Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Titus,

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

> One could say that the above is yet another sign of the rampant
> moral decay prophesied for both the End Times, and the lead-up to
> the End Times. Ten to fifteen years ago, women were accounted
> morally superior to men, but it would appear that the margin, and
> the reason for it, are both disappearing rapidly.

It's been known for at least twenty years that women are as violent
as men in personal relationships, and are more violent with children
than men.

I'm not sure it's been established that women are more violent with children, or simply have more opportunity there, since women still are the primary caregivers, overall, especially for small children.

I would like to see solid figures on the rate of domestic violence in lesbian couples. I suspect it would line up percentage wise fairly close with the rate of physical abuse of women by males in straight couples, but I don't know, and I don't think solid data is available.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

The trouble I have with her obvious implication is that a plurality of the women I've met have been neither especially loving nor kind.

That was teaspoon's implication, not mine.

I knew that...no, what I thought you were implying was that Love and Kindness=gals, while Violence and Aggression = guys. I was agreeing with your basic statement, while disagreeing with what it seemed to imply-- that women are inherently less evil than men. I've met far too many people of both genders who really are Not Nice People, albeit their evil tends to be expressed in different ways. Simplistically put, evil females tend to be wily manipulators and users -- con artists, actually-- while their male counterparts call a spade a spade and just start whaling on folks.

I often wonder whether, if men and women were equally capable physically, if many of the emotional manipulators would be more likely to resort to violence. OTOH, there are males who prefer the emotional torture option, too, and quite often male batterers use both.

Yes, my ex was an emotional torturer. He was physically disabled with chronic pain that worsened for the last half of our 12-year marriage, so physical abuse may not have been an option.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Yes, my ex was an emotional torturer. He was physically disabled with chronic pain that worsened for the last half of our 12-year marriage, so physical abuse may not have been an option.

An option...for whom??? :shock:

Was he the sort that would have been physically abusive, had he been able to?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> I'm not sure it's been established that women are more violent
> with children, or simply have more opportunity there, since women
> still are the primary caregivers, overall, especially for small
> children.

No research that I'm aware of indicates that violence against
children is related in any way to how long or how frequently the
perpetrator spends with children. So, for example, a stay at home mom
is no more likely to be violent with children than a working mom who
sees her children less. You're either violent or you're not (more
precisely in this case, you're either violent with children or you're
not), and if you are then you'll be violent with children no matter
how little time you spend with them.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> I would like to see solid figures on the rate of domestic violence
> in lesbian couples. I suspect it would line up percentage wise
> fairly close with the rate of physical abuse of women by males in
> straight couples, but I don't know, and I don't think solid data
> is available.

The original National Family Violence Surveys conducted by Murray A.
Straus and Richard J. Gelles in the 1970s and 80s make it clear that
men and women are equally violent in domestic relationships of all
kinds, although women are slightly more likely to be hurt because of
the superior strength of men. Also, twice as many murdered spouses
are women, as opposed to men.

There is an almost unanimous theme that runs through lesbian
literature that lesbian victims of domestic violence are not taken
seriously. One of the researchers that I quoted in my book is
clinical psychologist, Nancy Hammond, who has had numerous lesbian
clients: "Many people believe that women are not capable of doing
serious physical harm to others. When this fallacy is applied to the
case of battered lesbians, a profound misunderstanding and
minimization of the impact of the battering and other abuse occurs.
We have no reason to believe that the range of violence experienced
by battered lesbians is any less severe than that of women battered
by men. Lesbian batterers do kill their partners. They also choke,
break bones, cause internal tissue damage, inflict bruises and welts,
threaten their partners with guns, knives, and clubs. Even in cases
of extreme violence, however, the battered lesbian may report that
the emotional abuse and consequent diminishment of her sense of self
is ultimately more damaging than her physical injuries. Abuse and
battering experiences in lesbian relationships are often sufficiently
severe to cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in the
victims. In this respect, battered lesbians are no different than
other battered women or sexual abuse and sexual assault victims."

I'm actually aware of a local situation where this happened. A woman
was being brutally battered by her lesbian partner, and finally took
her two kids to the local woman's shelter. At the woman's shelter
she was raped and sodomized by the woman running the shelter. Now,
who's a woman like that going to complain to? Can you imagine any
policeman wanting to touch that situation with a ten foot pole?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> I often wonder whether, if men and women were equally capable
> physically, if many of the emotional manipulators would be more
> likely to resort to violence. OTOH, there are males who prefer the
> emotional torture option, too, and quite often male batterers use
> both.

The phrase "emotional torture" is very politically loaded, since it
can be interpreted in many ways.

In typical male-female relationships, women are almost always far more
aggressive and confrontational than men. Typically, the woman wants to
advance the relationship and the man is happy the way things are.
This works great as long as the man listens to the woman and responds
to her concerns.

Problems arise when the woman begins to feel that she's not being
listened to, or when the man begins to feel that she's making too
many demands. The typical progression of events is that the woman
applies more pressure, and the man resists change even more. The
woman becomes increasingly critical and the man becomes increasingly
defensive. The woman may reach the point of being contemptuous, and
the man increasingly stonewalls. Sooner or later, the relationship
reaches a tipping point and one of two things happens: The woman dumps
the man because he doesn't want to communicate with her and she
considers him to be a jerk, or the man dumps the woman because he
can't stand listening to her complain and figures she can't be very
happy anyway if she's complaining so much. Not all relationships (or
marriages) end this way, of course, but this is the most common, most
typical pattern.

So now you come to the term "emotional torture" or "emotional
battering." Where do those fit into the paradigm just described?
Obviously anywhere you want, depending on the political point you
want to make. That's why things like "emotional torture" really
don't mean very much of anything.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Yes, my ex was an emotional torturer. He was physically disabled with chronic pain that worsened for the last half of our 12-year marriage, so physical abuse may not have been an option.

An option...for whom??? :shock:

Was he the sort that would have been physically abusive, had he been able to?

For him. He was one angry man.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> I'm not sure it's been established that women are more violent
> with children, or simply have more opportunity there, since women
> still are the primary caregivers, overall, especially for small
> children.

No research that I'm aware of indicates that violence against
children is related in any way to how long or how frequently the
perpetrator spends with children. So, for example, a stay at home mom
is no more likely to be violent with children than a working mom who
sees her children less. You're either violent or you're not (more
precisely in this case, you're either violent with children or you're
not), and if you are then you'll be violent with children no matter
how little time you spend with them.

I think a lot of it is stress. If a single mother is trying to support her kids on $6.00 an hour, has to take the bus 2 hours a day, and lives in a crappy neighborhood, yes, she is going to be more likely to take a swat at her kids than an upper-middle-class SAHM with an SUV who shuttles her kids from soccer to violin lessons.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

> I think a lot of it is stress. If a single mother is trying to
> support her kids on $6.00 an hour, has to take the bus 2 hours a
> day, and lives in a crappy neighborhood, yes, she is going to be
> more likely to take a swat at her kids than an upper-middle-class
> SAHM with an SUV who shuttles her kids from soccer to violin
> lessons.

It's interesting that you appear to be making the opposite argument
that Hopeful Cynic made. He was suggesting that more contact with
children leads to violence, and you're suggesting that less contact
with children leads to violence, because of stress.

I don't want to venture too far into dangerous territory but everyone
gets stressed, and the issue is the reaction to stress. If a man is
stressed at work and then stressed by commuting home in traffic, and
then his wife nags him about the plumbing, and he's stressed, does he
whack her? If stay at home mom is making dinner and the baby is
crying and little terrible twos Joey decides to knock over a vase, and
mom is stressed, does she whack him? Sometimes the answer is yes, and
sometimes no, but it probably doesn't matter how much time the parent
spends with the children overall.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by The Wonk

> I think a lot of it is stress. If a single mother is trying to
> support her kids on $6.00 an hour, has to take the bus 2 hours a
> day, and lives in a crappy neighborhood, yes, she is going to be
> more likely to take a swat at her kids than an upper-middle-class
> SAHM with an SUV who shuttles her kids from soccer to violin
> lessons.

It's interesting that you appear to be making the opposite argument
that Hopeful Cynic made. He was suggesting that more contact with
children leads to violence, and you're suggesting that less contact
with children leads to violence, because of stress.

No, I said that the more time you spend around children, the more opportunity for violence there is, which I suspect is one reason children are subjected to violence from females more often than males.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> I'm not sure it's been established that women are more violent
> with children, or simply have more opportunity there, since women
> still are the primary caregivers, overall, especially for small
> children.

No research that I'm aware of indicates that violence against
children is related in any way to how long or how frequently the
perpetrator spends with children.

So? That has nothing to do with my comments.

Women, as a group, spend more time with children, esp. small children, than do males as a group. Therefore there is more opportunity for interpersonal violence between women and children. Nothing I said bears anything to to with the length of time an individual spends with children.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> I would like to see solid figures on the rate of domestic violence
> in lesbian couples. I suspect it would line up percentage wise
> fairly close with the rate of physical abuse of women by males in
> straight couples, but I don't know, and I don't think solid data
> is available.

There is an almost unanimous theme that runs through lesbian
literature that lesbian victims of domestic violence are not taken
seriously. One of the researchers that I quoted in my book is
clinical psychologist, Nancy Hammond, who has had numerous lesbian
clients: "Many people believe that women are not capable of doing
serious physical harm to others.

There are a lot of people out there, of both sexes, with a deep emotional investment in that exact idea, and they seriously resist any suggestion to the contrary.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So now you come to the term "emotional torture" or "emotional
battering." Where do those fit into the paradigm just described?
Obviously anywhere you want, depending on the political point you
want to make. That's why things like "emotional torture" really
don't mean very much of anything.

Sincerely,

John

Emotional torture is any attempt, regardless of motivation, to manipulate another person by inflicting intentional, calculated emotional pain. Those who do this on a regular basis often become quite expert at it, especially when they come to a victim very well, including the various 'weak spots'.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

There are a lot of people out there, of both sexes, with a deep emotional investment in that exact idea, and they seriously resist any suggestion to the contrary.

Certainly the direct evidence that female members of the military were involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners would make any reasonable person question that assumption.

I recall a very controversial made for TV movie that aired in 1974, called "Born Innocent," in which Linda Blair plays a young delinquent who is physically abused by her fellow female inmates. None of us who saw that movie could forget the broom scene.

Not to mention the locker room scene in "Carrie."

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> So? That has nothing to do with my comments.

> Women, as a group, spend more time with children, esp. small
> children, than do males as a group. Therefore there is more
> opportunity for interpersonal violence between women and children.
> Nothing I said bears anything to to with the length of time an
> individual spends with children.

All I'm saying is that no matter what measure of this sort that you
use, there's no evidence that it affects violence against children.
Using the same response as before, stay at home moms as a group spend
more time with children than do working mothers as a group, but
there's no evidence that stay at home moms are more violent with
children.

What it boils down to is that everyone has a personal way of coping
with stress and anger. Some people beat up children, some people
take drugs, some people drink, some people punch walls, some people
get into bar fights, some people sublimate it into art, some people
just work harder, some people eat chocolate. If you're the kind of
person who normally deals with stress and anger by eating chocolate,
then you won't change that if there's a child around; you'll just eat
chocolate with the child around, but won't be more likely to be
violent with the child. That's why things like how long or how
frequently or how many opportunities doesn't affect whether a person
is going to be violent with children, as far as the evidence shows.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

> There are a lot of people out there, of both sexes, with a deep
> emotional investment in that exact idea, and they seriously resist
> any suggestion to the contrary.

Yes, it seems to be embedded deep in our DNA.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I recall a very controversial made for TV movie that aired in 1974, called "Born Innocent," in which Linda Blair plays a young delinquent who is physically abused by her fellow female inmates. None of us who saw that movie could forget the broom scene.

Not to mention the locker room scene in "Carrie."

I still vividly remember the NBC tagline, "She was Born Innocent...but THAT was fourteen years ago!!!". That line left me with the impression that, according to the good folks at the Peacock Network, LB's character losing her innocence was somehow a GOOD thing-- broomstick sodomization not withstanding. In hindsight, the movie (which I never actually saw) is highly symbolic of how last-wave Boomers were taught growing up that the world was their oyster, only to get the shaft in the end-- in her case, literally.

You gotta be nostalgic for those good, wholesome, Awakening-era sensibilities .

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

There are a lot of people out there, of both sexes, with a deep emotional investment in that exact idea, and they seriously resist any suggestion to the contrary.

Certainly the direct evidence that female members of the military were involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners would make any reasonable person question that assumption.

I recall a very controversial made for TV movie that aired in 1974, called "Born Innocent," in which Linda Blair plays a young delinquent who is physically abused by her fellow female inmates. None of us who saw that movie could forget the broom scene.

Not to mention the locker room scene in "Carrie."

You don't have to go to fiction. Just a few months ago, there was a hazing incident in which teen female students beat their victims so severely that serious wounds were inflicted. Interestingly, when the school and the local authorities set out to discipline the offenders, their parents seemed to think it was overreaction, and argued that their future career and academic options shouldn't be imperiled.

Every so often, a sorority hazing gets out of hand sufficiently to make the news, just as the frats do, and sometimes the 'out of hand' is quite nasty.

In (IIRC) Florida a year or 2 ago, a woman was sentenced to quite a long prison term because she got jealous of her older-teen daughter's boyfriend, and decided to even the competition by setting her on fire!

History shows plenty of cases of female brutality, ruthlessness, and sadistic cruelty, to match the worst (if not the numbers) of male offenders.

Yet the 'women are gentle' reflex remains deeply ingrained in Western thought. The same right-wingers who are firm proponents of the death penalty suddenly go wobbly when a woman is on death row, as we saw in the case of Karla Fay Tucker, who murdered 2 people with a pick-axe! I don't believe in the death penalty anyway, but if we're going to have one, she was a prime candidate. Yet all kinds of usually pro-death-penalty people were arguing for clemency.

They had various excuses, but the real reason boiled to the fact that she was female, and they were queasy about it.

What I really think is that this is another case of a long-running idea resurfacing over and over in new forms, as time passes. There are a lot of such, that appear to have been discredited and left behind only to pop up again decades or centuries later in a new shape. I think it's the same impulse that once drove 'chivalry' and the Medival idealization of female innocence, still alive and kicking in modern Western culture.

(The flip side of that Medival idealization, of course, was a fascination with evil in women, and that still turns up too. The girl in the pictures from the Iraqi prison is getting all kinds of extra exposure for just that reason.)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Yet the 'women are gentle' reflex remains deeply ingrained in Western thought. The same right-wingers who are firm proponents of the death penalty suddenly go wobbly when a woman is on death row, as we saw in the case of Karla Fay Tucker, who murdered 2 people with a pick-axe! I don't believe in the death penalty anyway, but if we're going to have one, she was a prime candidate. Yet all kinds of usually pro-death-penalty people were arguing for clemency.

They had various excuses, but the real reason boiled to the fact that she was female, and they were queasy about it.

Not I. My feeling, upon hearing of Karla Fay's execution, was one of gratitude that justice had been served. In fact, any uneasiness I might have had about Ms. Tucker being put to death was rooted in the fact that the two people she offed were drug dealing scumbags. I seem to recall, during the sentencing phase, her attorney making a pretty good case that she did society a favor by taking them out. (He did have a point).

And don't EVEN get me started on Susan Smith!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Yet the 'women are gentle' reflex remains deeply ingrained in Western thought. The same right-wingers who are firm proponents of the death penalty suddenly go wobbly when a woman is on death row, as we saw in the case of Karla Fay Tucker, who murdered 2 people with a pick-axe! I don't believe in the death penalty anyway, but if we're going to have one, she was a prime candidate. Yet all kinds of usually pro-death-penalty people were arguing for clemency.

They had various excuses, but the real reason boiled to the fact that she was female, and they were queasy about it.

Not I. My feeling, upon hearing of Karla Fay's execution, was one of gratitude that justice had been served. In fact, any uneasiness I might have had about Ms. Tucker being put to death was rooted in the fact that the two people she offed were drug dealing scumbags. I seem to recall, during the sentencing phase, her attorney making a pretty good case that she did society a favor by taking them out. (He did have a point).

And don't EVEN get me started on Susan Smith!

To step back from murder, this tendency applies to other crimes, also. Consider if you will the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a school teacher who had a sexual affair with a teenage boy (a former student of hers), when he was, (IIRC) thirteen. She became pregnant from the affair, BTW.

OK, the first time this happened, the judge gave her a 7 1/2 year sentence, which was suspended(!!!), until she was caught with the boy again, at which point the full 7 year sentence kicked back in.
She now has 2 kids by this boy, the second born in prison. (She already had children, BTW.)

OK, reverse the sexes, and ask yourself what a male teacher having sex with his 13 year old female student would get in most courts, with rock solid proof available.

But in fact, this is one of the cases when you have to read the cultural context of a law to understand what it really means. When society talks about protecting children from sexual predators, they mostly unconsciously mean protecting innocent helpless girls from male predators. The idea that a male teen could be innocent or helpless often doesn't even occur, even though a 13 year old boy has little if any more idea of anything than his female classmates. There's a societal assumption that a male can take care of himself, whether it's true or not, and that women, being basically innocent and not being interested in sex for its own sake (don't snicker, you'd be amazed how many people still think that), wouldn't do such a thing anyway.

To make the whole thing even weirder, there was a lot of public reaction that tried to see her as a victim, saying they were in love, or trying to describe it as a star-crossed relationship (?!) Don't ask me why.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Yet the 'women are gentle' reflex remains deeply ingrained in Western thought. The same right-wingers who are firm proponents of the death penalty suddenly go wobbly when a woman is on death row, as we saw in the case of Karla Fay Tucker, who murdered 2 people with a pick-axe! I don't believe in the death penalty anyway, but if we're going to have one, she was a prime candidate. Yet all kinds of usually pro-death-penalty people were arguing for clemency.

They had various excuses, but the real reason boiled to the fact that she was female, and they were queasy about it.

Another argument trotted out was that Karla Fay Tucker had accepted Jesus Christ as her saviour and was redeemed and rehabilitated as a result and therefore deserved to live.

Struck me at the time as me as an argument against the death penalty rather than as an argument for giving Ms. Tucker clemancy.

Protection of Children

This is something I've never really understood in The Fourth
Turning. Strauss and Howe talk about this constantly, giving
things like building orphanages as examples of protection of
children.

But what does "protection of children" really mean? Is it a
gender-based thing, or is it something else? I've never been able to
figure it out.

Sincerely,

John

John, I can tell you this much about "protection of children" from my own experience. In 1972, when my (first) wife and I were in our early thirties, we got divorced for the freedom we could gain from each other, but with little regard for what that meant to our children. Divorce was the thing to do back then, especially for liberals. We actually believed the kids would benefit from the diversity they would "enjoy" by having their home broken up. We were selfish, we were progressive, and we were wrong.

That huge wave of divorce was profoundly different from G.I. tradition. We wanted to throw away G.I. values because they were getting us all into big trouble, like Vietnam, for example. But we didn't protect our children from our own excesses. We set them adrift. Somehow ours made it through OK. But I feel we went with the flow that came in a transitional "turning." Divorce was almost unthinkable when we were married in 1962; by '72 it was "the thing to do."

So we traded "protection of the children" for "do your own thing" because we believe 'the times they were a-changin'." It all seems very generational to me, and gender had very little to do with it.

BTW: I wonder if the revival of the movie Cheaper By The Dozen marks some kind of a turning in the "child protection" aspect of our culture.

--Croaker

1. My millie little brother, sweet kid who believes that women are equal to men, feels victimized by reversed discrimination. He's 13.

2. My state and several others are trying to pass laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control (yes birth control not the morning after pill) on the basis of religious objections. Never would have happened 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

To step back from murder, this tendency applies to other crimes, also. Consider if you will the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a school teacher who had a sexual affair with a teenage boy (a former student of hers), when he was, (IIRC) thirteen. She became pregnant from the affair, BTW.

OK, the first time this happened, the judge gave her a 7 1/2 year sentence, which was suspended(!!!), until she was caught with the boy again, at which point the full 7 year sentence kicked back in.
She now has 2 kids by this boy, the second born in prison. (She already had children, BTW.)

OK, reverse the sexes, and ask yourself what a male teacher having sex with his 13 year old female student would get in most courts, with rock solid proof available.

But in fact, this is one of the cases when you have to read the cultural context of a law to understand what it really means. When society talks about protecting children from sexual predators, they mostly unconsciously mean protecting innocent helpless girls from male predators. The idea that a male teen could be innocent or helpless often doesn't even occur, even though a 13 year old boy has little if any more idea of anything than his female classmates. There's a societal assumption that a male can take care of himself, whether it's true or not, and that women, being basically innocent and not being interested in sex for its own sake (don't snicker, you'd be amazed how many people still think that), wouldn't do such a thing anyway.

To make the whole thing even weirder, there was a lot of public reaction that tried to see her as a victim, saying they were in love, or trying to describe it as a star-crossed relationship (?!) Don't ask me why.

Perhaps it depends on the generational and historical context, though.

This morning, the Portland Oregonian headlined a stunning confession by former Portland Mayor, Oregon Governor and U.S. Transportation Secretary (under Jimmy Carter) Neil Goldschmidt. Mr. Goldschmidt ended his public service career yesteday by announcing that in 1975 --while he was mayor of Portland-- he'd had a year-long affair with his 14-year-old babysitter. The paper contained no less than three related articles and editorials, all of which-- while condemming the act itself-- painted Mr. G. as a sad, tragic, Richard Nixon-like figure who should be remembered for his amazing successes, rather than wholly defined by a terrible mistake made nearly 30 years ago. Of course, the "relationship" took place during the Second Turning, not the Fourth; and the victim was an early wave Xer, not a Millie.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

To step back from murder, this tendency applies to other crimes, also. Consider if you will the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a school teacher who had a sexual affair with a teenage boy (a former student of hers), when he was, (IIRC) thirteen. She became pregnant from the affair, BTW.

OK, the first time this happened, the judge gave her a 7 1/2 year sentence, which was suspended(!!!), until she was caught with the boy again, at which point the full 7 year sentence kicked back in.
She now has 2 kids by this boy, the second born in prison. (She already had children, BTW.)

OK, reverse the sexes, and ask yourself what a male teacher having sex with his 13 year old female student would get in most courts, with rock solid proof available.

But in fact, this is one of the cases when you have to read the cultural context of a law to understand what it really means. When society talks about protecting children from sexual predators, they mostly unconsciously mean protecting innocent helpless girls from male predators. The idea that a male teen could be innocent or helpless often doesn't even occur, even though a 13 year old boy has little if any more idea of anything than his female classmates. There's a societal assumption that a male can take care of himself, whether it's true or not, and that women, being basically innocent and not being interested in sex for its own sake (don't snicker, you'd be amazed how many people still think that), wouldn't do such a thing anyway.

To make the whole thing even weirder, there was a lot of public reaction that tried to see her as a victim, saying they were in love, or trying to describe it as a star-crossed relationship (?!) Don't ask me why.

Perhaps it depends on the generational and historical context, though.

This morning, the Portland Oregonian headlined a stunning confession by former Portland Mayor, Oregon Governor and U.S. Transportation Secretary (under Jimmy Carter) Neil Goldschmidt. Mr. Goldschmidt ended his public service career yesteday by announcing that in 1975 --while he was mayor of Portland-- he'd had a year-long affair with his 14-year-old babysitter. The paper contained no less than three related articles and editorials, all of which-- while condemming the act itself-- painted Mr. G. as a sad, tragic, Richard Nixon-like figure who should be remembered for his amazing successes, rather than wholly defined by a terrible mistake made nearly 30 years ago. Of course, the "relationship" took place during the Second Turning, not the Fourth; and the victim was an early wave Xer, not a Millie.

Evita Per?n or Yoko Ono?



>>> Photo caption: Mexican first lady Marta Sahag?n

President Fox's wife has apparently split up the band, after his
chief of staff resigned this week because of her "flirtation with
politics".

Marta Sahag?n is being compared not only to Yoko Ono, but also to
Hilary Clinton and Evita Per?n, since she might run for President in
2006. This would be similar to the political machinations of the
Per?ns in Argentina in the 1950s.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com




Mexican elite in turmoil over first lady's ambitions

By Tim Gaynor in Mexico City

10 July 2004

Mexico's first lady came under heavy fire this week after her
political ambitions were blamed for the resignation of her husband's
chief of staff.

President Vicente Fox's aide Alfonso Durazo stepped down on Monday,
saying his decision was prompted by frustration at Marta Sahagun's
"flirtation with politics".

Mrs Sahagun, a glamorous and neatly coiffured former press secretary
to Mr Fox, married the president in 2001, a year after he ended
Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party's (PRI) seven decades in
power.

A figure with a strong public profile, she had hinted that Mexico was
ready for a presidenta or woman president, stoking rumours that she
may run for office herself in the next elections in 2006.

In a 19-page resignation letter, Mr Durazo said he had grown
disillusioned with Mr Fox's government, and the way it was swayed by
Mrs Sahagun's political ambitions. He accused Mr Fox of behaving as if
he were a member of the corrupt and paternalistic party that he ousted
from power in 2000.

"The desire for a government to decide who the next president will be
or won't be was the original sin of the old regime," he wrote. "The
country has certainly advanced politically, enough that it is ready
for a woman to reach the presidency of the republic. Nevertheless, it
is not prepared to have the president leave the presidency to his
wife."

Once favourably compared to other power-spouses in the region,
including Hillary Clinton and even Argentina's Eva Peron, commentators
last week compared Mrs Sahagun to Yoko Ono, controversial wife of the
late John Lennon, and Elena Ceaucescu, wife of the late Romanian
dictator.

"What should we do with her?" asked Guadalupe Loaeza in an editorial
in the daily Reforma newspaper..

"There is not a day, not an hour, not a minute in which [Sahagun] is
not meddling in the country's affairs, messing them up even more. Who
can stop her, hold her, tie her up, shut her in, shut her up,
immobilise her, muzzle her, suspend her?"

Leading figures in Mr Fox's National Action Party (PAN) also showed
their fury at reports of Mrs Sahagun's ambitions, which come as the
government enters the final two years of its six-year term, amid
complaints that it has failed to eradicate corruption as it promised
or deliver much-needed energy, tax and labour sector reforms.

Constitutional term limits bar Mr Fox from running again, and many
opposition voices in Mexico have suggested that a win at the ballot by
Mrs Sahagun would be tantamount to a second term for Mr Fox.

On a trip to Brazil this week Mr Fox denied that his wife has any
intention of seeking Mexico's presidency, saying that he and Mrs
Sahagun would return to his family's ranch in central Mexico's
Guanjuato province when he leaves office in two years' time: "We know
when it's time for us to leave Los Pinos" - referring to the
presidential residency in Mexico City - "and we know what our next
project will be, we are very clear on that. We won't be seen in
politics."

The first lady has not said whether she will seek the presidential
nomination for the PAN in 2006, but has refused to rule out the
possibility.

Mr Fox said Mr Durazo's criticisms were unfounded. "If what he's
trying to say with his letter is that the President is supporting his
wife as a candidate, he is absolutely incorrect, " Mr Fox said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=539795

John. you might like to add the "passive-aggressive" behaviors and lack/fear of making a commitment to a loving relationship being practiced by men from the time of the 60's. Coincides with the "feminist cause" and I can see a connection, or rather, disconnection by men.
Women since the 60's have been encouraged to have that career first, pushing the age of marriage and/or motherhood into the thirties. Then the bio clock starts ringing the alarm. Women, encouraged that they can still make babies "up to age 50" have gotten the wakeup call...most will not be fertile after age 40, and more dangerous if a first child.
Older Women have children now without the benefit of a husband because they are financially independent, don't want the male involvement in raising the his child, and don't trust the man to be a connected parent. Right or wrong, reflects the ambivalence between the sexes.
However, there is a new movement among young women to have the family fist and the career second, despite warnings that she will lose her place" on the career superhighway.
The behaviors of the gender conflicts seem rooted in a time when the "individual" was given most importance, and divisions between the sexes ignored the real value of two different approaches to a balanced life, male and female. And during this time, boys were devalued and girls were pushed forward in the educational system. :!: