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
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.
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!
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.
[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.
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
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.
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!
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.
What a great post! The Ong sounds like a must-read. Thank you so much for this lucid analysis.
[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.