Letters to the Editor
J.C. Miller
Published Letters: 319 Editor's Choice: 34
-
suggestion:
[Read the article: Stating the obvious]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Go back and read the first letter by Zandru (p. 4), then the post by Robert Dunkle (p. 5), also nerdnam’s (p. 3), then GK’s piece again.
GK is conflicted (that’s OK, right?) and takes some shelter from his uncertainty in wryness, satire and irony that is just ambiguous enough that he can avoid being taken to task – not much substance beyond Oh, to be human! (and that’s a little less OK).
Evolution saddled us with strong drives toward systems of mating and parental care that involve, among much else, contractual monogamy - but under conditions which no longer hold. As GK apparently knows, we aspire, shall we say, to more than lifelong contractual monogamy, even if not so eager to admit it.
That is, our beliefs about the way children must be raised stifle adult self-actualization. The tragic truth for all of us is that children actually don’t need one male and one female parent stuck in lifelong contractual monogamy (which seems to be a recipe for an unhappy household); they need healthy attachment to stable, loving figures who will not abandon or abuse them, something entirely different.
GK just needs to take a tip from the straight-shootin’ DurianJoe (p. 4): “Moreover -- and pardon my Colonialese -- frak what Nature wants. If Nature had its way, there would be . . . only the law of the jungle, and . . . .Large men would knock down small men and take their belongings; the weak would starve.”
That is, if Nature has its way, we’ll be stuck with conservatism, capitalism and contractual monogamy. Frack that!
-
body language
[Read the article: So they don't look each other in the eye either?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The female side of this is pretty well worked out, and addressed by Louann Brizendine ( The Female Brain). Think about how vulnerable the female animal becomes in nature, both pre- and postpartum, in order to reproduce. Females who allowed insemination by a male who could be predicted to stick around and provide support and protection would greatly increase chances of survival of the mother-infant by virtue of commitment of the trustworthy male. Brizendine discusses the neurophysiologic bases for the learned ability in females to gauge trustworthiness, which is based largely on reading facial cues – symmetry, eyes, mouth. Cultural meanings support this: crooked, twisted grin, darting or evasive eyes. Visualize stereotypical faces of hucksters and villains vs. “good guys”. The wife whose husband’s face is blocked by the morning paper doesn’t just feel ignored, she’s anxious because she can’t read his expression.
Males don’t get forced into positions in which extreme physical vulnerability is signaled by pregnancy, birth, and the presence of an attached infant, so they don’t have to risk reliance on others for survival to the extent that females do. The male strategy has focused on power, control, deceit, manipulation, and aggression to command resources needed for survival. Accurately reading trustworthiness becomes less valuable.
Crotch gazes by males? Who knows? But there are some likely explanations.
1) Certain past selective environments might have favored characteristics or prominence of the male reproductive organs. For example, females may have selected differentially for more visually prominent organs based on expectation of certain rewards or on simple excitement. If true, then males checking each other’s organs might constitute assessment of their competitive prospects for mating based on a perceived advantage due to prominence, and assessment of how much need there is to invest in compensatory behaviors, like getting big biceps or a Hummer.
2) The crotch gazing at other males may simply be a covert expression of the homosexual drive latent in every male.
-
kicking misconceptions
[Read the article: Carrying the message]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for plugging what looks to be an important and needed series. I wonder if the project will address criminalization, incarceration, and the failed war metaphor; it would be hard to top Traffic on those aspects. There are new treatments which can be effective, once freed of the grip of ideology and traditional, ineffective approaches, like 12-Step.
The disease model is problematic partly because it has been misused to disempower substance abusers from taking control of their behavior and from hoping for complete recovery. Perhaps more importantly, it locates pathology squarely in the individual and thereby (conveniently) evades the question: what is it about the conditions of living we have created for ourselves which drive us to alter our moods artificially, in ways we know are harmful?
New treatments do offer improved prognosis for recovery. And yet the message, "With continuing advances in medical and behavioral treatments, addiction will soon be commonly accepted as a manageable chronic disease." feels fantastical because it is fantasy – the fantasy that we will conquer addictive behavior without ever addressing what drives it: the social forces that painfully alienate us from security, from each other, from community, and from ourselves.