I really like this picture so much.
My attitude to women is mixed. First there are the very strong role models I had and more on that later. Secondly there is the result of my disastrous liaisons and I'm fairly sure now why they were so.
Dr. Phillip McGraw, whatever you think of either him or his credibility, did say that "we are treated as we teach people to treat us".
Margaret Thatcher said that "there is no such thing as society - only individual men and women and families".
"Rights" is a social construct. It implies that intervention is necessary to ensure these and most Americans are well aware of constitutionally guaranteed rights and are ready to fight oppression.
As I say, I had very strong role models, even before external forces of oppression like feminism raised their ugly heads. Even in the days of the unreconstructed male, my mother was strong and our family ticked over with clear roles.
My mother cooked and my father washed up. He built things from wood and painted them and my mother took care of the strategic direction of the family, e.g. where we'd go on holiday, where I'd be educated and so on. My father went along with her view because it was she who had done the homework on it. Just once or twice he put his foot down and said no.
My father never once raised a hand to my mother and I, as a headstrong nineteen year old, only once ever raised a hand - to my father.
He looked at me calmly, unflinchingly and said: "You're in no position to do that, James."
I wasn't and I felt shamed that I'd even seen fit to do it.
It's utter garbage to say there was oppression here. My parents' friends were similar. I am thinking about them now and what characterized each of these families was that the lady was a Lady. Yes - a Lady with a capital "L".
Enormous amount of foibles maybe, unrealistic and stubborn often but in demeanour, a Lady. That's why the gross vileness of the female in this link is so offputting and saddening. She is like a writhing snake in her manner, however just her cause is. And try these ones for size.
We are treated as we treat others and we teach people how to teach us. I taught my women to walk all over me and they did. The temptation was too great when I refused to dominate or give the lead in some areas. I'm told some women like being dominated - well, I think this can be done subtly and confined to sexuality - it doesn't have to be 24/7.
No woman wants a deferential robot and there's a lot to be said about the sexual animal coming out on the living room rug or the kitchen bench [move the dishes first] or at the theatre or in the forest or at the beach [where else can I remember?] but that's not what I'm talking about here and you know that.
In our family, in everyday issues, my mother directed the show and my father went along with it and took care of the details. I expected to do the same in my relationships but clearly I was with the wrong women and they mistook refusal to dominate as permission to dominate. Except that I can't be dominated and so the signals were all wrong.
And then, at the end of the tether, I confess I acted in less than a gentlemanly manner and the hometruths were pretty savage from me and to the point. Whatever chance there'd been was killed off at that point.
You can say all you like about women taking responsibility for their words and actions but I still say it behoves a man to stand above it all and be a rock. If only I had done so and I'm determined that if I ever find a true love again, then this is how I'll act.
"Deference." I really do believe this is the key word. For someone to defer to us on some issue is to value us as people. Surely that's all we want to start with and then the respect and love flow from that. You can't legislate for deference. It has to be earned.
And why, in this whole feminist debate, have the words "rights", "oppression", "prostitute" and other negatives abounded and why has the word "Lady" barely seen the light of day? And "Gentleman", for that matter?
Well it's midnight here so I need sleep before tackling this one.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have described James about your family is another era. Maybe your mother would have liked to go to university herself instead of just deciding where you might go, did you ever think of that?
I'll be back.
I just noticed I had not shut down your tag earlier when I came over and in doing so noticed this new post.
I'm gone now.
She was a learned woman and yes, it was discussed. She would have brought about that which she would have wanted - really wanted.
ReplyDeleteIn those days it was based on marks quotas and you had to at least have matriculated to get in. She left school earlier.
She [and he] both Danielle Crittenden maxim that the family "has never been about the promotion of rights but the surrender of them -- by both the man and the woman".
She was more like Ruth Malhotra whose photo I included in the post - personable lady and all said it, didn't suffer fools gladly and worked on a common sense basis.
She had negatives of course but let's not get into those here.
The thing is - with such as her, how could a boy not grow up respecting women?
James, the old saying it takes two to tango holds true here. Some women would fit into that lifestyle as well because that is the way they were brought up. In my personal life I split women into four groups. The keepers, the goers, the acquaintances and the I hope I can run faster than her.
ReplyDeleteThe keepers are the ones who may not be the most exciting but are actually a very close bond with you mentally. They are the ones that make good lovers or long term friends.
The goers are well, the good looking hot ones they get you excited but you know it would not last. Either they would kill you or you would kill them if you were alone too long.
The acquaintances are those you can get along with have and can have conversations with but it would never be more than that. Everyones lives are full of these people.
The final ones are those that do nothing for you at all. You don’t like what they say how they say it or whatever.
I see your parents and mine being similar. My mother is strong willed and made the decisions but they were still agreed with my father. The protocols were worked out well before I was born. If my dad wants something he says so. They discuss it. Same with my mum. However my mum’s choices are usually the best for the whole family so it was easy for my dad to agree as he was defeated by logic and thus it appeared my mother dominated. She didn’t. It was a good relationship and neither was subservient. Everyone in the family got what they needed. Just not what they wanted.
Maybe you are locking on to the wrong attributes in your women. I did when I was younger. And to be honest I don’t know you that well I think you really want an equal. One you can discuss and agree. Just like your parents. Just like most people.
Excellent post James. Exactly how relationships should be- all about respect and trust and treating loved ones like "loved" ones.
ReplyDeleteI am aghast at how women think that behaving like foulmouthed, drunken aggressive men has somehow prevented them from being a doormat.
I hate the word woman for to me it is course. Women are ladies, you are right about that. I am suprised by the vulgarity of some of the blogs and the way these "women" speak, not even realizing that the cheap sexual validation of their self worth they think they need is actually an invitation to degrade.
I do not believe in censorship but self regulation and dignity would not go amiss.
You sound like a fine gentleman and there are ladies out there who would appreciate you!
course= coarse.
ReplyDeleteSorry about using your name.
Bag, have to agree with that division.
ReplyDeleteUber - good when a guy and girl can agree and I think we do.
Great post, James. Your mother was obviously a lovely woman and you became a gentleman- only they were out of fashion by the time you grew up, I suppose. "No woman wants a deferential robot " - true and I don't think most of us want to be dominated either. Perhaps we want to be respected: I mean respected as intelligent beings. I've done the feminism bit and all right, it had its strident moments, but it's one of those movements without which we wouldn't have the freedoms we now have. I can remember a time when a woman doing exactly the same job as a man was automatically paid less, for instance and I can remember a time when a single woman couldn't get a mortgage. Everybody wants to feel loved and protected but men and women "protect" in different ways and we all know of cultures where "protection" of women is used as a euphemism for complete dominance. We have parallel experiences in a way: you were / are a gentleman at the wrong time and I had trouble being a feminine woman at a time when that was out of fashion, too and at variance with what I was supposed to believe intellectually. That's enough or I will go on and on here.
ReplyDeleteI don't want this to go on forever and Welshcakes has, without using the word rights, pointed out some of the things that needed to be changed for women. I'd forgotten about women not being able to get a mortgage without a man to cosign. Someone had to go up against the establishment to change these idiotic restrictions based on gender, not on ability to do the job, or make the payments, or in the case of voting to be able to make an informed decision. So the feminist movement was born, started by the Suffragettes, with all the good and all the bad.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of needing protection assumes a weakness to me and yes sometimes we all need protection, male and female, but I don't need a male running interference for me to make my life easier. Don't forget that there are many women who do not have or have never had males to protect them. Also the truth is that most women will end up alone because they have a longer life span than men. Women have to be able to take care of themselves. This is the legacy we must pass to our daughters, even their fathers.
I do like your title: simple respect and deference - both ways.
And I do like your definition here.
Deference." I really do believe this is the key word. For someone to defer to us on some issue is to value us as people. Surely that's all we want to start with and then the respect and love flow from that. You can't legislate for deference. It has to be earned.
Please let's treat each other that way, male and female, both in and out of relationships.
regards
jmb
What we have lost is the concept of Ladies and Gentlemen. It is the cornerstone of civilization and the Western world.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have become is little better than barnyard animals even including murdering our young.
Should this continue, we shall become extinct; quite like the Dodo birds whom we have come to resemble.
Women (not ladies as they do not now exist) do not enjoy greater freedom now - quite the opposite.
To select a wife the following are the requisite criteria:
1. Intelligence discernment;
2. Integrity and good character;
3. Ability and desire to nurture.
Do not marry nor become seriously involved with a women who does not possess all of the above.
Good luck in locating such an incandescent being in today's sorry environment.
v
Yes, but men will respect women more when women force them too, by overthrowing the imposition of male proprietorial rights on them.
ReplyDeleteYou can be a gentleman whilst NOT expecting a woman to be a lady.
Lady being a male social construct.
A Gentleman is a man the way men see an ideal man.
A Lady is a woman the way men see an ideal woman.
"Rights" is a social construct
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to law, which is observed by mice, baboons, locusts and gophers.
"Deference"-- that's what Confucius would have said! I agree, mostly.
ReplyDelete"You can say all you like about women taking responsibility for their words and actions but I still say it behoves a man to stand above it all and be a rock."
Ideally, this is what I would like too. You're right that women don't want deferential robots. Welshcakes says women don't want to be dominated, and I agree-- but it depends entirely on what you mean by "dominated."
If you mean sexually aggressive and confident, then yes, that's precisely what we want (in the right context). But we don't want to feel like our opinions don't matter, or like we have no say in our future. Your parents sound like mine-- I can only think of one or two times when my father made a sort of "executive" decision to go against my mother's preference, (with her understanding and her deference).
I also echo Uber's sentiment here:
"I am aghast at how women think that behaving like foulmouthed, drunken aggressive men has somehow prevented them from being a doormat."
The last man I really fell for was deferential to me, but simultaneously self-assured and reliable. I knew I could trust him to take good care of me, but in a respectful way. That, and his confidence, were incredibly attractive qualities.
Thank you all. Social cosntruct, FR?
ReplyDelete