Freedomain Radio

Ok, those that are familiar with my blogging, here is my latest.. Probably requires a little more work this one, which is why it is just part one.. It's a bit of a work in progress so to speak, so any thoughts and criticisms you had, I'm all ears (or eyes).

http://www.yikici.co.uk/2012/01/19/male-virtue-what-it-really-means-to-many-men/

It seems to me that most "male virtue" is an extension of might=right.  Our entire society, from government and religion to entertainment and sports culture, is centered around the premise that virtue centers around power or might. But only when it's used for "good", which is to say that having power and using it in a self sacraficing manner is virtue and having power and using it to hurt others is bad. 

The government has the power to dominate and kill everyone with one bomb, but instead keeps drunk drivers off the road, so they are "good".  God has the power to condemn you to eternal burning in a lake of fire, but instead died on a cross himself to forgive you and offers eternal peace, ultimate power and sacrifice=ultimate good.

So since males are naturally more physically powerful than women or children, sacraficing themselves to help them esape from the boat first is virtuous.  Although the underlying moral of self sacraficing power is the definition of virtue is clearly false.  It's Jesus 2.0. 

...Of course that doesn't imply that men pushing women and children out of the way to save themselves on a sinking boat is virtuous either, it is a natural evolutionary instinct to save women and children for the health and continuation of the species, and I don't think it is wrong as a society to promote ostrisism against those who don't abide putting them first on a sinking ship.  Doesn't have anything to do with self sacraficing power though.  Just my two convoluted cents.

 

 

 

Just wanted to say that I really empathize with the humiliating situation you shared in the post.  It brought me back to a handful of humiliating experiences I had in school.  They affected me deeply -- exacerbated by the fact that I didn't have anyone in my life I felt comfortable confiding in, so I just bottled them up and let them fester inside of me, and shape me.  The childhood innocence that is lost at the hands of insensitive adults is just tragic.

 

I'm not sure a focus on lifeboat scenarios is the best approach for this topic. Lifeboat (zero-sum) situations are so rare these days most of us will never be faced with one.  And if we are, the outcome will suck no matter what.

For the handful of other scenarios in which strength is of critical importance, men generally are stronger than women, and I do think they need to be cognizant of this fact.  But it would be just as wrong for a woman to take advantage of a weaker man as it would be for a man to take advantage of a weaker woman.

In the majority of scenarios these days, however, strength doesn't much matter.  We have machines to do most manual labour for us, and we can hire people to do our heavy lifting.  So the notion that women must be treated with kid gloves is rather misplaced in the modern world.  I get that treatment sometimes and it drives me crazy.  It's kind of a no-win situation because if I ask someone not to give me special treatment when they weren't aware that they were doing so, suddenly in their mind I have requested special treatment, and I fear they will forever feel uncomfortable around me.  I think the best I can do is not to reinforce (positively or negatively) special treatment -- to strive for a world where people don't judge others primarily by their exteriors.

So thanks for trying to become more self-aware of -- and spreading the word about -- this issue.

Annabelle:

I'm not sure a focus on lifeboat scenarios is the best approach for this topic. Lifeboat (zero-sum) situations are so rare these days most of us will never be faced with one.  And if we are, the outcome will suck no matter what.

Yes I did wonder whether the video might distract from my own particular take on things. Sure, those lifeboat scenarios are somewhat complex, as they can only really be evauluated very well in the moment of course.

My point which I will go into more detail in my next post, was about how men very often will apply virtue to coming last. That in fact they will say it is a good thing in of itself. This will be at the expense of all their other feelings. To be a man means that you take the knocks, the hits and you just bounce back or laugh it off. In many senses it's a kind of 'self erasure', that is complimented (and encouraged) by this kind of 'self modesty' or 'false honour'. Of course self sacrificing for those that we love is an entirely different issue. And sure, on an aesthetic level I believe someone with the better abilities and strengths might indeed use them to help others. But that's not particularly gender dependent of course.

I think my particular journey with these ideas is that I'm aware that there is a part of me that feels compelled to ignore my feelings in favour of that of a womans. I know it's irrational to imagine this as an absolute, so I'm swift to always ask myself, 'why'? But sure, there are moments when it's appropriate, given my position, strengths and abilities. But primarily always remembering that I'm not a slave to these expectations. I can make my own decision on what is aesthetically preferred, based on the evidence around me at the time. I hope that makles sense.

xelent:

Annabelle:

I'm not sure a focus on lifeboat scenarios is the best approach for this topic. Lifeboat (zero-sum) situations are so rare these days most of us will never be faced with one.  And if we are, the outcome will suck no matter what.

Yes I did wonder whether the video might distract from my own particular take on things. Sure, those lifeboat scenarios are somewhat complex, as they can only really be evauluated very well in the moment of course.

My point which I will go into more detail in my next post, was about how men very often will apply virtue to coming last. That in fact they will say it is a good thing in of itself. This will be at the expense of all their other feelings. To be a man means that you take the knocks, the hits and you just bounce back or laugh it off. In many senses it's a kind of 'self erasure', that is complimented (and encouraged) by this kind of 'self modesty' or 'false honour'. Of course self sacrificing for those that we love is an entirely different issue. And sure, on an aesthetic level I believe someone with the better abilities and strengths might indeed use them to help others. But that's not particularly gender dependent of course.

I think my particular journey with these ideas is that I'm aware that there is a part of me that feels compelled to ignore my feelings in favour of that of a womans. I know it's irrational to imagine this as an absolute, so I'm swift to always ask myself, 'why'? But sure, there are moments when it's appropriate, given my position, strengths and abilities. But primarily always remembering that I'm not a slave to these expectations. I can make my own decision on what is aesthetically preferred, based on the evidence around me at the time. I hope that makles sense.

I get what you're saying, but I'm having trouble coming up with examples of real-life scenarios where this would be an issue.  Like I said, not much in life seems to be zero-sum anymore.  I'm pretty terrible at coming up with examples in general though, so maybe it's just a failure of imagination on my part.  I'd love to hear about some concrete ways you've been struggling with this issue in your adult life, if you'd like to share. :)

Annabelle:

I get what you're saying, but I'm having trouble coming up with examples of real-life scenarios where this would be an issue.

The main problem I've experienced is the self attack, the reduced self protection, and the near lack of emotional support from others after I've been hurt, especially emotionally, by others ("what kind of man are you?! stop whining!"). These all come from the role men are expected to fill. As xelent said:

xelent:

To be a man means that you take the knocks, the hits and you just bounce back or laugh it off. In many senses it's a kind of 'self erasure', that is complimented (and encouraged) by this kind of 'self modesty' or 'false honour'.

Mr. C:

The main problem I've experienced is the self attack, the reduced self protection, and the near lack of emotional support from others after I've been hurt, especially emotionally, by others ("what kind of man are you?! stop whining!").

Yes, this would sum it up well for me.. I think Girlwriteswhat says herself that men and boys are taught to, 'suck it up'. This is rarely how a woman or girl is responded too. Generally it is accepted in the wider world that women are allowed to express their feelings without being criticised or ridiculed for it.

Of course there are always exceptions to this, but I'm not discussing those here. More importantly I'm talking about how I was brought up on these notions. Experiences such as those that I mentioned on my blog for instance.

It sounds like both of you are talking about differing societal expectations for boys vs. girls / men vs. women.  That as men you're expected to behave a certain way, and you're hard on yourselves when you don't "live up to" those expectations.

What is the connection between this and men putting women before themselves (the subject of the blog post)?  Is it just one of those societal expectations, that you haven't struggled with specifically?  Or (back to my earlier request) do you have examples of feeling expected to put women before yourselves that you can share?

Or is it that you feel it's mostly women placing this expectation on you, and that you're putting women before yourselves in the very act of obeying?  If so, why do you feel it's mostly women placing this expectation on you?  Because of the feminism link made in the video? (I haven't watched it since you linked to it a while back.)

It feels like I'm not quite getting something.

Hey Patrick,

Interesting article. I share similar experiences of humiliation and terror around women, as a child. So, this post definitely connected with me.

I do have two questions for you, though:

What is the difference between virtue and value, in your view?

How would you define these two terms? Would they be defined differently, or are they synonyms, in your estimation?

 

GregG:

What is the difference between virtue and value, in your view?

How would you define these two terms? Would they be defined differently, or are they synonyms, in your estimation?

I know that was a good question since I couldn't answer it immediately.

Off the top, they don't actually appear much different. However, I would define 'virtue' as something being moral such as honesty, compassion and trust. Whereas 'value' is a kind of aesthetic preference, which may include virtue, but not exclusively. Since value can be more broadly applied to areas where virtue is perhaps less important. Such as I like vanilla you like chocolate.

By the way you I felt both your questions were the same Greg, or was I missing something perhaps.

To be honest, after a little stroll I must admit to not feeling entirely confident with what I said above. I felt I half answered it myself for some reason.

Perhaps you could let me know why you feel it was an important distinction to make Greg. If there was a distinction at all even.

Well, it's just that I noticed while reading your article that you used the terms interchangeably a few times. So I was wondering why (or if) you saw no distinction. And, yeah, my questions were restatements of each other. :)

I would suggest that value and virtue are different, and I agree with you, virtue is a component of morality. As Ayn Rand liked to point out, "value" presupposes two questions: "To whom, and for what?" Virtue, on the other hand (at least in my view), is something we can define objectively, and measure empirically.

But to bring this out of the abstract, why do you suppose the preference for subservience was elevated to the level of a virtue? What did your teacher gain for herself by humiliating you, and contributing to your own self-denial and repression? Why do you suppose that standard of suppressing needs only applied to you, and not to her own need to see you humiliated?

 

 

GregG:

why do you suppose the preference for subservience was elevated to the level of a virtue?

Because it sedated the painful experience of rejecting my own true feelings.

GregG:

What did your teacher gain for herself by humiliating you, and contributing to your own self-denial and repression?

My obedience, feeling superior

GregG:

Why do you suppose that standard of suppressing needs only applied to you, and not to her own need to see you humiliated?

becuase if the same standard was applied to her then she wouldnt get the satisfaction of my answer to your second question.

Annabelle:

It feels like I'm not quite getting something.

Well, you don't ask anarchists "Yeah, but can you give me some examples of when voting was a negative experience for you?" since the moral excuse to abuse others is the main problem with democracy, not the voting.

Annabelle:

Or (back to my earlier request) do you have examples of feeling expected to put women before yourselves that you can share?

I have some, of course, but I don't quite understand the focus you have on this particular point. I especially don't understand how you haven't noticed examples of this in what you've seen.

Annabelle:

Or is it that you feel it's mostly women placing this expectation on you, and that you're putting women before yourselves in the very act of obeying?

I don't understand why you think the actions of women in particular are focused on. Men are quite cruel to other men with this as an excuse.

I think my main confusion when reading your posts here is that this issue is very apparent. People will usually understand the problems instantly but perhaps agree or not with one set of values or another. Not understanding the problem seems very unlikely to me.

xelent:

GregG:

why do you suppose the preference for subservience was elevated to the level of a virtue?

Because it sedated the painful experience of rejecting my own true feelings.

GregG:

What did your teacher gain for herself by humiliating you, and contributing to your own self-denial and repression?

My obedience, feeling superior

GregG:

Why do you suppose that standard of suppressing needs only applied to you, and not to her own need to see you humiliated?

becuase if the same standard was applied to her then she wouldnt get the satisfaction of my answer to your second question.

It really does all comes down to aggression and moral narratives.

She was probably deeply humiliated by a male authority figure in her life early on, and without self-knowledge the impulse would have been to act it out on weak and helpless males around her. By telling herself your actions were 'inappropriate' (or whatever), she gives herself a moral excuse to inflict her pain on someone else, and the cycle repeats. Then you grow up angry and fearful of women, particularly in a position of authority, and without self-knowledge, would likely have repeated the converse end of the cycle again.

Here's to escaping the cage.