Professor Frantzen does it again: points to, defines, and elucidates the real in reality. In elementary school (once, more happily, called grammar school), the sisters used to favor the girls insistently. Girls are disciplined, aim to please, anbd
Thanks, Jim. I have a comment on the 2nd part of your note. Grammar school! Today most people employed in schools have no idea where that name came from, that's my guess.
I learned a lot from this post. The Walter Ong book sounds way ahead of its time and deserving of reissue in our confused/confusing age. Trust Frantzen to write with erudition as well as personal authority.
Thanks for this comment. Ong's view of changes in higher education struck me as particularly apt. I felt a sea change when I was still teaching. We've have a visiting speaker, and when the speaker finished all the comments were about how wonderful, etc., the talk was, very little disagreement or challenge in the discussion period. It was all about affirmation and, as one commentator put it one day, how we were all reading the editorial page of the NY Times!
From the post "Enthusiasm for fighting isn’t, as feminists claim, a defect in men that can be modified (i.e., eliminated) by political re-education. It is, instead, a strength and is part of the hereditary nature of males."
Yes! That sums it up very well. I am getting ready to publish #8 on the Understanding Men series and it fits with much of what is in this post. Men and hierarchy, male animals and hierarchy, and the evolution of the human male hierarchy into something that is more status driven.
Loved the Ong interpretation of insecurity. (I had to chuckle thinking that he is only two letters away from being wrong. lol ) So true. Insecurity is a necessity when you are in a competitive/jhierarchical environment. Great way to look at it. Ong was way ahead of his time.
Did you know that male Lightning Bugs are hierarchical? Flashing displays and aerial pursuits in order to get the girl!
That's a good one about Ong / wrong, Tom. I think he was on to something, especially about the decline of debate in education (true now at all levels). I did not know about bugs, but this need for hierarchy is true of male life all around us, that is clear.
Excellent timing for me, Allen. I've just been thinking of the limitations of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. If you recall we had a conversation recently on the stereotype of men having trouble with their emotional lives: trouble identifying emotions and expressing them. This stereotype is one of those ideas that is widely accepted by both men and women despite the fact that it really isn't gendered, and that women struggle with the same problems. Nevertheless, I have seen explanations of this putative masculine trait couched in the language of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. In fact, I've seen many instances in which the popular use of these "scientific" languages has served specious ends. Too often, it comes across as pseudoscientific bafflegab. And one of my chief concerns with these explanations is that they tend to excuse one's behaviour rather than provide the means for transformative psychology. In short, I'd rather have a novel, myth or fairytale that provides insight into my inner life than a biological explanation because I see the former as more productive.
That said, I found your piece here to be more valuable than the usual--and I'm not a fan of E. O. Wilson--perhaps because it speaks to certain issues close to my heart. The way men raz each other, and egg each other on to achieve more and better is a beautiful thing, though tough and often humiliating. Surely, this behaviour has had a lot to do with women feeling harassed in the workplace or given a hard time (because they are women), or feeling that they have to work so much harder than men to succeed. If one were being honest (and obviously I'm not talking about sexual harassment), what women have complained about in the workplace has often been about how men are tough on each other. That said, some women enjoy that sort of rough housing, so there's room to question, once again, the biological argument. Aren't women combative too?
As you see, I'm a little torn here and haven't yet formulated my response to these types of arguments. But something smells funny to me in this neo-Darwinist way of explaining all things as adaptations. It really is just made-up storytelling after all, operating within a Darwinist frame. What advantages do such exercises provide us with over those traditional storytelling traditions that give us a purchase on our inner worlds? My concern is that ultimately these evolutionary stories are used to make things sound sciency while being too flexible in what notions they can be recruited to support. And too often one winds up with arguments along the lines of "I'm a douche because our species developed into douches for hundreds of thousands of years." Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for this very useful comment on the larger question. For purposes of argument, I settled for a familiar opposition (nature / nurture). But I see the danger of posing nature as an easy way out for male bad actors. I am in a men's group I greatly enjoy. We have dinner and then a discussion. Whoever hosts leaves the front door open and we walk in and usually stand around while the cook pulls things together. Wallking in the door I invariably hear a roar of conversation, the loudest thing I have heard all day, and it turns out to be 4 men talking, all at the same time, about ski lift charges at Aspen or Vail or business class on United on their lat trip. One man in the group is a violinist, and he and I usually stand apart in a corner and talk about music. I see it as two different ways of being male. The men talking about money are engaged in one kind of competition, and musician and I in another. Last time I was in London George and I sat next to a table of 4 French women, almost identical hair and glasses, all talking at once. But there was another table of 2 women having the kind of conversation George and I have, give and take, not all give. Women are competitive too. I think, to return to your point, that men seem louder because they are supposed to seem louder, but there are men like me; same goes for women. As Seinfeld would say, "Right?"
My response to feminism is "Women are a lot like people." I judge whether I can be friends with a person according to their reaction to this statement.
Brave man! I might try this around a few of my friends, but not around others. I think the idea here is very clear, but the first impression is that the comment is a put-down. I recently got a lecture on the representation of women in medieval literature and how disgusting it was. I asked if representations of men were uniformly positive (which is the assumption), pointed out how often men, whether aristocratic or common, are ridiculed, and how often women manipulate them. Women in medieval texts are, as you might say, a lot like people, and so are men--unpredictable, often disappointing, surprising. What is predictable is the modern feminist before-the-fact judgment.
Thanks, Janice. I learned of Ong's book (after years of reading his other works) from Jonathan Gottschall's "The Professor in the Cage: Why Men Fight and Why We Like To Watch."
[hit the wrong key] and did not fight. But boys fought, asserted themselves, and resisted. No wonder that for decades Catholic boys turned out to be softer than other boys.
Thanks, Jim. How well remember! Girls colored inside the line, cut the paper with straight edges, were never late, and so on. One day, instead of the assigned "book report," I bought in a little booklet I had made about Abraham Lincoln. The girl sitting in front of me saw it and said, "Where do you get you stupid ideas"? I didn't have the wit to answer "From other men who make books," but wish I had had it. I think, however, using Ong's idea of contest, that this kind of opposition helps us build up strength. Anyway, I went on to make a few more books.
Professor Frantzen does it again: points to, defines, and elucidates the real in reality. In elementary school (once, more happily, called grammar school), the sisters used to favor the girls insistently. Girls are disciplined, aim to please, anbd
Thanks, Jim. I have a comment on the 2nd part of your note. Grammar school! Today most people employed in schools have no idea where that name came from, that's my guess.
I learned a lot from this post. The Walter Ong book sounds way ahead of its time and deserving of reissue in our confused/confusing age. Trust Frantzen to write with erudition as well as personal authority.
Thanks for this comment. Ong's view of changes in higher education struck me as particularly apt. I felt a sea change when I was still teaching. We've have a visiting speaker, and when the speaker finished all the comments were about how wonderful, etc., the talk was, very little disagreement or challenge in the discussion period. It was all about affirmation and, as one commentator put it one day, how we were all reading the editorial page of the NY Times!
Really enjoyed this one Allen. I loved this:
From the post "Enthusiasm for fighting isn’t, as feminists claim, a defect in men that can be modified (i.e., eliminated) by political re-education. It is, instead, a strength and is part of the hereditary nature of males."
Yes! That sums it up very well. I am getting ready to publish #8 on the Understanding Men series and it fits with much of what is in this post. Men and hierarchy, male animals and hierarchy, and the evolution of the human male hierarchy into something that is more status driven.
Loved the Ong interpretation of insecurity. (I had to chuckle thinking that he is only two letters away from being wrong. lol ) So true. Insecurity is a necessity when you are in a competitive/jhierarchical environment. Great way to look at it. Ong was way ahead of his time.
Did you know that male Lightning Bugs are hierarchical? Flashing displays and aerial pursuits in order to get the girl!
Many thanks for this one Allen. Lots to chew on!
That's a good one about Ong / wrong, Tom. I think he was on to something, especially about the decline of debate in education (true now at all levels). I did not know about bugs, but this need for hierarchy is true of male life all around us, that is clear.
Excellent timing for me, Allen. I've just been thinking of the limitations of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. If you recall we had a conversation recently on the stereotype of men having trouble with their emotional lives: trouble identifying emotions and expressing them. This stereotype is one of those ideas that is widely accepted by both men and women despite the fact that it really isn't gendered, and that women struggle with the same problems. Nevertheless, I have seen explanations of this putative masculine trait couched in the language of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. In fact, I've seen many instances in which the popular use of these "scientific" languages has served specious ends. Too often, it comes across as pseudoscientific bafflegab. And one of my chief concerns with these explanations is that they tend to excuse one's behaviour rather than provide the means for transformative psychology. In short, I'd rather have a novel, myth or fairytale that provides insight into my inner life than a biological explanation because I see the former as more productive.
That said, I found your piece here to be more valuable than the usual--and I'm not a fan of E. O. Wilson--perhaps because it speaks to certain issues close to my heart. The way men raz each other, and egg each other on to achieve more and better is a beautiful thing, though tough and often humiliating. Surely, this behaviour has had a lot to do with women feeling harassed in the workplace or given a hard time (because they are women), or feeling that they have to work so much harder than men to succeed. If one were being honest (and obviously I'm not talking about sexual harassment), what women have complained about in the workplace has often been about how men are tough on each other. That said, some women enjoy that sort of rough housing, so there's room to question, once again, the biological argument. Aren't women combative too?
As you see, I'm a little torn here and haven't yet formulated my response to these types of arguments. But something smells funny to me in this neo-Darwinist way of explaining all things as adaptations. It really is just made-up storytelling after all, operating within a Darwinist frame. What advantages do such exercises provide us with over those traditional storytelling traditions that give us a purchase on our inner worlds? My concern is that ultimately these evolutionary stories are used to make things sound sciency while being too flexible in what notions they can be recruited to support. And too often one winds up with arguments along the lines of "I'm a douche because our species developed into douches for hundreds of thousands of years." Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for this very useful comment on the larger question. For purposes of argument, I settled for a familiar opposition (nature / nurture). But I see the danger of posing nature as an easy way out for male bad actors. I am in a men's group I greatly enjoy. We have dinner and then a discussion. Whoever hosts leaves the front door open and we walk in and usually stand around while the cook pulls things together. Wallking in the door I invariably hear a roar of conversation, the loudest thing I have heard all day, and it turns out to be 4 men talking, all at the same time, about ski lift charges at Aspen or Vail or business class on United on their lat trip. One man in the group is a violinist, and he and I usually stand apart in a corner and talk about music. I see it as two different ways of being male. The men talking about money are engaged in one kind of competition, and musician and I in another. Last time I was in London George and I sat next to a table of 4 French women, almost identical hair and glasses, all talking at once. But there was another table of 2 women having the kind of conversation George and I have, give and take, not all give. Women are competitive too. I think, to return to your point, that men seem louder because they are supposed to seem louder, but there are men like me; same goes for women. As Seinfeld would say, "Right?"
My response to feminism is "Women are a lot like people." I judge whether I can be friends with a person according to their reaction to this statement.
Brave man! I might try this around a few of my friends, but not around others. I think the idea here is very clear, but the first impression is that the comment is a put-down. I recently got a lecture on the representation of women in medieval literature and how disgusting it was. I asked if representations of men were uniformly positive (which is the assumption), pointed out how often men, whether aristocratic or common, are ridiculed, and how often women manipulate them. Women in medieval texts are, as you might say, a lot like people, and so are men--unpredictable, often disappointing, surprising. What is predictable is the modern feminist before-the-fact judgment.
What a great post! The Ong sounds like a must-read. Thank you so much for this lucid analysis.
Thanks, Janice. I learned of Ong's book (after years of reading his other works) from Jonathan Gottschall's "The Professor in the Cage: Why Men Fight and Why We Like To Watch."
[hit the wrong key] and did not fight. But boys fought, asserted themselves, and resisted. No wonder that for decades Catholic boys turned out to be softer than other boys.
Thanks, Jim. How well remember! Girls colored inside the line, cut the paper with straight edges, were never late, and so on. One day, instead of the assigned "book report," I bought in a little booklet I had made about Abraham Lincoln. The girl sitting in front of me saw it and said, "Where do you get you stupid ideas"? I didn't have the wit to answer "From other men who make books," but wish I had had it. I think, however, using Ong's idea of contest, that this kind of opposition helps us build up strength. Anyway, I went on to make a few more books.