This note from Boston SDS certainty has been sent to an impressive recipient list. Somehow, although the list is so long that the route is unclear, it arrived in my inbox. It is a bit 'intimidating' to set out to fashion a respectful reply that takes issue with this writer's basic thesis, although I do realize that a good many of the forums listed here are heavily 'edited', and that some points of view, especially those not in step with prevailing points of view, are often prevented from appearing. [I discovered in trying to send this message, that I have to break up the recipient list, because anti-spam filters on my email server wont send a mesage to this many recipients].

 

As I set out to take issue with a prevailing idea, I feel the need to point out that I 'speak' from a background of a somewhat unusual lifetime of experience. By an accident of nature, I have lived most of my adult life with four females, as the only human male, (one of our dogs was male), in the household. By this accident therefore, I have spent most of my life as an advocate for females.

 

I have three daughters whom I raised from infancy to be strong, confident, and high achieving young adults, and I am still married, and after nearly 34 years still quite faithful to, the same woman. When I say that I 'raised' my daughters from infancy, I should explain that for many years when they were babies, until my oldest were in their upper grade school years, my wife's job required her to be out of town, for stretches of three to five days at a time, (including overnight), for a total of 21 days each month. So for fully two-thirds of the time, I raised my babies as a 'single parent'.

 

I did a job that is more usually associated with motherhood. I changed many thousands of diapers. I fed my babies their milk. I walked the three AM floors, alone, without support (for me), with their inconsolable fevers. I am a carpenter by trade, and made my living doing heavy and very rugged physical labor out in the elements, but I am warning my middle daughter now, who barely two months ago blessed us with our first grandchild, that there is no job as daunting as caring for an inconsolable helpless sick baby, (her baby has not yet run a fever). When a baby cries inconsolably, and won't stop, and you have no way to 'fix' what is the matter, this will cut your heart in two like few other miseries can. Mere physical labor, or pain, pales by comparison. I am thankful that my daughter, married to a good man, doesn't have to bear up under such a task alone, as I so often did. 

 

When my daughters were older, I became 'the coach' to many hundreds of young girls. I coached thirty-nine teams, over thirty-nine seasons, (three per year), of girls' little league sports, and earned the appreciation of hundreds of parents in my community for the solid social and cultural values that I taught to their daughters, in the course of teaching them to kick, throw, or bounce a ball.

 

During the course of my 'career' as a father, I taught my daughters, and any others among these hundreds of young girls who looked up to me for guidance, that they are the equals (at least) of any man, and my daughters, and many among their friends, learned this lesson well.

 

I relate this biographical information here to perhaps lend credence to my voice when I take exception to an idea presented in this message from Boston SDS. I agree with much of what this author says, but sometimes for different reasons than she or he puts forth. I think that in the context of political discourse, we ALL need to make a great effort to control our animal 'aggression', and to make every efforts to ensure that all citizens, male or female, are afforded an equal opportunity to have their voices heard. We must strive to be civil and respectful of the rights and opportunities of ALL other citizens, male OR female. Many males are as 'handicapped' by a less aggressive attitude as any females are, and are as 'victimized' as females when aggression is given free rein. 'Civility', (submitting oneself to a cultural role that meets the requirements of 'civil', or 'civilized', discourse), is an intrinsic requirement of Democracy. this requires that we make a self-conscious effort to control our natural animal aggression, which is present to a greater or lesser degree in ALL of us, male or female. Anyone who thinks that females are not capable of aggression, has not known as many of them as I have. When my daughters competed in sports, for example, (and they were all athletes), they were as fierce as tigers.  

 

When this Boston SDS writer avers that, "It is not up to women to figure out how to have an equal voice," I do not agree. In fact I think that is VERY wrong, and that it is VERY demeaning to women. This writer's thesis seems to proclaim that in order for women to be women, men must stop being men. I personally think that this is VERY wrong-headed, and demeaning to both men and women. My daughters can hold their own with ANYONE, in their determination to have their voice heard, and I feel fairly sure that they would take exception with this thesis, as I do, and feel that it demeans their own stature as equal citizens.

 

We often hear complaints on SDS forums about the 'macho' nature of men. I think that this is a HIGHLY offensive and HIGHLY sexist attitude, akin to complaining about women being 'feminine'. Not all men are macho, by any means, nor are all women feminine, but I know that my daughters, each a physically strong specimen of a human, and championship caliber athlete, would be VERY upset not to be perceived as feminine. Likewise, most of the men I have known, (some of my closest and dearest friends have been gay men, but I am an old athlete of some skill myself, and spent much time sharing the camaraderie of athletes, as well as that of the rough men of the working class), would be very upset if they were not perceived as 'macho'.

 

I was raised in a culture, (now long passed), that elevated women onto a pedestal. When I was  boy, we were taught that girls were better than us. They were the keepers of the culture. This was a burden on them, to be sure, and we reveled in that we were allowed to be naughty, and even nasty, (boys will be boys), while girls were held to a higher standard, and if they fell short, they were socially outcast, (as sluts, etc).

 

Admirable cultural roles existed within this 'unfair' culture, however. Boys were taught that they must control their 'macho' aggression, to meet to cultural role of a 'gentle man', and girls were taught that they must place a high value on themselves, and live up to the concept of being a 'lady'. Although there is much to admire in such cultural concepts, there is no doubt that this culture was not 'fair', in that the penalties for violating these roles were hugely disproportionate. When boys went 'astray', their (boys will be boys) behavior of the boys was winked at. They were merely being boys. But when girls went 'astray' of this cultural norm, their behavior was severely punished with social derision. An unfair burden was placed on the shoulders of females to 'keep' and 'maintain' this culture.

 

In the past forty years, American females have thrown off this unfair burden to a large degree, but we surely all can see that feminism remains a work in progress, with much cultural confusion now extant in our society. I am thankful that my daughters have grown and benefited from feminism, from the freedom to choose their own cultural roles, but I am thankful that they always retained their self-esteem, and have always placed a high value on themselves, and have not given their favors to men casually. Any mere man must earn their respect before he would even get the time of day from them, let alone any additional 'favors', including deference to 'macho' aggression. They are QUITE able to hold their own, as strong women should be, with any mere men, and although I certainly have learned, (by teaching them that they have always been free to put ME 'in my place'), that I don't speak for them, I think they would think it was demeaning to their own dignity as strong women to hold forth that they should get any 'special favors' from mere men, or that men must stop being men so that they can be women.

 

This word 'patriarchy' seems to be somewhat of a 'buzzword' in this generation. I understand that it seems to be used to object to the old notion that females are somehow the property of males, and must be cared for by males. But as this Boston SDS writer seems to use it, it appears to be becoming a synonym for 'sexism', or 'make chauvinism', or some such. I think that is a stretch, and would be curious to hear more about what people think this word 'patriarchy' means. In that vein, I'd like to point out a simple, and very demonstrable, fact about our current 'patriarchal' society, that I hope might spark discussion. I will refrain from presenting any argument suggested by this demonstrable fact myself, and instead listen to see how others might regard it.

 

One of the most vexing problems now faced by college administrators is that females are much more successful academically than males, and that on campuses where 'admissions' policies are strictly 'blind' to gender, females are coming to dominate campuses, commonly making up 60% and more of the student body, and often approaching 70%. In order to compete in the marketplace, (and colleges are businesses, after all), and given that by far most 'red-blooded' young people like to attend college with enough red-blooded members of the opposite sex to make their college experience 'interesting', colleges are now applying heavier and heavier 'affirmative action' standards for males, in order to try to keep student populations in gender balance.

 

I'll keep my own opinions as to the possible reasons for this to myself, (for now), and ask others what they think are the causes of this phenomenon. Are girls 'smarter' than boys? Or is some other cultural factor at play here? Other questions are suggested as well, such as, is this a proper application of affirmative action?

 

Let's talk about ALL finding the discipline to control our raw animal aggression. Let's ALL struggle to treat each other with democratic civility. Let's not demean both women and men by suggesting that men must stop being men in order for women to be women, or that women need special favors to compete with men in the marketplace of ideas. Women are not weak and 'handicapped'. They are QUITE capable of holding their own with any mere men.

 

Ladies, just DON'T take no shit off any 'guys'. (That's the simple but effective lesson I labored, (and yes, using those EXACT words), with some considerable success, to teach my daughters. Don't beg them for any favors, or to pull their punches, or surrender their 'macho' power. SHOW them your OWN power. Believe me, ladies, women are the equal of ANY men, when it comes to raw power in the marketplace of ideas. Do what you have to do, ladies, WHATEVER that is. Don't beg for it. Step up an TAKE what is YOURS.   

 

Zwarich