Another take on gender issues

"[T]the only difference between you and I is that you think by making a man wait a "few weeks" that he will somehow be invested in a relationship."

"Most women say they know almost immediately whether or not they would sleep with someone and certainly by the first kiss. Let's assume that's true... you're in your mid 50's... you know you want to ... so why not?"

I’m not trying to attack the person who made those statements. I’m quoting him because I find these comments representative of misunderstandings and/or differences in thinking that seem to be clouding the waters in discussions about relationships between men and women of a certain age. (The French say that so much better).

Let’s take the first quote—and anyone who is a fan of Pride and Prejudice will understand where I am coming from. I do not know a single mature woman who would “hold back” because she wants to try to get the guy committed. That would be manipulative and unkind, frankly, not to mention risky (for the reason you say—men will just fake it to get what they want). Please note that I say “mature” woman, which means someone who has good self-esteem and feels confident about her ability to stand on her own two feet and does not make relationship decisions based on fear of her own inadequacy. People who are still responding to their own fears and insecurities are just not mature—and this is also not a criticism of them; it’s an observation. Maturity is the ability to think and decide rationally for one’s self, something that insecurity prevents in most young people and a fair number of older people. (My opinion based on observation, life experience, research, etc).

Now, so “why not,” then? Because actions have consequences, first and foremost. Having sex with someone based on attraction is not wrong, but it is higher risk. A rational assessment of that risk leads one to the understanding that STDs may be transmitted without any external evidence of their existence and in places not covered by condoms. A rational conclusion is that one should reduce one’s exposure to said risks.

Second, let’s consider the cost: benefit ratio from a different perspective (risk is in the “cost” column already, of course). What is the benefit of “why not?” In theory, it is a sexually satisfying experience. I’m guessing that most men would consider most sexual experiences satisfying enough if they experience orgasm, which they generally do. So from a male perspective, the cost: benefit analysis may appear rather even-some risk, almost certain benefit.

From a woman’s perspective, however, the cost: benefit ratio is quite different. From my personal experience and talking with other women (and I am open to more input on this-ha, no pun intended), the “benefit” of a sexually satisfying experience with a virtual stranger is by no means guaranteed. Many women can feel a very strong attraction to a man and also find the early sexual experiences quite unsatisfying. So the cost: benefit analysis has a very different outcome.

A mature woman making this calculation has learned, through her life experience, that most men need to be taught how to make love to her, what appeals to her, etc. The act of teaching a stranger about one’s body generally involves more emphasis on teaching than enjoying (yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions to the general rule), and one “lesson” is likely to involve more work than reward.

Bottom line: many women conclude that having sex with a stranger generally isn’t worth it. She needs to feel the attachment, the interest, to make it worth investing her time and energy. She’s not trying to “make” him feel attachment—that’s impossible. She is making choices for herself. Hell, for some of us, it isn’t even about needing to be “comfortable,” although for others, that is part of the equation too.

So, imagine you are the one who won’t be reaching orgasm or, in the course of getting there, will experience a lot of unpleasant sensations on some of your most sensitive body parts. Imagine that the person touching you is bigger and stronger and you do not really know anything about them, other than that they seem to be a lot of fun, seem to be stable, and you have a strong attraction to them. You are in a vulnerable position (just the two of you, but the other is stronger), you are taking a risk with your sexual health, some or much of the encounter won’t feel all that good, and chances are even you will either walk away frustrated or have to satisfy yourself in the end. That’s “why not.”

 We can satisfy ourselves without subjecting ourselves to the risk of STDs, weirdos, or unpleasant touches. If getting to know someone leads us to find they aren’t weird and they don’t have an STD I can catch, and we really like them, then we reach a point where we will take pleasure in their pleasure as we teach them, where the effort of teaching will be worth it (because we intend to see them again—we know we can’t determine if he will want to see us again).  From this perspective, I hope it is much easier to see why a lot of women think “Why would I have sex with a virtual stranger,” rather than “why not.”

Paranoia: An "Aha!" Moment

I was reading some more "government conspiracy" posts on FB and got wondering about why there is so much hysteria out there about Obama planning to take over the government. Then I remembered the "PATRIOT" Act. Of course!

In the post 9-11 days and weeks where fear drove many people to behave uncharacteristically, including giving up many of their civil liberties, many supported the PATRIOT Act, which gave the Bush White House unprecedented access to our private thoughts and even words. Now Obama's White House has access to that same information.

I guess if I were an uneducated person, I might not have anticipated that the wide-open access I gave a conservative administration would quite likely transfer to a more liberal administration. 

A Simple Solution

In this contentious time of deep partisanship, I have a proposal that will solve many of our national woes. It requires some citizens to make small sacrifices of their civil liberties, but in the interest of national unity, such a sacrifice will be considered heroic. I guarantee that my proposal will address the problems most often mentioned by the right: the large and ever-growing number of lazy Americans and the continuing murder of innocent fetuses. I promise that my proposal will satisfy the concerns of the left, by making sure that every American in need has a sufficient and reliable safety net, in keeping with the standards of human dignity. So, if you are interested in real and specific proposals that will both reduce the number of lazy Americans and the number of abortions while preserving the dignity of each American, read on.

The objective of my solution is to make sure that every single child born in America has two deeply involved and committed parents who, between them, can earn enough money to supply the child's every need. At the same time, we must be careful to protect the fertility of American women, in the event that some unforeseen disaster might require higher birth rates than we have right now.

So, we must immediately plan to follow what I call the Couvade policy. To begin, we create a national database with the DNA of every male person--infant through adult--residing in the United States. This small sacrifice of civil liberty will, of course, not be felt as burdensome by American men once they understand the purpose. And that purpose is to make sure that each and every American man can father only one child in his lifetime. The reason for this is obvious: men who can only father one child will be deeply committed to that child, providing whatever it needs to guarantee that it, too, can reach adulthood, reproduce, and pass on the family genes.

Being the thoughtful and sympathetic nation we are, we will of course provide a bank where each man can provide a sperm donation to allow him to reproduce again in the event that his infant or child dies before it has the chance to pass on those genes. But as soon as a woman's pregnancy is confirmed, the Couvade policy would kick into high gear. A DNA sample of the fetal person would be taken by amniocentesis, and the paternity of the child confirmed by matching through the National Male Database (NMD). Once confirmed, the mother would know that the father would have an overriding interest in helping nurture and support the child, so she would have no reason to want an abortion. She could carry the child to term knowing that daddy will stay home with the baby when she does not want to; that daddy will provide the money for extras; that daddy will pass up the promotion which requires travel because he knows he needs to watch out for his child, so she might take such a job. The burdens of parenthood historically borne by women could now be divided between mon and dad!

But how, you might ask, can we guarantee that each man will take his fatherhood so seriously? This is where the simple beauty of the Couvade policy becomes clear. At the time paternity is confirmed, an expectant father will undergo the Couvade Procedure. Officers of the CPA (Couvade Policy Agency) will locate the expectant father and escort him to a Couvade Clinic (funded by private insurance, which of course all Americans will have because no father will want his one and only child to be without insurance!) At the clinic, a small, unobtrusive device known as the Couvade ring, will be placed around the top of the scrotum. Tempered from a metal alloy that activates the device into a tightening spiral, the Couvade ring will, over the course of 40 weeks, gradually shrink and compress the vas deferens, (the same organ severed if a man undergoes a vasectomy). This procedure, reportedly uncomfortable but not painful, reaches its climax in a period known as the travail. This period can last anywhere from several hours to a couple of days, during which the expectant father may need support. He arrives at the clinic when pain begins and might be encouraged to walk up and down the clinic hallways to facilitate the process by increasing his body heat, thus increasing the rate at which the Couvade shrinks. At the very last, the Couvade severs the connection between the scrotum and the body, effectively terminating ability of the patient to father any more children.

We can only imagine what a happy place the future will be, when every child has exclusive access to the man who is his father! Women, of course, must be allowed to retain their fertility for obvious reasons. For one thing, a man might wish to have a specific woman father his child, and since he is the one who only gets one chance (and assuming she agrees with him), he must be allowed to choose whatever woman he wishes. So women might have more than one child. Also, in the event of some unforeseeable crisis, such as a devastating epidemic, it will be the number of fertile women surviving which determines whether or not we can rebuild our population; a relatively few men could father children and sperm banks could be opened, but the women must be able to give birth, perhaps mulitple times!

Absent such a crisis, however, we would have a society in which every child has the financial support of a parent with no other children. Abortion would disappear. Women would have no incentive; the daunting reality that an unplanned pregnancy will completely limit a woman's choices will no longer exist; daddy will always be there to make sure little Johnny or little Janie is safe and well-cared for; he will drop everything to nurse the sick child, and will willingly accept the little darling in his home if mom wants to leave hers for a night of fun and adventure! Why, mom and dad might even be--or get--married, b/c daddy will know that his child's future depends on a happy mommy, too, and he will want to be around to ensure that mommy is happy!

The heavy tax burden of social services would likewise disappear,  and yet because of the parental commitment,each child will be raised with the dignity of sufficient resources to guarantee it becomes a productive member of society. Finally, "no child left behind" will be a reality, not a fantasy. All it takes is the willingness of a part of our society to make a small sacrifice, a sacrifice which pales in comparison to the rewards it will reap. Can there be any argument? No; no one could possibly object to losing the right to control what happens to one's own body when the results are so brilliant! Join with me, today, and demand "Couvade now!"

The Myth of the Free Market

You might think that by now, EVERYONE has figured out that there is pretty much zero direct connection between hard work and financial reward.

But the Ignorance Party--which calls itself "Tea" Party but is apparently ignorant of the actual meaning of the Boston Tea Party, hence the "new" name--continues to harp on and on and on how it is their high taxes, paying for the luxurious lifestyle of those who receive Federal support, that are their only impediment to greater financial success. According to their logic, if they didn't have to pay such high taxes for slackers, the whole economy would be so much better and they, themselves, would be climbing into the ranks of the well-to-do.

This argument, however, does not stand up to historical analysis. And any philosophical or logical analysis that ignores the evidence from history does so for purely political purposes--because such arguments cannot reference history for evidence.

First, though, let us put to rest the myth that it was the free-market system of early America that accounted for our astonishing economic growth from almost the day Europeans first settled here (those guys at Jamestown actually nearly ruined it, and were literally on a boat heading home when they were rescued, and a few years later, the discovery of a marketable corp--tobacco--saved the experimental colony). What truly accounted for America's fabulous wealth and growth was the fact that it could supply natural and renewable  resources to the world at exceptionally low cost because its forests and land were virtually untouched by previous human development. The yields of crops due to fertile soils and the tsunami of lumber, for example, had nothing to do with a free-market. The producers of Europe and Asia could not compete because their soils were worn out with millenia of production and harvesting. Cheap American products filled the breadbaskets of Europe, and the spread of resources and wealth was like the Biblical flood.

The abundance of the "new" continents was so vast that it not only produced fabulously fortunes for Americans, but also for the Europeans connected by trans-Atlantic trade. A quick survey of history finds that even in societies without free-markets, merchants could gain significant wealth through the limited trade available to them (and we must consider Asia and the Middle East in this analysis, not just Europe). The difference America made was that the resources were so vast that the number of people needed to facilitate the movement of these resources grew exponentially. Merchants needed more people to help them, and those people became wealthy. The availability of marketable goods now meant that even those "new" merchants needed more help--and so on, and so on. The "rising tide" that shaped America wasn't built on free-markets--it was built on the flood of goods that provided work for so many more hands. Economic systems designed to benefit the crown and elites did not go away--they also grew wealthier. But their wealth depended on taking full advantage of the opportunities available, and that meant encouraging the growth of the middle-class. No single political economy existed--diverse types co-existed. But all grew in wealth at a rate that seemed unprecedented in history.

The folks who did not grow wealthy during this bonanza were, largely, those doing most of the physical hard work. The enslaved in America, whose labor built the biggest and most persistent fortunes, those of the landed elite in the South, did not eat better or live better for their efforts. Of course, that's no proof of the failure of the free-market. So what about the American working class? How did they benefit from the "rising tide" of the free-market?

In two words: they didn't. The life and lifestyle of an American factory worker did not improve improve because of the free-market. It took labor union, Progressive-era reformers, and the New Deal to bring the working class up to middle-class living standards. Despite the enormous wealth America generated, the hardest working people failed to benefit until they and others stood up to the myth of the free-market.

These workers worked longer hours, in unpleasant and even treacherous conditions, than others. They went home to places that were equally unpleasant and treacherous. Their exposure to disease was not addressed for their sake; it was the risk their epidemics created for everyone that made efforts to improve sewers and other systems imperative.

What people miss in touting the free-market is that it was not the free-market that gave America its greatness. By raising wages for working-class people, this deviation from free-market thinking created vast numbers of new consumers. The demand that these new consumers made for more "stuff" drove the American economy so rapidly that we emerged from the crisis of World War I as a world power.

Of course, the business-minded leaders of the 1920s felt that the Progressives and unions had led the country from its true free-market path. They undid much of the legislation that preceded the growth of the 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s. Curiously, in the 1920s, the gap between rich and poor began to widen at a rate that hadn't been seen since before the Civil War. And, not surprisingly, as companies built stuff for consumers who no longer had the money to buy it, inventories rose. Factories slowed their production. Workers were laid off. Production slowed again. And, as we all know, the economy fell into the greatest Depression it had seen before or since.

It is, of course, ahistorical to assume that America might have weathered the world-wide Depression better had our leaders not made those changes in the 1920s. But it is hard to believe that, knowing the post-war condition of most of Europe, leaders would not have figured out that demand would drop. How and why they could not foresee the compounding effect of taking money out of the hands of American consumers is simply a mystery. Perhaps they, too, were blinded by a myth repeated so oft that they began to see it as fact. 

"Just like anyone else": Why the T Party is really the I Party.

Latest Injustice Party line: the President and his family deserve no more protection than the rest of us.

Just like other people? Hmmmm, I haven't seen anyone else targeted by certain groups as a "traitor," accused of all sorts of crimes, and railed against by opposition like this since. . . ever. Yep, he and his family are no higher profile than anyone else. Just as Reagan wasn't. Or Kennedy. Or TR. Or Garfield. Or Mckinley. Not to mention Lincoln. Did I miss anyone?  Those were completely random acts that just happened to target a U.S. president, b/c they are just like everyone else.  The Obama family will need protection forever and probably more than most b/c of the hatred spewed by people who cannot seem to get their head around the fact that they live in a democracy and sometimes they will LOSE elections and therefore lose out on legislation and policies they'd prefer. These people do not understand that vituperative and unfounded accusations do not gain in credence just by being shouted over and over again, that failure to be able to understand that the President does not have the power to do more than 1/2 the things he's been accused of doing simply reveals their ignorance of the checks and balances within the Constitution.

I will no longer stand by and let ignorant people post their ignorance and injustice without contest. Yes, reasonable people recognize and ignore the ignorant--but what also happens is that the lack of response encourages the ignorant. I recognize that I'm fighting a losing battle--if my goal is to convince the ignorant of their own ignorance. It is not. It is simply to force them to shut up on whatever specific rant they are on--which they do. When they cannot respond to my logical contradiction of their position, they simply start a new line of attack. I've been experimenting since Sandy Hook, and it's a consistent response: when you cannot muster evidence to defend your position, abandon it and start something new.

Ignorance is not stupidity--Ignorance is curable. But it will remain to be seen if the I Party chooses to remedy its own ignorance.

OK, so from now on, I will refuse to recognize the miscarriage of history that the alleged "Tea Party" continues to perpetuate. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. I'm pretty sure every single member of the so-called Tea Party has the right to vote--and, therefore, has access to representation. It is an insult to our founders, to the men and women who stood up against the injustice of taxation without representation, to use that label for a group who suffers NONE of the injustice alleged. Who cares what they call themselves when the FACTS are against them? 

NRA strategy: Blame everyone else and ignore the Big White Elephant in the Middle of the Room.

I cannot believe that the NRA took the stance it has taken since Sandy Hook. It's like a gift to advocates of gun control.

One of the most common characteristics, apparently, of mass shooters, is their habit of blaming everyone else while accepting no responsibility for themselves. This, according to a leading expert on gun violence and mass shooters.

Had the NRA come out and admitted that perhaps its rigidity has, in fact, made it easy for children and other innocents to be fatal victims of gun violence, I might have thought there was hope for working with the NRA. But now, it has made it clear that "reason" is not within the NRA's own vocabulary.

Let's add to this the fact that I have taken the fight to FB where I have now heard rigid gun advocates saying there is a government conspiracy to overthrow the American civilian population, that the English people, press, and government are all liars, and that the issue is about crime, not guns (b/c being the victim of a crime without a gun is so much worse than being shot dead while being the victim of a crime committed by someone with a gun, I guess).

I am committed to researching everything I hear (and I'm good at it). I'm committed to listening to the arguments of those who oppose me and responding with reasonable, substantive arguments that are grounded in evidence. I'll continue to do this.

I have always resisted the characterization of gun lobbyists as "gun toting nuts." But the paranoia I have seen among acquaintances is beginning to make me wonder, as is their inability to be reasonable in the face of evidence with which they do not agree. When I am faced with evidence that contradicts my beliefs, my instinct is to question my beliefs--"Oh, wow, I didn't know that!" Then I take a step back and examine the evidence. Probably the most striking thing I've discovered is how quickly that evidence generally falls apart. I've found "facts" that were drawn selectively from source--where the rest of the facts contradicts what the selective evidence implies. I've found data from old sources that has clearly been addressed by other sources--and yet, that data has not been updated to address its own weaknesses.

I'm looking for someone on the other side to say, "Yes, but. . ." and then to articulate to me their assumptions. I do this all the time--I can concede a point without losing faith that my basic assumptions are still well founded.

I remember a student who used to ask me--when I told them that there was no "right" answer, "So we can just give our opinion, right?" I used to explain that even one's opinion should be grounded in evidence. It was important to me to get students to examine their own assumptions, to get past all the stuff those assumptions lead them to accept and to question the rational basis of the assumptions that they hold.

Here's what I want to know: do you really believe that the price of protecting American freedom is the current level of gun violence? Do you believe it is better that all our children and loved ones--not to mention ourselves--risk dying during a crime committed today, so that the government of this country cannot one day use our "defenselessness" against us?

If so, all I ask is that you examine those assumptions. How realistic is your assumption that an armed civilian population could overthrow a government committed against us? How realistic is your assumption that an unarmed civilian population cannot stand up against its government? Look at the world as it is today for your answers, b/c the evidence from the 18th century does you no good--the world is too different. Draw your conclusion, then explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion--and I will listen with an open mind. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong--it's not an uncommon experience for me, after all. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may arrive at the conclusion you have. But I need you to explain it to me in rational terms, to use evidence that is meaningful--or at the very least, to let me know where you have made a leap of faith. I can honor that, even if I do not agree with that. I can respect you for that, even if I will not defer to you because of it. I do not want to demonize my enemy because that always ends badly for everyone involved. Be my friend, and help me understand.

We the People and the 2nd Amendment: Why we really are much better than this.

For the first time in recent memory, I am taking a stand and not backing down even though I'm scared.

I know many people who own and use guns responsibly. I know many people who own and use guns responsibly and also believe that we need much stricter gun control.

But I also know that among the many, many, many, many, many gun owners who consider themselves law-abiding citizens will be more than a few who decide that this "assault" on their 2nd Amendment rights constitutes an act of war. In their complete inability to understand that democracy is about NOT using violence to solve our deepest, most painful conflicts, some of these few will decide it is time to take action into their own hands. These are people who do not understand that living in a democracy ultimately means, giving up your own deepest beliefs when the majority is against you. It means letting go of slavery when the will of the nation decides it is wrong--letting go peacefully, because the exact thing you value most, if you are a true patriot, is the precious right of each of us to vote our conscience and the precious responsibility of each of us to abide by the outcome of that vote.

I suspect there are people in this country--maybe even in my neighborhood--who will see an argument like this and decide that their enemies need to be silenced. And this is what is scary.

I cannot be afraid any longer. The secret of a successful bully is to intimidate his or her victim into silence, to make them fear that retribution for standing up for themselves will be much worse than the assaults and threats they already suffer.

The gun lobby knows this. The people who defend their 2nd Amendment rights benefit from the implied threat of violence their access to  guns gives them. They do not have to say anything. They can be smug in their "superior" position. They can be silent, relying on the echo of grim jokes about prying guns from cold, dead hands.

But I am not powerless. I am empowered. I am empowered by the knowledge that the instant one of them uses a gun, and not a vote, to defend a position, that person has destroyed the illusion of their patriotism, of their commitment to the Constitution. And in that same moment, they have exposed their complete  misunderstanding of the power of that Amendment.

Because, in a democracy, We the People, ARE the government. Our collective will is the law of the land. If we, as a government, arrive at the decision that the 2nd Amendment has a different meaning than some ascribe to it, then this decision becomes the law of the land. If, through the democratic process, we arrive at the conclusion that assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and/or handguns, and the ammunition for such weapons, need to go, then there are only two choices: As an American, you submit to that decision even if you vow to continue to speak against it in the hope of one day overturning it. Or, if you cannot accept a democratically derived decision, you have the freedom to surrender your citizenship and find a place where your vision and understanding are shared.

What you do not have any right to do is to challenge, with arms, a decision of the American people arrived at through the democratic process. You do not have the right, in a democracy, to assert yourself with violence against the collective will. You cannot claim any higher moral ground, any "better" understanding, any "right" interpretation of our Constitution. It takes meaning only from what We the People ascribe to it. Our Constitution has been interpreted from the earliest days. We express our views through word and writing and the way we spend our money, and then we trust in the process. If we do not trust in the process--the process of government for, by, and of the People--we are betraying our Constitution.

In the age of Jefferson as well as the age of Lincoln, the majority of Americans understood this. They understood that you cannot choose to live in America and decline to honor the Constitution, decline to accept the Will of the People, however distasteful that Will may be to you. They understood you cannot claim one inch of American soil as yours while refusing to honor the Constitution.

Embedded in the 2nd Amendment is the premise that the vigilance of the people is essential to protecting our democracy. It is a premise acknowledged--no, embraced--by our founders. Our vigilance means an active participation in the democratic process. It means tolerating continuous dissent and accepting views radically different from our own and promising ourselves and one another that--above all--our differences will be resolved peacefully. This does not preclude anger and frustration and bitter arguments. It does not preclude the ugliness of uncivil debate (although I'd like to think we are better than that, too). It should preclude dishonesty and intentional obfuscation of the truth, but as that is dependent on the moral character of each individual, we can only hope for better than that.

What each of us must bring to the debate is, first and foremost, the willingness to accept that democracy involves responsibilities as well as rights. And there is more: democracy requires each of us to question the information provided to us, especially the information provided by like-minded people. It requires us to sift through the evidence to the best of our own ability, and to reach our own conclusions. It demands that we accept that others may have different goals from us. It expects each of us to find the courage to submit to what we cannot always understand. Democracy is simply an act of faith, submission to the Will of the People. If you can't live with that, you aren't much of an American to begin with.







Or, more likely