where I am," then you're changing your whole perspective on the situation without having to change the externalities of the situation.

Well, just because someone chooses not to do something doesn't mean they don't want to do it. The fact that someone chooses to stay in a situation that they are unhappy with doesn't mean that they don't want to get out of that situation, it just means that the current situation is the most acceptable of all the alternatives available to them at this point in time. We all make decisions every day to do things we don't want to do, because we feel obligated to do so or because doing something we don't want to do (eg go to work) provides us the means (eg money) to get something we do want (eg iPod).

People in bad relationships (ie something they don't want) often stay in that relationship because it provides them with financial security (ie something they do want). They stay there until the relationship either stops providing them with the thing they want or until he pain of the relationship exceeds the comfort of the financial security. Staying in that relationship doesn't mean they want to be abused, it means they are prepared to accept that in return for financial security.

Many men stay in a relationship they are not happy with because it is the only way they can be a meaningful part of the lives of their children. Please don't think that I am saying anything bad about women in general, because I like and respect women as a group much more than I do men, but there are a number of women who do unconscionable things to retain control of parental rights. Women who have no qualms about falsifying claims of abuse (and you don't really have to make much on the way of concrete claims - just some vague accusations to the police is sufficient to have a man labelled as a domestic abuser). Women who have no qualms about twisting the truth to friends an family to ensure that they are perceived as (at worst) victims or (at best) to be pitied for what they put up with. Women who punish men by withholding access to children; who use children as tool to wild power over other human beings.

This does not happen in the majority of cases by any means and there are no statistics on this because it is never really documented or reported, but I believe there is a statistically significant portion of the population living in these conditions and I would venture so far as to suggest that it is a similar proportion of the population to that which are genuine victims of domestic abuse. The only differences between those two groups is that one has the male (almost always) as the perpetrator and one has the female (almost always) and what is seen and reported as domestic abuse by the community has signs that people can see and recognise such as cuts, bruises, depression etc. Men who live lives of quiet desperation don't have outward signs of what they are going through because they feel there is no help for them and that they have no choice but to face their problems alone. They feel that way because, when they voice their concerns they are treated badly by the very people who are there to support them. They are ignored or they are treated as manipulative liars out to cause trouble. This is why they feel they have no choice in things - the people they need help from refuse to help them at best and actively contribute to the problem at worst. If you are confident that someone who you cold turn to for help is either going to ignore your pleas or make things worse, why would you seek help from them? That is the same as having no choice, when it comes down to the reality.

Of course we have a choice. We all have a choice about how we lead our lives. But any alternative that includes losing our children is no choice at all. Not even close. The best of all possible alternatives is often to grit your teeth and get through the bad shit so that you can enjoy the things that really matter. Must the same as all choices we make in life - you deal with the bad shit any way you can so you can be rewarded with the good stuff now and again and hope that you can keep all the balls in the air for long enough.