Is fighting an essential ingredient in manhood? Is violence a part of who we are? Guys weigh in.
One of the big issues surrounding manhood and goodness is the role violence plays in how we express our masculinity. Is violence innate, or is it learned? Even if we could unlearn it, should we?
I grew up in a household of Quaker pacifists. My dad taught me early on that civil disobedience is stronger than fists and guns. Gandhi and Martin Luther King accomplished what no army could. In Amherst, Massachusetts, where I grew up, there was an uncomfortable mix of rural kids and faculty brats—and as a brat who stood head and shoulders above the rest—six feet tall by the seventh grade—I became a natural target for bullies hoping to prove their mettle.
One particularly tough kid started bumping into me in the hall in front of all my classmates. When I wouldn’t respond, he grabbed my books and threw them down the hall, yelling at me for being a sissy. Finally, he figured out my schedule and waited for me outside each of my classes, pinning me up against the nearest locker to spit in my face.
I went to the guidance counselor’s office to use the phone so I could call my father: “Shouldn’t I fight back, Dad?”
As original Good Men Project contributor Steve Almond puts it below, “aggression is the means by which boys learn to share their feelings. Not even the most loving father can protect his son from the playgrounds, bars, and parking lots where bullies lurk, where soft emotions are hunted down and targeted, where fear becomes rage, and rage becomes violence.”
And for men, as much as we may not like it, violence is currency. When words and logic fail, when virtue isn’t shared, violence becomes power—in the schoolyard, among boys, or on the battlefield, among men. But just because it’s always been that way doesn’t mean we can’t help create a less violent world for our kids. Does it?
What do you think? Are men inherently violent?
♦◊♦
We nerds and sissies disprove the notion.
—Bennett Schneider
♦◊♦
Testosterone is not destiny, despite what the peddlers of third-rate evolutionary psychology sometimes insist. Manhood, as we practice it in America, traditionally expects violence as an initiation ritual of some sort. But manhood (as opposed to maleness) is an artificial construct. As a construct, it can be altered—if we want it.
—Hugo Schwyzer, gender studies professor
♦◊♦
There is no way to prove that violence is innate to manhood. We can’t even define manhood. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that human males are more aggressive and assertive by nature, but that is not always the same as violent. My thinking is that men end up more violent because men have to compete with one another with displays of powerful characteristics in order to compete in the male hierarchy, which is ultimately about being selected by women for reproduction. It makes sense to me that violent tendencies are cultivated in that competition. So it’s a learned behavior, born of our innate reproductive programming.
—Paul Elam, men’s rights advocate
♦◊♦
Dave and I are fighting in the TV room. It’s a boy fight: hurled fists and grunting. Our dad is seated on the piano bench, watching this awkward spectacle. He believes we need to “get our aggression out,” and that there’s no other way to do it. He’s even sort of rooting me on, because Dave is bigger and I need to stand up for myself. …
I fight with my twin brother, Mike, too, until he hits a growth spurt and becomes too big to tangle with. Our final fight is especially vicious. We grapple and punch and tumble across the bed. We can smell each other—our skin, our breath. The intimacy is disorienting. Not so long ago, the two of us walked to school pressed together at the shoulder. But the prohibitions of boyhood have torn us apart. These days, the only time we touch is when we fight.
Having pummeled each other to exhaustion, we stand face to face. Our chests heave with adrenaline. We’re confused, not sure how to bring this to a close. My hand flies up and slaps Mike across the face. It’s a loud, clean blow, delivered so quickly neither of us can quite believe it. Mike bursts into tears and runs from the room. I stand, staring down at my hand. My palm stings, but the rest of me feels nothing.
It’s tempting to blame all this on my father. That would be the safe move. Perhaps if he’d encouraged us to share our feelings rather than pummel each other, my brothers and I would have entered the world without fear and loathing.
|
It’s tempting to blame all this on my father. That would be the safe move. Perhaps if he’d encouraged us to share our feelings rather than pummel each other, my brothers and I would have entered the world without fear and loathing. We would have become secure citizens, ready to talk things through. But that would miss the point, that masculinity has always been governed by aggression.
To put it more starkly: Aggression is the means by which boys learn to share their feelings. Not even the most loving father can protect his son from the playgrounds, bars, and parking lots where bullies lurk, where soft emotions are hunted down and targeted, where fear becomes rage, and rage becomes violence.
—Steve Almond, from “Here’s the Bad News, Son” in The Good Men Project
♦◊♦
In mainstream American culture, we teach boys and men that they should be violent, or at least ready to be violent if it becomes necessary. Among other things, we tell them that “a man never backs down from a fight,” “men protect others (especially women and children),” and that we can “step outside and settle it like men.” When a guy doesn’t follow these dictates, we call him a wimp.
—Andrew Smiler, psychology professor, president, SPSMM.
♦◊♦
First I had a daughter. She was sweet and beautiful and seemed to smell good all the time. She lived in harmony with all creatures. Then I had a son. And he started breaking all my shit.
—Chris Zito, comedian and author
♦◊♦
I was always big for my age, so guys were trying me all the time—warranted, unwarranted, just all the time. Mom got after me to stop running in the house every time I got chased home from school. One time she met me at the top of our steps when she saw me running away from a fight. She said, “Andre, you turn around. You’re going to fight them. You’re not going to keep getting chased home.” I dove off the top of the steps onto those guys. That was the end of me getting chased home.
—Andre Tippett, NFL Hall of Famer, from “Heart of a Beginner” in The Good Men Project
♦◊♦
The greatest problem of every army in world history is, when a battle begins, how do you stop soldiers from running away? In combat, our flight response is far more powerful than our fight response, but if we were naturally violent the opposite would be true.
The myth that human beings are naturally violent is refuted by all of military history, if people look below the surface. Armies must train people to fight and kill, and war is one of the most traumatizing things a human being can experience. Even the people who support war say “war is hell.” If human beings are naturally violent, why would war drive so many people insane?
Most people’s natural reaction when you try to stab them with a sword or shoot them with a rifle is to run away as fast as they can, as far as they can.
|
Most people’s natural reaction when you try to stab them with a sword or shoot them with a rifle is to run away as fast as they can, as far as they can. Ask anyone who has been in combat and they will tell you that it’s terrifying. To make soldiers fight, the Greeks realized that if soldiers believe they are fighting to protect their friends, family, or loved ones, they will not only fight, but they will even sacrifice their lives, because our instinct to protect our loved ones is far more powerful than our instinct for self-preservation. Think about how you would react if you saw your loved one being attacked. Think about how you would rush to their aid and try to protect them.
—Captain Paul Chappell, author of Will War Ever End?: A Soldier’s Vision of Peace for the 21st Century and The End of War: How Waging Peace Can Save Humanity, Our Planet, and Our Future.
♦◊♦
Violence is innate in men. And in women. If we expect men to be violent, we’ll interpret the evidence that way, and this will reinforce our expectation. This confirmation bias is very hard to break.
Think of what it’s like to “act like a caveman.” OK, now remember that there are many highly symbolic cave paintings. Now try to interpret “act like a caveman” to mean painting symbols of self, nature, and community. If this doesn’t make sense, it’s because you really haven’t ever made an attempt to think about what it was actually like to be a caveman. And why should you? The importance of “the caveman” for most of us has nothing to do with a passion for amateur paleontology, it has to do with justifying some behavior as “natural” and criticizing other behavior as “unnatural”—in other words, enforcing stereotypes.
—Dylan Wittkower, ethicist
♦◊♦
Answer: No. Anthropologically we know different. Violence in men is a product of years of shift from agrarian to industrialized to modern-day conditioning. Men are not innately violent.
—Matt Yeazel, psychotherapist and social worker
♦◊♦
Friday night in Mongolia’s Bulgan City was like the Wild West meeting the 21st century. Men would ride their horses through town—right alongside the cars—tie them up to fence posts, and go into the bars. They’d get drunk and eventually a couple of them would piss each other off and box it out with bare knuckles—no guns, no knives; that was bitch to them. “Who fights with guns and knives?” they’d say if anyone asked. “That’s not how Genghis Khan did it, and that’s not how we’re going to do it.”
Typically during one of these Friday night fistfights, one of the guys would fall, his face all bloody. Then he’d pull himself back up, and he and the guy he’d been fighting would share another bottle of vodka, hop on their horses, and head home.
The Mongolians were big, burly people, and they would say to me, a kid from an East Coast inner city, “You guys are big. Why don’t you fight like we do? Why do you shoot each other?”
Killing did play a part in the Mongolians’ concept of manhood: If you could kill a sheep or a goat and dress it, you were considered a man, even if you were only 12 years old. When you could kill animals you became the breadwinner of your family. You were strong, and you were reliable.
—Curtis B., from “Khan Without the Wrath” in The Good Men Project
—Polina Sergeeva photo/Flickr
♦ ♦ ♦
Tom Matlack, together with James Houghton and Larry Bean, published an anthology of stories about defining moments in men’s lives — The Good Men Project: Real Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Manhood. It was how the The Good Men Project first began. Want to buy the book? Click here. Want to learn more? Here you go.
I think men are inherently COMPETITIVE, but I don’t think this necessarily equates to violence. DYSFUNCTIONAL men are violent. I think it depends on how you set up a society.
I find it interesting that the most violent men were raised in single mother homes.
If we want safer streets, then we should fight for father parental rights.
A lot of the nature over nurture argument blames testosterone. Testosterone gets a bad rap. It is connected to violence and aggression, but in very complicated ways. It often peaks AFTER a fight and rarely during a fight, and sometimes a lack of testosterone contributes to aggression. If not for testosterone (and a lot of other hormones) none of us would exist, male or female. Some of the meanest, nastiest S.O.B.’s in Chinese history have been eunuchs.
One area that certainly needs attention is non-violent men who get entangled in violent relationships. This happened to me, and resulted in three assaults on my person from my first wife — including an attempted homicide right in front of our eldest child, who was 3 at the time (in 1999). All three times I was attacked, I was thrown out by the cops: on the last, homicidal, attack, I showed them the bruises I suffered from the strangulation (I passively resisted, only stopping her from crushing my windpipe, and then finally threw her off me). They responded by saying,… Read more »
Captain Paul Chappell touches on my feelings. To harm is not natural. To fight is instinctual after running. To defend what we love is human. From my own history and working with many men over the years I have seen the trauma of childhood abuse imprint in a man that he is not a man. The fear of pain, injury and taunting has us boys coward to the bullies who are often acting out someone else’s bulling. We need the ability to be aggressive – to assert our needs. Standing up for what is right is good. Expressing pent up… Read more »
I learned to be violent in school, since violence was the only way to deal with bullying that actually worked. Once I was set free of school, I stopped being violent because I no longer needed to use violence.
I have to say, the whole question is predicated upon an unspoken yet understood exclusion of large types of men, not the least of which, gay men! Does this piece mean to really refer only to those men who are “Men”? You know, the manly type of men (because the others sorts, they don’t count, not REALLY, nudge nudge). Even “Good men” seem to be included in this category of what one on the inside of it would think of as “the norm”. But this is what gay men bring to questions like this: there is no norm, not the… Read more »
I believe we all have the capacity to be violent and to resort to violent behaviour when the need arises. What is different with various men though is there ability to engage higher brain functions to temper this primeval response to situations. Of course, alcohol can reduce higher brain functions substantially…. 😉 So, yes, I think there is a core of violent capability in every man, what defines a Gentleman in the modern era though is that these neanderthalic urges are only a last resort and not the first, second or even third option that pops into their mind. Apparently… Read more »
Inherently violent? No. Given the ability to do whatever it takes to defend ourselves or anything/anyone we deem necessary to our reproductive success? You’re goddamn right.
Or you could just get a better pickup line.
and you sir-are dead wrong!
Are men inherently violent? hmmmm. I think a better case could be made that men are inherently geared to procreate and will do whatever it takes to find reproductive success. This could involve violence. Just think of the hunter/gatherer tribes where violence was common. So common that in come tribes 60% of the males were killed in raids. In these cases violence was a means for men to find greater reproductive success. It turns out that men who participated in violent raids on other nearby tribes were MORE reproductively successful than those who did not. Those men who actually killed… Read more »
Never got a hottie by sticking a fork in anybody’s eye. Should I try it?
What you overlook in your frolic into Bull Sh*t evo psych is that women in primitive societies rarely have a choice in who they mate with. They are married off in an exchange of goods or raped.
I try to tell myself that it is not so. That we have evolved beyond using violence. But after growing up learning that the only way to be left alone is to make sure the bullies leave you alone is to make certain they know that every punch they throw is returned with an axe-kick to the face and that every shove and push is returned with a choke grip I don’t know any more.
Some people think it is a very Modern Society, but the people who will make a difference, always know it is only very primitive.
Testosterone does not induce aggression
New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior. A study at the Universities of Zurich and Royal Holloway London with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one’s own status.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm
Testosterone continues to get the blame in feminist writing because it is easier to do the deceptive translation of testosterone = bad, men have testosterone therefore men = bad. The violence carried out by women is consistently minimised and disregarded because it doesn’t fit the dialogue of only men are violent.
It was the kooks at the SPSMM that proposed this hypothesis without any evidence cited and contrary to the basic logic that very few men are violent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on the SPSMM to provide that evidence and I’m still waiting for an intellectually honest response from Kilmartin and Smiler. Are you offended by the word “kooks”, well respect is earned and not an automatic privilege of a soft-science degree and unsubstantiated opinions. “We nerds and sissies disprove the notion.” It is not necessary to disprove this notion, the onus is entirely on the SPSMM… Read more »
“women are not attracted to nerds and sissies, they are attracted to aggressive jocks.” Not this woman. I suspect this occurs in women who have themselves had to suppress feelings of aggression, rage, wanting to destroy or do violence because these are not allowed in girls or women. Hooking up with a man who displays this provides some relief, although not full relief. I think ideally we teach both boys and girls to honor their feelings of aggression, rage, wanting to destroy or do violence, etc. but to talk about them or find other safe outlets rather than acting this… Read more »
Stereotypes aren’t applicable to everyone, but there is definately a widespread attraction to male athletes, soldiers and have you noticed the popularity of violent male personalities like the middle aged female twi-hard fans?
Men are often attracted to superficial women who turn out to be gold diggers, nerder girls are better.
Yes, it does happen. I’m just saying I suspect it is caused by a problem of emotional suppression going on in the women who are attracted to violent men (who themselves also have problems with emotional regulation). I suspect: 1. No woman with healthy psychology would want to have a child with a violent man. Far too risky for the children and herself if there is to be any contact after the child is conceived. 2. Likewise no man with healthy psychology would want to have a child with a bimbo or gold digger. Even if he is a man… Read more »
Actually we find that there is an even larger problem of MEN who are attracted to violent WOMEN. This only makes good sense once you see the studies and stats by the Dept of Health and Human Services as well as the Dept of Justice which actually to show that it is mothers, not fathers at all, who abuse and murder their children at the greatest frequency, as well as the fact that it is women (not men) who dominate at being 71% of exclusive partner abusers (abuse going only ONE way, abuse only by ONE partner).
I’m not so sure about defining anything as “psychologically healthy”, since it is essentially a moral pre-judgment of character and intentions (same with violence). Some violence is defensive, some economic, some sociopathic. It’s not all the same thing.
It is possible that these behaviors have evolutionary roots for men and women.
Women’s selection of strong men and men’s selection of young fertile women is well suited for survival of the species.
Chivalry is unhealthy and dangerous for men and men’s equality.
Violence is not the term to be using – Competition is the more correct word. From the beginning of time (Cain and Able) it is about competing with each other. It happens in all societies and cultures. Men are constantly sizing up the competition picking out the top few competitors and setting out to beat them in what ever they are competing for, such as a female, job, sports, looks, attention…you name it. Violence comes out when some men or boys don’t know how to win without throwing a fist. So actually the violence we see is a minnor subgroup… Read more »
Great article Tom. Most of the comments mirror my thoughts. I would add that we need to demystify the notion of defining manhood based on things physical. Beyond the psychological, sociological and philosophical musings, there is the basic fact that is relevant to this discussion. Violence is unfortunately an external reaction to internal frustration. Consequently, we need to define masculinity by internal QUALITIES, not mere physicality. There is this notion that the search for masculinity is like searching for some elusive holy-grail. Magazines and blogs fill our minds with blurred visions of what being a man is supposed to be.… Read more »
Check out http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/02_whymalesaremoreviolent.html
(Sorry if this is a repeat post.)
No, violence is not essential to manhood. Violence is not inherent to manhood. And if that’s a cultural expectation, that’s a bad thing.
By the way, about four years ago, I learned that I had virtually no testosterone in my body. The level was almost non-existent, and though I never figured out why, the experience taught me more about being a man than any fight ever could.
IF I look at the subtle differences I see in my 4 yo daughter and my 1 yo son as they grow older and become more individual, I can see a difference in coping. My daughter has mastered how to work her grandparents, and did so early on. When she wanted something, she figured out how to manipulate others as best a 3 or 4 yo can. My son, on the other hand, is much more interested in how things work, mechanically. If I bang these together it makes a noise; if I turn this then that makes the [wheels]… Read more »
Just for the sake a full disclosure I have taken kick-boxing with a mad Russian for a couple years now. And I have taken the NRA handgun course (got perfect score on the exam) so if I wanted I could get a license to carry a concealed weapon. I had a long debate with my editor Henry about this topic since his POV, I think, was that to even ask this question was kind of silly because obviously violence in men is not innate. I am really not so sure. The history of men isn’t too helpful in making that… Read more »
I wonder if we confuse the actions that can be used for violence with being a violent person. To enjoy shooting a gun isn’t violent to me. You are honing a skill. Controlling a heavy powered machine that requires much training. That is exciting. Training to fight is a gray area, but hey.
hmm. again I think murder is violence of a different sort than learning how to shoot a gun. but its the instinct that i am talking about, and am scared of in myself frankly.
Settle down there, Tom.
I think the only thing you need to be scared of which is inherently in yourself as virtue of being male is the propensity of males to believe the feminist myth (lie) that men are inherently evil.
Compelling argument is harder than screaming and yelling. Which is worth doing? We can only choose when we have more than one tool, otherwise every problem looks like a nail. Nothing is innate to humans, but anything can be innate to lack of choice.
Not sure that nothing is innate to humans. I believe we all have some hardwiring that its our job to figure out and rewire.
You don’t have women at the shooting range right along side you? I find that hard to believe. or are you prepared to make excuses for the differing intentions for why you’re each there? Firing a guns is about the power, not the violence… or have you had urges to use it on an actual person? Guns tend to offer people a (false) sense of power that can be exhilarating, but the truth is, it generally goes against our nature to actually use it on another human being (one generally needs to be pushed into using it. exceptions exist of… Read more »
Violence is a choice. I have a bad temper. It’s not a choice. But I do not let my temper lead to violence. Perhaps biologically, males are more programmed for violent acts, but what separates humans from animals is our ability to make choices.
Violence is not a requirement for manhood. Violence is a human condition, prevalent in each gender, which manifests itself in various ways.
I believe in a happy medium. Avoid violence when necessary like your father taught you, Tom. But when you’ve tried talking it out, going to others for help, killing them with kindness, etc., there comes a time when it’s not only wise to fight back, it’s completely necessary and warranted.
It is basic game theory. Tit for tat. You can assume good faith, but don’t turn the other cheek.
Or better strategy: turn the cheek, not the blind eye. Basic difference between pacifists and dummies…
Men are the protective gender by nature, the protectors and builders of society, the protectors of the family especially. You just wouldn’t think so from any of what you hear in the popular news. Yet vast studies, real studies which survey BOTH men AND women, mothers AND fathers about their own abusive behaviors and their parnter’s behaviors as well show that is really IS men who abuse spouse and child least. The women in all the unrigged but fully scientific studies admit to being the most abusive with both spouse and children on so many levels. but what media tells… Read more »
This article has a HUGE hole in it. It 100% ignores and completely misses the fact that male aggression stems out of and is aimed at protecting both society and the family – mainly women and children. It is aimed at winning women over, whether that be as a mate or for favors alone, attacking and selling out good men in order to do that. Male aggression (no matter whether you view it religiously or evolutionary) is aimed at winning over the women (like this article which actually is violence against men for that same purpose – appealing to and… Read more »
I might say masculinity is violent? Which is a controversial discussion in & of itself, but talking about sex & gender tend to be that way. I disagree with wide blanket statements like “No. Anthropologically we know different. Violence in men is a product of years of shift from agrarian to industrialized to modern-day conditioning.” Ötzi the Iceman puts the lie to that statement, as does the other evidence of hunter-gatherer violence. First, let me caveat by saying that ALL evolutionary psychology is dangerous nonsense– it can have value, but is almost NEVER used for its own purposes, & instead… Read more »
So, hunting to feed your family is violence? as is protecting your family? If that’s the case, then violence should be celebrated, not admonished. and as you acknowledge, it is inherent in all humans, not just men. Men are just the sex originally delegated the roles of hunter and provider and protector.
“most humans aren’t hunter-gatherers any more.”
They still remain provider and protectors, both of which require aggression (if not physical violence) to be successful (aggressive stock brokers are more successful then passive ones, same goes for all competitive (important word) fields).