RELATION-TRIPS

Unspoken Truths From Men About Women

Fear v. Fear

Men --logical souls that we are -- fear physical pain. Women, on the other hand fear emotional pain. Our role in life in part is to protect ourselves and those close to us from harm and to provide a secure physical environment.

Women play the major role in nuturing, providing comfort and expressing love and concern.

Mars, meet Venus.

Men are never as good in the emotional clutches of a relationship as they would be in a physical confrontation. When men don't open up to women it is often because they feel thoroughly unequipped to respond adequately. So when we hear the words: "Honey, we need to talk." it is as daunting as hearing: "The boss wants to see you -- now!" or "The police were asking about you," or "Please contact Visa at 1-800..."

It makes us frightened and maybe even angry. It is when women most want us to open up, but it is when men curl up in an emotional fetal position. You can only make a man go deeper inside, or get angry by saying "we need to talk." It is by its very nature accusatory. And so usually is the accompanying tone. Men see it as confrontation -- but its not a physical one so we don't respond the way women would like. We observe our code of omerta. Nobody talks.

Women on the other hand are as well armed for emotional confrontation as men are for war. (Yes you can turn almost any male into a fighting machine in a few weeks of training). Yet they live in fear of emotional pain. Some women, even some very intelligent, professional ones, will stay in physically abusive relationships in the belief that, "I know he loves me," "he will change." Or, "he said he was sorry." Sometimes out of no where to go, or lack of money, but often times because the thought of the emotional pain of being alone is even more daunting than the ass-kicking.

You will never get a man to understand why anyone stands around getting hit. To men its simple: you run away, try to kick his ass -- or maybe even kill him before he kills you. But you don't just stand there. The fear of physical pain prevails.

I remember as a teen growing up on the Lower East Side of Manhattan (no, not the trendy Lower East Side of today, the old gang war, drug war Lower East Side.) Girls would have house parties and invite guys from rival neighborhoods, "because he's cute," or "he likes me." Fine, we'll just invite the Shiites and other Muslim factions too. Never once thinking that they would put us all in jeopardy. Once upon seeing a local tough guy walk through the door and knowing that a rival (read blood enemy) was already in attendance, I discreetly asked the host to play a six-minute slow jam, "Stay in My Corner" by the Dells. While everybody was on the floor getting busy grindin', my friends and I gathered up our coats and slipped out. Needless to say, within an hour the police were called to break up the ruckus.

Women just don't have the same mortality fear. Men, on the the hand are obsessed with it. We are conditioned this way from playing war as children, to sports and street fights: you can and will eventually die. And death can happen at any time. And as a rule men expose themselves to more physically challenging and dangerous endeavors than women. We push the envelope of mortality to make ourselves think we are not afraid to die.

Ever see how differently men and women respond to the death of someone they know? The men feel bad for the deceased, their life is over. The women focus on the survivors: "How will she get along?" "Can he raise those children alone?" "Will the family have to sell the house?"

With every death, men hear the drumbeat of mortality coming closer and closer. Women rarely feel it unless its gender related -- like the breast cancer of a peer. Women fear breast cancer and should no doubt. But heart disease is killing them at a much higher rate. Until the past few years you never even heard this. The disease du jour of celebrity "walks" and "runs" is still breast cancer. Recently there have been strong efforts by the American Heart Association and others to change this, but the passion is just not the same. The reason? Breasts go right to the core of things very important to women: beauty, vanity, sexuality. No one will know if you are walking around with heart disease or clogged valves. But everyone will look to see what you look like after breast surgery. There's one great commercial where an attractive, professional looking women says that she religiously had mamograms all her adult life -- then she had a heart attack.

Why women aren't shouting this from the rooftops is beyond the understanding of anyone sane.

HAS THE ANCHOR POSITION SUNK?

Why Katie Couric Has Just Another Desk Job

Am I the only one who thinks that Katie curious air-brushed photos that appear on seemingly every other New York bus, train platform and billboard with mean eyes and toothy grin look ridiculous? Isn't CBS' attempt to get her to fill Cronkite's shoes with her spike heels so transparent that people around her must be giggling behind her back? And aren't Matt, Al and Ann ("Today" show survivors) all secretly high-fiving as they watch Katie move along like a kid on roller skates for the first time?

In her opus performance, Tuesday night, Katie was clearly afraid to take her training wheels off. She so clearly looked like she was seeking approval from viewers, that I wanted to drop a coin into her cup. You know, help the kid's team get new uniforms. This so different from the in-your-face," smile at you now slap you later," persona that she honed so well in her day job as co-host of the "Today" show.

This Katie looked as if she was embarrassed that the boss promoted her after a beloved VP had died with so many other qualified candidates available. And at the show's end -- after so much ado about an absolutely nothing part of the show as the sign-off -- Katie (stumped for five months on this one) asked viewers to write-in give her an appropriate ending.

My prediction: That will fall flatter on its face than Lincoln is on a penny. Either only no one will respond, or no one will respond with a good idea. Where will that leave Katie and CBS "News"? Is that what she meant by making the news "more accessible?"

The "free speech" segment would be OK, but only if it applied to regular folk --not to Rush Linbaugh who has plenty of his own TV and radio time, or former Pres. Bill Clinton, who gets as much media attention as he wants. Why not make it a "TV Blog" instead?

Someone at CBS didn't think this through.

Wednesday's show, which I saw only portions of, had Katie back in her element with a strong interview with Pres. Bush, much more her style and comfort zone. But one interview does not a week of anchoring make.

But the underlying fact is this -- who cares? This is simply not a big deal anymore. Most Americans by now, who are not comatose, have figured out that there would be a female network evening news anchor eventually. By the way, doesn't cable already have plenty?

Anchoring the network evening news is like being centerfielder for the New York Yankees -- its a nice position to have, but not nearly as good as it used to be in the 50s, and 60s era of DiMaggio and Mantle. Or put another way, has it really mattered who held the heavyweight championship title after Ali?

Time was when Americans gathered around the dinner table, or the living room after dinner, to watch the evening news. It was delivered by white males, middle-aged or older, in dark suits with severe, heavy voices honed by radio news experience. ABC News with Charles "Charlie" Gibson, and NBC News with Brian (I have my own blog!) Williams have held close to that standard. But realistically that era ended with the resignations of Dan Rather (CBS) and Tom Brokaw (NBC) and death of Peter Jennings (ABC).

The networks have held out placing a woman in the anchor spot alone (forget about the Barbara Walters experiment -- it was just that) like the Yankees held out on getting Black players. It has been said that the Yankees could have had an outfield of: Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, had it not been for owner Dan Topping's racism. I somehow doubt that he loses any sleep in his grave over this.

American life styles have changed dramatically. We do not all get home for work in time for the evening news. We work longer hours -- not harder work as the blue collar and farm folks used to -- but longer hours. After work its often off to the gym (sorry health club) the bar, club, theater, museum opening, restaurant (who cooks during the week anymore?) whatever. And thanks to cell phones, BlackBerrys, etc., we often do work from home.

We also have a generation or two, of folks for whom "network evening news anchor" means nothing. They grew up with CNN, MSNBC, etc. They are of the Internet generation, they want their information 24/7, fast, on-the-go, short and sweet. They will not sit and stare at a talking head for 22 minutes. They might for Jon Stewart because he's funny and irreverent. Studies have shown that many college-age people (tomorrow's leaders) get much or most of their "news" from Stewart. A good guess is that many do not differentiate between him and say Brian Williams except that Brian is not as funny.

I spoke with a group of five Public Relations students at NYU this week and none saw Katie's first CBS broadcast. Only one thought it "moderately significant." None read newspapers regularly -- except one who said she buys the Sunday Times and "takes all week to read all the features." One admitted to checking a web site for news headlines "most days, if I see something interesting I read the whole article." I asked them if they followed the news more closely when the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 happened. Only one said yes, because, "it was on all the time, it was the only thing on."

I don't what will happen to ratings (that's really what's at stake here) after the initial first week flurry over Katie. The first night they were predictably off the chain, thrashing the network competition. But will even hard core Katie lovers stay loyal at the 6:30 hour? I think in most red states, rural and small townish America, where the lifestyle is more likely to be 9-5, perhaps. But the red-staters are not her main audience. Katie's is strictly middle of the road, to pro-choice Republican, to hard core liberal. Red state America may stick to the white guys in blue suits.

Next time you go for a drink after work, or to pump iron at the gym, or go see a play, look at who is around you. If they look middle-of-the-road or liberal: Good night, Katie.

RELATION-TRIPS PART I

RELATION-TRIPS:

Unspoken Truths From Men About Women

Greatest line about male/female relationships in a recent movie is from the Vaughn/Anniston movie, "The Break-Up."

He: "Alright, I'll do the dishes "

She: "I don't want you to do the dishes -- I want you to want to do the dishes."

The woman's underlying logic being: I can't understand for the life of me why you wouldn't be happy to do them for me.

For men this is a real head shaker. Yet it is typical of the situation that women place men in: They want us to be honest, but they force us to lie. So you can either pretend to want to do the dishes. Or be honest and say, "Anyone who wants to do dishes, who is not saving money for a working visa, should be under observation."

Women fail to see the lack of logic in this. They are also in a constant battle for control with men. Yes, one basic truth is that men are about power -- women are about control. The difference? Power seekers want you to do the dishes and don't care if you want to or not. Control freaks demand that you not only do them -- but like it.

Another great line (in a movie which had nothing to do with relationship issues) was in a movie (the title escapes me) starring Tom Cruise as an idealistic Navy JAG (attorney) cross-examining a tough, crude leatherneck Jack Nicholson and demanding he tell the truth. Nicholson famously replies: "You couldn't handle the truth!"

You've all heard women say it: "Just tell me the truth, I can handle it."

Well, here are the "Top Ten" basic, common truths that men could say if pressed:

"Yes, that outfit makes you look big as a house -- don't you have a mirror?"

"No, my friend who I introduced you to at the club isn't gay -- he just didn't find you attractive."

"If I were really into you don't you think I would have committed by now? I mean have you met even one friend of mine?"

"If you were prettier, I would take you out more."

"Why am I calling you? Because I'm broke, drunk and horny and you're the only woman gullible enough to let me come over at 2:00 in the morning."

"Look, you have great orgasms with me -- what more do you want? Do you see me asking you for anything?"

"Men usually ejaculate during sex -- but we rarely have orgasms."

"If I were a woman there are two things I would never be: broke or horny."

"The best thing you can say about a thin woman is: 'She'd be okay if she had tits.'"

"When you meet with your girlfriends to discuss how badly your relationship is going, well, they just live for that."

There's another which requires some explaining.

I was seeing a woman years ago (yes while in a relationship) who eagerly made herself available whenever I was free (hey, it was the 70s.) Nice woman, but in no way one who I would be in a might-marry-one-day-committed relationship. My main traveled a lot (yeah she may have had a numero two also -- hey it was the 70s!) so I called her. After a night of steamy sex she asked me when my girlfriend was coming back. I told her the day after tomorrow. She said to me "I wish she'd stay out of town for a year!" She failed to understand -- until I told her point-blank -- that "Even if she got hit by a bus or swallowed up by a volcano, our relationship wouldn't change. " She actually registered shock on her face. "Why?" she asked.

I explained it to her like this. "Its like college basketball. You may be a great team in Divison 1AA -- ranked in the top ten even. That means you play teams like Hofstra, Fordham, Fayetteville State, and a host of mostly smaller private schools, ivy leagues, and city and state schools. But barring a fluke (like Hofstra had a few years ago) you will never play against the likes of Syracuse, UCLA, Duke, Boston College, etc. They are Division 1 schools. You might be number one in 1-AA but couldn't even crack the top 25 in Division 1.

So Number 11 is: "Ladies know your division!"