Inspirational Men--Psychoanalysis of Their One Major Fault
The History Channel has become an educational outlet for my periodic insomnia that is not exactly insomnia, but merely a sleep schedule malfunction. Last night's History Channel programming was devoted to our nation's first family, the Kennedys.
It profiled P.J. Kennedy to Joe to Joe Jr., Jack, Bobby, Teddy to John Jr., Joe, Michael, and the rest of the gang. Although I found Peter Jennings to be a fine narrator, I was somewhat confused at the lack of coverage of any of the Kennedy women.
Which leads me closer to my topic. I adore Bobby. He escaped the vigorous scrutiny of his father and was shaped by more of Rose's influence than his older two brothers were. I believe that this female influence may have shaped his keen passion and compassion for the poor, discriminated, sick, and oppressed of America that has not since been possessed by a national politician. I admire his idealism and his pragmatism. I admire his fierce loyalties and his deep convictions. He aggressively prosecuted Hoffa even though the Mob may have helped Jack win the presidency. The majority of historians credit Bobby for the evasion and resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis with his ability to think outside the box and his determination to avoid militaristic actions that would inevitably culminate in a nuclear war. He was thoughtful, deliberate, conscientious, pugnacious, and sharp. He seemed to be the perfect man. Until, of course, you acknowledge his philandering.
This brings us to the age old question: Why do so many inspirational, disciplined and otherwise wonderful-and dare I say perfect men-all share the inability to be faithful to one woman? What is behind their one imperfection--their drive for constant sex from multitudes of women? Though I am a feminist and cognizant that we live in a socialized sexist society, I refuse to believe that these otherwise great men womanize merely because they have power or merely because they are some type of misogynists. On the contrary, many of these men have strong, smart, and beautiful women in their lives. So how then, can we explain Bill Clinton, Bruce Lee, Kobe Bryant, and the dear Bobby Kennedy?
This is my attempt to do so.
These such men are extremely ambitious. Their intellect is voracious and they are constantly thinking. They think about the future and they think about their legacy. They are out to change some pervading quality of some segment of society. Even with all their talent and intelligence, they were in some respects, underdogs, and had something to prove. Perhaps it is their constant quest for new intellectual stimulations that also supplies the fodder for their want of new women. This is only partly the explanation. Passion and ambition lends itself to self-centeredness. Self-centeredness is not necessarily a horrible and negative trait. Many times, it leads to self examination and self realization. In certain situations, being self-centered is much better than focusing on others-in the sense of gossiping about others and judging others instead of oneself. However, I believe that it is this self-centeredness that also governs the philandering of these men. They may respect and love their wives, but only to a point--the point at which their self-centeredness, the same self-centeredness that guides their ambition, idealism, and accomplishments, makes them forget that they are hurting their wives.
Perhaps this is God's way of balancing people out. No one can be perfect. It is just a shame that such otherwise wonderfully articulate, idealistic, talented, motivated, conscious men must also possess such an ignominious trait.
Lastly, I believe that we should not, as intelligent women, judge the women that choose to stay with these men. Although many of us would refuse to stay with a philandering husband, we cannot deny the magnetism and admiration for such inspirational men.
It profiled P.J. Kennedy to Joe to Joe Jr., Jack, Bobby, Teddy to John Jr., Joe, Michael, and the rest of the gang. Although I found Peter Jennings to be a fine narrator, I was somewhat confused at the lack of coverage of any of the Kennedy women.
Which leads me closer to my topic. I adore Bobby. He escaped the vigorous scrutiny of his father and was shaped by more of Rose's influence than his older two brothers were. I believe that this female influence may have shaped his keen passion and compassion for the poor, discriminated, sick, and oppressed of America that has not since been possessed by a national politician. I admire his idealism and his pragmatism. I admire his fierce loyalties and his deep convictions. He aggressively prosecuted Hoffa even though the Mob may have helped Jack win the presidency. The majority of historians credit Bobby for the evasion and resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis with his ability to think outside the box and his determination to avoid militaristic actions that would inevitably culminate in a nuclear war. He was thoughtful, deliberate, conscientious, pugnacious, and sharp. He seemed to be the perfect man. Until, of course, you acknowledge his philandering.
This brings us to the age old question: Why do so many inspirational, disciplined and otherwise wonderful-and dare I say perfect men-all share the inability to be faithful to one woman? What is behind their one imperfection--their drive for constant sex from multitudes of women? Though I am a feminist and cognizant that we live in a socialized sexist society, I refuse to believe that these otherwise great men womanize merely because they have power or merely because they are some type of misogynists. On the contrary, many of these men have strong, smart, and beautiful women in their lives. So how then, can we explain Bill Clinton, Bruce Lee, Kobe Bryant, and the dear Bobby Kennedy?
This is my attempt to do so.
These such men are extremely ambitious. Their intellect is voracious and they are constantly thinking. They think about the future and they think about their legacy. They are out to change some pervading quality of some segment of society. Even with all their talent and intelligence, they were in some respects, underdogs, and had something to prove. Perhaps it is their constant quest for new intellectual stimulations that also supplies the fodder for their want of new women. This is only partly the explanation. Passion and ambition lends itself to self-centeredness. Self-centeredness is not necessarily a horrible and negative trait. Many times, it leads to self examination and self realization. In certain situations, being self-centered is much better than focusing on others-in the sense of gossiping about others and judging others instead of oneself. However, I believe that it is this self-centeredness that also governs the philandering of these men. They may respect and love their wives, but only to a point--the point at which their self-centeredness, the same self-centeredness that guides their ambition, idealism, and accomplishments, makes them forget that they are hurting their wives.
Perhaps this is God's way of balancing people out. No one can be perfect. It is just a shame that such otherwise wonderfully articulate, idealistic, talented, motivated, conscious men must also possess such an ignominious trait.
Lastly, I believe that we should not, as intelligent women, judge the women that choose to stay with these men. Although many of us would refuse to stay with a philandering husband, we cannot deny the magnetism and admiration for such inspirational men.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home