REVOLUTION!!

It’s been said that one should never start an article quoting someone else. The reasoning being that you arte telling the reader that someone else can say it better than you.  So here I am opening with the trailer for a video game.  I wonder what that says about me.  In this instance I want to write about the concepts presented here by the creators of Fable 3.

What I look for in a video game is multi-level story telling.  On the one hand there is the combat and action.  Call this the first level.  The higher levels are revealed in the storyline and even more so in those games that take action and consequence into consideration, such as the Fable series.  Apparently the theme in this new game is revolution.  I’ll admit that it sends a chill through my spine.  I love the rhetoric of revolution.  However, an important point is made by Peter Molyneux, “to be a rebel; deciding what is just and unjust.   This brings us to the very core of the concept of revolution.

I watched a video on Youtube covering the recent protests in Britain to cuts in federal spending and public services.  The poster wrote this, “

The British public are starting to show the government exactly what they think of the recent public cuts to pay for the banking crisis that was engineered by the very same corrupt bankers.  The time for sitting doing nothing is over. A tyrannical government will slowly push things through, step by step, and judge whether the people will take it or not. Up till now, us British have sat and taken it like bitches, but no more! no more!  stand up and fight for your freedom, because if you are not willing to fight for it, you hardly deserve it in the 1st place”

So here we have an example of revolutionary rhetoric.  There is talk of tyranny, corruption, freedom, and the importance of the people to rise up and fight.  The question here is what are they fighting for?  What is their idea of just?  Where is their moral compass set?  That is the question that every revolutionary, and every revolution, must answer.

The answers we seek are to be found in philosophy.  Step One:  What is Reality?  Step Two:  Prove it.  Step Three:  Determine an individual course of action accordingly.  Step 4:  Determine a group course of action.  Or to rephrase those steps:  Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics.

When we say that an individual or group activity is immoral, what we are saying is that these actions are not consistent with the requirements of reality in order to prosper.  The great lie is to determine morality not according to the dictates of Reality, but according to how we feel.  How we feel things should be.  What we feel is right.  What we have been socially conditioned to see as the correct course of action.

The Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document in which Thomas Jefferson makes his case for the moral rightness of the American War of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson then assures the reader that they do not embark upon this course of action lightly and points out that they have attempted to have there grievances redressed to no avail.  He then lists specific violations of their rights and concludes with the absolution of ties with the United Kingdom.

The central premise here is that the purpose of government is to protect the Natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  The original concept in John Locke is life, liberty, and property.  Jefferson is making a statement on the nature of reality.  Unfortunately, he did not feel the need to make an argument defending his position as he considered this concept to be “self-evident”, and it is.

You have a right to exists simply by virtue of your birth.  You have a right to think and act as you see fit simply by virtue of possessing consciousness.  You have a right to property.  You used your time, energy, and skill to produce which you traded for property. Like your life and your liberty, this is yours.  I will also add that liberty and property are essential to human existence.  This is self-evident.

There is another moral point of view dating from the beginning of time.  In many tribal cultures the chief, king, or leader was seen as a father figure who takes care of his children.  In Scotland, the word clan means children.  The people were the “children” of the chief.  As such he had a moral responsibility to care for his people. To deny that or to take for himself or distribute to his friends was seen as immoral.  If the people suffered, it was because the king was immoral.  In modern times, this translates into the belief that the purpose of government is to provide for the people as needed.  This is called central economic planning, or Socialism.

So here is the moral dilemma.  One the one hand, humans possess individual consciousness and from this comes the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  However, humans are also social creatures who work best in a state of cooperation.  These human groups are usually led by a leader who administers the resources and activities of the group.

The modern political spectrum takes both these views into account.  On the Left extreme we have 100% government control over society and the economy.  Ideally, the benevolent chief pools the resources of the group and redistributes it according to need for the benefit of all his children.  On the Right extreme we have 0% government control over society and the economy.  Ideally, individuals act in their rational self-interest to create a spontaneous order, by positive actions rewarded by positive consequences and negative actions rewarded with negative consequences,  and the people will provide for each other.  Today, the people on the Left are referred to as Collectivists and those on the Right as Individualists.

Let’s look at the situation in Britain.  Prior to roughly 1800, the United Kingdom was largely Collectivist.  The ruling aristocracy governed either benevolently or not, depending.  During the Nineteenth Century, the UK was Individualistic.  After roughly 1900 the UK swung back to Collectivism.  Therefore, the vast majority in Britain believe the purpose of government is to benevolently provide services to the public, such as education, health care, and benefits for the needy.  In philosophical terms, this a metaphysical statement on the nature of reality.  If this statement is true, then the moral rectitude of a government is judged by how well it serves its purpose as provider.

Now here is the problem.  It has been predicted that the UK national debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2012.  At present 65% of the government income goes to health, education, welfare, and pensions.  The current total expenditure is 45% of the GDP.  The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the total production of the people within the United Kingdom – it is the nation’s wealth; the accumulation of every individual person’s work day.  Well, not every person.  In June 2005, 20.4% of the UK workforce was employed in the public sector.  These people do not contribute to the GDP; they take from it.

Individual producers create wealth (increased GDP) through the non-coercive trade in goods or services.  A percentage of the wealth produced is then taken by coercion by the government (pay your taxes or go to jail).  This wealth is then used to pay government salaries, expenditures, public works, defence, government services, and welfare. 

So society is broken-up into two segments.  The producers who create wealth and the public employees and the underclass who take wealth.  Government workers have jobs in the sense that they are paid for services rendered, however they are not being paid a share of wealth created, as in private business, rather in wealth taken from private business.  When a public employee or government beneficiary spends money, he or she is not contributing to the wealth of the nation through trade; they are simply moving money around. 

As government expenditure grows, private business has to produce more just to keep up.  If the prediction that the UK national debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2012 is correct, this means that all wealth created by private individuals will be needed to pay for the debts incurred by government in its effort to take care of people.  Imagine every one of your pay cheques being taken by government and a share given back to you to keep you alive.  This will not happen.  But such a scenario is commonly called slavery.  Is this moral?

In the language of Revolution, we all agree in freedom, power to the people, morality, justice, fairness, and standing against tyranny.  But what those things mean is wholly dependent on your worldview and the morality that stems from it.  Each individual must decide for themselves what they believe to be true and moral, and then be able to rationally defend that position.  “Because the Bible says so” does not count.

Do you have a moral and civic duty to pay your taxes for the benefit of all, or do you view this as the theft of your honest earnings under the threat of force to take your property?  Is tyranny the government in league with greedy businessmen or in the unaccountable bureaucrat writing the regulations that control your life? Or perhaps both.  Does government have a moral obligation to provide services at the expense of individual property rights, or are property rights inalienable.  Does “power to the people” mean regular elections of government representatives or government leaving the individual alone to make their own decisions?  Is fairness the “social justice” of taking money from a producer and giving it to a non or less successful producer or is it each individual benefiting from the fruits of their labour?

In The Revelation of St John the Divine 3:16, Jesus said, “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth”.  When it comes to morality there are always the lukewarm people, also called moderates.  They believe that the moral purpose of government is to take care of people AND protect individual rights.  These are the people who in opinion polls and elections say that they want more government services AND lower taxes.  The problem of course being that in order for government to provide these services they have to violate your property rights.  So they justify it by saying the government can steal a little money provided its not too much and the cause is good, such as teachers and nurses salaries.  This is the refuge for the unprincipled and the opportunist.

So what is your Revolution? What is your moral stance?  These are the questions every person must ask themselves.  When you look at the world do you see a world out of control tumbling into darkness or do you want to bring about the dawning of a new age of enlightenment?  The world of fiction is so much more simple.  There is the evil tyrant and the people looking for a leader to take them into liberty.  But that is not the way of things.

The enemies take many forms and some honestly believe that they are on the side of angels, just as you believe yourself to be.  I think Socialism is evil incarnate.  Why? Because the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a sacred and essentially to human prosperity.  I believe in Freedom.  I am an Individualist.  No man has claim upon my soul and I have no claim on another's.  Socialism claims the moral high ground.  They seek to provide for the poor and disadvantaged, provide free healthcare, education, and housing through the power of a benevolent government that puts people first.  It sounds so noble.  And though its goals are noble the means are not.  Their goals are barely, if ever, achieved and the unintended consequences create unprecedented social chaos.  Then when we look at the history of socialism in the 20th century we see nothing but pain, suffering, and disaster.  How can we call this moral?

Of course they would call me evil in return with a long list of perceived free market evils.  Many of which I have heard are misrepresentations.  The plain and simple fact is that I cannot take a self-professed revolutionary seriously when the revolution that they are promoting is a more intense form of what we already have.  And yet they are there and they are active.

So if, like me, the notions of revolutions give you a chill and make you want to take to the barricade singing anthems, then take a moment to ask yourself some moral questions first.  Is your cause truly just or are you justifying.

It’s Different for Girls

There’s a story of a man who went for a walk and found a frozen snake. He took his new friend home and thawed it out by the fire. The newly revived serpent promptly bit his rescuer. When the man protested this cruel thank you, the snake replied, “but it’s my nature.” In other words, when assessing something, or someone, it is important to be mindful of its nature.

I’ll take a moment to enlighten any new readers to my notion of Romanticism as essentially the philosophy of the individual most clearly manifested in the zeitgeist of the 19^th Century in Britain and America.

One aspect of the Romantic is the pursuit of individual greatness (or at least efficacy); however the individual may choose to define that. They say that without ugliness there can be no beauty. Likewise, there can be no individual greatness in a purely egalitarian society. Nor can there be individual greatness if the powers that be conspire to thwart or oppress opportunity.

The problem is that where there are winners; there are losers. If little Johnny is picked last in baseball, then chances are he sucks. He may excel at maths, but when it comes to baseball he’s shit, no matter how many participation awards he receives.

So Johnny has a few options open. He can work hard to become a better baseball player. He can get all insecure about it. Or he can focus on what he does well. Even in that he can despise those who are good at baseball, or he can accept his failings, accept his abilities, and be a cheerleader.

Science is not my strong suit. But I will watch science documentaries. Read a science article in the paper. And I will shout hooray for some great discovery or invention. I accept my failings and choose to be a cheerleader. I have other things that I do much better and I prefer to focus on those things for my sense of efficacy.

But what if we lived in a world that demanded that everyone play baseball? Not only play baseball, but also be good at it. If someone like Johnny (or me for that matter) is rubbish at the game, we all pretend that he’s capable. If someone dare speak the truth, then we all demean them for their prejudice.

We do not exactly live in that world. Every individual is an individual, and these individuals choose their own operating spheres that suit their talents, their temperaments, and their general nature. Most of these associations are chosen, but there is one that is not. The groups formed by Nature that we call male and female.

The predominant Nineteenth Century view, that which I call Romantic, was that men and women were possessed of different natures simply by virtue of their genders. Men occupied sphere’s suited to their natures and women to theirs.

Some women came to object to the spheres that they were relegated to and demanded equality of opportunity. This is completely in keeping with the Romantic. However as the Twentieth Century rolled along a new ideological force came into being known as Feminism which stands contrary to the Romantic by denying the differences in the fundamental nature between the sexes.

To continue the baseball analogy, let’s say that men were all good at baseball and women were all good at sewing. A few women preferred baseball and were quite good at it. These women fought for the right to play baseball and won but the vast majority of women could not care less.

Then one day a group of women decided all women should play baseball. They fought against this idea of separate natures and different spheres. They convinced the powers that be everyone should play baseball equally. Men were forced to accept women on their teams and boys were not taught how to play the game.

Now the vast majority of women wanted to go back to sewing, but all the sewing kits were gone since everyone had to play baseball. So they snuck their kits out into the field inside their mits and sewed instead of paying attention to the game. They struggled to have it all by sewing and playing baseball at the same time. As a consequence some women really sucked at baseball, but God save any man who dared say so. That would be sexist, cruel, and mean. No matter that it’s true.

Equality was no longer based on the evidence of performance but rather the acceptance of the premise that a woman was capable of any sphere once dominated by men whether or not that respect was earned. Equality was measured by equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. As a consequence, just about everyone sucked at baseball equally, especially after women insisted on changing the rules because there was not enough sewing in the game.

Here is an example from my life. I once worked with a young girl just out of university. Her degree was in history, a favourite topic of mine, but she showed no interest in discussing it. While I spent my breaks reading philosophy and history; she spent hers reading fashion and gossip magazines and her nights-out partying. There is nothing wrong with that.

Then one day I made a point on a historical topic, as I tend to do rather than discuss more mundane topics, and on this particular occasion she chose to argue against me. I made several points to support my thesis and she made none, and yet refused to concede. In frustration I finally said, “While I’m studying history you are reading fashion magazines.” Suddenly, the women in the room all turned on me.

There are many women in the world in the academic field of history. There are many women in the world who study and enjoy history as a hobby. However, there is not a multi-billion dollar, century old publication industry supported by these women. According to the market, a majority of women are more interested in celebrity gossip and fashion than in history. And yet I am deemed a sexist for making this observation.

A similar situation occurred at the last British General Election. The gossip girls whose brains go all foggy when the topic of politics comes up suddenly have strong political opinions that I am expected to take seriously. To do otherwise would be deemed insulting, rude, and sexist. I prefer to see it as the height of arrogance to demand a seat without doing the work necessary to warrant a seat at the big boys table.

I have far more respect for woman who earned that seat and even for some bimbo who confesses her ignorance and apathy before going shopping than the woman who sews all the time and then demands respect when one day she decides to play baseball.

I can think of two films where I left the cinema thinking how great the story was only to overhear two girls leaving the same showing talking about how cute the leading man was. How can I possibly take someone seriously if their tastes are so shallow?

I have been in four major relationships in my life, and of those two of the girls were obsessed with celebrity. One had a half-naked poster of Peter Murphy on our wall and the other had photo clippings of her latest obsessions. I accepted this because I did not want to appear insecure, however I doubt either would have such reservations if I stuck some leggy model on the wall.

The other day I met a woman who had a picture of Edward Cullen from Twilight on her phone. Of course her husband accepted it just as I had with my ex’s. I have no doubt that society would not be so forgiving were he the one with some young starlet on his phone.

Celebrity idealisation and worship is accepted for women. The problem here is that for women the feelings evoked are in tune with female sexuality. The male equivalent would be something far more sexually overt, like porn.

In those ancient forgotten days before internet young men had to drum up the courage to enter the sex shop to buy porn or to ask the man (or sometimes woman) behind the convenience store counter for a Playboy or Penthouse. It was generally assumed that he was not buying it for the articles. Likewise, most of the strip clubs that I have visited were populated by lonely, single men and only very rarely by Bacchalian revellers.

Think of this poor sod. He’s shelling out cash for this woman to turn him on with empty promises then he leaves with only his unfulfilled lusts and an empty wallet. Who is taking advantage of whom?

Should his secret lifestyle become known, he was seen as being a deviant of some kind. Or worse he was accused of objectifying women. This is not so much the case these days due to the plethora of internet porn, but still there is a certain stigma there.

For men this type of sexual stimulation is usually a private and hidden thing, but for women it is public. Do not tell me that those hysterical teenage girls screaming for Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, Duran Duran, etc., etc, were not having a sexual experience. Women fainted for Hitler for Christ sake. If God were a woman, the criteria for getting into heaven would depend on how cute She found you, or more precisely, how you made her feel.

What I am presenting here is just the tip of the iceberg of historical and experiential evidence that can be presented to support the theory that women on the whole are psychologically hardwired toward celebrity worship, gossip, and fashion.

All of these things are deemed superficial by society as a whole. So, like my former co-worker, women want to be respected for their minds, their opinions, and general character and yet not do the work required for that level of respect. If a man were to say to a woman, “That’s nothing to worry your pretty little head about” or “Be quiet, men are talking” he would be seen as being a sexist pig. So he indulges her and her opinions. Once given that inch she takes a mile.

I am of course making broad generalizations here, but the exceptions do not invalidate the rule. The key exception is what I call the Athenian Woman. There will be more on her later.

Contrary to popular belief, the Victorian male was not as secure in his manhood as popular misconception would lead one to believe. The following is an excerpt from a review of Jack Donovan’s book, Androphilia written by Derek Hawthorne that demonstrates the struggle for every man throughout time.

A first step to understanding what he is talking about is to recognize that masculinity is an ideal, and a virtue. Men strive to cultivate masculinity in themselves, and they admire it in other men. Further, masculinity is something that has to be achieved. Better yet, it has to be won. Femininity, on the other hand, is quite different. Femininity is essentially a state of being that simply comes with being female; it is not an accomplishment. Women are, but men must become. If femininity has anything to do with achievement, the achievement usually consists in artifice: dressing in a certain manner, putting on makeup, learning how to be coy, etc. Femininity is almost exclusively bound up with being attractive to men. If a man’s “masculinity” consisted in dressing butch and not shaving, he would be laughed at; his “masculinity” would be essentially effeminate. (Such is the masculinity, for example, of gay “bears” and “leatherman.”) Similarly, if a man’s “masculinity” consists entirely in pursuing women and making himself attractive to them, he is scorned by other men. (Ironically, such “gigolos” are often far more effeminate mama’s boys than many homosexuals.) No, true masculinity is achieved by accomplishing something difficult in the world: by fighting, building something, discovering something, winning a contest, setting a record, etc. In order for it to count, a man has to overcome things like fear and opposition. He has to exhibit such virtues as bravery, perseverance, commitment, consistency, integrity, and, often, loyalty. Masculinity is inextricably tied to virtue (which is no surprise — given that the root vir-, from which we also get “virile,” means “man”). A woman can be petty, fickle, dishonest, fearful, inconstant, weak, and unserious — and still be thought of as 100% feminine.

A woman can also be the butchest nun, women’s lacrosse coach, or dominatrix on the planet and never be in any danger of someone thinking she’s “not a real woman.” With men, it’s completely different. As the example of homosexuals illustrates, it is quite possible to have a y chromosome and be branded “not a real man.” Masculinity, again, is an ideal that men are constantly striving to realize. The flip side of this is that they live in constant fear of some kind of failure that might rob them of masculinity in their eyes or the eyes of others. They must “live up” to the title of “man.” Contrary to the views of modern psychologists and feminists, this does not indicate a “problem” with men that they must somehow try to overcome. If men did not feel driven to make their mark on the world and prove themselves worthy of being called men, there would be no science, no philosophy, no art, no music, no technology, no exploration.

“But there would also be no war, no conflict, no competition!” feminists and male geldings will shriek in response. They’re right: there would be none of these things. And the world would be colorless and unutterably boring.

As Camille Paglia famously said, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” She also said “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” What this really means is that given the nature of men, we can’t have Mozart without Jack the Ripper. So be it.

I included this here because not only does this illustrate to struggles of men to be men, but also because it segues into the role of women to men. One of the principle casualties of Feminism is the masculine ideal that men inherently aspire towards. The result is a Western world half-populated by “boys in men’s bodies”.

As the famous line from The Crow says, “Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all children”. For women to be superior to men you must prevent the boys from becoming men, thus woman will always be his “God”. He will pander to her whims and endeavour to please her. I see this in its most obvious and glaring form on Facebook with the plethora of orbiters and white knights kissing-up to every woman on his friends list. One girl whines and ten boys comfort her with a virtual hankie.

This stands in complete contradiction to the Athenian Women that I mentioned earlier. When we look at Greek mythology we see the goddess Athena aiding or mentoring numerous heroes including: Asclepius, Bellerophon, Hercules (Herakles/Heracles), Odysseus, Perseus, and Theseus. Her job seems to be turning men into heroes, which can be read as turning boys into men.

Athena was one of the boys. I discovered an article entitled, “Athena – A Goddess for Men” which says it all. I often describe her as the one woman on the all-male board of directors who all the men respect as an equal.

The Athenian woman is a woman who has earned her position and the respect of the men around her. She has played by Men’s rules and proven herself by her own merits without any special allowances for her gender. Likewise, she is harsh to any aspiring women. In writing this, the image of Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada comes to mind as an example of the Athenian woman. Lucky for Andy that Miranda did not turn her into a spider or a gorgon.

The Athenian Woman is the woman who is a great baseball player and any man who did not pick her first for his team is an idiot.

To carry this analogy even further, we might also find the Heran Woman, who enjoys cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children, provided her husband remains faithful of course. Or the Aphroditian Woman, the fickle one who reads the fashion mags and falls for all the pretty boys who are all looks and attitude but no substance (see Paris, aka Orlando Bloom in the recent film).

One might even read the story of the Judgement of Paris as Everyman’s judgement. Do you choose the beautiful and seductive Aphroditian Woman, the dutiful and dependable Heran Woman, or the Athenian Woman. I’m not sure if this analogy works, but my thoughts drift to the film How To Marry A Millionaire with Betty Grable as the Aphroditian, Marilyn Monroe as the Heran, and Lauren Bacall as the Athenian.

I believe the two archetypes of Aphrodite and Hera represent the vast majority of women. I’m reminded of the American man’s choice between Ginger and Mary Anne from Gilligan’s Island. For my British readers, in the television series, Ginger was the hot, sexy Marilyn Monroe type while Mary Anne was the sweet country girl always making coconut cream pies.

And yet we are expected to respect all women as being Athenian. Likewise thanks to the modern two income households women are expected to be Athenian, whether they like it or not and whether they are capable or not.

Here is one final note on the Athenian Woman. Some have suggested that she is so rare that she may not even be real. I can list many examples of the Athenian Woman, but alas all are in fiction. Think of Lara Croft. She has many Athenian qualities and men adore her, but how many real life Lara’s are there?

Of course there is a little of Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite in all women, but I’d wager one goddess, or others, takes precedent. I believe that most of humanity can be aligned to some Olympian archetype. We already acknowledge the Apollonian, Dionysian, and Arian in men, so why not the women? Perhaps there is also some Artesian tomboy with a penchant for bow hunting or a Demetrian farmer’s wife.

The biggest issue that I have with Feminism, which I might call the fundamental premise, is its rejection of the notion of differing male and female natures, except when it suits some diatribe on female superiority.

On the surface, it appears that Feminists want all women to be Athenian, succeeding in a man’s world. There are a few problems here. First off, very few women are natural Athenians. This requires the Feminist to decry the behaviour of women who want to be housewives or focus on their appearance, and those who do are forced to apologise because they feel that they should be Athenian and feel insulted when they are reminded that they are not.

Second, a true Athenian aligns with the men and does not play the gender card when it suits her. She loves men for being men and has no desire to retard their development. So sorry feminist, Athena’s not for you.

Finally, she succeeds without any special treatment on account of her sex. The world of men is about competition. This can take the form of playful insults, healthy completion, or all out war. Through competition the best rise to the top. If a woman wants to play that game, she has to be prepared for the bumps and bruises that go with it. She can’t go off whining, complaining, or crying. She’s got to take it like a man. “There’s no crying in baseball”.

There is a danger in trying to pigeon hole individuals, but by the same token it is even more dangerous to deny the nature of a thing. You cannot pretend that a snake is not a snake and expects it not to bite you after you have showed it kindness.

Due to biology, psychology, evolution, and sociology men and women are possessed of different natures. No crusading Feminist, or legislation, or self-perception, or wishful thinking will change this.

There is a theory of attraction that says that we are drawn to the opposite sex because they are opposite. Perhaps this is the key in my personal mistakes. I was raised to favour an androgynous middle ground of feminized men and masculine women.

I suppose my strong suit is my intelligence and I naturally open every conversation with that. I suppose on some level I may even use it to impress a girl. One girl I pulled later confessed that she only agreed to our first date because I apparently have a “nice ass” and could have cared less about my philosophies at the time. Other women mistook my interest as a desire for friendship because I treated her as a friend and not as a sexual interest.

So here’s me assuming my value came from my intellect, which may work in the competitive world of men, but woman have different standards. They look for different things. It has taken me forty years to finally shed my feminist programming. I was always taught that man and women were the same and I clung to this notion despite all the evidence and experience to the contrary. I’m stubborn that way. Now I finally partially understand that it really is different for girls.