Another in a series.
…one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.
Behold, this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Ecclesiastes 7:28-29
King Solomon is the purported author of the above ditty. He was renowned for having a thousand wives, so no doubt he wrote the above from experience. But before my women readers accuse him of misogyny, let’s not forget he did also write the famous hymn of praise to women – Woman of Valor.
While I would not characterize myself as a sociable person, through my business and personal life, and my travels, I have met thousands of people over the course of my life. And of all those people, the two people I admire above all others are women – my mother and Sister B.
I used to argue with Sister B.: who is superior – men or women? She contended men were and I contended women were. Of course, we both pretty much agree that the human race is a sorry lot, so “superior” is only a relative term. But over time, I have come to understand Sister B.’s position.
Men are like dogs. Perhaps not admirable, but simple and loyal. When a dog is happy, his tail wags between his legs. The same can be said for men. Like a dog, if a man meets a woman who gets his tail wagging, he just follow his nature, even if he has a woman waiting at home. But this is just the man following his simple dog-nature. This has nothing to do with loyalty. Men are intensely loyal to their masters (i.e wives and girlfriends) and will do anything to please them — just like dogs.
By contrast, men find women complicated and devious. Being simple, loyal dogs, when women tell us to do X, we blindly go ahead and do X. And then women get angry with us: “Why did you do X, what I really wanted was not-X.” So we learn never to do what a woman tells us. And then they get angry at us for not listening to them!
There is a folk tale along these lines associated with the quote from Ecclisiastes. Supposedly King Solomon had a similar argument with the Queen of Sheba, but he took Sister B.’s position. He proposed a test. Sheba found the most loving married couple in the world. Solomon then went to the husband and offered him great wealth if he agreed to give Solomon his wife. The husband refused no matter how much Solomon pressed him, even when Solomon threatened to kill the man if he would not obey.
Solomon then went to the woman. He said that he loved her and wanted to make her his queen. At first she demured, but Solomon persisted and soon she warmed to the idea. So much so, that she proposed to Solomon that she would poison her husband so she could be free to marry him! Upon hearing this, Solomon blurted out the famous verse above.
(Don’t blame me – I didn’t make this folk tale up!)
Deviousness of a certain type is often seen as an admirable trait. Anthropologists have noted the archetype of the “trickster” which is found across nearly all cultures. This is the god who is always pulling the rug out from under the other gods and humans. For example, Loki, the source of the word “luck” in germanic languages, is the Norse trickster. The trickster embodies the capricious nature of the world, and the fact that we have no control over our destiny.
Surprisingly, the trickster is attributed with most of the progress in human culture and of giving human kind many useful tools. The insight being that it is precisely the capricious nature of the world (and women?) that has led man to develop culture with all our tools for survival (including reproducing the species). The other crucial aspect of the trickster, is that stories about him help us laugh at the most difficult part of human existence – the total capriciousness with which we and those we love may get hurt or die.
The trickster is most often male, but let’s not forget Frank Sinatra’s beautiful song “Luck be a Lady Tonight.” As noted above, deviousness is most often seen as a feminine trait. Which helps explain how we view hypocrisy.
Men are suppossed to be simple and straight. If a man says x, he should mean x. Hence a man who says x but who does not-x, creates great dissonance. We even admire the straight and simple brute. He may capriciously wreak havoc, but he has clear and honest intentions. The fight is fair and equal, and if you lose, you lose with honor. The Vikings, for example, were blood-thirsty, extremely vicious and cruel. I recently learned that the Swedish toast “Skol” derives from the fact that Vikings drank from the skulls of their victims. But the Vikings were honest to the core. They were a force of nature. Everyone loves the VIkings (including me).
It is the hypocrite who is truly evil. He speaks of truth, justice, law, family and all the values we hold high in our culture. But he is devious in the most evil sense. He disarms the manly hero with his sweet words and unmanly wiles and so is not just cruel, but truly despicable. In good-versus-evil myths (from Homer to the modern action movie) the hero is straight, honest and “manly,” while the villain is devious and feminized. (Not surprisingly, its the straight-talking hero who gets the girl.)
Over the past few days the Daily News front page story has been devoted to a well-known New York priest who was literally caught with his pants down having an affair with a married woman. What made this story particularly “juicy” is that this cleric is a well known ultra-conservative who often bashes Hollywood as being controlled by gay-inspired and anti-Christian sex-fiends (i.e a bunch of lecherous Jewish fags). Hollywood and their gay/sex soaked agenda has played a huge role in the decline of the family in the U.S. with infidelity and divorce running rampant – at least so contended this Priest. The head of the Catholic League once referred to this Priest as a “Prince of the Church.”
[As an aside, if you think my tying these ideas to a xenophobic, anti-Jewish ideology is far-fetched, read some of the stuff put out by the Catholic League and other far-right Catholic and Protestant evangelical groups. One starts to see a theme: Hollywood = Gay/and or Sex Fiend = Destroyer of Christian manhood = Jewish = satanic Christ killer.].
We all love to see a hypocrite squirm, and when sex is involved, so much the better, because that appeals to our voyeurism all the more. My reaction to this story was a bit different. The fact that some holy roller is actually rolling in the hay and is a big hypocrite – no news here. And when it comes down to it, except for the injured husband’s ego, in the hierarchy of hypocrites, this Priest is hardly evil. He was just following his dog-nature. Front page news for three days?
In my bar mitzva Torah portion there is a sentance: “Do not stand on the blood of your neighbor.” The Rabbis tie this verse to public shaming – they say when you shame someone they turn pale – they become bloodless. So if you publicly shame someone through vicious gossip, you are guilty of murder. Gossip is just another form of hypocrisy – we castigate our neighbors for sins we would gladly do ourselves. In this story, several people, whom before may have just been living with private hurts, are now publicly ruined forever. The local tabloids and even more respectalbe news outlets, daily commit murder through their hypocritical gossip. Whatever the Priest’s misdeeds, it is the editors of the Daily News who are truly despicable.
But it doesn’t end here. Buried deep in todays’ paper is a couple of paragraphs on the continued struggle of Cindy Sheehan to meet President Bush. Most of you may know that Mrs. Sheehan lost her son in Iraq. She now questions the vailidity of the war and wants to bring the troops home. One of the turning points for her, was a meeting with George W. Bush, which for him was a photo-op to show his “concern” for the bereaved parents. In fact, Mrs. Sheehan says, Bush acted like the whole thing was one big party, and had no real compassion or sympathy for the pain these parents bear. Yesterday she asked a question that long has bothered me: if George Bush thinks the young men and women in Iraq are dying in a “noble cause,” as he puts it, why hasn’t he encouraged his own daughters to enlist?
Mrs. Sheehan is now carrying on a public vigil, demanding Bush meet with her again and explain to her why he isn’t bringing the troops home. In Israel, it was the courageous vigils held by women of valor — mothers, like Sheehan, who lost their sons in Lebanon, that finally led Israel to withdraw from that country. I only hope Sheehan is joined by other courageous women and has similar success, although it will never return to those mothers what they have lost.
After two days of relentless front-page publicity the hapless Priest resigned. One can only wonder: if the newspapers pursued with similar zeal the truly evil hypocrisy of the Bush administration, what change might happen here. But of course, unlike Mrs. Sheehan, the vast majority of U.S. journalists have no balls.
Postscript: Cindy Sheehan’s own explanation for her protest can be found here
