Letters to the Editor
J.C. Miller
Published Letters: 319 Editor's Choice: 34
-
So not only women, but men as well, end up feeling constrained, controlled and compromised
[Read the article: Welcome to the "menaissance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]in dependent, contractual and possessive relationships? Who coulda guessed?
The explanation and way out can be found in the letters in this thread. As noted, when someone of any gender depends exclusively on another individual for basic emotional and relational needs, is unable to tolerate solitude, and has bargained away autonomy and creative control of personal and psychic space to get those needs met, a variety of unfortunate results follow.
Both parties suffer when risk of losing what is depended on inhibits assertiveness and boundary setting – one loses autonomy and stuffs anger, the other is enabled in misuse of power and in boundary violation. It’s lose-lose.
The way to fulfilled-individuals-in-healthy-relationships is to destroy the need for and idea of committed, contractual “relationship”. Individuals free of that type of possessive security can come together not out of need and dependence at the cost of self-assertiveness, but out of free interest and desire, and without being trapped in a trade-off of personal health for relational needs. That is, if you are tolerating being overly “bossed” and avoiding confronting it or distancing from it for fear of losing something you depend on, both parties are being harmed. The contract destroys what it intended to provide.
-
Gender studies
[Read the article: Fiction's a girl thing, boys heart history]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With stimulating posts like this from Ms. Lloyd in a venue as open and egalitarian as Broadsheet, maybe concerns in another recent post are misplaced re the possible decline of interest in feminist and gender thought in academia, an environment in any case largely hostile to creative and heterodox thought and driven by venal grubbing for status and position, congruent with it’s primary mission as certifier and fee-collector for entrance to upper castes.
In addressing the fascinating question of gender differences in orientation to literary forms, it may be important to distinguish between the consumption of these forms by ordinary males and females, as well as use of their elements in everyday narratives and organization of daily living, versus their production by literary or academic figures. The former might represent real and general gender differences in orientation, proclivities and interests. The latter might additionally express gender differences in orientation toward gain in status, material wealth, control of constructed reality, access to training and to means of production of the forms, access to social capital needed for their approval and production, traits consistent with self-promotion, etc.
“Truth is beauty” is formalized in theories of art and knowledge that share the touchstone of organic wholeness. Examined experience seems to concur. History and other academic expositions provide discreet and useful pieces; art moves and reorganizes us. Steinbeck laid the basics for sociobiology in novels in ways that resonate both cognitively and emotionally before Professor E.O. Wilson cracked his first text, the serious academic nonetheless being constructed as the “father” of the discipline.
What is indisputable is that, evolutionarily, biological and social roles have differentiated by gender, have been acted on differentially by selective forces, and have resulted in differences in proclivities toward orientation to experience and behaviors.
Should we be surprised or concerned if males tend to resonate more with historical representations, which may be linear, dichotomous, moralistic, attaining, with predictive power, practical and strategic? Or that females might resonate more with representations that are relational, organic and integrative? Is one good and the other bad?
Concerned only if we invest in and give power to the construct “essentialism”, the boogeyman that absurdly conflates and fears that a predisposition is an intractable limit on behavior, choice and construction of self. Transcending that allows us to move forward with intriguing issues of the type raised by Mses. Lepore and Lloyd.
-
No need to get excited
[Read the article: Have a daughter? You wimp]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The study (of women) was less likely to measure ingrained personality traits than current emotional state, which is environment-sensitive.
Evolutionarily the function of males is to generate genetic variability in a population as material for selection and directional change. Change becomes more important as the fit between organism and environment is less good, like with lots of threats, stress, early deaths and stuff? That’s the same type of environment in which testosterone-fueled aggression might raise the chances of survival. So, testosterone, aggression, and generating more males are useful things in poorly adapted populations, when life is increasingly “nasty, brutish, and short”.
But in the big picture? You’ll function better with some assertiveness, which can be learned, balanced by empathy and nurturing, no matter what Mrs. Science says. Just ask your kids or friends.
-
No,
[Read the article: Can abortions lead to mental illness?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but stigmatization, judgment, guilt, and internalization of associated distorted and maladaptive beliefs can.
Where do those come from?
-
Also noted in the Times piece, but not here,
[Read the article: Exploiting women to protect animals?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that consuming the flesh of killed animals is socially constructed normatively as a sign of masculinity, not to mention normalcy. Maybe Mr. Diablo’s misguided efforts represent a defensive reaction to being marginalized as irrelevant, effeminate, or gay? Who knows?
But how is it that the tongue-in-cheek snark used in “Skinny Bitch” to promote a healthy diet and body constitutes “exploitation of women”? Is it actually that women who have not developed control of what they eat (sorry, “Check me out, I can eat a big steak just like a high-status man!” doesn’t count) are distressed by women who have?
-
Sorry TCF, but this is no time to wimp out.
[Read the article: More on the "menaissance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Apart from the derision and condescension, which are not generally helpful, you had it right. Guys who feel emasculated are going to reclaim their masculinity just how? By playing with weapons, bitching about women, returning to safely prescribed gender roles, maybe getting a bigger SUV that looks exactly like a sandlot toy? Sounds like fearful sublimation to me.
If it’s actual courage and assertiveness they want to model, why not confront the standard criminality that gets enabled daily in the workplace (that’s actually risky); or not cheat on taxes and lie to the kids about it this year; or tell daddy, mommy or the in-laws where to go next time they get reminded who’s still in control?
Manliness indeed.