I wrote: "The enemy of sexually powerful women is shame; that of men--aggression"
Bob wrote: "If what you meant, SueR, is that shame is the enemy of women who aspire to be sexually self-empowered and guilt-free, I would say that the same is true for men. Further, I would say that for me, my past shame regarding my natural sexual aggression -- mistaking my "inner animal" for a "potential perpetrator" that had to be tethered through repression -- was the most dangerous enemy of all."
That quote uses the stricter definition of aggression, "intending to hurt" (separate from "assertive: bold, confident, self-assured").
In light of your definitional clarification, I can see more plainly now what you meant to convey by your epigram. Still, I would appreciate more elaboration on why you differentiate women from men in the shame department. I also don't understand why you believe that a man's "intent to hurt" is specifically an enemy of his sexual power (or his aspiration to be sexually self-empowered), as distinguished from its being an enemy of civilization generally.
Are you saying that women are characteristically stymied by shame when it comes to sex, whereas men characteristically intend in sex to do harm? I tend to doubt that you think that the second half of that "formulation" is true, but I'm confused. More words, please!
Bob, I would be interested for Sue to clarify these points as well, this is an interesting discussion. I would also quite like you to clarify why you regard mans 'intent to hurt' as an enemy of civilisation.
Could it not be argued that maybe this intent to hurt has huge evolutionary significance and that we probably would not be here without it? Also, how can we be so sure that society would really work better if everybody was less aggressive - could this not be another communism type, great idea-doesn't work thing?
Sir Noel.
Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 3/31/2003 10:40:10 AM
I believe that there is a huge distinction between aggressiveness (in the sense of assertiveness -- i.e., clearly communicating one's wants, needs, thoughts, and feelings and consciously taking action, in a non-coercive way, to fulfill those wants and needs and to promote the agendas that arise from those thoughts and feelings), on the one hand, and aggression (i.e., in the stricter sense referred to by SueR as meaning "intending to hurt"), on the other hand. In my view, "aggressiveness", as defined above, is the healthiest way to live in the world. By contrast, living life with a conscious intent to hurt others or consistently (and thus unmindfully) "acting out" a subconscious impulse to hurt others seem like the surest paths to hell on earth for the perpetrator, the victim, and everybody else.
I also think that there are big differences among (i) socialism, (ii) civilized, reciprocal competition leavened with compassion, and (iii) a Hobbesian "war of all against all".
As for the role of violence in human evolution, I don't really have any interest in the question. I'm not an ape; I'm a man. I don't need to figure out what's good for an ape or what was necessary in order for our ancestors to evolve into us. The only thing that concerns me is how best to live now, in order to live well and fully (which includes trying to make the world a better place to live in, both because this is where I reside and also because it feels good to do it). Working on that question alone is a tall enough order for me.
P.S. (This is an edit coming a little while after writing the above) -- Sorry if my response to your much appreciated post seems sharp or high-handed. I spent most of yesterday arguing with my wife -- among other things, about my posting messages on the ADT Forum. When I wrote my response I was feeling emotionally tapped out and short-tempered, but not because of you. Being grumpy does not make for good message posting. My ideas I'm cool with, but please forgive the tone if it gave offense. Rock on, Sir Noel!
No problem there Bob. I'm quite difficult to offend at the best of times and if my comments HAD bristled you I would have understood it anyway(I'm tempted to add that you are male so you will get a bit aggressive at times but I won't push my luck).
I actually agree with you on the evolution point but only with a proviso. If it were true (for arguments sake) that man would have been out-evolved without male aggression, or a more passive tribe wiped out by a more aggressive, to now start to criticise men wholesale for this seems a little unfair. Is it not the longer scale equivalent to sending men (or women for that matter) to war and then blaming them for what it can turn them into?
I don't want to give the impression that I condone violent behaviour in day to day life. I just feel that we are reaching a point where men are expected to apologise for all their traits: too aggressive; too competitive; too undemonstratrive emotionally. Masculine is becoming a byeword for bad. Trouble is as often as not it's all a load of pc bullshit. If something bad happens and my girlfriend is upset and crying I can tell you the last thing she wants is for me to start blubbing as well - all of a sudden I'm not to 'get in touch with my feminine side' anymore.
I'm getting a bit off topic here, so I'll change tack.
My basic point was that it's very easy to work on the theory that if everybody was nice, like you and me, the world would be a better place. I'm reminded of these cases where one animal is introduced onto a continent to control another (like the cane toad in australia) and the end result is frequently some unforseen side effect often at least as bad as the original problem.
Thanks for your generous and graceful response to my ill-tempered post. I'm glad that you're difficult to offend.
I think we agree on the whole PC thing, which seems to be based on the principle that making bland, unexamined statements that are currently safe or popular -- statements that people employ as masks in order to appear to be "nice" and to make other people feel "comfortable" with them -- is preferable to actually searching for and speaking the truth (or what one honestly believes to be true). Hell porn, California's No. 1 growth industry, is not PC in California, which just goes to show how silly and hypocritical this supposedly "liberated" place is where I live.
You've also got me dead to rights when you "don't push your luck" and refrain from observing that I "will get a bit aggressive at times" (great finesse there with the not-push/push move, I tip my cap). That undoubtedly is in part because I'm male, but also in part because that's just who I, individually, am. Some people are more so, some people are less so.
I believe that most people's tendencies with respect to aggressiveness/aggression are highly contextual -- I'm far more likely to be aggressive at work than I am when I'm playing with my kids, for instance. There's a positive relationship between aggressiveness and self-defense (and the defense of loved ones) and there's a negative relationship between aggressiveness and cruelty. When I really think about it, it seems clear enough that aggressiveness and aggression operate on a continuum. It's not a black or white issue -- it's all a matter of degree, of context, and of intent (and/or gradations of awareness or denial about one's motivations).
And maybe that's SueR's point, although I wouldn't categorically limit it to an observation about men (although again -- to be fair to SueR -- it does honestly appear on the whole to be a bigger problem for men than for women, bless them).
I also agree with your observation that human beings cannot predict outcomes very well, and that we tend to fail all the worse the more we try to control natural forces -- such as other people. In this connection, there is one motto from the "twelve-step programs" that I have always really liked: you have a moral obligation to try to make the right choices for yourself, but then you must loosen your grip and leave the rest to "God". Easier said than done, of course, but at least it's a reasonable game plan.
Thanks for your faith, for your lack of defensiveness, and for your patience -- virtues all. I'm sincerely appreciative.
Although I often have trouble dealing with taciturnity in others (and lord knows I usually can't shut MYSELF up) you've demonstrated by example that sometimes silence can indeed be golden. By astutely withholding comment, you helped me to work through the question myself -- a generous gift. Seen from that perspective, I've come to regard your quote about Woman & Shame and Men & Aggression not so much as an epigram (despite its brevity and parallelism, and the large kernels of truth it contains), but rather as more akin to a Zen koan: a provocative statement to be meditated upon in order to escape the traps of strictly linear reasoning and increase one's receptiveness to intuitive enlightenment.
"Sensei SueR" -- what do you think of that as a Chat Room nick?
This all reminds me of a recent thread in which it was asked what the male equivalent of "whore" was. I made an initial stab at a literal equivalent and failed hopelessly. I then came up with the thought that, literalism aside, it should really be "rapist". Both represent each gender acting in an extreme of sexuality that (if they fall victim to it) is considered "bad", has extreme social stigmatism attached, and for which there is no literal equivalent in the opposite gender. (Most people would be confused if you talked about male whores or female rapists, even though both do exist.)
As such, Sue's comment is perfectly in line with my own realisation. When it comes to negative connotations for sexual extremes (which can easily be mis-applied to legitimate healthy sexuality), shame/shamelessness (? - an odd contradiction there) is the feminine aspect, and violence/sadism is the masculine.
