Gender Issues


Gender Issues and Government and Politics and Psychology and Social Issues09 Sep 2017 04:53 pm

The original seeds of Political Correctness stemmed from a desire to avoid making blanket prejudicial statements, in which people were over identified with an aspect, feature or attitude that they possessed. The goal of this sensitivity was to highlight how complex and unique individuals are and to avoid pigeonholing people into powerful and often negative stereotypes.

Instead of identifying a someone solely as a handicapped person, they became a person with a handicap. Likewise a person could be one who tells lies as opposed to a liar, or a person who struggles with addiction or has stolen things rather than being labeled an addict, thief or criminal. The politically correct appellations were more descriptions than absolute labels. They allowed the person being described to have other attributes, and also allowed for them to make changes and improvements such as rehabilitation or recovery. A person with autism, addictions, or has depression is quite different then labeling someone as autistic, an addict or depressed.

Much was gained in the descriptions for both speaker and the person being spoken about. The speaker was able to identify qualities of a person without sounding or being prejudiced or biased. The descriptions and politically correct language allowed us to appreciate and celebrate differences as well as name and identify undesirable characteristics without being overly harsh or close minded.

The person being spoken about was able to see themselves as more than a label. In this manner their dignity and worth were restored, and in many cases they were able to use the attribute as a way of becoming a part of a community often with a sense of pride. The autism spectrum, addictions and many factions of the mental health community have become opportunities for not only acceptance and understanding from those outside of the community, but often a source of connection with those who share their experience and way of being in the world.

In an effort to reduce and remove all forms of hatred from society a movement inside the desire to be sensitive and politically correct began to try to purge and replace any language which promoted or was saturated with prejudice and intolerance. Ethnic and racial hatred was found to be housed in many cultural and racial slurs. My being Italian I was familiar with the derogatory slang terms such as “dago”, “wop” or the modern day “Guido” which so happens to be my actual last name. While ethnic slurs and slangs were able to be replaced with more formal terms such as Italian, Jew, or Mexican other terms were harder to find non-offensive alternatives.

Yet, soon the desire to avoid stigmatized and hate ridden language became obsessive and extreme. Descriptors were often discarded and replaced with euphemisms or vague if not misleading terminology. The stigma of the “n word”, or “retard” was not and cannot be removed by language alone. The attitude infuses the word with meaning, and while a word may be contaminated over time with how it is used, any new word will suffer the same fate if the underlying hatred is not addressed.

My friends “of color” never had trouble, and usually preferred my use of the term blacks as opposed to African Americans. First of all the term African American is both inaccurate and a form of prejudice in that I am assuming the black person I am meeting is both of African descent and is American. Yet, what about those who identify more as a member of an island culture or happen to be born in another of the 100 or so lands in which blacks happen to be born. Calling someone “a person of color” is also extremely vague and racially biased because we are generally referring to specific shades of color. We are  indirectly insulting many people by insinuating that they aren’t people of color. Everyone has color whether that be beige, white, pink, red, yellow, brown or black, and to say someone is a person of color is either a euphemism or code word for a particular color or shade range.

I think it is absurd to think that using the term black is inherently racist, or derogatory. It is descriptive and far more accurate. Likewise I always found it strange to replace the term oriental with Asian. The Orient and Asia are both geographical terms. Yet, when one speaks of someone looking Asian they are usually referring to someone whose heritage is found in the Orient. If I told a sketch artist that the person I saw was Asian, they would most certainly draw someone with characteristics from the Orient, and not a person from India or Pakistan which are from Asia and number in the billions of people.

Likewise I do not believe that referring to the mentally challenged as “special” removes the stigma, those who are mean and insulting to the mentally handicapped do not change their prejudice because he word has changed. While calling someone “retarded” is a slur like calling me a “wop”, saying that someone has mental retardation is more descriptively accurate than designating them as “special”.

Saying someone suffers from depression is a description of a way a certain population reacts to and responds to their experiences. Likewise mental retardation stripped of its stigma just refers to the fact that the neurology of a person with this condition processes information at a slower rate and that their cognitive abilities fall below the average. I have been a tutor of a number of people with neurological and processing conditions including Autism Spectrum and Downs Syndrome, and have not felt that any limitations they had make them inferior to those who are “higher functioning”. I have no need to use euphemisms or to be less accurately descriptive because I have found their neurological tendencies and skills have little and in most cased no bearing on their ability to find joy and be good people.

Accurate descriptions of people assist us in appreciating, celebrating, understanding and feeling compassion for the experiences and hurdles of others. While the seeds of Political Correctness started with this noble goal it has in many realms become a purveyor of fantasy, misinformation and even its own form of stigma and prejudice.

Many of the those who used political correctness as a tool to reduce prejudice and increase the level of human understanding and tolerance have become some of the most biased and prejudiced individuals in our culture. The heritage of political correctness was to defend those who were being attacked for being different or the minority. They advocated for the underdog or those ignored or hunted down by the power structures which favor certain groups. They supported those that were attacked, devalued, marginalized, stigmatized and predatorized by others simply due to their race, cultural heritage, disability, gender, religious affiliation or ideology.

In Identity politics we now are insulting and condemning people for what they say, believe or in a growing number of cases what they are perceived to think. Instead of celebrating diversity of opinion we are demanding every one to have the same value system, express themselves with the same terminology, and see the world through the same eyes

Instead of saying someone has made a remark which could be considered racist, or sexist or insensitive to a particular group many of the previously politically correct crowd are labeling people as sexists, racists and bigots. Righteously and aggressively hating the haters has become vogue. People are pigeonholed, judged harshly, harassed and even physically attacked for expressing an opinion which is thought to be biased or holding to an antiquated view of a particular minority group. If a man makes a remark which could be construed as insulting or demeaning to a female he is a sexist, not a person who made a remark which could be perceived as insensitive or insulting.

If a person expresses a desire that their child marry a person of their race, ethnic group or religious affiliation they are often irreversibly labeled a racist or a hater of other groups. The consideration of such viewpoints being a love and pride in one’s heritage is not possible, not even that they are a segregationist, but only that they are racists and haters.

People are being denied preferences, a desire to maintain cultural heritage, free speech and even the right to harbor negative feelings towards any identified group. Those who hate the haters often claim the ability to read minds when those who make both pro and anti statements towards a group state with certainty that the positive statements are lies and the negative sentiments are truth and in fact are a thin veil for their underlying hatred.

In identify politics it is fine to call someone a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe, Nazi, or any other slur if they do not adhere to a very specific political and ideological agenda. Anyone who voted against Obama is a racist, and anyone who didn’t vote for Hillary is a sexist. The Identity Politics narrative often labels any protectionist action or one aimed at preventing Islamic Extremism as racists and Islamaphobic.

Even when laws are passed out of fear and paranoia it might be a bit of stretch to say all proponents are haters and white supremacists. Yet much of the identity politics crowd is engaged in a level of McCarthyism regarding the Russians which matches if not supersedes that of supporters of building a wall and not allowing Arabs into the US.

It is perplexing and disappointing how much of the Identity Politics and Feminists crowd are engaging in prejudice, hatred and intolerance. Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are useless if they are only reserved for certain groups and entities. The original point of political correctness was to promote tolerance and acceptance as a universal which would in and of itself create social harmony.

On a daily basis I hear friends who are consumers of the Identity Politics and popular Feminist narratives call people who are conservative or traditionalists as being “stupid”, “backward” and “ignorant”. All of these terms are expressed with a palpable level of disgust and superiority. This attitude is at the core of exceptionalism. It expresses the idea that people of higher intelligence are inherently better than those who are not, the irony that many of these same people have been vociferous advocates for the mentally handicapped is totally missed. I want to state once again, that I do not feel better than or inferior to others due to their IQ or any other recognized measure of human intelligence.

The self-proclaimed exceptionalism lying at the core of identity politics is the total opposite of tolerance, understanding and the celebration of diversity. Exceptionalism is a form of cultural or ideological eugenics. If one is exceptional all others are inferior, which is actually the very definition and essence of prejudice and bigotry. It shouldn’t be a matter who hates first, or feels the most justified in their anger and righteousness, but rather who has the courage to be devoted to peace, love and understanding. Good people have good intentions, and engage in life affirming behavior, but that doesn’t make them inherently better than their contemporaries.

United in Compassion,

Jim Guido

Gender Issues and Relationships and sexuality and Social Issues27 Aug 2017 02:53 pm

I have always been a person who has had an ambivalent relationship with objectivity. While I like being able to see things clearly and not be overly influenced with my perspective, I’m also a person who views emotion and feeling as being integral in the experience of joy, intimacy and rewarding experience.

So while trying to see things from a multiple of perspectives and being able to live in another man’s/women’s shoes, I also want to fully engage and participate in my own experience. I yearn to savor and relish my sentient life full of thoughts, feelings and sensations.

This has led me to have a very ambivalent relationship to science in which I utilize its objectivity to see things as they are, but then I quickly advance beyond pure objectivity and avail myself to the artistic subjectivity of life. In my song Thinking Inside the Box, I express the concern of overdoing objectivity in the following manner.

I object to the objective of your objectivity

In Science often the objective of objectivity is to avert and transcend subjectivity. The goal is often to annihilate the prejudicial view of subjectivity and to acquire objective Truth and Knowledge. Yet, for me pure objective knowledge is sterile and inhuman. I therefore object to the objective of objectivity!

I am enthralled with life in all its imperfections and impermanence. Life is a rewarding and unending process in which each day I become more intimate with myself, others and nature.

This brings me to my discomfort with the modern feminist framing of objectifying females and the female body. While I admit it is possible to objectify anything, including the female form/body I strongly react to how it is presented. I once again object to the objective of their claim that men generally objectify women.
Continue Reading »

Gender Issues and Relationships and sexuality and Social Issues21 Nov 2016 02:34 pm

Ever since early adolescence I’ve been hormonally constituted to be fascinated, mesmerized, entranced, intoxicated, infatuated and enthralled with the female body. Yet, even before the onset of puberty I found myself drawn to girls in the arena of personal relationships and intimate connection.

When it came to the realm of physical activity comprised of running, jumping, tackling and working together as a team I totally preferred the company of boys. In adolescence, in terms of intellectual, scientific and philosophical discourse I once again preferred the company of men.

Yet, what mattered to me most was how to maximize the quality of personal experience through consistently deriving joy form both body and mind. The time and energy, care and devotion, women spent processing their thoughts and feelings regarding their relationship with others as well as themselves I found highly captivating and fulfilling. In many ways this processing of relationship became the core of my definition of intimacy, and intimacy became the center of both the way I lived in the world and how I found meaning and fulfillment in life.

My love affair with the female body and feminine personality were not relegated to a specific type or ideal. The female body and the many varied ways woman had of processing their thoughts and feelings I found endlessly stimulating and refreshing. They were the fruit that I longed to savor and desire whether they be peach, plum, watermelon, pomegranate, grape or berry.
Continue Reading »

Economics and Gender Issues and Government and Politics and Psychology and Relationships and Social Issues17 May 2013 03:03 pm

My dad came to the US from Italy when he was 13 years old. My mom was born in the US in a small Italian community which was where my dad’s family eventually settled. My mom’s parents married shortly after they had come to America and quickly started a family.

My dad, who was 13 years older than my mom, lasted less than a year in public schools and began working to help support the family when he was 14. My mom lasted into her freshman year of high school, but too, had to quit school to help support the family.

My dad was a firm believer in the idea of coming to America to “make a better life”. He, like many of contemporaries, felt that hard work and sacrifice were necessary to accomplish this goal. Living in the US was seen as an opportunity to escape the poverty that had dominated his family for generations in southern Italy. Success, for him, was being able to provide for his family so that they had food on the table and would not have to spend their waking hours worrying about basic safety and survival.

After my parents married they moved to a nearby factory town on the shores of Lake Michigan. My dad took pride on his working his way up from the railway yards to become a ticket agent at a train station. He talked of his being fortunate of no longer having to do “menial labor” nor having to work in the factories that dominated local employment.

In my early years I rarely saw my dad for he found it necessary to  have a second job to make sure we could not only survive, but save some money for the future. My dad got up at four in the morning,  got ready for work and returned home about 3 in the afternoon as we were coming home from school, we than would eat before 4 so that my dad could make the evening shift at some restaurant or at the new fast food establishments.

On the rare evening my dad was at home he would take his slide rule and racing form to the kitchen table and spend hours doing the research that went into his small wagers on the horses. On weekends we either went to relatives houses many of which still lived in the Italian community a half hour away, or some relative would come to our house. Larger family parties occurred regularly celebrating birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, holidays and church functions. On Sunday mornings we always went to church before seeing relatives for the remainder of the day.

The men in my hometown talked about work and factory life far more than any other topic. Even in family gathering it was unusual that someone didn’t vent a little frustration over their work situation, boss or the lack of security in their employment. 

Maybe it was just what we chose to watch, but the topic of labor and work even seemed to dominate the entertainment industry. I remember movies and plays which dealt with coal miners, factory workers, union strikes and the plight of failure and emptiness in characters such as Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman.

While Marx was not someone my blue collar world had read, people and TV often talked about feeling the “dehumanizing” role of factory work, or how mass production work was like living in a prison, or how insulting and degrading it was to have to kowtow to every boss or supervisor and how the work itself took away a man’s sense of dignity and self-respect. Even the popular comedies on TV made numerous jokes and references to the ever present possibility of being fired or laid off.

At a very early age I became highly fearful of ending up working in a factory, or being forced to engage in some labor of endless repetition. Even the professionals in town with careers or those in management positions seemed to be kowtowing to some boss and being tethered to a long and highly structured work week.  In my mind I began to equate work with a loss of freedom, autonomy and any hope of  a decent quality of life.

My mom had worked from the age of 15 until she got married in her late 20’s. She took pride in being a strong peasant woman and in the old world values of the immigrant mother’s she idolized. She liked the role of  mother and homemaker, and took a particular delight in cooking.

My mom’s life of a housekeeper mother was filled with menial labor and “drudgery”.  Yet, the ardor of her work load and the time required to complete a task seemed to lessen with each invention and advance in appliance technology. Going from washboard to wringer was not that drastic, but the jump to washing machine was dramatic and much appreciated. Even the advance in fabrics reduced ironing time. The list of appliances, technologies and “conveniences” which reduced housekeeping time and effort was expanding on a monthly basis. Even in lower middle class families such as ourselves the quality of life of the homemaker was improving greatly.

By the time I was four or five my mom was able to entertain herself with radio or TV while she tended to her household tasks and chores. She was able to take breaks to watch a favorite program or visit with a neighbor lady for an hour or so, and still get dinner on the table by 4.  My mom actually found enough “leisure” time to reengage in hobbies/crafts of her latter childhood such as embroidery and crocheting.

Most of her daytime TV was divided into two areas. One area of interest was quiz type of programs such as “Concentration” and the other were the emotional tearjerkers such as “Queen for a Day” or the “Millionaire”. 

While the advances in technology appeared to be a boon for the housekeeper, it did not seem to improve the quality of life for the factory worker. While advance in assembly line technology did reduce the physical demand on a worker, it also reduced the scope of their activity to one part or cog of a product. No longer could they even take pride in the completion of an entire product such as a clock, radio or car, but only in the installation of a front fender, minute hand, or some other part of the complete product.

While technology reduced the time it took to housekeep and the strain the tasks took on the body, in the factory it just increased production expectations and the fears that the technology would replace your need as a worker. Advances in technology made it possible for my dad’s work load to be decreased, and he could have theoretically played a radio while he worked. Yet, his “higher ups” sent out memo’s stating playing a radio would result in termination of employment, and the railroad found many new and additional tasks for him to perform to insure that he had no free time or that his work load was reduced in any fashion or form. To the contrary it seemed that each passing day my dad was required to do more, and be responsible for more, with no additional pay.

In general I found my mom’s life more tolerable than my dad’s. I found his perpetual working, subservience to bosses, and the lack of autonomy and development of outside interests to be boring at best and humiliating at worst. I could never reconcile my relatives story of my dad’s past with the dad I knew. The man who played trumpet, read philosophy, travelled the country, was an avid Ham operator, gambled, made his own sausage, cheese and wine, etc. was  nowhere to be seen. The last vestiges of that man were only seen at the rare moments he listened intently to the opera on the radio, or took time for himself to read reflective nonfiction.

The time I remember him being the most vibrant and alive was when I was 6 or 7 and his union went on strike. My dad become a leader of the workers at this time and set up camp at the downtown hotel in our town. He shined in the role of organizer, giving people instructions, speaking at meetings and being part of the negotiations with management. Though he was glad when the strike was over, I kind of missed the dynamic man who was my dad for a short time.

My dad’s sense of pride and self-esteem had him adopt the stay at home housewife preference. He felt it was his obligation and duty to be the “breadwinner” and that he would be a failure if his wife “had to work”. Yet, when I was 8 years old my mom decided that since all the kids (I was the youngest) were fairly self-sufficient that she wanted to do more to help make our family financially more comfortable. It took only a couple of weeks to convince my dad that she nor their friends would think she “had to work”, but that she just wanted a new challenge and it would allow my sister an opportunity to learn how to cook and manage a home.

My dad helped my mom get a job as a ticket agent at another station on the same line as my dad. She enjoyed the challenge and it gave them a shared interest which brought them closer together. Yet, it wasn’t long before the luster of the new job wore off, and my mom began to complain about the routine just like all the men. Yet, at the end of the day the sense of financial security she got from the job outweighed its deficits and she stayed on the job until about a year after she was robbed at gunpoint and never again felt safe at work.

By the time I got to high school I had made the following assessments of the world and lives of men and women.  I viewed being male as having almost no options and being destined to a laborious life spent in servitude, with little hope of privacy, autonomy or time for personal development. Most of the men I knew seemed empty, emotionally vacant and resentful. The boys my age were trying to sow a few wild oats before conforming to the fate of being male.

I did have some distant male relatives who lived in Italian communities or neighborhoods that seemed to truly enjoy their lives. They were artists, musicians, entrepreneurs (organized crime?), or individuals who somehow got by with minimal labor. They were fun loving, funny, emotional, and their lives seemed to be filled with meaningful relationships. Quality of life, joy and relationships were their priorities and they made you feel good just to be able to bask in their energy.

The Italian lover’s of life philosophy summed up by the colloquialism “dolce far niente”  (sweet idleness) was something that I harmonized with. Another version of this Italian art of living philosophy was offered by North Carolina State basketball coach Jim Valvano when after being diagnosed with cancer  said: “To me, there are three things we all should do every day…..You should laugh every day…You should spend time in thought. And number three is, you should have your emotions moved to tears…If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that’s a full day. That’s a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week, you’re going to have something special”…

The life of most of the adults I knew seemed hollow and meaningless. Life seemed too incredible and precious to me, to waste it in toil or mindless activity. Most men were doomed to an empty existence of endless labor, we had no choice in the matter. Women on the other hand were beginning to have options, my mom could work or stay at home. Technology and social change were opening a whole new world to women in which they began to talk of issues such as“quality of life”, “consciousness raising”, “intimacy” and the richness of human emotion and experience.

Just when I was beginning to feel that I would have little or no opportunity to lead a fulfilling and rich existence the women’s movement emerged as a beacon for a vision of living a quality life. While the majority of men were consigned to a life of labor and subjugation, a growing percentage of women were entering a new age of self-exploration and enlightenment.

I remember watching the Phil Donahue show and feeling a growing sense of hope and optimism. Women were leading a discussion on the direction of society. The gospel of the women’s movement seemed to be that men were leading an empty life of labor, ambition and the thirst for power, and that women were in danger of leading a “shallow” and “superficial” life filled with pettiness and gossip. Women were being called upon to join together in a quest for a fulfilling and meaningful life. A life of freedom, dignity, respect and personal development. 

The majority of my male friends in high school were either already becoming emotionally vacant and empty, or just partying until the music stopped. My female friends were more into self-disclosure and talking about their feelings. 

I became close to a small group of verbal guys who talked at length on science, philosophy and the future. I also found another mixed group of friends who talked about art, literature, music and social revolution. The majority of female friends I had, talked about relationships, human communication and the soap opera of adolescence. 

Though I sometimes found the conversation of my female friends to be petty or emotionally tedious it was far preferable to the alternative. I found myself introducing or advocating my female friends to become more engaged in the women’s movement and its basic philosophy.

Advances in technology were already showing that automation was the future, and that many factory jobs could be replaced by automated machines working faster and more efficiently than human workers. We already were showing signs of having too many workers for too few jobs, and that productivity goals could be met through less full time workers.

The women’s movement and pop psychology were informing us that “self-actualization” and “intimacy” were far more important than work/labor and making money. That, in fact, monetary ambition and long working hours were injurious to health, quality of life, and the development and maintenance of fulfilling friendships and enduring familial relationships.

Despite the murder of some very important leaders of social change much had been accomplished not only in the growth of the women’s movement, but civil rights, and the ecological and anti-war movements. Watchdog agencies, whistleblowers and journalists were exposing the corruption in government, business, medicine, finance, academia, the media and the military in a way that seemed to promise better management and accountability.

Human dignity and respect was on the rise for workers, women, minorities and students. Fear and hatred was being replaced by tolerance and understanding. The landing on the moon had been a sign that we can accomplish anything we commit ourselves to and that war, poverty, and world hunger were problems we could address and solve.

We are fond of saying that it is darkest before the dawn, yet one person’s dawn is another persons dusk. And just at the moment when I felt that the journey of self-actualization and quality of life was about to take flight, the forces of anger, control, hatred, and oppression seemed to silently turn us back towards the prison we just escaped.

Almost overnight the messages of personal development, quality of life, human intimacy, freedom and autonomy were being subtly modified and replaced with messages speaking of consumption, making money, and national and cultural superiority. 

The advertising and business world targeted minorities, women, and students as emerging lucrative consumer markets. Equating new found freedoms and social status with making money, consumption and having a new and expensive image. Drinking malt liquor and wearing specific clothes became synonymous with being a hip and successful black person. Virginia Slim’s proclaimed, “you’ve come a long way baby”, to hawk a product “designed for the modern woman”. 

Soon the women’s movement humanistic message of quality of life and intimacy became lost in the desire for equal pay and full employment. Entering the evil and destructive male dominated world of power, money, servitude and labor became the goal and battle cry of the movement. 

While I fully supported equality and rights for all, I felt stunned that the goal had now become for all to become slaves to money, labor and subjugation to corporate owners be they white male, female or minority. I personally cared little if the warden were black, white or female, I just wanted out of prison. My concern was in the quality of our lives and in our ability to create and sustain meaningful relationships and a societal respect for my and your privacy and autonomy.

Now forty years later I still have the same longings, desires and goals. I look back at the women’s movement like a photograph of an old girl friend who ended up sleeping with my old tormentor. We could have shared so much together, we could have had made the world an intimate caring place. Instead we now live in a society in which two paychecks don’t even have the purchasing power of one back in the 50’s or 60’s.  And where quality of life, life expectancy, health, happiness quotients, and leisure time have been on the decline and falling behind other more “socialistic” nations around the globe.

While I look back at what I experienced as a lost opportunity its hard not to be frightened by our surveillance society and the loss of all the freedoms and privacy we struggled to achieve and the fact that the only real growth industry left in our decayed capitalistic system of empire is fear mongering , prejudice and intolerance. 

Jim Guido

 

Gender Issues and Relationships and sexuality07 Nov 2009 01:27 pm

When attending recent wedding ceremonies I’ve been struck with how daunting, if not realistic, it is to commit to being with someone for the rest of your life. Being married for 26 years I’m far better equipped now to vow “till death do you part” than I was back then. Any marriage that flourishes even during the hormonal throes of menopause appears quite hale and hearty and able to go the distance.

Given the fact that committing to someone for life is so difficult, it would appear that it would be wise to maximize any factors which propel people towards bonding with each other. When you look at nature nothing propels individuals towards each other than the sex drive. The male sex drive in particular seems to be the impetus towards union.

Though it be true that in any particular pairing a woman’s sex drive may be stronger than their mate, by and large the male sex drive is one of the strongest forces in nature. When watching a nature show it is common to see two male beasts hurdling towards each other at full speed only to butt heads in the most violent of fashions with the sole purpose of winning the right to mate with a female.

While watching from the comfort of a couch women are often shocked and horrified by the spectacle while most men either think “been there, done that”, or at least feel a genuine sense of sympathy for the plight of the participants. Anyone doubting the fact that the male sex drive is stronger than the average female can just ponder how often woman pay for sex as opposed to men.

It is through sexual passion, pleasure and ecstasy that the average person desires to consume or fuse with their mate. It is through sexual passion that one yearns to know every inch of their beloved’s body and being.

Yet, in our society we have a tendency to demonize the male sex drive and demand that men overcome, master or sublimate their sex drive. Men who are open to trying to satiate their sex drive are accused of reducing their mates “to sex objects” or being shallow regarding love and intimacy.

Now I’m not saying that sex is the only important ingredient to a life long union, or that sex cannot be pathological or even a way to avoid intimacy. What I am saying is that sex is a powerful and natural force towards union, and that repressing or demonizing it is counter productive when your goal is life long partnership and union.

Every relationship is going to have difficult lean times when our lives are full of stress and hardship. During such times it if often the pleasure and closeness forged through sexual intimacy which allows the matrimonial bond to survive.

Woman who complain about the pervasiveness of their mates sexual energy are often cutting off the very blood supply that is allowing the marriage to succeed. Differences in sexual appetites is almost a certainty in every relationship, but bridging those differences through understanding and adaptation is very important.

Ridiculing a partner over their elevated desire for passion or demanding that they deny their sex drive is not a strategy leading towards forming a mutually rewarding relationship. Sexual repression, rejection and deprivation are often factors leading towards sexual addiction, promiscuity, infidelity and perversion.

Desiring frequent sex is no more a sign of pathology than enjoying food and yearning to eat is a sign of an eating disorder.

Many complain that the importance of sex in a relationship is exaggerated and over rated, and that true intimacy functions on a higher plain. Yet, most of these same people would leave or divorce their spouse if they found out they “had been unfaithful” or “ had an affair” with someone else. If they really believed that sex is unimportant than they wouldn’t feel betrayed or the relationship destroyed by meaningless sex. If sex wasn’t important than why would almost every culture on earth make fidelity the central component of the marriage vow.

Pleasurable and rewarding sex is probably the single most powerful tool we can use in creating and maintaining a life long intimate relationship. The desire to love every inch of body and being is the best foundation I can think of for building a life long relationship, and sexual intimacy is the most natural and universal drive propelling that desire.

To paraphrase the bard, “I come not to bury Eros (the erotic), but to praise him”.

Sex is not the answer to every problem in a relationship, not even close. But denying, or even ignoring its importance seems fool hearty. I guess one could fell a tree without a saw, but to purposely avoid a saw when your goal is to cut down a tree seems like an awfully silly thing to do.

Jim Guido

PS I have written many posts on the male sex drive and gender issues particularly from August 2007 to March 2008. Also many of my posts have dealt with what I feel is the modern tendency to deny, avoid and demean our humanity.

Gender Issues and Psychology and Relationships16 Sep 2009 09:01 pm

Most high functioning animals learn their skills by playing while babies. They learn how to hunt, defend themselves, escape from danger and develop their most vital skills all while playing with siblings, peers and parents. Human children too, develop many of their skills and characteristics through play.

The following observations of human play are divided along gender lines due to the difference in play styles often exhibited by boys and girls. This is not to say that all boys play one way and girls another, but does seem to fit the standard ways in which children in the US play and use fantasy in their formative years.

While boys tend to prefer large motor activity spending much of their play running and moving about, girls tend to talk more and engage in relatively stationary activities. Having worked in day care during the late 70’s I observed quite a difference in play styles between most boys and girls. During the last decade or so I have been called upon to observe children having trouble in day care programs in order to help the staff develop strategies and interventions allowing a child to remain at a particular center. Though the roles of men and woman have changed greatly, the play styles amongst boys and girls have not changes much over the last 30 or so years.

Playing with dolls still remains a favorite activity of young girls. Girls are comfortable playing with dolls alone, side by side with others and will sometime even join others in small group doll play. Most girls prefer personal rather than group doll play and change to more social activities such as dress up, playing house and puppet shows when in groups. Girls also enjoy doing crafts and arts in groups while engaging in spirited conversation.

When playing with dolls most girls enter their own personal little fantasy land. They move the doll or dolls about while talking to them frequently. They often organize daily activities and events with the doll(s) such as tea parties, dinners, dances and the like. Many times the doll is taken care of like it is a baby, or the doll is a baby. Most of the time the child seems to enjoy having total control of the interactions with the doll. Though affectionate with their “dollies” most girls are quite verbally critical of their dolls behavior and dole out punishments and admonitions with great frequency.

To me the most striking aspect of standard doll play is the amount of verbal and physical energy the child puts into correcting and bossing their dolls Even though the doll is motionless the fantasy is that the doll is always in need of guidance and punishment for social errors in terms of behavior and verbals. The doll is both a person and a possession in need of the girl as mother.

This need to be in complete control is also demonstrated in other female dominated games. Most fathers of little girls who have been invited to a play tea party have experienced the harsh corrections of their almost every move. Dad picks up the tea cup, he’s often corrected on how to hold it. He takes a cookie that’s offered him and here’s his daughter cry out “no, no you’re supposed to say……” or some such thing. The entire tea party is spent with the daughter scripting every word and action with a running dialogue as director of the party.

Puppet shows given by a girl and a boy often go a similar route in which every line uttered by the boy is met with the girl saying, “no, no, now you say…..” or “now you do……”. I believe this aspect of verbal control of domestic and social interactions is often duplicated by girls as they grow into mothers and wives.

The social control aspect of a young girls early play and fantasy life often comes to the forefront on their wedding day. Many woman talk of how much they dreamed of and fantasized their wedding day since they were a young girl. Many a talk show has been spent discussing a wedding trauma experienced by a bride when things didn’t go as planned. Even without a major mishap many brides express a severe disappointment that the day did not live up to the dream. It’s tough for a man to live up to how the doll performed and was scripted to perform in the many dress rehearsals of the young girls fantasy play. She can’t interrupt the grooms every action and verbal with “no, no, now you say…. or no, no now you do”.

Real men make terrible dolls and even worse fantasy princes. They don’t talk right, act right and treat their wife with the kind of love and devotion that her dolls did with her expert guidance and control. While little girls dote on their baby dolls and feed and take care of them, when they fantasize about their future husbands little girls play is dominated by the love and devotion the man shows and feels for them. Girl’s fantasies as well as most fairy tales are centered around the girl being the prize. The prince loves and the heroine of the story is loved.

In most relationships I’m privy to, the woman controls most of the domestic and social venues while the man is in control of most everything else. It is not unusual for a woman to exert great influence over what a man wears at a given function. A husbands performance at a given social function is often cause for great concern over even a source for frequent arguments during the course of many a marriage.

When women complain that they “just want to be listened to”, I have a hard time not picturing the doll being propped up in the chair as the little girl talks on and on in fantasy dialogue. Dolls are the perfect playmate and the perfect possession. Men just don’t make the grade.

This is not to blame doll play for much of the problems in heterosexual relationships, but it is important to note that early play is the basic template most animals use for adult life. It is somewhat to be expected that the fantasy and habits formed during early play would be replayed during adult life.

Babies have a better chance of replicating many aspects of early doll play. A baby being helpless, vulnerable and mute for quite a span of time is in perfect need for the little girls constant teaching and guidance. The frequent talking to the doll is once again very beneficial when a young mother talks to her baby. A vulnerable baby needs to be someones prized possession.

Yet, many mother’s experience difficulties when their babies grow up and their verbal control and criticism causes conflict and turmoil. Having a human being come out of your body after being part of you for nine months has to be one of the most incredible experiences a human being can experience. The fetus was created in your body, lived and grew in your body, and every cell of their body was formed from your cells. The blood and air feeding the fetus are yours, so when the baby is born it must be hard to not continue to view it as part of you. In so many ways a baby is truly a possession of the mother.

These facts, coupled with the doll fantasy play, make viewing and treating a child as a separate and autonomous person a true hurdle for a woman.

While much of a little girls fantasy and doll play involves future hurdles regarding a need to control social and domestic environments a little boys early play and fantasy deal with other control issues. in fairness to women I’ll give a short synopsis of the male hurdle.

The typical boy’s fantasy and game world is dominated by action and adventure. While many today focus on a little boy’s desire to play with guns or win wars, this does not exhaust his areas of interest. Little boys love movement. They are either running, or imagining driving a car, plane, truck or space ship. Many crave super powers and either have super hero action figures, or imagine being in a world of dinosaurs or mythical beasts. Little boys, love to win, conquer, build and invent. They like to plan, design and take things apart. Many spend hours seeing how things work or exploring lawn, creek and forest life.

Young boys thirst for change and control of the world around them. Leaving things alone and just admiring them is not something most boys enjoy.

The need to build, control, invent, design and just plain tinker and monkey with everything natural or man made is a young man’s burden. The misuse and overuse of the planet’s resources is predictable with the play of young boys. Political conflict and war is also structured into the play and fantasy of young boys.

Entire books could easily be dedicated to the current and possible benefits and drawbacks of the play of both young girls and boys. This post was only meant to whet the appetite for exploration and discussion regarding this issue.

Jim Guido

Art and Gender Issues and Psychology and Relationships and sexuality and Social Issues09 Aug 2009 10:20 am

I’m always amazed at how many of us behave in ways which seem to indicate that we do not view the human body as a thing of beauty? In fact there is much evidence to lead one to conclude that we are not only not happy with our bodies but view them as something to overcome and transcend.

Since the onset of puberty when I started to become attracted to the female form I found the majority of female bodies beautiful in one way or another. It was rare that I found a female form without some alluring or at least redeeming quality. Being heterosexual I was neither drawn to nor desired the male body. Yet, this did not prevent me from admiring my own or other males muscle tone or physique.

As I’ve mentioned many times how the female form has been central to art and the definition of beauty for almost every culture on the planet. Yet, despite this fact there does seem to be a tendency for people to be critical of the human form and in many ways find the human body disgusting or something to overcome or transform.

The use of make up has become more pronounced through the ages. While it can be used to enhance or draw attention to particularly attractive aspects of a person such as their eyes or lips, it also can be used to hide perceived flaws. If you pay attention to the message given in advertising the major role of current make up artistry to cover up flaws and create false impressions rather than accent strengths.

The entire realm of cosmetic surgeries even goes further in its desire to remove flaws and overcome weaknesses. Referring to a woman as a natural beauty is becoming a rarer event, especially amongst females.

The percentage of woman who state that they are happy or even comfortable with their bodies is shockingly low if you believe the statistics in magazine polls and psychological self-esteem studies.

If you look at Woman’s magazine’s beauty ads and photos you see a very narrow and unrealistic form of beauty. The models build and body type look very similar and they are air brushed into a rather cartoon like existence. Though male nudity magazines often tend towards featuring woman with larger breasts and flat stomachs you can still find woman of many varied body types being presented in an erotic fashion. Though the air brushed female is on the rise in male mags there is still plenty of space given to celebrating the varied forms of the female body.

The male form is far less celebrated in our society, and is at least as narrow in its definition of masculine beauty.

Other than a few rare exceptions the general male body is not considered attractive by our culture. In fact many woman state they find a partially or well dressed man far more attractive than a nude one. Not many men would say they prefer a clothed female body over a naked one.

In fact, many woman and men are uncomfortable and even disgusted by the male form. In modern cinema the naked female body is posed as a thing of beauty while the male body is seldom naked as when it is it usually is used a vehicle for comedy. While woman may complain that the female bodies in cinema are unrealistic and idealized, everyone realizes a male cavorting around in his underwear is a recipe for hilarity. A nude woman dancing and bending over is often erotic while a nude man dancing and bending over is used as a comic device in cinema resulting in people laughing and shouting words of disgust such as “gross”.

If people’s discomfort with the sight of the human body is becoming more pronounced it is nothing in comparison to the campaign against the human scent. When was the last time you heard someone praise the natural scent of a person other than their lover or spouse. Our bodies exist in a world of deodorants, perfumes, colognes, and scented shampoos where any trace of a natural human scent is impossible to discern. Any hint of the body’s natural scent would almost usually be viewed as poor hygiene. There use to be a difference between body odor and its scent.

Sure bad breath and stench are to be avoided, but isn’t there a positive role for one’s natural scent. Is the smell of the human body inherently offensive and disgusting? And if we feel the human scent repulsive what does it say about our view of ourselves and humanity in general.

In future posts I’ll take a look at other ways in which we show a dislike for our very humanity, sense of self, and experience of life. Yet, before concluding today I want to offer a couple more observations regarding our view of the male form and beauty.

If you’re male try to spend some time listening to female’s inn conversation, if you’re female pay attention to how central the concept of beauty is to feminine dialogue. When entering a house, or a shop or when first meeting another female it is rare that no observation or compliment regarding the beauty or physical appeal of something is not made within seconds. Something worn or in the room or changed is noted or praised. A new hair style, clothing, ear rings, etc, will be noted, or the feel or look of some object will be brought to everyone’s attention.

Over then last few years I’ve been astounded by the percentage of conversation time females spend assessing, appreciating and describing the sight, feel, smell and taste of beautiful things. Yet, despite this preoccupation with beauty and beautiful things how rare it is for woman to appreciate or articulate the beauty of the male form.

Males who seldom talk of the beauty of objects, on the other hand, generally view the female form as the height of beauty. This irony is depicted in the following lyrics from Preening Like a Peacock.

Preening Like A Peacock

Preening like a peacock hormones out of control
Preening like a peacock putting on the show

Women find beauty in natural things
Sunrise/sunset, seashores and gems
Women see beauty in many things
Flowers, colors, in fashion and rings

She sees beauty everywhere, preening like a peacock
Why is she looking way over there, preening like a peacock

A woman feels beauty in every touch
In satin, silks and in a baby’s flesh
A woman smells beauty in every sniff
In perfumes, herbs and floral scents

Spending hours smelling roses or buying a new top

A man sees beauty in the girl of his dreams
His temptress, his partner, his goddess his queen
A man finds beauty in a woman’s form
A breast, a thigh, a hip bone exposed

She is the goal of art
She is his anchor and spark
She gives the milk of life
Without her he shrivels and dies

A man feels beauty in the passion of curves
Flowing from buttock to the small of the back
A man feels completion with a woman in tow
She’s his altar, his Eden, his castle and throne

While I preen my feathers I feel oh so hot
Every time I feel I’m pretty I hear the bubble pop

Nothing pleases like a maiden in heat
Itching for pleasure from her head to her feet

Yet lust fades as quick as it comes
From an 8 course banquet to a stick of gum
In a woman’s world of beauty men don’t make the cut
A few handsome faces maybe and the occasional butt

But we’ll never really get it, we’ll continue to strut
We’ll shake our tail feathers thinking we’re too much
We’ll shake our tail feathers we’ll strut our stuff

To listen to this song go to the Priorities CD in the music section.

Jim Guido

Gender Issues and Government and Psychology and Social Issues09 Feb 2008 12:32 pm

The typical view is that modern industrial societies are patriarchal in nature and manner. Male domination, in these societies, is enforced and maintained through aggressive and violent brute force.

In our examination into male female tendencies through gender symbols we have called into question much of this stereotype of male aggression. While granting the validity of phallic symbols such as guns, missiles and knives we have balanced this with other valid phallic images. These images focusing on penetration, probing, expansion and emission included the microscope, hypodermic needle, telescope, drill, hoe, train, pen, paintbrush and many other tools, artistic, implements and technological instruments which have been used to foster and improve the quality of life.

So, is male brute force the only or even main instrument of social power, or are there other less overtly masculine means used by modern societies to enforce control over its populaces?

Modern psychology has identified many alternative methods that an individual may employ to establishing and maintain control over another. Many of these methods can be used by governments and political leaders socially and not just be used in one-on-one situations. These general strategies of psychological manipulation include guilt, shame, fear, exclusion, intimidation, innuendo, class designation and exile.

Though various forms of psychological intimidation and warfare have existed throughout history, they probably have never served such a central role as they do in modern democracies. In general modern democracies are premised on the idea that citizens have general rights and that they elect the leaders who serve their interests. Such an ideology makes it difficult for a political group to govern through brute force. Instead they must foster control through more subtle and psychological means. This is the realm of public perception management and political spin. This is the realm of getting people to willingly give up their rights and privileges in exchange for protection and inclusion within the group.

These indirect means of power and control are not only done by governments upon its citizenry, but filters down to interpersonal interactions among individuals and communities. The same strategies are also used in international affairs. Therefore, the psychological methods of power and control are used in interpersonal, domestic and international levels.

While brute force and the threat of brute force is still a major tool used by the
US and a few other nations in international affairs most other nations use less aggressive means of exerting their power. Most nations and governing bodies standardly use strategies of power and control which deal more with psychological matters such as guilt, shame and exclusion.

Let’s take a moment to discuss the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is more internal and geared towards the individualistic nature of democratic societies. While shame is more a form of public humiliation and exile. This distinction between cultures that emphasize guilt and ones which employ shame was first introduced by ER Dodds but grew in popularity in many fields including psychology, philosophy, anthropology and sociology.

In short modern societies often employ both shame and guilt with despotic and socialistic societies leaning towards shame and democratic or theistic societies centering on guilt. In both cases power and control are fostered by either a person feeling personally at fault and unworthy (poor self-esteem) or socially humiliated and devalued.

In international affairs nations use the principle of exclusion through leaving or removing nations from groups such as NATO, OPEC or the UN. This would also involve being sanctioned or punished by some international organization, or in being labeled a terrorist state by some international body. Nations will often use indirect pressure to exert power or influence over another nation, such as embargoes or economic sanctions whereby the target nation of the act suffers economic or political harm.

Inside of nations tools such as strikes, demonstrations and marches often serve to wield power and influence. In a capitalistic/democratic nation the threat of the ballot box or in refusing to consume or patronize a business can give grassroots or religious organizations great leverage and power.

What the bulk of this post suggests is that power in modern societies even those which are patriarchal or despotic often employs techniques of power which are not typically masculine in nature. Not only is power diffused of brute force, but many of the mechanisms employed could be considered feminine in nature.

Though both men and women employ direct and indirect means of power, the more blatant aggressive and violent forms are considered masculine and the more indirect, verbal and vague forms are considered feminine. For more on the feminine aspects of power I’d suggest you read my posts on female womb/vaginal sexual images and their meanings. In short the female images focus on protection, gestation and accumulation which is exemplified in images such as the purse, nest, home, bank vault, coal mine, vases, pots, vessels and secret passage ways.

Likewise in modern psychology the indirect means of getting power are considered feminine in nature. This is the realm of passive aggressiveness, and though once again this strategy is employed by both men and women it is considered more feminine in nature.

With this in mind one could make a strong case that the bulk of day-to-day power plays in modern society use feminine rather than masculine techniques. While men have been labeled brutes and violent tyrants women have been cast as gossips and social predators. The realm of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and verbal insinuation is the realm of modern politics in the US. Fact is seldom focused on and instead we are always forced to consider perception and presentation. What is said, is often secondary to how it was said or even who is reputed to have said it.

In a society which openly acknowledges the importance of spin and spends great energy in parsing their words to arrive at a desired affect, it is hard not to recognize a classically feminine energy. The desire to destroy the reputation of your opponent by smear and rumor and to have them suffer the pain of being excluded from the group is not the technique used by brute force or tyrants.

Again many studies have shown that while males across the globe have a tendency from birth to be attracted to objects and activities, females have a tendency to be focused on relationships and language. I would argue that modern societies have become less focussed on structural change and more focused on words and relationships. Most wealthy modern societies have become more conservative in nature, and such conservatism puts a limit on the type and style of change encouraged and allowed. Such conservatism also makes the management of public perception all the more important and that means the use of language and images becomes more a tool of power and control.

Jim Guido

Gender Issues and Government and Psychology and Relationships and Social Issues03 Feb 2008 01:56 pm

In our previous posts regarding aggression and violence we’ve posed the probability that the male tendency towards brute force and domination has been overemphasized. While comparing apes to humans we saw that apes have one dominant male per group which vigilantly keeps all other males at bay. The other males do not seem to be very aggressive and only are affected by the dominant male’s attitude when he is physically nearby. Likewise we noted that most men do not use violence or the threat of violence very often, with the majority of men only having a few physical confrontations through the majority of their adult life.

This is not to deny or devalue the fact that an unacceptable percentage of men engage in physical intimidation and force in their domestic home life. Often times domestic violence is used to control and intimidate and it is reflective of the basest animal instincts in man (fight or flight response).  Psychologically the resorting to violence is a sign of desperation, and indicative of a fear that one is inferior and incompetent.

At times in society we do find leaders who in fact are little more than bullies. These dictators control through violence and the threat of violence. Everything about them is built around maintaining an environment of fear.  They are like the great apes and seek out and destroy all challengers until they themselves are finally defeated.

While some leaders are physically imposing  and skilled warriors, the majority of leaders  are seldom big, strong or skilled fighters. In most cases leaders in larger and more complex societies are not physically intimidating. A quick look at the history of conquerors and kings will show that the most outstanding and successful leaders were relatively small and physically less endowed. Admitted some made up for their lack of physical intimidation by being completely insane and scary, yet the vast majority of national leaders have been relatively average in strength and size. Cesare, Napoleon, Pepin, Hitler, Castro, Washington, Victoria and Stalin are not physically intimidating individuals. Yet, they were great leaders and emperors.

The leaders of the Roman and Greek empires were often more skilled in verbal abilities than physical ones. Though they used others to enforce and protect their power, they themselves did not arise to their position of dominance and control through sheer physical prowess.  They attained power through inspiring others to follow their lead and to support their ambitions to be a leader. The desire and ability to lead is more about social dominance rather than physical intimidation. Such leaders often surround themselves with military power. What they lack personally in physical power they make up in military might.  Yet, we should not minimize the importance of the fact that their ability to rule and stay in power has more to do with their verbal skills and intellectual strategy than with physical strength.

So, if we look at the true leaders who seek and maintain their power through dominance and control we find they themselves are not the strongest and most gifted warriors. Their skills lie not so much in the typically male realm of brute force, but in the realm of interpersonal relationships and verbal abilities.

What is ironic about this is that these skills are more feminine rather than masculine in nature.  Gender studies of infants from around the globe generally show the following. Male infants have a tendency to focus on objects rather than people. The vast majority of male infants will look at mobiles while in the crib, and focus on spacial relationships at a young age. Male infants are quicker to engage in large motor activities and prefer active play and interacting with their environment than interacting with others.

Female infants, on the other hand, are more likely to focus on the human face than on the mobiles. Female infants prefer social interaction rather than manipulating objects. While male infants brain waves show a preference for spatial expansion, female infants usually develop strong and early verbal skills and abilities. While boys develop hand and eye coordination through physical play girls are forming verbal relationships with  peers and adults. While the boy’s interactions with their peers is often dominated by physical play and tasks, the girl’s interactions are verbally dominated and relationship oriented.

So, with this in mind it is fascinating that the men who achieve power and dominance in larger complex societies are often very verbally gifted. Rather than achieving their aims of power and control through brute force they do it through relationship building and verbal influence.

In the next couple of posts we will look at the interplay of male and female styles of achieving power and control and how they play out in modern society. We will also try to investigate and expand upon  the non-violent forms of gaining influence and impacting society which tend towards harmony and equality rather than control.

Jim Guido

Gender Issues and Politics and Psychology and Relationships25 Jan 2008 09:09 pm

The conclusions of studies into the role and function of violence and aggression in the human and animal world have been fairly consistent. They show that both males and females resort to violence when they feel threatened, cornered or highly confused. This is what is typically described as the fight or flight mechanism in which a creature either retreats or attacks in response to a sense of danger or peril.

In nature female’s of the species seem to prefer fleeing the situation unless their young are in danger, in those circumstances they will take on almost any foe. Males in both animal and human societies resort to violence and aggression when they feel threatened or to defend their territory. While both males and females protect their territory, males usually have a larger area. Females protect the home/nest while the males typically stake off a larger territory.

The bulk of animal aggression and violence unrelated to acquiring food usually has to do with defending oneself. Males also get violent and aggressive when meeting a rival during mating season, or when protecting a food or water source.

While the majority of violence is done to defend oneself, the males of the species often use violence and aggression to acquire and attain desired things. In most animals being violent in an offensive manner is done to attain food, shelter, water or a particularly advantageous living area.

Male humans resort to using violence and aggression to acquire desired things more often than most other creatures. Though females occasionally use aggression as a way to acquire desired things, it is rare for this behavior to be used in a habitual manner.

In previous posts I’ve stated that the role of violence and aggression in the male is currently overstated. The typical modern man can count on one hand the number of physical fights that he has engaged in since he became an adult.

Since the average person encounters many confusing and frustrating situations in his life time, and likewise can feel threatened or in danger many times a year, it is obvious that we have developed other ways of responding to danger and confusion.

Modern psychology has identified many subtle ways that people show aggression or try to hurt or ward off others. These methods are often described as being passively aggressive. The bulk of human conflicts which aren’t harmoniously resolved usually result in the use of passive aggression rather than brute force or physical contact.

This is not the time to get into a lengthy analysis of the role and function of passive aggression or of psychological warfare. Yet, it is important to realize that even dominant males do not respond to every conflict with brute force. It is logical that the weaker and less physically imposing people would resort to non-violent means of fighting or injuring others. This is why psychologists have often emphasized the role passive aggression plays in the female social world. Yet, in any given conflict the less physically imposing individual is more likely to engage in psychological or verbal ways of winning a battle.

What role does violence and aggression (both passive and active) play in social change? Are they the major means of social change, or are there more sophisticated and positive means of social change in use which make up the bulk of social change?

Potential answers to this will be explored in the next post.

Jim Guido

Next Page »