Here are some of the better axioms I came across in the last year or so that capture the differences between the sexes quite sweetly.
Men like what they see, and women like what they hear.
That's why men lie, and women wear make up.
Men insult each other to get along, but they don't mean it.
Women compliment each other to get along, and they don't mean it either.
A girl dreams about a bad boy who is gentle only for her.
A boy wants a good girl who is naughty only for him.
(This one comes from a friend)
Women fake orgasms/sexual interest to get relationships.
Men fake relationships to get orgasms/sex.
Here are two of the best:
A woman's loyalty is tested when her man has nothing.
A man's loyalty is tested when he has everything.
Why is it that a woman who sleeps around a lot is a slut, but a man who has lots of sex is great?
Because a lock that can be opened by many keys is a lousy lock, while a key that can open many locks is the master key.
Showing posts with label men. Show all posts
Showing posts with label men. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
Friday, 14 October 2011
What Can a Simple Physical Attractiveness Rating Exercise Tell Us?
Recently, as part of a larger study I'm doing with my professor on the effects of social status and desirability, I had to get a large sample of photographs (of both men and women between the ages of 19-24) pre-rated for attractiveness.
I found the following patterns:
1) Men showed more agreement in ratings when the female was highly attractive. That is, if a female was very pretty, the ratings would be high, and the standard deviation would be low.
2) Women showed more agreement in ratings when the male was very unattractive. That is, if a male looked ugly or weird, the ratings would be low, and the standard deviation would be low too.
3) Men generally showed more agreement in ratings overall (there was less variance in the ratings), while women generally showed less agreement in ratings overall (there was greater variance in the ratings).
I don't think these findings are groundbreaking, because there's bound to be research out there already formally documenting such results. But it was interesting to just deduce on my own the implications of these results.
Firstly, these show that men all know a good-looking female face when they see it. This indicates that physical attractiveness is an important marker of whether a woman is desirable or not and what constitutes physical attractiveness (in a face, at least) is quite universal (in the culture these male respondents come from, at least). Attractiveness ambiguity at the lower end of the spectrum suggests that men are still willing to give some women who might be less attractive benefit of the doubt. Men are thus more sensitive to the higher end of the female facial attractiveness spectrum.
Secondly, when a man is potentially attractive, not every woman may agree - each may have her own idea of what an attractive male looks like. This thus suggests that what makes a man desirable may not lie in his physical attractiveness; more information is needed about the man before most women are willing to be attracted to him, such as his status, character and background. Looking at a picture of a man therefore provides insufficient information for most women to make judgments about his desirability. But they tend to agree when a man looks unattractive. Women are thus more sensitive to the lower end of the male facial attractiveness spectrum.
Taken together, when we look at how come men look out for the higher end more while women are highly sensitive to the lower end more, it suggests that there are different payoffs in the mating strategies between males and females. For men, it is more costly to miss an opportunity to get to know a very attractive woman (what we might call a Type I error). On the other hand, for women, it is more costly to get attracted to a man who is potentially very undesirable (a Type II error).
Furthermore, the most attractive male will never be as highly rated as the most attractive female, while the most unattractive female will never be as poorly rated as the most unattractive male.
What does this imply for the society I live in at large, if we at least assume the ratings to reflect psychological dispositions and preferences of men and women in Singaporean culture?
For the men, it suggests that you're screwed if you're below the threshold of desirability, whatever that threshold depends on (looks, status, personality etc). Women will be sensitive towards these below-threshold men, so that they can be avoided.
For the women, it suggests in a rather morbid and cynical manner, that unless you're at the top (of what society defines as attractive), most guys won't be paying attention.
Why do these extrapolations seem to mirror what really is happening in society? Because our success at reproduction lies at the heart of our actions and behaviours. We wouldn't care about how high our mate value is, if it didn't matter. But the truth is it does (at least to some extent), because we are constantly rated by members of the opposite sex (and they also make use of how the members of our own sex rate us to make secondary judgments).
Because we care enough, we strive to better ourselves in those ways that eventually lead up to the kinds of patterns we see in society - men trying to peacock themselves up with material adornments, such as nice cars, suits and jobs (so they won't look down-and-out at the bottom of the ladder), and women trying to one-up each other on physical attractiveness, such as make up, clothing and even cosmetic surgery now in countries where such surgeries are readily available and social norms permit them (so they can be at the top).
I found the following patterns:
1) Men showed more agreement in ratings when the female was highly attractive. That is, if a female was very pretty, the ratings would be high, and the standard deviation would be low.
2) Women showed more agreement in ratings when the male was very unattractive. That is, if a male looked ugly or weird, the ratings would be low, and the standard deviation would be low too.
3) Men generally showed more agreement in ratings overall (there was less variance in the ratings), while women generally showed less agreement in ratings overall (there was greater variance in the ratings).
I don't think these findings are groundbreaking, because there's bound to be research out there already formally documenting such results. But it was interesting to just deduce on my own the implications of these results.
Firstly, these show that men all know a good-looking female face when they see it. This indicates that physical attractiveness is an important marker of whether a woman is desirable or not and what constitutes physical attractiveness (in a face, at least) is quite universal (in the culture these male respondents come from, at least). Attractiveness ambiguity at the lower end of the spectrum suggests that men are still willing to give some women who might be less attractive benefit of the doubt. Men are thus more sensitive to the higher end of the female facial attractiveness spectrum.
Secondly, when a man is potentially attractive, not every woman may agree - each may have her own idea of what an attractive male looks like. This thus suggests that what makes a man desirable may not lie in his physical attractiveness; more information is needed about the man before most women are willing to be attracted to him, such as his status, character and background. Looking at a picture of a man therefore provides insufficient information for most women to make judgments about his desirability. But they tend to agree when a man looks unattractive. Women are thus more sensitive to the lower end of the male facial attractiveness spectrum.
Taken together, when we look at how come men look out for the higher end more while women are highly sensitive to the lower end more, it suggests that there are different payoffs in the mating strategies between males and females. For men, it is more costly to miss an opportunity to get to know a very attractive woman (what we might call a Type I error). On the other hand, for women, it is more costly to get attracted to a man who is potentially very undesirable (a Type II error).
Furthermore, the most attractive male will never be as highly rated as the most attractive female, while the most unattractive female will never be as poorly rated as the most unattractive male.
What does this imply for the society I live in at large, if we at least assume the ratings to reflect psychological dispositions and preferences of men and women in Singaporean culture?
For the men, it suggests that you're screwed if you're below the threshold of desirability, whatever that threshold depends on (looks, status, personality etc). Women will be sensitive towards these below-threshold men, so that they can be avoided.
For the women, it suggests in a rather morbid and cynical manner, that unless you're at the top (of what society defines as attractive), most guys won't be paying attention.
Why do these extrapolations seem to mirror what really is happening in society? Because our success at reproduction lies at the heart of our actions and behaviours. We wouldn't care about how high our mate value is, if it didn't matter. But the truth is it does (at least to some extent), because we are constantly rated by members of the opposite sex (and they also make use of how the members of our own sex rate us to make secondary judgments).
Because we care enough, we strive to better ourselves in those ways that eventually lead up to the kinds of patterns we see in society - men trying to peacock themselves up with material adornments, such as nice cars, suits and jobs (so they won't look down-and-out at the bottom of the ladder), and women trying to one-up each other on physical attractiveness, such as make up, clothing and even cosmetic surgery now in countries where such surgeries are readily available and social norms permit them (so they can be at the top).
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
'Manly' Women - Hot Or Not?
Why do some men find a woman who smokes a turn on, while other men are disgusted by the sight? Why do some men think that it's hot that a girl rides motorbikes, whereas others find it a little too weird for their liking? In short, why do some men think that females who engage in male activities are attractive, whereas some men think otherwise, preferring that women stick to more traditionally 'feminine' activities?
The answer might very well lie in the mating strategy of the male. Just ask the question: What would a male long term mating strategist want? What would a male short term mating strategist want? The answer appears soon enough.
Observing a girl engaging in all sorts of typically male habits or activities, such as smoking, watching football, drinking, swearing, or riding motorbikes, conjures up other male-related associations, and with every additional male-centric activity that she appears involved in, the easier it is for a male observer to think: well, she might think just like a guy does. And one very important male-centric kind of thought or behaviour is that sex is cheap and sex can come easy.
Man, wouldn't this simply drive males looking for short term mating - a one night stand, a fling, a casual relationship - crazy? Indeed it does, and their suspicions are confirmed by real life outcomes - women who display these traits tend to be more adventurous and, subsequently, more promiscuous.
And the reverse makes a lot of sense and is also true - men seeking a long term mate will find such behaviour in potential mates rather undesirable, and why not? Your prospects for keeping your partner will be rather bleak if she does indeed have the masculine signature of opportunistic mating.
Of course, not all girls who indulge in typically masculine activities are promiscuous. The point is that the more likely a girl is to exhibit masculine behaviour, the more likely she is to think like a man, and the more likely she is to adopt a masculine openness towards sex.
Also, of course none of this consciously happens in the brain of a male. A man either finds a woman roughing it out man-style interesting or not, very often without any rational thought-processing involved. But something underlies that instinctive attraction (or aversion), and it might just reside in what a woman's promiscuity, suggested by her male-ness, might mean to you.
P.S. The 'manliness' of the woman here must not be confused with her being just like a man. What probably works for short term mating men is that the woman is simply associated with male-like activities, but this doesn't mean she starts to become physically like a man. I'm pretty sure it doesn't quite cut it if she starts looking buffed or sporting a male voice. Then again, male short term maters have rather low requirements (i.e. they mind less) on the women they desire to bed, caring more about signals of easy sexual access.
The answer might very well lie in the mating strategy of the male. Just ask the question: What would a male long term mating strategist want? What would a male short term mating strategist want? The answer appears soon enough.
Observing a girl engaging in all sorts of typically male habits or activities, such as smoking, watching football, drinking, swearing, or riding motorbikes, conjures up other male-related associations, and with every additional male-centric activity that she appears involved in, the easier it is for a male observer to think: well, she might think just like a guy does. And one very important male-centric kind of thought or behaviour is that sex is cheap and sex can come easy.
Man, wouldn't this simply drive males looking for short term mating - a one night stand, a fling, a casual relationship - crazy? Indeed it does, and their suspicions are confirmed by real life outcomes - women who display these traits tend to be more adventurous and, subsequently, more promiscuous.
And the reverse makes a lot of sense and is also true - men seeking a long term mate will find such behaviour in potential mates rather undesirable, and why not? Your prospects for keeping your partner will be rather bleak if she does indeed have the masculine signature of opportunistic mating.
Of course, not all girls who indulge in typically masculine activities are promiscuous. The point is that the more likely a girl is to exhibit masculine behaviour, the more likely she is to think like a man, and the more likely she is to adopt a masculine openness towards sex.
Also, of course none of this consciously happens in the brain of a male. A man either finds a woman roughing it out man-style interesting or not, very often without any rational thought-processing involved. But something underlies that instinctive attraction (or aversion), and it might just reside in what a woman's promiscuity, suggested by her male-ness, might mean to you.
P.S. The 'manliness' of the woman here must not be confused with her being just like a man. What probably works for short term mating men is that the woman is simply associated with male-like activities, but this doesn't mean she starts to become physically like a man. I'm pretty sure it doesn't quite cut it if she starts looking buffed or sporting a male voice. Then again, male short term maters have rather low requirements (i.e. they mind less) on the women they desire to bed, caring more about signals of easy sexual access.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Lifted this from various sources across the internet:
Here’s a prime example of “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” offered by an English professor:
The professor told his class one day: “Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. As homework tonight, one of you will write the first paragraph of a short story. You will e-mail your partner that paragraph and send another copy to me. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story and send it back, also sending another copy to me.
“The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back-and-forth. Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. There is to be absolutely NO talking outside of the e-mails and anything you wish to say must be written in the e-mail. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached.”
The following was actually turned in by two of his English students, Rebecca and Gary.
THE STORY:
(first paragraph by Rebecca)
At first, Laurie couldn’t decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.
(second paragraph by Gary)
Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. “A.S. Harris to Geostation 17,” he said into his transgalactic communicator. “Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far…” But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship’s cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.
(Rebecca)
He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. “Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel,” Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth, when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspaper to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. “Why must one lose one’s innocence to become a woman?” she pondered wistfully.
(Gary)
Little did she know, but she had less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu’udrian mothership launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through the congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu’udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion, which vaporized poor, stupid Laurie.
(Rebecca)
This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic semi-literate adolescent.
(Gary)
Yeah? Well, my writing partner is a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium. “Oh, shall I have chamomile tea? Or shall I have some other sort of F_KING TEA??? Oh no, what am I to do? I’m such an air headed bimbo who reads too many Danielle Steele novels!”
(Rebecca)
Asshole.
(Gary)
Bitch
(Rebecca)
F__K YOU - YOU NEANDERTHAL!
(Gary)
Go drink some tea - whore.
(TEACHER)
A+ - I really liked this one.
Here’s a prime example of “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” offered by an English professor:
The professor told his class one day: “Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. As homework tonight, one of you will write the first paragraph of a short story. You will e-mail your partner that paragraph and send another copy to me. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story and send it back, also sending another copy to me.
“The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back-and-forth. Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. There is to be absolutely NO talking outside of the e-mails and anything you wish to say must be written in the e-mail. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached.”
The following was actually turned in by two of his English students, Rebecca and Gary.
THE STORY:
(first paragraph by Rebecca)
At first, Laurie couldn’t decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.
(second paragraph by Gary)
Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. “A.S. Harris to Geostation 17,” he said into his transgalactic communicator. “Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far…” But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship’s cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.
(Rebecca)
He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. “Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel,” Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth, when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspaper to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. “Why must one lose one’s innocence to become a woman?” she pondered wistfully.
(Gary)
Little did she know, but she had less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu’udrian mothership launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through the congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu’udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion, which vaporized poor, stupid Laurie.
(Rebecca)
This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic semi-literate adolescent.
(Gary)
Yeah? Well, my writing partner is a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium. “Oh, shall I have chamomile tea? Or shall I have some other sort of F_KING TEA??? Oh no, what am I to do? I’m such an air headed bimbo who reads too many Danielle Steele novels!”
(Rebecca)
Asshole.
(Gary)
Bitch
(Rebecca)
F__K YOU - YOU NEANDERTHAL!
(Gary)
Go drink some tea - whore.
(TEACHER)
A+ - I really liked this one.
Saturday, 21 June 2008
Gender Realism = All Men Only Want Sex = All Women Only Want Money, For Example.
For the uninitiated in basic political philosophy, I apologise for the technicality.
The school of realist thought contends that essentially, countries are keen and only keen on preserving the survival of the state through self-help. This means that nothing else matters other than being wary of your neighbours and you'd only be able to trust yourself, so you build up your own offences and defences. Through a vicious cycle of insecurity between nations, there will always be hostility and inevitably war.
The school of liberalist thought asserts that there is more to it than just the necessity of statism, survival and self-help, because modern politics seems to be moving towards that of peace treaties and goodwill on the sugar-coated side. If we can afford to do these things, then there must be some room for being optimistic about peace and cooperation.
But I'm not writing about what explains why countries want to bomb the crap out of one another or selectively treat one another like gay bosom pals. I'm posting today about gender realism. Along the 'all men only want sex' and 'all women only want money' variety of sentiment, we have others like 'all women secretly want bad boys and fast cars', 'all men are scumbags', 'all women are bitches' etc. Essentially, this is what I'd define as gender realism.
On the other hand, stuff like 'I don't think all men are scumbags, my boyfriend is definitely not one of them' or 'my girlfriend is the exception to the general adage that women only want men with status' belongs under gender liberalism. Likewise, men having 2 ladders under the ladder theory and 'personality is more important than looks' hence also fall under gender liberalist thought by my definitions.
The general conflict between realism and liberalism since the early 1900s is that life for the realist, at the end of the day, is all about protecting yourself in an innately rational and selfish manner. Life for the liberalist would be that we can afford to be genuinely altruistic and life isn't all about self-survival. The lengthened conflict then goes on to debate whether liberalism is essentially sugar-coated realism. Take for example the IMF or the WTO. Liberalists will say that you can draw on these examples to show that countries can indeed seek to further goodwill for everyone's gain. Realists will say that the IMF and WTO are merely tools that America is using to further their personal interests on a global scale, in the process enslaving developing countries and forcing them to play by their rules.
Accordingly, it can then be argued that, for example, men, especially the sensitive new-age ones, are only being sensitive and nice insofar as they wish to succeed in getting into women's pants ultimately. In line with liberalism being disguised realism, a guy's attempt to be nice and sensitive are just more cunning ways to get sex, and a lady's attempt to be a witty and new-age confident woman is just so that she can get men of stature and their dough.
To digress a little, it is like when a company decides to engage in CSR (corporate social responsibility). Liberalists will say that they want to reach out to stakeholders, realists will assert that they're simply doing this just to exploit the CSR channel to market their firm and get more profits.
Fundamentally, anyone who asserts that all men and women are rootedly the same because of a host of scientific, rational reasons - biological, Darwinistic, etc - is a gender realist. As long as the status quo is met, it doesn't matter by what means.
With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law; and every time they make a law it's a joke.
Audio Candy:
Talib Kweli Feat. Mos Def & Kanye West - Get By
The school of realist thought contends that essentially, countries are keen and only keen on preserving the survival of the state through self-help. This means that nothing else matters other than being wary of your neighbours and you'd only be able to trust yourself, so you build up your own offences and defences. Through a vicious cycle of insecurity between nations, there will always be hostility and inevitably war.
The school of liberalist thought asserts that there is more to it than just the necessity of statism, survival and self-help, because modern politics seems to be moving towards that of peace treaties and goodwill on the sugar-coated side. If we can afford to do these things, then there must be some room for being optimistic about peace and cooperation.
But I'm not writing about what explains why countries want to bomb the crap out of one another or selectively treat one another like gay bosom pals. I'm posting today about gender realism. Along the 'all men only want sex' and 'all women only want money' variety of sentiment, we have others like 'all women secretly want bad boys and fast cars', 'all men are scumbags', 'all women are bitches' etc. Essentially, this is what I'd define as gender realism.
On the other hand, stuff like 'I don't think all men are scumbags, my boyfriend is definitely not one of them' or 'my girlfriend is the exception to the general adage that women only want men with status' belongs under gender liberalism. Likewise, men having 2 ladders under the ladder theory and 'personality is more important than looks' hence also fall under gender liberalist thought by my definitions.
The general conflict between realism and liberalism since the early 1900s is that life for the realist, at the end of the day, is all about protecting yourself in an innately rational and selfish manner. Life for the liberalist would be that we can afford to be genuinely altruistic and life isn't all about self-survival. The lengthened conflict then goes on to debate whether liberalism is essentially sugar-coated realism. Take for example the IMF or the WTO. Liberalists will say that you can draw on these examples to show that countries can indeed seek to further goodwill for everyone's gain. Realists will say that the IMF and WTO are merely tools that America is using to further their personal interests on a global scale, in the process enslaving developing countries and forcing them to play by their rules.
Accordingly, it can then be argued that, for example, men, especially the sensitive new-age ones, are only being sensitive and nice insofar as they wish to succeed in getting into women's pants ultimately. In line with liberalism being disguised realism, a guy's attempt to be nice and sensitive are just more cunning ways to get sex, and a lady's attempt to be a witty and new-age confident woman is just so that she can get men of stature and their dough.
To digress a little, it is like when a company decides to engage in CSR (corporate social responsibility). Liberalists will say that they want to reach out to stakeholders, realists will assert that they're simply doing this just to exploit the CSR channel to market their firm and get more profits.
Fundamentally, anyone who asserts that all men and women are rootedly the same because of a host of scientific, rational reasons - biological, Darwinistic, etc - is a gender realist. As long as the status quo is met, it doesn't matter by what means.
With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law; and every time they make a law it's a joke.
Audio Candy:
Talib Kweli Feat. Mos Def & Kanye West - Get By
Monday, 3 July 2006
Band Of Brothers
What has happened to my BSC?
It seems like since that last fateful weekend, CDS has slipped into some kind of dark age, shrouded by gloom and doom. I've always liked CDS for its heroic, outlawed ways. We were the military organisation that's always at the frontline 24/7, and yet you could say we were the most unregimental soldiers ever. We had our own way of running things, resulting in a very different working and booking out system that no other unit has. We were once classified as RPs, but when people asked us if we were like RPs we'd say "no", and add that it'd be a really long story if we were to say why even though it seemed like we were doing the same kinda things.
In fact we were different. Which infantry soldiers wear commercial lifevests, bicycle helmets, safety boots and drive RHIBs? Which infantry unit never made it a requirement to reveille, fall in for last parades and have standby areas? Which infantry unit has soldiers outside consistently on weekdays? We were the resident base fuckers, doing what was necessary and to the objective (which meant minusing whatever we could and cutting corners) and then calling it a day, job well done and secured. Yet we never had bookout hours long enough to stop us from complaining that we aren't a welfared lot. We were in this mysteriously cheeky little unit. That was just the squadron I saw myself in and loved myself to be a part of.
But after what our dear CO has done, all sense of humour about everything's gone. It's sad and, I'll bet to the laojiaos, it's almost taboo. A balance has just been rocked, and we aren't who we are anymore. Our unit identity and personality is in shambles, and a new system is taking over. I'm leaving soon, and that's just about the best consolation about the whole situation that I can think of. It's sad.
I've never liked the idea of people, especially fellow people of similar age, drawing lines with one another. That's why I've always believed that we should see beyond authority and keep a certain sense of NSF integrity. Look, if you're so garang, then just fuckin' sign on man. If you do just that, I'll give it to you and not blame you for being such a system whore coz that's just about your job to be a slave to the system. But if you're a fellow NSF just like me, and just like the fuckin' whole lot of most of us that form the basis of this little defence squadron that we call our own, then I think that it's only right that you preserve a certain sense of code of conduct that all NSFs should rightly follow. It's not just about how good a soldier you'll be during your service term, but much more than that beyond your years after you ORD. If you start being a prick and screw everyone for the small things they shouldn't do as soldiers but could possibly do coz we're just biding our time as best as we can during our NSF years, then you're just not really being a fellow human that much anymore, and I believe all respect for you would go right down the drain.
That's why I don't believe in authority, which leads to my refusal to give in to regimentation and upholding of the law here. That's why sometimes I don't think I deserve a 2SG rank. To me, everybody around me of my age is a fellow man who is a son, a good buddy, a brother and a boyfriend. Mess him up and you're potentially messing about with anybody else he means the world to. Everybody has a sense of pride and self respect and it's just fucked up if you think that you can take that from him and believe that he'll really behave and even think like a man just because that's what he is in the pecking order of the army. It's just sad that some people still assume we can treat people this way as if they were from a 19th century army force. Maybe it's good to let some people who just don't get it know that most of the guys here are only being as obedient to authority around here as they're willing to play your games and act the part. Push that limit and everything will crumble.
I've always believed that with a sense of pride and faith in the people around you, you can get them to perform miracles beyond their calls of duty. Let's face it, more than half the people around here chose to be men anyway, so they probably chose not to take the responsibility and to just slowly while their way away while waiting for their turn to ORD and head on to more important things in life to them. Stop fucking them, stop messing around with their personal prides and dignities as fellow men, and you'll see how much more willing they are to do their job for you.
I'm only relieved that in a very few months time, my time here will be over and I can stop pretending that I believe in enforcing the system here as a sergeant. Truth is I don't, and it's tiring. Maybe I'm lucky in fact not be an officer so that I'm not biased to be a sucker for the system, so that I can revert from spec to man and man to spec anytime. Stop the power plays, and cut the crap about all these superiority complexes. It's lame and childish to say the least.
It seems like since that last fateful weekend, CDS has slipped into some kind of dark age, shrouded by gloom and doom. I've always liked CDS for its heroic, outlawed ways. We were the military organisation that's always at the frontline 24/7, and yet you could say we were the most unregimental soldiers ever. We had our own way of running things, resulting in a very different working and booking out system that no other unit has. We were once classified as RPs, but when people asked us if we were like RPs we'd say "no", and add that it'd be a really long story if we were to say why even though it seemed like we were doing the same kinda things.
In fact we were different. Which infantry soldiers wear commercial lifevests, bicycle helmets, safety boots and drive RHIBs? Which infantry unit never made it a requirement to reveille, fall in for last parades and have standby areas? Which infantry unit has soldiers outside consistently on weekdays? We were the resident base fuckers, doing what was necessary and to the objective (which meant minusing whatever we could and cutting corners) and then calling it a day, job well done and secured. Yet we never had bookout hours long enough to stop us from complaining that we aren't a welfared lot. We were in this mysteriously cheeky little unit. That was just the squadron I saw myself in and loved myself to be a part of.
But after what our dear CO has done, all sense of humour about everything's gone. It's sad and, I'll bet to the laojiaos, it's almost taboo. A balance has just been rocked, and we aren't who we are anymore. Our unit identity and personality is in shambles, and a new system is taking over. I'm leaving soon, and that's just about the best consolation about the whole situation that I can think of. It's sad.
I've never liked the idea of people, especially fellow people of similar age, drawing lines with one another. That's why I've always believed that we should see beyond authority and keep a certain sense of NSF integrity. Look, if you're so garang, then just fuckin' sign on man. If you do just that, I'll give it to you and not blame you for being such a system whore coz that's just about your job to be a slave to the system. But if you're a fellow NSF just like me, and just like the fuckin' whole lot of most of us that form the basis of this little defence squadron that we call our own, then I think that it's only right that you preserve a certain sense of code of conduct that all NSFs should rightly follow. It's not just about how good a soldier you'll be during your service term, but much more than that beyond your years after you ORD. If you start being a prick and screw everyone for the small things they shouldn't do as soldiers but could possibly do coz we're just biding our time as best as we can during our NSF years, then you're just not really being a fellow human that much anymore, and I believe all respect for you would go right down the drain.
That's why I don't believe in authority, which leads to my refusal to give in to regimentation and upholding of the law here. That's why sometimes I don't think I deserve a 2SG rank. To me, everybody around me of my age is a fellow man who is a son, a good buddy, a brother and a boyfriend. Mess him up and you're potentially messing about with anybody else he means the world to. Everybody has a sense of pride and self respect and it's just fucked up if you think that you can take that from him and believe that he'll really behave and even think like a man just because that's what he is in the pecking order of the army. It's just sad that some people still assume we can treat people this way as if they were from a 19th century army force. Maybe it's good to let some people who just don't get it know that most of the guys here are only being as obedient to authority around here as they're willing to play your games and act the part. Push that limit and everything will crumble.
I've always believed that with a sense of pride and faith in the people around you, you can get them to perform miracles beyond their calls of duty. Let's face it, more than half the people around here chose to be men anyway, so they probably chose not to take the responsibility and to just slowly while their way away while waiting for their turn to ORD and head on to more important things in life to them. Stop fucking them, stop messing around with their personal prides and dignities as fellow men, and you'll see how much more willing they are to do their job for you.
I'm only relieved that in a very few months time, my time here will be over and I can stop pretending that I believe in enforcing the system here as a sergeant. Truth is I don't, and it's tiring. Maybe I'm lucky in fact not be an officer so that I'm not biased to be a sucker for the system, so that I can revert from spec to man and man to spec anytime. Stop the power plays, and cut the crap about all these superiority complexes. It's lame and childish to say the least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
