Senate Problems with perceptions of masculinity

Knights of the 21st Century
18 mins ·
SUCCESS STORY:

Last week we received news that a prison inmate that was going through Knights had his parole hearing. The parole interviewer noticed many inmates with Knights graduation certificates and commented that these men seem to have better attitudes.

Later in the parole hearing, the parole board publicly mentioned the value of Knights and the visible results it inspires -- and the inmate was granted parole!

**Also, our Knights prison chaplain ("Chap" Noles) said every day of the week there are conversations going on between inmates about Knights. The men are quizzing each other on the 15 Principles of Manhood and working together to complete the lesson assignments.

Men are eager to join the next Knights program meetings! We're so excited about these results!

Thank you so much to those who support our mission, whether prayerfully, financially or both. If you'd like to learn more about our prison ministry or help change the lives of men in a prison near you, visit https://k21.men/prison-ministry/

 

Someone on another site recommended that I read this article today: How and Why to Revive Manly Honor in the Twenty-First Century. It's fairly long, but I think it's worth reading through. (If you're really captivated, it's actually one part of a 7-article series on male honor.) The author's summing up of the subject is:

To unpack that as succinctly as possible:

• "Reputation" among others is critical, since traditional honor is bestowed on a man by others. A man in a vacuum is neither honorable nor dishonorable.
• Honor can only be bestowed by those who themselves have honor. Or to put it another way, only the cool kids can say if you're cool. The respect of the inferior is worthless.
• There has to be an agreed-upon metric against which a man's honor is measured. This is the "code of standards." These standards can be prosocial or antisocial--it doesn't matter. What matters is that if someone breaks the code, everyone agrees that he has lost his honor and should be full of shame.

The article's author makes a multi-point analysis of the costs and benefits of a traditional honor culture, which I'm not going to try and reproduce here. In the end, however, he takes the position that the honor culture is worth reviving. I almost agree with him. What I find troubling is the inherently hierarchical nature of honor cultures. Longing to be in a band of brothers that hold themselves to certain high standards sounds good, but in fact it is longing to belong to an elite. Like high-school in groups, the more exclusive the elite group, the higher the honor of belonging. It's no fun if absolutely anyone can get in. I suppose it's possible to set the boundaries of the in-group fairly harmlessly, such as, "You can be part of our elite group if you can run a 5 minute mile," or "You can belong if you have a GPA over 3.5." It's also possible to set the boundaries problematically: "You can belong if you're white." "You can belong if you have religious beliefs XY & Z." The whole system is based on the idea that certain people are more worthy than others, and that concerns me. Little good ever comes from dividing humanity into "superior" in-groups and "inferior" out-groups.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on this. @J-Rod, you haven't been part of this thread so far, but you strike me as someone who believes in the value of honor culture--the condition of having honor being making enough money to support oneself. What say you?

 

Sorry for the double post, but it's been pointed out to me that my link in the previous post is broken. Try this one: https://www.artofmanliness.com/arti...vive-manly-honor-in-the-twenty-first-century/

 

If you don't go after what you want, you'll never have it. If you don't ask, the answer is always no. If you don't step forward, you're always in the same place. This morning, I cry out against lethargy, against motionlessness and meaninglessness. You have this awesome vehicle called manhood parked in the driveway of your life. Don't just polish it and rev the engine while in park. Put it into gear and steer it in the direction of nobility, godliness and selflessness. Shakespeare's Macbeth said, "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Let's prove that fatalistic view of manhood dead wrong, Let's go after it today!
Steve Sabol
Knights of the 21st Century

 

Here's the issue. Humans need accountability. Sure, Bill Gates and the like are self-motivated to an elite degree. But most of us, given an option, will take the path of least resistance.

I've talked before about the need to bring shaming back. The term is a little tongue in cheek, to be honest. But the core is that the individual should feel a need for approval from the group.

A 23 year old should not feel comfortable living at home unless there are extenuating circumstances.

He should feel shame. Regret. Remorse.

Living off of someone else's work and effort when you are perfectly capable should be something that's hard to live with.

 

"A 23 year old should not feel comfortable living at home unless there are extenuating circumstances."

How old is the son-in-law that lives with you? Kick him out.

 

We both maintain the household equally and share ownership. He doesn't live at my house. I don't live at his house. We live at our house and each pays their own way.

EDIT: He's 29, BTW.

 

But does he feel comfortable?

 

That's pretty much exactly what the author of the honor article said. I agree with you that humans need accountability and that people should look for ways to contribute to society. Somebody who does nothing for others and is only out for #1 should indeed feel bad, in my opinion. I just think that there are more important ways of contributing than monetarily. I'm glad you responded, J-Rod. You and I don't agree on much, but the article on honor helps me understand on what key points we disagree. I like feeling like I know where people are coming from.

I also got something related from the same site as the honor article. That is that there are two competing definitions of "manhood." In one, manhood is the opposite of womanhood. All things soft and feminine are the antithesis of manliness. In the other, manhood is the opposite of childhood. A man is someone who has put childish self-centeredness and impulsivity behind him. It seems to me that people who are interested in honor are leaning more to the second definition. A man has proven himself worthy of respect from his peers by performing certain actions. A child hasn't done that. It makes more sense to me to look at this as a working definition of manhood, rather than the "men are the anti-women" definition. To make the "opposite of womanhood" thing work, you have to really exaggerate the differences between the sexes, to the point where they both become stereotypes. This isn't to say that there aren't any differences between men and women--rather, the differences are subtle, particularly when you're looking at "all men" and "all women" in aggregate.

Another interesting thing I found while scrounging around the net is the distinction our culture draws between being a "good man" and being a "real man." Mr. Rogers strikes me as someone who was "a good man." He was caring, compassionate, collected and determined in the face of adversity, gentle with the vulnerable, and faithful to his wife. By contrast, a lot of Trump's supporters are thrilled that he is, to them, "a real man." By this they appear to mean that he acts entitled to women's bodies and is quick to take offense and threaten violence. When the subject of "real" manhood comes up, Trump is frequently contrasted with Obama, who remained unflappable in the face of insults and to my knowledge never publicly spoke of women in a sexual way. That sort of cool-bloodedness is not "real." "Real" is uncensored, politically incorrect, aggressive, messy, and honestly, kind of "bad." "Real" also probably means "relatable" in a way that "good" does not.

I don't know how we got to a place where being "good" is the near opposite of being "real," but here we are. No wonder boys are confused.

 

Pffft! Real men don't care about comfort.

 

Real question J-Rod... Should the same sense of shame apply to a 23 year old woman living at home without extenuating circumstances?

 

Well, if she is 23 and doesn't have a man to take care of her, she's a dried up spinster and probably should be kept at home under her father's protection.

 

Both families feel very comfortable. It took a lot of soul searching before hand to make sure this was the direction we wanted to go. Now we each share responsibility for the other family involved. We split all living expenses and ownership of the home.

But I felt it was important for Brit to be able to stay home and raise the babies, our grandchildren. Of which there are now 3. I bonded so hard with the oldest when they came to live with us after a bout of unemployment. When they were ready to move out after about 8 months, TT was two and Tommy was 3 months. She is 5 now. Tommy is 3. And the new baby is 9 months.

Because of our sacrifices, the babies will never have to see the inside of a daycare. They will rarely, if ever, have to take a bus to school. And our combined incomes and living situation gives each of us more financial freedom than either family would have on their own.

And? I get to spend as much time with the grandbabies as I want! TT is already playing Xbox and watching WWE!

Interesting. I'd add a third: A strong man.

I've not given up any of my childish endeavors. Star Wars, WWE, video games, comic books, podcasting. I still do them all. My 50th birthday party at the end of the month is a WWE themed event culminating with my nephew and I doing a very simple match in a bounce house where he pins me in a "retirement" match and I have at him with a chair. The match was going to be much more elaborate. but my ankle never fully recovered from breaking it last year at his daughter's (my great niece) 4th BD party...in a bounce house.

We already started the social media campaign setting the story for the match.

Stupid, I know. But it is fun.

The point is that I've grown up enough to go to work and pay the bills and make sure the people in my life are cared for. I've never been interested in growing further than that. LOL.

Yes.

But if I'm being honest, not as deeply.

See, generally, men need a dragon to kill and a princess to rescue. I know people here hate when I say that, but it's the truth. And generally women don't have that specific drive.

I'm speaking in generalities and I understand that some women feel about life like most men do. And some men don't have that drive.

 

I'd make a distinction between childlike and childish . . . you can take childlike delight in simple things without being self-centered and immature. Dunno what I think about the dragon slaying thing . . . I think there are general differences between males and females, but I think of it more in terms of perceptions and emotions than goal-specific drives.

 

Its hard to describe masculinity so instead I'm going to mention a couple of films/books which I think explore it well :

Stand by Me , this is an excellent portrait of boys, the friendship and the way they relate to each other ,

High Fidelity by Nick Hornby . Guys and their lists , also his romances and how he regards them and how guys think about themselves .

edit - oh and Diner . a brilliant film , the conversations in this movie are so on the money , the trivia , the competitiveness , the little obsessions , the characters .

 

Did she have any say in the matter, or...?

 

Both families feel very comfortable. It took a lot of soul searching before hand to make sure this was the direction we wanted to go.

Brit and I were the two most behind our living situation.

 

Generalities are a problem when you generally expect an entire gender to feel shame for them.

 

@J-Rod Good on you. That's cute.

You'd get along really well with the southern half of my family. The only time I was ever able to actually feel related to them is when I started making characters and storylines in the 2K games. They're huge wrestling fans and have wrestlers carry through the games, aging in real time.

Have fun in your retirement match.

 

I've tried to keep my personal emotions out of this thread as much as possible, because you can debate ideas, but you can't debate feelings. But I'm not going to lie--Jordan Peterson aggravates me. If you're not familiar with him, he's a very popular pop-psychology voice in the public debate about what it means to be a man, and I felt I needed to at least check him out. Apparently what he does is mix up self-improvement standards like "take responsibility for yourself" with weird **** like:

His thinking appears to go like this: We all make basic assumptions about the world. > If enough people believe in these assumptions, they become true. > Therefore, common assumptions must be true.

That logical fallacy shows up in some other strange things he's said (quoted from a NYT article, Peterson's words are in bold):

So everything a sufficient number of people have said in the past is now truth. Chaos is female. God is male. The earth is flat. Disease is caused by an imbalance of humors. Glad we've cleared that up.

His theories are so easy and simple they pretty much have to be wrong, but they don't "feel" wrong, so people who don't think terribly clearly get sucked in. From the same NYT article:

What 18-year-old kid wouldn't love to hear: "You know what? You really do know it all! All you have to do is seize on the first thought that pops into your head, and bingo! You've found the truth!"

I ran across an LA Times opinion piece that basically said feminists should dismiss Peterson at their peril, because he's tapping into a real undercurrent of male angst: "If feminists don’t like Peterson's message, they should offer a better one."

Well.
Yes.
Feminism's a better idea. Anything's a better idea! But how do you compete with a message as pleasing and soothing as, "Guess what, little Jimmy? You knew everything about everything all along!" Actual truth-seeking is hard. It's uncomfortable, as you have to confront your most deeply-held biases and be willing to let them go if the evidence supports doing that. Truth-seeking requires nose-to-the-grindstone work, and the willingness to admit that you were wrong, and openness to change. It's a pain in the ass and you won't achieve it by following a lone YouTube channel or podcast.

How can you possibly sell such a thing when your competition tells people that truth-seeking can be easy and safe?

I have no idea.

Peterson sucks.

 

After reading that moron's quotes, and the 18 yo incel's quotes...

 

What Peterson is trying to do is make an argument against moral relativism without grounding it in any one particular religion or philosophy, so as to avoid the "The Bible is true because it says it's true!" tautology. This is a really difficult argument to make, but you can sort of get there through the "natural law" idea, i.e., all cultures have laws against murder and theft, so murder and theft are objectively bad. The problem is that once you start wandering from a few basic (and rather obvious and unhelpful) premises, the natural law principle starts falling apart. "Modern men and women should relate to each other in way X because historical men and women behaved in way X" is about as tautological as the Bible thing, and when you start talking about how chaos is feminine because everybody just knows it is, you sound like a raving loon.

FWIW, I can't claim to have read his self-help book, and from what I understand, about 90% of it is ordinary, non-controversial "grow up and don't be a brat" kind of advice. That's fine. It's just that some people seem to be getting a charge out of the weird stuff he's saying, and that's worrisome.

 

And here I thought he was just an almighty prick.

 

Eh, I just thought I'd try to be fair to him. Because even when you're fair to him, he sounds like a crackpot.