Recently in The Sexes Category

Well, the most romantic movie ever is now out on DVD. Naturally, I’m talking about the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith. You’re not sure that a movie about two assassins who find out five or six years into their marriage that their spouse is also an assassin is romantic? Because they spend about half the movie trying to kill each other? Because after trying to shoot each other, blow each other up, and drop elevators on one another they end up in a martial arts/gun battle which culminates in their house blowing up?

I don’t see why you should hold that against the movie.

My previous “most romantic movie ever” was a tie between two John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara movies: The Quiet Man and McLintock. In The Quiet Man, right after getting married John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara have this huge fight. This results in her telling him that she’ll “clean the house, and keep the land”, but that she won’t have sex with him until he beats up her brother. The climatic finish of the movie begins with him dragging her 5 miles on foot, “just a good stretch of the legs”, back to her brother’s house after she tries to leave him. John Wayne throws her at her brother’s feet and tells the brother that if he doesn’t cough up the dowry, he can have his sister back.

The brother coughs up the dowry, and a sucker punch. Just when you think a fist fight is about to break out, the fist fight you’ve been waiting for the whole movie, Maureen O’Hara interrupts to tell John Wayne that “supper will be waitin’ for ya” and walks off as proud as can be. Later, she welcomes both husband and brother home for supper when they come in drunk as well, Irishmen who’ve just had a fist fight.

They don’t make movies like that any more.

In McLintock, Maureen O’Hara and John Wayne bicker through the entire movie plus he drinks a lot. In that climatic finish, he chases her through the entire town while everyone looks on and cheers. When he catches her, he gives her a good spanking, with a rather scary looking shovel provided by her daughter and prospective son-in-law.

They don’t make movies like that either.

In case you haven’t guessed, not only am I part Irish, but I’m married to a woman who’s even more Irish then I am. I’ve made a careful study of all those movies that other people find “romantic” and I’ve discovered two things:

One, they’re right about 9 1/2 Weeks. Though come to think of it, there’s spanking in that movie too. Quite a bit actually. Hmmm…. And I wouldn’t call it romantic, per se. Rather, watching it with someone you love is romantic, but the movie isn’t really romantic, they break up at the end. (I know, half of you have never gotten all the way through to the end of the movie when you’ve watched it together. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but that’s what happens.)

Two, the rest of you must be total pansies. Or none of you are Irish, which is the same thing really.

I don’t think its just the Irish who think that fighting is part of love, romance and marriage. I mean what idiot in Hollywood came up with this idea that love and romance is all sweetness and light? That’s got to be the biggest load of well-meaning-but-ultimately-stupid-nonsense I’ve ever heard. I have news for you all: If you agree with your loved one 100% of the time, you’re with the wrong person; you married yourself.

I really think Hollywood is doing our generation a disservice by portraying all married couples as never fighting. Think back on every sitcom or movie you’ve seen in the last 20 years. Did any of those people ever have one of those top-of-your-lungs, break-the-dishes, scare-the-pets, duck-because-you-have-to kind of fights that you’ve had with your loved one? No, right?

I’ve had several friends of mine tell me that they were surprised to find out that me and my wife fought. Well of course we fight. We’re married. Fights and power struggles are as much a part of being married as rings.

Some people have told me that they don’t like these movies because they feel John Wayne “dominates” Maureen O’Hara. Now granted, these movies seem to portray what we’ve come to call a “traditional” relationship where the man is supposed to be the “head of the household”, and this is supposedly demeaning to women. Though if you think that Maureen O’Hara was ever dominated by John Wayne in a movie, you must have gone to the bathroom during the good parts.

Besides, my wife tells me she and I have a traditional relationship, and if you think that means I’m charge, well, you’re an idiot. I may be the “head” of the household, but she’s definitely the “heart”, and what that really means is that I’m in charge of certain things, things I happen to be good at, and she’s in charge of other things, things she’s good at. It’s really all about partnership, and covering your partner’s weaknesses with your strengths. All the people I know in “traditional relationships” have divided up responsibilities that way; and the division between “head” and “heart” is different for each of them. To quote my favorite feminist Camile Paglia: “sex is complicated”. The people who talk the most about “modern” vs. “traditional” relationships all seem to be single. All the married people I know don’t care, they just wish it was the other persons job to do the dishes.

McLintock is romantic because even though these two people are having a bad moment in their marriage, you also see how much they’ve accomplished as a couple. As John Wayne puts it: “All that growin’ together”. You know that the marriage of two people who have been through as much as they have will survive. The Quiet Man isn’t really about the fist fight, its about two people from very different cultures learning to communicate their needs. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is really about being honest with your spouse and about working together as a couple on the challenges of life. Granted most of us don’t have to fight off 50 ninjas, but think of them as 50 bill collectors and I think it applies to everyone. What makes these movies romantic to my way of thinking is that they are all about couples who have problems, and overcome them. That’s true romance. Or at least Irish Romance.

So this Valentine’s Day, think back on a few fights you’ve had with your loved one, and smile.

Saudi Woman Turns 25

Despite ernie, my socialist comment troll's opinion, I am not a Repulican Theocrat. So this story pisses me off.

I think that we should have both women and queens in the military.

( Yes, I know the queens comment is offensive. I never said I was nice, just tolerant.)

It’s inevitable for the wars of the 21st Century.

via Volokh a quote from either Slate or Anne Applebaum:

Perhaps male columnists are just not interested in this issue because it doesn’t represent the sort of “hard news” they’re used to commenting on. More likely, they are terrified to opine on the debate because the inquiry is so fraught with the possibility of career-terminating levels of politically correct blowback — a la Larry Summers — that they deem it better to hold their tongues and wait for the storm to pass.

Ok, I’ll bite. While I’ve been willing to comment on my own run ins with issue, mostly, I find the whole issue boring because its just whining. Men really don’t find whining interesting because we don’t do the sort of “trouble talking” that women do.

As for why there are more male opinion columnists then women, there are some gender differences I think.

• Men are more egotistical, so they’re more interested in writing an opinion column or blogging in the first place.
• Men are more confrontational in general. In men’s conversations, there’s often a game of one-upmanship, so there’s definite precedent for disagreement in conversation. Women tend towards agreement in converstation. You’re much more likely to hear a man say “you’re full of shit and here’s why” then you are to hear a woman say that.
• Ever notice that blogs written by women have more details about their lives and tends more towards journals then opinion essays?

This is covered quite well in this book I recommended previously:

You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation

W.L. Gore Medical is based in Flagstaff, so they’ve given me interesting insight into how an organization run on more feminine principles might work.

It doesn’t.

In a traditional, more masculine enterprise, there would be a strict hierarchy.

At W.L. Gore everyone is an associate, so in theory, everyone is equal.

The reality is that there is very definitely a hierarchy at W.L. Gore, its just completely hidden so it takes a new employee about a year before they can become very effective if they have any large amount of responsibility so they need “buyin” from multiple people. It also means its very hard to push through any decisions there, because it requires too much consensus, so everyone has to be comfortable.

There’s a very dark side as well. Because there are no clear lines of authority at Gore, you can only be effective if everyone likes you. Now not only does that have nothing to do with how effective you are at your job, but say something happens in your personal life. Like you get divorced. Now man, woman, or beast, you’re going to be bitchy about your divorce for about a year.

The consequence of all this feminine touchy-feely stuff? You get laid off, because you’re grumpy, no matter how well you may be doing your work.

I’ve heard academia can be even worse…but they at least have the concept of tenure.

Then again, I don’t really associate any of this with the feminine. From what I’ve seen, feminine pecking orders can be pretty similar to masculine ones. Its that I’m constantly reading stuff from feminists who think that if women ruled the world, it would be this big happy place where people sit around singing Koom-By-Yah…

Not gonna happen.

I don’t really consider a feminist worth listening to unless she’s read the following four books:

Games Mother Never Taught You

This book is the best book on corporate politics ever, and while its written by a feminist for women, its an invaluable guide to corporate politics that all men should read as well. I easily credit this book with probably about 25% of my current salary over the years, and about 50% of every raise I’ve ever gotten.

• If you think raises go to the person who does the best work and is therefore most valuable to the company, you’re wrong, get this book.
• If you don’t know the difference between a “staff” position and a “line” position, get this book.

Bottom line, is that the barriers to advancement for women are often not knowing the rules of the game more then they are actual sexism.

How To Win Friends And Influence People

This book is just a classic. Anyone who takes these principles to heart will succeed no matter what color or sex they are.

You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation Talking from 9 to 5 : Women and Men at Work

Men and Women often just don’t communicate, no matter how hard they try. These two books explain why, and I think its especially valuable where she talks about how that affects women in the work place. If you are a women, and you constantly say “I’m sorry” during a staff meeting, meaning “I’m sorry that happened”, your fellow workers are going to see you as weak and lacking confidence, even the other women. So you’re less likely to get promoted.

Sexual Personae : Art & Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson

Camille Paglia is controversial, but undeservedly so in my opinion. If you ask an art historian about sociology or politics, she’s going to tell you its all about art. In her case, since Camille has drawn some really interesting parallels between art and sex, she’s going to tell you its all about sex. That doesn’t mean she’s right, but its an interesting perspective.

In this case though, this book is a tour de force presentation of how there are two main themes in art: the Apollonian (which she associates with the masculine) and the Chthonian (which she associates with the feminine). Its the most interesting and thought provoking book on art I’ve ever read.