Probably no man has ever troubled to imagine how strange his life would appear to himself if it were unrelentingly assessed in terms of his maleness; if everything he wore, said, or did had to be justified by reference to female approval; if he were compelled to regard himself, day in day out, not as a member of society, but merely (salva reverentia) as a virile member of society. If the centre of his dress-consciousness were his cod-piece, his education directed to making him a spirited lover and meek paterfamilias; his interests held to be natural only in so far as they were sexual. If from school and lecture-room, Press and pulpit, he heard the persistent outpouring of a shrill and scolding voice, bidding him remember his biological function. If he were vexed by continual advice how to add a rough male touch to his typing, how to be learned without losing his masculine appeal, how to combine chemical research with seduction, how to play bridge without incurring the suspicion of impotence. If, instead of allowing with a smile that “women prefer cavemen,” he felt the unrelenting pressure of a while social structure forcing him to order all his goings in conformity with that pronouncement.
He would hear (and would he like hearing?) the female counterpart of Dr. P*** informing him: “I am no supporter of the Horseback Hall doctrine of ‘gun-tail, plough-tail and stud’ as the only spheres for masculine action; but we do need a more definite conception of the nature and scope of man’s life.” In any book on sociology he would find, after the main portion dealing with human needs and rights, a supplementary chapter devoted to “The Position of the Male in the Perfect State.” His newspaper would assist him with a “Men’s Corner,” telling him how, by the expenditure of a good deal of money and a couple of hours a day, he could attract the girls and retain his wife’s affection; and when he had succeeded in capturing a mate, his name would be taken from him, and society would present him with a special title to proclaim his achievement. People would write books called, “History of the Male,” or “Males of the Bible,” or “The Psychology of the Male,” and he would be regaled daily with headlines, such as “Gentleman-Doctor’s Discovery,” “Male-Secretary Wins Calcutta Sweep,” “Men-Artists at the Academy.” If he gave an interview to a reporter, or performed any unusual exploit, he would find it recorded in such terms as these: “Professor Bract, although a distinguished botanist, is not in any way an unmanly man. He has, in fact, a wife and seven children. Tall and burly, the hands with which he handles his delicate specimens are as gnarled and powerful as those of a Canadian lumberjack, and when I swilled beer with him in his laboratory, he bawled his conclusions at me in a strong, gruff voice that implemented the promise of his swaggering moustache.” […]
He would be edified by solemn discussions about “Should Men Serve in Drapery Establishments?” and acrimonious ones about “Tea-Drinking Men”; by cross-shots of public affairs “from the masculine angle,” and by irritable correspondence about men who expose their anatomy on beaches (so masculine of them), conceal it in dressing-gowns (too feminine of them), think about nothing but women, pretend an unnatural indifference to women, exploit their sex to get jobs, lower the tone of the office by their sexless appearance, and generally fail to please a public opinion which demands the incompatible. And at dinner-parties he would hear the wheedling, unctuous, predatory female voice demand: “And why should you trouble your handsome little head about politics?”
If, after a few centuries of this kind of treatment, the male was a little self-conscious, a little on the defensive, and a little bewildered about what was required of him, I should not blame him. If he presented the world with a major social problem, I should scarcely be surprised. It would be more surprising if he retained any rag of sanity and self-respect.
From the 1947 Dorothy L. Sayers essay “The Human-Not-Quite-Human” oh my god, this is from 1947. doesn’t it show how much things HAVEN’T changed that I read through this whole thing assuming it was from a current article or essay, until I got to the date at the end?
"Well, with Freddie Lounds and the Starbucking of Freddie Lounds and Alana Bloom, it was really just a function of needing more female voices and perspectives and characters on the show, because it’s just a lot of men. It ran dangerously close to being a lot of white men, and we just didn’t want to be so narrow in our worldview…"
- Bryan Fuller, AVClub Interview: http://www.avclub.com/articles/bryan-fuller-walks-us-through-the-first-three-epis,100582/2/
(‘Starbucking’ as a verb - I love it!)
Welcome to Night Vale
Episode 10 - Feral Dogs
france: sixty ten
world: france what are you do—
france: four twenties
world: france stop it
france: four twenties ten
world: france that doesn’t even make any sense
This reminds me of the time I was taking French and complained to my fluent-in-French dad about the French numbering system: “Why don’t they have a word for ‘seventy’”? “They do. Happens to be soixante-dix.” and then my brain exploded and I went to get a few degrees in linguistics :D
Laparoscopic observation of spontaneous human ovulation. A remarkably prominent vascular pattern was observed on the mature follicle (F, white arrows). A small follicular area called the stigma (S) was seen protruding like a reddish bleb from the follicular surface, with viscous yellow fluid (black arrows) evaginating outward into the peritoneal cavity.
The viscous fluid probably carried with it the cumulus–oocyte complex, surrounded by several thousand small granulosa cells known as corona radiata.