Brian Reinholz believes that the timeless quality of what it means to be a man is taking care of things more precious than yourself.
Twenty three-year old Brian Reinholz prefers to be identified as a man. Not “guy” or “bro” or even “dude.” Why? He views manhood as something more than just being macho: to him it means taking care of things that are more important than himself.
“I believe that to be a man, you must be entrusted with things more precious than your own life: be that the lives of a spouse, children, or taking the banner of a spiritual or political cause.”
Brian looks around him and sees other guys his age living without vision or accountability, which he thinks are keys to becoming a great man. Many of his peers avoid responsibility because they are afraid it will turn them into boring, tired people weighed down by eons of obligations. However, he says there’s a lot more to it than that:
“I hope that all young men can see responsibility and discipline not as something to fear, but something to aspire to as a means to greater ends. It’s not a drag on ‘the good times’ … it’s an opportunity, a freedom to aspire to greater things and maximize your self-potential.”
Brett and Kate McKay of The Art of Manliness agree with him: “Unfortunately, a lot of guys get stuck. […] They grow up in a culture that emphasizes negative freedom as the end all, be all of life; happiness equals being able to do whatever you’d like. So they never make the transition from thinking about freedom from, to thinking about freedom to. But that transition is a big part of going from boy to man.”
So, at twenty-three, how does he plan to do that in his own life and how will he carry his vision of manhood into the future?
“[I plan] to build a solid foundation for my life. Specifically: a solid foundation for my marriage, solid principles for parenting, to work on my own character, discipline, virtues, etc. … to have clear life direction as far as my career goes, my purpose, etc. To have a connection to God that is a guiding force in all these aspects.”
While it may sound like he has everything figured out, Brian is quick to acknowledge that is not the case, but the soon he works on it, the faster it will serve and affect his future. He also thinks the meaning of manhood has not really changed over the last couple of decades. While things may change culturally, the core of what it means to be a man in this world is the same as is always has been and always will be:
“We can still look to the men who, throughout history, put others before themselves, fought for what they believed in, loved with reckless abandon, faced adversity and didn’t blame others for their hardships. These are the type of men we should all aspire to be. There’s no finish line—it’s a daily battle with the darker parts of our nature, and the belief in better days ahead.”
Photo credit: andrewmalone / Flickr
About Brian Reinholz
I agree and have made this point here numerous times. As I mentioned here earlier today, my wife considers me the head of the family – which means I put them first. I am the one that serves them. Well, we serve each other but if one of us must carry the heaviest burden (whatever that burden may be), it will always be me. I am happy to do it and ultimately benefit from having a happy, secure family that loves and respects me.
The things you describe, putting others before yourself, I’ve been doing for about 32 years or so. I don’t expect or feel I deserve a commendation or medal for this as it just felt the right thing to do. I do take exception with your last statement “it’s a daily battle with the darker parts of our nature”. There was no “battle”, never a question of what was right. Did I Behave wrongly at times? Of course, still do at times (impaitence is a reaccuring flaw of mine and often causes me to make moves and decisions I regret). One piece of unsolicited advice,if your not married with a family just yet, enjoy a little “Bro & Dude” time. Just be ready to step up when the time comes.
And being a woman means putting yourself before others!
Indeed. That is true as well. Mrs. Eric M. does that all the time.
“I believe that to be a man, you must be entrusted with things more precious than your own life: be that the lives of a spouse, children, or taking the banner of a spiritual or political cause.”
- That’s what you believe in, keyword being: YOU.-
“Brian looks around him and sees other guys his age living without vision or accountability, which he thinks are keys to becoming a great man. Many of his peers avoid responsibility because they are afraid it will turn them into boring, tired people weighed down by eons of obligations. However, he says there’s a lot more to it than that:”
- Both men and woman should be accountable & responsible for things THEY took a part in creating.-
“I hope that all young men can see responsibility and discipline not as something to fear, but something to aspire to as a means to greater ends. It’s not a drag on ‘the good times’ … it’s an opportunity, a freedom to aspire to greater things and maximize your self-potential.”
I someone doesn’t want to put themselves into a situation that will bring about more responsibility and discipline that’s their choose to make and no one else.
““We can still look to the men who, throughout history, put others before themselves, fought for what they believed in, loved with reckless abandon, faced adversity and didn’t blame others for their hardships. These are the type of men we should all aspire to be. There’s no finish line—it’s a daily battle with the darker parts of our nature, and the belief in better days ahead.””
Putting others above yourself (often times) and loving with reckless abandon are both foolish endeavors.
“I believe that to be a man, you must be entrusted with things more precious than your own life: be that the lives of a spouse ..”
Well, at least this one is honest about his prejudice.
Telling men that their lives are worth less than the lives of women may be honest, but it is a terrible crime. The cost of this horror is measured in hundreds of thousands of lost lives per year, as boys and men throw their own “worthless” lives away in acts of suicide or worse.
Do you have ANY idea of the incaculable harm that this kind of message does?
Brian, if I may comment, you only get it halfway when it comes to being a man.
Being a man also means standing up for yourself and your feelings, fighting back against those who use assumption and stereotypes as a gauge.
The thing is though, men putting others before themselves has lead to where they are now in the first place: Lost and confused. So all they have to draw on are unhealthy expressions of masculanity and women’s ideas of what they should be according to their standards. Caught between these two things with no self-confidence in expressing their true feelings thanks to society’s mixed messages given to them (“Please, do tell us about what you truly feel” followed by “Shut it and man up. You’re still at the top of the heap so your problems are nothing compared to women”), now they’re truly without a rudder to guide them.
So you’re only half-right with the subject.
People who are generous in giving end up being the rich ones, the loved ones, the appreciated ones, the respected ones, the ones who, when they have a need, people are anxious to rush to their aid. They want to give back.
Whereas, me-first self-centeredness is a fast trip to nowhere and thin and shallow relationships. Women love men who are strong in their willingness to give of themselves, especially for their families and those in need. After spending time with my family the other night, I got an emergency call to assist a person in need of medical assistance. I left the house on a work-night and didn’t get back home until 2:30, only to get up for work at 5:45. My family missed me but loves and respects me for being willing to put another person’s critical health and well being first when possible.
In addition to having my family’s love and respect, based on that one incident, the lady whom I helped through that crisis (and her family) does as well. They will always remember me for what I gave not what I recieved. You don’t give just so that you can get, but the only way you get such rewards is by giving.
Studies and research says otherwise.
Where are these studies and research? It’s been in my experience that selfless individuals are often better off than selfish ones.
Keep in mind the how tricky it is to establish causal relationships. It could just as well be that being well off and respected makes it easier to be generous with other people. But being generous and selfless may not be a good strategy for becoming well off and respected.
I’m not saying that _is_ the case. But it’s worth noting as a possibility. My actual guess is that there is some combination of factors at work.
“People who are generous in giving end up being the rich ones, the loved ones, the appreciated ones, the respected ones, the ones who, when they have a need, people are anxious to rush to their aid. They want to give back.”
Tell that to the plethora of fathers out there who did everything for their children, only to have them torn away, called abusers, denied the chance to see those children, stripped of their assets and left with a pittance of their pay after taxes, spousal and child support and unable to pay any legal fee’s because the courts are making him pay his ex’s instead.
The fact is, the self sacrificing definition of manhood was part of a social contract that has long had it’s benefits eroded, and it’s value deminished. A self sacrificing man is not respected, it is now a definition of manhood used to silence men who see things have become hostile.
Why should I be obligated to sacrificing myself for others (and telling me I must to be a good man is putting that obligation on me), when in return, all I get is accusations I am a rapist, an abuser, a deadbeat, my concerns don’t matter (IE, I must sacrifice myself, but may not do so on my own terms), and that more useless than a bicycle to a fish, etc etc etc.
Mark, I get what you’re saying. And I’m NOT saying that there aren’t horrifically selfish women out there who will abuse a good man’s sacrifices. My point applies equally to women. Being a selfish person (male or female) gets us as individuals, families, a nation, and a global society nowhere fast.
The “me-first” philosophy (even if unspoken) has resulted in precisely what you are referring to. Blame can’t be placed exclusively or primarily on the shoulders of men or women, as both are equally guilty (IMO) of making things all about themselves – later for the husband, later for the wife, later for the kids, later for everybody except me.
On the other hand, I do believe that leaders do the right thing regardless of what others do. That doesn’t mean you have to just take abuse, but it does mean that you do not become that which you hate – selfish and hateful. That becomes a vicious cycle.
As you may have surmised, my life and family are not run according feminist/gender-blending psychobabble philosophies. I am unapologetically the head of my family. With that role comes responsibility and accountability. I am responsible and accountable to ensure their safety and well being, along with my own. In return I get much love and respect from Mrs. Eric M and the two little Ms. Eric M’s.
If there is mutual love and respect in the family, nobody’s sacrifices get abused. We all care for each other.
” My point applies equally to women.”
And yet, this article (I know, you didn’t write it) is named “being a man means …”. This article tells us repeatedly that this sacrifice is a part of manhood. You yourself, in the sentence before this quoted one, say ” a good man’s sacrifices”, reinforcing what the article says. All this makes clear that it is required of men. Sure, it’s nice of women to likewise make sacrifices for her family, but it’s only required of a man. At least, so long as he wants to be identified as a man and not a boy.
” Blame can’t be placed exclusively or primarily on the shoulders of men or women, as both are equally guilty (IMO) of making things all about themselves”
But are they? This article, by it’s very nature, would suggest otherwise. After all, if being a man is about sacrificing yourself for others, has been in the past, and should continue to be, by the accounts of the author and yourself, then which of these self-sacrificing men are equally to blame for failing to be self-sacrificing? It has only been since the coming of 2nd wave feminism and especially it’s Dworkin/MacKinnon (AKA anti-family) elements, that this me me me attitude even began to emerge, and even more recent than that that it is witnessed in the larger selection of men (there will always be examples of individual selfishness).
I’m not blaming feminism exclusively for it all, but I certainly would argue their radicals are primarily to blame. The one sidedness of family courts, sexual harrassment and domestic violence laws and policies is evidence that women’s interests are the primary beneficiaries of government succumbing to that me me me attitude.
” I am unapologetically the head of my family. With that role comes responsibility and accountability. I am responsible and accountable to ensure their safety and well being, along with my own. In return I get much love and respect from Mrs. Eric M and the two little Ms. Eric M’s.”
What you left out is, “by the good graces of Mrs. Eric M”. If ever she choose to change that dynamic, you are at her mercy. All those sacrifices you’ve made, will continue to be expected, even enforced by threat of incarceration, if she so chooses. The much love and respect she gave you, no longer required for her to enjoy your sacrifice. That unappologetic authority you once enjoyed in exchange for your sacrifices, now used to identify you as an abuser, controlling, allowing your children to be stripped away. And should you ever deem to expect compensation, or even accountability for the sacrifices you are now mandated to make, you will earn yourself a restraining order or worst and told it’s your own fault, and ironically, for you, they might actually be right.
Brian, – You are very misguided if you think that any women including your wife is more important or valuable then yourself. Proud to be a man? Seems like there is a distinct lake of confidence, self respect, value of oneself going on here. Serving women and as if you are some “worker bee” is not what being a man us all about, it is what women have told men like you that being a man is all about. And the real irony is that the more you act in this way that you think is a “man” the less women including your own wife will be attracted to you. So go ahead and grovel, more for the rest of us!
I did not even think of the Game implications. You are correct, most (not all) women try to coerce men into shameless grovelling, and then have no respect or attraction to the self-denigrating loser.
If you think being generous or loving your family (as women also place themselves in sacrificial roles in family, both should look to take care of the other) is groveling? I don’t know how to understand this.
Not all of us want “game” in our lives. We want people, good times, love, connection.
Julie, you are taking the issues out of context. The author claims that the wife is more valuable than the man himself. It is not about being generous or loving your family. A person can be generous and love his family without self-depreciation. If any sacrifices are to be made, then they should be made for the benefit of the family. If a man hold out that he is less valuable than this wife and his wife also starts believing so, then his wife would certainly lose respect for him. When any sacrifices are to be made, then you know the less valuable thing is sacrificed. The attitude of the author is self destructive. It shows his lack of experience in the real world.
What Brian seem to be saying is that he has decided that the lives of a spouse, children, a political, or religious idea are worth committing his life to. That by committing his life to the benefit of something he values he gives his life purpose, and in that way he makes his life more valuable to himself. I commend Brian on that it is a very difficult thing to do and is a truly manly and admirable decision
By deciding that a political or religious idea is more valuable than his life, he did not become manly, but a “useful idiot” for others to manipulate.
In today’s society working hard and uncomplainingly for others will just earn you a shorter lifespan, little if any respect perhaps surprisingly but even especially from the woman in your life, and contempt from society in general.
Most men are like this, but what sort of respect do they get? They get the powers that be playing with statistics to paint them as heartless, thoughtless, violent abusers, pedophiles and rapists.
That women today are so paranoid of the average man speaks to the effectiveness of that propaganda.
Young men are starting to understand that they will never get the respect they deserve even when they are at they are at their best and are thus are less likely to go through the effort required to do so. Not all mind you but the trend is when society offers all “stick” (shaming) and no “carrot” (respect) then this is the way it will go.
Very nicely put. You’ve just made yourself a few enemies.
I couldn’t agree more Brian. Especially with this:
“I hope that all young men can see responsibility and discipline not as something to fear, but something to aspire to as a means to greater ends. It’s not a drag on ‘the good times’ … it’s an opportunity, a freedom to aspire to greater things and maximize your self-potential.”
In our” me” culture, I fear this is something we are loosing in both young men and women.
Not a matter of groveling. A man might have to insist his family do the right thing, even if they don’t want to, and accept that they’re going to be annoyed at him.
OTOH, I talked to a MSW in family practice who said that if a dad/hubby does not, from time to time, arbitrarily inconvenience the family in favor of his own interests–not, say, insisting the kids not play in the street but perhaps a hobby of his own–they will have no respect for him. And if he needs to get their attention about something important, he’ll be…um, spitting to windward. Catch hell.
Counterintuitive for us traditional guys.
Thanks everyone for your comments…I wanted to reply to each individually but there are quite a few!
I appreciate the input that several people brought up about the dangers of being a martyr. Certainly, both men and women have found themselves in abusive (emotionally/physically) relationships under the pretense of “putting others before themselves.”
However, altruism is at the heart of moral courage. If we lose a sense of self-sacrifice (granted, this self-sacrifice needs common sense and care for the self too!!), I think the world will be a far worse place.
Think of it this way…have you ever tried to move from one house to another by yourself? It sucks. But moving with 6 friends is a breeze. So it is with many things in life…if we put others before ourselves we all get built up.
As to the comments of men sacrificing vs. women sacrificing, yes, I think both should. But the question for this piece was what does being a man mean to you, not what do you think your wife should do for you. My wife often sacrifices for me and for our family too…I don’t go into every day with this expectation that she will, but more often than not she pleasantly surprises me. Maybe that sounds idealistic, but I think it’s a better 2-way relationships than both of us worrying about getting “what’s rightfully ours.”
Well… each relationship has a dynamic that “works” for it..
I would generally have highest expectations of my mate, as she would of me.
Just in general, it’s sad where there there is only reciprocity instead of both partners just giving 110%…
Please stop hurting people. Please just stop it. And don’t pretend to not know what I’m talking about because anyone knows that saying people’s genitalia make them less valuable is going to hurt. I did not ask to be a man and I’m sick and tired of demands, shaming, devaluing and restrictions just because I happen to be born with these so hated male genitalia. Being a man is nothing other than an accident of birth, same for women. Neither is an accomplishment nor a subscription to subservience. It neither entitles nor obligates you to anything. Apparently you didn’t know that.
So all I’m doing is asking you to stop hurting people. And, if it’s not too much trouble, could you possibly also stop telling others how they should live their lives. Nobody, especially not you, can claim to have the wisdom to know how even one single other person should live let alone half of the population – “carefully” selected by their genitalia.
Where are all those “egalitarian” feminists now, huh? Not speaking out against hateful sexism on the same site where you’re an author, makes you a responsible. This “egalitarian fraud” will not last for ever. Sooner or later, the truth will come out – no matter how many idiots you manage to convince. And then, all the harm it has done will be on your conscience.
Hi Adi – I am sorry for the hurt you feel.
I apologize that what I said seems to have come across as trying to make men feel guilty, or shamed, into being self-sacrificial. Rather, I want to encourage us all to live our lives with vision, with honor, with a desire to do good to those around us, and yes, to put others first NOT because they’re ‘better’ than us but because we want to see good done in our world.
I am proud to be a man and I think we all should be. I don’t want anyone to feel ashamed.
“Think of it this way…have you ever tried to move from one house to another by yourself? It sucks. But moving with 6 friends is a breeze. So it is with many things in life…if we put others before ourselves we all get built up.”
What you are describing is generosity, not sacrifice. Generosity is helping a friend move on a day off, sacrifice is helping a friend move while you should be speaking to a banker waits to help you stop your house from being forclosed. Generosity is giving a homeless person the 5 dollars you happened to have in your pocket, sacrifice is giving away the only 5 dollars you have to your name. Generosity is giving away what you can spare, sacrifice is giving away what you can not. Putting others before ourselves is sacrifice, not generosity.
As the saying goes, you must help yourself before you can help others. Doing it this way allows the potential for both myself and others to survive, doing it your way increases the others chance at the expense of your own, which would then leave you dead and nobody left to continue helping, ultimately reducing both persons chances to survive.
“As to the comments of men sacrificing vs. women sacrificing, yes, I think both should. ”
If it is an attribute that both genders should share, why then is it a defining characteristic of being a good man? Does this suggest a woman should also strive to be a good man? Or is it instead that generosity (not self sacrifice) is an attribute of being a good person, and has nothing to do with manhood, at which point, what then was the purpose of this article?
Having more responsibilites is a “drag on good times”
While self sacrifice itself isn’t bad there should always be limits.
Thing is everyone has a different meaning of self sacrifice and this becomes a problem when people are fighting to put their meaning above others
——–
The same can be said about what it means to be a man or “real man”.
There are people who will use the average man’s need to be seen as a “real man” by society to take advantage of them.
Their definition of a “real man” tends to fit nicely with the advantages and disadvantages they have in their lives.
I’ve had single mothers tell me that a “real man” would have no problem entering a relationship with a woman who had a child.
“I hope that all young men can see responsibility and discipline not as something to fear, but something to aspire to as a means to greater ends. It’s not a drag on ‘the good times”
Here you insinuate that young men fear responsibility and discipline, what’s the problem with not wanting to carry on more responsiblities ?
Well, if you are going to be the one making these sacrifices, then I see you as necessarily being in a position of authority. I know if my ass is the one on the line then you can be sure I will be calling the shots. The modern resentment stems from the fact that men are expected to pay the costs without getting to be the boss. Male dominance has fallen out of fashion while male servitude has not. Take your pick, please.
So conversely, being a woman is all about putting yourself ahead of men.
If putting others first is the defining quality of masculinity, then it this is what is being said about women.
“Ladies first”, “Women and children first” – chivalry and feminism have so much in common.
That might be implied but that’s not the point. I wouldn’t recommend that if you’re a wife and/or mother especially.
“I believe that to be a man, you must be entrusted with things more precious than your own life: be that the lives of a spouse, children, or taking the banner of a spiritual or political cause.”
so being an unmarried, atheist, with no children, who doesn’t identify with a political theory makes me a 27 year old child?
… I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel insulted.
Screw this. You want men to start “taking on more adult responsibility”? You’d better damn well make it worth our while to do so. I can’t even afford to take care of myself without working two, maybe even three jobs. (A single gallon of gas is a half-hour’s worth of labor for me) And damn near every time I’ve “put others ahead of myself” I’ve been kicked in the face for my trouble. I will probably never be able to retire, and I’ve taken on thousands of dollars worth of debt to attempt to get a degree that probably won’t help me get a job anyway.
There is nothing more harmful to a family than a loved one who takes a self sacrificial role and consequently will not talk about let alone deal with his own problems until it’s too late. You cannot even help such a person because doing so will make them pull away further and even lead to breaking up the family leaving everyone with a crushing sense of guilt and resentment at each other.
We are ultimately all responsible first and foremost to our own well being. We cannot help others if we don’t first help ourselves. There is a reason why rescue services prioritize the safety of their servicemen because if they didn’t, then MORE people get hurt in the end leaving MORE people in need of rescue.
There is also a HUGE fallacious assumption in this entire article and the resulting discussion. Namely the assumption that putting your own needs first implies that you ONLY care about your needs. In other words, according to the author a man is either a self sacrificial servant or a selfish good for nothing delinquent. The possibility that you could take care of your own needs AND the needs of others seems to escape people entirely. Absurd, when considering that this is the only healthy and lasting way to build any kind of relationship.
A very short sighted and sexist article that demonstrates all too well how oppressed men really are.
Yes. As the flight attendants say: “Put on your won oxxygen mask before helping others”. Everyone can see the sense in that instruction. It can however have a subtextual meaning where a man must take care of oneself IN ORDER TO be able to help others. A meaning which erases any self-inherent worth of the man – he is reduced to his function and what he is to others. One way this sentiment surface is in reports focusing only on the impact male suffering (killings, imprisonment etc.) has on the comunity, wifes/widows and chilren without any consideration at all about the suffering of the men themselves. A framing I find just as jarring as most people would find a report about the numbers of female murder victims in Juárez focusing on the impact this has on the birth rate.
Adi did avoid this pitfall by using AND, but there is no lack of people who seem to think that the only wortwhile reason for a man to take care of his own needs is for him to be of some use to others.
Men are often not good at taking care of themselves (men use health services to a much lower degree than women where I live) and I think that appealing to their sense of duty to others (family and so on) rather than focusing on their own need and wellbeing as a goal in itself. In fact in cases where men don’t have (or believe they don’t have) anyone (for instance single men, divorced men) the focus on their well-being as a means to be of use to others can in fact be harmful.
I think you two have missed the overarching point here. The best leaders do so by example, which includes being willing to sacrifice for the benefit of others – but not to the unnecessary detriment of self, thereby denying your family of your healthy presence.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate it is the example of Captain C.B. “Sully” Sullenberger, who DID get off the plane finally, but not until he ensured that all under his stewardship were off safely. He did NOT go down with the ship unnecessarily, but he was fully prepared to do so in order to ensure his passengers’ safety. That is what a leader does. He leads by example, but he is balanced and reasonable as well. He doesn’t harm himself without cause.
Likewise, a husband and father who is a good leader will be reasonable and not unnecessarily compromise his own health and well being since, in the end, he will be of less value to his family as a sick or even dead person. On the other hand, he won’t put his own needs/desires/comfort ahead of theirs. The best leaders lead by example. So, if a man wants his family to be health conscious, he must be health conscious; but, not to their detriement, such that he quits his job to ensure he has time to stay in tip top shape.
There is a reasonable balance but to argue that putting one’s needs/wants/desires first and foremost without considering the impact on one’s family is not a healthy life philosophy. In my opinion.
“to argue that putting one’s needs/wants/desires first and foremost without considering the impact on one’s family is not a healthy life philosophy. ”
Classic straw man fallacy. I never said that one should not consider the impact on one’s family. I clearly pointed out that there are more ways than either “selfish” or “selfless”. You don’t seem to think so. Even your mention of “pointless” self sacrifice verses “necessary” self sacrifice rests entirely on its utility for others. In other words, he’s either selfish in sacrificing himself in an useless way or he’s selfless by sacrificing himself when necessary.
And you miss another important aspect of taking the sacrificial role. Doing so requires a particular mindset. Being willing to sacrifice is not just a decision like who does the dishes. It comes with a lot of consequences for the man. Your example of the Captain was pertinent in as much as it is a stereotypical example of a man who must not show weakness or let go of control – the very issue that most people ascribe to the damaging concepts of masculine gender roles. Apparently you missed the last 50 years of gender emancipation.
“I clearly pointed out that there are more ways than either “selfish” or “selfless”. You don’t seem to think so.”
Strawman. And not even a good one.
Your “gender emancipation” brings us men like cowardly, selfish “Captain” Francesco Schettino who made sure to take very good care of himself first, abandoning his ship with 4,000 passengers in order to do so, causing the drowing of 25 passengers. Thankfully, waitresses and singers stayed on board to heroically help the majority survive, some dying in the effort. Good thing they grasped the concept of being willing to be self-sacificing or the death toll could have reached the hundreds or thousands.
So, thanks but no thanks. I’ll stick with “non-gender emancipated” Captains like Sully Sullenberger, who not only saved every single passenger but he got back to his family safely. Free from the “gender emancipation”, we manage to stay married for life, love our wives and children, earn their love and respect, and care for them and ourselves quite well. That’s what leaders do, that’s what putting others first delivers.
Putting yourself first results in male and female versions of Captain Schinetto, resulting in a 50% divorce rate and a majority of children living without one or both parents in the home. Yeah, I think I’ll skip your “gender emancipation.”
What you are failing to include is the degree of responsibility a Captain has over the situation. Captain Schettino is deemed cowardly because he was the Captain (name me a single member of the bridge crew that was with him on the lifeboat. You likely can’t (without a great deal of research) because, despite them doing exactly the same thing the Captain did, they had not been given the authority to, nor the responsibility for, everyone’s safety), he was the one responsable for everyones safety, he was the one responsible for the ships safety, and when he failed to do the latter, it is expected he assure the former. These expectations are on him, not because he is a man, but because he was given the responsibility to do so, with the authority to ensure he could do so. Men no longer have the authority they once had, we sacrificed that to serve women’s interests, so demanding that we (alone… by defining it as an aspect of manhood) maintain the responsibility is unreasonable, even destructive.
@ Eric.
If you want to stand a chance in a debate with me, you will have to maintain a minimum standard that includes pointing out where and why something I said was supposedly a fallacy. Just calling something a “straw man” is insufficient bordering pathetic.
Let me show you how it’s done:
“Your “gender emancipation” brings us men like cowardly, selfish “Captain” Francesco Schettino…“
There are several fallacies in this statement either one of which are sufficient to nullify your argument:
1) We do not know if he is gender emancipated. You’re simply assuming he’s gender emancipated and any reasoning based on assumptions can only conclude in assumptions.
2) It’s anecdotal evidence. Even if we did know that he’s gender emancipated, this one example of cowardly behavior says nothing because you can find one example of pretty much anything in human behavior – in particular also cowardly behavior in non-emancipated men as well as courageous behavior in emancipated men.
3) As pointed out by Mark, this captain was there as a captain. His obligation to stay on board was part of his duty and had nothing whatsoever to do with his genitalia. If it had been a woman, the exact same failure should carry the exact same consequences since there is no difference in the duties of a female captain. So it has no meaning in an argument concerning male/female behavior.
I also suspect that your example is an appeal to emotions as it’s a particularly dramatic situation. It’s an attempt to sway opinion your way by showing how terrible something is whilst quietly hoping nobody will notice that it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
That suspicion is strengthened when you go on giving us an example of a non gender emancipated captain:
“So, thanks but no thanks. I’ll stick with “non-gender emancipated” Captains like Sully Sullenberger, who not only saved every single passenger but he got back to his family safely.”
Here you manage to make more fallacious arguments:
1) First of all the “Thanks but I’ll stick with…” is a straw man since I never said you should not stick with it. Remember, I’m not the one telling other people how to live. I’m not suggesting people should not live conservative lives and have rigid gender roles for themselves. I’m arguing that people should not force those roles or any other beliefs on others.
2) All three of the fallacies in the other example are repeated here.
On we go:
“Free from the “gender emancipation”, we manage to stay married for life, love our wives and children, earn their love and respect, and care for them and ourselves quite well.”
1) “Free from the gender emancipation” is absurdly contradictory because gender emancipation is itself freedom from something.
2) For this to be false, I need only point out a single example where it was not true. I won’t even bother since I think we can assume there to be such examples since there are plenty of non-emancipated relationships that failed.
3) You have not given us any reason to believe such a fantastic statement.
“That’s what leaders do, that’s what putting others first delivers.“
Saying it does not make it true anymore than telling you the earth is flat will make it flat.
The number of fallacies in what little you have to say, is impressive. I’ll give you that.
Your “gender emancipation” brings us men like cowardly, selfish “Captain” Francesco Schettino…“
Captain Coward Schettino did precisely what you claim gender emancipated men do, “show weakness” and “let go of control.” You can have the gender emancipated Schettino. I’ll stick with the likes of Sully.
His behavior is an exact match to what you described as the traits that 50 years of gender emancipation has taught certain men, which has freed them from “damaging concepts of masculine gender roles.” Ask the families of the 25 dead people how they feel about a captain who “showed weakness” and “let go of control”, killing their loved ones.
“His obligation to stay on board was part of his duty and had nothing whatsoever to do with his genitalia. If it had been a woman, the exact same failure should carry the exact same consequences since there is no difference in the duties of a female captain. So it has no meaning in an argument concerning male/female behavior.”
His obligation was to NOT “show weakness” and NOT “let go of control”, which is precisely what you claim gender-emancipated men do.
“I also suspect that your example is an appeal to emotions as it’s a particularly dramatic situation. It’s an attempt to sway opinion your way by showing how terrible something is whilst quietly hoping nobody will notice that it’s irrelevant to the discussion.”
It’s a stud y in contrasts between behavior that you claim are “damaging concepts of masculine gender roles” (Sully) and one who meets the description of a man who is “gender emancipated.”
“Remember, I’m not the one telling other people how to live.”
Correction. You are telling men that they “show weakness” and “let go of control” because they are “damaging concepts of masculine gender roles.”
These are your words, not mine.
“I’m not suggesting people should not live conservative lives and have rigid gender roles for themselves.”
Saying that it is “damaging” does exactly that. Not that it will change what people do anyway. . .
“I’m arguing that people should not force those roles or any other beliefs on others.”
Where did you say that?
“Free from the gender emancipation” is absurdly contradictory because gender emancipation is itself freedom from something.”
Sorry but my family expects me to “not show weakness” in the face of challenges and not “let go of control.”
“For this to be false, I need only point out a single example where it was not true. I won’t even bother since I think we can assume there to be such examples since there are plenty of non-emancipated relationships that failed.”
Sure but your gender emancipation has resulted in the highest divorce and single parent households in history.
Most of this is just trying to throw his words back in his face, without proper context. You repeatedly equate Captain Schettino’s cowardice with his gender, and choose to ignore his position as captain. Furthermore, you choose to ignore the idea that calling any man on that boat a coward for not moving to the back of the queue is nothing more than a shaming tactic used on men to give women privilege.
The old social contract, where men’s general selflessness was rewarded with respect and authority, both within the family, and within the greater society as a whole, no longer exists. The selflessness is still expected, but there exists no respect or authority, unless given freely by an individual woman. So if I can “hope” to get that respect and authority from one woman, at best (and not even that is assured), why then should I be expected to sacrifice myself for any random stranger, and put at risk my own family through my abcense? This is what calling the men on that boat cowards is intended to enforce, specifically, male sacrifice. The fact Captain Schettino is particularly reviled is not because he was a man, there were plenty of men on that boat, but because he was the Captain. Because he WAS given the respect and authority, in exchange for the responsibility, a responsibility he failed to live up to, three time (once by grounding the boat in the first place, once by abandoning ship, and once by refusing to go back when ordered to).
“Sorry but my family expects me to “not show weakness” in the face of challenges and not “let go of control.””
That is your familial contract, not a social one I must follow in order to “be a real man”.
“Sure but your gender emancipation has resulted in the highest divorce and single parent households in history.”
Has it? Or perhaps it is the highest divorce and single parent rates in history that have caused this male gender emancipation? After all, while female gender emancipation began well before divorce rates and single parent households started falling, the emergance of the man-child/peter-pan syndrome accusations are actualy quite recent.
I suspect however, Adi will just point out this is yet another fallicy, equating correlation with causation.
“You repeatedly equate Captain Schettino’s cowardice with his gender, and choose to ignore his position as captain.”
1) He is a man.
2) He “showed weakness”
3) He “let go of control”
According to Adi’s own words, that is a “gender emanicipated” man. Schettino is a perfect match.
“the idea that calling any man on that boat a coward for not moving to the back of the queue is nothing more than a shaming tactic used on men to give women privilege.”
Strawman. Feel free to quote me having said that. I’ll be here.
“The old social contract, where men’s general selflessness was rewarded with respect and authority, both within the family, and within the greater society as a whole, no longer exists.”
It exists in my household, in my family, and in my very large social circle.
“ why then should I be expected to sacrifice myself for any random stranger, and put at risk my own family through my abcense?”
I personally don’t expect you to do anything in particular. Do whatever you want. But, it works for me and hundreds of men that I know.
“This is what calling the men on that boat cowards is intended to enforce, specifically, male sacrifice.”
No idea what you’re talking about. I never mentioned “the men on the boat” or called anyone other than the captain a coward, which he is.
“ The fact Captain Schettino is particularly reviled is not because he was a man, there were plenty of men on that boat, but because he was the Captain.”
The captain’s supposed to be the last to abandon ship, man, woman, young, old, rich, poor, black, white.
“That is your familial contract, not a social one I must follow in order to “be a real man”.
Fine Do whatever you want.
“I suspect however, Adi will just point out this is yet another fallicy, equating correlation with causation.”
No fallacy at all. The social changes s/he espouses have without a doubt contributed to the changes in the family.
“1) He is a man.
2) He “showed weakness”
3) He “let go of control”
According to Adi’s own words, that is a “gender emanicipated” man. Schettino is a perfect match.”
There were lots of men on that boat that did the exact same thing. It is the captain that is called a coward for it because HE WAS THE CAPTAIN, not because he was a man. This is what you are missing, or choosing to be blissfully ignorant of. The only reason he is deemed a coward is because he failed his station, not his gender.
“Strawman. Feel free to quote me having said that. I’ll be here.”
But it’s ot a strawman, as, for you to claim it is his gender, and not his station as Captain, that is the source of his shame, you must also equally apply that same shame to all other men on that boat that did the same as him. And doing that is precisely what I described. After all, if being a male who “let go of control” makes one a coward and bellow contempt (as you clearly feel for this captain), then you are saying every man on that ship that did not put themselves at the end of the queue behind the women fits that description. If you do not feel that way, then there must be something more about the captain to promote such a response to him specifically. In other words, there isn’t anything wrong with a man who “showed weakness” and “let go of control”, instead, there is a problem with a CAPTAIN who “showed weakness” and “let go of control”.
“It exists in my household, in my family, and in my very large social circle.”
It does not exists in law, in politics, the workplace or anywhere else that actually controls your life. Your “very large social circle” is a tiny speck in the grand scheme of things. As a man, you are a rapist, an abuser, a pedophile, a deadbeat, a drunk, all until you prove yourself otherwise, for each and every person you meet.
“I personally don’t expect you to do anything in particular.”
You are arguing for this articles assertion that, for me to be a man, a real man, I must do so. So, yes, you are putting that expectation onto me, or otherwise calling me less than a man.
“No idea what you’re talking about. I never mentioned “the men on the boat” or called anyone other than the captain a coward, which he is.”
Then it isn’t his being a man that causes that accusation of cowardess. His being a man has nothing to do with his being called cowardess, or else it would likewise apply to all other men on that boat. Which is it, a man who “showed weakness” and “let go of control” is a coward (in which case, you’re calling all those men on board cowards, or else a man who “showed weakness” and “let go of control” isn’t a coward, and it is something other than his manhood that resulted in the captains cowardly label? Which is it?
“The captain’s supposed to be the last to abandon ship, man, woman, young, old, rich, poor, black, white.”
Exactly, yet you attribute his cowardess to his being a man and abandoning ship, not for being a CAPTAIN and abandoning ship…
“Fine Do whatever you want.”
Then don’t challenge my claim to manhood for not living to your expectations and social contracts, like this articles writer did, and you have defended.
“No fallacy at all. The social changes s/he espouses have without a doubt contributed to the changes in the family.”
You have provided no proof that they have contributed to those familial changes and are not a result of those familial changes (IE, that those familial changes contributed to the social changes). There most certainly is a correlation, but in what direction is not clear. This means you are incorrectly equating correlation with causation. That is a fallacy
@ Eric
You’re still trying. How cute.
It’s a pity your ability to learn is nullified by (hopefully just) your determination to crusade for the “good old” values. One would have thought the verbal spanking, that your attempt to argue with me has earned you, might have given you a reason to consider that your pathetic need for validation of the “good old” values might not be quite fruitful enough to justify such intellectual humiliation as you’re receiving right now. But that, of course, is assuming that such consideration is even something you’re emotionally capable of given that you might think of it as a “weakness”.
It was fun once, and while you might be longing to receive more verbal flagellation, I neither have the time nor the interest in repetitive revelations of your intellectual inferiority. There’s just no victory in defeating the helpless. That’s why I’m no longer engaging in your salad of incoherent chains of logical fallacies you try to use in place of actual arguments.
Chances are you will try to rattle my cage by desperately claiming my opting out was an indication that I have no more arguments. Oh well, still better than being stuck in an infantile tantrum of endlessly repeated misquotes and non sequiturs. Even having you admit being wrong would still make me feel like an idiot for caring enough to try.
If this upsets you, then perhaps you should just “take it like a man”.
There were lots of men on that boat that did the exact same thing.”
Leaving a sinking ship is common sense.
“It is the captain that is called a coward for it because HE WAS THE CAPTAIN, not because he was a man.
Wrong. Adi gendered it, not me. Take your argument up with him. He defined “gender emancipated” in the context of criticizing Captain Sully for not “letting go of control” and “not showing weakness.” By contrast, Schinetto did precisely those things, matching his definition of a “gender emancipated” MAN.
Strawman. Quote me using the term “shame.” I’ll wait.
Secondly, all of this is obfuscation of the point that Captain Coward meets Adi’s definition of a “gender emancipated” man. He put it in writing. Nothing you are he can do to wriggle out of it.
After all, if being a male who “let go of control” . . .
Adi’s definition – take your argument up with him.
“. . . makes one a coward and bellow contempt (as you clearly feel for this captain). . .
Uh, no, the family of the 25 dead people he killed, the nation of Italy, the prosecutor who has charged him with 25 counts of manslaughter and other charges, Carnival Cruise lines, and many people around the world are the ones that have the contempt for him.
“, then you are saying every man on that ship that did not put themselves at the end of the queue behind the women fits that description.”
Yet another strawman. . . Quote me as saying that. I’ll wait.
“If you do not feel that way, then there must be something more about the captain to promote such a response to him specifically.”
Aside from the 25 people he drowned? I think that will do.
Read the thread. Adi criticized Captain Sullenberger as being an example of “damaging concepts of masculine gender roles.” He started this by implying that “showing weakness” and “letting go of control” would have made Sully a better captain. To test that theory, I pointed to Captain Coward to did exactly that. Feel free to make your argument to the families of the 25 drowned passengers.
“In other words, there isn’t anything wrong with a man who “showed weakness” and “let go of control”, instead, there is a problem with a CAPTAIN who “showed weakness” and “let go of control”.
You’re confusing weakness with common sense. Getting off a sinking ship or leaving a burning building are exercising common sense, not “showing weakness.” A male passenger has no more “control” to “let go of” than a female passenger. So, your argument here doesn’t apply.
“It does not exists in law, in politics, the workplace or anywhere else that actually controls your life.”
Wrong. I don’t need and won’t permit you, the government, my company or anyone else to tell me how to behave as man. I got dis.
“As a man, you are a rapist, an abuser, a pedophile, a deadbeat, a drunk, all until you prove yourself otherwise, for each and every person you meet.”
Only within feminism. Thankfully, most women and men reject feminism for reasons including that it advocates and/or tolerates of such views.
“You are arguing for this articles assertion that, for me to be a man, a real man, I must do so. So, yes, you are putting that expectation onto me, or otherwise calling me less than a man.”
Let me 100% clear. It is not humanly possible for me to care less about what you do or do not do. Clear? I did not write the article. Read my comment on it. That is my view based on my experience, study, and observation. Feel free to disagree with me. My feelings won’t be hurt nor will it make any difference in my life.
“Then it isn’t his being a man that causes that accusation of cowardess. His being a man has nothing to do with his being called cowardess, or else it would likewise apply to all other men on that boat.”
Feel free to argue with Adi about that. He is the one that defined “showing weakness” and “letting go of control” as being gendered traits, superior to how Captain Sullenberger, as a MAN, handled matters.
“Which is it, a man who “showed weakness” and “let go of control” is a coward (in which case, you’re calling all those men on board cowards, or else a man who “showed weakness” and “let go of control” isn’t a coward, and it is something other than his manhood that resulted in the captains cowardly label? Which is it?”
Once again, Adi created the definitions, not me. Talk to him. I simply noted that Schinetto matched them. Secondly, in case you weren’t aware, the other passengers (male, female, black, white, young, old, rich, poor) had no “control” to let go of.
“Exactly, yet you attribute his cowardess to his being a man and abandoning ship, not for being a CAPTAIN and abandoning ship…”
How many strawman is this now? I applied Adi’s gender argument.
“Fine Do whatever you want.”
Then don’t challenge my claim to manhood for not living to your expectations and social contracts, like this articles writer did, and you have defended.
That’s strawman number 5 or 6 now. You neither wrote the article nor made a comment I replied to. So, please do quote me ‘challenging YOUR claim to manhood.’ I’ll be here.
If you are going to keep arguing with me, do so honestly. Stop claiming I said things I did not and then arguing on that basis. I will seriously start numbering your strawmen.
Adi, I understand your departure. It is simply not possible to top your stunning logic that “showing weakness” and “letting go of control” as a “gender emancipated” man is better than Captain Sullenberger’s approach.
“It is simply not possible to top your stunning logic that “showing weakness” and “letting go of control” as a “gender emancipated” man is better than Captain Sullenberger’s approach.”
For men in general, or for captains specifically? Because for men in general, even you admit “Leaving a sinking ship is common sense” and don’t hold ay ill will for all those non-captain men who showed weakness, let go of control, and didn’t put themselves at the end of the queue. Your captain examples don’t accurately apply to men in general. Showing weakness and letting go of control are not attributes desired in a Captain, in fact, quite the opposite, but that’s part of his job, not his gender. But just because they are better to have in ship captains, doesn’t mean other men need also exibite these attributes, or that they are in fact “better” (your word) for them. Likewise, if these attributes are aspects of being a man (not a person), then this implies they are not part of being a woman… So would a woman displaying this showing weakness and letting go of control make a good ship captain? If not, then I note again, Gender plays no part in it, it’s the JOB.
But like Adi, I think I will withdraw from this conversation. you have already backpeddled a few times, you’re trying to attribute your own biases as others (Adi never equated gender emanicpation with cowardice, or ether with Captain Schettino, you did.), and you’re being dishonest and deflective (show you where you used the “WORD” shame to prove you have been shaming people? really?)
Too nested now. Starting a new thread.
For men in general, or for captains specifically?”
You’ll have to ask him. He offered his remarkable insight in the context of criticizing Captain Sullenberger.
“Because for men in general, even you admit “Leaving a sinking ship is common sense” and don’t hold ay ill will for all those non-captain men who showed weakness, let go of control, and didn’t put themselves at the end of the queue.”
I never said that all men should put themselves at the end of the queue.
“Your captain examples don’t accurately apply to men in general.”
I used Sully as an example of the benefits to all of being self-sacrificing. Contrast the outcome for him vs. Schettino. His respect and admiration soared, as did his bank account whereas Schettino will be in jail for most of the rest of his life.
“Showing weakness and letting go of control are not attributes desired in a Captain, in fact, quite the opposite, but that’s part of his job, not his gender.”
Then, why did Adi criticize his performance as an example of “damaging concepts of masculine gender roles”, clearly tying it to his gender?
“But just because they are better to have in ship captains, doesn’t mean other men need also exibite these attributes, or that they are in fact “better” (your word) for them.”
I personally prefer to show strength, such as strength of character, strength of resolve, strength of restraint, etc. They are, in my view, all superior to weakness. Feel free to disagree.
“Likewise, if these attributes are aspects of being a man (not a person), then this implies they are not part of being a woman… “
According to whom and what logic? Perhaps you are aware that women are human beings as well.
“So would a woman displaying this showing weakness and letting go of control make a good ship captain?”
“If not, then I note again, Gender plays no part in it, it’s the JOB.”
Again, take up your argument with Adi, not me. HE made it about gender, criticizing Sully for not being “gender emancipated” MAN because of “not showing weakness” and “not letting go of control.”
“But like Adi, I think I will withdraw from this conversation. . .”
Of course you will withdraw as you have used several strawmen to support a baseless argument and now you are resorting to outright lies.
Name one time that I have “you have already backpeddled a few times” using a QUOTE. I’ll wait. Oh, that’s right, your backing out. How convenient.
“, you’re trying to attribute your own biases as others (Adi never equated gender emanicpation with cowardice, or ether with Captain Schettino, you did.)”
Adi criticized Sully’s performance as “damaging concepts of masculine gender roles” expressly because of not ‘showing weakness or letting go of control’ – which is precisely what Schettino did do, meeting Adi’s definition of a “gender emancipated” man.
“, and you’re being dishonest and deflective (show you where you used the “WORD” shame to prove you have been shaming people? really?)”
I have written a lot here. If you have a point you could easily prove it by quoting me.
Kipling, in the voice of a soldier referring to Royal Marines, said,
“we’re most of us liars an’ ‘arf of us thieves
an’ the rest as rank as can be.
But once in a while
We can finish in style,
Which I ‘ope it won’t happen to me.”
Referring specifically to the Birkenhead disaster.
One of the life boats was commanded by a very junior officer. When he discovered that one of the men in the water was married, he insisted on changing places with the man. There being no room for more. As soon as the exchange was completed, sharks got the younger man.
Now, if his nerve had failed, and he’d not made the exchange, and seen the other man taken by sharks, I suppose he might have lived a long life, drinking himself to death. Or at least to sleep. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
This post is telling others they should make sacrifices. THAT is what I have a problem with. To make a sacrifice of the kind you described should be left to the individual and not done because others expect it. And then it also counts for so much more.
you should always be your priority and should always come first or your going to wake up ten years down the road and realize your life is not your own
(This is a continuation of a conversation started here: http://goodmenproject.com/good-is-good/the-male-shadow/comment-page-1/#comment-136809)
“There’s a big mistake in this reasoning caused by the problem of our species being binary with regards to sex: You MUST be exactly one of the two, you cannot choose nor can you change (properly).”
Except for people who aren’t (intersex)…oh and except that you’re confusing biological sex (male/female) with gender (man/woman)…and not all cultures have a binary gender system.
As to the rest of what you’re saying, Adi, I think you’re reading far too much into it. You say that there is no reason to refer just to men (or women) outside of sexist statements…except again that’s not true. The gender of the author and the gender of the presumed reader can make it so that the author uses only one gender when discussing attributes that could exist in all genders. Just because you’re focusing on one gender (in this case men) doesn’t mean that you’re excluding another, explicitly or implicitly. If I were to write an article about how I think women need to be stricter with their children (or something) that doesn’t mean I think men don’t need to be stricter…it just means I’m currently addressing women.
As for the use of the term “others” and “things more precious than yourself,” I assume he’s talking about family and friends. I think it’s deliberately left vague so that the reader can put in whatever they want. I.e. some people might not have children, but they have ailing parents that they put before themselves, etc. I think you’re assuming malicious intent and then searching the article to find it.