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?
Blonde pole-dancing in her natural glory
