From GirlWritesWhat to Tom Matlack on “My Response to an Open Letter from MRAs“
“I am sure that won’t satisfy those for whom dogma is more important that individual stories of men doing inspirational things, sometimes in the face of great suffering.”
Oh Tom. Is that what it takes to be a good man? To do inspirational things, sometimes in the face of great suffering?
I would put forth the insane proposition that to be a good man, one need only be.
Drink beer, drink protein shakes, box, collect stamps, fix cars, hug puppies, arrange flowers, stand up to a bully, back down from a bully, be alone in the woods, hang with friends, do a job you love, do a job you hate, kiss your wife, tell her when she’s being a bitch, clean your gutters or let them clog, pay your taxes, sew curtains, fix the dryer, have sex, swear off sex, masturbate (three times daily if you like), enjoy shopping, take your kids to the park, tell them to clean their rooms, hate shopping, play Team Fortress 2, play Nintendogs, read a book, watch stupid YouTube videos, leave the last slice of pizza out for a week, be immaculate, talk or be silent.
None of that involves suffering, and none of it is inspirational, and yet it’s all good.
The rules to be a good man?
Rule 1: First, do no harm.
Rule 2: See rule one.
–
photo: basibanget / Flickr
About the Editors
Whoa…let’s keep it civil….remember my 11 year old son is listening….and he is sweet and intelligent…and innocent…Let’s keep the stories personal…and the tone calm and measured….My son is trying to learn to be a good man…last night we went to his school for a 6th grade art show and all the other parents were there with their kids…..everyone had a good time…Let’s try to model good behavior for our kids…Please no more shouting, name-calling, bullying, and nastiness….Please let’s move forward…!
Great column! Love all the controversy, but we can talk about it like adults, can’t we? Pretend this is like debate team…! Points off if it gets too vindictive!
Excuse me Leia, but this isn’t the “good boys” site. I will not moderate my tone or language because you permit your child to read material for adults.
What is uncivil about this column? I see nothing but polite disagreement.
The rules to be a good man?
Rule 1: First, do no harm.
Rule 2: See rule one.
Those are the best rules ever! K.I.S.S. keep it short and simple.
You know, CS Lewis once wrote (as a devil) that men tend to see being good as giving no trouble to others, whereas women see it as taking trouble for others. You can argue about socialisation or nature, but you seem to be backing his point up here
Cheers,
Chris.
PS. I realize GWW points to things men ‘do’, but these things arise out of man’s natural being. This kind of doing (that arises out of ‘being’) is very different to doing things on the basis of society’s expectations or demands, which do not have their basis in simple being.
I guess the difference is summed up in following statement by Winnicott: “It cannot be overemphasized that being is the beginning of everything without which doing and being done to have no significance.”
If doing does not spontaneously arise out of a natural state of being, but is imposed on the individual as a demand, the doing itself is an experience of depersonalization.
Beautiful thought. I see this as leading to so many other threads I have been reading and commenting of late. Depersonalization, each person as merely resource for another, not allowed to be for themselves but in service of some other, that other’s view of what they should be or do, that other’s desires or needs being fulfilled. A higher calling, that, to allow others to merely be, without seeing in them only how they can be of use.
Beautifully said yourself, AM! – I like your choice of words, to stop seeing people as “resources”.
All we need to do now is replace “man” with “human”
GirlWritesWhat makes an extremely important point: life involves both ‘being’ and ‘doing’ – and our gender identities have become partitioned into these woefully narrow boxes.
GMP articles always champion some kind of ‘doing’ for men, while affirming women’s right to ‘be’. Thats a tough act to follow.
I wonder what would happen to our discussions, and to society in general, if we begin to frame men’s and boys’ lives in terms of being – being with a freind, being with family, being with nature, being with oneself, being alone, being happy, being sad, being healthy, being unhealthy, being a parent, being proud, being alive…. just being.
According to Donald Winnicott, one of the most celebrated psychoanalysts who ever lived, ‘being’ is the most fundamental aspect of human existence, upon which ‘doing’ is built. He states that in the beginning children’s lives should be about the consolidation of identity, a healthy narcissism which affords the experience of feeling whole, and being real. After consolidating this sense of Me-ness, people go on to learn through doing and acting upon the world – in particular empathy is learned. Winnicott summarises the process thus, “After being – doing and being done to. But first, being”.
He goes on to give many examples of people who have come through earlier life without developing a capacity to be, and that they can only feel like they exist if continuously acting. When the activity stops the individual faces a void of nonidenity, and is prone to depression, madness and suicide. This is why it was so important, for Winnicott, that ‘being’ be afforded much higher weight in mental health.
If we accept Winnicott’s thesis we have to ask what damage has been done in the name of stereotyping. We have stereotyped women as ‘I AM’, and men as those who ‘DO’. Feminism has certainly increased women’s access to all kinds of ‘doing’ in order to balance out thier sense of being – ie. women are now truck drivers, football players, mountain climbers, CEOs, paramedics, soldiers etc. However we need to ask the question of whether we have afforded the converse opportunity for males? Have we taught them how to feel whole and real when they are not doing something? Is it possible that we have not afforded males that opportunity because to do so would remove most of the heavy-lifting and productivity from the world?
Following GWWs above lead, I’d like to challenge everyone here at the Good Men Project to stop the slave-trade of encouraging men to endless action. The real question we need to ask was posed by Shakespeare centuries ago: “To be or not to be, that is the question”.
PS. I realize GWW points to things men ‘do’, but these things arise out of man’s natural being. This kind of doing (that arises out of ‘being’) is very different to doing things on the basis of society’s expectations or demands, which do not have their basis in simple being.
I guess the difference is summed up in following statement by Winnicott: “It cannot be overemphasized that being is the beginning of everything without which doing and being done to have no significance.”
If doing does not spontaneously arise out of a natural state of being, but is imposed on the individual as a demand, the doing itself is an experience of depersonalization.
Have we taught them how to feel whole and real when they are not doing something? Is it possible that we have not afforded males that opportunity because to do so would remove most of the heavy-lifting and productivity from the world?
I think you might have a point. However the sad part is if we are to follow the line of logic of making people equal then wouldn’t this:
….certainly increased women’s access to all kinds of ‘doing’ in order to balance out thier sense of being – ie. women are now truck drivers, football players, mountain climbers, CEOs, paramedics, soldiers etc.
balance that out? If more women are taking on the heavy lifting then why still burden men with it?
Furthermore I think this may point to why men can get defensive when being told to do things by women. Sometimes I don’t think its a matter of refusing to change for the betterment of everyone its a matter of already doing so much and then being asked to do other stuff. Even if its a shift of what is being done that can certain come off as demanding.
Yes, women in the workforce is contributing although still a long way to go to equal men’s contribution to heavy lifting in most occupations. Women have more access to a balanced being/doing existence if they so choose. However I’m afraid the core point of my post is about men’s need to access ‘being’ as a valuable source of existence.
In other words the fact that women are making some contributions to the labour market does not automatically mean that men can now put down their tools and ‘be’. Quite the contrary! Society loves to keep men to the role of active producers of goods, even with the contribution of women, because it’s great for making a robust economy. If men reduced some of their workload in favour of “work-life balance” (women’s choice), then our nations and families would enjoy far less financial prosperity. This, I assume, is one reason why the idea of men learning to ‘be’ is not encouraged on the Good Men Project or anywhere else – we continue to prescribe actions for men.
Our advice to men should be, “Don’t just do something, sit there!”. That way they learn what is is like to become a noun eg. me, man, relaxed, happy, sad), instead of an eternal series of verbs (jumping, rumming, working, lifting, fixing, helping etc).
Yes, women in the workforce is contributing although still a long way to go to equal men’s contribution to heavy lifting in most occupations. Women have more access to a balanced being/doing existence if they so choose. However I’m afraid the core point of my post is about men’s need to access ‘being’ as a valuable source of existence.
In other words the fact that women are making some contributions to the labour market does not automatically mean that men can now put down their tools and ‘be’. Quite the contrary! Society loves to keep men to the role of active producers of goods, even with the contribution of women, because it’s great for making a robust economy. If men reduced some of their workload in favour of “work-life balance” (women’s choice), then our nations and families would enjoy far less financial prosperity. This, I assume, is one reason why the idea of men learning to ‘be’ is not encouraged on the Good Men Project or anywhere else – we continue to prescribe actions for men.
Our advice to men should be, “Don’t just do something, sit there!”. That way they learn what it is like to become a noun (eg. me, man, relaxed, happy, sad), instead of an eternal series of verbs (jumping, rumming, working, lifting, fixing, helping etc).
“Our advice to men should be, “Don’t just do something, sit there!”. That way they learn what it is like to become a noun (eg. me, man, relaxed, happy, sad), instead of an eternal series of verbs (jumping, running, working, lifting, fixing, helping etc).”
With this move men and boys could could draw existential sustinence from simply being: being happy, sad, content, tired, comfortable, uncomfortable, alone, in company, beautiful, handsome, married, unmarried, stylish, fashionable, rich, poor. Males might then say, “Because I’m worth it”, and “I am”, instead of thier current options of, “because I work for it” and “I do”.
Ah. I see. I appreciate the consideration.
This is a beautiful post- it makes me so happy and I’m not even a man! It reminds me of a Buddhist monk who taught his American disciples to meditate on the words: “What I have is enough. What I am in enough.” I think both men and women would be a lot happier if they could just delight in being themselves.
A topically related thread has just gone up at A Voice for Men – All this goodness is killing me: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/all-this-goodness-is-killing-me/comment-page-1/#comment-84700
GWW wrote, “I would put forth the insane proposition that to be a good man, one need only be.”
I had a scan through dozens of GMP articles just now to see if i could find anything inviting men to just be. Nothing. All the articles treat makes like action figures, coaxing them to do this or that to be a better man.
“GMP articles always champion some kind of ‘doing’ for men, while affirming women’s right to ‘be’ ”
Yep we should be talking about what makes people, good people, anything that society constructs as defining good men should equally apply to being a good woman. And anyone who obeys MichelleG’s Rule 1: first do no harm, is welcome to define their own goodness.