Roger Durham wonders if modern day discussion has less to do with logic and persuasion than it does a good set of pipes.
It is louder these days. Louder and less civil. Louder and more vitriolic. The effort to contribute to a civil discourse about anything of substance seems as passé as root beer or the nuclear family.
In reading and contributing to The Good Men Project, I have been astounded by the vehemence, and the volume, with which some disagree with articles. The most outrageous example appeared in January, 2011. Founder Tom Matlack, posted an article titled, Cleavage or Soul: What Women Do We Love? He asked provocative questions. He invited a serious look at how men and women are perceived in popular culture. It was, in my view, a thoughtful treatment of gender stereotypes, but a lot of people disagreed with my assessment. Rather than engaging in a civilized challenge of his thoughts, here are some of the comments to Tom’s article:
“No Tom. Men like me have an enemy all right. And the enemy is man-hating, white knighting, mangina apologists like you.”
“I’m guessing you also consider yourself to be one of these ‘nice guys’ women hate. Let me let you in on a secret – you really don’t seem like a nice guy. Frankly, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of a city. And you’re arrogant and condescending. That would be why women would dislike someone like you – you are the douchebag,” offered a woman.
And it got worse. Some who commented became more intent on attacking Tom than on challenging his ideas and furthering any sort of dialogue. The noise grew louder and louder until the “comments” section read more like a transcript of a Maury Povich show than an online conversation about what it means to be a good man.
A friend tells me of a similar experience he had with a blog he posted on the Washington Post. It was for a parenting column. He was stunned by the vitriol and personal attacks his post engendered. More than 100 people took it upon themselves to demean him in some way, and he wasn’t even writing about anything of controversy. It was an article recounting how his son helped him build a website and the lessons about commitment that were learned in the process.
◊♦◊
Why should I be surprised, really? We live in a day when Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern rule the AM band of the airwaves. Our sensibilities have been assaulted for two decades by the likes of Maury Povich, Jerry Springer and Don Imus. Popular TV comedy has migrated to the genre of The Simpsons and South Park. Political and Sports talk shows feature people shouting at each other, as if the loudest argument is the most convincing. Sure, I am painting with a broad brush. I know plenty of people who enjoy, and find harmless, The Simpsons. One of my best friends plans his day around Imus in the Morning. I listen and laugh out loud at some of the callers to The Jim Rome Show who starts his sports talk show each day with the challenge, “Have a take. Don’t suck.”
The point is, as the level of vitriol has risen in contemporary dialogue, the level of civil discourse has fallen. It becomes increasingly difficult to find a meaningful exchange of ideas that does not become focused on differences, and once so focused, dissolves into personal attacks. We are heading into the blue-flamed heat of a presidential campaign and already issues of personal character have usurped the place of debate on public policy. Political parties will demonize each other and the electorate will be left to choose between what are perceived to be flawed candidates.
◊♦◊
How have we gotten here? And how do we recover a measure of civility that leaves room for disagreement without the need to attack each other? Men have been cultivated for generations to have answers, not questions. We are expected to know, not wonder. It is perceived as weakness if men have doubts or questions or fears or hesitations. Successful men have “figured it out.” They know what to do. They don’t waiver. They rarely hesitate. That’s how men are supposed to act.
Let me be clear, lest I be accused of being a “man-hating…mangina apologist”, I like being a man. I don’t feel the need to apologize for being a man. I don’t think I’m a bad person for being strong, or assertive, or decisive. I don’t think women are any better than men, in general. Women are doing their fair share of the shouting in the increasingly aggressive and angry climate of public discourse.
Still, it is largely a masculine stereotype that has pushed the tone of discourse into the cage-fighters ring. Don’t step in unless you are prepared for the assault that will follow. If you are not throwing punches or kicks, you are absorbing the blows, yourself. If you don’t assert your point, loudly and aggressively, then your opponent will take it as weakness and attack. And whatever you do, don’t ask questions, or entertain the possibility that you may be wrong. That is the opening your opponent is waiting for. He will move in for the take down.
◊♦◊
What has been lost is the thoughtful exchange of ideas. Whatever happened to the carefully asked question? When was the last time you disagreed with someone and asked yourself, “Where can I agree with her?” or “How can I challenge his ideas without questioning his character?” “How can I disagree with that person without demonizing him/her?”
That’s what it will take to move toward a more civil discourse, assuming there is still interest in anything like that. I’m not convinced there is.
—
—Photo mdanys/Flickr
Really sad! Good men are being thrown into the “nice guy bin” very unfairly.Since the game itself
is unfair, men will get it in the neck anyway. Women want it both ways, always, and if you agree
with them you are boring, and if you disagree ,they get upset. Gee, that’s fair!
I don’t know the answers, either, Jay, but I do have a basic belief in the goodness of people. I think the mean-spirited nature of much that goes on today, is not a showing the best that is within us, and that at some point, there is a tipping point. At some point, culture will recover some equilibrium in such a way that the vitriol will be the exception rather than the rule that it seems to be today. Thanks for commenting.
Indeed, Root Beer is passe. The ‘in’ thing now is Red Bull. Explains a lot – its a quick rush, and then just as quickly forgotten. Which clues us in to how to handle online vitriol. Now the trick is, how to let the wheat remain but gently blow the chaff into the furnace of the forgotten. Censorship and moderation are probably not the answers, but I’m sure there are good ideas out there.
What ??? An ordained minister authored this article. A man who obviously is trying to speak to the rampage coursing through this society at break-neck speed and he is denigrated and demeaned ?? And how did this article about uncivil discourse make it’s way back to Play Boy and Hugh Hefner ?? What has Play Boy to do with the vile vitriol that consumes the America of today? (Any body who immediately throws this minor detail into this discussion has a pretty sick opinion of male/ female communication) Just today, I was assaulted by a “million watt” audio system rolling… Read more »
Jim, I’m not sure what you are trying to say. I think we agree, but I’m not sure. I do think that we have lost a graciousness and civility that threatens something important. Are you surprised that a minister is visiting this site? Or that a minister is reading these articles? Or are you surprised at the position I take in the article? I can’t really tell. But, let me say, I do find the core of The Good Men Project to have a noble purpose – and an opportunity for men and women to have conversations about the very… Read more »
I only read this site when I want to laugh at what self-hating feminist men are flagellating themselves about today. I’m never disappointed.
Thanks for a link to that article – it is a classic.
Linguist,
So, the link is the only thing you took away from the article? That’s disappointing. I hope you come back to the site every now and then to engage in some of the conversation that takes place in the comments section. Look for my post “An Atheist and a Fine Bottle of Wine”. There’s some interesting dialogue that follows in the comment section. I’m glad the site keeps bringing you back – for whatever reason.
I found this site months ago and had high hopes for it. There is a need for a site that has substantive articles about the experience of modern manhood. I gave it a chance for awhile – but the articles always come back to the same tired self-hating themes: male weakness, shallowness, disappointment. Or about the futility or disadvantages of traditional manhood. No talk about male accomplishment, precious little about good fathers. Everything good tempered with caveats and warning. But most disappointingly there is never any talk about the real problems that men face: discrimination, double standards, stereotypes of men… Read more »
I understand and agree with some of what you are saying. There is a need for a significant dialogue about issues facing men. I think it can be found here. But you do have to sort through some articles that, on the surface, do seem to miss the point. If you are looking for some balance, why not offer an article. I would be interested in seeing that voice represented here.
Thanks, Garrison. Listening is a good start. It seems to me that part of the equation is to reverse what I take to be a de-valuation of words. We throw words around pretty easily these days. Perhaps listening more and talking less would be a good way to infuse words with value.
I’m going to resist the temptation to respond with a faux-angry response of the type you decry. Because, of course, you are correct. Our political and social discourse has devolved into so many polar, black-or-white extremes that the whole concept of civilized debate has fallen off the table. I fear the internet is part of the problem, as more and more of us select our news sources from those already closest to our own political preferences. Consequently, we are living in self-constructed echo chambers where we rarely see — far less appreciate — antithetical points of view that might possible… Read more »
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
Matt. 7:1
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Tom Matlack if he wasn’t so judgemental. A great example of this is his article on Playboy and its founder…
I read that article again, and I don’t really see your point. The only thing that jumped off the page at me was the last two sentences of the article. I don’t see Tom placing jugment on Hugh Heffner as much as I see him describing what, in his opinion, are the consequences of the characterization of women that followed on the introduction of Playboy. He’s not attacking Heffner, or even judging him as far as I can tell. Does his opinion make Tom a bad guy?
I find it sad and irresponsible that NBC would devote the time and money to a high-production-value series that attempts to glamorize a guy (referring to Hefner) who has done more to give men a bad name than anyone I can think of. He’s also done more damage to the status of American women, both in and out of the sex trade, than perhaps any man in history.
Maybe I misread that quote but that seems pretty judgemental…
Matlack’s beliefs neither make him a good man nor a bad man. Maybe it makes him a “nice guy”…
I think we’re splitting hairs. But I see what you mean. It is a strong statement, and may be tough to substantiate.
In my book there is a big difference in being a ‘good man’ and a ‘nice guy.’ Individuals who are good are have an underlying ethical conviction which will motivate them to ‘do the right thing’ despite the consequences to themselves. Examples of such men would be Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, Muhammad Yunus, The Dalai Lama, etc. ‘Nice’ people are individuals that may be pleasant to be around and whom may even act moral in normal circumstances but when push comes to shove they will put their own interest above all others: the neighbor who is too afraid… Read more »
I like the distinction. And I agree, mostly. I would suggest that it’s not as clear-cut as your examples suggest, though. Yes, Martin Luther King, Jr. is an example of a man who “did the right thing” with respect to civil rights, and with little regard for the consequences. But, as my wife reminds me when his name comes up, she would not describe any man who has cheated on his wife as a “good man”. Not ever. Not even Martin Luther King, Jr. I don’t know many who would say that he “did the right thing” – in his… Read more »