See, so the way this works, this process of creative regurgitation for the blogger known as Phoenixism…ideas pop into my head all day long. Some days more than others. Since I’m afflicted with the shittiest memory ever, many of my great thoughts perish and never reach masterpiece status. Sad but true…many of my blog posts are aborted for want of memory. As part of a self-designed scheme I hatched to help me cope with my many shortcomings, I began carrying a notebook around. So now when an idea pops into my head I transfer it directly to paper in scribbled and illegible writing.
When I come home I promptly type out the day’s idea load and save it as a draft in my Word Press dashboard. Pure genius. So I think. Currently I have about 45 drafts sitting there, waiting to see the light of cyberday. I think of them as 45 fertilized eggs waiting for a warm and nutrient-rich womb in order to become fetuses and beyond. My precious ideas.
I’ve been kicking one around for some time, and it’s about to finally be fertilized and implanted. My working title has been “short men and fat women.” Catchy titles are my forte.
What’s it about?
Duh.
Short men and fat women. What else? Do you know any? What do they have in common? This is like one of those annoying SAT analogy questions.
Why for one thing, they are not exactly the hottest dating commodities, are they? Even if you have a hankering for one, you probably don’t want your friends to know. They can be a secret treat, a secret desire, but in the world of dating competition they do not garner much respect.
I was toying with the concept for some time, but it wasn’t until this afternoon that I read a post over on Jack Donovan’s blog entitled The Paradox of a Warrior’s Heart and something clicked in my head regarding an idea I had about short men and fat women which had hibernated in the dark recesses of my brain for a long time.
Basically Donovan relates a comment made on one of his posts over on The Spearhead. Essentially, as I detail it here, it is now third-hand, so I’ll attempt to summarize it the best I can.
The comment Donovan publishes in his blog details a lab test in which doves (“peaceful”, non-aggressive birds) are confined to a very small space over time and the ensuing chaos that occurs when they peck each other to death. The very intriguing reasoning behind the behavior of these very timid animals which normally fly away at the slightest provocation? It is because of their evolutionary escape mechanism (wings!) that the birds have not learned or developed a sense of “mercy.” Awesome stuff. I’d never thought of it in those terms, but it makes complete sense and I’ve noticed such behavior in varying degrees throughout the animal (including human) kingdom without formulating a clear articulation of the phenomena. Doves are contrasted with wolves which are fierce fighters not averse to aggression; yet wolves have evolved a behavior trait of surrender involving exposing their neck to the other wolf. This action immediately stops fights from proceeding further. Your typical domesticated dog displays similar submissive behavior, usually in the context of play.
The moral of the story being that aggression breeds a greater sense of passivity than the passivity displayed by creatures whose normal nature is one of passivity. Can’t have the yin without the yang…and a greater level of yin necessarily insinuates greater levels of yang.
Doves, wolves…what about short men and fat women?
Well the focal point of my idea concerns short men (because I am one) rather than fat women; fat women are imported into this theory in order to present a backdrop against which I can frame the thought process initiated by belonging to a generally physically undesirable population.
I asked myself a question: who has it worse in the mating game? Short men or fat women?
Because our human mind is fixated with ranking, ordering…worst, best, smallest, largest. It’s a natural extension of the human cognitive chain. And a thought occurred to me which really has no bearing on the question at hand.
Unnatural behavior patterns and habit precede an obese woman.
Short men precede unnatural behavior patterns and habits.
In this respect, I find the “Napoleon complex” the more fascinating concept here.
I believe it is more likely for unusual behavioral patterns to manifest themselves in short men because the structure and expectations of our modern society marginalize the short male due to its inherent hierarchical assemblage.
Without debating the veracity of a Napoleon complex, I would suggest that it does indeed exist based on common experience. And much of it is owing to what I believe is society’s “dove-ization” of the short male. Short males, bred and trained into passivity and submission in the face of a taller and more powerful force represented by the world at large, have not learned the art of “being in charge” and thus lack the ability to conjure up any kind of “mercy” or masterful sense of benevolent humility.
Indeed, if the world was populated by nothing but short men much of this behavioral eccentricity would vanish in a generation. Our personality is not formed in a vacuum; our surroundings shape it, mold it, scar it…and unfortunately, a short man’s personality is formed amidst a sea of vague derision (and sometimes, not so vague).
I find it interesting that short men who have somehow escaped the Tall Matrix for whatever reason usually aren’t afflicted by height sensitivities. For instance guys who grow up in predominantly Mexican communities (such as myself) where the median height is normally lower than average. Most of the people I went to school with, while being slightly taller than me, were not towering by any stretch of the imagination. Even within my own familial network, I experienced minimal amounts of height differential and I was never conscious of being short.
Astonishingly, I didn’t consider myself short until I entered Cal Poly, Pomona which was predominantly white (and tall) in 1982. Having never experienced or internalized the height factor (as in my lack of it), never exceeding 5’5″ didn’t bother me. However I can very well imagine the effect growing up amongst people who routinely surpass the 6′ mark would have on the evolution of my personality.
And while I never became the “dove” that so many short men are prone to become, I nevertheless retained a realistic sense of my own limitations. Despite this, it was inevitable that I would begin to buy into and become affected by the height matrix as I made my way into the “outside” world as an adult.
This is a good example of something I talk about often–how the body, related to other bodies, has an influence on psychology without there needing to be some sort of special gene that causes a particular trait to be expressed in the brain. I think it’s really important when you think about the way men and women develop as a group, and also, as you’ve said here, as men develop. In Japan (or Mexico) before the Westerners arrived, what we might consider a “short guy” in 21st century America might have felt like an average or even a reasonably “big guy.” The whole way he related to the world and his peers would be different.
In America, a guy the same size would have to look for another kind of identity within the group.
Big guys, on the other hand, can often appear to be “alpha” without really doing anything. Men are intimidated by their size alone, and sometimes that makes them lazy and complacent. I’ve seen average sized guys run larger guys if they don’t really have the goods. One of my best friends is short and probably 110 pounds. But his presence is very intimidating…he’s 5o years old but lightning fast. I outweigh him by 95 pounds, and I could probably strongarm him if I had to…but I generally would not want to fuck with him.
It is just interesting how psychology is influenced by the body. I don’t like to think of it in terms of “complexes,” because I find that dismissive and smug–because we’re all influenced this way. The body affects the mind.
Funny, I’ve never been offended by the “Napoleon complex” explanation, but I agree with you that the semantics present a very trite summation of a dynamic which is anything but.
I’m curious about the differentiation between “behavior” and “psychology.”
It seems that behavior is the offspring of psychology. Or is it?
[...] Phoenixism – “The Post That Was Originally Called ‘Short Men vs. Fat Women”” [...]
Tall men typically don’t think of themselves as tall, either. I’m occasionally shocked by pictures of myself towering over others. It is what it is (but I bet you have an easier time finding clothes that fit).
I think you’re generalizing about the personalities of small men too much. I’m in college and 2 of my 200+ member frat’s presidents within 3 years have been under 5′ 6″, not to mention that the most alpha guy I know (going by the roissy definition of # and quality of lays) is 5′ 4″. And they’re all really nice guys. So they seem to be breaking all the generalizations you’re remarking on. Personal anecdote, I know, but hey.
+Eumaios: Unfortunately, no. Amazing and scary how for every pair off 31-30 pair of jeans I’m able to uncover, there seem to be about five pair of 38-30′s. Who knew there were so many short, chubby guys?
+Charles Davis: Unfortunately one must resort to generalizations when making grand points about those “people.” I think that’s the charm of the human race: the “exceptions,” the quirky few who haven’t been shaped and molded by the bell curve.
Conversely, I’ve also known and witnessed the archetypical short guy with a tall chip on his shoulder as well as the other type of short guy, the one who is very passive and retiring, who has been sapped of all fire by virtue of being raised and socialized in our tall-oriented culture.
Good day, your post would make for genuine good studying. there is not adequate blogs outthere that will comprise good studying materials, major thumbs up from me and i’ll be hanging around quite a bit in the future.