Comments on: Frequency Of Female Fire Fighter Fewer Than Four Percent

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Fri, 16 May 2008 23:59:12 +0000

Refreshing? Aw shucks, CMF, I’m not that unusual. No, really. I’m just stubborn enough not to give up until I figured out what your point was–or some part of it–and I like to argue. Discussions like this (well, maybe not exactly like this) do go on elsewhere, even between stigmatized whitemens and privileged white women. Sure, lots of people don’t like to question the world, but plenty do too.As for the individuals, I’ll point it out when I see it. Until then, assume it’s an impression on my part that may or may not be borne out by events. Fair enough for now?

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:30:38 +0000

Steph: “Talk about language problems”Ah, but writers so love their first drafts for exactly that reason!Direct, midwestern pig-headedlatin is exactly what led to the archetypes taking root in the first place, which is the problem.So language–lots of it–like hydrating an infection, is necesary, even if we approach it “indirectly,” as you posit: but note that I was not talking about this originally, I was just having fun with the stereotypes, and recasting the archetypical.But I was dead serious about those girls with the Lynx, and their hyper-competive ape like glances and chest thumping at those of us (male) who challenge their social/cultural territory–or their dominated ‘others’;-)”a willingness on the part of many to engage with individuals instead of archetypes”yeah, on rare occasions. It takes women from birth to eighteen to become indoctrinated and mentally fatigued by misandrist feminist rhetoric,;then four years of college and peer pressure (depending on the weakness of each woman to female coercion) to accept or reject the fem dogma; then it takes th3e rest of her life to figure out how deeply she has been lied to, or to embrace the dogma.So, males are not human to women largely because of the social constructions of women who objectify males[…] rather than “engage [men] as individuals”.So you are refreshing indeed.But curiously, “others are largely seeing that as you using competing archetypes” ;those others Steph, cannot weed through their own dogma and indoctrination, much less ‘their’ emotional baggage long enough to carry on a conversation.Even then, these un-named others have yet to comprehend anything other than the machine pressed version of male that they are personally comfortable with. Men are especially flawed in this respect because only the most malleable of them adopt the feminist constructs of reality by rote, as for some it increase their breeding “success” rather than their “fitness”, or merely adopt the constructs as ways to avoid female violence, and social coercion.Others are just cowardly, and unable to comprehend their masculinity as an entity seperate from the nascent maternal bopnd, etc..But I have a question for you “to avoid engaging with the individuals being discussed”Which individuals are you talking about? Which discussion? I have zero problem engaging with individuals–provided they are feminist/matriarchy stigmata free, and actually thinking for themselves…the collective is a great idea for bonobos, chimps, and hyenas, but it isn’t necessary all the time in the human world–and good luck coaching the stigmatists into their own individual dialogue;-)

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:54:57 +0000

And it only took more than a dozen comments back and forth to get to that point. Talk about language problems. :)I think that’s a measure of some progress, though. You’re engaging with archetypes, and as I read it, others are largely seeing that as you using competing archetypes (the less “ideal” ones) to avoid engaging with the individuals being discussed. Call me an incurable optimist, but I see this as a willingness on the part of many to engage with individuals instead of archetypes. That, of course, is my hobby horse. A different path to many of the same goals, I think.

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:31:56 +0000

Unfortunately, the language of today–see any CSCL storybook..er..text.. for examples– has limited the archetypes of men down to a) heinous b)not-heinous c) negligible/non-existentWhereas all of the dialogue is about woman in context to man: a blending of all archetypes into ‘universal collective woman’ who has only pure motivation(same, circa 1890’s, but re-tooled into 2008), and any other thing is malicious inference by the patriarchy. So the last bastion of and hardest contested unexamined territory is actually the marternal archetypes.So in fact the language describing men has been severe and continues to be, even at what one would like to believe would be the most sanct levels(you mention parenting), yet men are today as they have always been: scrutinized from the lowest to highest levels( only at the highest levels of wealth can they afford to avoid a dualistic predational gaze)with exclusive and limiting paradigms of behavior.Hence my suggestion that we examine specifically the idealized maternal role, or ala this post, the myths of women and work.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:17:13 +0000

I suspect that’s true of any two groups between whom relationships are culturally idealized, parents and children for another example. The language doesn’t begin to describe all the complicated interactions–positive, negative and mixed–that can go on.

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:00:07 +0000

Gotcha. Agreed.My main thesis is that many men (American and western men in particular,latin culture, etc.)–from the boy up–have this dillema of womens boundary aggression-turned-“affection”, but no language to describe it.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:51:09 +0000

I didn’t mean your statement or your presumptions, but others’ presumptions as you stated them. I’m basically saying it’s bad enough to be faced with the assumption that one has no recourse in a bad situation (must tolerate). The idea that one is participating in the situation by “enjoying” it is much more caustic.It wasn’t anything deliberately abstruse, just something simple badly phrased.

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:10:38 +0000

Steph: what is harmful about my statement about tolerance?” not uncommon to find presumptions that are more harmful than your statement about tolerance” and what presumptions are you referencing? I’m not sure we are on the same mooncheese right now.hmmm…enjoyment? Bentham, right? Or do you mean in that sort of Nieszche way–the way many interpreted him to be hedonistic as opposed to experientialist?but “presuming enjoyment” is something I seldom if ever indulge in…

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:30:27 +0000

I was suggesting it’s not uncommon to find presumptions that are more harmful than your statement about tolerance–presuming enjoyment was what came to mind.

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:13:14 +0000

yeah, mebe not..elaborate your concept of enjoyment v tolerance?