THICK AIR

It's March of 2005 already, Saint Patrick's Day has passed, and I have been recently much remiss in maintaining my monthly enthusiastic jousts with windmills (in the time-honored Hombre de la Mancha style). Due to a decided lack of enthusiasm for much of anything at the moment, this month's discourse will be a sort of mulligan stew of thoughts and observations that would probably do Mrs. Mulligan herself dishonor. Frankly, since the reelection of Dubya Bush in November of last year, I have been so dispirited and let down that I frankly haven't had the inclination to pass muster at the usual figurative barricades, pike in one hand and Bushmills (and yes, I know Bushmills is made in Ulster, thankew very much)  in the other. What Bush's return to office has confirmed for me is that all of my assessments of the intellectual adequacy of the average American public person have been square on target. Traditionally, I have maintained that the intellectual acuity of the average American is about one percentage point above that of the single-celled amoeba: Q.E.D. The fact that Bush has been reelected means it must be true. If any alternate reality had instead obtained, we would likely not presently have: 1) the Texas' oil cartel's spiritual heir son ruling the most powerful nation in the world; 2) over 1500 American military casualties to date in Iraq; 3) Afghanistan's Opium/Heroin trade at the highest output levels it has seen in years; 4) Dubya's (admittedly bright and talented, but sorely off the mark)  'Brown Sugar' Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State; 4) senior citizens' being told that the Social Security system is best reinvented as a commercial investment scheme (i.e. 'private accounts'); 5) a mind-boggling National Debt that transcends the average person's ability to comprehend exactly what the sum "8 Trillion dollars" translates to in real-life figures; and many other examples of wrong-thinking that confirm the sad fact that America has truly lost its last vestige of wise political insight. Consequent to all these unhappy aspects of present-day (post-election) American life, the depressing miasma of despair that they confer upon those of us who still engage in critical thinking is overwhelming. This probably accounts for my two month long commentary hiatus, upon further reflection.

A number of events have recently turned my thoughts towards the subject of gender equality, role reciprocity, and the general status of woman in American society. This is perhaps partly due to a recent read-through of author Martha Ackmann's interesting book titled The Mercury Thirteen: The True Story of Thirteen Women and the Dream of Space Flight, but also partly attributable to Dan Rather's recent sober ABC network documentary on UFO phenomena. It occurs to me that woman bear the great misfortune of being the human species gender-host through which human procreative instincts are fulfilled. While there is nothing more obvious than the real impact on human lives of this fact in one sense, in another, it is almost completely beyond the recurrent functional awareness of most individuals to actively register the concept as they conduct their daily affairs. While the hard, cold physical fact of this status quo fails to make a dent on the thoughts of most people, the effects wrought by and/or enabled by it are inescapable and seen everywhere throughout the entire fabric of human experience.

All of us are acutely familiar with the image of the nurturing mother, the wife, the lover, the mistress, the elderly aunt, the grand matriarch, the husbandless welfare recipient with dependent children, the career professional woman, the sexy media model, and all of the many stereotypes that encumber actual perception of what it is to be a woman in today's society (or world); what we fail to perceive are the inescapable constraints placed upon women by the biological imperative that constitutes 'child bearer' status. Very recently, almost as if NEWSWEEK magazine was channeling my thoughts of 20 years ago, an article appeared in that publication on the state of today's woman and the manner in which she continues to be exploited by our whole society. Basically, the message could be reduced to a simple concept: 'It is impossible to be successful at ALL things simultaneously.' In other words, taking the two most telling and stressfully polar roles women contend with, NO woman can be a successful career professional AND a successful, quality nurturing/rearer of children at the same time. This is exactly what any perceptive individual would have to accept as being painfully obvious (given the immense pressures brought to bear on all members of an 'advanced' western society, such as ours), yet it takes a nationally prominent magazine to make the case sufficient for the average person to see a mere glimmer of the truth of this highly exploitational contradiction, for what it actually is: a deceptively conditional (i.e. complexly contrived) reality that creates infinite opportunities for commercial business enterprise to subjugate women in our society to the slavery of consumerism. In a broader and far more devastating context, it simply reinforces the ageless processes of male sexism that women have had to contend with for centuries 

A number of us likely still remember the glib Virginia Slims cigarette advertising campaign a decade or more ago that promised "You can have it all now, baby!" That was probably the closest advertising media has ever come to admitting frank commercial exploitation of the feminine gender, ironically enough. By creating, fostering, and heavily promoting a false and dishonest concept that a woman can be all things at all times, the stage had simply been cloaked in new scenery for further incursions of commercial exploitation of women. How refreshing then, to suddenly find conventional wisdom (NEWSWEEK) discovering that...surprise!...you can't be both a successful mother and career professional without losing your mind in the process. Given the fact that our Western Society has created such a stressful level of efficiency and ordered productivity throughout our culture, something has to give in this process (if it isn't the mother, it is inevitably the offspring, although these effects on children may well be latent and only become apparent in later adult life). Usually it is the mental health and sanity of the woman who has fallen for this promise of total fulfillment that suffers, as she tries to develop a career simultaneous with bearing and rearing children (who will grow up to be actualised, fulfilled, and mentally adequately prepared to shoulder full adult responsibilities in their own lives), without losing her mind!

Frankly, upon consideration of all this, I have to conclude that I am extremely fortunate to have been born a man instead of a woman, for woman will invariably and shall inevitably remain universally subject to unending exploitation, probably until the end of recorded history, simply because whatever causative events that may be have created the 'woman' of the species as the unlucky one stuck with the burden of bearing children. It can't be a happy thing, being given that burden by the infinite (perhaps cosmically and humorously quirky) mysteries of creation, can it? Aside from having been made the child-bearers, woman have also been grossly unfortunate to have created both physically weaker (although the aesthetics of this statement are arguable and highly debatable, the general concept remains true enough in a strictly conventional context) AND the object of instinctual male lust. It's bad enough reading about the endless instances of predatory rape of women (not just in our society, but all across the world) that are the result of this unequal status, so knowing that they are also subject to unending figurative 'rape' by commercial advertising and exploitative marketing is simply an additional outrage of an order of magnitude beyond the 'norm' (note: irony imposed by professional intellectual, on closed thought loop: do not try this at home, kids!) abuse of the (female) flesh.

Very recently, it has increasingly come to light that woman in our armed forces who have been given the right to participate as combatants in battle  have been raped, mistreated, and physically (or psychologically) abused by male members of their own units. In one sense, I could take a strictly unsympathetic stance in this news and say, "Well, war is hell, and so is rape; the former condition is bad enough, but both conditions share striking affinities with each other." In other words, I could possibly justify a failure to sympathise with women who feel that they need to fight (kill, use extreme violence, brutalise, wage war, etc.) on an equal par with men on the basis that I personally feel that it's bad enough for men to engage in these things, let alone women! Still, however, I am empathetic to a significant degree...in the same manner I would be empathetic for any soldier who had his leg blown off by a landmine. Essentially, I think the critical qualifier is simply a matter of education and inculcating higher awareness of the deeper issues implicit in women's knowledge of how they are being (mis)treated by today's powers of male-dominated corporate commerce.

Part of this seeming willingness by women to join the military forces in a combat role derives from a basic lack of awareness, yes, but a large part of it also stems from the same sort of hard-driving, relentless exploitational behavior of business media and marketing forces that see profit in cleverly co-opting the 'full equality' line of bull-shit to promote their insular commercial profit agendas. Believe me, if this weren't the core of such mass-marketing programs to fool women into thinking they are fully matched equals to men in our society, you would certainly not see any pseudo-evidence to the contrary rearing conspicuously up in advertisements, as it does each and every day in magazines, on television, and all other forms of media. Again, as with all commercially coercive exhortations to consume products that are potentially unhealthy, unsafe, or injurious (fast, overly powerful automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc.), corporations have no ethical conscience that governs their actions. They are simply out to use people for commercial gain, with no greater sense of scruples than P.T. Barnum or the CEO of WorldCom would have. Women are therefore, by further definition, simply a highly exploitable target of convenience.

Given the background foundation of false reality forging that is the hallmark of today's advertising milieu, it is distinctly not surprising that one of the chief collective misfortunes of women is that they have permitted themselves to buy into the concept of "full equality" in society (pushed nowadays not because of higher principled convictions towards that end, but by the simple commercial expedient of using the concept as just another marketing tool) as they have. Sad as it may seem, one basic fact remains an insurmountable obstacle to fulfillment of that (otherwise laudable) objective. That fact is, to return to my thesis, that women are inalterably bio-engineered by nature for one overall purpose: to conceive and bear children. Unless that simple (and seemingly inalterable) fact of biology may someday be overcome (and it appears impossible at this time, given present understandings of the biochemical limitations of human genetics), women will NEVER be the full equals of men in this world. Sorry gals, but there are 'nurturing mommies', there are sex objects, and there are 'cold-blooded killers', but there are no successfully integrated (or fully sane) "cold-blooded, sex object, killer-nurturer mommies". And there never will be, I'm betting.

Which brings up another point. Everything in human experience, the sum total A to Z of all human awareness, concern, preoccupation, aspiration, motivation, and achievement can be distilled down to a single, massively pervasive theme: mating to perpetuate the species. Too frequently, we human beings (most of whom believe they are fashioned in the imperfect image of some religious deity) think that our curious ability to 'reason'  somehow elevates us to a special plateau of existence that is several orders of magnitude above that of all other biological life-forms on the planet. Thanks to this grandiose self deception (and the attendant development of fanciful aesthetics, ideals, ethics, and other moralistic foo-foo that derive from this belief), we tend to forget that all human beings are still principally driven by the same primal biological influences that drive all animals: the instinctive urge to procreate. I'd say that after assuring momentary self-survival, having enough air to breathe, and satisfying basic food and shelter requirements, mating is the most powerful motivator STILL, behind all human interaction and activity today.  Thus, despite all of our exhaustive American democratic rhetoric about high minded principles of sex and gender equality, all our effusive avowals of equal access, female empowerment, prerogative, determination, and all of our affirmations of gender egalitarianism come to a screeching halt the moment a female breast is bared (for example) within view of a group of men. At that specific moment, all the high-minded ideals come tumbling down and we are reduced to the simple udely rutting animals nature has made us to be. The old joke about men having two brains, the dominant one of which is found between the legs, comes to mind.

This basic and irrefutable fact of biological reality means that despite all the promises, despite all the declared intentions of moral purity and ethical impartiality heard daily in our culture, the female of our species will never, ever achieve absolute equality with the male under any circumstances whatsoever. This helps explain how female soldiers in the US military forces are daily raped by their own platoon-mates, how female Air Force Academy cadets are ravished under the very gaze of their flight leaders, and how females prisoners of war are universally and forever destined to suffer fates far worse than the straight-forward death that would be (usually) accorded a male soldier. For this reason far more than any other advanced so far, I am of the opinion that women should not be given active combat roles in the regular military forces. Ladies, I know whereof I speak: I'm a man and I know that when it comes to matters of sex, drugs, and rock & roll, us XY chromosome critters just cannot be trusted (to not reduce all human affairs down to basic sexual conquest)! That is, until a certain age is reached and the influence of raging hormones are proportionately lessened. [This brings to mind an ancient quote attributed of Socrates shortly before he imbibed his Hemlock cocktail. When asked if he missed the sensual allure of comely and fertile young women in his seniority, the venerable sage stated "To the contrary; reaching advanced age as I have is not dissimilar to finally being allowed to dismount from a wild and raging stallion".]

The popular fantasy myth of the 'superwoman', regrettably, is as drop-dead impossible as that of the 'superman'. By way of further considering the point, take away Clark Kent's Arnold Schwartzeneger's type steroid-enhanced musculature and substitute actor Don Knotts severely ectomorphic physique, or Diana Prince's (better known as Wonder Woman) outrageously voluptuous female attributes and replace them with 70s pop idol 'Twiggy'. The fantasy is suddenly and emphatically  not only dead, but rendered completely inoperable. [The superhero cartoon character 'Wonder Woman', enthusiastically pointed out as a symbol of female empowerment by some seriously deluded women, was actually the imaginative brainchild of a man (William Moulton Marsden) in 1941. Then, as today, Marsden's 'Wonder Woman' stands out most prominently as an explicitly blatant representation of male sexual fantasy that projects some of the darker (and perhaps most disturbing) psychological qualities of male bias to be found anywhere in our American culture.]

'Thick air'. If you wonder what female exploitation has to do with 'thick air', you are fully entitled to your puzzlement. Actually, the thought came to me one morning as I pedaled my way to the office on my bicycle. As is typical of Sacramento winter mornings, the chill lay heavy on all things as I tried to increase my rate of speed past 20 mph. Unusually, there was no wind at all and yet it took a great effort to cut through the air. The curse of us 'gutter bunnies' (that's the derisive term mountain bikers use for us urban bicycle commuter types, so I am told) here in the Great Valley (of Sacramento) is that due to the geophysical structure of this part of California, with its ring of mountains on all sides and delta waterway leading to San Francisco Bay, the predominant wind direction in the early morning is most often northerly, while that encountered in the late afternoon is typically southerly (this is easily explained by the thermal principles that apply to air masses when heated or cooled, of course). Since my office lies 5 miles to the north of my residence, this means I am invariably doomed to bucking headwinds both to and from work, each day. While a gust of a few miles per hour means nothing to the typical automobile driver, safely insulated from all sensitivity to the natural environment by his colossal 2-ton behemoth of an SUV, a wind of only a couple of miles per hour can mean everything to the bicycle commuter who relies upon his own muscle for propulsion.

At such times when there is absolutely no wind it is still possible to encounter another important and seldom considered thermo-physical effect: that of relative air density. To a pilot, air density is simply another daily aspect of applied physics, since air density is a critical determinant of aerodynamic lift in certain situations ('high altitude, hot weather' comes immediately to mind). To the ground-bound bicyclist however, the concept of air-density's role in aiding or retarding forward progress is usually well beyond the ken of most average two-wheelers. Not moi! I can well recall many cold, still mornings spent literally cutting a swath through that thick, super-cooled and very dense air, all the while cursing heavily under my breath and reminding myself that the added muscular and cardiopulmonary toning effect is a health benefit. At times, the physical effort and effect of penetrating 'thick air' takes an allegorical form in my occasional ruminations, for it isn't difficult to imagine the difficulty posed by enhanced air density and increased aerodynamic viscosity of super-cooled air as a symbolic representation of the daily obstacles and impediments we human beans (SIC) face in the conduct of our life affairs. Thus 'thick air' is not usually regarded as a friend by bicyclist commuters in one sense, but the minor hardship it imposes actually simultaneously confers a small benefit (muscle and cardiopulmonary toning). This is probably true of many things in life, which makes an important point: as with all concerns in human life, attitude and mindfulness is everything! [Case in point: the ancient Chinese ideogram that consists of two component sub characters....one signifying 'hazard' and the other signifying 'opportunity'.]

Since it is already well into March, I'm going to rush this rant to a conclusion only half-baked and not attempt to develop it further; obviously whole doctoral dissertations could be (and are) devoted to the subject of male-female equality. The views above only represent my own immediate and glancing impact with the subject in the course of my usual daily collisions with various stimuli. They are remarkable only because I have probably spent my fair share of youthful idle moments lusting after the male fantasy that is 'Wonder Woman'. I guess that makes me human, eh? It certainly makes me male, at any rate! Ain't hormones wonderful? Be well, citizens.

Cheers, Doc Boink.....St, Paddy's Day, 2005

-------------------------------------------------------------

(Illustration top by Adam Hughes, shamelessly 'borrowed', due to Hughes' brilliance as an artist, for purposes of making my point)

(return to AEOLUS AEROSPACE home page)