I believe that you can learn a lot from extreme positions because they introduce ideas that may be unfamiliar and can challenge you to think outside the status quo. I in no way think that everything Thomas Ellis had to say in The Rantings of a Single Male is correct (and by the way, he is hardly at the extreme edge of thought about these issues), but I do think that much of it was reasonable enough to consider and examine. For someone who recognizes that there are issues between the genders and who wants to understand the other side's point of view, listening to things that sound "extreme" and really considering them and asking yourself some tough questions can help promote better understanding.
When I begin considering a point of view different than my own, my thoughts on the subject tend to sort of swing back and forth somewhat like a pendulum. I consider both extremes of a position and the less extreme positions in between and within the arc of the pendulum as well. I tend to keep the most extreme of these “swings of the pendulum” to myself because I know it is just part of the process for me. At some point the pendulum comes to rest in a position that hopefully has a better understanding of both sides, as it were.
You know what? It may be that in six months that I think very differently about all this stuff than I do right now because I will have learned more, and thought it through more and the pendulum will have swung back and forth a few more times. And, I am fine with that. I am fine with that because I believe that to really be open to learning you have to be open to having your mind changed.
Showing posts with label The Rantings of a Single Male. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Rantings of a Single Male. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Rantings of a Single Male: Part D.
After a nice relaxing Christmas and New Years holiday I am back with another installment of my discussion of Thomas Ellis’ book The Rantings of a Single Male
Rant D: The Perceptual Female Self-Worth Crisis
Ellis begins the chapter discussing the desire of women for male validation.
"Regardless of what feminism has done to diminish the importance of men, most women still crave traditional male validation. Oppressed or not, they still expect men to suck up and buy them diamonds. In adequate as we are, women keep coming back for relief from their perceptual self-worth crisis.
Because of feminism, women are now hopelessly schizophrenic about how they want to be valued by men. If men respond to their sexuality, women feel underappreciated for their inner qualities....But if women begin to think men do not desire them in a sexual way, they panic and start doing things to attract men. " (p. 28)
Ellis is correct on several points here. I have met few women who do not desire male validation. Women do want to be desired by men (for some women it is their husband\boyfriend and for other women, it appears to be a broader spectrum of men) as well as being valued for their inner qualities. All true. I think the desire for validation from other people is a quality many people have, both men and women. I think some degree of wanting to be valued by others is normal and appropriate. In my opinion, the problem comes when the person is unable to feel self-worth outside of the validation of others. In this section of the book Mr. Ellis doesn't really make it clear what he thinks women should base their self-worth on. I would argue that women, and men, should base their worth on who God says they are. Ladies, we should be cognizant of where our self-worth comes from and not use others to make ourselves feel better about who we are. We should take care that in the relationships with the men in our lives such that we are not expecting them "to suck up” or buy us diamonds just to make us feel worthy.
Ellis goes on to argue that women prefer gifts that are useless and impractical because “wasting” money demonstrates that the man values the woman over money. In illustrating his point Ellis uses the examples of gifts such as a small box that holds nothing or a glass egg. Leaving aside the argument that all women do not have a penchant for things like glass eggs I think there is food for thought here for us ladies. I would like to say though, no glass eggs for me, thanks. I think the best gifts I have ever received from men were things that demonstrated that the man was paying attention to what interested me such as a book he thought I would like or a CD he burned for me with music he thought I would like or with a radio show he knew would interest me. But, I digress…back to the food for thought. I agree that we should be very cautious to not equate how much money a man spends on us with our value, our perception of his value of us, or for that matter with how we value the man.
Ellis also discusses his thoughts on why he believes diamonds are women’s favorite gifts. Ellis reports that he thinks diamonds are popular with women because their expense causes men to suffer and because they have been bombarded with images from commercials telling them that “diamonds are forever”. Ellis further theorizes that “diamonds protect women from being called whores. It's an archaic concept it's still ingrained in the female brain, that married women can't be whores-and, of course, married women get diamonds." (p.32) Ellis goes on to say that women do not want to be considered to be whores and that since diamonds cost so much more than a whore does that then diamonds indicate that the woman is not whore. For me the obvious response to this is that a biblical view of sexuality calls for sex to be reserved for marriage. But, as I have previously said my purpose here is not to argue for the biblical view of sexuality, but rather to see what I can learn from this book.
I do think it is reasonable to consider the point of an expensive diamond engagement ring. I am probably not the best woman to address this issue since I don't particularly like diamonds because I think they are cold. I wouldn't argue that a man should not buy an engagement ring for his fiancée because there's nothing inherently wrong with it and I think that it's up to the individual couple. I do think that women should consider their attitude toward an engagement ring because I think the issue is really more about the attitude of the woman's heart than the ring itself. Ladies, I do think it is a valid question to ask ourselves if it is really necessary for a man to spend a lot of money on the woman he wants to marry for her to agree to marry him?
Ellis then goes on to discuss the issue of commitment. Ellis theorizes that women desire commitment, not in order to commit to a specific man, but rather to commit to a lifestyle or a “relationship” apart from the actual man they marry because "it’s the concept of commitment itself that women love, not men" (p. 33). It is valid to consider his point here. Does the desire to marry a man arise from simply wanting to be married or does it arise from the desire to be married to a specific man because you love him?
Ellis goes on to argue that he believes commitment is inherently a bad idea for men because it doesn't make sense since it does not allow them an "out". He says that men fear being in a dysfunctional relationship that they can't get out of. This dysfunctional relationship could entail the wife being demanding, requiring he spends more money on her, denying him sex, gaining a lot of weight, pursuing an expensive divorce, or accusing him of sexual assault. Ellis states, "I don't care how extravagant the ceremony is, a commitment cannot guarantee anything." (p. 34)
It is true, there are always risks with commitment. Commitments do not guarantee anything. Like many things in life, commitments require faith. Any individual may decide that the risks of trusting someone else outweighs the rewards when considering the commitment of marriage. That would be that person’s right to choose not to marry. I do find it sad, though, that we are losing our ability to trust each other. Beyond seeking to be a person who is trustworthy individuals can respond to this by being informed about inequities in divorce laws (especially regarding child custody) and supporting reform of inequitable divorce laws.
In closing I want to say that I am considering ceasing my discussion of this book. At the very least I will be approaching it differently such as limiting my discussion to just a few more entries that deal with the over arching ideas in the book that I feel I have learned good stuff from. I hate the idea of “quitting” anything but to be honest I think focusing on this book has kind of “messed with my mind” a bit because of the author’s differing world view.
Finally, yes indeed, it is a great night to be a Mountaineer! Rich who?
Rant D: The Perceptual Female Self-Worth Crisis
Ellis begins the chapter discussing the desire of women for male validation.
"Regardless of what feminism has done to diminish the importance of men, most women still crave traditional male validation. Oppressed or not, they still expect men to suck up and buy them diamonds. In adequate as we are, women keep coming back for relief from their perceptual self-worth crisis.
Because of feminism, women are now hopelessly schizophrenic about how they want to be valued by men. If men respond to their sexuality, women feel underappreciated for their inner qualities....But if women begin to think men do not desire them in a sexual way, they panic and start doing things to attract men. " (p. 28)
Ellis is correct on several points here. I have met few women who do not desire male validation. Women do want to be desired by men (for some women it is their husband\boyfriend and for other women, it appears to be a broader spectrum of men) as well as being valued for their inner qualities. All true. I think the desire for validation from other people is a quality many people have, both men and women. I think some degree of wanting to be valued by others is normal and appropriate. In my opinion, the problem comes when the person is unable to feel self-worth outside of the validation of others. In this section of the book Mr. Ellis doesn't really make it clear what he thinks women should base their self-worth on. I would argue that women, and men, should base their worth on who God says they are. Ladies, we should be cognizant of where our self-worth comes from and not use others to make ourselves feel better about who we are. We should take care that in the relationships with the men in our lives such that we are not expecting them "to suck up” or buy us diamonds just to make us feel worthy.
Ellis goes on to argue that women prefer gifts that are useless and impractical because “wasting” money demonstrates that the man values the woman over money. In illustrating his point Ellis uses the examples of gifts such as a small box that holds nothing or a glass egg. Leaving aside the argument that all women do not have a penchant for things like glass eggs I think there is food for thought here for us ladies. I would like to say though, no glass eggs for me, thanks. I think the best gifts I have ever received from men were things that demonstrated that the man was paying attention to what interested me such as a book he thought I would like or a CD he burned for me with music he thought I would like or with a radio show he knew would interest me. But, I digress…back to the food for thought. I agree that we should be very cautious to not equate how much money a man spends on us with our value, our perception of his value of us, or for that matter with how we value the man.
Ellis also discusses his thoughts on why he believes diamonds are women’s favorite gifts. Ellis reports that he thinks diamonds are popular with women because their expense causes men to suffer and because they have been bombarded with images from commercials telling them that “diamonds are forever”. Ellis further theorizes that “diamonds protect women from being called whores. It's an archaic concept it's still ingrained in the female brain, that married women can't be whores-and, of course, married women get diamonds." (p.32) Ellis goes on to say that women do not want to be considered to be whores and that since diamonds cost so much more than a whore does that then diamonds indicate that the woman is not whore. For me the obvious response to this is that a biblical view of sexuality calls for sex to be reserved for marriage. But, as I have previously said my purpose here is not to argue for the biblical view of sexuality, but rather to see what I can learn from this book.
I do think it is reasonable to consider the point of an expensive diamond engagement ring. I am probably not the best woman to address this issue since I don't particularly like diamonds because I think they are cold. I wouldn't argue that a man should not buy an engagement ring for his fiancée because there's nothing inherently wrong with it and I think that it's up to the individual couple. I do think that women should consider their attitude toward an engagement ring because I think the issue is really more about the attitude of the woman's heart than the ring itself. Ladies, I do think it is a valid question to ask ourselves if it is really necessary for a man to spend a lot of money on the woman he wants to marry for her to agree to marry him?
Ellis then goes on to discuss the issue of commitment. Ellis theorizes that women desire commitment, not in order to commit to a specific man, but rather to commit to a lifestyle or a “relationship” apart from the actual man they marry because "it’s the concept of commitment itself that women love, not men" (p. 33). It is valid to consider his point here. Does the desire to marry a man arise from simply wanting to be married or does it arise from the desire to be married to a specific man because you love him?
Ellis goes on to argue that he believes commitment is inherently a bad idea for men because it doesn't make sense since it does not allow them an "out". He says that men fear being in a dysfunctional relationship that they can't get out of. This dysfunctional relationship could entail the wife being demanding, requiring he spends more money on her, denying him sex, gaining a lot of weight, pursuing an expensive divorce, or accusing him of sexual assault. Ellis states, "I don't care how extravagant the ceremony is, a commitment cannot guarantee anything." (p. 34)
It is true, there are always risks with commitment. Commitments do not guarantee anything. Like many things in life, commitments require faith. Any individual may decide that the risks of trusting someone else outweighs the rewards when considering the commitment of marriage. That would be that person’s right to choose not to marry. I do find it sad, though, that we are losing our ability to trust each other. Beyond seeking to be a person who is trustworthy individuals can respond to this by being informed about inequities in divorce laws (especially regarding child custody) and supporting reform of inequitable divorce laws.
In closing I want to say that I am considering ceasing my discussion of this book. At the very least I will be approaching it differently such as limiting my discussion to just a few more entries that deal with the over arching ideas in the book that I feel I have learned good stuff from. I hate the idea of “quitting” anything but to be honest I think focusing on this book has kind of “messed with my mind” a bit because of the author’s differing world view.
Finally, yes indeed, it is a great night to be a Mountaineer! Rich who?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Rantings of a Single Male Part III: Rant C
The part of this rant that I am going to discuss is essentially about equality.
This section was pretty difficult to write. Not necessarily because the material is difficult, but because sometimes I just don't want to wade through the hyperbole. But, there are some things I want to say, so I may as well get on with it.
Ellis makes an interesting observation when he states “Women think it is men who insist on being recognized as superior. Using male oppression as justification, feminists have counterattacked with an unending salvo of female supremacy. Women are emotionally and morally superior. Women are more caring, sensitive, and nurturing. Women are not ruled by their hormones like men. Women have superior verbal skills….In spite of all the female supremacy propaganda thrown at them, women still require men to be superior to themselves as a condition of acceptance and respect and for consideration as sex partners. Women still demand men who are superior to themselves and strength, knowledge, skill, height, success, determination, aggression, and just about everything. ” (p.20)
While I appreciate the juxtaposition of the ideas Ellis puts forth, supposed female supremacy versus women desiring men who are superior to them, as a woman it seems natural to me to think that there are some things that men are better at than me. And that also there may be some things that I am better at than a man. This does not seem illogical to me, but rather the nature of things. So, I'm not quite sure I understand the point he is trying to make here. Skills and characteristics such as sensitivity, nurturing, and verbal ability are seen as stereotypically feminine, whereas skills such as determination, aggression and strength are seen as stereotypically male. Simple observation will tell you that some qualities and abilities are more prevalent in one gender than another. Some obvious examples include physiological differences such as height and physical strength. The average man is taller than the average woman and the average man is stronger than the average woman. That is not to say that there are no individual women taller than any individual man or that there are no individual women who may be physically stronger than an individual man. There are always exceptions, but there are also some general trends. Perhaps, Ellis’s disagreement is with the stereotypical nature of these characteristics. On that count, I must agree with him. A great deal of the time, I think it makes more sense to judge people's abilities on an individual basis rather than on the basis of their gender. Or perhaps, it's about the whole "anything you can, do, I can do better” competition that feminism appears to engender.
The author further clarifies his point of view stating “even though women seek out men they perceive as superior, they've been conditioned to demand the appearance of equality." (p. 21) On this point, I definitely agree. Feminism does attempt to condition women to the idea that they can do anything as well as men and there are many cases in which this is not true. One time, I went to visit a friend of mine in Michigan and she and her roommate were moving into a new apartment. Her roommate was a self-proclaimed “Christian feminist”. My friend’s roommate was highly insulted when a male friend offered to help her move the couch that she was struggling with because she felt that this meant he thought she was incapable. This completely baffled me. After all when I'm in the grocery store attempting to stretch to reach an item on the top shelf I'm not insulted if a taller individual offers to help me. It's a simple anatomical fact, I am only so tall... it doesn't make me less of a person. It's also a simple anatomical fact that I can't lift the couch (though I will admit to being more of a wimp than the average woman). So why should I be insulted if someone, man or woman, offers to help me? When did life become a competition?
Ellis goes on to discuss the concept of “different equalities".
“Women are now a confused mutation of old and new privilege. Old privilege is that of previous generations. Ladies first. Men are supposed to support women. Men are held responsible for the happiness of their wives. Men must risk of their own safety to protect women. Men have to pay. Women don't have to register for the draft. Old privilege is females getting whatever they want because they're so damned cute. New privilege is affirmative action. It is hundreds of women's commissions promoting women's causes and expanding female entitlements. New privilege is an express lane to success for women. New privilege is women getting credit, but no blame. New privilege is making it hazardous to your job to openly disagree with gender politics that favor women. Women want all the old and new privileges and to call it equality." (p. 22)
I'm not sure that the "old privileges" were actually due to the fact that women are "so damned cute". I think it more likely that they were due to a different understanding of the roles of men and women. An understanding that was closer to a Biblical model that was patriarchal in nature. If feminism wants to do away with this understanding then I think it is completely fair to question the equality of maintaining the privileges that came from that understanding. I believe this is one of the ways that feminism has hurt women far more than it has helped them. Personally, I think the concept of "equality" between men and women is a fallacy. While I believe that all humans are equal in basic value we are not the same in terms of our abilities, aptitudes, and God-given roles, so why pretend that we are?
The author then goes on to ask the question "Should women be able to pick and choose what they want to be equal with men about?" This is a good question. True equality would mean that women are subject to the same responsibilities as men. Ladies, do you want to register for the draft?
Ellis goes on to discuss a quote from suffragette Susan B. Anthony. "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." This, from a woman, who is purported to be a champion of equality? I had never heard this quote from Anthony before but it certainly does back up Ellis' claim that the agenda of the women's movement “has always been about winning rights as well as special privileges for women.” (p. 23) He goes on to say "I'm not questioning the right of women to vote. I'm saying that because women can vote on issues involving war and are also exempt from ever being forced to participate in actual combat, they have equal rights with fewer responsibilities than men.” You know what? That's true.
Ellis goes on to outline the idea that if women want to be considered equal, then they should go out and acquire the skills that men have. I agree with this to a point. If a woman wants to be considered “equal” or the same as a man then yes, she should compete with him based on skill.
Humorously (to me anyway) Mr. Ellis chooses to use the example of accomplished musical ability, particularly the ability to play electric guitar to illustrate his point that women don't compete on a skill level because they don't feel they have to because they can rely on sex appeal. Ellis postulates that women feel they don't need to become proficient musicians because they are able to get what they want through the use of their appearance, stating “wearing a short skirt is a lot easier than practicing. That's certainly why adult women never take up instruments.” (p. 26)
Okay, I have to be honest here and say that when I read this I thought “what?” and laughed. I do know women who have taken up musical instruments as adults (harp, piano, cello). However, they pursued those instruments not to "get what they want" but rather for the enjoyment that musical expression brings them. Also, I think it's entirely possible that there are other reasons why you don't see a lot of women striving to become the best at playing electric guitar. Maybe they prefer other interests? My female friends pursue excellence in creative skill acquisition and coordination in areas such as quilting, ballroom dancing, jewelry making, soldering leaded glass, and writing etc. Or perhaps it's because some women place less value in skill acquisition than they do in other things such as their relationships to others. Now, I realize that is not true for all women, but I do think it's true for lots of women I know. Just for fun I did an informal poll of eight women on the subject. Five of these women were believers and three unbelievers ranging in age from 22 to 46. I asked them, "Why don't you play the electric guitar?" After they finished laughing, most of their answers went something like this: either “I guess I just was never interested in it” or “that sounds like fun, but I've got my hands full with “X” (my family or school)”.
Ellis furthers his thesis with the idea that women don't pursue skill acquisition because they don’t see the need to since they "see men as easily controllable." (p. 27) When I read statements like this I am often puzzled. I believe the author that some women think this way, but I wonder how many. Ok readers, I want to know what you think about this. I know you are lurking out there reading and not commenting….well here’s your chance! (I know you were holding your breath waiting for an opportunity, weren’t you?) If you are a man: do you think women see you as easily controllable? If you are a woman: do you see men as easily controllable? You can leave your comment anonymously or even make up a fun name for yourself like Spanky or Betty Boop…won’t that be fun! :)
Feel free to comment on anything else you desire too…like why my blog background is sooooo boring…or why that safety from the Steelers can’t keep his mouth shut about the Patriots….or where did the word “yule” come from anyway?
This section was pretty difficult to write. Not necessarily because the material is difficult, but because sometimes I just don't want to wade through the hyperbole. But, there are some things I want to say, so I may as well get on with it.
Ellis makes an interesting observation when he states “Women think it is men who insist on being recognized as superior. Using male oppression as justification, feminists have counterattacked with an unending salvo of female supremacy. Women are emotionally and morally superior. Women are more caring, sensitive, and nurturing. Women are not ruled by their hormones like men. Women have superior verbal skills….In spite of all the female supremacy propaganda thrown at them, women still require men to be superior to themselves as a condition of acceptance and respect and for consideration as sex partners. Women still demand men who are superior to themselves and strength, knowledge, skill, height, success, determination, aggression, and just about everything. ” (p.20)
While I appreciate the juxtaposition of the ideas Ellis puts forth, supposed female supremacy versus women desiring men who are superior to them, as a woman it seems natural to me to think that there are some things that men are better at than me. And that also there may be some things that I am better at than a man. This does not seem illogical to me, but rather the nature of things. So, I'm not quite sure I understand the point he is trying to make here. Skills and characteristics such as sensitivity, nurturing, and verbal ability are seen as stereotypically feminine, whereas skills such as determination, aggression and strength are seen as stereotypically male. Simple observation will tell you that some qualities and abilities are more prevalent in one gender than another. Some obvious examples include physiological differences such as height and physical strength. The average man is taller than the average woman and the average man is stronger than the average woman. That is not to say that there are no individual women taller than any individual man or that there are no individual women who may be physically stronger than an individual man. There are always exceptions, but there are also some general trends. Perhaps, Ellis’s disagreement is with the stereotypical nature of these characteristics. On that count, I must agree with him. A great deal of the time, I think it makes more sense to judge people's abilities on an individual basis rather than on the basis of their gender. Or perhaps, it's about the whole "anything you can, do, I can do better” competition that feminism appears to engender.
The author further clarifies his point of view stating “even though women seek out men they perceive as superior, they've been conditioned to demand the appearance of equality." (p. 21) On this point, I definitely agree. Feminism does attempt to condition women to the idea that they can do anything as well as men and there are many cases in which this is not true. One time, I went to visit a friend of mine in Michigan and she and her roommate were moving into a new apartment. Her roommate was a self-proclaimed “Christian feminist”. My friend’s roommate was highly insulted when a male friend offered to help her move the couch that she was struggling with because she felt that this meant he thought she was incapable. This completely baffled me. After all when I'm in the grocery store attempting to stretch to reach an item on the top shelf I'm not insulted if a taller individual offers to help me. It's a simple anatomical fact, I am only so tall... it doesn't make me less of a person. It's also a simple anatomical fact that I can't lift the couch (though I will admit to being more of a wimp than the average woman). So why should I be insulted if someone, man or woman, offers to help me? When did life become a competition?
Ellis goes on to discuss the concept of “different equalities".
“Women are now a confused mutation of old and new privilege. Old privilege is that of previous generations. Ladies first. Men are supposed to support women. Men are held responsible for the happiness of their wives. Men must risk of their own safety to protect women. Men have to pay. Women don't have to register for the draft. Old privilege is females getting whatever they want because they're so damned cute. New privilege is affirmative action. It is hundreds of women's commissions promoting women's causes and expanding female entitlements. New privilege is an express lane to success for women. New privilege is women getting credit, but no blame. New privilege is making it hazardous to your job to openly disagree with gender politics that favor women. Women want all the old and new privileges and to call it equality." (p. 22)
I'm not sure that the "old privileges" were actually due to the fact that women are "so damned cute". I think it more likely that they were due to a different understanding of the roles of men and women. An understanding that was closer to a Biblical model that was patriarchal in nature. If feminism wants to do away with this understanding then I think it is completely fair to question the equality of maintaining the privileges that came from that understanding. I believe this is one of the ways that feminism has hurt women far more than it has helped them. Personally, I think the concept of "equality" between men and women is a fallacy. While I believe that all humans are equal in basic value we are not the same in terms of our abilities, aptitudes, and God-given roles, so why pretend that we are?
The author then goes on to ask the question "Should women be able to pick and choose what they want to be equal with men about?" This is a good question. True equality would mean that women are subject to the same responsibilities as men. Ladies, do you want to register for the draft?
Ellis goes on to discuss a quote from suffragette Susan B. Anthony. "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." This, from a woman, who is purported to be a champion of equality? I had never heard this quote from Anthony before but it certainly does back up Ellis' claim that the agenda of the women's movement “has always been about winning rights as well as special privileges for women.” (p. 23) He goes on to say "I'm not questioning the right of women to vote. I'm saying that because women can vote on issues involving war and are also exempt from ever being forced to participate in actual combat, they have equal rights with fewer responsibilities than men.” You know what? That's true.
Ellis goes on to outline the idea that if women want to be considered equal, then they should go out and acquire the skills that men have. I agree with this to a point. If a woman wants to be considered “equal” or the same as a man then yes, she should compete with him based on skill.
Humorously (to me anyway) Mr. Ellis chooses to use the example of accomplished musical ability, particularly the ability to play electric guitar to illustrate his point that women don't compete on a skill level because they don't feel they have to because they can rely on sex appeal. Ellis postulates that women feel they don't need to become proficient musicians because they are able to get what they want through the use of their appearance, stating “wearing a short skirt is a lot easier than practicing. That's certainly why adult women never take up instruments.” (p. 26)
Okay, I have to be honest here and say that when I read this I thought “what?” and laughed. I do know women who have taken up musical instruments as adults (harp, piano, cello). However, they pursued those instruments not to "get what they want" but rather for the enjoyment that musical expression brings them. Also, I think it's entirely possible that there are other reasons why you don't see a lot of women striving to become the best at playing electric guitar. Maybe they prefer other interests? My female friends pursue excellence in creative skill acquisition and coordination in areas such as quilting, ballroom dancing, jewelry making, soldering leaded glass, and writing etc. Or perhaps it's because some women place less value in skill acquisition than they do in other things such as their relationships to others. Now, I realize that is not true for all women, but I do think it's true for lots of women I know. Just for fun I did an informal poll of eight women on the subject. Five of these women were believers and three unbelievers ranging in age from 22 to 46. I asked them, "Why don't you play the electric guitar?" After they finished laughing, most of their answers went something like this: either “I guess I just was never interested in it” or “that sounds like fun, but I've got my hands full with “X” (my family or school)”.
Ellis furthers his thesis with the idea that women don't pursue skill acquisition because they don’t see the need to since they "see men as easily controllable." (p. 27) When I read statements like this I am often puzzled. I believe the author that some women think this way, but I wonder how many. Ok readers, I want to know what you think about this. I know you are lurking out there reading and not commenting….well here’s your chance! (I know you were holding your breath waiting for an opportunity, weren’t you?) If you are a man: do you think women see you as easily controllable? If you are a woman: do you see men as easily controllable? You can leave your comment anonymously or even make up a fun name for yourself like Spanky or Betty Boop…won’t that be fun! :)
Feel free to comment on anything else you desire too…like why my blog background is sooooo boring…or why that safety from the Steelers can’t keep his mouth shut about the Patriots….or where did the word “yule” come from anyway?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Rantings of a Single Male: Part II
Rant B
This rant begins by introducing an individual by the name of Petra who will be referred to throughout the book. When the author was 21 years old and traveling in Europe he met a young German woman by the name of Petra. The author then carried on a two-week affair with Petra while traveling through parts of Europe though they were unable to speak to each other because of the language barrier. At the end of the two weeks there was a pregnancy scare. In response to this Mr. Ellis states, "On the trip she had just ‘hoped’ she couldn't get pregnant while leaving it for fate to decide. From this experience I learned that you cannot that trust women to take responsibility for their own bodies. They prefer to wait until responsibility is thrust upon them." (P. 12)
Several weeks after Mr. Ellis returned to the United States, Petra came to live with relatives in Connecticut. Plans were made for Petra to come and live with Mr. Ellis in Ohio during the summer. When she arrived with greatly improved English Mr. Ellis discovered that Petra was actually a radical feminist. Petra made it her mission to indoctrinate the author in radical feminism. The affair disintegrated when Petra refused to engage in sex with the author when he disagreed with her feminist ideas. Ellis states, “A the time I didn't understand that her opinions were emotionally grounded, and I tried apply my male logic to her ideological assertions. I wanted to teach her how to analyze and reason. She would have none of it. I never told her what to think or believe, I just challenged her. That only infuriated her.”(p.13)
Some of the issues Petra demanded the author’s agreement with included:
-Women should be granted jobs in fields where they are underrepresented, even if they were not qualified.
-Women should make at least as much of men in all lines of work even when men are more qualified or more experienced.
-Alleged rapists this should be sent to prison on the word of the alleged victim alone.
-It is wrong to use words such as chairman or freshman or to refer to females as girls and not women.
In response to this attempted indoctrination Mr. Ellis stated, “But I don't think a man's role in a relationship is to simply validate the views of a woman. Why does it always come to that?" (p. 15)
At the end of the summer Petra returned to her relatives in Connecticut. The author stated "... our whole relationship was based on a big misunderstanding. But then, I suppose that's nothing unusual" (p. 15) The author reports that even though it was a difficult summer he didn't think it was a complete waste. "Had it not been for her endless stream of irritating drivel, I would still have only a vague awareness of feminism. I had just been presented with the vision of the future insanity of women. Little did I know Petra’s irritating drivel here would turn out to be prophecy." (p. 15)
The author has many good points regarding the feminist ideas that Petra expected the author to agree with. The ideas Petra attempted to convince the author of which I detailed in this entry are illogical. Part of the deficit in logic is due to the broad generalizations that some of these feminist ideas put forth. Generalizations such as the idea that women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years and so are now deserving of preferential treatment above men. But then, broad generalizations are often illogical.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ellis repeats the mistake of many feminists by using broad generalizations as well. For example, “ From this experience I learned that you cannot trust women to take responsibility for their own bodies. They prefer to wait until responsibility is thrust upon them." (P. 12) I suppose this is true in some cases, however, it certainly is not true for all women. Mr. Ellis, however, is correct in thinking that all adults should be responsible for their own bodies.
Or “But I don't think a man's role in a relationship is to simply validate the views of a woman. Why does it always come to that?" I wonder though, does it really always come to that? If a woman was looking for a "yes man" Mr. Ellis is right, that would not lead to a healthy relationship. I think one of the good things men and women have to offer each other are our differing perspectives on issues.
As I've mentioned previously, hyperbole is often used when discussing a subject that one is passionate about. I suppose any expression described as a "rant" could likely contain some hyperbole as well. When hyperbole is used to express ideas there are dangers on both sides of discussion. Many women who read this may react to the hyperbole thinking, "But I am responsible for my own body, this guy is full of it." which is not going to predispose her to listening to his other ideas. A man who reads this may develop the opinion that, indeed, most women are untrustworthy, and only want a "yes man" which can lead to the inappropriate judgment of the feminine gender as a whole.
Nonetheless, as a woman, when I read a broad generalization in this book I am trying to consider if, in fact, I too am guilty of the sorts of things Mr. Ellis tends to accuse women of. I think it is a good idea to ask myself, “Do I tend to only associate with people who agree with me?” Or "Am I willing to listen to others' ideas without mentally planning how I will refute them?" Hopefully I can learn from this and share what I learn with you.
This rant begins by introducing an individual by the name of Petra who will be referred to throughout the book. When the author was 21 years old and traveling in Europe he met a young German woman by the name of Petra. The author then carried on a two-week affair with Petra while traveling through parts of Europe though they were unable to speak to each other because of the language barrier. At the end of the two weeks there was a pregnancy scare. In response to this Mr. Ellis states, "On the trip she had just ‘hoped’ she couldn't get pregnant while leaving it for fate to decide. From this experience I learned that you cannot that trust women to take responsibility for their own bodies. They prefer to wait until responsibility is thrust upon them." (P. 12)
Several weeks after Mr. Ellis returned to the United States, Petra came to live with relatives in Connecticut. Plans were made for Petra to come and live with Mr. Ellis in Ohio during the summer. When she arrived with greatly improved English Mr. Ellis discovered that Petra was actually a radical feminist. Petra made it her mission to indoctrinate the author in radical feminism. The affair disintegrated when Petra refused to engage in sex with the author when he disagreed with her feminist ideas. Ellis states, “A the time I didn't understand that her opinions were emotionally grounded, and I tried apply my male logic to her ideological assertions. I wanted to teach her how to analyze and reason. She would have none of it. I never told her what to think or believe, I just challenged her. That only infuriated her.”(p.13)
Some of the issues Petra demanded the author’s agreement with included:
-Women should be granted jobs in fields where they are underrepresented, even if they were not qualified.
-Women should make at least as much of men in all lines of work even when men are more qualified or more experienced.
-Alleged rapists this should be sent to prison on the word of the alleged victim alone.
-It is wrong to use words such as chairman or freshman or to refer to females as girls and not women.
In response to this attempted indoctrination Mr. Ellis stated, “But I don't think a man's role in a relationship is to simply validate the views of a woman. Why does it always come to that?" (p. 15)
At the end of the summer Petra returned to her relatives in Connecticut. The author stated "... our whole relationship was based on a big misunderstanding. But then, I suppose that's nothing unusual" (p. 15) The author reports that even though it was a difficult summer he didn't think it was a complete waste. "Had it not been for her endless stream of irritating drivel, I would still have only a vague awareness of feminism. I had just been presented with the vision of the future insanity of women. Little did I know Petra’s irritating drivel here would turn out to be prophecy." (p. 15)
The author has many good points regarding the feminist ideas that Petra expected the author to agree with. The ideas Petra attempted to convince the author of which I detailed in this entry are illogical. Part of the deficit in logic is due to the broad generalizations that some of these feminist ideas put forth. Generalizations such as the idea that women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years and so are now deserving of preferential treatment above men. But then, broad generalizations are often illogical.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ellis repeats the mistake of many feminists by using broad generalizations as well. For example, “ From this experience I learned that you cannot trust women to take responsibility for their own bodies. They prefer to wait until responsibility is thrust upon them." (P. 12) I suppose this is true in some cases, however, it certainly is not true for all women. Mr. Ellis, however, is correct in thinking that all adults should be responsible for their own bodies.
Or “But I don't think a man's role in a relationship is to simply validate the views of a woman. Why does it always come to that?" I wonder though, does it really always come to that? If a woman was looking for a "yes man" Mr. Ellis is right, that would not lead to a healthy relationship. I think one of the good things men and women have to offer each other are our differing perspectives on issues.
As I've mentioned previously, hyperbole is often used when discussing a subject that one is passionate about. I suppose any expression described as a "rant" could likely contain some hyperbole as well. When hyperbole is used to express ideas there are dangers on both sides of discussion. Many women who read this may react to the hyperbole thinking, "But I am responsible for my own body, this guy is full of it." which is not going to predispose her to listening to his other ideas. A man who reads this may develop the opinion that, indeed, most women are untrustworthy, and only want a "yes man" which can lead to the inappropriate judgment of the feminine gender as a whole.
Nonetheless, as a woman, when I read a broad generalization in this book I am trying to consider if, in fact, I too am guilty of the sorts of things Mr. Ellis tends to accuse women of. I think it is a good idea to ask myself, “Do I tend to only associate with people who agree with me?” Or "Am I willing to listen to others' ideas without mentally planning how I will refute them?" Hopefully I can learn from this and share what I learn with you.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Rantings of a Single Male:Part1
In the introduction to his book “The Rantings of a Single Male. Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness, and Basically Everything" Thomas Ellis begins by discussing his motivations for writing the book. Ellis states, "As men we must make a serious effort to educate ourselves about the ideas feminist literature is cultivating in the minds of women…. We must also expel the residue of feminist misinformation from our own systems." (Ellis, 2005, p. 1)
I agree with Mr. Ellis that many people, both men and women, appear unaware of the effect that feminism has had on society. For myself, I believe I have been vaguely aware that the notion of “equality" between men and women was a fallacy. This was true in part because I have eyes in my head and could easily see that there are differences between men and women. Also as a Christian I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that men and women are different and are meant to occupy different roles in life. But even though I had essentially rejected many of the tenets of feminism there were (and perhaps still are) subtle attitudes of feminism that I have held. I think there are many women, who do not call themselves feminists, but still maintains some subtle attitudes of feminism. So it is for both myself and hopefully other women who read this that I want to explore these issues. I don't consider this to be a “men's problem" because I believe as a member of the body of Christ that it is important that we be open to the issues that affect each other and society in general.
Thomas Ellis says that he doubts that many women would be willing to listen and consider his point of view. “I also doubt whether women are willing to consider change even if it's laid out in terms of why and how, and even if they decide to try. They enthusiastically avoid responsibility for their actions with trendy denial therapies and philosophies. The only things women are willing to change are their hair, their clothes, and their breast size. And a lot of times not even their hair." (Ellis, p.3) Perhaps he is right. To be honest, I should say that since I began looking into this matter, more often than not, I have been disappointed by the reactions of other women. I will say though, that I find it very difficult to believe that there are not other women who want to understand this and be open to change.
Ellis concludes the introduction with the following thought: "I should not have to compromise my rights as a man to make anyone feel equal. I can make compromises, but not on things like maintaining my own identity, being able to express my own ideas without female approval, or refusing to tell rhetorical lies to maintain a relationship. After many years of being unable to conform to the female vision of man as docile servants, I just want to be myself and speak my mind.” Let's see what he has to say.
Rant A: The Learning of Ignorance
There are essentially two main ideas that Ellis puts forth in this rant that I would like to address.
Ellis begins this rant by talking about his first experiences with recognizing that girls were different from boys in a physical sense. He refers to a little girl he was friends with stating, “We had a play room together, where I had a pretend job building bridges and rail roads. Susie had a pretend house set up and she was my pretend girlfriend who would pull down her pants for me whenever I wanted. At age 6, we already knew what we were supposed to do, so why do adults step in and mess everything up.”(p.5) Ellis voices a belief typical in the secular world stating, "All I know is that anyone who tries to suppress their nature runs into some serious inner conflicts." (p.6) he goes on to talk about the innocence that young girls of his acquaintance had regarding exposing themselves to him or other boys before they “had the concept of guilt drilled into them." He blames this on religious training and Queen Victoria. I'm not sure why he blames Queen Victoria since the concept of modesty was around long before the Victorian era, but nonetheless he does.
Mr. Ellis is an agnostic so I don't expect that he would have positive views of any religion, and he doesn't let me down. He rejects the Biblical model of sexual morality by stating that “They (women) seem to embrace their own sexual suppression. Just like they were taught, they grew up to regard sex as deviant and abnormal unless within the confines of commitment." As a nonbeliever I'm not surprised that Mr. Ellis holds this view, in fact, I'm sure it is the common view of most people who don't follow a Biblical model of sexuality (and maybe even some who do). The purpose of this discussion is not to prove the rightness of Biblical teachings on sexuality but I am curious about this thought regarding women who believe in these standards. I don’t regard premarital sex as deviant or abnormal, I just believe it is against the commands of God. While I am not concerned about an unbelieving man’s opinions about Biblical sexuality a variation of Ellis’ views appear to be held by some believing men as well. I have the impression (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that single believing men are sometimes concerned that their future wife will not desire sex (or will not desire sex as often or in the same ways as they do) because they think that she thinks male sexuality is deviant because she has been taught this in church or through some other means of religious training. What are single Christian women to do about this?
I recently read an essay over at Scripturally Single where the author states "Where were the Christian women with Debbie Maken's level of desire when I was in my twenties? I suppose that today's Christian woman is more in touch with her sexuality than women of the past, and yet I wonder if Mrs. Maken is an exception to the rule just the same.” I imagine that the author is not alone in his wondering. Certainly it is healthy to discuss such things when considering marriage with a specific individual, however, my question would be: Before the point that marriage is being seriously discussed how would you know what the level of an unmarried woman’s sexual desire is if she is being obedient to God? Can you tell by looking at her? Or, is she expected to go about announcing “Hello single Christian dudes, I just wanted to let you know that even though I am committed to waiting for marriage before having sex, I have a lot of sexual desires…yes, indeed….just in case you were wondering” ?
On a side note, after finishing reading the book “The Rantings of a Single Male. Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness, and Basically Everything" I felt the need to read a more Christian perspective on sexuality. The essay I refer to in the previous paragraph from Scripturally Single fit the bill well. While I may disagree with or wonder at some of the thoughts that the author expresses (such as "Sex is never safe, even when sanctioned by the church.") it remains for the most part a positive and Biblically-based discussion of abstinence. Thanks Anakin, I needed that.
The second idea that Ellis discusses in this rant that I want to address is the idea that women don't like men. He states, "They want our attention and they want our money, but actually liking us is not something women deem necessary" (p.9) And, "If you want a girlfriend, you'd better show her minimal respect….Girls yearn for that challenge. They want to show they can tame even the most dominant, uncontrollable male and put him back beneath her where he belongs. Confuse him. Make the bastard grovel and show some respect. Sweet. But now he's useless and pathetic. Dump him." (p.8)
I know that women like this do exist, even in the church, because I have a brother and other male friends who have described similar experiences to me, and I have witnessed them myself on occasion. But, is this really the way most women are? This is so outside of my experience and some of my female friends’ experiences that it caused me to think about why that may be. My guess is that women who are not conventionally attractive and not often pursued by men are less likely to behave like this. Is my hypothesis correct?
I have heard Christian women complain that many Christian men are too "passive" on one hand and then on the other hand's complain when the man is more assertive that he is controlling. This is a symptom, I suppose, of the feminine culture within the church which can discount masculine qualities all the while actually being in great need of them.
I agree with Mr. Ellis that many people, both men and women, appear unaware of the effect that feminism has had on society. For myself, I believe I have been vaguely aware that the notion of “equality" between men and women was a fallacy. This was true in part because I have eyes in my head and could easily see that there are differences between men and women. Also as a Christian I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that men and women are different and are meant to occupy different roles in life. But even though I had essentially rejected many of the tenets of feminism there were (and perhaps still are) subtle attitudes of feminism that I have held. I think there are many women, who do not call themselves feminists, but still maintains some subtle attitudes of feminism. So it is for both myself and hopefully other women who read this that I want to explore these issues. I don't consider this to be a “men's problem" because I believe as a member of the body of Christ that it is important that we be open to the issues that affect each other and society in general.
Thomas Ellis says that he doubts that many women would be willing to listen and consider his point of view. “I also doubt whether women are willing to consider change even if it's laid out in terms of why and how, and even if they decide to try. They enthusiastically avoid responsibility for their actions with trendy denial therapies and philosophies. The only things women are willing to change are their hair, their clothes, and their breast size. And a lot of times not even their hair." (Ellis, p.3) Perhaps he is right. To be honest, I should say that since I began looking into this matter, more often than not, I have been disappointed by the reactions of other women. I will say though, that I find it very difficult to believe that there are not other women who want to understand this and be open to change.
Ellis concludes the introduction with the following thought: "I should not have to compromise my rights as a man to make anyone feel equal. I can make compromises, but not on things like maintaining my own identity, being able to express my own ideas without female approval, or refusing to tell rhetorical lies to maintain a relationship. After many years of being unable to conform to the female vision of man as docile servants, I just want to be myself and speak my mind.” Let's see what he has to say.
Rant A: The Learning of Ignorance
There are essentially two main ideas that Ellis puts forth in this rant that I would like to address.
Ellis begins this rant by talking about his first experiences with recognizing that girls were different from boys in a physical sense. He refers to a little girl he was friends with stating, “We had a play room together, where I had a pretend job building bridges and rail roads. Susie had a pretend house set up and she was my pretend girlfriend who would pull down her pants for me whenever I wanted. At age 6, we already knew what we were supposed to do, so why do adults step in and mess everything up.”(p.5) Ellis voices a belief typical in the secular world stating, "All I know is that anyone who tries to suppress their nature runs into some serious inner conflicts." (p.6) he goes on to talk about the innocence that young girls of his acquaintance had regarding exposing themselves to him or other boys before they “had the concept of guilt drilled into them." He blames this on religious training and Queen Victoria. I'm not sure why he blames Queen Victoria since the concept of modesty was around long before the Victorian era, but nonetheless he does.
Mr. Ellis is an agnostic so I don't expect that he would have positive views of any religion, and he doesn't let me down. He rejects the Biblical model of sexual morality by stating that “They (women) seem to embrace their own sexual suppression. Just like they were taught, they grew up to regard sex as deviant and abnormal unless within the confines of commitment." As a nonbeliever I'm not surprised that Mr. Ellis holds this view, in fact, I'm sure it is the common view of most people who don't follow a Biblical model of sexuality (and maybe even some who do). The purpose of this discussion is not to prove the rightness of Biblical teachings on sexuality but I am curious about this thought regarding women who believe in these standards. I don’t regard premarital sex as deviant or abnormal, I just believe it is against the commands of God. While I am not concerned about an unbelieving man’s opinions about Biblical sexuality a variation of Ellis’ views appear to be held by some believing men as well. I have the impression (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that single believing men are sometimes concerned that their future wife will not desire sex (or will not desire sex as often or in the same ways as they do) because they think that she thinks male sexuality is deviant because she has been taught this in church or through some other means of religious training. What are single Christian women to do about this?
I recently read an essay over at Scripturally Single where the author states "Where were the Christian women with Debbie Maken's level of desire when I was in my twenties? I suppose that today's Christian woman is more in touch with her sexuality than women of the past, and yet I wonder if Mrs. Maken is an exception to the rule just the same.” I imagine that the author is not alone in his wondering. Certainly it is healthy to discuss such things when considering marriage with a specific individual, however, my question would be: Before the point that marriage is being seriously discussed how would you know what the level of an unmarried woman’s sexual desire is if she is being obedient to God? Can you tell by looking at her? Or, is she expected to go about announcing “Hello single Christian dudes, I just wanted to let you know that even though I am committed to waiting for marriage before having sex, I have a lot of sexual desires…yes, indeed….just in case you were wondering” ?
On a side note, after finishing reading the book “The Rantings of a Single Male. Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness, and Basically Everything" I felt the need to read a more Christian perspective on sexuality. The essay I refer to in the previous paragraph from Scripturally Single fit the bill well. While I may disagree with or wonder at some of the thoughts that the author expresses (such as "Sex is never safe, even when sanctioned by the church.") it remains for the most part a positive and Biblically-based discussion of abstinence. Thanks Anakin, I needed that.
The second idea that Ellis discusses in this rant that I want to address is the idea that women don't like men. He states, "They want our attention and they want our money, but actually liking us is not something women deem necessary" (p.9) And, "If you want a girlfriend, you'd better show her minimal respect….Girls yearn for that challenge. They want to show they can tame even the most dominant, uncontrollable male and put him back beneath her where he belongs. Confuse him. Make the bastard grovel and show some respect. Sweet. But now he's useless and pathetic. Dump him." (p.8)
I know that women like this do exist, even in the church, because I have a brother and other male friends who have described similar experiences to me, and I have witnessed them myself on occasion. But, is this really the way most women are? This is so outside of my experience and some of my female friends’ experiences that it caused me to think about why that may be. My guess is that women who are not conventionally attractive and not often pursued by men are less likely to behave like this. Is my hypothesis correct?
I have heard Christian women complain that many Christian men are too "passive" on one hand and then on the other hand's complain when the man is more assertive that he is controlling. This is a symptom, I suppose, of the feminine culture within the church which can discount masculine qualities all the while actually being in great need of them.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
The Rantings of a Single Male
In my quest to learn more about issues related to men and women and feminism I recently purchased a book titled "The Rantings of a Single Male. Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness, and Basically Everything" by Thomas Ellis. This book was recommended on a blog or website that I had visited (I can’t remember which one) as an excellent book on the subject. So I went to Amazon and ordered a copy. When it arrived I did what I always do with books and began to page through it a bit.
If I picked this book up in a bookstore and glanced through it I probably would not have purchased it. Mostly, that is because of the discussions about sexuality in the book. And since, according to what Mr. Ellis says in this book, I am “sexually repressed” I'm not really comfortable reading about some guy’s sexual experiences. However, since I had already purchased the book I decided I could skip over the parts I didn't want to read and see what I could learn from the parts I felt comfortable reading. The good news is there really was much more material that I was mostly comfortable reading than there was material that I was uncomfortable reading. That being said I did skip/skim chunks of the book so I should be clear that I may not have understood some of what he had to say. Of what I did read, some of it confused me, some of it enlightened me, and some of it made me laugh.
From what I can tell based on this book, in most ways, I am about as different from Thomas Ellis as a person can get. Perhaps the only characteristics we share are being single white Americans. Certainly, our worldviews are radically different. Still, there was much he had to say that made sense to me. So, over the next weeks I'm going to spend some time discussing some of the ideas from this book.
***********************************************************
I hope that you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving and were able to spend time with those you love.
If I picked this book up in a bookstore and glanced through it I probably would not have purchased it. Mostly, that is because of the discussions about sexuality in the book. And since, according to what Mr. Ellis says in this book, I am “sexually repressed” I'm not really comfortable reading about some guy’s sexual experiences. However, since I had already purchased the book I decided I could skip over the parts I didn't want to read and see what I could learn from the parts I felt comfortable reading. The good news is there really was much more material that I was mostly comfortable reading than there was material that I was uncomfortable reading. That being said I did skip/skim chunks of the book so I should be clear that I may not have understood some of what he had to say. Of what I did read, some of it confused me, some of it enlightened me, and some of it made me laugh.
From what I can tell based on this book, in most ways, I am about as different from Thomas Ellis as a person can get. Perhaps the only characteristics we share are being single white Americans. Certainly, our worldviews are radically different. Still, there was much he had to say that made sense to me. So, over the next weeks I'm going to spend some time discussing some of the ideas from this book.
***********************************************************
I hope that you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving and were able to spend time with those you love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)