Conference quark::mennotes

Daniel J. Levinson with Charlotte N. Darrow, Edward B. Klein, Maria H. 
Levinson and Braxton McKee, Ballentine Books, NY, 1978.

ISBN 0-345-33901-0	paperback	$10.95


Levinson led a ten-year study of the lives of men, and identified a common
pattern of periods of stable growth and periods of transition.  The most
famous of these is now the "mid-life crisis" which he calls "mid-life
transition."  But this is just the most important of the transitions he 
identified.  There are also the early adult and the age thirty transitions.
And the stable periods between them.

I found this book fascinating.  It gave me a new way to look at my life 
and helped me to understand a lot what I have gone through.  It also helped
me understand what my father's life might have been like.

And I am writing now from a few years into Middle Adulthood.

    RE: .1
    
    I got that book from my father's estate....I haven't read it yet, but,
    sounds like I should. Thanks for the info.
    
    Marc H.

I enjoyed "Fire in the Belly" by Sam Kean quite a bit.  Particularly the
first half.  That's where I read the thing about "it takes a strong man
to know how to grieve".


I'm currently getting *alot* out of the book "The Road Less Traveled" by
Scott Peck, who's a very insightful psychiatrist.  He writes much valuable
things about what love is and what love isn't.

/Eric

    "Road Less Travelled" Is one of the best "life guides" written. Really 
    explains a lot about the finer aspects of the "human experience".
    "Iron John" Is an eye-opener. Reading Bly creates linkage to the deeper
    aspects of the "male experience".
    "the Family" by Bradshaw creates an awareness of our family history and
    how behaviour can be acquired and modified to enhance our involvement
    in "family systems". 
    The three for-mentioned works have added enormously to my life and I
    feel can enhance anyones visions.

    
      I second Bradshaw "On The Family".  !!!  Very insightful. 
    
    Jack
    

    I'd like to make some commentary on the title of this note.

    Real men most assuredly read books.  Real men read a lot of books.

    Once someone asked me about the differences and similarities between
    some of our more recognizable military leaders of the past: 
    MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley.  Their personal styles were
    individually,  D R A M A T I C A L L Y   different!  (That is the
    understatement of the year!).  One common thread among these men was
    that they were all very well read.

    Result?  Even with dramatically different styles of leadership they
    possessed an outstanding ability to COMMUNICATE with others.  I believe
    that *this* is the essence of leadership - communication - and that
    those who are incessant readers tend to be the best communicators.

    MacArthur at one time possessed a library which was 2nd only to that of
    West Point.  When he left the Philippines the library stayed at the
    Manila Hotel.  The Japanese knew that the destruction of his library
    would be a fate worse than death to MacArthur so .. when Mac returned
    to Manila they waited until he was within sight of the Manila hotel
    before they torched his library.

    Bubba

I think I'd agree with Bubba, here.  It would seem that Wally would only
count "books about men" (though there are many who would argue that almost
all books are "about men".) 

There aren't really that many sociology books about maleness, so it shouldn't
be a surprise that many men aren't talking about reading them.

				Steve

I finished Dr Deb Tannen's book "You Just Don't Understand" over
the weekend.  Tannen has written several other books on her research
into oral communication.  She discusses the interactions in dialogues
between boys, girls, men, and women, in a variety of settings, and to
illustrate a number of principles.  It is very hard to describe her
specific cases; they frequently depend upon notions she has developed
in earlier chapters.  I did agree with many of her conclusions about
what happens in some conversations.

Among the interesting ideas she brought up is that boys and girls have
very different goals in their interactions; tend to see the causes or
the drivers of their interactions through very different lenses; and
that these differences show up very early; in conversations among 3-yr
olds, for example.  The differences persisted in later life; strikingly,
she said that the conversations among 3-year olds and 25-year olds showed
that 3-yr old girls have more in common (in their conversational styles)
with 25-yr old women, than they do with 3-yr old boys.

One particular difference she identified as basics among girls' and womens'
conversational modes was in what she identified as rapport-talk; speech
intended to establish connections, build networks, develop a sense of the
group or a sense of a community; personal, intimate, emotional.  With boys
and with men, she identified instead a pattern of dominant-subordinate modes,
wherein conversations tended to be framed with one person one-up and another
one-down; status-oriented; hierarchical.  As a way of contrasting this style
of interaction with what she called rapport-talk, she called it report-talk;
to identify the impersonal nature of talk about objective subjects, upon which
one person may be presumed to have more expertise (be one-up) than another.
She saw these differences in the 3-year olds, and in every other age.

Tannen also described studies of other aspects of communications, like
interruptions.  In none of her analyses did she make a judgement call that
a particular style was better or worse, overall; she did frequently identify
situations where a particular style worked extremely well, or failed to work
at all; or, particularly interestingly, where two different styles interacted
in a pathological or dysfunctional way.  Her point was not to judge styles,
but to illuminate them.  Her studies showed that the most overwhelming single
determinant of style was a person's gender; hence, she dubbed these different
conversational styles 'genderlects'.  Her intention seemed to be, that armed
with the knowledge of different genderlects, people would be able to understand
and overcome the difficulties that arise in communication thereby.

I found it a striking book, and I recommend it highly.

DougO

re .6 
	"Real men most assuredly read books."

Agreed. No question, but I think there's also a lot of guys who read books
that I wouldn't classify as real men and some real men I know who don't read 
a lot of books.

Bubba, don't take this as an attack but I don't know how you connect into ... 

	"I believe that *this* is the essence of leadership - communication - 
	and that those who are incessant readers tend to be the best 
	communicators."

Communication isn't THE essence of leadership, but certainly one of the 
characteristics a good leader needs to have and incessant readers also aren't 
necessarily the best communicators. I know some guys who read a lot but can't 
communicate for toffee.

- Paul.

    Agreed ... I didn't think through before I posted it .. 
    
    I agree 100% with you ... perhaps we should say that "communications"
    is an absolute essential element of leadership... OK?
    
    Bubba

    "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World" by Harry Browne.
    
    self-explanatory title

    Excellent assessment of Tannen's book, Doug.  I read it last
    winter for a Communications class I was taking and found it
    fascinating.  I notice the speech patterns she describes
    nearly every day.

    /Greg

    re: .6
    
    > a library which was 2nd only to that of
    > West Point
    
    I always assumed the Library of Congress or the British Museum had the
    library that was second only to that of West Point!
    
    Kit
    
    

    A library second only to that of West Point can mean only one thing:  A
    library whose primary content is books about the military.  The Library
    of Congress was established as a repository for American books only
    and, so far as I know, contains for all practical purposes no books
    that were not published in the USA.  (There's a Gutenberg Bible and
    some other specific historic works.)  It also contains very few books
    that were published prior to the War of 1812, when the British burned
    Washington.  Hence, it is easy to imagine a military library far
    superior to the LoC.  (I can't speak for the BM library; I don't know
    what its purpose is.)
    
    How'd I do, Bubba?
    
    -dick

    Yeah, that's sort of what I figured he was getting at, too, but I 
    thought I'd just pull his leg.
    
    Even so, I'd be surprised if West Point, let alone Douglas MacArthur,
    had the best collection of military history, even of just the USA.
    
    Kit

    RE: .15
    
    > Even so, I'd be surprised if West Point, let alone Douglas MacArthur,
    > had the best collection of military history, even of just the USA.
    
    Really?  Why is that?  I mean, this is one of the foremost educational
    institutions around, and is obviously dedicated to military training. 
    I'd be surprised if West Point DIDN'T have the best collection of
    military history.  Well, outside the Air Force Academy!!  (I'm such a
    homer)
    
    What do you military guys think?
    

.14> How'd I do, Bubba?

Ya' done good.
    
.16> Well, outside the Air Force Academy!!

During the MacArthur years the Air Force Academy wasn't even a gleam
in someone's eye .. as a matter of fact, the Air Force itself didn't
even exist.

Bubba

.17> During the MacArthur years the Air Force Academy wasn't even a gleam
.17> in someone's eye .. as a matter of fact, the Air Force itself didn't
.17> even exist.
    
    Hey, neither did I!!!  ;^)
    
    Just a little Colorado-chauvinism, there.  Remember in the old Star
    Trek when Chekhov always claimed that important stuff was "inwented" in
    Russia. . .  same thing!
    

>    Really?  Why is that?  I mean, this is one of the foremost educational
>    institutions around, and is obviously dedicated to military training. 
>    I'd be surprised if West Point DIDN'T have the best collection of
>    military history.  
    
    	West Point is far from the only military training institution in
    the world. It's probably not even the oldest. So I would not be
    surprised if there existed a better military library. I'd be more 
    surprised if there is a better one in the US but the world is a big
    place.
    
    			Alfred

    Great specialty libraries are usually the result of a combination of
    good luck, lots of money, and a plan.  These may well have come
    together fortuitously at West Point to create a great military history
    library. But it does not follow automatically that because West Point
    is our foremost military academy that it has the foremost military
    history library, either world-wide or nationally.
    
    Anyone out there got the facts (or range of expert opinion) on this?
    
    Kit 

    Re .17
    
    			-< Bubba Binder done good >-
    
    *BUBBA* Binder???  You, a Texan, hanging that moniker on a Yankee?  Not
    that I remain untouched by the signal honor you do me, understand, but
    Bubba my boy, you are obviously working too hard.
    
    :-)
    
    -dick