"You're interesting, awesome, talented, beautiful, exciting..." : these being the reasons why he did *not* want to be involved with me. "It's OK that you're a strong woman, there's nothing wrong with that..." Gee, thanks for the tolerance. I suppose appreciation would be a bit much to ask?

The scenario was typical: Boy meets me, boy becomes enfatuated with me, boy realizes I take up space, boy runs like hell. What was *a*typical in this situation was the guy's honesty about the dynamic: He actually admitted feeling intimidated by me. Although he acknowledged this feeling very well might be the product of his "shit," he did not seem interested in cleaning up his feces.

Alas, my very assets appear to be what most men view as my liabilities. I believe my experience is typical, and I believe it is a product of social training: According to our spoken and unspoken rules, women must not develop to our maximum potential. We're supposed to starve ourselves; shave ourselves; use paint, expensive creams, and surgical knives in our faces to erase ourselves; avoid "too"-heavy weights to minimize ourselves...all to maintain that pre-pubescent, doe-eyed, blank slate of a look. We are discouraged from developing our minds to the point of being intellectually aggressive; our voices to the point of being heard loud and clear; our presence to the point of taking up full space; and our strength to the point of being a physical threat.

Men grow accustomed to and, over time, dependent on girls and women living at half-mast. So when men encounter women such as myself who run full steam ahead, I find they have a panic and bolt repsonse, seeking refuge in the arms of some safe young lass who plays by the rules (accompanying manual included).

Everything that makes me unappealing to most men, however, is exactly what makes men totally hot to most women. Women, after all, have been encouraged to crave a developed human being: He started his own organization by the time he was 21? Cool. He wrote three books by the time he was 29? Excellent. He started his own band? Amazing! He says what he thinks, fights against injustice, and kicks the ass of people who mess with him? Buy me a ticket -- I'm flying out to spend the rest of my life with him!

But when the shoe is on the other foot -- when the woman is the accomplished one -- chances are the man is gonna buy a ticket, alright...a ticket *outta there.* In a society where a man's ego is cultivated to depend on a woman's secondary role, where a man's sense of self is based on a woman's *lack of* self, an indominable woman is an expendable woman. A woman with less is one a man wants more.

My friend Angela is bright, creative, playful, drop-dead gorgeous, funny, eager to learn and grow....Fact is, if I were a lesbian, I'd be panting after her. Angela is a gal who can wear a Jackie Onasis dress with bushy armpit hair and sparkling silver Halloween socks. "So why don't I have a boyfriend?" she complains.

Whoever takes on society requires to some extent that everyone around her take it on as well. If a gal cracks ongoing jokes and gets a crowd roaring, her boyfriend has to share -- or not even get any of -- the spotlight. The gal has overcome her training not to be aggressive in her humor. Can the guy overcome his training not to get more attention than his partner? Can he handle all the socialized implications baring down on his ego? Will he?

For every doctrine with which society thunks women over the head, there is an inverse doctrine with which society thunks men over the head. I believe both sexes suffer from these limited roles. But I also believe that unlike men, women have gotten the short shaft in terms of the basics -- personal space, economic opportunity, and personal safety.

For this reason, I feel women generally have been more willing to butt heads with society and change things. I don't believe any feminist revolutionary actually has desired or enjoyed the constant battle. And men, I believe, have enough of the goodies that they're not going nuts without personal revolution. So why take on the internal chaos and external threat that goes hand-in-hand with transfomration?

A few years ago, a friend of mine spent the summer with me and left various books of hers in my bathroom library. I picked up *The Rules* and began reading. I thought it was a joke book. I thought it was hilarious. Then I found out that women all over the country had formed groups to study it. That book was beyond serious; it was a threat to female sanity. My laughter took on a homicidal edge.

What really pisses me off is women downplaying or erasing our assets because men aren't doing their work. It makes things worse, girls! In a society where men can get sex without transformation, they'll never fucking change. What more, if we have to minimize ourselves to be around men, are we really "getting a man," or are we getting an insecure limp-ass -- a dead weight adding burden to our already burdened lives?

Once upon a time, not so long ago, I felt apologetic about amazing things about myself. Over and over again, men had treated my assets as liabilities, breaking up with me because of the many qualities distinguishing me from a doormat. Though I did not want or try to change myself, I did grow to feel shame for being powerful, outspoken, and passionate. I also came to feel beholden -- indebted and ingratiated on some level -- to men who *tolerated* those qualities in me, to men who did not try to steam-roll over them.

I once spoke with a man who claimed all men benefit from patriarchy --even the nice guys. "How?" I asked. "In a world where so many men rape women," he replied, "a man can get brownie points just for not being a rapist. A husband can get brownie points for doing something as basic as putting away dishes." The dude was right.

Because of the plethora of asshole men, I came to find myself searching for a *non-asshole.* How sad is that! Alas, I find the phenomenon is quite common: OK, he doesn't listen to me, but he doesn't hit me when he gets mad/No, I'm not attracted to him, but he listens to me/I sure as hell don't enjoy his company, but he splits the housework...Fuck that shit. I want -- no, I *demand* -- an artistic, spiritual, playful, intelligent, sensitive, drop-dead gorgeous man. On a motorcycle. So eat me.

During two years I took a break from men, I did a major attitude check. I decided it was time for me to treat *myself* as the hot goddess that I am, regardless of what kind of men may exist on the planet and what they may think of my bodacious being. "One of the things about equality is not just that you be treated equally to a man, but that you treat yourself equally to the way you treat a man." (Marlo Thomas).

Forget about men's attitudes towards me. I've got an attitude towards men. The tables have turned, my friends. My assets are my fucking assets, and the only liabilities I see now are the limp, threatened egos of men who can't hold a flame to my fire. Rather than squelch my spirit to make room for The Man, I amplified it to make room for The Woman. I got louder, sillier, and smarter. I became unabashedly more demanding, outspoken, and aggressive.

On that note, I transformed into The Hunter, becoming as much of a go-getter in my sexuality as I've been in the rest of my life. I decided what I wanted and got my butt out in the world to find it. I began shopping for men like I shopped for clothes: If it didn't fit, damn thing was out the door.

I became the entitled one, the one around whom men had to revolve, as if the whole world were radical feminists and the losers had to get with the program. I found men responding to my attitude shift, chasing after me in the very places they condemned me in the past. Suddenly I was the one being panted after. Whereas men used to complain, they started to apologize. Lo and behold, I found myself in the driver's seat of my love life.

I haven't found a guy who can hack the long haul; but the fact is, I'd rather live with the fullness of my being and see men as occasional bed-warmers than I would live in some corner of my self with a steady squeeze. I know that as long as patriarchy reigns over the state of male-female relations, my man-loving radical feminist being is like an orchid in the arctic. But I'd rather be a solitary, breathtaking flower any day than petals frozen to the ice of the tundra.

Loolwa Khazzoom

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 21, 2000

Answers

I dont think you have to worry about mans ego.Your own is large enough for all of mankind.A breathtaking flower my ass.

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), October 21, 2000.

Oh come on Dan. The world is full of all kinds of people. Don't you find Loolwa's thoughts entertaining?

(Besides I'm waiting for Unk to tell me to put something in MY pipe and smoke it!)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 21, 2000.

*I* thought it was great, Debra. As I read it, I wondered who began the thread. Eve came to mind first.

It's really been enjoyable for me to watch my daughters go through the dating experiences and listen to what they say about the men in their lives. They've grown into independent women, and they wouldn't consider "settling." I wonder on occasion if I had anything to do with that.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2000.

Debra.I didn't know it was supposed to be entertaining.I thought you really believed it.Are you sure you didn't put something in a pipe and smoke it, before your original post? Peace Sister...

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), October 21, 2000.

Well,I must admit...I did adjusted my attitude but she still seemed like my kinda woman,got a pic : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 22, 2000.

I missed the"?" I told ya : ) hehehehe

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 22, 2000.

Sounds like a dyke to me, a total turnoff. People are not perfect, and most are willing to admit it. It is unrealistic to expect any man to be pleased with a tough chick who doesn't shave her pits and thinks she is perfect. LOL

-- (yuuuuuck@macho.chicks), October 22, 2000.

Well,I went lookin' and found one,I don't know if she shaves,waxes,plucks or what not but I did read some of her works and she is a good writer.Wheather or not she looks good in stilletto's and a sequine party dress might be another story.

Chic Pic

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 22, 2000.

I thought the article was very well done. Now, get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!!

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 22, 2000.

Another example of a person taking individual experiences and applying them to the six billion souls living on the planet. If Ms. Khazzoom cannot find a fulfilling relationship, so be it. One woman not finding a satisfying, enduring relationship does constitute a compelling inquiry into male-female social roles.

I got louder, sillier, and smarter. I became unabashedly more demanding, outspoken, and aggressive.

Personally, I think common courtesy transcends gender. I also think treating other human beings as occasional bed warmers reflects a profound insensitivity... the type usually attributed to men. Is this the intellectual high water mark of Kazzoom's feminism? To promise to call and skip out before breakfast? Charming.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 23, 2000.

LOL, Ken. Amen!

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 23, 2000.

"Fuck that shit. I want -- no, I *demand* -- an artistic, spiritual, playful, intelligent, sensitive, drop-dead gorgeous man. On a motorcycle. So eat me."

Too late.... Mrs. Dog done beat ya to it.... (snicker)

BTW, I have two motorcycles...

watchin' it rain...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 23, 2000.

Well I like this woman's guts. Live it up, woman! There needs to be a good few women like her to conter-balance the insensitive men.

IMHO, ofcourse.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 23, 2000.

Here is a picture of Loolwa Khazzoom showing her hair down under. I'm not suprised that she doesn't like to shave, it is a real chore!

Loolwa's Khazzoom

-- Lawnmower Man (not enough gas @ for. Loolwa's Khazzoom), October 23, 2000.

I'd rather live with the fullness of my being and see men as occasional bed-warmers than I would live in some corner of my self with a steady squeeze."

Ken,

She is not saying she wants men to be occasional bed-warmers. She is saying her experience is that she has to choose between living with her fullness of being or having a steady squeeze. She has chosen to live with her fullness of being and getting the occasional bed-warmers by default. She does go on and call herself a man-loving radical feminist.

It seems the men in her life have not had the common courtesy of letting her be free to be who she is.

There is alot more to this particular woman. The following is a small portion of another essay of hers:

A Big Piece is Missing In This "Peace"

...

I am willing to stand up, speak out about, and fight against current Israeli oppression of Palestinian Arabs - whether at the hands of Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, or anyone else. I challenge my Arab sisters and brothers to be as willing to stand up and speak out about Arab oppression of Mizrahi Jews.

If supporting someone else inherently rips the floor out from under my own feet, I cannot risk it; I will not participate in a setup for my own destruction. As long as alliance work with Arabs is structured in such a way as to completely negate the Mizrahi reality, I refuse to participate in it. I will not help perpetuate the silencing and oppression of my people.

For example, I have been to several panels of Arab and Jewish women, where the Arabs were Muslim or Christian and the Jews were white Europeans. Every time, I have raised my hand and spoken about the invisibility of Mizrahi women on the panels. And every time, Arab women from the panel warmly have approached me after the program, taking me aside and telling me something like, "You and I are sisters. We are the same people. It's those Zionists that are the problem." Or, as one Arab woman added after a panel, "Those Ashkenazim are pigs."

Statements like these have made shivers go up my spine. They essentially have asked me to split myself in half, to connect on the basis of one half and forget about the other. They inherently have demanded that I structure my Middle Eastern reality around an Arab construct.

But as a Mizrahi woman, I bring my identity to the table: Culturally, it is true, I have more in common with Arab Muslims and Christians than I do with Ashkenazi Jews. But I am a Jew, and this reality must be acknowledged and addressed. Arab women cannot expect to bond with me against the "big, evil Ashkenazi," completely ignoring a legacy of Arab oppression of Jews. If we are to unite in alliance, Arabs must hold my struggle in their hearts, as I must hold their struggle in mine.

With rare exceptions, I have not experienced Arab willingness to have different perspectives on Arab-Israel/Arab-Jewish issues and come together where we agree; rather, I have felt pressure that to be friends or allies, I first must deny my own reality. As such, to be connected, I have felt I must endanger myself, participate in diminishing my own space.

The situation feels comparable to that of many men demanding that women sacrifice our autonomy and integrity to be involved with them. In both cases, I refuse to hand over a piece of myself so as to be connected with someone else. Regarding relations with Arabs, I will not hide my own politics or pain as a precondition of caring for an individual. I find such a precondition to be self-righteous and offensive, as well as destructive to my own integrity.

I deeply desire to connect with Arabs, to heal the wounds between us and support each other's empowerment. I hope I can go into the fire instead of needing to stay far away. I hope I can offer attention, love, and support to Arabs and demand the same in return, helping end this either-or rift between us. And I hope that the uniqueness of Mizrahi voices finally gets heard in the Middle East peace movement and Arab-Israel peace talks. Regardless of our stand (we certainly are not a monolithic community), the world around us needs to finally recognize us and take seriously what we have to say. _______________________

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 23, 2000.

Okay CD ... what's so funny?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 24, 2000.

You is funny Debra. You in love with Loolwa.

-- CD (funny girls @ bumping. muffins), October 24, 2000.

funny girls @ bumping muffins?

Will the REAL CD please stand up?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 24, 2000.

Smarty, why am I not surprised?

Debra, horse fritters. What Khazzoom calls the "fullness of her being," I call a surly, bigoted attitude. In her words, I've got an attitude towards men. She certainly does, seeing a plethora of assholes among the opposite sex. Imagine what this rhetoric might sound like if leveled at the African-American community.

This is the tired, simplistic mantra that embarrasses the real feminists, i.e., "Men are bad and women are good." Even worse, Khazzoom's seems to feel her negative experiences justify the casual of men as "bed warmers." I see. The "fullness of her being" involves treating other human beings in a cheap and vulgar manner.

Perhaps the most offensive comment, however, is you saying "It seems the men in her life have not had the common courtesy of letting her be free to be who she is."

This is the rhetoric of false victimization. Men are not oppressing Khazzoom. Frankly, she seems to have no problem being "who she is," as unpleasant that might be. No man is obligated to fulfill her ideal of a romantic relationship. If Khazzoom cannot find a fulfilling relationship, it is her problem... not a failing with the entire male gender. Personal responsibility, Debra, works equally well with both genders.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 24, 2000.

This kind of diatribe makes me cringe, regardless of which gender spouts it. Boorishness is obviously an equal opportunity trait.

"I began shopping for men like I shopped for clothes: If it didn't fit, damn thing was out the door."

From what I remember of my '70's Ms. magazine subscription, women felt misused when they were seen as objects. Some 30 years later, what makes it OK to not only have adopted the same crude behavior, but crow about it?

We shouldn't easily accept anti-social, thinly disguised hostile verbiage. Especially when it comes calling in sheep's clothing.

To me, this looks much less like feminism & more like a borderline personality.

-- flora (***@__._), October 24, 2000.

Imagine what this rhetoric might sound like if leveled at the African-American community.

Funny you should mention that Ken. Seems Loolwa wonders about similar things. Here is another of her essays on that subject:

Travels Through My Identity

Before you judge her experiences, feelings and conclusions you should read more about her. She is a woman who has experienced very deeply the theft of her 'fullness of being' in more than just the gender area. Both links I provided will give you a very good idea of where she is coming from. You can follow the links from these essays and read more.

Perhaps the most offensive comment, however, is you saying "It seems the men in her life have not had the common courtesy of letting her be free to be who she is."

What is so offensive about that? Granted I haven't had a whole lot of experience with men but I can tell you that that is MY experience too. It's not false victimization, it's MY truth and it seems Loolwa's also.

I agree Ken. It's not a failing with the ENTIRE male gender. I didn't say that. I said 'the men in HER life'. If that is HER experience or MY experience you cannot call it false.

You didn't like KOS's comments about mud-wrestling. Do you think there are only a 'few' men who say things like that? Do you think there is not 'more' going on behind comments like that? What exactly do you imagine women's reality to be? Can't you begin to understand what it is truly like to be a woman in a patriarchal society?

Your writings and your thoughts sound wonderful to me. Sometimes I think to myself ... where are the men who think like that? Where are the men like Ken who speak of personal responsibility? But Ken, you have to be able to see that when a woman tells you of her experiences and you call it false YOU are also one of the men who are denying her the 'fullness of her being'.

What is it you can't accept here? Her language? Her stating she is unwilling to settle? Her determination to go it alone if she has too? What?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 24, 2000.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could enjoy their "fullness of being?" I don't think this is something that many people have ever achieved.

I agree with Ken and Flora on this one.

She sounds like a spoiled brat to me.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 24, 2000.

Debra,

You misunderstand. I am not am judging her "experience, feelings and conclusions." I am criticizing the ideas behind the essay... not the person. Ms. Khazzoom presents a sexist argument. She makes assumptions about an entire gender based her personal experiences. No research, no data, no proof.... Ms. Khazzoom also argues that it is permissable to treat men as a casual convenience rather than as human beings. I reject this.

I also find this notion of "personal truth" rather silly. I could say I was The Lord our God. Why can't this be my "personal truth?" I wonder why can't I smote those who do not believe in me. (chuckle)

Your "personal truth" may be that you are a wonderful writer. And what if no publisher will buy your stories? Does this mean the publishing houses are biased? Are they stupid? Or is it possible your "personal truth" has nothing to do with reality?

This goes to the heart of the issue. Khazzoom thinks the problem is with world (and half its inhabitants), not with herself.

As to Spain's comments, they were sexist. Khazzoom's comments are no different in substance. Spain insults women. Khazzoom insults men. This is not "denying" her experiences or calling them "false." For all I know, every man Khazzoom has ever met has treated her badly. Once again, her personal experiences do not prove anything about the male gender.

The language about a patriarchal society is an abdication of personal responsibility. The simple truth is that not every woman shares Khazzoom's vision of feminism.

Finally, my issue is not with accepting Khazzoom. I simply do not accept her argument. Frankly, she can curse like a sailor and not settle for any man less than perfection and live alone with her devoted pets. It makes no difference to me. Her choices, however, are simply a matter of personal preference... not a compelling statement about gender relations. I still contend that impolite behavior is impolite behavior. There are no gender, racial or ethnic limits to common courtesy. Treating people poorly (men or women) is not acceptable. Personally, I think we need to move beyond the stereotypical boorish men (like Spain) and the stereotypical bitchy women (like Khazzoom) and find a better way.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 25, 2000.

There's nothing special about this "Loolwa" broad (sheesh, what a name). She is what is known as a JAP (Jewish American Princess). We got tons of 'em here in New Yohk. They're ugly as hell and they think their shit don't stink. They might be okay for a drunk fuck if you're really desperate, but make sure you can get away, because they like to get pregnant and come lookin for ya.

-- Andrew Dice Clay (YO @ stay AWAY. from dees broads), October 25, 2000.

Debra, I find that often in life one gets what they ask for.

A person attracks a certain kind of relationship by the way they project themselves. Sort of like the abused women always moving toward an abuser. If this woman has trouble finding a man, then she should look inward to find out what to change. It sounded like she realized that fact but she still continued to put her problem back onto a male type unit. Then, as Ken points out, she extrapolates this to all male type units.

We all put on masks during the mating phase. She put on a mask (powerful, outspoken, and passionate) which *I* would find repulsive. Nothing wrong with these attributes in certain situations. But if you are constantly powerful, outspoken, and passionate, it gets a little tiring. A relationship is lots (LOTS) of give and take. She comes across as unyielding to affirm the feminist in her. No wonder men find her unattractive.

-- Maria (anon@myous.com), October 25, 2000.

Okay. I read the essay again. I pulled out EVERY statement you may find a problem with. I thought about each statement and here is the way I read them:

1. In a society where a man's ego is cultivated to depend on a woman's secondary role, where a man's sense of self is based on a woman's *lack of* self, an indominable woman is an expendable woman.

Pretty much a given, no? Neutral ... a statement of fact for the vast majority of men on this planet. Don't forget Loolwa's perspective covers multi-cultures.

2. In a society where men can get sex without transformation, they'll never fucking change. What more, if we have to minimize ourselves to be around men, are we really "getting a man," or are we getting an insecure limp-ass -- a dead weight adding burden to our already burdened lives?

As long as #1 is a given the vast majority of men have not had the 'transformative experience' and let's face it as long as they 'get sex' not much else matters ... certainly not working on themselves and their attitude toward women.

If the vast majority of women are playing a secondary role to be around men ARE they getting a MAN? An 'insecure limp-ass' may be a bit strong (for effect, I guess) but it certainly seems they are getting more of a dead weight than a man. Anyone who requires another to play a secondary role would add weight to that persons life. Yes?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying ALL men and women, I'm saying the vast majority and I don't think that can be argued. Again, I'm going to pull you back from your thoughts of only this culture and remind you that Loolwa speaks of multi-cultures. Let's think PLANET here.

3. Because of the plethora of asshole men, I came to find myself searching for a *non-asshole.* How sad is that!

Plethora = Superabundance = Excess = Vast Majority

Let's replace 'asshole men' with 'men who have not had the transformative experience'. Sounds nicer ... I guess Loolwa was going for the dramatic effect again.

4. no, I *demand*...

She simply won't be denied. It's her right but many people become riled by a woman who demands ... by men who demand too, I guess.

5. I've got an attitude towards men. The tables have turned, my friends. My assets are my fucking assets, and the only liabilities I see now are the limp, threatened egos of men who can't hold a flame to my fire.

Well now she's just plain mad. :P

6. I began shopping for men like I shopped for clothes: If it didn't fit, damn thing was out the door.

All she is really saying is that she is not going to settle ... if she doesn't feel comfortable she'll show him the door. Seems rather sensible to me.

7. I'd rather live with the fullness of my being and see men as occasional bed-warmers than I would live in some corner of my self with a steady squeeze.

Actually, I think she is being very sincere here. A bed-warmer can be a beautiful thing ... for both parties. Don't forget - the other men never made it to step 7.

Considering the length of the essay the statements you object too are only a very small portion of it. If one can get by the language, maybe enjoy the sarcasm and find some humor in it they can find some personal gems in it too. My two gems:

---Whoever takes on society requires to some extent that everyone around her take it on as well.

---I decided what I wanted and got my butt out in the world to find it.

Ken, I think the ideas behind the essay have merit.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 26, 2000.

Give it up Debra, Loolwa Khazzoom is a lesbian. How can she be objective about men when she obviously prefers women? Perhaps you are a lesbian too? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you must admit, it does explain why her attitude toward heterosexual men is not without a good degree of personal bias.

-- (Loolwa is rationalizing @ her true. homosexual nature), October 26, 2000.

Loolwa is rationalizing @ her true. homosexual nature,

So if you eat spaghetti all covered with cheese, Hold on to your meatball and don't ever sneeze.

Name that tune!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 26, 2000.

"On Top of Spaghetti"

Are you trying to say that in addition to being gay, Loolwa is also a cheesebrain?

I already knew that!

-- (loolwa@is.looney), October 26, 2000.

No, but you seem to be a cheesewhiz.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 26, 2000.

:D

(you know how women do that delayed smile thing?)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 26, 2000.

Here is what bothers me about this brat.

"I want -- no, I *demand* -- an artistic, spiritual, playful, intelligent, sensitive, drop-dead gorgeous man. On a motorcycle. So eat me."

"I decided it was time for me to treat *myself* as the hot goddess that I am, regardless of what kind of men may exist on the planet and what they may think of my bodacious being."

For the first quote, good freakin' luck.

For the second quote, get over yourself.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 26, 2000.

Buddy,

Earlier in this thread you said:

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could enjoy their "fullness of being?" I don't think this is something that many people have ever achieved.

Next, when Loolwa defined her 'wants' you said:

good freakin' luck.

Isn't the first part of achieving any goal defining them and then refusing to settle for anything less? Am I wrong to think that you really don't have an issue with Loolwa here but only with what seems to be your belief that these goals in general are unattainable?

If Loolwa said ...

"I decided it was time for me to treat *myself* as the deserving person that I am, regardless of what kind of men may exist on the planet and what they may think of my bold and daring being."

... that would be alright, wouldn't it? I really don't think she truly believes she is a goddess. I think it's pretty obvious she uses certain words and phrases for dramtic affect. Again, I think her writing is entertaining along with thought provoking.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 26, 2000.

OFF?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 26, 2000.

Very interesting thread. I just checked in on it.

I married a feminist who was a leader in women's law studies when she was in law school. She also wrote anti-pornography legislation in New York State. For some reason, I have always been attracted to strong women, perhaps because my mom had to withstand an emotionally abusive hisband. She also worked two jobs, often pulling double shifts, in order that we be clothed and fed. Dad worked, but mom knew the real deal.

As I said, I have always been attracted to feminist women, and I do consider myself a feminist. I try to empathize with how it must be to be a "lower" class. The woman who wrote this piece reminded me of my wife-of course not to that extreme. My wife experienced the "old boy" network while practising personal injury law, and always while an executive recruiter for a wall street bank. Seeing women as less than is still a REAL problem in our society, and I cannot IMAGINE my wife growing up in arab society, being the way she is.

What the author has done is made an overcorrection; I sometimes see my wife go to the radical fringe, and become, in my opinion, overly agressive and overly assertive-especially with women who do not share her belief in being a "strong" woman. My wife takes no shit from anyone, and waited until she was 42 before she got married; I was finally the right one because she was unwilling to settle. The man she was with for some time before me abruptly left her when she informed him that she had just become unable to have children- therefore not filling a pre-conceived role of child-bearer. He was a schmuck-his bad and my, ahem, luck.

While it is a struggle at times living with a female that is anything but society's "norm", I would not have anything else-my wife is who she is, and if I feel she is stepping over a boundary I will tell her- but her relentlessness in not giving in to our patriarchal society (and I am sorry to say it is still the truth) she is now opening her own law firm specializing in civil rights and family law/adoption)

Just my two cents.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), October 26, 2000.

Debra: "Isn't the first part of achieving any goal defining them and then refusing to settle for anything less? Am I wrong to think that you really don't have an issue with Loolwa here but only with what seems to be your belief that these goals in general are unattainable?

That's fair. Now the issue is what is the meaning of "settle." Loolwa can do what she wants. What I don't like is for her to be held up as a model for what all women should be doing. I think FutureShock just hit the nail on the head, she has overcorrected. Only life experience will teach her that. Maybe the pendulum will swing back and she'll be happy. But what I see is that if she follows the path of not "settling" (whatever that means) she may find herself becoming the stereotypical old maid.

I think the idea that one shouldn't "settle" is a youthful ideal. My experience is that one has to "settle" in many situations, it's also called "compromise." I guess I'm trying to say the same thing Maria said here: "relationship is lots (LOTS) of give and take."

As for the goals being unattainable, absolutely. Loolwa is setting herself up for a big let down.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 26, 2000.

FS,

The disturbing thing about this piece is that it doesn't so much deal with her professional life, which would be simple to weigh. It concerns her interpretation of her personal life - and her blanket judgement of 'most men' out there. I'm in the trenches raising the next generation of men. If one of them came home with a piece of work similar to the portrayal above, I think I'd hope that he wised up real fast. This kind of stuff may be all well & good for independent 'adults'. From my perspective, it's not long enough until there are children involved in such experiments.

I worked in a mans' trade in the wayback days, because the wages & benefits were good. A funny trait that I was born with allows me to see color in mathematical percentages, that made me an absolute demon in the color correction arena of lithography { fancy name for printing }. It was during the crossover days between laser scanners & cameras, I could easily wield both. It left me with personal time to serve on the board of directors for a major film group in LA, and the freedom to do my own visual work the way I wanted. { Believe me, I know what it's like to be looked at like a baby back rib, fresh off the barbeque. I've been hit on by a couple of lesbians & bisexuals in my day, too }.

Nowadays, I work in a different field that is somewhat dominated by men, due to the fact that there are more of them that have pursued the background necessary.

Loowla's piece is half baked, narcissistic, & immature, IMAO. {"enfatuated"?, "Onasis"?}. At least Spain's stuff had the aroma of parody to it. There is no comparison between the two.

The above not state of the art feminism. I wish we could put her in a time machine & see what another 20 years does to her perspective. It might be good for her to let in the guy on the motorcycle, & get some of that experience under her belt. After catching the other recent thread, I wonder which version of 'mankiller' we find scarier - Paula or Loowla.

-- flora (***@__._), October 26, 2000.

Guess it's time I chimed in here (like you were all just waiting for this, right? I said, RIGHT?!?!).

I've had a couple of similar experiences in the "men" department. (One actually said to me, "I used to only date beautiful women, but then I decided I wanted one with a brain". OK, the comment was bad enough, but he had to ask THREE DIFFERENT WOMEN why the comment was bad. To make it worse, what he really wanted was a whore with a maid's uniform, but that's another conversation entirely. Almost married that idiot [he was an idiot for so many other reasons]. Whew.) After my last one a couple of years ago (this one actually said, "Wow, you're scary-smart"; and then proceeded to treat me like shit for the next three months -- see ya) I decided, "Well, OK. You aren't going to settle for these idiots. If one I can get along with (and vice versa) comes along, fine. If not, no biggie.....I have no problem traveling alone, dining alone, going to museums, concerts, etc. alone. I make friends wherever I go. No problem." I kind of resigned myself to the fact that I'd probably be spending the rest of my life alone -- but I honestly didn't have (too) much of a problem with that. I have some really good friends, and I have some really good family (plus, I really didn't mind being alone). I spoke with a couple of friends and my Mom about this. What a weight off my "shoulders" it was; kind of like a "release".

You see, it really DID come down to an "intimidation" factor. And they both tried to make it MY problem. No way, dude. Not MY problem; it is YOUR problem. Another aspect neither could handle.

Yes, well, funny thing about that "release". Once I "let go" of that "baggage", I found my soul mate. Now I'm living happily ever after ;-) (Not the point here, people. Or is it?)

Overall, I enjoyed the piece, but I, too, think she has "over- corrected". I do agree with some (not all -- that "bed-warmer" comment was just beneath contempt; puts her on the same level as those about whom she's complaining) of her ideas. But she (like ALL men AND women) needs to tone it down a bit. Life is a series of compromises. Doesn't mean you have to compromise yourself, though. Besides, I happen to find the ability to compromise a highly attractive quality in all people. It usually signals a good, solid mind and a good, solid heart.

[I said "usually" :-)]

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 26, 2000.

The author is on the right track. At the end men are fawning over her because she treats herself as the goddess she is. Men are fascinated by women who refuse to settle.

-- Just ignore men. (be@old.maid), October 26, 2000.

>> Life is a series of compromises. Doesn't mean you have to compromise yourself, though. Besides, I happen to find the ability to compromise a highly attractive quality in all people. It usually signals a good, solid mind and a good, solid heart. <<

Right on, Patricia. I say, if you maintain a position of personal stregth and integrity, then compromise becomes as natural as breathing.

My take on Loolwa is that her more egotistical statements in this piece are merely the sound of a person who must constantly inflate her self-confidence because it has a leak. The real solution is to patch the leak, not to keep inflating herself with grandiose words.

My suspicion is that so long as her anger is directed at blaming the patriarchal society (and men) for her difficulty in finding happiness, she isn't going to make much headway. This isn't because society isn't patriarchal (it still is - ragingly so in many parts of the world - less so in the USA) or because some men aren't misguided dunderheads (some are) but because however valid her analysis of society is or of those particular men, she is overlooking the fact that she is inflating their power, just as badly as she is inflating her own ego.

The first rule of holes is that when you are in one, stop digging. By imagining that partiarchal society has such vast power over her, she is giving much of her own quite real power away.

I read somewhere that the secret of the Irish surviving 500 years of English misrule and oppression is that they simply continued to live their lives as if the English didn't matter! I find this an awesome concept. Loolwa should try it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 26, 2000.

Ken, I'm not surprised you're not surprised. You come off to me as an archetype of the patriarchal system.

Debra, I agree with both you and Maria. Loolwa comes off agressive for effect, I'm sure. I could have written this piece myself in one of my angry moods. But like Maria says, the mating and relationship game is very complicated and one can't just spit one's views and "full being" on the first date. It turns anyone off, even for casual relationships or friendships between same sexes.

I married a chauvinist man, believe it or not. We married after a short courtship, and we only found out after the marriage how really incompatible we were in this respect. We had to adjust. He more so than me actually, and he did over time. As a side effect, he now respect and value women in general a great deal more.

IMO, if Loolwa can't find a mate compatible with her, it's either because she scares them off with a nasty attitude right from the start (how sexy can that be for men OR women?) instead of smoothly and cooly revealing herself over time, or she just hasn't found the right guy yet. Not all men are scared of strong willful and smart women. I know several strong willful and smart men secure with themselves who wouldn't settle for anything less. My own husband became more secure around such women, in part because I helped him understand that he didn't have anything to feel insecure about, being smart and strong himself. Men/women relationships in the end are partnerships.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 26, 2000.

Brian, we must have posted at same time, I hadn't seen yours. What you said is right on.

Loolwa's agressiveness and anger comes from her own insecurity. Both men and women have to work on this, then the world falls into place for us. When self-secure people find each other, they live in harmony.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 26, 2000.

My feminine intuition kicked in from reading her other writings. To me, her position speaks more about her conflict with her own father than any man who is actually her peer. Could be wrong.

Bingo & I corresponded a bit around the Spain self-immolation thread. I think everyone was amazed how the opinions fell by gender lines. My take on the reaction to Ken's early position was that the women were inherently extremely leery of the patriarchal tone. More muddy water for ya...

-- flora (***@__._), October 26, 2000.

"I am a young, sex-loving, predominantly heterosexual woman. I love dressing up, and I love playing diva. I love gorgeous men, and I love flirting wildly. I know I am beautiful, and I want to flaunt it."

There is a tremendous amount of insecurity here, it pours from her pen in everything she writes. If indeed she does feel so good about herself, why does she need to announce it to the world for their approval? The truth is, she has very low self esteem, and she is attempting to compensate for this by creating her ideal self-image in her ficticious writings.

The use of the words "predominantly heterosexual" are also very revealing. It can be a very short walk from "predominantly" heterosexual to predominantly homosexual, and this seems to indicate that she isn't so sure. Subconsciously, she knows that she is leaning towards the latter.

I get the impression that Loolwa is as she says, very young, so young in fact, that she is still trying to find out who she really is. Her writings are a way of testing the waters of he she thought she would like to be and discovering who she really is. Her attitude towards men is overwhelmingly indicative that psychologically and emotionally she is homosexual. She is merely seeking out reactions from her readers to make sure this is okay with mainstream society, to alleviate any guilt she feels about abandoning the traditional family value system into which she was raised.

I am sure she will eventually discover her true self, and hopefully allow herself to be comfortable with that person, but to the perceptive reader it is apparent that on a subconscious level, she already knows.

-- cyber freud (Loolwa@is.finding.herself), October 26, 2000.

It is interesting to read the typical stereotyping of men from what seems to be a mentally and sexually frustrated woman.

I personally cannot stand a weak, unintelligent, woman. Her intellect must AT LEAST match my own. My wife is one of the strongest willed women I know, and I appreciate her. She is my best friend, and we COMMUNICATE.

I have to agree that there are a LOT of assholes out there, but then there is an equal amount of bitches too.

I thought this little tirade by Ms. Khazzoom was quite entertaining... albeit angry...

watchin' the boy eat... (SLURP)

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.

In following with the title of the thread...

A NIGHT WITH THE BOYS

The other night I was invited out for a night with "the boys." I told my wife that I would be home by midnight ... promise!

Well, the hours passed and the beer was going down way too easy. At around 3 A.M., drunk as a skunk, I headed for home. Just as I got in the door, the cuckoo clock in the hall started up and cuckooed 3 times. Quickly, I realized she'd probably wake up, so I cuckooed another 9 times.

I was really proud of myself, having a quick witty solution, even when smashed, to escape a possible conflict.

The next morning my wife asked me what time I got in, and I told her 12 o'clock. She didn't seem disturbed at all. Whew! Got away with that one!

She then told me that we needed a new cuckoo clock.

When I asked her why she said, "Well, last night our clock cuckooed three times, then said 'oh fuck,' cuckooed 4 more times, cleared its throat, cuckooed another 3 times, giggled, cuckooed twice more, and then farted.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.hic'up), October 26, 2000.

Maria,

That was thoughtful of you to expunge Mrs. Deedah's name from that report.

-- flora (***@__._), October 26, 2000.

Debra,

What you accept as an obvious fact, I question. With the grand sweep of hand, you accept Khazzoom's personal experiences as universal truth. I don't. This is not because I have a different gender or experiences. I simply ask Khazzoom to do the same work as any researcher in the social sciences. Develop a hypothesis, gather data, analyze the results, and do so in a replicable manner.

Khazzoom reduces all social relations to gender. Khazzoom, in her hyperbolic style, would have us believe men only change when denied sexual gratification. She would divide the male gender into two neat categories, untransformed and post-radical feminist. She reduces the male gender into a despicable cartoon... a salivating, lusting beast with no spirituality.

Personally, I take offense at this characterization. I also reject Khazzoom's definition of masculinity as some post-transformational ideal. Who is Khazzoom to define masculinity?

I'm not questioning Khazzoom's right to live her life. It really doesn't matter to me if she is aggressive, militant and spends long days enjoying the "fullness of her being." I simply reject the idea that Khazzoom is "right." I don't think her criticisms of men are valid and I think her response (out-jerk the jerks) is immature.

But I may be wasting my time her. Because you believe Khazzoom's conclusions, you also accept her logic. Try reading this essay using race instead of gender.

Smarty, if memory serves, I was one criticizing Spain for making sexist comments to women... and you were defending him. If I am an archetype of male domination, I'm doing a lousy job.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 26, 2000.

Good Dog! {lickin the monitor} =)

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), October 26, 2000.

Ken, "I'm not questioning Khazzoom's right to live her life. It really doesn't matter to me if she is aggressive, militant and spends long days enjoying the "fullness of her being." I simply reject the idea that Khazzoom is "right." "

This in a nutshell explains my sarcastic first post.

As to why you come off patriarchal to me; I don't want a repeat of the King thread, but I'll say this. You -behave- as if you are infallible, you don't admit your mistakes, and you appear to want to "be on top" at all times in a discussion.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 26, 2000.

No, Smarty, I am not infallible. Last year, I readily admitted I might be wrong about Y2K. I simply contended that the doomsayers failed to produce a convincing argument. People like you thought this was terribly arrogant of me.

Why? Many of the "doomers" were utterly convinced we would have serious Y2K problems. Not surprisingly, all of the Gary North/Ed Yourdon arguments made perfect sense to them. They were unable or unwilling to think beyond their preconceived notions. I remember well how Russ "Big Dog" Lipton came to the conclusion I was either "dense" or "dishonest" because I did not agree with him about Y2K. (chuckle)

You and Debra bring this same sort of baggage to this discussion. Khazzoom makes some points you agree with and suddenly she is a female Moses coming down the mountain with the truth written on tablets of stone.

This is a sexist essay. Why? Because it criticizes all men based on one woman's personal experiences. You continue this sexist thought by implying acting "patriarchal" is synonomous with acting infallible, refusing to admit mistakes and wanting to be "on top."

In one breath, you defend Spain while he makes sexually suggestive remarks to anonymous women. In the next, you embrace a radical feminist who decries the nature of modern man. Consistency, smarty, is not the hallmark of your thought.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 26, 2000.

Alas, my very assets appear to be what most men view as my liabilities.

Everything that makes me unappealing to most men, however, is exactly what makes men totally hot to most women.

But when the shoe is on the other foot -- when the woman is the accomplished one -- chances are the man is gonna buy a ticket, alright...a ticket *outta there.*

I believe both sexes suffer from these limited roles.

Ken,

It looks to me like your the one with the grand sweep of hand. Loolwa specifically pointed out that she didn't feel this was a universal truth.

This woman put pen to paper and shared her thoughts. It very well may have been done when she was angry. It may have been done when she was contemplative or frustrated. It certainly was done with emotion. I am grateful that I am able to read essays like this, no matter what the subject because they are REAL. I don't read them like you do. I'm not looking to judge. I'm interested in learning how people feel, how they see things. Developing a hypothesis, gathering data and analyzing results is ok but it is something entirely different from writing from raw emotion.

This particular essay strikes pretty close to home but, as with all things, I'll take pieces of it with me and leave other pieces behind. I read it, enjoyed it and shared it here. I didn't write it. I accept her conclusions and I accept her logic. Because it's her truth. Today. Tomorrow? Who knows.

I admit I may be wrong about Loolwa. Would you think it terribly arrogant of me if I simply contend that you fail to produce a convincing argument that most men's egos are NOT cultivated to depend on a woman's secondary role? That most men HAVE had the 'transformative experience'?

Who is it Ken, you or I, who is unable or unwilling to think beyond their preconceived notions? Who is it, I wonder, men or women?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 27, 2000.

Debra,

Khazzoom makes an assertion. Actually, she makes many. The burden of proof is on her, not me (and you). This is theh rule of logic.

When she says most men, I take her at her word. As I consult Webster's, I see that most means a majority. So, without a shred of data aside from her personal experiences, we are to believe Khazzoom's personal dating history allows her to accurately assess over 50 percent of the men on the planet. Please.

The real shame here, Debra, is that serious research has been done about global gender issues. If Khazzoom could take a few minutes from enjoying the "fullness of her being," she might learn something from this work and make a serious argument. Instead, we have the immature, self-indulgent tantrum of an unsatisfied woman.

Let's say you were African-American and we were discussing an angry essay by a black person. If the essay said most white people were racists, I would have the same basic objections.

More importantly, I think pen and paper tantrums like Khazzoom's only widen the gender gap. It simply affirms that is it OK to treat others badly on the basis of gender. It rejects common courtesy in favor of a militant attitude.

And I think it is asinine to suggest that most men's egos are defined by the subjugation of women. This is like saying men don't feel like men unless they have woman chained the bedpost at home, or are lording over women at work. Using your logic, homosexual men are doomed to a lifetime of inadequacy. Oh, and according to Khazzoom homosexual men have no chance of "transformation" because they only way men change is to get sex from women.

Let's drop this, Debra. I feel like a black man talking to a person who keeps using the word "nigger" and doesn't understand why I take offense.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 27, 2000.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 27, 2000.

Consider it dropped Ken.

Friends?

:)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 27, 2000.

"Consider it dropped Ken. Friends? "

Thatta girl. Just like a real woman ;-) (choking in sarcasm here, but I admire you for trying to get through him.)

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 28, 2000.

Woah! that should have read "...trying to get through TO him."

Devil is into details...

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 28, 2000.

http://underwire.msn.com/Underwire/social/spotLight/97spotLight.asp

I just came across this article, which somewhat ties into this thread. These pieces can come & go somewhat quickly, so please excuse the long cut & paste below:

Men As Sex Objects

Susan Bordo on the male ego Interview by Annie Culver

ThereBs an unreal aspect to reality today. Thanks to the image-makers whoBve tinkered with our opinions of ourselves, weBre perennially dissatisfied with who we are.

In The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private, Susan Bordo examines whatBs behind our distorted self-concepts and why men have become so susceptible to criticism. A professor of English and WomenBs Studies at the University of Kentucky, Bordo analyzes how the male ego is influenced by Hollywood, political figures, super jocks, Viagra, sexual harassment cases and much more.

You describe Bill Clinton as an undisciplined, needy, hungry little boy who suffers from a soft core. What about Al Gore and George W. Bush?

To clarify, it's the press who disparaged Clinton in this way. I personally liked the fact that Clinton's hungers and emotions transgressed masculine norms of self-control. At least he was alive! Gore, by contrast, reveals that a man, if not his member, CAN be too stiff. Bush? It's difficult to think of him as a man at all. Not that he's feminine. It's more like he doesn't have a gender. A lack of sexual charisma seems to come naturally to these guys. And, unfortunately, that natural absence is being capitalized on in the wake of Clinton. Everyone is afraid of projecting even a mini-microbe of sexual ambiance (which is, let's face it, about all they have).

But thereBs more thatBs even worse. At the same time that sexlessness reigns among the candidates, they also have engaged in much advertising of manly accomplishments (in the war and so on B another means of distinguishing themselves from Clinton). Macho posturing without the compensation of manly eros B can you think of a deadlier combination?

Why is it that to be exposed as soft at the core is one of the worst things a man can suffer in this culture?

The notion of a man being "soft" is so loaded with meaning. For one, it's a metaphor for everything feminine, yielding, vulnerable, easy- to-push-around, suggestible to influence B all those things men traditionally aren't supposed to be. But "soft" is also, of course, that shameful state a penis is not supposed to be in when sexual performance is expected. It's tremendously revealing that we call the erect penis a "hard" penis. Sure, an aroused penis is stiffer and less squishy than a non-aroused one. But even erect, the penis is still a body part, not a piece of steel machinery. We emphasize the "hardness" of the penis because our culture eroticizes the man of steel who never falters, never has doubts.

What price do we pay for the hardening of boys?

Boys today are in a terrible bind. On the one hand, they're supposed to be tough, masterful, aggressive, even a bit primitive (a valuable trait in competitive sports, for example). On the other hand, they are required to become perfect gentlemen when a girl says "no" B even able to read her mind when she's sending mixed signals. The boy who goes out on a date and behaves like a "real man" according to the rules of the playing field may find himself slapped with a harassment suit. But the boy who goes out on a date and doesn't make a move risks being thought of as a wimp. So what's a boy to do? He's in an impossible situation, one that psychologist Gregory Bateson first coined the "double-bind."

When young boys look at the media, they get images of men who DO seem to be both beast and prince at the same time. They see a movie like Braveheart, with a hero who is fierce and aggressive in all of the traditional warrior ways. But he's also educated and erudite and high- minded, and when making love with his wife, he's tender and respectful.

The reality is very different. In our culture, the boys we train to be warriors B our sports superheroes B are the ones most likely to be charged with date rape. I'm not indulging in stereotypes of athletes, but referring to statistics. And it makes sense. It's hard to be trained to be an unstoppable warrior and then simply turn it off. That's the lesson of O.J. Simpson, of Mike Tyson, of the Glenn Ridge boys.

You believe that, contrary to pop psychology, men and women arenBt from different planets. What convinced you?

At the moment, both science and popular culture are having this hot (and very lucrative) romance with the idea that men and women are hard-wired in radically different ways. I buy this to a certain extent, and it's certainly a necessary corrective to the opposite extreme position that everything is a matter of social conditioning. But when someone like John Gray (author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) describes men's sexuality as a combustible "blowtorch" and women's as a slow-cooking "oven," I have to wonder what century he's living in.

The Mars/Venus people also claim men are biologically programmed to be more visually oriented in their sexuality, while women respond to a male's power and position in the tribe B a thesis that certainly clears up the mystery of why the stunning Catherine Zeta-Jones would choose to have her babies with aging boomer Michael Douglas.

But are these patterns purely biological? If the image-obsessed B90s have shown us anything, itBs that we are all B men and women alike B tremendously vulnerable to the power of culture to make us feel shitty about ourselves, and to enlist us in tyrannizing each other in various ways. I understood this on a personal level as I watched my own father age and die B an experience I write about in the book's prologue. I saw him shed, bit by bit, the masculine armor he had used to boss others around, but that had bossed him around, too. Underneath that armor was a softness B and a shame B he hadn't permitted us to see when he was younger and more vigorous.

Up until the '90s, it was women who were chronically dissatisfied with their bodies. Now more than a quarter of cosmetic surgery patients are men. Why?

ItBs the result of a lot of cultural factors. First and foremost is the inevitable discovery, among merchandisers of clothing, cosmetics, surgery, fitness programs, diet products and so on that hey, there's an awful lot of money to be made convincing men that they need continual improvement. I mean, why stop with women?

There used to be an answer to that B namely, that the average heterosexual guy was less embarrassed by his beer gut or sagging jowls (both signs of manliness, after all) than he was about buying products and services to correct those defects. In those days (not very long ago), caring about how you looked meant you were gay. So homophobia acted as a kind of brake on the movement of industries seen as "feminine" into the heterosexual male world.

Today, designers like Calvin Klein have been very savvy in creating imagery that focuses on the male body as a highly erotic but highly masculine object of desire. Another big influence has come from African-American superstars like Michael Jordan, who come from cultural traditions that don't identify stylishness with gayness, and whose own hetero-panache has made it OK for straight guys to wear jewelry and well-cut pants without their sexuality being thrown into question.

You chastise the makers of Viagra for administering more of "the poison" Viagra was intended to counteract. Can you explain?

The makers and marketers of Viagra are constantly B and rightly B trying to take the shame out of what they used to call "impotence" (and which they now, more politically correctly, call "erectile dysfunction"). Their strategy for doing this is to convince men that it's all a matter of mechanics and poor blood flow B nothing psychological in it at all. Can't get a hard-on? It has nothing to do with possible unexpressed resentment, or balking under the pressure to perform, or even being bored. It's just hydraulics!

To my mind, this is the problem with the way we have thought about men's penises: as little machines (power tools, to be precise) that either function or fail to function. Think of the slang guys use to describe the penis: torpedo, pistol, crank, gearshift, jackhammer! And this machine imagery is also the way men talk about the effects of Viagra on their sex lives: "It kept me going all night!" (as if the ideal male sexual partner is a pumped-up Energizer bunny). Why don't these guys ever mention how they felt instead of how they performed? Because the Viagra "cure" does nothing to counteract (and indeed administers more of) the true cultural "poison," the equation of male sexuality with performance.

WhatBs next for you?

I'm beginning to feel exhaustion with cultural criticism. Frankly, I'm pretty depressed about this culture. I've said most of the things I want to say in the form of critique B for now, anyway B and I'm yearning for new forms of expression. Fiction, perhaps. I'm very drawn to the idea of learning how to transmute personal experiences into fictional form.

I'm also currently co-authoring a children's book with my sister, Binnie Klein. This project evolved out of the wondrous and challenging (to say the least) experience of adopting a two-day-old infant B my first child, no less B at the age of 52. Cassie is now 18 months old, and hands-down the most interesting part of my life right now. I have some things to say B about adoption, about raising a baby late in life, about childhood B that might have meaning to other people, too.

-- flora (***@__._), October 29, 2000.

Flora:

Didja ever think about what it would have been like to be a male? *I* did. I considered it a hard job, based on society's expectations. Back in the old days, [when *I* was a kid], it was up to the male to ask the female to the dance, etc. I remember Donnie Larsen asking me to the elementary school dance. I didn't like Donnie, and would as soon throw myself down on a sharp stick as attend the dance with him. I turned down his invite, but not before putting myself in his shoes. My mom said, "Donnie has SUCH a nice mother. He's Norwegian, too!" I said, "His MOTHER didn't ask me to the dance." I didn't go to the dance at all. I don't know if Donnie did.

*I* see the struggles with aging in my mate. I see the trips to the health club four times/week to ensure that the body stays fit. I hear the insecurities: "Are my legs getting too slim? I don't want to have chicken legs." I sometimes laugh to myself because WHO he is inside long ago overshadowed his physical appearance in my eyes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

LOL - hubby calls 'em birdlegs! Good thing they have brutes like us around to protect them from the Loowlas of the world.

-- flora (***@__._), October 29, 2000.

Interesting article. Just a comment about part of it:

"The boy who goes out on a date and behaves like a 'real man' according to the rules of the playing field may find himself slapped with a harassment suit. But the boy who goes out on a date and doesn't make a move risks being thought of as a wimp. So what's a boy to do? He's in an impossible situation, one that psychologist Gregory Bateson first coined the 'double-bind.'"

I'm really tired and not making much sense tonight, but this struck me as a rather primitive analysis. Most of the men I meet are very polite and respectful. That's the "rules of the playing field" with the men I know. Perhaps men are more aggressive today, but the idea that men and women, or even teenage boys and girls, should be having sex without even getting to know each other is purely a 20th-century phenomena, a cultural shift, and not really a biological factor. Certainly it was a biological factor in the Dark Ages, but up until the 60s, most people got to know each other slowly and refrained from sex until there was some kind of commitment. In the 19th century, women actually had a kind of advantage with men they've lost today. I know that sounds horribly old-fashioned and reactionary, but I really believe the "sexual revolution" was harmful to women and men both.

Most men I know respond to me as a friend, not some kind of primitive sex engine that can barely control himself. I do not think of the courteous men I know as "wimps." Whatever the "rules of the playing field" are now, I'm really not sure, but in my life, such situations simply don't "arise." And to think that a woman would either slap a lawsuit on a man or condemn him as a wimp does a disservice to all the considerate and sensitive women I know who love and respect men for all their complexity.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.