I agree the photos are better styled and Linds looks younger & less coke-worn. But those are pre-boobjob and feature less nipple. So it's a wash.
I heard Letterman pronounce her name "Loan" last night; is that standard? The Chicago architect by that name is usually called, even by his associates, Low-han.
Slavs of Fashion
I was prepared to be very impressed by Radovan Karadžić's second act, but the young, stunning woman who has been pictured sitting beside him in a number of photographs turns out not to be his girlfriend.
Letterman's pronunciation is not "loan" but "lowen," as in "Lowenbrau" (rhymes with "Cohen"), and it is incorrect.
I probably shouldn't admit this but with Lohan I feel a little sad and also want to get on my white horse and rescue the damsel. The response seems to be innate and completely irrational but there it is.
Sigh.
innate and completely irrational sexist
innate and completely irrational sexist
More importantly, "unlikely to work" and "likely to result in a restraining order." She seems like she's a mess, but as long as she's surviving life and making money for someone, it's hard to imagine that life changing. That is: I feel sorry for her, too, and I assume we'll all feel even more sorry for her and her family at some point in the future.
She seems like she's a mess
Well, she used to. But Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse have really set an almost impossibly high bar for that.
Plus she's dating that kicky Samantha Ronson.
You don't feel like she needs to be rescued, m. leblanc? how cold-hearted.
ogged has delegated the celebrity photos/sexist objectification beat to w-lfs-n? I confess myself surprised.
10: one tabloid cover at the supermarket said that they were broken up.
It often scares me that La Lohan looks older than I do, like a walking liver spot. Actually, all of these teen/early 20 starlets look way beyond their years.
They are beyond their years. They're like Dominican ballplayers in that way.
The chivalric urge to protect is traditionally somewhere between condescending and smothering, but it is far from the worst aspect of the patriarchy. It is, in fact, one of the few socially sanctioned nurturing urges we men are allowed. I recommend feminists work with rather than against this urge.
On a somewhat related note, the Sting song "If you love someone, set them free" has been reworked in our house to "if you love someone, let them sleep."
Sleep, sleep, let them sleep.
Sleep, sleep, let them sleep.
This has not caught on with the shorter members of the family.
I recommend feminists work with rather than against this urge.
It's important that men be allowed and encouraged to be nurturing. Chivalry isn't a problem-free embodiment of being nurturing. Recomending strategies to feminists smacks of chivalry.
14.1 and 14.2-.4 are great, in different ways.
Chivalry isn't a problem-free embodiment of being nurturing
The key is to find a guy who grew up in a milieu where he imbibed enough chivalry to feel guilty about treating a lady badly, but then moved to an environment where he imbibed enough feminism to feel guilty about feeling entitled to anything in return.
Like jammies, for example.
I'm with Heebie. The chivalric urge is not the same as the nurturing urge, and it gets applied to different people. Why might one fantasize about white-horsing Lohan but not Spears or Winehouse? And what would it mean to "save" her? Lock her in your house and keep her from getting to a dealer? Give her bubble baths and breakfast in bed until she feels so "loved" that she stops wanting drugs?
I like chivalry, myself.
That said, those photos depress the crap out of me.
18: This is one of the rare instances where I know what Tripp means. I don't think it's that specific of an urge.
If men can count as feminists, then it makes sense for us to play a role in feminist strategizing.
On the other hand, I'm not particularly wedded to 14.1. I had in mind something like what KR was discussing in 17, but at a more political level. But I could be wrong about how feasible that is.
Why might one fantasize about white-horsing Lohan but not Spears or Winehouse?
Did anyone say that?
And what would it mean to "save" her? Lock her in your house and keep her from getting to a dealer? Give her bubble baths and breakfast in bed until she feels so "loved" that she stops wanting drugs?
The chivalric urge doesn't occur only in people who are mentally ill idiots, actually.
If men can count as feminists
Being a feminist isn't enough to make a man bad at math, rob. You have to actually get the surgery.
Rob: have you tried This Heat's "Sleep"?
But fatman, you have to admit that historically the chivalric urge has involved sequestering women in one way or another. Like I said, somewhere between condescending and smothering.
My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but this?
it is far from the worst aspect of the patriarchy
Come on, man. This is like the lamest argument for not complaining about something, ever. Yes, there are worse things. Sex slaves and children starving in Africa, I know. The notion that women need to be "rescued" still sucks.
If men can count as feminists, then it makes sense for us to play a role in feminist strategizing.
It's unusual enough for men to be willing to call themselves feminists, that I wasn't giving you that credit when I read 14. I'm sorry.
The notion that women need to be "rescued" still sucks.
Sure, but come on: don't you think that, in fact, Lohan, Spears, et al, need some freaking help?
25: yes. I like to think that if we agree that it is actually an urge, we see that it was channelled into more patriarchal behavior back when society was more patriarchal. And can easily be adapted to non-patronizing societies.
What are we talking about, anyway? The instinct that leads one to see a sad woman and wish to render her non-sad? I think this can take both patriarchal and non-patriarchal forms, much like the concept you humans call "love".
And of course men can be feminists. Some aren't willing to call themselves that, but they are, anyway.
I do have a pet peeve about the whole "I'm a man, so I can't really call myself a feminist, because only women can really know what they go through and what is best for them" thing. Not necessarily attributing that to helpy-chalk, just putting it out there. The notion that men can't be feminists just contributes to the perception that feminism is some kind of niche, crazy ideology.
When in fact, it's basic common sense.
29: Yeah, but no one wants to sweep Collin Ferrell up and lock him in a turret. His partying is celebrated.
Yeah, but no one wants to sweep Collin Ferrell up and lock him in a turret.
I'd be okay with that...
What would an updated chivalry sound like? "Wash thou these dishes if thou wouldst my heart to woo. Thy socks pick up also."
"O light of my eyes, I will wash even yon casserole with the baked-on crust! I will scout the earth for every sock I've ever worn, and I will lay them at your feet, freshly laundered and neatly folded! Only favor me with but one glance!"
don't you think that, in fact, Lohan, Spears, et al, need some freaking help
Of course they do. Drug and alcohol addiction really suck. But I don't think getting them help has anything to do with whether chivalric urges are directed toward them. In fact, I think chivalry is part and parcel of a beautiful-women-are-special-and-wonderful that makes fucking 16 year old girls the object of intense worldwide attention, leading to...voila! The plight of fallen teenage stars Lohan and Spears.
Yeah, but no one wants to sweep Collin Ferrell up and lock him in a turret. His partying is celebrated.
Wha-? Were you never exposed to the "bad boy just needs the love of a good woman" or the "he's a sweet boy who needs someone to care for him" tropes? Jim Morrison and Josh Groban, each in his own way, made a career out of exploiting the female version of chivalry.
don't you think that, in fact, Lohan, Spears, et al, need some freaking help?
Also, that photograph is carefully designed to evoke both compassion and sexual arousal in men. The result is that you are simultaneously prompted to protect and to think of your gender identity. The socially accepted manifestation of this is chivalry.
Setting aside chivalry as a concept, both the urge to protect and sexual arousal are basically good things. There is no benefit to simply trying to smother those urges. I also don't see any benefit in trying to keep them segregated.
The notion that men can't be feminists just contributes to the perception that feminism is some kind of niche, crazy ideology.
I didn't think this notion was original to men.
32: Well, no one wants to rescue Paris Hilton, either (even though my god, the photo in that slide show). I think part of the distinction is between the fucked-up stars who act like entitled assholes vs. the fucked-up stars who just seem young and exploited. River Phoenix would be a male equivalent.
I see what you're saying in 35, LeBlanc, but I do think that we can separate out different aspects of that urge. Like, I personally have a protective feeling towards 16 year olds generally, that makes me feel angry when you see the Lohans and the Spears being (clearly) exploited and oversexualized not only by the media but by all the people around them. That feeling is definitely *also* linked in with sexist attitudes that lead to (say) the argument that 16 year olds shouldn't be able to procure abortions, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing in and of itself; just that it can be capitalized on and used in fucked-up ways.
Jim Morrison and Josh Groban, each in his own way, made a career out of exploiting the female version of chivalry.
But of course, those are our go-to examples for everything. They must get sick of being the male version of Britney Spears.
I probably shouldn't admit this but with Lohan I feel a little sad and also want to get on my white horse and rescue the damsel.
She seems like she's a mess, but as long as she's surviving life and making money for someone, it's hard to imagine that life changing. That is: I feel sorry for her, t
Guys, I understand what you're saying, and I'd like to have sex with her, too. But I don't think she'd give up her life for yours (or mine) even if it meant giving up her life. We all have problems. We don't all have fame, youth, money, and the world calling at our door.
I've seen Colin Farrell specifically listed as someone who inspires odd combinations of lust and maternal instinct in female viewers. A lot of this is because he's a small guy -- 32 would be on the money if it said "Russell Crowe" instead. I wager there would be a lot less chivalry if the notion of the average male physically "protecting" the average female wasn't superficially plausible based on men being stronger than women.
(note that my first sentence was not immediately creepy, as a combination of "lust and paternal instinct" would be)
This article isn't quite what I was looking for, but I know I've read one that was more literally on the topic of female-->male "chivalry" directed at Colin Farrell.
Third man on the moon. Women felt so sorry for him for not being first or second that he always got a lot of play.
Yeah, I can't really get on-board with Lohan and Spears and all of them needing more help from some kindly soul who looks into their photographed eyes and sees pain and loneliness. These are rich, powerful women with a lot of people around them. They *have* help. They get to go to a nice rehab if they want. Most people don't have these options.
I guess the chivalry thing I dislike most is the way it leads to things like "Hasn't anyone ever told you how special/beautiful/talented you are?" which Tia complained about a few years back. Actually, I'm sure plenty of people tell these women that. A lack of attention is not the problem here.
Leblanc: The notion that men can't be feminists just contributes to the perception that feminism is some kind of niche, crazy ideology.
Wolfoson: I didn't think this notion was original to men.
It was a staple of 70s feminism. You still see it a lot in leftist men of that generation.
Things might have gone better if I had said "we feminists" in 14, rather than "feminists." I just hate the "we [whatevers]" way of talking. Its like "as a [whatever], I am"
We ironists can get away with it.
Leblanc, have I told you how special and wonderful you are today?
OT, anyone know where I can get the nude Hannah Montana pics?
45: Well, of course they don't need help from strangers, and no one here is suggesting beginning some enlightened stalking routine. But come on; they *aren't* "rich, powerful women." They're rich, presumably, but who knows if they're in control of their own finances, and from all appearances the people around them are not exactly actual friends, which is probably a big part of their problem.
No, a lot of people don't have the options that celebrities have; at the same time, most people don't have the disadvantages that celebrities have. And in any case, the "other people have it worse" thing isn't much of an argument.
Probably at What Would Tyler Durden Do.
This is some stellar unfoggedism. Y'all have a brilliant way with words. Thank you for that.
both the urge to protect and sexual arousal are basically good things....I also don't see any benefit in trying to keep them segregated.
It's one thing to want to protect and be sexually attracted to your partner. Then, you are (probably) the only unique person in that situation.
It's a problem to blur these urges in general, because then protection does not get doled out to unattractive young girls. (No, really unattractive. Now add some warts.)
Yeah, I can't really get on-board with Lohan and Spears and all of them needing more help from some kindly soul who looks into their photographed eyes and sees pain and loneliness. These are rich, powerful women with a lot of people around them. They *have* help. They get to go to a nice rehab if they want. Most people don't have these options.
I question the word "powerful". They are powerful because they have money. They then have to trust the people who do things for them, act on their behalf, and especially those who negotiate on their behalf. It leads to a lot of insecurity when you get a financial windfall, you know there's all sorts of stuff you need to do in order to not get screwed out of your money, and you have to worry about who you can trust.
If men can count as feminists
The road to hell.... But we've already had this argument.
46 - As a chronic abuser of this trope, Camille Paglia is going to hunt you down and make you read three of her tedious columns.
45: As Nietzsche reminds us, one of the ways of showing how powerful you are is by being able to take a hit -- for instance, being a drug addict and nonetheless remaining a major celebrity.
Comparing teen stars to, say, run of the mill drug addicts would be reminiscent of that Curb episode where the Holocaust survivor gets into an argument with the contestant from Survivor.
48: Run a search for "Hannah Montana tit-tays."
I will agree that social privilege is a bad thing for addicts, because it serves as an enabler, but otherwise, Kotsko is right.
Nietzsche also harps, however, on the theme of being actually sick and overcoming it. It's not just a matter of enduring a blow that would undo a lesser man, but of recovering from illnesses that have actually leveled one, and rejoicing in finally being well again. See, eg, the preface to The Gay Science, and some other more overtly autobiographical bits of his work.
It's a problem to blur these urges in general, because then protection does not get doled out to unattractive young girls. (No, really unattractive. Now add some warts.)
natural selection, heebie. All part of Mother Nature's plan to make us a more beautiful people.
41:Not only them, I was mourning Brad Renfro just last night. We were talking about how cute/pretty/smart Renfro was in Apt Pupil and how he thickened out (tho still attractive) but especially how he so often played unintelligent foolish characters in his later career. What brought it up was seeing an episode of Mad Men for the first time, and seeing that Vincent Kartheiser has similarly thickened a little as he matured, but is still playing characters close to what he played earlier. Now have to check out Nick Stahl.
But I don't think the roue should participate in this thread. I'll use W-lfs-n as a justification for the 113 better Lohan pictures on my harddrive. If W-lfs-n does it...
I've seen Colin Farrell specifically listed as someone who inspires odd combinations of lust and maternal instinct in female viewers.
Is he ever referred to as "half god, half prattling baby"?
It's a problem to blur these urges in general, because then protection does not get doled out to unattractive young girls. (No, really unattractive. Now add some warts.)
Hm. But if the problem is that ugly girls don't get protected, then the point is that the protection is a good thing, and the problem is merely that it's unfairly applied, which is a different argument from saying that the protection is bad/condescending/etc.
63: yeah....I still think the protection, in the form under discussion, is bad/condescending/etc.
A different urge is to blindly protect all 16-year-olds, which leads to nice things like funding the public school system and Midnight Basketball.
for instance, being a drug addict and nonetheless remaining a major celebrity.
"Maintaining" while under the influence or addicted is part of the internal narrative for a lot of substance abusers, not limited to the the rich or successful. They were celebrities first of course.
Did I tell ya I watched me some Mad Men last night? There was office pressure to drink on the clock.
But Bitch and Helpy-Chalk, these urges to protect don't exist in some kind of vacuum of moral purity. Protecting women also ends up being manifested as "not letting women out of the house."
I think the notion that one part of society has to protect another part of society is, just by itself, bad. Of course people should look out for their family members, and the government should look out for the most disadvantaged of its citizens. But I don't even think you can say "chivalry is good" apart from the patriarchal structure that it exists in. Without the patriarchal structure, chivalry as we know it, in any meaningful sense of the word, wouldn't exist.
I really wish I didn't have like 8 pressing things to do right now and could have this conversation all day.
to actually leave a serious comment, in this talk of chivalry and protecting, I'm totally unsure what y'all mean by "protect" and if anyone actually does this "protecting" (apart from parents, guardians, and other family members, of course).
There's the guy in the bar who "protects" his woman from other male predators, and there's the older financially-secure gentleman who "protects" his young, financially-insecure mistress, but neither of these seems right.
64.1: See, I think that it's condescending when it's applied to people who really can take care of themselves. And even when it's not, e.g., the rumors one hears about Spears's agent using the "must take care of you" line as a way of keeping her dependent. But I don't think that that means that the genuine *feeling* (as opposed to the actions of, e.g., her agent) that "omg that person seems vulnerable and fucked up, I wish there was something I could do" is a bad one.
It probably *is*, for men, often (perhaps not always) a feeling that's extended to women, esp. young women, more than to other men. And surely that's not unrelated to sexual desire. But I don't know that that necessarily makes it bad; I kind of *like* that male protective urge. And surely women have the same kinds of protective feelings towards men ("aww, poor honey, you're having the hardest time at work and I *hate* your boss") or towards other women (e.g., Lohan) or towards, obviously, children. Surely the urge to protect/help people who seem more vulnerable than we are is a good one?
67: There's, for example, my older brother, who I quickly learned not to let on to about any boy that so much looked at me the wrong way, because he would go find the person and threaten to kick his ass, with or without my blessing. I found it scary, threatening, and patronizing. I know you said family members, but there are non-family members who behave this way, too.
67: I think the key verb in this case is not "protect" but "save," which is even more disturbing.
I'm sure I've bitched about it before, but, for personal reasons, I really despise the Hollywood plot about the psychotic loner guy who is "saved" from his abusive and self-abusive behaviors by the love of a "normal" woman. All I can think as the credits roll is "He's going to murder her the first time he imagines she's cheating on him."
66.1: But there's a difference between "women, as a class, need to be protected" and "wow, that one particular woman seems really fucked up, I wish I could help her."
Leblanc's right. Chivalry is a great blanket with which to cover a multitude of sins, even from the sinner. Those sins don't have to be as obvious as locking a woman in the house, but they often enough take the form of protecting a woman from herself, her choices, or the consequences of those choices.
66:most disadvantaged of its citizens
But in the patriarchy women, as a class, are disadvantaged. What distinguishes a feminist impulse to protect from a chivalric impulse to protect & defend from a feminist impulse to protect & defend? Viewed personally, and then politically.
Can women be "chivalric?" If not, can men be feminists?
Okay, but let's take the flip side: the "people can take care of themselves, thank you" argument *also* gets used as cover for a lot of terrible shit: "they made their own choices, etc." A feeling is not identical to the uses to which that feeling gets put.
I think the distinction here lies between "helping" and "protecting." I don't need to be "protected," and I don't think Lohan needs "protection" either. Helping people who struggle with drug addition, mental illness, being taken advantage of, etc, need someone to help them get whatever self-assurance or awareness is needed so that they stop being self-destructive, not someone to stand at the door and keep the would-be demons away.
Surely the urge to protect/help people who seem more vulnerable than we are is a good one?
Not when "being female" is being used as an indicator of vulnerability. In other idealized situations, sure.
I kind of *like* that male protective urge
I suspect this is from where the disagreement arises. I emphatically do not like that urge, and I have not seen it put to good use in my life or that of those around me. An urge to help people who are struggling? Yeah. But that's not the the same as what I conceive of as the "male protective urge."
By "idealized" I mean situations where you can magically identify exactly why the person seems vulnerable, and neither attraction nor being female are a component.
b,
Surely the urge to protect/help people who seem more vulnerable than we are is a good one?
Excellent question which would take an all-night talk to gnaw around.
I can't be succinct on this topic so I'm gonna dodge the question.
I think our feelings are in general agreement around this topic but it sure would be a fun discussion to have.
Quick, beneath the the protective shield of my cock! You'll be safe there.
Not when "being female" is being used as an indicator of vulnerability>/i>
But in the World Wide Patriarchy, it is an indicator. Or is it? I have this thing about "honor killings" see, that leads to bad imperialist thoughts.
I would also like to see less young men die by violence in the underdeveloped world.
If I were a feminist, woul there be any differences between these impulses?
natural selection, heebie. All part of Mother Nature's plan to make us a more beautiful people.
Then how do you explain that England has a higher fertility rate than Italy?
my older brother, who I quickly learned not to let on to about any boy that so much looked at me the wrong way, because he would go find the person and threaten to kick his ass, with or without my blessing.
What else was he to do when you were out bringing shame on the family?
83: No, because the idea that young men should die to save their country and that young women should die to redeem the honor or their families are both part of the capitalist, war-mongering patriarchy.
78: But the fact is that being female *is* an indicator of vulnerability, especially to men, especially when said female's vulnerability is right out there--whether because she's drunk and in a frat house, or all over the covers of tabloids b/c she's all fucked up in specifically gendered ways.
79: Really? You don't like having someone say to you when you're having some kind of stress-induced meltdown that it'll be okay, sweetie? Or being taken out for a night on the town? It's not even a little endearing when a guy offers you a hand if you're stepping down from a height or walking where the footing's unstable?
I mean no; no one wants some asshole to be all "you don't need a job, I'll take care of you," especially if he really means "don't you go get a job, now." But if you've just lost your job and are all worried about wtf are you going to do now, wouldn't it be sort of nice to have someone say to you, "look, you don't need to worry, I'm sure you'll find another job but even if the world comes to an end and you don't, I'll make sure you don't starve"?
I've dated several people who felt I was really vulnerable and in need of "saving," in that they explicitly said they wanted to "teach" me to trust them. I tend to fall for it, as I really am constantly looking for opportunities to be vulnerable to people. That set of guys is exactly the same set who have broken off our relationship in particularly cruel and sudden ways. In a sense, I think that urge to make women trust is really an urge to see oneself as trustworthy, despite fearing that one is not trustworthy. And I have compassion for that desire to be the one someone else can count on. But the fact that the desire so rarely coincides with being trustworthy does result, in me at least, in having some pretty major problems trusting anyone with my vulnerability.
It probably *is*, for men, often (perhaps not always) a feeling that's extended to women, esp. young women, more than to other men. And surely that's not unrelated to sexual desire....And surely women have the same kinds of protective feelings....towards, obviously, children.
for shame.
75: I'm not sure what the base unit of a feeling is, but how unease that we feel gets structured to the point where we can voice it matters. It's not that uncommon to feel sympathy for people in dire straits, and often enough that sympathy isn't dependent on gender or some notion of how we can be heroic. I think we can probably do that even while acknowledging that someone like Lohan is particularly vulnerable to certain types of predation because she is female and attractive.
(These are probably minor points.)
But I have to be honest. I really have never had any urge to "protect" or "save" any of the young people mentioned in this thread. Never had any urge to fuck them either.
As I have said, I like to watch the careers of young actors, and see who survives and who flourishes. I have empathy, lots of empathy, but it's mostly a spectator sport, with popcorn.
having some kind of stress-induced meltdown that it'll be okay, sweetie?
Of course I do, having had one of those just the other night. But how is that chivalry? Sounds to me like, you know, being in a loving relationship. I do like being taken out for a night on the town--but I like doing the taking out, too. And if someone offers me a hand when I stumble, whether it's my boyfriend or a girlfriend I'm climbing on slippery rocks with, it's sweet.
But none of these things have to do with what I conceive of as chivalry. They're not gender-dependent, and they're demonstrations of caring that can come from romantic interest, friend, or family.
85: I actually wonder about this. Yes, the idea that men should die for their country, specifically, is a capitalist patriarchy etc. But I kind of suspect that the greater aggression of young men and higher tolerance for physical risk thing might well be because it *is* a good thing, if a small group or family is under threat, if Mr. Man takes the deadly risk to protect Mrs. Mama and the kids.
I know this is an "on the veldt" argument, and I'm adamantly *not* saying that the veldt justifies nonsense about men serving in the military or women not serving or the machismo of military service. What I'm saying is that I think that part of the reason why those kinds of arguments gain traction is that they *are* based in actual human impulses, which they then extrapolate from in destructive ways.
OK, perhaps we can say that the difference between "chivalry" (as a bad thing) and "kindness" (as a good thing) is that chivalry smacks of the kinds of things people do for other people in order to shore up their sense of their own strength, while kindness means the sorts of things people do primarily because they want to increase someone's happiness. It's often really hard to tell the difference when you're on the receiving end, and is probably hard to tell the difference on the giving end, too.
91: I like doing the taking out myself. But I do think that these things are chivalrous because, for me at least, when they are offered by men who I am attracted to, they *feel different* than they do when offered by friends. Yes, I appreciate it from everyone. But there's a particular sort of resonance when that kind of reassurance is offered from a man, just like I'm sure there's a particular (but slightly different) sort of resonance when that kind of thing is offered to a man from a woman.
87: Right. There is definitely a major problem with the ways that some people will use that sort of trust thing to fuck others over, which is especially difficult for people who have a hard time distinguishing between those people and the folks who actually are decent and trustworthy. But that doesn't mean that trust itself is a bad thing, ykwim?
the greater aggression of young men and higher tolerance for physical risk thing might well be because it *is* a good thing, if a small group or family is under threat, if Mr. Man takes the deadly risk to protect Mrs. Mama and the kids.
Bitch, you're killing me. This makes no sense. Let's say on the veldt, Mr. Man is off hunting and Mrs. Mama and the kids come under attack. Then it would be a good thing for Mrs. Mama to take the deadly risk to protect the kids! And that's why women are more agressive and willing to take physical risks!
Oops.
These just-so stoies can be turned every which way to make them support whatever proposition to set out to support.
I'm cool with dumping the word "chivalry." Although I do think that there are differences between the ways that "masculine" kindness and "feminine" kindness manifest (as well as there being non-gendered kindness that everyone partakes in), and I'm kind of okay with that in a non-prescriptive kind of way.
Ahem, excuse me. I mean: These just-so stories can be turned every which way to make them support whatever proposition you set out to support.
94b: I'm not sure it really is possible to tell the difference. I don't think anyone I've dated has intended to fuck me over or be cruel. They just suddenly were, and seemed as surprised by it as I was.
85, 92:For the record, I wasn't talking about American young men in 83, nor even about Iraqi men who might die "for their country" or some other quasi-admirable cause.
Young guys die by violence in droves, in Africa, in South America, in the Phillipines. In America.
But it may all be due to the Capitalist Patriarchy.
Jim Morrison and Josh Groban, each in his own way, made a career out of exploiting the female version of chivalry.
But of course, those are our go-to examples for everything. They must get sick of being the male version of Britney Spears.
Just to give another example the (terrible) movie The Saint has a scene with Val Kilmer using just this seductions strategy on Elizabeth Shue (yes, yes, Hollywood being Hollywood, it must be established without a doubt that his character is competent, and merely faking the vulnerability, but it's an example of the trope in Mass Media)
96: Bitch reveals herself to be a gender essentialist!
We should totally post these on our blog, because it's interesting and I'm too lazy to write stuff.
95: I'm not proposing a zero-sum situation: absolutely Mrs. Mama is going to defend the fuck out of her kids and has aggressive instincts as well. And yes, Mrs. Mama is going to defend Mr. Man, too, if it comes down to that.
That doesn't mean that it isn't, generally, "better" for the small group if there are fewer men than women. I'd hypothesize, for instance, that this is the reason why women live longer than men and why male fetuses are more fragile than female ones: we don't need men as much as we do women.
I've dated several people who felt I was really vulnerable and in need of "saving," in that they explicitly said they wanted to "teach" me to trust them. I tend to fall for it, as I really am constantly looking for opportunities to be vulnerable to people. That set of guys is exactly the same set who have broken off our relationship in particularly cruel and sudden ways.
Dear God, yes. It's like this game they play to get you drop your defenses so they can have an unimpeded shot when they kick you in the gut.
101.1: It's already well-established that, as a "pro-natalist," I'm a essentialist. Didn't you read all the feminist blogs when I took the Suicide Girls gig?
88:towards, obviously, children.
for shame.
Radical kid-libber here, for the record, who does see parallels between women-as-property and children-as-property. But just noting, subject may be considered dropped.
(Full disclosure: I'm currently reading The Riddle of Gender, which is an awesome book about transsexuals and transgendered folks, etc., and I mean, it *does* rather suggest that there are indeed different "feelings" associated with "being a man" vs. "being a woman.")
I think of myself as a feminist. Don't laugh, motherfucker.
105: Please. I'm the person who thinks kids should vote. That doesn't mean that parents having protective feelings towards their children is a bad thing.
I really have never had any urge to "protect" or "save" any of the young people mentioned in this thread. Never had any urge to fuck them either.
Neither have I. That said, can we add Bob to the list of examples (residents of Manhattan, etc.) from whose experience no general conclusions may be drawn?
I'd hypothesize, for instance, that this is the reason why women live longer than men
Wrong again; isn't this partially because being a man is riskier (violence, war, etc), and because leading a "male" lifestyle full of aggression, not expressing emotion, working too hard, etc, leads to things like heart disease.
I appreciate that, on this thread, B is taking the position "before we completely shoot down the idea that this gendered behavior is pernicious, let's at least kick around the possibility."
A feeling is not identical to the uses to which that feeling gets put.
Thank you.
But how is that chivalry?
perhaps we can say that the difference between "chivalry" (as a bad thing) and "kindness" (as a good thing) is that chivalry smacks of the kinds of things people do for other people in order to shore up their sense of their own strength
I have a strong sense that this is a bad idea. Little boys are still taught, or were last I was one, to be chivalrous, by which is meant opening doors, letting the woman order first, walking on the appropriate side of the road, that sort of thing. Saying chivalry is now bad is going to be awfully confusing.
Still, you are of course free to do what you like. I have definitely encountered girls who have taken opposing positions on chivlary-as-dealbreaker. Some girls have to have it, some won't stand it. I honestly don't care which way it goes, but it takes some time for me to readjust my habits. It's a bit bothersome.
I mean no; no one wants some asshole to be all "you don't need a job, I'll take care of you," especially if he really means "don't you go get a job, now." But if you've just lost your job and are all worried about wtf are you going to do now, wouldn't it be sort of nice to have someone say to you, "look, you don't need to worry, I'm sure you'll find another job but even if the world comes to an end and you don't, I'll make sure you don't starve"?
I'm surprised you would be in favor of this, given that the man wouldn't be doing it if you were ugly.
109 see 61: I am defensive about the 113 jpgs of Lindsay Lohan in wallpaper rotation. As well I should be.
blogs when I took the Suicide Girls gig?
I read that they are an evil corporation who screw over their models and photographers. Way to give in to the Man, man.
But that doesn't mean that trust itself is a bad thing, ykwim?
Cally: My people have a saying: A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.
Avon: Life expectancy must be fairly short among your people.
-- Blake's Seven: Mission to Destiny
I've always found myself in agreement with both sides of that. :)
I have a strong sense that this is a bad idea. Little boys are still taught, or were last I was one, to be chivalrous, by which is meant opening doors, letting the woman order first, walking on the appropriate side of the road, that sort of thing. Saying chivalry is now bad is going to be awfully confusing.
You know, I'm comfortable saying, based on those examples, that chivalry is a bad thing. The whole "I am the man, I must hold the door" routine gets exceedingly annoying when you have to go through this whole stupid choreographed routine because Mr. Chivalry couldn't possibly just walk through a door that you are holding! [/pet peeve]
I read that they are an evil corporation who screw over their models and photographers. Way to give in to the Man, man.
I don't think it can be an evil corporation without shareholders. It's more like just a couple evil people.
113: Of course there is disagreement among women about what kind of gender performance we're attracted to in men, just like there's disagreement among men about the attractiveness of feminine gender performance. One day, women are told they have to wear makeup and the next, we hear from guys that they hate makeup, and meanwhile, we're suspicious that neither the pro-makeup nor the anti-makeup dudes really want what they say they want. Same for tiptoeing around how we perform sexuality, assertiveness, affection, etc.
We're all in the same boat with this gender performance stuff, which makes it all the more important to figure out what's important to you and what you are flexible about. Is your chivalry or lack thereof going to turn someone off who you otherwise really liked, when you didn't really give a damn about it for yourself? Probably. In my case, I just figure that there are a lot of weird ways I perform my gender, and people are either going to be attracted to that or not. Most of them don't really matter to me in themselves, but I wouldn't want to date someone who wouldn't *let* me play around with them.
I think Michael is correct that establishing a division between chivalry (bad) and kindness (good) begs the question posed in 14 of whether it would be better to try to work with the word and concept of "chivalry" but steer it in better directions.
Why is letting the woman order first a thing? I totally don't get that. Ugh, the whole "ladies first" thing in general annoys me.
I have often found myself in foreign countries ordering all the food for both me and my boyfriend (because I spoke the language better), and waitstaff looked at us like we were martians.
113:No, I think we have determined that women can be kind or courteous, with an old definition of courteous, but not chivalrous.
I open doors for everyone whenever the opportunity arises, and get doors opened for me. If I had a feathered hat, I would doff, flourish, and deeply bow, saying:"After you, gentle sir." Courtesy is fun.
Chivalry probably differs from courtesy in the male, and is based upon the gendered situation. Perhaps women shouldn't worry about it.
We're all in the same boat with this gender performance stuff, which makes it all the more important to figure out what's important to you and what you are flexible about.
Words of wisdom.
110: I'm sure all those things have impact too, but you'd think they'd be balanced out by women being poorer, less likely to have health care, etc. I mean, maybe in the end it will all turn out to be differences of behavior, but maybe it won't. The fact that male fetuses (and infants) are more likely to die than female certainly isn't behavior-based.
113: Michael, some women like that sort of thing, others don't. Suggestion: do what you prefer, and accept that it will appeal to some wome and not others.
I'm surprised you would be in favor of this, given that the man wouldn't be doing it if he thought you were ugly.
116: And like their photographers and models, I was willing to take the job because it paid money. For the record, I was wildly unpopular with the subscribers because I was such a man-hating feminazi.
118: There's a difference between a man who will hold a door for you nicely, and a man who *insists that you have to let him hold the door*.
The debate seems to be about whether there's enough baby in the tub to justify tipping the bath out carefully, and I come down on the side of yes.
Just as chevalerie gave us chivalry, courtoisie gave us courtesy. By and by, revolutionary notions of equality and the rights of man led to the idea that courtoisie was something owed from everyman to everyman, and its classist/monarchist origins withered (mostly) away.
You could probably make a similar argument about democracy (by way of the limited franchise), property rights, and secular morality (by way of religious strictures) itself; the crude form was a pretty important waystation on the road from barbarism to civilization.
So why "chivalry" as opposed to gender-blind "niceness"? Because women are smaller and weaker at the mean, and benefit from some degree of extra indulgence.
he whole "I am the man, I must hold the door" routine gets exceedingly annoying when you have to go through this whole stupid choreographed routine because Mr. Chivalry couldn't possibly just walk through a door that you are holding! [/pet peeve]
I understand, believe me. I'm not that guy. I'm fine with you holding the door for me. I'm just saying that, along with a billion dollars and a pony, I'd like everyone to decide whether or not I should hold open that door, so that it's no longer a Big Deal that I did in some situations, or a Big Deal that I didn't in others.
I'm with Di in 118. I like when a man opens a door if he's the one who gets to it first. I do the same when I get to a door first. It's just nice. It stops being nice if he is inconveniencing both of us by making a big show of rushing up to every door, or of refusing to step through a door I'm holding. Same with check-paying. If a guy offers to pay the check, that's nice, and I'll accept. But if I offer to pay the check and he freaks out about how I have a vagina and therefore can't pay, that's not nice.
I think that's how most women I know feel, and the exceptions (OMG HE DIDN'T OPEN A DOOR FOR ME!!) are women I personally avoid talking about relationships with because it's too infuriating. YMMV.
Why is letting the woman order first a thing?
Because the host defers to the guest, and generally people expect that the man is paying/hosting. Which traditionally has been the case.
Of *course* that's not always the true, and when it's not, everyone involved should still adhere to the proper rule, which is that the host, regardless of sex, defers.
b, i'm a man; i don't have preferences
128: Exactly. Virtually all the rules of chivalry are based on rules of *manners*. When you violate manners to enforce chivalry, you're fucking it up.
127: The hell with the ladies who don't want me to open the door. Haven't really met any, tho.
If you are talking about a car door, she can sit there all night while I go watch the movie.
131: In that case, no women will date you, because all women hate wishy-washy men who don't know their own minds.
So why "chivalry" as opposed to gender-blind "niceness"? Because women are smaller and weaker at the mean, and benefit from some degree of extra indulgence.
It's amusing to note that the original concept of chivalry was not much more applicable to the average person then than the private equity fund manager tax dodge is today, and for much the same reasons.
127: No no no! Each person should decide for themselves whether or not to hold the door, and it should not be a Big Deal (i.e. cause for offense) either way.
(Actually, whoever gets to the door first should hold the fucking door, with no regard for gender, and whoever the door is held for should appreciate the courtesy.)
Anyway, I think capital-C-chivalry is just a convenient structure made up so men can be generically "romantic" without having to think too hard. I'm much more affected by having things done for me that actually have to do with me, rather than with some idea of traditional gendered behavior. I don't mind having doors opened or checks paid, but I'm not particularly wooed by it either. I am annoyed by any kind of check-paying, door-opening insistence though, as in 128.
134 is this close to endorsing every stereotype of gender relations that I've ever heard.
135:Let me go read my Chaucer, especially the Squire, Clerk, and Host.
I am not so certain that Chivalry was not an extension or addition to courtesie, nor am I sure how serfs treated each other.
Manners can be complicated, and context-specific, of course. Unfogged demands cockjokes and pastries.
I never understood what the objection opening doors was until I stayed in a hostel with a guy in the Marines. He had mastered some way of opening doors for women that communicated "why yes, you _are_ too helpless to open a door for yourself." It was impressive that a sexist message could be expressed so economically.
138:I will defend the honour of the unjustly maligned Phd, as soon as I unpack the layers of irony & sarcasm in 134
138: 134 was a joke, for fuck's sake.
I like when a man opens a door if he's the one who gets to it first. I do the same when I get to a door first. It's just nice. It stops being nice if he is inconveniencing both of us by making a big show of rushing up to every door, or of refusing to step through a door I'm holding.
That's why you have to learn how to do it without making a big show or needing to rush. Ladies can assist by slowing down nearly imperceptibly (and without making a big show).
And yet 138 is not a joke? How unlike me.
So why "chivalry" as opposed to gender-blind "niceness"? Because women are smaller and weaker at the mean, and benefit from some degree of extra indulgence.
I thought it was because you're not supposed to be nice to other guys. Hold the door for them if and only if they're at an awkward distance and you can let it go before they can reach it. If on a double date you order first and pick up the check, the other guy is your inferior. Rub it in his face and seduce his girlfriend.
What I'm saying is I think that whether or not chivalry is sexist depends on the guy.
143 is exactly right. Ladies who are annoyed by having doors held open can let gentlemen know by opening doors themselves, or saying "oh, you don't have to do that" or something along those lines. Ladies who are willing to play the game or who actively enjoy it know how to slow down without making a show. And some of them will even do the door-opening themselves, sans big show, when the gentleman is carrying the groceries.
That's why you have to learn how to do it without making a big show or needing to rush. Ladies can assist by slowing down nearly imperceptibly (and without making a big show).
See, then it just gets all complicated. I always thought it was considered good manners for me to walk slightly ahead of the gentleman so that he could admire my fine ass, but then that puts me at the door first.
140: I've gotten this particularly from a couple of my male students, undergraduates being a rather unsubtle lot. It's usually a student who seems to have some sort of crush on me and who follows me back to my office after class every day, making small talk about his life and stuff. Rushing ahead to grab the door like that seems like a way to remind me (or, more likely, himself) that I'm a weak female, and therefore not so superior. (It could, in another sense, be done in order to pay respect to me, but that seems absurd, as I'm no high-and-mighty type.) In most of the situations in which I've been door-opened in that super-condescending way, it's usually someone who is trying to overcome being intimidated by me, never an equal or superior. In that light, from a 19-year-old, it's not particularly offensive. It's just an odd thing to watch them navigate.
145: I hate you because you are teh sexist.
[professional equal or superior, of course]
You didn't get the whole script, Di. Just before you get to the door, you're supposed to drop your hankerchief. When you bend over to pick it up, the man admires your fine ass while opening the door. Then he holds the door while you walk through, so that he can continue to admire your fine ass. It's all very simple.
150: You hate me because I'm a feminist. I'm used to it.
I always thought it was considered good manners for me to walk slightly ahead of the gentleman so that he could admire my fine ass, but then that puts me at the door first.
Etiquette dictates that a gentleman precede a lady when ascending a flight of stairs for precisely this reason.
This is one rule I cheerfully violate on a regular basis.
149: Obviously whether it's meant to put you down or to be respectful depends a lot on how it's done, but fwiw I've had male students do the same for me, and I don't think their desire to be polite depends on whether or not you're the high and mighty type. If they're intimidated by you, all the more reason to be polite.
140: I thought that, by reputation, Marines were always first through the door.
Rushing ahead to grab the door like that seems like a way to remind me (or, more likely, himself) that I'm a weak female, and therefore not so superior.
I'd guess it's that he's trying to infer what you secretly want him to do, and has a very poor sense of what people a decade older than himself actually find important.
148: Agreed. Plus, I hate walking slightly behind anyone. It's a personal thing, and not gendered. Slightly in front or exactly side-by-side is fine.
154: Actually, no; etiquette expects men to go first when going *down* stairs, and last when going *up*, because that way if the lady (who traditionally is going to be wearing impractical shoes) slips, he has a better chance of catching her.
144:And was not 141 also a joke? Let's go all-meta?
Watched Becoming Jane the other night, and then read some bio of Austen. My net impression is that was some sexism (although Scott also had to write under a pen-name), but most of the difficulties, at least at that time (well, in that movie), had to do with money.
Oh, but the clothes were so fine. Probably wool, tho, and I bet everybody stunk.
158: You don't walk slightly behind anyone. You walk alongside. When you get to a door, *someone* is going to have to go first, at which point (if one plays these gender games), the woman slows a tiny bit and the man reaches for the door handle.
I might be wrong but I think simple past is "stank," past-perfect "stunk," Bob.
In most of the situations in which I've been door-opened in that super-condescending way, it's usually someone who is trying to overcome being intimidated by me, never an equal or superior. In that light, from a 19-year-old, it's not particularly offensive. It's just an odd thing to watch them navigate.
Someone who is not being offensive, and is trying to overcome being intimidated, is still being super-condescending?
My guess is that he is trying to be polite because he doesn't want to disrespect an authority figure. And because this authority figure happens to be a woman, he is being polite in the way people act polite to women.
You don't walk slightly behind anyone. You walk alongside. When you get to a door, *someone* is going to have to go first, at which point (if one plays these gender games), the woman slows a tiny bit and the man reaches for the door handle.
And then, if it's one of those double door thingies, the woman walks through the door, stops, waits for the man to walk through so he can open the second door to walk through...
I actually don't mind this silliness in the context of a date, where it's part of the whole awkward ritual of "I'm trying to make a good impression so you will like me." When it's stupid colleagues who happen to be getting back to the office after lunch at the same time as me, well, just let me get the damned door so I can get back to work Unfogged.
Double doors do present a problem to the dogmatist; all the more reason not to be one.
...in the way MEN act polite to women! Men! I don't mean to imply that the default "people" are exclusive of women!
phew
Double doors do present a problem to the dogmatist
Similarly, revolving doors. If the woman goes first, and the door is in an inauspicious position, the woman has to push to overcome the momentum of the stationary door. Perhaps the man should go first, but complete an entire revolution and a half such that the woman can hop on board and emerge first.
This "walking alongside" thing gets old fast when the sidewalks are barely one person wide (as happens here a great deal) and someone is forever stepping ahead or back to switch back to single file.
Similarly, revolving doors.
No, see, chivalry requires the man to go first if the revolving door is stationary but to allow the woman to go first if it's already in motion. The Libertarian explained this.
The Libertarian explained this.
Could you clarify, for the incredulous among us, why you were even a little bit reluctant to break it off with this dude?
As we all know, libertarians tend to be wealthy, which in turn makes them irresistible to women, until they start expressing their opinions.
I'm guessing this is relevant, KR.
The only time I have had to fight off chivalry in my current relationship was, like a couple weeks ago, where after the episode where I closed my fingers between the panels of the garage door and drew blood, my dude started to try and insist that he be the one to close is. There's actually a legit reason, as I have to stand on tippy-toes to reach the handle, but his insistence annoyed me. I was like "what the hell do you think I do the 75% of the time when you're not with me? Stand around hoping a dude comes by to close it for me?" He thinks I'm annoying, but hopefully not too much.
I really should just shell out for one of those automatic thingies.
171: I don't claim to be bright, particularly in matters of romance. Hell, I'm still in the toying with second thoughts phase, steeled in my resolve only by the knowledge that I would forever lose the respect of the Mineshaft if I relented.
I neither admit nor deny the allegation raised in 172 but demand strict proof thereof.
Those sins don't have to be as obvious as locking a woman in the house, but they often enough take the form of protecting a woman from herself, her choices, or the consequences of those choices.
+ as long as she's attractive and worth saving. Lohan's kind of a weird case, because I don't get the same vibe from people about wanting to be 'chivalrous' towards Spears or Paris Hilton.
--
My youngest sister is beautiful. A boy at school, a friend of hers, rushed to hold a door for her. She sashayed through, but it was a double door entryway, so she cut her sashay short and waited for him to open it for her.
My little sister can be a bit of an ass.
Rushing ahead to grab the door like that seems like a way to remind me (or, more likely, himself) that I'm a weak female, and therefore not so superior.
As far as I can recall, most undergraduates who try to talk to their profs outside of class are mostly trying very hard to impress/not to commit any gaffes which will make them lose all their painfully won status, according to the Grand Tome of Esoteric College Etiquette.
I neither admit nor deny the allegation raised in 172 but demand strict proof thereof.
Ms. Kotimy, you should recognize that the legal process will expose you to extensive discovery requests. We'll do our best to limit what the other side gets to see, but you need to know that the court might oblige you to produce certain evidence requested by the other side: documents, phone records, financial statements, photos, video recordings...
I would advise you to think seriously about a settlement before the case goes forward.
Is it proof enough to say that you've never said anything about him that sounded attractive, so we absolutely must assume the attraction is based on something you feel is unmentionable?
Further to 178, it goes without saying that I, as your counsel, will have to review any evidence that might be responsive to the plaintiff's requests, whether or not we intend to voluntarily offer it up as evidence. All subject to strictest attorney-client confidentiality, of course.
164: If it's a double door, then fuck the dance of romance; the woman opens the second door. Otherwise it's just ridiculous.
Leblanc, let the boyfriend close the damn garage door. Obviously when he's not around, you have to do it, but if he *is* around and you have to stand on tippy-toe and he doesn't, it's ridiculous to not let him.
Probably
Ms. Kotimy, I must insist that you refrain from making statements that could prejudice your case. I believe I can get that last utterance struck from evidence as an ex parte communication, but we may not be so fortunate the next time.
Anyway, he does close the damn thing sometimes. Also, if he's in the car with me, he's the one who gets out to open the damn thing. But if he's carrying a bunch of crap and I reach up for the handle, this NO NO LET ME DO IT shit is silly.
Aw, crap, I suck. I have asked Ben to fix it.
My little sister can be a bit of an ass
i'm allergic to this kind of behavior i guess, don't see anything endearing
i mean i don't like mean people basically
and being naughty, mean on purpose is soul corrupting imo
It's just a testimony to how irritated my rejection of chivalry gets you. Sexist.
186: Maybe a li'l silly, but well-intentioned and cute.
Then again, I'm lazy and always willing to let others do stuff for me if I can get away with it. Plus, Mr. B. never ever closes the gates or the garage, so I'm all "count your blessings."
189: That's right. If we were dating and you rejected my chivalry, I would totally abuse you.
I actually left the garage door open just this morning because I was too lazy to get out of the car. And I don't even have an excuse--it's a beautiful day. I do this about one day out of every four, and I keep wondering if I'm going to come home to find squatters have set up camp.
Expectation of chivalry is a real turn-off in a girlfriend for me. I met an extraordinary woman at a conference, a grad student at a nearby Ivy League, totally beautiful and smart and funny. I moderated her panel and thought she was pretty amazing. We went out to lunch afterward and had a beer together, which was fun, and then there was this weird moment where she said, "Wow, I love New York. We should go out together sometime when I'm in town." I was all, sure, that would be fun! Then she said what she wanted to do was go troll for rich potential fiancés to buy us $20 martinis at the Campbell Apartment and I kinda didn't know how to respond. I was friendly about it, but said I wasn't exactly looking for a husband, IYKWIM. I'm sure she thought I was saying I was gay, which seemed a fine denouement.
Hm. So the problem was that she didn't realize you were hitting on her, or that she jokingly said that you should go have a girls night out and get guys to buy you drinks? Because I can see not wanting to do the latter, god knows, but I can also see *saying* the latter, even though of *course* I wouldn't really want to *do* that, just because it would be a flirty funny let's-be-hot-ladies-on-the-town sort of thing to say.
195: I'm pretty sure she meant it.
Okay, that's just weird. Talk about incompatibility.
I think that standing in front of a door, waiting for someone to open for you (as in Cala's example) is an expectation of chivalry. Trolling for rich guys to buy you expensive drinks is gold digging.
Ugh, the whole "ladies first" thing in general annoys me.
I don't think ogged was sufficiently busted for his statements about how it is important to let women and lower status men exit the elevator first.
182,186,192:Being ever the chivalrous gentleman, I have installed and maintain the electric garage door with remote.
$48.99 & a screwdriver. Not only more convenient, but safer.
198:I have myself spent some days outside convenience and liquor stores batting my eyes and smiling wistfully.
Bob, it would delight me to no end if you took a photo self-portrait of "McManus Looking Wistful" and posted it to the flickr group.
Mostly OT: This is a deep and meaningful video. Audio NSFW.
In a sense, I think that urge to make women trust is really an urge to see oneself as trustworthy, despite fearing that one is not trustworthy.
Great observation.
To start with we all know one cannot make or teach another person to trust one. The way to be trusted is to be trustworthy and over time the other person will realize that. Or not. But there isn't anything more a person can do other than be trustworthy.
To me the concept of 'chivalry' in a vacuum is more or less meaningless and certainly can be twisted to mean "keep the bird wounded so I may always be the hero."
To me "chivalry" must come with "honor" and "trustworthiness" and probably all the other things that seem so silly in the boy scout creed. Which I was never one of, BTW.
If you are all those things then chivalry means "the strong protect the weak" and in my opinion sexism is not part of that.
But I admit that this noble protection urge is innately felt non-uniformly. Pretty young women who need help evoke an especially strong response, at least in me. I admit it. It is not right or fair but there it is. Also, when one is immature, one does not realize that protecting or helping someone else may mean teaching them to be independent, it may mean staying away from them, and it NEVER means filling in their flaws in such a way that they remain forever dependent. That way leads to dependency, or worse yet co-dependency where you both are trapped. When I hear statements like "we complete each other" I think "co-dependency" and I think "No you don't, and as long as you think that you will each have a hell of a time growing as a person."
Now, in my personal life, I am currently dealing with a pretty urgent situation with my son along these very same lines. He has fallen deeply for someone who needs so much more than he has or can give at this time and he is convinced he is her only hope and his protective cocoon of denial is so strong I have no chance to break through. Fortunately we live where there is excellent care and he is now in a safe place with help to sort this all out. I've already lost a sister and my brother is slowly receding so I'm pretty vulnerable on this topic. I've got good people around me and I'm hopeful.
Tripp,
So sorry to hear about all your family challenges. best wishes, for everyone.
Thanks, and things are looking very hopeful at the moment. I'm actually glad things came to a crisis point so we can finally confront the problem out in the open. It has been simmering for almost a year now.
The idealism of youth is a very real and a very good thing. Usually.
Best wishes for you and your loved ones, Tripp.