Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Poverty - Homeless  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Join Ovi in Facebook
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
Stop violence against women
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
About Men About Men
by Eleana Winter-Irving
2012-12-17 10:54:19
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

When I say that men have destroyed the planet, I do not mean that this planet has been destroyed by all men living now or from the past.

There is a percentage of beautiful, caring, kind, thoughtful, sincere, helpful, appreciative and respectful men who have been creative, peaceful and concerned about the direction the world is headed. So these men are not included with those that have degraded the land, degraded women and children, been violent and aggressive, antagonistic or brutal.

When you read any article/blog written by me, please wear your logic hat and know that I am not attacking you, singling you out or berating all men. My attention is directed to only those who have done wrong, who have done irreparable damage. If you the reader of my articles/blogs know that you personally have not done any of the above mentioned negative actions, then you are not included and I praise you for who and what you are.

Do not jump to conclusions or think that I am attacking you personally if you happen to be a male reader. I am merely pointing out some glaring truths that men in general seem to ignore or think are perfectly alright. If you are such a male who deems it necessary to defend the male gender, then you need to put on your rational hat. Look at the global situation, assess if it is in good shape or not and then identify the culprit(s). I think you will find that in the vast majority they (the culprits) will be male.

Now I want you to make a list of all the dictators/tyrants from the past 2 centuries and have a look at who you have put. The following is a list to start with:-

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin Dada, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Hosni Mubarak, Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jon-Il, Kim Jong-Un, Ho Chi Minh, Bashar al-Assad, Joseph Starlin, Robert Mugabe, Gustavo Rojas Prinilla, Maummar Al-Qaddafi, Than Shwe, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, Meles Zenawi, Paul Kagami, Paul Biya.

Above are just 23 out of 93 listed on Wikipedia. Out of 93, just one female is listed  and as far as I am concerned she was not a dictator nor a tyrant; though she was not democratically elected and that was Megawati Sukanoputri, President of Indonesia at one time.

There are approximately 220 nations of the world, each with a Head of State. Some of these nations have had successions of tyrants/dictators. Dictators/tyrants have all been responsible for human deaths/torture one way or another. How many women Heads of State have been responsible for human deaths? The one possibility would be Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands. By comparison to tyrants that number would have been very low. Margaret Thatcher did show the world that she could govern as well if not better than any man; but not better than any untested wise woman. She was however democratically elected, neither a dictator nor tyrant, by world standards. Meaning the 92 males listed on Wikipedia. I would never call Margaret Thatcher a wise woman; she was clever, manipulative, persuasive, hard and tough. The same traits males in power adhere to. No matter how people govern, male or female, in today’s society, both have to be tough. Men are making sure of that by implementing misgoynynistic tactics. (Ok, there is no such word as misogynistic, but it fits my meaning and I will tell you why): This is merely a tactic to humiliate and belittle a woman who is in a position of power over him, in order to discredit her and get himself into the lodge. If you don’t know who I am talking about, you are not up with Australian politics. A woman is strong when she will not allow a man to talk down to her. Especially when his position is beneath her’s. Julia Gillard is a strong woman and is holding her position very well under extreme conditions, which BTW, what she has endured should be considered illegal. He should not be allowed to talk to his superior and in public in such derogatory, unproven accusational terms. Typical male, thinks he can do no wrong. If you like him, and you vote for him and he gets elected, it will be a slow death from then on. He cannot compete with Julia Gillard. He is not in her league. He is a moron ignorant of his position in life. Too big for his boots. Needs taking down several pegs. Like about 100. The LOTO believes erroneously that all men are superior to women. He certainly does not know his place. What a disgrace he is to The Australian Parliament.

Today, I woke up to yet another massacre in the US. A gunman has slaughtered 27 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. It could be the second highest death toll since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre where 32 died, also massacred by one man. A policeman said that it was the worst thing he seen in his whole career; so imagine what that will do to the remaining 5 to 10 year old survivors.  The man was not content with killing his mother, father and brother, he just had to kill 18, (ABC reported 23 children) as well. If the number was 23 children, then the 4 adults were himself and immediate family. This has nothing to do with right and left brain thinking, it has to do with men and what they are capable of doing and their pseudo “superior” position in the world. How many incidences can you name where a woman has gone on a gun killing rampage anywhere in the world? If you know of just one, please leave it in the comments section.

If you are a man, perhaps you could take this opportunity to look back on your life and see how you have treated women. Have you always treated women with respect? Have you always been polite where due? Have you been chivalrous? Have you been unselfish and considerate? Have you allowed women in your life freedom to do what they want rather than what you wanted? Have you ever deceived a woman? Have you ever lied to a woman? Have you ever hidden an important thing from a woman who should have been party to it? Have you ever felt guilty about something that involved a woman or child? Perhaps you are one of the few who can say, “I have always treated women well.” In that case I praise you.

Now I concede that not all women command respect. A drunk woman cannot command respect. However if a man has drugged a woman, the man is at fault, has committed a sin and will suffer as a result at some point in time. Families that disown a daughter who has been raped, are committing an enormous sin. Their thinking and belief system is so screwed up, they cannot speak or think with logic.

The dominant position of the family must not be the male. His position is one of protection, security for the family, both financial and physical. He should behave as a consort. A man is only able to rule over a family through the use of physical strength and instilling fear in his children and spouse. A harmonious family will be one where the males and females are equal. Words will never beat physical strength, as the one with the strength is not the smartest one usually. If you are a man reading this, ask yourself, “why have women been repressed since day dot?” Did women repress themselves? If so how? Did you know that the clitoris was only discovered on a witch in the 16th century? That’s how they (judges and priests) knew she was a witch, she had a 3rd nipple and if a man sucked on it, she should be killed and banished to hell in flames. And the logic was?...........This is how men thought back then. Men’s logic. No one had ever seen a clitoris before and it was then given that name, supposedly meaning 3rd nipple. Men had sex with their wives through a hole in their nighties. Both had holes and as little skin touching as possible, because sex was considered disgusting, at least by the Catholic Church. A child (boy or girl) who masturbated often had their hands cut off, by men.

If you can bring yourself to, think of the worst thing a human can do. Isn’t it a fact that the ratio female to male will be approximately 2% to 98%: 2% being females? It’s probably closer to 0.01%.

**********************************************************************

I’m going to take this opportunity now to talk about gender and words that represent it in some way. Let’s take the word He for instance. See how I am forced to bring up the male first. Because that is the sequence with which men have wrongfully placed themselves. There is ‘he’ and then for the female equivalent, you tack on an s. But please notice, the S goes before the he, not after as males seem to assume. That would be hes and there is no such word. Women are not appendages to men. No man has the right to think like that, but almost all men do. Next let’s take the word male. See how this plays out? Male barging in again in first position. Doesn’t stand back and let the yin go first. When we change the gender, are you with me? What do you do? You put fe before male. Not after as males have always demanded. If it was an appendage the word would be Malefe. That doesn’t sound right to me. Personally, I do not appreciate having the word male, man, men and he as part of my word describing my gender.  Men should understand their true position in the order of things. Men are not superior to women. There we have yet another word. Starting yet again with the male gender word man. To change the gender did you add on a suffix or was a prefix placed in front of man? In front yet again. It is wo. In fact with every one the addition is placed in front.

It really would help things along greatly if women, females broke away from men when writing the words for gender identification. So I advocate S instead of she. Fe instead of female and wo instead of woman. What does anyone else think?



     
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(5)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Murray Hunter2012-12-17 11:40:53
Eleana, where I live in Thailand. men are beginning to become a subservient "species" In my international marketing class a few years ago I had 53 students of which 2 where men and 2 were the 3rd gender. The other 49 were women, however there were 3 "male" type female.
many thai women today have decided that career is more important than having a mate. Male spouse's get in the way of a career. If you need the service of a male, one is easy to get for hire or friendship. Other opt for a female companion and have happy relationships.
In my university in Malaysia the female/male ratio is 80/20 and the women share the men.
So the importance of men in society is waning here. Public service positions are going more to women, more women are becoming entrepreneurs and in China I see in husband/wife business partnerships, its the wife who is visually the boss and makes all decisions.
So Eleana you see the world is changing and in time there will have to be affirmative action programs for males. Males in my classes already need "some consideration" in their academic world.
Eleana Im a member of a declining "species" and may see the day here where "women rule"
Lets see how much curses like corruption and nepotism change.


Emanuel Paparella2012-12-17 14:27:36
Since responses have been invited, here is a perceptive relevant thought from Carl Jung to slowly savor and chew on; later on it was reinforced by the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. A male human who has effectively eliminated the feminine meditative sensibility in his soul (the anima) eventually becomes a brutal boot-stumping Nazi with no compassion and no humanity. A female who has effectively eliminated the male organizing practical drive (the animus) in her soul eventually becomes a passive clinging violet. This important psychological principle is beautifully exemplified in that great masterpiece of a movie by Federico Fellini La Strada, and brings us right back to the conundrum right brained/left brained.

It would therefore appear by most accounts of those who have thought deeply on the matter that some kind of harmony is needed to remain human. Harmony of course is something the ancient Greeks taught us a thing or two about; they pretty much considered it central to their way of thinking and making sense of reality. In the East they call it yin and yan.

I should warn the reader that none of those outlined above are mine; if I claimed that they were mine when in fact they belong to one of the greatest psychologist and one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, I could be charged with plagiarism. As is, I can be accused of not being very original and simply parroting others’ ideas. On the other hand, I logically cannot be accused of needlessly reinventing the wheel.


Emanuel Paparella2012-12-17 15:40:39
Some follow-up observations if I may: 1) the man who indiscriminately killed 20 children and 6 adults the other day did not kill his brother and father but he did kill his mother; which in some way dovetails Jung’s theory: once the female generating principle is repressed in a man’s soul, what you are left with is a despicable monster: a Zampano’. This can be done by a female too, say a Margaret Tatcher who learned and used all the shady political tricks of Machiavellian males. Once you do the reverse, what you are left is a Gelsomina: a clinging flower wall or a satellite incapable of making her own decisions.

On having sexual intercourse through a hole in the nightgown, since sex is found by Catholicism to be disgusting per se and is only a necessary evil, here again Jung would advise us us to read carefully The Song of Songs in the Bible…where sex is described and praized in all its glory and made into a symbol of God’s love for the soul. Moreover, the last time I checked there were some one billion Catholics in the world. Not bad considering that those Catholics hate sex and consider it a necessary evil. Be that as it may, what is perhaps being confused here is Catholicism, the last permissible and politically correct prejudice, with Calvinistic Puritanism. They are not the same thing but they go a long way in explaining the attitude toward sex in our country. The Puritan says: the less the better: sex belongs to the body and not the spiritual soul and it is to be shunned, tolerated at best. The modern playboy says: the more the better; sex is a natural psychic necessity and if you repress you become dehumanized. The more correct Catholic position is a harmonious balance, sex can be abused but that does not take away its use and its beauty: it is an expression of love and an interpersonal relationship between a male and female and the fruits are children and families which populate the world; as such it is a good; when it become rape then it is transformed into an evil. Kant would say that the intention is what makes the difference.


Emanuel Paparella2012-12-17 16:39:10
So that we don’t reinvent the wheel, it is perhaps also worth mentioning that both Aristophanes and Plato in ancient Greece determined that it was essential for women to take part in governmental affairs. Both men refuse to admit fundamental essential differences and show a tendency to declare men and women as effectively equal. Sappho was a female poet well revered in ancient Greece. Plato’s The Republic describes a civilization in which children will be raised in common by those of lowering socio-economic standing, thus freeing up individual women from the burden of child rearing and giving each an opportunity to serve the community alongside their male counterparts in the government. Under Plato’s idealized social system, women are allowed and even encouraged in accordance to their true nature, to develop their skills as musicians, doctors, or even warriors. Moreover, in the Roman familia, albeit the male was caput or dominant, the women were given considerable freedom and leave-way in governing and disposing of the wealth of the family, were equal in dignity and respect due them to the father and could ask for divorce when circumstances warranted it. This is true today too in modern Italy where the father is the titular head not to be embarrassed in public, but it is the mother who in private makes all the major decisions.


Eleana Winter-Irving2012-12-18 07:08:01
Murray, two significant changes need to take place. First, the strong wo men who are intelligent, tough and smart will take up positions of power. They will show men that they are as capable as men. After a period of time, (not too long I hope) we will see that these wo men will only do as good a job as men and so will be treated as equals. This certainly is a good start, but nothing much to be gained for the planet, only to the gender fighting for equality.

From there we then need the wise old souls to emerge and take up important positions, both fe male and male. It will be then that greed will be a dirty word and instead of Time = Money. Time will = Art. It will be then that the planet can heal and replenish itself. Decision will be made for the good of all concerned.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi