The Hyperion Chronicles

the Hyperion Chronicles
"I'm sure many readers will make me suffer greatly for this column"

Main Entry: ¹mar·tyr

Pronunciation: 'mär-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek martyr-, martys, literally, witness
Date: before 12th century
1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
3 : VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer

All right. Admittedly the title of this column is a bit inflammatory, but bear with me. What I should have written was that all people are martyrs, or at least all people have that capability within them. Even I, on occasion, have been known to martyr myself. But in general, I think most people would agree this trait or "gift" is far more developed in most women.

In fact, I'll go farther than that. I think I know why:

Evolution, and S&M.

Hang with me on this. I swear I can tie those two together and make believers out of you.

From the beginning of history, early humans had well defined gender-based roles. You could argue sociological theory as to the causes of this (like, for example, stemming from the fact that females bore the children), but for the most part, the answer is deceptively simple. Humans used to (and in some societies, still largely do) have very defined gender roles because it facilitated survival. There are definite physiological differences between men and women, which may seem like a no-brainer, but the differences used to be much more pronounced.

I read this study a few weeks ago where some college tracked the measurements of Playboy Centerfolds down through the years. (Yeah, I know: makes your Art History Elective seem kind of lame) Anyway, what they found was, fake parts aside, the body type for the ideal woman is getting closer and closer to the body type for the ideal man. This makes sense: if you think about the artwork of the Renaissance through even the Victoria era, their standard of beauty for women looked more like a Jenny Craig "Before" commercial. (For an example, see some of Botticelli's work here) The reasons for this mostly had to do with poverty (excess fat was a sign of richness and therefore desired), and the concept that women should be "softer" than men.

While not as dramatic as the Renaissance paintings, we can see the transformation even today. If you look at magazine covers now you'll see women who look hard as rocks. Compare that to, say 50 years ago, when the standard of beauty was Marilyn Monroe. That gal had not an ounce of fat on her, yet she was a size 12. I have no idea how that translates, but the nice lady at Saks told me that a "12" is considered a plus size now. (And in the interest of fairness and journalistic investigation, you can see how Marilyn, uh, stacks up, here)

There's a point here somewhere, but I can't seem to remember...oh yes. As you can see for yourself, be it ever so slowly, the "perfect image" of men and women is coming closer together. If you use "linear regression" (a fancy way to say "count backwards") and trace to early humans, you can imagine the differences in men and women then. Admittedly this isn't a perfect example and I'm skipping a bunch of stuff, but most of that involves boring math and doesn't allow for cool visual aids.

This example is a long and scantily clad way of getting to the central thrust here: men and women were different, even more different than today, in early times. Males tended to have advantages in size, strength, and visual acuity. This is the major reason why they were out hunting most of the time, because all of those skills were well suited to hunting woolly mammoths.

The Females were not without talents, however. Far better at verbal skills and relationships, the females of a group were responsible for raising the children, keeping the living area (read: cave) in good condition, growing whatever crops were available and keeping water in supply. Now, I absolutely want to stress that this is not some knock on women; that all they are good for is raising children and cleaning house. But, if you've ever wondered how things came to be the way they are, well, this is certainly part of it.

These skills developed for survival, and back then that was of utmost import. Life was too hard to just sit around and take it easy. Everyone had to do their job for the entire group to have any chance of making it year to year. Both sides were essential for the survival of the group. If you think I'm making all of this up watch Wildlife Discovery or go visit Africa, South America, or Asia, where there are still indigenous peoples largely untouched by the outside world. You'll see that the gender roles are much more defined than anything in today's modern western society.

Now, as society "advanced," several factors developed. One is that humans were healthier and living longer. People used to be lucky to live 25 years, and having as many children as possible was paramount, so that hopefully a few lived, and the clan could continue. Another is, for developed countries the standard of living started climbing. These factors combined to mean that children were not needed as much, and certainly not needed as early.

This primarily affected women, as they are the ones who do the bulk (or many times all) the work in raising children. Freed from the societal "need" to bear as many children as possible, women begin to explore other areas of life. They looked around, and said, "You know, there is no inherent reason why we can't do the things men do."

The problem is, there is an inherent reason. The traits of early humans made women far better at raising children, teaching them what they needed to know, and keeping the family from killing each other. These are very valuable, for without them society would collapse in a week. The traditional male traits meant they were not so good at getting along, teaching children, and so forth, but it did mean they were better at building ships, fighting battles, and taking over countries from indigenous peoples.

Very slowly people-both men and women-have come to believe that gender roles aren't as defining and confining as was once believed. Things have changed and are changing, but they sometimes take many generations. There are still many areas of society where people instinctively think "male" or "female." A good deal of this is because of what we are taught, but a large part is also because these gender skills that took thousands of years to develop do not change overnight. It's one thing to say men can be the primary factor in a child's life; it's another for many men to be able to do it well. It's one thing to say women can be elite soldiers in battle; it's another for many women to possess the strength and physical stamina to perform the tasks required out in the field of combat. As much as we want change, it takes more than "re-education" on our parts.

And herein lies the problem. While it's certainly true that traditional male skills might be better towards leading crusades and building hospitals and splitting atoms, there is another, perhaps darker reason why women have been held back. This goes back to the evolution thing again. Throughout history, just about any time you got a man and woman together-and I'm sorry, Grandma, but there is no other way to say this-he could always beat the shit out of her.

That doesn't mean that a man always abuses a woman, although history is filled with examples of that. But the concept is in both of their minds without ever being stated. Let me bring it closer to home. I would never hit a girl, and the women who know me know that. However, even when I'm interacting with women in my own family, they know as well as I do that if I ever wanted to, I could easily knock them out without trying. It never occurs to me to do so, and I'd never trade on that knowledge, but nonetheless, it exists as a part of the interaction, and this goes for most men and women.

Here is where the S&M comes into it. I was researching that world once (no jokes please), partly because I was fascinated as to why people would submit to pain and punishment, and enjoy it so. I found out they have a saying in the S&M world, which I won't repeat verbatim here, but basically it means that the person being punished is in charge. In other words, it is that person's choice to submit to such treatment, and to decide how long it goes on.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Over centuries of time, females as a gender developed (and by no means was this on purpose, but like every other evolutionary trait, happened over generations) a sense of martyrdom as a way to gain some sort of power. Think about it: women were not going to become physically more powerful than men. They were always going to be dominated and subject to abuse. By developing this trait of martyrdom, there was some choice involved, and in choice lies power, or at least that's the illusion.

As crazy as this may sound, this is something you instinctively know in your heart of hearts to be true. How many of you know women who have stayed with abusive boyfriends and husbands who treated them badly? How many women have you known who have "stood by their man," hoping he'd change, while knowing he wouldn't? Is it because these women are just stupid? Well, to an extent, they are not thinking clearly. But I refuse to believe that women I've known-who in every other way were the models of intelligence and clear-headedness-would just turn into complete morons. I firmly believe that over thousands of years, women have developed this trait much more highly than men-whether they wanted to or now-to gain some manner of power in relationships where otherwise there was none. The archetype of a long-suffering woman has become pervasive: we all recognize these girls on sight. Maybe we feel sorry for them. Maybe we're angry with them for staying in a bad spot, but maybe we also admire their courage for staying, putting up with it, and so on. And that's the rub.

This is not to say all women do these things or they are not responsible for their behavior. Men do them too, and everyone is responsible for how they act. This theory does explain, however, why more women seem to do this more often, and what might cause it.

Well, I connected the two premises, just like I said I would. The question now is what to do with this information. I didn't write this column to make fun of people or make them mad. I honestly believe all of this, and I want to help. It hurts me when I see girls allowing themselves to be trod upon-for whatever reason-and I want to do something about it. I figure education is the first step.

So, what do you think?

Hyperion
May 26, 2003

Credits
Definition at the beginning was taken from www.m-w.com
Many thanks to Bear and Tootsie for looking this over and help with editing