An old-fashioned viewpoint

[David Quinn]

I'm an Ordinary Man

Well after all, Pickering, I'm an ordinary man,
Who desires nothing more than an ordinary chance,
To live exactly as he likes,
And do precisely what he wants ....

An average man am I, of no eccentric whim,
Who likes to live his life, free of strife,
Doing whatever he thinks is best, for him,
Well ... just an ordinary man ....

But let a woman in your life and your serenity is through.
She'll redecorate your home, from the cellar to the dome,
And then go on to the enthralling fun of overhauling you ....

Let a woman in your life, and you're up against a wall.
Make a plan and you will find,
That she has something else in mind,
And so rather than do either you do something else
That neither likes at all.

You want to talk of Keats and Milton,
She only wants to talk of love.
You go to see a play or ballet,
And spend it searching for her glove.
Let a woman in your life
And you invite eternal strife.
Let them buy their wedding bands for those anxious little hands...
I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling
Than to ever let a woman in my life!

I'm a very gentle man,
Even tempered and good natured
Who you never hear complain,
Who has the milk of human kindness
By the quart in every vein.
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips,
The sort who never could, ever would,
Let an insulting remark escape his lips
A very gentle man ....

But let a woman in your life,
And patience hasn't got a chance,
She will beg you for advice, your reply will be concise,
And she will listen very nicely, and then go out
And do exactly what she wants!

You are a man of grace and polish,
Who never spoke above a hush,
All at once you're using language that would make
A sailor blush.
Let a woman in your life,
And you're plunging in a knife.

Let the others of my sex, tie the knot around their necks,
I prefer a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition
Than to ever let a woman in my life.

I'm a quiet living man,
Who prefers to spend the evening in the silence of his room,
Who likes an atmosphere as restful as
An undiscovered tomb.
A pensive man am I, of philosophical joys,
Who likes to meditate, contemplate,
Far for humanities mad inhuman noise,
A quiet living man....

But let a woman in your life, and your sabbatical is through.
In a line that never ends comes an army of her friends,
Come to jabber and to chatter
And to tell her what the matter is with YOU!
She'll have a booming boisterous family,
Who will descend on you en mass,
She'll have a large wagnarian mother,
With a voice that shatters glass ....

Let a woman in your life,
Let a woman in your life,
Let a woman in your life,
I shall never let a woman in my life!

- Professor Higgins, My Fair Lady.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

He changed his mind though.

[David Quinn]

He did indeed! The power of woman can never be underestimated.

All it takes is one lingering glance, one moment of being smitten by a womans' beauty, and the hells that Higgins describes above are yours forever.

-

[David Quinn]

One can't read too much into these sorts of things, but looking at the overall tone of the song - and, of course, the film in general - one sees that Higgins doesn't really embody the ideal of the confirmed bachelor. Rather, he is like a crusty old grandpa who secretly enjoys having women around and likes to put on a show of being critical about them. So he isn't really a solitary man in the truer sense.

And so when the beautiful womanly flower did eventually drop into his lap, he didn't really have any qualms about picking it up and smelling it.

-

[David Quinn]

And then, later in the film, he starts to sound more and more like a typical husband, despite the fact that he hasn't even won the girl yet:

A Hymn to Him (excerpts)

What in all of heaven could've promted her to go,
After such a triumph as the ball?
What could've depressed her;
What could've possessed her?
I cannot understand the wretch at all.

Women are irrational, that's all there is to that!
There heads are full of cotton, hay, and rags!
They're nothing but exasperating, irritating,
vacillating, calculating, agitating,
Maddening and infuriating hags! .......

Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historic'ly fair;
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Well, why can't a woman be like that?
Why does ev'ryone do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do ev'rything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up- well, like their father instead?
Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please;
Whenever you are with them, you're always at ease.....

Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps.
Ready to help you through any mishaps.
Ready to buck you up whenever you are glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do?
Why is logic never even tried?
Straight'ning up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing?
And carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?

-

He has gone from (somewhat) nobly expressing the ideal of bachelorhood to whining about his future wife. He's already "using language that would make a sailor blush" and "plunging the knife" into her.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

he didn't really have any qualms about picking it up and smelling it.

-

And smell she did - at least at first. Then he had her bathed, dressed her up the way he wanted her, taught her to speak the way he wanted her to speak - and she went along with giving up everything she was because he had convinced her that his way was better.

Then, once she was who he wanted her to be and was no longer fit to be a flower girl, which was the only way she knew how to be truly independant and free, he was ready to get rid of her. He made her dependant on him but didn't realize that he's "grown accustomed to her face" until after she threw a fit.

Originally, she really was everything he thought he was, but she was that in a different cultural paradigm. He then did everything to her that he thought a woman would do to his home (go back and read "I'm an Ordinary Man" from that perspective). He even changed her from an honest woman (she may have been of modest means, but at least she was truthful) to a package of lies (he gave her a totally dishonest pedigree for the party, and spent quite some time and effort honing the deceiptful package).

He knew what he wanted from the start, but he didn't know that he knew what he wanted.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Men are so honest

Funny - I started typing my response to your previous post before seeing your post with that quote.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

from David's quote:
Why can't a woman be like me?

At that point, she was like him, because she let him make her that way. He was still blind at that moment.

(edited for spelling)
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

despite the fact that he hasn't even won the girl yet

I think he had won her at that point, he just didn't realize it yet. I could be mis-remembering it though; it has been a quarter of a century since I saw the film. (It boggles my mind that I'm remembering it this well after that long).

[sue hindmarsh]

Professor Higgins asks:

Why can't a woman be more like a man?

Asking this question could also be seen as slightly noble – if it were not for the fact that he, along with most men, would not really wish it to be so. If he’d really wanted to create a true companion for his mind, he could have made her into a ‘Blue Stocking’, or an old fashioned spinster librarian – but no, he instead creates a princess. A princess that allows the ‘prince’ within him to flourish, thereby enabling him to be released from the bounds of his mind so as to fall effortlessly into the mindlessness that she represents.

Of course, neither George Bernard Shaw who’s play Pygmalion the movie is based on, nor Alan Jay Lerner who wrote the musical screen play, would ever have considered turning Eliza Doolittle into a creature who possessed masculine qualities – for both knew that no one would find that the least bit interesting. No, they knew the way to fame and fortune was to "make real" up there on the screen and in the pages of the book, people's everyday fantasies and desires.

-
Sue

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

neither George Bernard Shaw who’s play Pygmalion the movie is based on, nor Alan Jay Lerner who wrote the musical screen play, would ever have considered turning Eliza Doolittle into a creature who possessed masculine qualities – for both knew that no one would find that the least bit interesting.

It could have been interesting, but especially in that era it would not have led to fame and fortune.

they knew the way to fame and fortune was to "make real" up there on the screen and in the pages of the book, people's everyday fantasies and desires.

In that light, it could be considered the same theme as Pretty Woman or Cinderella in that the message is "So - you're a woman with absolutly nothing to show for your deep-down good nature?" (who doesn't think that deep down there's something special about themselves, even though they feel they have sunken to the bottom of the social ladder) "You have no idea how to fix your messed up life? Ladies - that's okay! You, too could just be plucked out of your miserable existance by some dashing wealthy man who is willing to polish you up, fix your life for you, and treat you like you've always dreamed of being treated! No strings attached except those strings that you want!"

You're right - the dreams are BS and people know it, but they usually go to a play or a movie to live in a fantasy for an hour or so. They can get reality from other places.

[Tharan]

Let me get this straight, David. You rented My Fair Lady? Did you return it late or on time? Did you also rent Gigi? That's a clever one.

BTW, I got my name from another Vincent Minnelli film. Crazy mum. Free cookie to anyone who can guess which. Greg Shantz, you got a guess which?

[Jamesh]

Of course, neither George Bernard Shaw who’s play Pygmalion the movie is based on, nor Alan Jay Lerner who wrote the musical screen play, would ever have considered turning Eliza Doolittle into a creature who possessed masculine qualities

lol..typically principally incorrect, as usual from the irrationally misogynist puppy.

What the film was about was the that the man induced the woman to gain some masculine qualities. First he taught knowledge and then with knowledge the woman was led towards masculine individuality.

Basically, it is a fucked up story about incest. Whenever someone takes a leading fatherly tutorial role, and then physically or mentality fucks the person they have taught to grow, then that is an incestual relationship that shows that masculinity is basically an egocentric emotion induced by evolved hormones.

End of story.

It's Ok to be a rational misogynist, as in acknowledging and mentioning the many shortcomings of women in terms of their ability to induce change, due mostly to their accepting natures, but it is not OK in my book to be like the irrational misogynist clowns that reside here, who are only capable of recognising strong individual masculinity in males only. They are completely lost when it comes to recognising the very strong masculinity that is involved in a female coming from the animal realms and then moving (partially) into the Human Individual realm. Because adult women come from such a low base of individuality, as opposed to males, can’t you see how it is so much harder for them to become a pig for the reality dream. I would suggest that any improvement in individuality should be recognised.
Complete lunacy if you ask me, but then can kind of forgive it, as I know why it is like this. Essentially it is because of the old equal and opposite scenario, unless one’s love of truth is counterbalanced by an equal degree of hate/disgust for something else then one’s love of truth will never be capable of growing. Growth, which by the way is an ego-laden word, only ever occurs at the expense of something else being caused to decay.

I do not think the QRS are fully aware of the TAO. “The named is the mother of ten thousand things”. In order to teach individuality effectively they must value and NAME the thing called masculinity, but in doing so they twist the dualism that must be involved in the interrelated masculinity/feminine flow into a non-dualistic thing, of which the end meaning is relative to what they desire, and thus what they preach is not as close to the real dualistic reality as it should be. They need to acknowledge the female form of masculinity, which is an active force that binds individuals together. Neither humans nor our animal forerunners, could exist in this world today without this binding, without this unity. In truth, masculinity SHOULD be summarised or generalised at the level of ultimate reality as being “self-activated activity of any form”, whether it be the individualism of traditional male masculinity or the activities that females undertake to bind masculine individuals - both involve similar degrees of courage (it is not easy to bind volatile males).

In the pursuit of "what is most rational" (which is can be markedly different from what is most real) we may rationally choose not to value feminine binding to the same degree of masculine individualism, but to not take it into account at all is rationally inexcusable.

To save the world from human destruction, it will take a male who has a high degree of respect for feminine binding, as this respect for feminine style binding is needed in order to even desire a "better world for all". It will be someone who understands how males and females and the masculine and feminine dualistically interact. "Enlightened" individuals who concentrate only on the masculine will not produce any results, though of course in the pursuit of masculine activity, they potentially could produce someone who is capable of being a modern Jesus, a person that can lead the masses to understanding the utter desolation and dead end that will occur with continual ecomomic growth (as promoted by the powers that want everything t occur ASAP - namely business, which is another name for the sum total of individualistic Greed).

[David Quinn]

Tharan wrote:

Let me get this straight, David. You rented My Fair Lady?

Hey, don't laugh. I plan to rent The Sound Of Music next. Stay tuned for an indepth analysis of that landmark movie.

My Fair Lady is definitely a corny film, but I was struck by just how old-fashioned Higgin's defence of the ideal of bachelorhood was. We would never see this kind of thing nowadays - unless it is by an evil dictator or some equally repulsive being.

Women have invaded every aspect of men's lives nowadays that the very idea of bachelorhood has become almost unthinkable.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: neither George Bernard Shaw who’s play Pygmalion the movie is based on, nor Alan Jay Lerner who wrote the musical screen play, would ever have considered turning Eliza Doolittle into a creature who possessed masculine qualities – for both knew that no one would find that the least bit interesting.

It could have been interesting, but especially in that era it would not have led to fame and fortune.

Even in this era, such a storyline would go down like a lead balloon. Stories about women becoming ‘educated’ into the world of thought are very few, with the main focus always centered on the woman forming a close relationship with the male ‘teacher’. The movie “Educating Rita” was such a film – though in the end she didn’t get Michael Caine ‘for keeps’, she did get to cut his hair, which showed that she already considered herself to be in an intimate relationship with him.

I suppose Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own” somewhat touches on what it could mean to be a woman who valued her thought. Though her recommendations of “a room of one’s own” and financial independence is far more readily attainable these days, they still haven’t proven to be all that was needed for women to produce great works of fiction.

Can you imagine a plot for a book or a movie where the woman has as her complete focus the desire to unravel the mysteries of life, the universe and everything? How well do you think it would sell?

Sue: they knew the way to fame and fortune was to "make real" up there on the screen and in the pages of the book, people's everyday fantasies and desires.

In that light, it could be considered the same theme as Pretty Woman or Cinderella in that the message is "So - you're a woman with absolutly nothing to show for your deep-down good nature?" (who doesn't think that deep down there's something special about themselves, even though they feel they have sunken to the bottom of the social ladder) "You have no idea how to fix your messed up life? Ladies - that's okay! You, too could just be plucked out of your miserable existance by some dashing wealthy man who is willing to polish you up, fix your life for you, and treat you like you've always dreamed of being treated! No strings attached except those strings that you want!"

You're right - the dreams are BS and people know it, but they usually go to a play or a movie to live in a fantasy for an hour or so. They can get reality from other places.

Yes, My Fair Lady/Pygmalion is definitely a rehash of the Cinderella tale. But I don’t think this is a “BS” dream – far from it – for all women hold to the belief that the man they fall in love with and marry is going to take care of them and “fix” their lives so that they can become extremely happy. That is why so many novels and movies have this as their plot. Everything from the hundreds of titles put out by “Mills and Boon” to the movie “Shrek”, has as the main plot a woman going through all sorts of trials and tribulations before finally finding her true love and never ending happiness. Women, and many men, believe that this is the way things work. The makers of film and TV, along with the writers of popular fiction and magazine publishers, know that people believe it – and make a packet out of feeding it back to these lovers of romance.

Of course, once married things don’t often turn out to be always rosy. You may have to marry quite a few times before you are satisfied with him or her, and the life you have together. But this situation doesn’t put people off as you’d think it might – no, even people in the winter of their lives (who should know better) are looking for love, and finding it.

-
Sue

[Greg Shantz]

BTW, I got my name from another Vincent Minnelli film. Crazy mum. Free cookie to anyone who can guess which. Greg Shantz, you got a guess which?

I don't think I've seen any of Vincente Minnelli's movies. :-(

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Jamesh wrote:

To save the world from human destruction, it will take a male who has a high degree of respect for feminine binding, as this respect for feminine style binding is needed in order to even desire a "better world for all".

If females are so much better at binding, then perhaps the savior you speak of should be a female.

Sue wrote:

Can you imagine a plot for a book or a movie where the woman has as her complete focus the desire to unravel the mysteries of life, the universe and everything? How well do you think it would sell?

I think Atlas Shrugged sold quite well. Okay, that didn't cover all that you mentioned, but it was a good forerunner. Actually, your suggestion does sound like a good plot for a book. I think I can do that, so please pardon me if I don't spend as much time here as I will be busy on other things.

[Jamesh]

If females are so much better at binding, then perhaps the savior you speak of should be a female.

I was prolly "not-so-rational" when I wrote the above post - the idea of a saviour is a bit of a dud, as were the comments about incest (though there is a connection it is somewhat loose)

but anyway...

in terms of your point, then I have doubts about a female being capable of commanding sufficient respect to gather the required support. Perhaps in another 30-100 years women may have changed enough to work more or less non-emotionally on such a task for their life's work. A lot would have to change in the meantime.

Women in positions of power frighten me. I think those that can induce beneficial change, don't know when to stop, they get emotionally caught up in the power game and become power dominatrixs wanting to control every part of the lives of others for the "greater good" - they take away freedoms and in doing so make everyone into little children - we need BOTH positive and negative experiences to learn and develop. They are also easily lead into wrongdoing by greedy males.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

they get emotionally caught up in the power game and become power dominatrixs wanting to control every part of the lives of others for the "greater good" - they take away freedoms and in doing so make everyone into little children - we need BOTH positive and negative experiences to learn and develop. They are also easily lead into wrongdoing by greedy males.

Nasty backstabbers do tend to rise to positions of power more easily than good people, and women seem to be more often capable of beeing cunning nasty backstabbers than men. Worse than that, cunning, nasty, backstabbing women are more likely to pick off good women that might be of any kind of competition before the good women have any chance of even surviving within the structure. They're also better than men at creating a good PR cloud to those who look on at a distance. I think that's the real reason that we have not seen a good woman rise to power in a bigger structure yet.

Nasty women do make excellent minions for evil men, and evil men recognize that. That is another way they climb to greater positions of power - but not quite to the top.

you also wrote:

I have doubts about a female being capable of commanding sufficient respect to gather the required support. Perhaps in another 30-100 years women may have changed enough to work more or less non-emotionally on such a task for their life's work. A lot would have to change in the meantime.

I especially agree with your doubt about their ability to command sufficient respect, but a lot of that comes in the preconceived notions of many men - both those with individual biases and whole cultures that are biased against women.

Women were not even introduced to the rule book until WWII, then there are emotional repercussions from chronically being dismissed for being "just a woman." 30-100 years is probably a good guess, as long as we keep working to change the whole world for the better.

Your analysis:

Basically, it is a fucked up story about incest. Whenever someone takes a leading fatherly tutorial role, and then physically or mentality fucks the person they have taught to grow, then that is an incestual relationship that shows that masculinity is basically an egocentric emotion induced by evolved hormones.

sounded very Freudian, but it was something to think about.
.

[Jamesh]

I especially agree with your doubt about their ability to command sufficient respect, but a lot of that comes in the preconceived notions of many men

Sure, but it also comes from evaluated logically ideas, based on real experience. Since being taught by this forum, I now am able to recognise the limitations of women much more readily. Mind you I am being influenced by an over-abundance of poor quality women, in terms of their thinking abilities, in my public service workplace.

Also I have noted that both men and women are displaying more signs of irrational behaviour than before, though this opinion may be false as I was not wise enough to recognise, in an accumulatory sense, such signs earlier in my life. I would say I was under the spell of the whole "Woman" meme, prior to the forum and David's essay on same. Still i feel justified in saying there is more irrationality now as it makes logical sense that the more freedoms we have the more chances there will be for irrational behaviour. More freedoms often just means more opportunities for a lessening of personal discipline and retreats to the emotional animal state - at least this seems to be the case with me.

Edit: Was just reading this newspaper blog about womens pay rates - some interesting comments.[/url]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

More freedoms often just means more opportunities for a lessening of personal discipline and retreats to the emotional animal state

This looks like a response to the "sleeping dragon" thread.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Since being taught by this forum, I now am able to recognise the limitations of women much more readily.

Are you referring to "women of both genders" as in David-speak, or do you mean women of the female gender?

[Jamesh]

Are you referring to "women of both genders" as in David-speak, or do you mean women of the female gender?

In the context of the sentence, I was thinking just of women, notwithstanding that I think gay men are principally female in nature, and that we are all a mixture of both - basically masculinity is the effect of testosterone. Like adrenalin it spurs us into action, which is why I say masculinity is action, particularly action that goes against existing herd memes, and action can apply to both men and women.

"Action" however is not what it used to be. Virtually all action these days is safe, herd initiated and managed action, that has very little masculine content. Technology and societal organisation is feminising males and emasculating women - the trend is towards a balance in the middle, but this will come at an expense to potentially masculine individuals who will find it harder to break above the flow of this mediocrity.

In order to evolve, societies must form new dualistic balances between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. Evolutionary societal balances can include such things as obedience to laws, acceptance of societal morals, traditions, and ways of doing things.

The manner in which theses new balances form is to gradually sandpaper the rough edges that occur when individuals act individually, or at the wholesale level with things like civil wars. When individuals are worn down enough, when the masculine volatility has been smoothed, then it is much easier to slot different people into the same round hole. Those with higher levels of masculine individuality will be worn down and will probably never have the opportunity to penetrate into reality as deeply, though this is counterbalanced by the fact that organisation and technology, such as this forum, provides more people, more opportunities for people to gain an understanding of reality. Modern tools of communication are kind of feminine though as the knowledge is generally being supplied to us, we don’t have to find it ourselves, we don’t have to think and imagine as deeply, all we need to do is be capable of understanding it – and unless you have been or are caused to experience masculinity elsewhere, as a result of struggling to alleviate deep spiritual suffering, you won’t truly understand reality.

[unwise]

As long as there is a healthy level of CHAOS, one does not have to worry much about tradition and society. Women seek security, but a good man will thrive and grow in CHAOS.

It provides much latitude for manly adventures. Chaos is an enemy to all religion, dogma, gurus, and to all womanly institutions. In a fine chaotic state, a man may find himself without any support and is free to form his own reality.

Only in such a state of affairs can a man abandon all teaching and turn to himself alone.

[Steven Coyle]

Yes.

Well put, unwise.