"The Invisible Partners"
Jeff Sargent
Sanford. (It may not be readily obtainable, having been published circa 1973
by Paulist Press.) Squarely based on the psychological work of Carl Jung and
his followers, this explored how each person has within him or her an
"invisible partner", a feminine or masculine (respectively) side of the
personality. He used the terms "anima" for the feminine side of a man, and
"animus" for the masculine side of a woman. A couple of interesting points
from the book (not quotes, just digests from memory):
Many people have difficulty integrating this opposite-gender piece of
themselves into their total person, despite the fact that (though they don't
realize it) both the person and the anima/us want to come together. What
people do instead is project their "invisible partner" out onto a MOTOS and
"fall in love" with her/him -- only to be dreadfully let down when they
discover that the MOTOS is a) a human being, neither divine nor perfect,
b) not a match to their fantasies -- because not their anima/us. In other
words, if you become terrifically infatuated with someone, it would pay to
look at yourself and/or at the image you have of the other person to see
what aspect of your "invisible partner" is actually trying to get out and
be accepted.
The book also discussed (in general) situations where the anima dominates the
man. (The author did not have sufficient experience studying women to talk
much about the animus dominating the woman, but similar principles would
apply.) The result is a sort of homogenized, feminized masculinity. Two
manifestations of this dominance by the "invisible partner" are:
1) Homosexuality. If the masculine side (which naturally desires union with
the female) has been suppressed, the feminine (which wants the male) will
come out. Many of the favorable qualities of the feminine may also come
out (e.g. I have done many theatrical productions with a man who is the
sweetest-tempered person I know, and I'm pretty sure he's gay).
2) "Dr. Zhivago": A man who is, more than most, attuned to the wants and the
thinking of women; an "initiate of the Great Goddess"; a man who seems
fated to an unusual degree of self-knowledge; the "Dr. Zhivago" type (I
must read that book now, to find out exactly what this means!). This type
of man is likely to have difficulty integrating, not the feminine, but the
masculine side of himself into his total personality, having learned early
to prefer the feminine and reject the masculine. Being myself a man of
this type, integrating the masculine side of me into my total consciousness
has been recently one of the priority items in my own growth.
A person who has succeeded in integrating the masculine and feminine sides
(perhaps without even being very aware of the issue) can be quite a beautiful
person, e.g. a man who is definitely masculine, yet has the gentleness and
considerateness which are archetypally feminine: a man like Dave Seifert.
Snoopy, take a bow....
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
If you don't bet your life on at least one wild-looking chance before you die,
then you won't have really lived....
Hoff
a point from a Carl Jung book:
>
> Many people have difficulty integrating this opposite-gender piece of
> themselves into their total person, despite the fact that (though they don't
> realize it) both the person and the anima/us want to come together.
>
> -- Jeff Sargent
A book that will help females integrate their masculine side is:
The Wounded Women
Healing the Father-Daughter Relationship
Sorry, I don't have the author... the book is at home. It's short, easy
reading, and VERY enlightening. No, this isn't just for those who have
had a hard time in the Father-Daughter relationship.
Gypsy (Julie Hoff) ...!ihnp4!ihuxa!hoff
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
Rich Rosen
While a lot of what you extracted from "The Invisible Partner" was
quite interesting, one thing worth watching out for when making statements
like that is the erroneous stereotyping that such thinking promulgates.
Who is to say what behaviors are "unmasculine" (not "right" for a male),
"unfeminine" (not "right" for a female), or for that matter, feminine
and masculine? I think a lot of people reject certain elements of
their personalities (like sensitivity in men, or assertiveness in women)
because they subscribe to the notions that these behaviors are inappropriate
for their sex, and that's a great big pompous load of selfdamaging bullshit!
Some people even go so far as to say "I have behaviors or feelings that are
'against' the nature of my sex [whatever that is!], therefore I *must* be
a homosexual, or a transsexual, or who knows what". You are what you are,
and anyone who tells you that certain parts of you exclude you from (or
automatically include you in) some particular group can go fuck themselves!
And that goes for any part of YOU that says the same sort of thing to the
rest of you.
End of speech.
--
"Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me."
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Steve Dyer
> man. (The author did not have sufficient experience studying women to talk
> much about the animus dominating the woman, but similar principles would
> apply.) The result is a sort of homogenized, feminized masculinity. Two
> manifestations of this dominance by the "invisible partner" are:
>
> 1) Homosexuality. If the masculine side (which naturally desires union with
> the female) has been suppressed, the feminine (which wants the male) will
> come out. Many of the favorable qualities of the feminine may also come
> out (e.g. I have done many theatrical productions with a man who is the
> sweetest-tempered person I know, and I'm pretty sure he's gay).
Jeff, welcome back. Too bad you haven't changed a bit in your capacity
to infuriate me and spread misinformation about gay people. The idea that
being gay is somehow isomorphic with the manifestation of the feminine
is an old old canard, and totally discredited. What's more your phrasing
is downright insulting: "...the feminine (which wants the male) will
come out ... Many of the FAVORABLE qualities of the feminine may ALSO come
out." Gaaaakkk, spare us. Wonderful, too, that you have discovered
a second classification for the "problem" of the "anima" so you needn't
be stigmatized with the "problem" of "homosexuality."
Note that I'm not arguing with the issue that some men may display
qualities which are traditionally considered "feminine", but rather that
1.) this reflects more on the classification system than on the person.
2.) this issue is entirely orthogonal to the person's sexual preference.
Why do I bother here? Frankly, I don't know, for I'm losing patience.
Still, this kind of misinformation, whether malicious or not, needs to be
addressed and corrected whenever it is presented in a public forum.
Jeff Sargent, more than anyone else, has been responsible for foolish
statements about gay people in the midst of his public self-analysis.
Too bad Jeff seems incapable of showing sensitivity in this issue,
for he does it again and again and again and again...
Flame, you bet this is a flame. Jeff just can't seem to get away
from the "gay" thing, generally posed in the form of a statement about
gay people (invariably perjorative) loosely tied to an issue he is
currently struggling with. We had to put up with this for MONTHS
last year, and I'm frankly sick of it.
Hey, I must have left my "sweet-temper" at home.
[Sneak preview: I invite those of you interested in seeing stereotypical
Western conceptions of gay roles demolished to keep your eyes open for a
review I'm writing for net.motss of a scholarly anthropological collection
called "Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia."]
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sd...@bbnccv.ARPA
William Ingogly
> ... Squarely based on the psychological work of Carl Jung and
>his followers, this explored how each person has within him or her an
>"invisible partner", a feminine or masculine (respectively) side of the
>personality. He used the terms "anima" for the feminine side of a man, and
>"animus" for the masculine side of a woman. ...
How is this any different than explaining appropriate/inappropriate
behavior by claiming that we each have invisible Good Angels and Bad
Angels sitting on our shoulders whispering advice into our ears? (Oh,
you don't see the Angels? That's because they're INVISIBLE, dummy. And
you don't ordinarily hear them whispering because their voices are
really high pitched but you pick up the meaning subliminally...)
This kind of model assumes there's a thing called masculine behavior
and a thing called feminine behavior. Seems to me that one person's
masculine behavior might be the next one's feminine behavior. Certain
male members of our society, for example, might view flower arranging
as rather dubious behavior for a 'real man,' but most Japanese might
view it as perfectly acceptable behavior. A friend of a friend was
attacked by a mob in Brazil because he was flying a kite (apparently
considered swishy behavior by your basic macho Brazilian). Where's
your dividing line?
And what's the justification for compartmentalizing the personality in
this artificial way? What exactly does it buy you analytically?
I kind of prefer the Good Angel/Bad Angel theory, myself.
-- Very Masculinely, Bill Ingogly
Isaac Dimitrovsky
Oh, to be Jung again!
Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012
Just because it's a preconceived notion doesn't mean it's wrong!
Walt Haas
> "invisible partner", a feminine or masculine (respectively) side of the
> personality. He used the terms "anima" for the feminine side of a man, and
I ran into an interesting variation of this several years ago. My wife
(now ex-) and I were in marriage counseling. At the start of counseling,
we took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which
is a widely-used personality measure. One of the measurements which comes
out of the MMPI is called the "masculine/feminine" score. To my surprise,
I came out extremely feminine (more that two standard deviations from the
mean)! Now, I am a heterosexual male with a strong interest in outdoor
sports, and no inclination at all to act effeminate. Why did the MMPI
label me "strongly feminine"? The counselor explained that, when the test
was invented shortly after World War II, "masculine" meant "interested
in hunting and fishing and not interested in the fine arts", whereas
"feminine" meant the reverse. Since my time in the mountains is spent in
technical rock climbing or wilderness skiing, not in hunting or fishing,
and since I like the fine arts, I'm feminine (according to the MMPI).
Maybe I should go out and buy a skirt....
Cheers -- Walt Haas ...{decvax | ihnp4 | seismo}!utah-cs!haas
Rich Rosen
>>"unfeminine" (not "right" for a female), or for that matter, feminine
> Community standards determine which behaviors are masculine vs. feminine
> (Sort of like the question, "What is pornography?").
> Frank Silbermann
Do community standards determine which behaviors are Jewish? Gay? Black?
Hispanic? I'm not sure I understand how a mob can determine what proper
behavior is for particular people.
--
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Jeff Sargent
> This kind of model [Jung's, as written about by Sanford in "The Invisible
> Partners"] assumes there's a thing called masculine behavior
> and a thing called feminine behavior.... Where's your dividing line?
Actually the book also used other labels for the contrast between behavior
types, e.g. yin and yang. The book was dealing with archetypes.
> And what's the justification for compartmentalizing the personality in
> this artificial way? What exactly does it buy you analytically?
It helped me a lot by helping me start accepting the parts of me that are
traditionally "masculine", my built-in rejection of which (presumably
caused by being raised by a mother who divorced my father when I was 8
and never found another man she was willing to marry) has caused some
people to think I was gay.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)
The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
Jeff Sargent
I have a new degree of understanding of possible causes for people to be
gay -- when I try to show that, though I still consider homosexuality
suboptimal, I am making an effort to understand those who are in that
lifestyle -- and I am met with a flame. It seems that no one wants to
believe that a person can change (or be changed) considerably for the
better in a period of only a few months. As other articles in this forum
have pointed out, we can choose our reactions: Steve Dyer, it is your
choice to be infuriated rather than to calmly correct any inaccurate
statements that I may have made...or are they really not inaccurate at
all, and hitting too close to home?
> Wonderful, too, that you have discovered a second classification [the
> "Dr. Zhivago"] for the "problem" of the "anima" so you needn't
> be stigmatized with the "problem" of "homosexuality."
> Note that I'm not arguing with the issue that some men may display
> qualities which are traditionally considered "feminine", but rather that
> 1.) this reflects more on the classification system than on the person.
> 2.) this issue is entirely orthogonal to the person's sexual preference.
So, if #2 is true, why was the paragraph preceding that so flaming (by
virtue [or vice] of its implying a calumnious accusation)? If, as you
yourself state, a heterosexual man can display archetypally feminine
qualities, why take issue with the fact that someone else has stated the
same thing?
> Jeff Sargent, more than anyone else, has been responsible for foolish
> statements about gay people in the midst of his public self-analysis.
> Too bad Jeff seems incapable of showing sensitivity in this issue,
> for he does it again and again and again and again...
You will note that my self-analysis has been public only minimally in
recent months, partly because I have a group of actual people that I meet
with once a week for mutual support, and partly because net.singles did
not meet my needs (quite the opposite; there seemed to be a flame-throwing
contest going on for a while). As I wrote above, I was trying to show
sensitivity; if you didn't take it that way, that's YOUR problem.
> Jeff just can't seem to get away from the "gay" thing, generally posed in the
> form of a statement about gay people (invariably perjorative) loosely tied to
> an issue he is currently struggling with.
Pejorativeness is in the eye of the beholder. This concept certainly helped
me to start integrating the archetypally masculine side of me into my life;
and I figured that a concept which was directly on target and helpful for me
stood a good chance of being generally true. After all, I *am* a human being.
Basically I'm saying this: As I reach a state of greater personal wholeness
and integration, the homosexual desires I have felt in the past recede more
and more, and the heterosexual desires get (sometimes inconveniently) stronger.
I would invite you to examine yourself honestly and see how well-integrated
you really are. Start with these data: You put me in a stereotype of myself
which is months out of date, and you reacted angrily to a statement intended
to show understanding and sensitivity.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
Rich Rosen
> I have a new degree of understanding of possible causes for people to be
> gay -- when I try to show that, though I still consider homosexuality
> suboptimal, I am making an effort to understand those who are in that
And, I think, rightfully so. You are not "making an effort" to understand,
you seem to be making an effort to fit other people into your worldview AGAIN.
(i.e., "I had this problem, therefore these new classifications that I've read
about that I like for describing my own life, MUST apply to everyone else!")
> It seems that no one wants to believe that a person can change (or be
> changed) considerably for the better in a period of only a few months.
We might want to believe, but just asserting "I've changed" and showing real
evidence of it are two different things (though I've come to realize your
ability to equivalence YOUR viewpoint, no matter how tainted, to "WHAT IS!").
> Steve Dyer, it is your
> choice to be infuriated rather than to calmly correct any inaccurate
> statements that I may have made...or are they really not inaccurate at
> all, and hitting too close to home?
I guess this can be taking as proof of how little Jeff really has changed.
"Nyah, you don't like what I have to say, it must be because it's true, nyah!"
Remember the last time you offered this wisdom? About how whenever someone
offers "heated denials" about something, it MUST be the truth? Remember what
your response was when I pointed out how quickly you yelled "LIAR!" when I
mentioned how your beliefs were rooted in wishful thinking? Your response was
"......." Come on, Jeff. Your tendency toward psychological projection of
your own faults and feelings automatically onto others has become as well-
known as the line-eater bug.
>> Note that I'm not arguing with the issue that some men may display
>> qualities which are traditionally considered "feminine", but rather that
>> 1.) this reflects more on the classification system than on the person.
>> 2.) this issue is entirely orthogonal to the person's sexual preference.
> So, if #2 is true, why was the paragraph preceding that so flaming (by
> virtue [or vice] of its implying a calumnious accusation)? If, as you
> yourself state, a heterosexual man can display archetypally feminine
> qualities, why take issue with the fact that someone else has stated the
> same thing?
Because of YOUR implication that homosexuality IS ipso facto an outgrowth of
this same thing. Fact is, I have my doubts as to why some people choose
homosexuality; I personally think a lot of gays DO feel stigmatized about being
labelled contrary to their sex (men labelled "feminine", women labelled
"masculine") and choose a gay lifestyle because of that. (Of course not all
people so labelled do this.) But that doesn't speak for those homosexuals who
simply choose to be gay because it is what they want. And in either case, it
is nothing to look down on as "suboptimal" just because you don't like it.
>> Jeff Sargent, more than anyone else, has been responsible for foolish
>> statements about gay people in the midst of his public self-analysis.
>> Too bad Jeff seems incapable of showing sensitivity in this issue,
>> for he does it again and again and again and again...
> You will note that my self-analysis has been public only minimally in
> recent months, partly because I have a group of actual people that I meet
> with once a week for mutual support, and partly because net.singles did
> not meet my needs (quite the opposite; there seemed to be a flame-throwing
> contest going on for a while). As I wrote above, I was trying to show
> sensitivity; if you didn't take it that way, that's YOUR problem.
"I'm trying to show sensitivity! Can't you fuckin' understand that?" said
one man to another man whose throat he had his hands wrapped around. Talking
about being sensitive is one thing. Being sensitive is another.
>>Jeff just can't seem to get away from the "gay" thing, generally posed in the
>>form of a statement about gay people (invariably perjorative) loosely tied to
>>an issue he is currently struggling with.
> Pejorativeness is in the eye of the beholder. This concept certainly helped
> me to start integrating the archetypally masculine side of me into my life;
> and I figured that a concept which was directly on target and helpful for me
> stood a good chance of being generally true. After all, I *am* a human being.
Well... :-? Since gays are the group your statements are "pejorative" about,
I'd say they have a right to be upset. Of course pejorativeness is in the eye
of the beholder! In your eyes (i.e., what for you is apparently the only
"correct" view of the world), for sure it's not upsetting. To not recognize
how obnoxious it is to those you are referring to is the height of
insensitivity!
> Basically I'm saying this: As I reach a state of greater personal wholeness
> and integration, the homosexual desires I have felt in the past recede more
> and more, and the heterosexual desires get (sometimes inconveniently)
> stronger.
Translation: As you are more pleased with your own self-image as analyzed,
your homosexual desires recede (of course they do, you hate and despise them,
what else could be expected from a positive self-image for you: to have
such desires would invariably CAUSE a negative self-image!). Your cart is in
front of your horse.
> I would invite you to examine yourself honestly and see how well-integrated
> you really are. Start with these data: You put me in a stereotype of myself
> which is months out of date, and you reacted angrily to a statement intended
> to show understanding and sensitivity.
Intended, indeed. But lacking in any real sensitivity. I'm with Dyer: you
really haven't changed. I was just about to mail a note of congratulations for
the "suggestion" note you had posted, thinking you might be seeing things a
bit more clearly than the old days with the rosary-colored glasses (oh god
that was a bad one!), but no. It was not to be. Not stereotyping at all.
Actually witnessing little or no real change despite the changes that YOU
may subjectively perceive.
--
"Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
> You will note that my self-analysis has been public only minimally in
> recent months, partly because I have a group of actual people that I meet
> with once a week for mutual support, and partly because net.singles did
> not meet my needs (quite the opposite; there seemed to be a flame-throwing
> contest going on for a while).
>
And partly because the newsfeed out of Purdue was broken for
several months, but that is a different story, eh, Jeff?
> I would invite you to examine yourself honestly and see how well-integrated
> you really are. Start with these data: You put me in a stereotype of myself
> which is months out of date, and you reacted angrily to a statement intended
> to show understanding and sensitivity.
> -- Jeff Sargent
What Steve was reacting to was the fact that to him your
statements indicated that you *still* do not understand,
and that you are still putting gay people in a mistaken
stereotype. It's like saying to a black person,
"Hey, I really do understand and sympathize that you
adore watermelon. . ."
Pooh
po...@purdue-ecn-cb.ARPA pur-ee!pooh
You didn't have to love me,
But you did--
and I thank you. . .
Steve Dyer
quoted the most interesting parts, and in his own inimitable way
replied to J.S., addressing many of the same issues I would.
What is most amusing, or distressing, depending on your state of mind
at the time, is the following canonical interchange between J.S. and
AnyOneElse:
J.S.: (Innocently insulting) X is suboptimal (or choose any other adjective.)
A.O.E.: Hey, where do you get off saying that? etc.
J.S.: Why are you getting upset? I was finally trying to show how much
progress I have made in the last {timeframe}. Perhaps it is
really because I hit a little close to home. Maybe you'd better
examine your own motivations now that I've hit on the truth.
Of course, it's pretty easy to get impatient with this. Like Eliza, there
is no variation, and after you've seen it once, it quickly loses its charm.
I don't wish to continue with another long J.S. harangue; perhaps it was
the novelty of seeing J.S. post after a long absence that got me fired up.
I wish he would show some sensitivity that what he posts can often be
offensive, but his self-absorption prevents that.
Now, back to discussing issues and not people...
Richard Brower
>It is a bit saddening when I post an article which is intended to show that
>I have a new degree of understanding of possible causes for people to be
>gay -- when I try to show that, though I still consider homosexuality
>suboptimal, I am making an effort to understand those who are in that
>lifestyle -- and I am met with a flame.
>all, and hitting too close to home?
Quit looking for reasons that people are gay, quit trying to find differences
between gay people and 'good Christians', and quit referring to gay people
as suboptimal... and you won't get flammed by gay people when you make an
ass out of yourself by your stupid statements.
>As I wrote above, I was trying to show
>sensitivity; if you didn't take it that way, that's YOUR problem.
Let's show some sensitivity, who has got the jackhammers? Oh, you don't
think my jackhammer on your skull is sensitive... well, that *is* your
problem.
>Pejorativeness is in the eye of the beholder.
It sure is, but if many gay people find your statements about gay people
to be offensive, perhaps it is because there is something to see.
>This concept certainly helped
>me to start integrating the archetypally masculine side of me into my life;
>and I figured that a concept which was directly on target and helpful for me
>stood a good chance of being generally true. After all, I *am* a human being.
Good for the concept, and I'm glad that you feel that you are getting
integrated. Many gays have no problem integrating their masculine sides
into their lives... or allowing their feminine sides to be a major portion
of their lives. Oh, some gays have problems (like, "I'm gay, I guess I have
to be a hairdresser"), but more schools like the Harvey Milk school in New
York should help. What would be better is if people would quit trying to
make gays out as being either intrisically different from other people
or supersinners. You seem to have given up on the latter.
>Basically I'm saying this: As I reach a state of greater personal wholeness
>and integration, the homosexual desires I have felt in the past recede more
>and more, and the heterosexual desires get (sometimes inconveniently) stronger.
Sounds like you are doing a good job of brainwashing yourself into traditional
Christian values (but better watch that lust stuff).
Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
The Polymath
> My wife
>(now ex-) and I were in marriage counseling. At the start of counseling,
>we took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which
>is a widely-used personality measure. One of the measurements which comes
>out of the MMPI is called the "masculine/feminine" score. To my surprise,
>I came out extremely feminine (more that two standard deviations from the
>mean)! Now, I am a heterosexual male with a strong interest in outdoor
>sports, and no inclination at all to act effeminate. Why did the MMPI
>label me "strongly feminine"? The counselor explained that, when the test
>was invented shortly after World War II, "masculine" meant "interested
>in hunting and fishing and not interested in the fine arts", whereas
>"feminine" meant the reverse. Since my time in the mountains is spent in
>technical rock climbing or wilderness skiing, not in hunting or fishing,
>and since I like the fine arts, I'm feminine (according to the MMPI).
(Grumble ... mutter ... damn marriage counselors ... grrr)
The MMPI is probably one of the most commonly misunderstood and misused
psychological instruments in existence. This is unfortunate as, in the
hands of an expert, it can be an invaluable tool in psychological
evaluation and therapy (I've seen an MMPI expert perform feats that would
put any fortune teller to shame just by looking at a client's profile). It
must be remembered, however, that it's only a tool and only one of many
tools that should be used in a thorough evaluation protocol. The results
must be placed in the much greater context of the person as a whole.
Becoming an MMPI expert is non-trivial. The one I referred to above was a
licensed Ph.D. psychologist with literally thousands of MMPI's worth of
past experience to draw on. Unfortunately, obtaining a copy of the MMPI
and it's scoring sheets and instructions _is_ relatively trivial. It is
frequently used and abused by people who, in my opinion, have no business
messing with it at all. This includes most marriage counselors who,
despite what _they_ think, generally lack the training to make proper use
of it.
Part of the problem is that the scoring procedure for the MMPI is straight
forward. So much so, in fact, that there are computer programs that will
do it and even produce tentative analyses from the scores. These analyses
frequently contain blatant contradictions laid side by side and are
considered worthless by most experts. Untrained users of the test seldom
do much better than the computers.
Anyway, without going into further detail, the masculine/feminine scale is
only one of a number of dimensions measured by the MMPI. Any one of them
is virtually meaningless in isolation, regardless of score. They must be
evaluated in the total context of the other scores and of the client as a
whole person.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a
Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
Rich Rosen
> into their lives... or allowing their feminine sides to be a major portion
> of their lives. Oh, some gays have problems (like, "I'm gay, I guess I have
Question: what about the reverse? ("I fit the gay stereotype, I guess I
have to be gay.")
Rich Rosen
> (now ex-) and I were in marriage counseling. At the start of counseling,
> we took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which
> is a widely-used personality measure. One of the measurements which comes
> out of the MMPI is called the "masculine/feminine" score. To my surprise,
> I came out extremely feminine (more that two standard deviations from the
> mean)! Now, I am a heterosexual male with a strong interest in outdoor
> sports, and no inclination at all to act effeminate. Why did the MMPI
> label me "strongly feminine"? The counselor explained that, when the test
> was invented shortly after World War II, "masculine" meant "interested
> in hunting and fishing and not interested in the fine arts", whereas
> "feminine" meant the reverse. Since my time in the mountains is spent in
> technical rock climbing or wilderness skiing, not in hunting or fishing,
> and since I like the fine arts, I'm feminine (according to the MMPI).
Just goes to show how stupid and arbitrary such classifications of people's
characteristics (AND of people themselves!) really are. (Is this a feminine
or a maculine response? :-)
--
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Steve Dyer
wholly to net.motss]
> > Many gays have no problem integrating their masculine sides
> > into their lives... or allowing their feminine sides to be a major portion
> > of their lives. Oh, some gays have problems (like, "I'm gay, I guess I have
> > to be a hairdresser"), ... [BROWER]
>
> Question: what about the reverse? ("I fit the gay stereotype, I guess I
> have to be gay.")
Rich, this is a pet notion of yours which I've heard you express to me
before in private mail, and at least three individual times during this
last discussion. I have to admit that while I wouldn't dismiss this out of
hand, it simply doesn't jibe with the experience of the gay people I know,
including myself: that is, discovering one's affectional preference is very
much an internal process which is ultimately expressed in external behavior,
and not so much an example of being "convinced" or misled based on one's
perception of the common stereotypes.
Sophie Quigley
Steve's side. Feels just like the old times!!!!
> (The author did not have sufficient experience studying women to talk
> much about the animus dominating the woman, but similar principles would
> apply.)
Figures. They never do, those wonderful theoreticians. That's why we get
stuff like "penis envy" and all that crap.
> 2) "Dr. Zhivago": A man who is, more than most, attuned to the wants and the
> thinking of women; an "initiate of the Great Goddess"; a man who seems
Ha ha ha! Dr Zhivago!!!!!?
> fated to an unusual degree of self-knowledge; the "Dr. Zhivago" type (I
> must read that book now, to find out exactly what this means!). This type
> of man is likely to have difficulty integrating, not the feminine, but the
> masculine side of himself into his total personality, having learned early
> to prefer the feminine and reject the masculine. Being myself a man of
> this type, integrating the masculine side of me into my total consciousness
> has been recently one of the priority items in my own growth.
Why bother? the feminine side is much nicer anyway... <-:
> A person who has succeeded in integrating the masculine and feminine sides
> (perhaps without even being very aware of the issue) can be quite a beautiful
> person, e.g. a man who is definitely masculine, yet has the gentleness and
> considerateness which are archetypally feminine: a man like Dave Seifert.
> Snoopy, take a bow....
What about us women, eh? can't we integrate too? I'm jealous of you, Dave.
but, but, Jeff, just think what a beautiful person you could get if you
started with a woman....
> -- Jeff Sargent
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
Sophie Quigley
> choice to be infuriated rather than to calmly correct any inaccurate
> statements that I may have made...or are they really not inaccurate at
> all, and hitting too close to home?
"The human mind unconsciously resists the truth", ah yes, what a genial
mathematician that old Freud was. And what a wonderful weapon he provided
to the keepers of the status quo. "you are upset because I said women should
go back home where they belong? well, it is because your subconscious is
reacting to the truth I just stated", "you are upset because I stated that
homosexuals are badly integrated individuals? gosh, that subconscious of
yours must be having a hard time with the truth today".
Freud said so many unproven, outrageous libellous things in his lifetime that
he HAD to cover himself with such a weapon. You see, anybody who would get
offended by his theories, did not because they were offensive, but because
their subconscious had a hard time with the truth. Yep, a real genius!
> .....
> As I wrote above, I was trying to show
> sensitivity; if you didn't take it that way, that's YOUR problem.
Spoken like a true sensitive man!
> I would invite you to examine yourself honestly and see how well-integrated
> you really are. Start with these data: You put me in a stereotype of myself
> which is months out of date, and you reacted angrily to a statement intended
> to show understanding and sensitivity.
Ladies, and Gentlemen, the fastest evolving person in the world, Jeff
Sargent!!! Jeff, Jeff, do you really believe in those "new and
improved" commercials? Most people don't change that fast. You feel
you've changed and you probably have, but it is certainly not apparent
in your postings so far. Of course, it is hard to judge from a few
scribblings, but that's all we have, so we only have a charicature of
you. Your idea of us is also charicatured. That's the nature of the
medium. If you don't want people to misinterpret you, be careful of
what you post (actually, the only way is not to post at all).
> -- Jeff Sargent
Frank Silbermann
>
>Just goes to show how stupid and arbitrary such classifications
>of people's characteristics (AND of people themselves!) really are.
>(Is this a feminine or a maculine response? :-)
Because your response was so direct and assertive, I would say it was
masculine. Of course, your response would have been even more masculine,
had you threatened to beat up any dissenters. :-)
Frank Silbermann
Jeff Sargent
> Jeff, Jeff, do you really believe in those "new and
> improved" commercials? Most people don't change that fast.
I think part of the problem here is that I, and probably most people, grow
on sort of a sawtooth graph, or (to steal the title of one of Chuck Swindoll's
books) "Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Back". In other words, I will reach a
new high point, then slip back from it, then move up again, often to a higher
point. Thus any judgment that I haven't changed at all is inaccurate; the
truth is that the changes have gone in both directions, and some of my articles
appear at the lower points of the sawtooth curve. Surely I'm not unique in
this? I would be inclined to suspect that most people's growth and development
show a similar pattern.
Cloyd Goodrum
>> (now ex-) and I were in marriage counseling. At the start of counseling,
>> we took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which
>> is a widely-used personality measure. One of the measurements which comes
>> out of the MMPI is called the "masculine/feminine" score. To my surprise,
>> I came out extremely feminine (more that two standard deviations from the
>> mean)! Now, I am a heterosexual male with a strong interest in outdoor
>> sports, and no inclination at all to act effeminate. Why did the MMPI
>> label me "strongly feminine"? The counselor explained that, when the test
>> was invented shortly after World War II, "masculine" meant "interested
>> in hunting and fishing and not interested in the fine arts", whereas
>> "feminine" meant the reverse. Since my time in the mountains is spent in
>> technical rock climbing or wilderness skiing, not in hunting or fishing,
>> and since I like the fine arts, I'm feminine (according to the MMPI).
>> Maybe I should go out and buy a skirt.... [WALT HAAS]
was taking one of those dumb "how to be a person"-type classes, and we were
given a MMPI. It turned out that I was highly feminine. I sort of expected
this, because I was one of those kids that would rather read a book than
be out playing ball. I still felt a little bad, until I found out that
EVERY OTHER GUY IN THE CLASS was classified as "highly feminine".
Cloyd Goodrum III
Univerisity Of North Carolina
Rich Rosen
>>of people's characteristics (AND of people themselves!) really are.
> Because your response was so direct and assertive, I would say it was
> masculine. Of course, your response would have been even more masculine,
> had you threatened to beat up any dissenters. :-) [SILBERMANN]
But the reason for my saying it at all was based on a sensitivity towards
those who are hurt by such bogus misclassifications. Does that make it
"feminine"? Oh dear, maybe I should put on women's clothing and hang
around in bars... :-)
[BUT FIRST YOU SHOULD CUT DOWN TREES, THEN YOU SHOULD EAT YOUR LUNCH,
AND THEN GO TO THE LAVAT'RY]
{yes, that would be the manly, manful thing to do...}
--
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
J. Eric Roskos
I think this is one of the fundamental truths about the human learning
process. However, I would say it differently; I think that people learn
by successive approximations.
You see this in many things: people adopt some new, fairly extreme
personal philosophy; they find it has some shortcomings, so they go to
the other extreme and try that; eventually they more and more tend to balance
out. You can see this in politics, also: thus, a few years ago, America
was all in support of a kind, "down-home" farmer for President; but they
decided that didn't work, so they decided to support a firm, no-nonsense
figure from the other political party... I am not sure politics necessarily
refines itself in the long run, though. I tend to suspect that people do,
although new generations, who do not have the benefit of seeing the opposite
side of these back-and-forth swings, tend to perpetuate the cyclic changes
by their enthusiasm for the currently popular view of things. I suspect
the individuals in a society tend, over time, to achieve a general sort
of moderation, though, if they continue to grow and evolve (rather than
stopping at some point -- though I think that tends to be common, too).
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
Frank Silbermann
>>>Just goes to show how stupid and arbitrary such classifications
>>>of people's characteristics (AND of people themselves!) really are.
>>>(Is this a feminine or a maculine response? :-) [ROSEN]
>> Because your response was so direct and assertive, I would say it was
>> masculine. Of course, your response would have been even more masculine,
>> had you threatened to beat up any dissenters. :-) [SILBERMANN]
>But the reason for my saying it at all was based on a sensitivity towards
>those who are hurt by such bogus misclassifications. Does that make it
>"feminine"? Oh dear, maybe I should put on women's clothing and hang
>around in bars... :-) [ROSEN]
Not at all. Part of the male role IS protector of the weak.
Provided, of course, that the weak recognize your dominance.
Otherwise, you've got to teach them a lesson in manners, first. :-)
Frank Silbermann
Ms. Sunny Kirsten
>
> > Because your response was so direct and assertive, I would say it was
>
> Does that make it "feminine"? Oh dear, maybe I should
> put on women's clothing and hang around in bars... :-)
>
The feminine and masculine gender roles *are* entirely relative to the culture
in which they are defined. In some cultures a given behavior is classified as
feminine, in another culture it is classified as masculine, and in yet another
culture, it is not classified as either.
Will you let yourself be defined by your culture? or will you be a self-
defined, self motivated, self actualized individual, and enact the behavior
which you feel is appropriate for you as an individual, and then accept the
same from those around you, and together constitute a culture?
Are we huwomyn or are we Devo?
Sunny
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
Frank Silbermann
>
>Will you let yourself be defined by your culture? or will you be a self-
>defined, self motivated, self actualized individual, and enact the behavior
>which you feel is appropriate for you as an individual, and then accept the
>same from those around you, and together constitute a culture?
The self-defined, self-motivated, self-actualized self-image is an illusion.
Even non-conformists fulfil culturally defined roles. The question to ask
yourself is which of society's roles is best for you, taking into consideration
your ability to play the role, and whether you get from it what you want.
>The feminine and masculine gender roles *are* entirely relative to the culture
>in which they are defined. In some cultures a given behavior is classified as
>feminine, in another culture it is classified as masculine, and in yet another
>culture, it is not classified as either.
So when you leave one culture and join another, it may be advantageous
to change your behavior.
Frank Silbermann
Snoopy
>What about us women, eh? can't we integrate too? I'm jealous of you, Dave.
>but, but, Jeff, just think what a beautiful person you could get if you
>started with a woman....
What do you mean *if*? Just how do you think we perfectly integrated
types got that way? "Hormone tablets?" NO! "Seminars?" NO! "Judicial
order?" NO! How then?
<pause while Jeff and Sophie beg for enlightenment>
"Oh please Master Snoopy! Please tell us the secret to perfect
integration!"
It's quite simple really.
"How? How?"
Perhaps you've heard the phrase "the two shall become one flesh"?
Well, during the *perfect* session of lovemaking, it is possible
for this to become literally true. The two become one.
"Wow!", says Sophie. Jeff's eyes are beginning to glaze over.
"Master Snoopy?", continues Sophie.
Yes?
"You are... physically...a...male."
Yes. The male precurser was facing Mecca at the instant of integration.
Do not worry about such things. They are unimportant to the perfectly
integrated individual.
"Is this *perfect* session of lovemaking difficult to attain?"
The critical factor is finding the perfect partner. You have to
find someone who balances your strengths and weaknesses absolutely
perfectly. This perfect match is quite rare. Once you have found
your partner, you must build a suitable place for the integration
to occur. We carved a spa into the top of Mount Hood, and ran
super-insulated pipes from a natural hot springs. Our spa was
four cubits by six cubits.
"That sounds nice. Would it be alright if I took a look at your spa
to get ideas?"
I'm sorry Sophie, the spa was vaporized by the intense energy
given off during the integration process. Also, please note
that the place of integration must be right for you and your
partner. It will be right for noone else. The place of
integration must be built with your own four hands. No power
tools, no contractors.
"Does this mean I have to get... ma-ma-married?"
Yes Jeff, for you the perfect session of lovemaking could
only occur in marriage.
"May I use your phone?"
Of course, Sophie.
<bee> <bap><beep><bur> <bur><bur><bap> <bap><bee><beep><bur>
"Hi Sweety! I'll be coming back on the next flight,
could you do be a favor and cancel my CS925 course, and
sign me up for intro basketweaving? Yes, that's right,
I'll explain later, Honey. Bye" <click>
--------------------------------------------------------
Snoopy
tektronix!hammer!seifert
Rich Rosen
>>> masculine. Of course, your response would have been even more masculine,
>>> had you threatened to beat up any dissenters. :-) [SILBERMANN]
>>But the reason for my saying it at all was based on a sensitivity towards
>>those who are hurt by such bogus misclassifications. Does that make it
>>"feminine"? Oh dear, maybe I should put on women's clothing and hang
>>around in bars... :-) [ROSEN]
> Not at all. Part of the male role IS protector of the weak.
> Provided, of course, that the weak recognize your dominance. Otherwise,
> you've got to teach them a lesson in manners, first. :-) [SILBERMANN]
I guess mothers must be masculine then, filling a "male role" when they
watch over their little kids. Do you really believe this nonsense, Frank,
or are you playing devil's advocate?
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Ms. Sunny Kirsten
> In article <26...@sun.uucp> su...@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes:
> >
> >Will you let yourself be defined by your culture? or will you be a self-
> >defined, self motivated, self actualized individual, and enact the behavior
> >which you feel is appropriate for you as an individual, and then accept the
> >same from those around you, and together constitute a culture?
>
> The self-defined, self-motivated, self-actualized self-image is an illusion.
> Even non-conformists fulfil culturally defined roles. The question to ask
> yourself is which of society's roles is best for you, taking into consideration
> your ability to play the role, and whether you get from it what you want.
>
It is not an illusion. Few achieve it, for it takes much effort and a
great deal of willingness to rethink your life.. a scary and
threatening proposition. Further, few have the intestinal fortitude to
stand up against possible or actual rejection from the majority of
society in order to live the way they *really* want to, rather than the
way which is easiest and which causes the least rejection from the
surrounding culture.
None of society's roles is best for me. I cannot get from life what I
want nor what I need by playing only one of the roles offered to me
(with approval) by society. This is why I am a non-conformist. This
is why I am self defined. This is why I try NOT to have ANY self
image. This is the Zen suppression of ego. By rejecting all the
roles, I suffer rejection of my chosen path, and that means that I do
not get the approval which I would like. On the other hand, there are
times when I pretend to be in a specific role which minimizes the
rejection.
> >The feminine and masculine gender roles *are* entirely relative to the culture
> >in which they are defined. In some cultures a given behavior is classified as
> >feminine, in another culture it is classified as masculine, and in yet another
> >culture, it is not classified as either.
>
> So when you leave one culture and join another, it may be advantageous
> to change your behavior.
>
No, it is advantageous to choose which culture you live in to fit the
behavior which is natural for you.
Rich Rosen
> Even non-conformists fulfil culturally defined roles. The question to ask
> yourself is which of society's roles is best for you, taking into
> consideration your ability to play the role, and whether you get from it what
I have only one thing to say in response to this:
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
--
"There! I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann:
>> EVEN NON-CONFORMISTS FULFIL CULTURALLY DEFINED ROLES.
>> The question to ask yourself is which of society's roles is best for you,
>> taking into consideration your ability to play the role, and whether
>> you get from it what you want.
Ms. Sunny Kirsten:
> None of society's roles is best for me. I cannot get from life
> what I want nor what I need by playing only one of the roles
> offered to me (with approval) by society.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is why I am a non-conformist. This is why I am self-defined.
Not necessarily. Most likely, you are merely choosing one of the roles
that society offers you with DISapproval. This role may be best for you
despite the disapproval, because of other factors. You are not self-defined.
You are merely a dissenter.
Ms. Sunny Kirsten:
> This is why I try NOT to have ANY self image.
> This is the Zen suppression of ego.
And if you succeed in this, then you are the first since the Bhuddah,
himself (and I have doubts about him). I repeat:
The self-defined, self-motivated, self-actualized self-image is an illusion.
Ms. Sunny Kirsten:
> It is not an illusion. _Few_ achieve it, for it takes much effort
> and a great deal of willingness to rethink your life.. a scary and
> threatening proposition.
I think "few" is too weak. Try "Probably nobody achieves it."
Ms. Sunny Kirsten:
> Further, few have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against
> possible or actual rejection from the majority of society in order
> to live the way they *really* want to, rather than the way which
> is easiest and which causes the least rejection from the surrounding
> culture.
If this way is, in general, truly better, then what is the advantage
in having a society or culture in the first place?
Ms. Sunny Kirsten (paraphrased):
> It is better to choose which culture you live in to fit the behavior
> which is natural for you, than to change your behavior to fit
> your culture.
Let's get back to specific cases. This discussion arose from Jeff Sargent's
attempt to come to terms with society's expectations for male behavior.
Many followups recommended that he simply relocate somewhere else
(e.g. San Francisco), where these expectations do not exist.
The problem is that NO society exists which is completely aligned
with Jeff's values and tendencies. Jeff's foremost consideration
is his religious faith. This might conflict with San Francisco society.
But religious Christian societies in this country tend to hold traditional
attitudes about masculinity and femininity. So, no matter what society
he chooses, there will be a conflict. In summary, Jeff CANNOT choose
a culture to fit what he considers natural because such a culture
probably does not exist.
Though I may disagree with many of Jeff's religious beliefs,
I cannot criticize his decision to put those values first in his life.
If this means compromise with respect to other values, then so be it.
It's not as though Jeff chose to be insecure about his masculinity.
This is merely an accidental by-product of his upbringing.
So, if he is trying to adjust to his society in this regard,
I can only offer him my sympathy and encouragement.
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann
>>>> masculine. Of course, your response would have been even more masculine,
>>>> had you threatened to beat up any dissenters. :-) [SILBERMANN]
>>>But the reason for my saying it at all was based on a sensitivity towards
>>>those who are hurt by such bogus misclassifications. Does that make it
>>>"feminine"? Oh dear, maybe I should put on women's clothing and hang
>>>around in bars... :-) [ROSEN]
>> Not at all. Part of the male role IS protector of the weak.
>> Provided, of course, that the weak recognize your dominance. Otherwise,
>> you've got to teach them a lesson in manners, first. :-) [SILBERMANN]
>I guess mothers must be masculine then, filling a "male role" when they
>watch over their little kids. [ROSEN]
There's a lot of truth in that. Screeching at children for 15 years
does tend to masculinize women. Raising a mess of kids has turned
many a "feminin, purdy lil' thang" into a real battle-ax. :-)
>Do you really believe this nonsense, Frank, or are you playing
>devil's advocate? [ROSEN]
I only half believe it. In this particular exchange, I've been
playing "rednecks' advocate". I didn't think this would be
a balanced discussion unless their views were also represented.
Frank Silbermann
Rich Rosen
>>>Provided, of course, that the weak recognize your dominance. Otherwise,
>>>you've got to teach them a lesson in manners, first. :-) [SILBERMANN]
>>I guess mothers must be masculine then, filling a "male role" when they
>>watch over their little kids. [ROSEN]
> There's a lot of truth in that. Screeching at children for 15 years
> does tend to masculinize women. Raising a mess of kids has turned
> many a "feminin, purdy lil' thang" into a real battle-ax. :-)
But in what way does this qualify as "masculine" except that you say so?
>>Do you really believe this nonsense, Frank, or are you playing
>>devil's advocate? [ROSEN]
> I only half believe it. In this particular exchange, I've been
> playing "rednecks' advocate". I didn't think this would be
> a balanced discussion unless their views were also represented.
Oh... (??)
--
Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in
Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese...
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Peter Barbee
>Do not worry about such things. They are unimportant to the perfectly
>integrated individual.
>
>"Is this *perfect* session of lovemaking difficult to attain?"
>I'm sorry Sophie, the spa was vaporized by the intense energy
>given off during the integration process.
and I imagine the earth moved also ? |-)
Peter B
Frank Silbermann
In article <15...@pyuxd.UUCP> r...@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
> But in what way does this qualify as "masculine"
> except that you say so?
This has nothing to do with what _I_ say. It's what society says.
How do you know that the numeral "4" is pronounced "four" and not "five"?
Just because you say so? :-)
Frank Silbermann
Snoopy
>>given off during the integration process.
>
>and I imagine the earth moved also ? |-)
>
>Peter B
Now that you mention it, there was a slight error in my previous
article, it wasn't Mt. Hood, it was Mt. St. Helens, and yes the earth
did move! (Luckily they bought the story about it being a volcano.)
> It is a shame that more attention is not paid to proper soundproofing
>of buildings when they are being built.
>--
>Sophie Quigley
Ever try to soundproof a mountain?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Seriously (huh? what's that?), Sophie is right, little or no
attention is paid to soundproofing buildings. Visual esthetics
get lots of attention since that is easily noticable when you
*look at* the house/apt to *see* if you want to live there.
Oftentimes visual esthetics are the *only* thing that gets
any attention, at the expense of not only soundproofing, but
things like maintaining a reasonable temperature, storage room,
privacy, etc.
A lot of the things they do to cut costs these days hurt the
soundproofing qualities: hollowcore doors, thin walls, etc.
There are lots of tricks for soundproofing, massive materials,
isolating one side of a wall from the other, etc. Unfortunately
these cost bucks. I sort of dread the process of buying/building
a house, since there's no way I'll be able to afford a house that's
built the way I think it should be. -sigh-
How come there isn't a net.homes?
Snoopy
tektronix!hammer!seifert
"Couple in the next room,
bound to win a prize,
They've been goin' at it all night long.
Well I'm tryin' to get some sleep,
but these motel walls are cheap."
Paul Simon (?)
Rich Rosen
>> except that you say so?
> This has nothing to do with what _I_ say. It's what society says.
> How do you know that the numeral "4" is pronounced "four" and not "five"?
> Just because you say so? :-) [SILBERMANN]
"4" is equivalent to "four" by the process of definition of numbers and
words and such. As such it is non-ambivalent (within what Bertrand Russell
expounded upon at length).
On the other hand, masculine and feminine have definitions too, and those
explicit definitions are "of or like or representative of a male/female"
(as appropriate). (My dictionary uses the term "characteristic of or
appropriate or peculiar to women" for feminine, and "having qualities
appropriate to a man" for masculine !!!) Who is society to determine
what is "appropriate" for or "peculiar to" a given gender? It's like
saying that certain behavior among one gender/group or another is
"unnatural"; if it happens, how can it be called "unnatural"? If a
woman or a man engages in a certain behavior, how can it be called
"inappropriate" or "not representative of" that person's gender.
--
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
gardner
someone to come up with my idea of a solution for the groans and creaks.
Clue your roomie in by recording their session with a portable tape recorder.
This tape should be played back at full volume before 7:00 the next
morning, or for the full effect, have a party and treat your guests to
Dick and Janes Overeture. I guarantee results.
"Beginings are such perilous times"
Frank Herbert -- Dune
trebor