Skip to main content

Does violence define masculinity?

I'd say, yes, actually. That's with a whole bunch of caveats and recourse to definitions. Still, I think that most of what this guy says is both very right and very wrong. 

First, he claims that men = violence is entirely cultural... that it's trained into boys from their youngest years.  Part of that is true, but it's also not true.  We know that higher testosterone is associated with higher aggression in both men and women and men tend to have more testosterone. Violence is actually essentially human. We don't train it into ourselves, we train it OUT.*




This isn't to say, at all, that our cultural fascination with criminal violence is good, or that any of the examples that the NRA commentator lists are wrong.  But he (and others who make similar arguments) fail to understand the source of the fascination.  Our caveperson genes admire strength because strength means meat on the table, protection from sabertoothed tigers, and warmth through the winter months.  Because the mirror side of criminal violence is the capability to provide protective violence.

Our society has been spending a great deal of time and effort trying to convince men that they shouldn't be protective. We're not talking hulking muscles and bloody swords here, we're talking opening doors. Little things that put men in a role of looking out for others. Showing you want that role by offering to carry her books home from school. "How dare you suggest I need looking after?" But looking after others defines masculinity as much as nurturing defines femininity, and while physical strength is attractive, the role doesn't require it.  Dweebs in vacation duds and deck shoes set the women and children in the lifeboats first.

Take that away.  Take away the quiet protection, the provision, the admiration and thanks for carrying my books or opening doors.  Vilify outright the young man who beats up bullies or protects the weak.  Mock the adult man who feels important with his conceal carry pistol because he thinks he might be able to stop something bad happening someday.

Do all that and all that is left to satisfy our primal biological imperatives and signal which man is the most masculine is criminal violence.

*(And thus the true social tragedy of denying the reality of Original Sin... that we are born sinful because we are born human becomes this odd notion that we don't really have to fight our human nature because our human nature is just fine, thankyou.  Unfortunately, reality is that humans didn't "claw our way to the top of the food chain" or become apex predators by weaving daisy chains.)




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goals

  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

Why We Can't Have Unity

  Trump didn't divide the country. Let's get that out of the way first. There's several things that have divided us but the people who get elected are only the symptoms. Collective Identity is why we can't have Unity.  Don't believe me? 1) Dealing with groups is tempting because it's a force multiplier, and we've had "group politics" forever, but it's reached a tipping point. Everyone is considered primarily their group identity. 2) A failure to buy into this group identity ideology has been framed as racism. So we're told to believe that people with ideological differences or who question dividing everyone into group identities are not just people with different opinions, they are evil. Even arguing against the focus on group identity will get you called a racist. 3) Group identity defines nearly everything. Racism, right and wrong are no longer defined by actions or attitudes, at least by a critical percentage of the population. Right, wr

Why it doesn't matter what Parler allowed.

Because allowing people to say scary things in public (or mean things, or false things) doesn't inflame anyone.  It attracts people who are already inflamed. There used to be a joke that went more or less something like this:  There's a couple thousand white supremacist militia members in the US and two thirds of them are undercover FBI agents. And that's the second reason.  Because we actually want the scary conversations to happen in public. Driving those conversations underground doesn't make them go away. Inflamed people are still inflamed except now they are also legitimately aggrieved.  We have thousands of years of History that proves that this is true. Short of simply killing everyone of a certain mindset, ideology, religion, or culture, it's impossible to make them go away by forcing them to keep their scary ideas quiet.  Killing a few simply creates martyrs, not converts. Economic oppression, which was used against the Jews as well as endless other minorit