It's so interesting to me, to read these threads about the strength of men and the vulnerability of women. To know that they are true, to know that the sexes and how we are built create the potential for these roles.

And yet....

I was a woman in love with a woman (still am, but that seems moot at the moment). I played the hero more often than not, but not always. Sometimes I was the one to play the lady -- and sometimes I was the one who was broken and in need of a rescue of my own.

I love the words that are written here, love the flow and the TRUTH that's in them.

And I know, too, all the way to my bones, that it's not JUST about being a man or a woman. There is a hero -- and a lady -- in me. I do not know about anyone else, but I have a sense that perhaps that's true for us all.

Probably it takes a long time to understand all the roles and potentials that we have, and it's okay with me if we work 'em out one at a time.

I wonder if I'll ever play the lady full time. It would be an interesting role. One that I haven't got much practice with.

There is one universal truth, here, no matter which role you play. The Reason must come from within. If you're the hero, do it because it's the thing that's absolutely right for you. If you're the lady, same deal. The strength and the vulnerability both come from the same source of energy -- one from a deep well of inner sustenance.

One of my favorite books decribing the yin and yang of male and female is the series that starts with The Sun Sword by Michelle West. Unbelievably well-written fantasy. (Warning, there are six books in the series so far...)

Two cultures side-by-side. One implements the yin/yang roles of men and women and takes them to extremes. The other is the mish-mash of male and female roles that we in the West are more familiar with. Add magic, more religious practices than you can shake a stick at, a little Aruthurian legend, and some bad-a$$ demons, and you've got a lovely book to read.

Oh, dear. I'm really hoping there isn't anyone out there who's going to accuse me of devil worship or something for mentioning my love of fantasy novels. Oh, well. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

JJ,

OT: I read the Sun Sword series, too. Kind of liked it. Started off rather slow though, IMO. And it’s long. My current favorite fantasy series is any and all Discworld stories by Terry Pratchett. LMHO reading them even in the midst of all this A crap.

T

Pep - Please put a warning that the subject matter may cause some women to start checking out the men - and they will all look GOOD.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And I know, too, all the way to my bones, that it's not JUST about being a man or a woman. There is a hero -- and a lady -- in me. I do not know about anyone else, but I have a sense that perhaps that's true for us all.

Probably it takes a long time to understand all the roles and potentials that we have, and it's okay with me if we work 'em out one at a time.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I relate to this totally. Even though I am a W, I think I have often been the Hero in my R. Being a hero, ie devoting yourself to someone else's needs, and not admitting your own needs and fallibility, is also a good way of hiding your own self from scrutiny...

Not a recipe for a happy M. YOu have to be in touch with the hero and the damsel in distress - I think this goes for both M and W.

1st, what is the question that, if we take it to the woman will emasculate us?

2cnd:
"What does it mean when a man falls in love with a radient face across the room? It means that he has some soul work to do. His soul is the issue. Instead of pursuing the woman and trying to get her alone ... he needs to go alone himself, perhaps to a mountain cabin, for three months, write poetry, canoe down a river, and dream. That would save some women a lot of trouble"


What the heck does this passage mean? Just because I like a pretty face, I have to go to a cabin and work on myself?

However, I do agree with eac and everyone of the excerpts I have read from this book. I am going to buy it as soon as possible.

Come to think of it, George Bailey from "It's a Wonderul Life" is my favorite hero in all of the movies.

(edited for reasons of new awareness)
Thanks,
GB

<small>[ September 28, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: George Bailey ]</small>

I just thought of a truly heroic image from the recent news; The image was of a Russian soldier or police officer carrying a baby in his arms, carrying the baby out of the school where the Chechin (sp) terrorists had been holding teachers, prents and children (and babies, apparently) hostage.

The image of one who is NOT a man, NOT a hero, is the image of one who held those children hostage.


GB

Wow! I started reading this thread this morning and just HAD to read the whole thing. This is great stuff! Thank you for posting these excerpts from this book. I have heard of it, but have not read it. I will be buying it for WH. He has made mention that he does not know who he is or what kind of person he is. This might be helpful for him.

I have been reading romance novels since I was a teenager, always looking for that Knight in Shining Armour to come and sweep me off my feet and slay my dragons. Always thought it was my "little girl" fantasy of a romantic heart. The man described in this book is the stuff my "little girl" dreams are made of. THIS is the man I want and need, but can I be the lady? Instead, reality is, I have a WH who blames my lack of fulfilling his EN on his current A. OW is more than happy to do that, since he looks like the Knight in Shining Armour to her. He looks like that to me, but his Armour is in bad need of some polishing!!!!

Thanks for the thread. It is awesome!

Originally posted by George Bailey:
1st, "what is the question that, if we take it to the woman will emasculate us?"

The question every little boy asks himself when he feels small and not up to the task:

*Do I have what it takes to be a MAN?*

Your *identity* as a MAN cannot legitimately come from a source which is feminine.

Pep

2cnd:
"What does it mean when a man falls in love with a radient face across the room? It means that he has some soul work to do. His soul is the issue. Instead of pursuing the woman and trying to get her alone ... he needs to go alone himself, perhaps to a mountain cabin, for three months, write poetry, canoe down a river, and dream. That would save some women a lot of trouble"


What the heck does this passage mean? Just because I like a pretty face, I have to go to a cabin and work on myself?

When a young man begins to pursue young women he is (very) often searching to find his identity via a relationship with the pretty face...."If I can win her over to love me, I am a worthy man"

The approval of a woman does not bestow a masculine identity upon a young man.

He will always be disappointed in his woman because she can never make him feel "man enough".

Being "man enough" comes from within, via his own soul. He cannot shortcut his way to forge his masculine identity.

The man needs to bring his masculine identity TO the woman, rather than to look to the woman to help him form his masculine identity.

Pep

My WH has told me on several occasions that he has not ever felt like a man with me. That I have emasculated him. Not in the sexual sense, but in the whole man sense. I am not sure I know what he means or if he does either. Any ideas?

Very interesting.

I would be interested in seeing if a consensus of what constituded 'masculine' attributes existed on this forum.

I am a classic phenotypical "hunter gatherer", with a side-penchant for books and music that does not prevent me from raising a little gorilla dust now and then. And though I am big, I fill my space with pride, and carry myself tall.

Some women and men would find that attractive and masculine. Others in my life, including some here when I have vented, find it revolting.

OM is my opposite there for example: Petite, blonde, feminine, emoting etc.
Obviously my FWW found that contrast attractive for a while at least....

I am not sure what 'masculine' attributes are that women universally appreciate. I'd sure like a jug of 'em if anyone finds out ! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Originally posted by Just J:
It's so interesting to me, to read these threads about the strength of men and the vulnerability of women. To know that they are true, to know that the sexes and how we are built create the potential for these roles.

You do not understand the author's intent , I think.

Woman is not always more vulnerable than Man. Man is not always stronger than Woman.

Both genders are vulnerable and strong... in their own way.
Pep

devoting yourself to someone else's needs, and not admitting your own needs and fallibility, is also a good way of hiding your own self from scrutiny...

SMUR~~~~ I think this statement of yours might be explored further...

Sometimes it is lifegiving to devote yourself 100% to the needs of another ... ie; an infant. But as anyone who has ever done this knows, eventually your needs must be met in order to continue to mother.

Caretaking roles are necessary sometimes in life, but one does run the risk of exhaustion after awhile.

And when a person identifies themselves as the caretaker, derives their identity from this role, what happends when the roles change? Where is one's identity then?

This might be true in other types of relationships as well, what do you think Smur?

Pep

<small>[ September 28, 2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</small>

Originally posted by Bob Pure:


"I am not sure what 'masculine' attributes are that women universally appreciate. I'd sure like a jug of 'em if anyone finds out ! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> "

What you have written, is exactly what the author thinks emasculates men.... looking at what pleases/attracts women , and then folding yourself into that shape. If it is not who YOU are, then you will not be happy being that shape.

Pep

Pep said: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> When a young man begins to pursue young women he is (very) often searching to find his identity via a relationship with the pretty face...."If I can win her over to love me, I am a worthy man" </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is what happened with my H with the HW. He was looking for himself, through other people. Now, he knows he must search for that within himself.

Pep said: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And when a person identifies themselves as the caretaker, derives their identity from this role, what happends when the roles change? Where is one's identity then? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is what happened to me when H left. I no longer had a sense of myself, my life. Now I realize that is a ~part~ of me, not the whole me - not my identity.

SS

NCW,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And I would say this to the women: time and patience is the key. If you wait around for you man to become the knight/poet (assuming he is not) BEFORE you act the lady, you are going to lose him. For there will be some woman out there who has life WORSE than you do and she will see him that way. Guess where HE will go. The better lady you are, the better knight he will be.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes. He wants to be seen as a knight. And he has the potential. It was what drew me to him all those years ago.

She saw it too. She is worse off. And she has a flattering tongue.

I feel very discouraged right now.

But for God it would be hopeless.

I just bought 'Wild At Heart' this afternoon and am reading it.

This is the most significant thread that I have read in the more than three years I have been at MB.

Pep, your responses from the book were perfect. I can see exactly the truth of both of the replies as they apply to me. I can see where my development as a man needs more time spent in my little cabin (which I actually do have), writing and thinking and developing and growing as a man. I can see why I was SOOOOOOOOO be-smitten with pretty faces and why I could not forgive my ex wife; I believed that she had taken my masculinity and given it to another man when she left with him, because I believed that she had bestowed my masculinity upon me in the first place by her acceptance of me. I see now that she could not have given me my masculinity, because she is feminine by definition. My masculinity, my manhood (as I have come to learn) must come from me, and from me, alone, for that is how God made me.
Armed with this knowledge (and I CHOSE the word 'Armed') I can now go back and edit my original post in this thread, because I no longer need to try to get my manhood back from my ex-wife by saying harsh things about her.

Thanks, Pep, for starting this thread.

George Bailey (Mary Bailey, I am almost ready!)

<small>[ September 28, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: George Bailey ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">devoting yourself to someone else's needs, and not admitting your own needs and fallibility, is also a good way of hiding your own self from scrutiny...

SMUR~~~~ I think this statement of yours might be explored further...

Sometimes it is lifegiving to devote yourself 100% to the needs of another ... ie; an infant. But as anyone who has ever done this knows, eventually your needs must be met in order to continue to mother.

Caretaking roles are necessary sometimes in life, but one does run the risk of exhaustion after awhile.

And when a person identifies themselves as the caretaker, derives their identity from this role, what happends when the roles change? Where is one's identity then?

This might be true in other types of relationships as well, what do you think Smur?

Pep
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think this is an interesting point. As i understand it, this "hero" or "knight" figure, the masculine type, often derives a lot of their sense of worth from being able to help others, and from others admiring and needing them. But, as you point out, sometimes through circumstance or whatever, roles change and the "hero" suddenly needs care. But the hero often doesn't even know how to ask for help, because its so unfamiliar, or even what kind of help to ask for - often they are out of touch with their needs and their vulnerable sides.

So I think its limiting to get stuck in a role like a "hero" or whatever - I think its more psychologically healthy to be free to move between "roles" as circumstances change.

By the way, thanks for this thread, its really interesting.

<small>[ September 29, 2004, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: smur ]</small>

A very interesting thread which has made me think a lot.

Its taken me forty years to begin to be comfortable in my skin. I have raised a little hell, and written a little poetry in my time, and lots between the two extremes, and I have always wanted to be everything at once.
problem is I have had a spirit that made me into a 'chamaeleon' : I exposed the skin that I thought was accepotable with my current peers/audience. I have always BECOME a jock with my rugby playing mates, then I have BECOME an aesthete with my more cerebral friends. I have become an indulgent and emotioanlly literate spouse when needed, but in every case I have shed every vestige of my other skins. Its liek acting to be liked better. Pathetic.

It took me forty years to realise its OK to wear bloody armour while discussing literature, its fine to wear a Ramones tee when discussing politics, its OK to recall the joy of a damp spring morning when I am tackling a charging flanker in Rugby (for example).

When I deconstruct my recent behaviour,because I had accepted within MYSELF that it was OK to be everything I am all the time, and I didn't need to become ashamed of my other skins depending on company, I sort of gave up caring how I was perceived. The ultimate masculine 'bridge too far' perhaps.

I think I confused my FWW and some friends that way.

Plan A has really helped me reconsider all this. In truth I AM all those things and more, but not necessarily at the same time. Water can be steam, ice and liquid but not at the same time.

It is as artificial for me to pretend to be EVERYTHING alll the time as it was for me to pretend to be only the convenient parts of me.

Right now, broken by the A, and built up by God and plan A, I am comfortable enough in my skin to reveal that of myself that is required. No more, no less, but not to deny my other attributes.

I am a 'knight' in the good sense ( noble, protective) and the bad sense (raising gorilla dust, responding agressively to attack as a default). I am a poet in both good and bad senses too ( I can be lyrical and emotionally literate but I can also be sentimental, and overly mewl and puke). etc etc.

I have always tried to be a man that would of made my Mom and Dad proud. I think I am again right now.

<small>[ September 29, 2004, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Bob Pure ]</small>

Hey Pep,

This is one of Buster's all time favorite books. John Eldridge is one of his favorite authors. After what you posted, Now IIIIIIII wanna read the book. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />