Men are metaphorical hunters. There's something deep inside men that causes us to seek things out and go after them. That "thing" we're after varies wildly from man to man, but it can come in the form of nearly anything - fame, fortune, success, power, women, adventure, or nearly anything. It's a male reflex deep inside our DNA that points us toward a goal and gives us a fire inside to go after that goal with aggression, relentlessness, and passion.
The fire that fuels a man's hunt has a dark side. When the fire is not properly harnessed or not used ethically, the fire can be detrimental to individuals and to society. When viewing the world as a zero sum game and with no semblance of empathy, masculine fire can bring about the worst parts of humanity: rape, theft, war, violence, genocide. This untempered fire is really hyper-masculinity. We have learned that masculine aggression without the corresponding feminine compassion is unhealthy
Noting that masculine fire has this potential for darkness (sometimes called toxic masculinity), progressive society began teaching a more a softer, more feminine style of behavior and thinking to boys. The idea was that men were not happy with their hyper-masculine box and society would be better with men that were more kind. The idea made sense. But the idea had a flaw. The masculine is not docile. The fire is a leverage point in a man's behavior that he uses to find his place in the world. The fire should be tempered, but it should not be extinguished.
When a boy or man is taught that kindness/love/empathy should make him happy, he gets confused. Like a border collie that has a deep instinct to herd sheep . . . the border collie will be a comfort dog if that is what is required of him. But the border collie won't be living his gift. He won't be embodying the instinctual drive deeply ingrained in his being that not only matches his soul, but makes him genuinely happy. Much like a border collie, men have a gift. That gift is the hunt. The hunt is driven by the fire. By not teaching boys and men to harness their fire and hunt properly, men are not able to give their gift to the world.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Missing male rites of passage
One of the things that we lost in the transition to modern progressive, urban culture was the male rite of passage. My progressive mind initially dismissed these kinds of ceremonies. I thought they were relics of a more primitive time that no longer had a place in modern life. I don't know what a modern form of this would look like, but I think we're missing something by not having it.
The male rite of passage was a process by which tribe elders/men symbolically transitioned boys to men. The specifics of the ceremony aren't important as they varied across cultures, but the common issue is that boys went through an excruciating trial and came out as men on the other side of the trial. Very often, this process destroys the male's ego.
Interestingly, we replicated this behavior in some ways in modern society. The military does this in boot camp. Fraternities and their hazing processes do this.. Sports teams have an element of this (particularly football). In the modern examples, the process is similar in some ways to the old rites - break the boy down and rebuild him as a man.
In the modern world, we don't have that obvious demarcation point where a boy becomes a man. The primary characteristic of a man is taking ownership over his life. He acknowledges the control he has to make his life what he wants it to be. He doesn't blame shift. He doesn't defer. He isn't lazy. Men are not ego driven. It's not a coincidence that we have more adult boys than we have ever had in the history of this planet. What defines an adult boy? He lives with his parents when he's 30. He plays video games all day instead of engaging with life. He meanders in his work life because no one has given him a life path.
I believe the larger problem is comfort. We got it in our minds that suffering is no longer a necessary part of life. Wouldn't life be great if we could remove pain? The answer is a resounding no. We use discomfort as a sign for change. If everything is good or great, where is the impetus for transformation into something better?
A lion raised in a zoo cannot go back into the wild because it never learned to hunt on its own. A lion in the wild went through hell trying and failing to catch prey, but it got better each time and built a skill set through adaptation where the lion became something different, something better. It went from a cub dependent on its mother to a self sufficient animal that a lion raised in a zoo can never be.
Men need discomfort and forced adaptation just like lions. Becoming a man isn't a matter of chronology. It's a series of learned and adapted behaviors that he either learns on his own or his tribe puts him through. Maybe it's enough to absorb these traits from one's father. Maybe it's enough to learn these things on one's own. But for a lot of boys and men, they are missing this transition. Like lions, men need to learn how to hunt. Men need to learn how to be the place where the buck stops. When the chips are down, men don't look to others to solve their problems, men bear the load and go to work. For millennia, men learned this in rites of passage.
The male rite of passage was a process by which tribe elders/men symbolically transitioned boys to men. The specifics of the ceremony aren't important as they varied across cultures, but the common issue is that boys went through an excruciating trial and came out as men on the other side of the trial. Very often, this process destroys the male's ego.
Interestingly, we replicated this behavior in some ways in modern society. The military does this in boot camp. Fraternities and their hazing processes do this.. Sports teams have an element of this (particularly football). In the modern examples, the process is similar in some ways to the old rites - break the boy down and rebuild him as a man.
In the modern world, we don't have that obvious demarcation point where a boy becomes a man. The primary characteristic of a man is taking ownership over his life. He acknowledges the control he has to make his life what he wants it to be. He doesn't blame shift. He doesn't defer. He isn't lazy. Men are not ego driven. It's not a coincidence that we have more adult boys than we have ever had in the history of this planet. What defines an adult boy? He lives with his parents when he's 30. He plays video games all day instead of engaging with life. He meanders in his work life because no one has given him a life path.
I believe the larger problem is comfort. We got it in our minds that suffering is no longer a necessary part of life. Wouldn't life be great if we could remove pain? The answer is a resounding no. We use discomfort as a sign for change. If everything is good or great, where is the impetus for transformation into something better?
A lion raised in a zoo cannot go back into the wild because it never learned to hunt on its own. A lion in the wild went through hell trying and failing to catch prey, but it got better each time and built a skill set through adaptation where the lion became something different, something better. It went from a cub dependent on its mother to a self sufficient animal that a lion raised in a zoo can never be.
Men need discomfort and forced adaptation just like lions. Becoming a man isn't a matter of chronology. It's a series of learned and adapted behaviors that he either learns on his own or his tribe puts him through. Maybe it's enough to absorb these traits from one's father. Maybe it's enough to learn these things on one's own. But for a lot of boys and men, they are missing this transition. Like lions, men need to learn how to hunt. Men need to learn how to be the place where the buck stops. When the chips are down, men don't look to others to solve their problems, men bear the load and go to work. For millennia, men learned this in rites of passage.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
What men and boys are missing in 2018
The gradual de-masculinization of the progressive male had good intention. The criticisms of how men were being raised were varied and valid:
1) Men aren't allowed to show emotion
2) Men are not allowed to show weakness
3) Men are sex driven pigs
4) Men demean and marginalize women
5) Men are violent
6) Men are selfish narcissists
With the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism, society went about remaking boys and men into a newer, softer version. The goal was laudable. And in progressive areas, tremendous strides have been made to create these nicer men. But like with all changes, there's the potential for an over-correction. In this case, I'm writing about boys and men that are too nice. When taught to suppress their aggression, they are left searching for meaning. Boys and men are looking for ways to channel this aggression. Sports, career, hobbies - it doesn't matter. Male biology is looking to *do* something. Men want something to put our heart and soul into and attack with relentless abandon.
Without aggression and with the progressive reinforced message of being kind through childhood, several new problems emerged. As documented by Dr. Warren Farrell in The Boy Crisis, boys are falling behind. They are less motivated. They are more likely to be addicted to drugs, porn, and video games. The short reason why: the lack of masculine direction.
Another problem - the nice guy. A nice guy is this new softer male who avoids conflict, people pleases, and generally has trouble with women (a sweet irony because the nice guy tries to be exactly what women says they want - a kind person who puts women on a pedestal). In general, the nice guy is uncomfortable expressing masculine traits, and he attempts relate with a more feminine energy. These men don't always realize it, but they are miserable. Dr. Robert Glover wrote about this brilliantly in No More Mr. Nice Guy.
What's sad is what Dr. Farrell and Dr. Glover write about is that society is espousing a broken paradigm for raising boys. More and more boys and men are being created via this broken paradigm everyday. I'm not advocating for a return to the overly macho male patterns of past, but a middle road. Men need their aggression harnessed and directed. This will make boys and men happier and more fulfilled.
1) Men aren't allowed to show emotion
2) Men are not allowed to show weakness
3) Men are sex driven pigs
4) Men demean and marginalize women
5) Men are violent
6) Men are selfish narcissists
With the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism, society went about remaking boys and men into a newer, softer version. The goal was laudable. And in progressive areas, tremendous strides have been made to create these nicer men. But like with all changes, there's the potential for an over-correction. In this case, I'm writing about boys and men that are too nice. When taught to suppress their aggression, they are left searching for meaning. Boys and men are looking for ways to channel this aggression. Sports, career, hobbies - it doesn't matter. Male biology is looking to *do* something. Men want something to put our heart and soul into and attack with relentless abandon.
Without aggression and with the progressive reinforced message of being kind through childhood, several new problems emerged. As documented by Dr. Warren Farrell in The Boy Crisis, boys are falling behind. They are less motivated. They are more likely to be addicted to drugs, porn, and video games. The short reason why: the lack of masculine direction.
Another problem - the nice guy. A nice guy is this new softer male who avoids conflict, people pleases, and generally has trouble with women (a sweet irony because the nice guy tries to be exactly what women says they want - a kind person who puts women on a pedestal). In general, the nice guy is uncomfortable expressing masculine traits, and he attempts relate with a more feminine energy. These men don't always realize it, but they are miserable. Dr. Robert Glover wrote about this brilliantly in No More Mr. Nice Guy.
What's sad is what Dr. Farrell and Dr. Glover write about is that society is espousing a broken paradigm for raising boys. More and more boys and men are being created via this broken paradigm everyday. I'm not advocating for a return to the overly macho male patterns of past, but a middle road. Men need their aggression harnessed and directed. This will make boys and men happier and more fulfilled.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Men don't let other people determine their self worth
A fully developed man doesn't let other people determine his self worth.
This isn't to say that a man isn't aware of what other people think and adjusts to what they think, but he has an inner strength of character that that does not let other people's opinions affect his opinion of himself. This idea is born from the dominance hierarchy and the survival instinct men have to be an alpha male. The independence of not having one's self esteem or actions guided by the opinions of others is an essential skill for navigating the group dynamics in dominance hierarchy ascension. When properly expressed, not caring what other people think is manifested as confidence, decisiveness, and perseverance. "I understand you think XYZ, but I think ABC - so I'm going to follow my gut and do ABC." Alpha males are leaders.
In order to ascend a dominance hierarchy, a man must push toward his goals without fear of upsetting others. By letting social dynamics affect a person's actions, he is no longer on the optimal path towards rising in the dominance hierarchy. This same confidence that a man uses to climb the dominance hierarchy also keeps him there.
Examples:
Not letting others' opinions of a man's worth is not a universal male trait, but it highly correlates with how evolution intended for men to behave. Men can be deeply concerned with what other people think. And women can be completely unconcerned with what others think. But men's biology (specifically - the dominance hierarchy) stretching back millions of years fits us a certain way.
I fully believe everything I wrote above. Not only does evolutionary psychology back it up, but as a man, I can feel, in a way that I can't easily express, that these feelings are tightly interwoven with my gender. But everything above can also apply to women. So why differentiate and say these are male characteristics? I struggle with this myself.
I argue that the idea of not letting one's self worth be affected by others is the masculine. Noting that men and women both contain masculine and feminine energy - with men likely to hold more masculine energy and women more likely to hold feminine energy, it makes sense that my masculine core would align more with this idea. Feminine energy, a more communal energy, is more involved with the group dynamic and making sure the collective is served. In this way, a person with a feminine core would be more likely to have his or her self worth affected by other people's opinions. I don't feel called to answer how this works with women - how biology, evolution, and personality characteristics defined the natural instinct for how women interact with others and how they overcome it to value their self worth. My priority is men. I speak confidently that a developed man with a masculine core does not let others determine his self worth.
The topics I covered in this post are characteristics we should be instilling in our boys, and we do less and less of that. The character that comes from this foundational perspective becomes confidence, backbone, strength, will, drive, power - biological instincts a million years in the making.
This isn't to say that a man isn't aware of what other people think and adjusts to what they think, but he has an inner strength of character that that does not let other people's opinions affect his opinion of himself. This idea is born from the dominance hierarchy and the survival instinct men have to be an alpha male. The independence of not having one's self esteem or actions guided by the opinions of others is an essential skill for navigating the group dynamics in dominance hierarchy ascension. When properly expressed, not caring what other people think is manifested as confidence, decisiveness, and perseverance. "I understand you think XYZ, but I think ABC - so I'm going to follow my gut and do ABC." Alpha males are leaders.
In order to ascend a dominance hierarchy, a man must push toward his goals without fear of upsetting others. By letting social dynamics affect a person's actions, he is no longer on the optimal path towards rising in the dominance hierarchy. This same confidence that a man uses to climb the dominance hierarchy also keeps him there.
Examples:
- A man cannot listen to doubters when starting a business. An inner strength of character pushes the man towards his goals without letting skeptics adjust his vision.
- A man approaches a person he is attracted without fear of social consequences (friends or society telling him that the person is out of his league or a chance of failure should preclude the approach). The confidence in a man's own internal goal compass supersedes the opinions of others.
- A man speaks his mind in regard to how he feels. Group dynamics don't dissuade a man from speaking his truth. His personal integrity is more important than being liked.
Not letting others' opinions of a man's worth is not a universal male trait, but it highly correlates with how evolution intended for men to behave. Men can be deeply concerned with what other people think. And women can be completely unconcerned with what others think. But men's biology (specifically - the dominance hierarchy) stretching back millions of years fits us a certain way.
I fully believe everything I wrote above. Not only does evolutionary psychology back it up, but as a man, I can feel, in a way that I can't easily express, that these feelings are tightly interwoven with my gender. But everything above can also apply to women. So why differentiate and say these are male characteristics? I struggle with this myself.
I argue that the idea of not letting one's self worth be affected by others is the masculine. Noting that men and women both contain masculine and feminine energy - with men likely to hold more masculine energy and women more likely to hold feminine energy, it makes sense that my masculine core would align more with this idea. Feminine energy, a more communal energy, is more involved with the group dynamic and making sure the collective is served. In this way, a person with a feminine core would be more likely to have his or her self worth affected by other people's opinions. I don't feel called to answer how this works with women - how biology, evolution, and personality characteristics defined the natural instinct for how women interact with others and how they overcome it to value their self worth. My priority is men. I speak confidently that a developed man with a masculine core does not let others determine his self worth.
The topics I covered in this post are characteristics we should be instilling in our boys, and we do less and less of that. The character that comes from this foundational perspective becomes confidence, backbone, strength, will, drive, power - biological instincts a million years in the making.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
A Man's relationship to his aggression
The messages I got as a child were that my aggression was something I should suppress. No one ever said to me "suppress your aggression," but the subtle message I was given was I should not become this macho, aggressive male that society told me was unwelcome. None of the messages were overt, but they were constant. And it was less of "be like this," but more of "don't be like that." I, and many others, probably internalized this in some way of being an ally. In avoiding "macho-ness," I was avoiding conforming to a male image that made women feel uncomfortable. Women and girls pushed this message also. Ask most women what kind of guy they want and they'll say nice, funny, treats women well, someone who listens. Confident makes the list sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Nice always makes it on the list in my experience.
What does "nice" mean? To me, nice meant someone who got along with others. To get along with others, I should be accommodating to them. To be accommodating to them, I should be deferential. I should be cautious of upsetting other people. These characteristics are generally feminine characteristics. These are not masculine or alpha male characteristics. Masculine presence (which can be held by men or women) is the rock in the storm. It is unswayed by other people's opinions. It says "this is how I feel, and I feel this way irrespective of how you feel." It is having the courage of your convictions.
The question then becomes - why can't a man hold both ways of being? Can he hold the feminine energy of being nice/deferential *and* the masculine energy of having the courage of one's convictions? For most men, the answer is no.
A man's aggression is an essential part of who he is. Taking away his aggression is like de-clawing a cat. It removes his weapons. An essential part of being a man is setting boundaries (physical and emotional) - drawing a line in the sand. That line in the sand is meaningless unless it's enforced. The enforcement comes from perceived repercussions from crossing that line. If a man is unwilling or unable to enforce his boundaries, he has no boundaries. A man's ability to be that rock in the storm, to be an independent masculine force with the courage of his convictions depends on his ability to harness his aggression and power to say, in effect, "this is where I start - and this is where you end." The power of that independence is born from the boundaries that are set by a man's aggression.
Aggression can be trained out of a man. And there are certain types of aggression that *are* unwelcome - violence, misogyny, suppression of those considered weak. However, well harnessed aggression in a man is a part of our legacy and is crucial to the power that we bring.
What does "nice" mean? To me, nice meant someone who got along with others. To get along with others, I should be accommodating to them. To be accommodating to them, I should be deferential. I should be cautious of upsetting other people. These characteristics are generally feminine characteristics. These are not masculine or alpha male characteristics. Masculine presence (which can be held by men or women) is the rock in the storm. It is unswayed by other people's opinions. It says "this is how I feel, and I feel this way irrespective of how you feel." It is having the courage of your convictions.
The question then becomes - why can't a man hold both ways of being? Can he hold the feminine energy of being nice/deferential *and* the masculine energy of having the courage of one's convictions? For most men, the answer is no.
A man's aggression is an essential part of who he is. Taking away his aggression is like de-clawing a cat. It removes his weapons. An essential part of being a man is setting boundaries (physical and emotional) - drawing a line in the sand. That line in the sand is meaningless unless it's enforced. The enforcement comes from perceived repercussions from crossing that line. If a man is unwilling or unable to enforce his boundaries, he has no boundaries. A man's ability to be that rock in the storm, to be an independent masculine force with the courage of his convictions depends on his ability to harness his aggression and power to say, in effect, "this is where I start - and this is where you end." The power of that independence is born from the boundaries that are set by a man's aggression.
Aggression can be trained out of a man. And there are certain types of aggression that *are* unwelcome - violence, misogyny, suppression of those considered weak. However, well harnessed aggression in a man is a part of our legacy and is crucial to the power that we bring.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Masculine and feminine energy
Both men and women each contain elements of masculine and feminine energy. Both are absolutely essential to being a well rounded person. The energies are different, and they serve different functions.
Masculine energy is the energy of aggression, drive, directness, action, order, strength, logic, rigidity, competition, individuality.
Feminine energy is the energy of nurturing, submission, love, patience, creativity, the abstract, receiving, calmness, the collective.
It's important to define these qualities as energies and *not* as male and female. A woman can be driven and rigid. A man can be nurturing and submissive. To quote Chaz Bono, "gender is between your ears, not between your legs." However, to deny there is a very high correlation between one's birth gender and gender expression denies reality.
Men are more likely to express masculine energy more often and women are more likely to express feminine energy more often.
But beyond the expression of certain energies/behavior/personality, there is something else to it. If a man can express feminine energy to the extent of his choosing, and a woman can express masculine energy to the extent of her choosing . . . why is gender important at all? Gender is a part of their identity. I would argue that for the vast majority of people - gender is the second most fundamental characteristic of a person after being human. Gender colors a person's view of the world and interaction with the world more than race or nationality. In addition to how a person interacts with his/her world, there are a series of hormones that drive certain behavior.
A set of natural behaviors come with one's masculine or feminine core most of the time. By masculine or feminine core, I might define this (as a researcher did) as the difference between a systematizing (male) brain or an empathizing (female) brain. This article which summarized this study that studied 419 college students and found these results between systematizing (male) and empathizing (female) brains:
The study strongly correlates the differences in brain types to pre-natal testosterone. The observations from this article emphasizes that differences in interest in people vs things are present in children younger than 12 months, indicating that the behavior is more nature than nurture.
In the end, my point is this - men and women come wired with a certain set of energies that feel right to them. To make these men and women happy, they should be reared with an understanding of how to maximize the use of their energies and interests. Fighting against one's core and its energies can work, but it makes people unhappy and confused.
Masculine energy is the energy of aggression, drive, directness, action, order, strength, logic, rigidity, competition, individuality.
Feminine energy is the energy of nurturing, submission, love, patience, creativity, the abstract, receiving, calmness, the collective.
It's important to define these qualities as energies and *not* as male and female. A woman can be driven and rigid. A man can be nurturing and submissive. To quote Chaz Bono, "gender is between your ears, not between your legs." However, to deny there is a very high correlation between one's birth gender and gender expression denies reality.
Men are more likely to express masculine energy more often and women are more likely to express feminine energy more often.
But beyond the expression of certain energies/behavior/personality, there is something else to it. If a man can express feminine energy to the extent of his choosing, and a woman can express masculine energy to the extent of her choosing . . . why is gender important at all? Gender is a part of their identity. I would argue that for the vast majority of people - gender is the second most fundamental characteristic of a person after being human. Gender colors a person's view of the world and interaction with the world more than race or nationality. In addition to how a person interacts with his/her world, there are a series of hormones that drive certain behavior.
A set of natural behaviors come with one's masculine or feminine core most of the time. By masculine or feminine core, I might define this (as a researcher did) as the difference between a systematizing (male) brain or an empathizing (female) brain. This article which summarized this study that studied 419 college students and found these results between systematizing (male) and empathizing (female) brains:
Systematizing brain (male)
|
Empathizing brain (female)
|
|
Mostly systematizing
|
53%
|
17%
|
Mostly empathizing
|
17%
|
44%
|
Balanced
|
24%
|
35%
|
Extreme systematizing
|
6%
|
|
Extreme empathizing
|
4%
|
The study strongly correlates the differences in brain types to pre-natal testosterone. The observations from this article emphasizes that differences in interest in people vs things are present in children younger than 12 months, indicating that the behavior is more nature than nurture.
In the end, my point is this - men and women come wired with a certain set of energies that feel right to them. To make these men and women happy, they should be reared with an understanding of how to maximize the use of their energies and interests. Fighting against one's core and its energies can work, but it makes people unhappy and confused.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
The alpha male inside every male
Deep inside most men is a desire to be an alpha male. An alpha male is the male perceived as the most powerful male in a group. It's completely unreasonable to actually be the most powerful male in every group, but inside, our genetic programming constantly pushes us toward this goal.
While I was vaguely aware of my immature attempts to show up as an alpha male (friendly teasing with friends, being competitive in various situations, being conscious not to appear weak), the dominance hierarchy concept, when I learned it, brought all the pieces together. The dominance hierarchy is the arrangement of a social structure based on perceived strength/power.
If we look at social animals, there are always hierarchies based on perceived strength/power. The most relevant example is chimps, our closest relatives. The alpha chimp is the chimp perceived to be the most powerful in his group - often this means he is the strongest as he has the ability to physically defeat his rivals. The alpha chimp gets all the best resources. He gets the best food. He gets the best female chimp(s). He gets the best tree. Other male chimps on some level are subservient to him.
On the flip side, the chimp at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy gets food last. He gets the worst tree since all the other chimps higher on the chimp totem pole got to pick trees first. He generally gets last pick of females as female chimps have an instinct to mate with the male(s) who can protect them the best. The male(s) who can best protect the females is by definition the male(s) perceived as more powerful within the group.
This alpha male programming is millions of years old. Every animal that has to protect its resources has had to fight to protect those resources. This includes, mammals, reptiles, birds, crustaceans, fish, etc. For millions of years, the brains of the genetic predecessors to humans used the dominance hierarchy as a means of survival because the dominance hierarchy defined a creature's breeding, shelter, and food availability. Being high on the dominance hierarchy is a survival instinct written into our DNA. It's not a choice. It's not an option.
If we put the dominance hierarchy and the need to be an alpha within one's own context into Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it fits into several different levels. It fits into safety needs (a creature low on the dominance hierarchy cannot protect its resources - example: bully taking lunch money). It fits into the belongingness and love needs (a creature low in the dominance hierarchy has fewer mating opportunities and is generally viewed less favorably by members of the group - example: socially awkward nerd). It fits into esteem needs because the less control one has over his environment, the less perceived power he has. And since being alpha is perceived power - on a level that may not be conscious, the man is perceives himself as weak (example: a man not respected by his peers).
The alpha male desire in (most) men is a base need. It's genetic programming as old as the fight/flight response. It's nature, not nurture. There are many other behaviors that spring from the quest to be at the top of the dominance hierarchy that I will go over in subsequent posts. The crucial aspect for this post is that this drive is built into us. This base physiological drive pushes us in a myriad of ways. When we align our attitude and behavior with our nature, something deep inside us clicks on. Fighting against our nature is like swimming against the current. It's inefficient and energy wasting. There are healthy male behaviors and attitudes that fit our biology. When we ignore our biology, our pre-programmed instinctual drives, men suffer and the world suffers.
While I was vaguely aware of my immature attempts to show up as an alpha male (friendly teasing with friends, being competitive in various situations, being conscious not to appear weak), the dominance hierarchy concept, when I learned it, brought all the pieces together. The dominance hierarchy is the arrangement of a social structure based on perceived strength/power.
If we look at social animals, there are always hierarchies based on perceived strength/power. The most relevant example is chimps, our closest relatives. The alpha chimp is the chimp perceived to be the most powerful in his group - often this means he is the strongest as he has the ability to physically defeat his rivals. The alpha chimp gets all the best resources. He gets the best food. He gets the best female chimp(s). He gets the best tree. Other male chimps on some level are subservient to him.
On the flip side, the chimp at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy gets food last. He gets the worst tree since all the other chimps higher on the chimp totem pole got to pick trees first. He generally gets last pick of females as female chimps have an instinct to mate with the male(s) who can protect them the best. The male(s) who can best protect the females is by definition the male(s) perceived as more powerful within the group.
This alpha male programming is millions of years old. Every animal that has to protect its resources has had to fight to protect those resources. This includes, mammals, reptiles, birds, crustaceans, fish, etc. For millions of years, the brains of the genetic predecessors to humans used the dominance hierarchy as a means of survival because the dominance hierarchy defined a creature's breeding, shelter, and food availability. Being high on the dominance hierarchy is a survival instinct written into our DNA. It's not a choice. It's not an option.
If we put the dominance hierarchy and the need to be an alpha within one's own context into Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it fits into several different levels. It fits into safety needs (a creature low on the dominance hierarchy cannot protect its resources - example: bully taking lunch money). It fits into the belongingness and love needs (a creature low in the dominance hierarchy has fewer mating opportunities and is generally viewed less favorably by members of the group - example: socially awkward nerd). It fits into esteem needs because the less control one has over his environment, the less perceived power he has. And since being alpha is perceived power - on a level that may not be conscious, the man is perceives himself as weak (example: a man not respected by his peers).
The alpha male desire in (most) men is a base need. It's genetic programming as old as the fight/flight response. It's nature, not nurture. There are many other behaviors that spring from the quest to be at the top of the dominance hierarchy that I will go over in subsequent posts. The crucial aspect for this post is that this drive is built into us. This base physiological drive pushes us in a myriad of ways. When we align our attitude and behavior with our nature, something deep inside us clicks on. Fighting against our nature is like swimming against the current. It's inefficient and energy wasting. There are healthy male behaviors and attitudes that fit our biology. When we ignore our biology, our pre-programmed instinctual drives, men suffer and the world suffers.
Sunday, August 5, 2018
The danger of political correctness
My definition of political correctness is this:
Softening language to protect the feelings of others
There's a tremendous amount of value in political correctness. Just because I don't find something offensive doesn't mean you can't find something offensive, and there needs to be some kind of system in place that keeps us from hurting each other, particularly keeping us from hurting those who are traditionally oppressed and marginalized.
I don't want to go back to the days where we could say horrific stereotypes out loud. Words matter. The language we use to discuss people and concepts gets ingrained in our consciousness.
But can political correctness go too far? Yes.
When people feel silenced from expressing themselves for fear of being persecuted for holding non-politically correct opinions, political correctness has gone too far. When we can no longer acknowledge statistical averages because they are not 100% certainties, we lose data that can be used to help the world make sense. And if we no longer acknowledge averages that skew in one way or another because they are politically incorrect, we make decisions based on bad data. There will always be room for evolving social/satirical/comedic political correctness (you could say certain things in 1998 that you cannot say in 2018).
It's rarely correct to paint with a broad brush. Painting with a broad brush has the opportunity to marginalize the oppressed and those who do not fit into the majority, but if we ignore large scale truisms because they don't fit with the politically correct inclusive narrative that we have developed, are we helping?
For purposes of this blog, I will draw distinctions between men and women, a distinction which is increasingly not politically correct. Because gender differences have been used to oppress and marginalize women in the past, noting the differences between men and women can be viewed as a tool to diminish women. However, if we don't acknowledge the differences, we are saying that men and women are the same. If we say men and women are the same, we use one unified handbook to raise boys and girls. In my experience in the progressive parts of the United States, that one unified handbook is tilted toward a style of being that resonates far better with females than males. I will back this statement up throughout the course of writing this blog.
If something is mostly true, we should know it. We should be aware that averages are not universal truths, but we should also know that statistical patterns and historical precedent matter. If we lose the ability to say some things do not exist because they are not 100% true, then we are living in a post-fact world where feelings are prioritized over facts, and we live in a world where nothing can be certain.
This blog will explore the challenges I faced and things I learned as I discovered my masculinity coming from a progressive point of view where I learned that gender was a social construct.
Softening language to protect the feelings of others
There's a tremendous amount of value in political correctness. Just because I don't find something offensive doesn't mean you can't find something offensive, and there needs to be some kind of system in place that keeps us from hurting each other, particularly keeping us from hurting those who are traditionally oppressed and marginalized.
I don't want to go back to the days where we could say horrific stereotypes out loud. Words matter. The language we use to discuss people and concepts gets ingrained in our consciousness.
But can political correctness go too far? Yes.
When people feel silenced from expressing themselves for fear of being persecuted for holding non-politically correct opinions, political correctness has gone too far. When we can no longer acknowledge statistical averages because they are not 100% certainties, we lose data that can be used to help the world make sense. And if we no longer acknowledge averages that skew in one way or another because they are politically incorrect, we make decisions based on bad data. There will always be room for evolving social/satirical/comedic political correctness (you could say certain things in 1998 that you cannot say in 2018).
It's rarely correct to paint with a broad brush. Painting with a broad brush has the opportunity to marginalize the oppressed and those who do not fit into the majority, but if we ignore large scale truisms because they don't fit with the politically correct inclusive narrative that we have developed, are we helping?
For purposes of this blog, I will draw distinctions between men and women, a distinction which is increasingly not politically correct. Because gender differences have been used to oppress and marginalize women in the past, noting the differences between men and women can be viewed as a tool to diminish women. However, if we don't acknowledge the differences, we are saying that men and women are the same. If we say men and women are the same, we use one unified handbook to raise boys and girls. In my experience in the progressive parts of the United States, that one unified handbook is tilted toward a style of being that resonates far better with females than males. I will back this statement up throughout the course of writing this blog.
If something is mostly true, we should know it. We should be aware that averages are not universal truths, but we should also know that statistical patterns and historical precedent matter. If we lose the ability to say some things do not exist because they are not 100% true, then we are living in a post-fact world where feelings are prioritized over facts, and we live in a world where nothing can be certain.
This blog will explore the challenges I faced and things I learned as I discovered my masculinity coming from a progressive point of view where I learned that gender was a social construct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)