Riggerjack said: 7w5, I don't know your group, and poly Amory is one of those things that I at one time thought could be a good thing, then observation showed me I was wrong. In the cases I've known, the circles were all aggressive, highly social women, and very passive men. I'm not saying that the men weren't masculine, but that they weren't aggressive. There wasn't a strong urge to be top dog among any of them.
Now I am wondering if I am an aggressive, highly social woman? (little bit, little bit)-lol. I think the word "passive", or at least the connotations associated with it, isn't quite right. The theoretically most highly-developed type on the Enneagram is the Type 9 ,also known as "the peace-maker." This type of person is not passive in the like-a-still-pond sense, but actually rather assertive about "making peace." Every other type on the Enneagram is supposed to become more like the Type 9 as individual functioning improves. I think there is some inborn temperament, some early familial influences, and some cultural influences that come to bear. I basically agree with what you are saying, but another way I might describe it is that some men are absolutely devoted to "rule of law" while others are more or less still practicing "rule of the jungle." This is a critical divide in my mind because my father was "rule of law" (Fred MacMurray) and my mother (Elizabeth Taylor) was "rule of the jungle." It has also been my observation that the son of a very powerful man will often become this Peacemaker/Rule-of-Law type. My grandfather was an old-school autocrat who argued two cases in the Supreme Court and my lover's father was a commander during WWII and the CEO of a major corporation (OTOH, the dominant male on my mother's side of the family was my Polish-heritage great-uncle who was a big, burly, booming-voiced retired City of Detroit police office, frequently found drinking a beer in my grandmother's kitchen, engaged in yelling match because he was trying to run her life since she had divorced her second husband because he wouldn't let her play the ponies with her own money.) So, my affluent, peace-maker lover reminds me of Dear Old Dad who banned his 4 daughters from watching "The Three Stooges" because he did not want us hitting each other over the head, but otherwise was very progressive in terms of allowing us a great deal of independence. I had no clue that maybe I could not do whatever I wanted to do as a child, and I still rather doubt it. My lover raised 7 children, only two biologically his, who were very challenging. It was touch-and-go for a while, but I would say that it was largely due to his influence that his 30-something year old adopted son now chooses to jump off of cliffs in a wing-suit as outlet for aggressive tendencies rather than engage in criminal activities. My lover also assertively heads a charity involved with issues of social justice. I believe he is the sort of person who would insist on rule of law and mercy even in relationship to the murderer of one of his children. I am likely more aggressive than that.
I'm not saying they aren't smart, I'm saying, as I have in several posts now, that smart and violence are not opposite ends of the same scale, they are 2 entirely different scales.
I have also dated quite a few intelligent men who grew up in rough circumstances and made their own way out. I think it would be nearly impossible to grow up in a totally "Law of the Jungle" environment, such as the Detroit Projects in the 60s/70s, and not retain some of that into adulthood. However, it has also been my observation that these men usually regard themselves as being not very aggressive because of their experiences with extremely aggressive individuals. For instance, I once had a man tell me "I would never hit a woman.",with no inkling that even the fact that he felt the need to assure me of this was something that would never even cross the mind of a man raised in different circumstances. So, I agree with you that they are two different scales, but not completely. I think the most intelligent boy in a rough neighborhood will likely be relatively one of the least aggressive, and consequent to both these factors, the most likely to hoist himself up into a less rough environment. For instance, I dated a man who made his way up and out by "being treated like a piece of meat" by the University of Alabama football program of the 1970s, and he told me that beyond his physique and physical intelligence, he was particularly valued for being "coach-able" (with roll of eyes), which is obviously the same sort of back-handed compliment as "articulate." One of the men I am currently dating is more of this type, but half-a-generation and half-a-step out into the middle-class suburbs removed (like I borrowed a boyfriend from Gabrielle Union), and he purposefully, for "f*ck you" reasons, retains an Ebonics accent,although he has dual degrees in 16th Century literature and Finance earned with his 1980s football scholarship,and his own mother speaks with a soft, sophisticated, sort of debutante Southern drawl. I am very fond of him, and I appreciate the fact that he is only amused by my aggressive tendencies, but he is far too bossy for me to consider as possible domestic partner.
Anyways, I think the most in your face/space dangerous men are those who have aggressive tendencies because they are less intelligent and they were raised in "Law of the Jungle" environments, and they are currently thwarted or stressed or suffering from some low-self-esteem, like Mike Tyson. OTOH, the men I dislike the most and judge to be most capable of harm are those I judge to be of relatively low intelligence/high privilege, like Donald Trump or George Bush. However, I am not reflexively anti-Republican. If Henry Kissinger was even 10 years younger, I would let him buy me dinner, and I used to have a bit of a thing for George Will (that bow-tie is just screaming "set me free, monkey-girl") before he became so thick-headed-recalcitrant on climate change.