--WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- Dr. Warren Farrell referred to the socialization of men and women as it exists when he postulates something as “masculine” or “feminine.”
At an early age, Farrell points out in the Liberated Man, boys see model of men who seek material success, physical and psychological strength, leadership invulnerability; who suppress their fear, control their emotions; who are pragmatic, know all the answers, never seek help, are tough and independent; who have a substantial degree of power, ambition, and physical and sexual aggression; who have control in sexual relations, make decisions, can get what they want when they want it; who generally want to be on top, be a protector, earn more than—and in general be better than (preferably a man; if not, then a woman).
“The woman’s socialization encourages domesticity, nurturance, dependency, modesty, coyness, deviousness, warmth, emotionality, illogicality, the ability to be sensually and sexually arousing (while simultaneously properly inhibited and submissive), fearfulness, the need for protection, tenderness, fragility, displays of affection and ‘sugar and spice and everything nice’ (meaning: something extra to be added to the real substance). The traits are off limits to the mail,” explains Farrell.
Perhaps Dan Wakefield best describes in his novel Going All the Way. “You have to have confidence, a little swagger but not in a boastful way, an easiness, a style, an air of casual good nature, of leadership than wasn’t sought but seemed to come natural. You couldn’t pin it down but you could see it in a person.”
ATTRACTIVE
Men often ask “What’s wrong with appreciating a woman who’s physically attractive? After all, that’s the first thing you see, isn’t it?” In context, nothing is wrong, but as Farrel’s man in the consciousness group, Lewis, discovered, “the first thing you see” led him into what might be called a sex-object trap:
“I got to the party after not having sex for weeks. My girl and I broke up two weeks before. So I looked over all the girls in the party. One was really a turn-on, but I didn’t think she would be attracted to me. Besides, this lawyer fellow seemed to be putting the make on her. I didn’t want to hack the competition. But there was another chick, err, girl, who was almost as attractive, so I decided to see if I could get her—I mean, have a relationship—ya know what I mean.”
“Well, I got up the nerve to approach her—see if he wanted to drink, or something. I spent most of the evening on her—err, with her. When it got later, she made up some excuse about having to get to bed early because she had to get up early—but I wasn’t included in her bedroom plans that night. It took another couple of outings.
“The problem is, I like her physically and all, and she’s interested in what I have to say, but I always find I’m having trouble to bring her up to my intellectual level—I kind of like that for an evening, but I want a more liberated long-term relationship. I’ve really been looking, but it’s a problem. I guess I’ll break up with her if she doesn’t change. But it’s always a hassle to have to go back out and find someone else. I’ve sort of got an investment in her now, you know?”
APPEARANCE
Farrell explains that Lewis chose a woman primarily on the basis of physical appearance and expected mental compatibility. While he would not have pursued a relationship with a “dumb broad,” he would have found it much easier to find someone compatible in terms of mental vibrations and warmth had his focus been on that from the outset and on appearance secondarily.
By focusing on the physical the rest only came by coincidence. We eventually started referring to this as the first stage of “the sex-object trap,” says Farrell who found out that often our assumptions that we were bringing the woman up to our level only meant that we were evaluating her from our area of topic security—bringing her to our functions with our friends discussing topics with which we were familiar.
The sex-object trap becomes greater if a man’s investment in a woman is greater and if she finds him attractive, says Farrell. Then he really feels trapped, looking for a graceful way to back out. His resentment increases the longer he plays the game, eventually becoming deep; at that point he usually gets out, but not without a mark on him and his feelings toward women.
He is determined not to make the same mistake again, but he doesn’t know how he made the mistake. Now he knows only that the last weeks of the relationship were without sex. He’s hungry for sex. So once again he looks for a beautiful woman. He goes to a party, sees one who’s a turn-on, and it starts all over again.
CONTEMPT
While the resentment occurring from finding oneself trapped with an incompatible woman may lead to contempt if his “investment” in her is great, a small investment can lead to a different type of contempt. A woman (a “chick”) who does initiate physical contact or goes to bed the first night still has unspoken (or spoken) aspersions cast upon her. She is suspected of being just a sloppy two-bit whore, an oversexed, insatiable bitch, a nymphomaniac. She is the subject of myths such as “a woman who goes to bed a lot gets a big sloppy cunt.” As Germaine Greer puts it, “The best thing a cunt can be is small and unobtrusive; the anxiety about the bigness of the penis is only equaled by anxiety about the smallness of the cunt.”
The trapped man’s contempt for women increases, no matter what his investment, and the woman denies her sexuality, risks being termed “a cunt,” objectifies the man for his investment capabilities, or finds herself in all three traps.
The negative connotation in calling a woman “a cunt” also stand in marked contrast to the positive connotations of terming a male a “man with balls”—a man who stands up for his rights. If a guy is “hairy,” he’s smart and conniving, and “Man, what a fucker!” is even more a phrase of inspiration than the military slogan “He came, he saw, he conquered” (unless inverted: he saw, he conquered, he came”).
COMPULSION
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY -- Dr. Warren Farrell referred to the socialization of men and women as it exists when he postulates something as “masculine” or “feminine.”
At an early age, Farrell points out in the Liberated Man, boys see model of men who seek material success, physical and psychological strength, leadership invulnerability; who suppress their fear, control their emotions; who are pragmatic, know all the answers, never seek help, are tough and independent; who have a substantial degree of power, ambition, and physical and sexual aggression; who have control in sexual relations, make decisions, can get what they want when they want it; who generally want to be on top, be a protector, earn more than—and in general be better than (preferably a man; if not, then a woman).
“The woman’s socialization encourages domesticity, nurturance, dependency, modesty, coyness, deviousness, warmth, emotionality, illogicality, the ability to be sensually and sexually arousing (while simultaneously properly inhibited and submissive), fearfulness, the need for protection, tenderness, fragility, displays of affection and ‘sugar and spice and everything nice’ (meaning: something extra to be added to the real substance). The traits are off limits to the mail,” explains Farrell.
Perhaps Dan Wakefield best describes in his novel Going All the Way. “You have to have confidence, a little swagger but not in a boastful way, an easiness, a style, an air of casual good nature, of leadership than wasn’t sought but seemed to come natural. You couldn’t pin it down but you could see it in a person.”
ATTRACTIVE
Men often ask “What’s wrong with appreciating a woman who’s physically attractive? After all, that’s the first thing you see, isn’t it?” In context, nothing is wrong, but as Farrel’s man in the consciousness group, Lewis, discovered, “the first thing you see” led him into what might be called a sex-object trap:
“I got to the party after not having sex for weeks. My girl and I broke up two weeks before. So I looked over all the girls in the party. One was really a turn-on, but I didn’t think she would be attracted to me. Besides, this lawyer fellow seemed to be putting the make on her. I didn’t want to hack the competition. But there was another chick, err, girl, who was almost as attractive, so I decided to see if I could get her—I mean, have a relationship—ya know what I mean.”
“Well, I got up the nerve to approach her—see if he wanted to drink, or something. I spent most of the evening on her—err, with her. When it got later, she made up some excuse about having to get to bed early because she had to get up early—but I wasn’t included in her bedroom plans that night. It took another couple of outings.
“The problem is, I like her physically and all, and she’s interested in what I have to say, but I always find I’m having trouble to bring her up to my intellectual level—I kind of like that for an evening, but I want a more liberated long-term relationship. I’ve really been looking, but it’s a problem. I guess I’ll break up with her if she doesn’t change. But it’s always a hassle to have to go back out and find someone else. I’ve sort of got an investment in her now, you know?”
APPEARANCE
Farrell explains that Lewis chose a woman primarily on the basis of physical appearance and expected mental compatibility. While he would not have pursued a relationship with a “dumb broad,” he would have found it much easier to find someone compatible in terms of mental vibrations and warmth had his focus been on that from the outset and on appearance secondarily.
By focusing on the physical the rest only came by coincidence. We eventually started referring to this as the first stage of “the sex-object trap,” says Farrell who found out that often our assumptions that we were bringing the woman up to our level only meant that we were evaluating her from our area of topic security—bringing her to our functions with our friends discussing topics with which we were familiar.
The sex-object trap becomes greater if a man’s investment in a woman is greater and if she finds him attractive, says Farrell. Then he really feels trapped, looking for a graceful way to back out. His resentment increases the longer he plays the game, eventually becoming deep; at that point he usually gets out, but not without a mark on him and his feelings toward women.
He is determined not to make the same mistake again, but he doesn’t know how he made the mistake. Now he knows only that the last weeks of the relationship were without sex. He’s hungry for sex. So once again he looks for a beautiful woman. He goes to a party, sees one who’s a turn-on, and it starts all over again.
CONTEMPT
While the resentment occurring from finding oneself trapped with an incompatible woman may lead to contempt if his “investment” in her is great, a small investment can lead to a different type of contempt. A woman (a “chick”) who does initiate physical contact or goes to bed the first night still has unspoken (or spoken) aspersions cast upon her. She is suspected of being just a sloppy two-bit whore, an oversexed, insatiable bitch, a nymphomaniac. She is the subject of myths such as “a woman who goes to bed a lot gets a big sloppy cunt.” As Germaine Greer puts it, “The best thing a cunt can be is small and unobtrusive; the anxiety about the bigness of the penis is only equaled by anxiety about the smallness of the cunt.”
The trapped man’s contempt for women increases, no matter what his investment, and the woman denies her sexuality, risks being termed “a cunt,” objectifies the man for his investment capabilities, or finds herself in all three traps.
The negative connotation in calling a woman “a cunt” also stand in marked contrast to the positive connotations of terming a male a “man with balls”—a man who stands up for his rights. If a guy is “hairy,” he’s smart and conniving, and “Man, what a fucker!” is even more a phrase of inspiration than the military slogan “He came, he saw, he conquered” (unless inverted: he saw, he conquered, he came”).
COMPULSION
“At first it may appear that the compulsion a woman feels to keep slim, dye her hair, make weekly trips to a beauty parlor, use a feminine-hygiene deodorant, apply make-up, and shave her legs and underarms is just a way of keeping herself properly maintained,” stresses Farrell. “However, this same woman is often expected to accept a beer-billed man who, in Germaine Greer’s words, sports ‘bad breath, farting, a stubble, baldness, and other ugliness without complaint. Man demands his arrogance to be loved as he is.”
The difference is not absolute--everyone likes everyone to look nice--but a matter of degree. The degree to which slimness and shaved legs and underarms is presumed necessary for a woman and the degree to which it is of little importance of a man in her life, dares not challenge him to “Accept me as I am” or she believes she may find herself rejected.
It may not be an exaggeration to claim that a person who feels he may be rejected if his looks are not maintained may be the object of underlying contempt.
The difference is not absolute--everyone likes everyone to look nice--but a matter of degree. The degree to which slimness and shaved legs and underarms is presumed necessary for a woman and the degree to which it is of little importance of a man in her life, dares not challenge him to “Accept me as I am” or she believes she may find herself rejected.
It may not be an exaggeration to claim that a person who feels he may be rejected if his looks are not maintained may be the object of underlying contempt.
No comments:
Post a Comment