CTNAHM: Michael’s Take on Politics

CTNAHM: Michael’s Take on Politics February 20, 2014

By Aletha

Originally posted on Yllom Mormon

Created To Need a Help Meet, pp. 127—128

Just when I thought Michael’s talking about the 3 types of men was over, we get another chapter about them. This time, Michael is explaining about the secondary type that a man has. Here we go!

Apples, Oranges, Apricots

As we said earlier, most men are not exclusively one type, but I have never known a man to be a balance of all three. Upon meeting a young man it is readily apparent which of the three types he is, but when you get to know him you can usually see shades of one of the other types as well.

I’m curious who this “we” is. Nobody else was given authorship credit. And I’m sure he doesn’t mean Debi, because this is a book ABOUT men FOR men FROM men. (Manly men!) Also, Michael’s assurance that he can tell what type of man a person is at first meeting just smacks of being judgmental. Seriously. Especially since Michael feels like this 3-type system is foolproof and perfect. I’m not even going to get into the fact that some people aren’t what they appear, or can be dishonest.

A Visionary/Prophet type may have just enough Priest (Mr. Steady) in him to keep his feet on the ground, or he may have a little of the Command Man in him and be a rather bossy reformer or inventor.

Well, at least this time, Michael expects the man to keep his own feet on the ground. Usually, that job is reserved for the wife of the Visionary. So props for that. I have to say, though, that Michael doesn’t make Visionary/Command men sound very pleasant at all.

Mr. Command may have a little Priest in him and be a very compassionate ruler or dictator, as may be. Or he may have a touch of the Prophet in him and be a creative and innovative King—for good or ill.

While it’s nice that we are reminded that any type of man can be good or evil, Michael seems to forget that there are shades of gray that people can occupy. Or that people can change. Just because a man started out as a benevolent King/Prophet doesn’t mean that he won’t get corrupted by power and turn into a dictator. If we’re assuming Michael is correct that no man ever changes type, there is still a TON of places for him to change inside his category.

The Steady Man may have a little Command Man in him and make the perfect shift supervisor in a factory or a successful construction contractor or a good senator.Or he may have a little of the Visionary in him and become a Henry Ford, inventing the assembling line and manufacturing automobiles. Or, being a steady worker, he may develop new methods or tools to accomplish his trade. A small blend gives a man balance.

Ugh. Even if Mr. Steady has a bit of Command or Visionary, he is still stuck inside his factory. Apparently the only people that work in factories are Steadies. From top to bottom, just steadies everywhere! Oh wait…there’s a Senator. I’m curious how Michael made the leap from construction contractor to senator. That’s a pretty big difference…

Men that are purely of one nature alone stand out like comic book characters. I can walk into a room and spot them standing, seated, or with their backs turned. I can hear a man’s voice over the phone and usually tell you what sort he is.

I’ve already touched on the idea that Michael seems to fancy himself a Prophet. Clearly he is a seer, too. Yes, it is possible to cold read someone and be right. But what if the man whose back is to Michael is reading a text that his dog died? He may be a Command Man, but surely his posture would change? And the bit about being able to tell type based on a phone call seems absurd. My husband’s voice is different when he takes a call for work, then when he takes a call from his mom, or a call from me, or makes a call to the pizza place. The only way I can see Michael’s judgment system being perfect is if each type were boiled down to nothing but vague generalities that can be applied to any person in any situation.

I’m curious to know if Michael has ever revised his opinion on a man after he got to know him.

Older men are more guarded and less apparent than are the younger men, perhaps because they have developed a balance over the years. Their life’s work will reveal their natures, but their manner may be rounded off by years of experience or by their willingness to listen to their help meets.

This is interesting to me. I wonder why older men are more guarded. Perhaps it is like their rough edges have been smoothed by time and by those female creatures. Maybe it’s that they were trained not to do/say/think a certain way, regardless of their “nature”. Maybe the younger guys are more obvious because they were raised in a culture that worships the Pearls, and so have been taught from birth that they are a specific type.  I don’t have an answer to this. But it’s fun to think about!

Martin Luther, the reformer, was a Visionary with a little Command Man in him. Martin Luther King Jr, the civil rights campaigner was a Priest/Steady type with a little Visionary in him, but he pressed himself to function as a Command Man-not his natural bent. Benjamin Franklin was a complete Visionary. George Bush is a Steady/Priest type with a good bit of the Command Man and no Visionary. Barack Obama is a Visionary with a touch of the Command Man.

My estimation could be of base in some cases, and if you think so, then I have been successful in communicating to you the three types.

I’m not going to analyze Michael’s take on these famous people’s types. If you want to in the comments, then I look forward to reading them. What interests me is that MLK Jr is given the leeway to “press himself to function” outside of his normal nature. What makes Michael sure that he wasn’t a Command Man to begin with? Because Michael had said in previous chapters that Steady men don’t lead, don’t make waves, don’t make institute change…ugh. Here we go again. It seems like every couple of pages, there’s a place or two where Michael completely contradicts what he said earlier.

Also, what is Michael basing his analysis off of? Wikipedia articles? History book snippets?

Oh, and I like that last little blurb. “Even if you disagree, you’re just admitting how right I am!” I think that should be my new tagline in life. One of my foster kids starts arguing? “Every word you say against me just proves that I am always right!” I imagine that will go over swimmingly.

Tune in next time for what I’m calling “A Tale of Two Doctors”. I’ll just leave you hanging here, because I’m feeling mischievous.

"I think if Biden does get the nomination (which is, as the article notes, still ..."

Where Did All the Black Republicans ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment