Group dynamics
A FRIEND of mine, Peter by name, recently returned from Canada, where he participated in a conversation that probably marked a new low point in male-female understanding. It was Peter's fault - he started it, after all, by asking a woman at a cocktail party what she did for a living.
'I'm the president of Women For Fish,' she said. 'As you know, there is a deficiency of cod in Newfoundland. Fishermen are worried about it. We're trying to help them. But you wouldn't be interested,' she said with a sneer.
'Why do you say that?' asked my friend.
'Men aren't interested in fish.' 'Why do you say that?' asked my friend. He can be repetitious at times. He was also dumbfounded. True, he had been unaware of the Newfoundland cod situation. But no one had ever impugned his fellowship with fish before.
The woman said, 'Well, for one thing, we have no men in our organisation.' Peter had no response ready. So as far as we know this woman is still busy resenting the fact that no men have joined Women For Fish.
Surely some men are interested in fish. After all, she mentioned fishermen, didn't she? Aren't they interested in fish? Or do they just catch any old thing and call it a day? 'All right, guys, 200 tuna, four dolphins, some blue kind of fish with a pointy nose, a Turkish submarine and a tank of toxic waste. Good enough. Last one in buys the beer.' Even if I were interested in fish, I would not join Women For Fish. If an organisation can't get my sex right, how can I trust anything else it does? The idea of joining associations based on other common traits doesn't appeal to me. In the United States you'll find MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) SADD (Students Against Drunk Driving) Jews For Jesus and SAD (Singles Against Drugs). Don't ask why someone's opinion about drugs should be weightier because that person is unmarried.
There are lots of societies I would join if they existed, but no one has bothered to start them yet. No one ever starts organisations just for men. Ones that exclude non-men, that is.
In the USA, there is a large and powerful League Of Women Voters but no League Of Men Voters. Which raises a question: why don't men have clubs to further their interests? Other than obvious ones like banks, corporations, schools and governments, I mean? One can find organisations like Women Against Military Madness, Women For Fishing, Hunting And Wildlife (there are those fish again!), Women Achieving New Directions, Women At The Well, Women For Sobriety, Women Helping Offenders, Women In Communications, Women In The Wilderness, Women In The Wind Sailing School, Women In Transition and the Women Trial Lawyers Network.
My explorations did not turn up a single organisation for men. No Men For Wearing The Same Dirty Clothes On Saturday And Sunday, for instance. No Men For More Science-Fiction Movies On Television. No Men Who Talk About Computers At Parties And Funerals or Men Achieving Higher Cholesterol Levels. No Men Against French Cuffs ... Men Against Shopping ... Men For Monosyllables.
You could argue that there are all too many bodies run by and for men. A good number of governments could be re-named Men For Military Madness, for instance. But they're not. Men have always assumed that we are the world and now we're paying for that assumption. Never can we band together openly for any cause, lest we be accused of excluding women, a prohibition of our times.
Lacking an organisation, we do what we can. I've recently found an outlet for one of my own favourite interests, fish: a Friday night all-you-can-eat seafood buffet. All sexes admitted.
