This was a very thorough, carefully thought through, and insightful piece. Excellent stuff.
One of the constant frustrations for me throughout high school, and frankly also after to a degree, was the way that male competitive behaviors were strictly policed and even pathologies, whereas female competition was simply ignored by authority figures. Mean girls starting rumors to character assassinate? I sleep. Wrestling with your friends in the hallway? Detention! (Okay usually we'd just get yelled at). Not that I wanted the girls to be punished for competing like girls, I honestly didn't much care what they did ... I just wanted us boys to be left alone.
Another factor is in the legal system, regarding the definition of abuse. Physical abuse is, rightly, illegal and punished. Emotional abuse, however, is perfectly legal, and generally ignored. A great many men suffer as a result.
Of course, the challenge is that subtle competition is very difficult, if not impossible, to regulate directly, unlike overt competition which is amenable to direct dissuasion. Instead, it must be discouraged, or rather channelled, subtlety. A wise society recognizes both modes, however, and enacts measures to ameliorate the worst excesses of both.
One possible explanation for the experience you shared is the female preoccupation with safety. When some women see such antics playing out between boys and men, especially if they have any kind of supervisory role over them, they tend to think intervention is needed to prevent injury or 'train them to behave in a safe and civilized society.' But males have a really awesome way of resolving these types of squabbles on their own, and it's important for them to engage in mutual combat for a variety of reasons that may be easily missed by women whose natural instincts have evolved to encourage caution. Sadly, many of these women also miss how they can benefit from aligning with very dangerous yet gentle men, and risk depriving themselves such access with every hallway brawl they punish. Similarly, I've wondered how many instances of male:female domestic violence might be an unintended consequence of smothering the psychological need for combat and risk-taking out of boys who grow up to be maladapted men.
I'm willing to bet that the urge to stop boys from being boys, as the saying goes, goes double for women who have never trained bjj or some other type of martial art, which is one reason I think most people should probably at least try to acquire some experience in this area -- so they may better understand the difference between sparing and inappropriate violence.
To your point about the legal system, I agree on all the physical stuff you mentioned. When it comes to emotional abuse, the very sad thing with respect to men getting the brunt of it is that they have no built-defense for it. Their instincts against attacks inform a much more direct approach; and many are uninformed and unpracticed in the way of detecting this type abuse. Many men who try to defend themselves verbally end up being gaslit by a woman who tells them that, actually, they are the toxic aggressor provoking her actions and should correct their behavior. Sometimes it's the same woman that tells them they need to 'man-up' whenever it pleases their own interests. Be aggressive when it suits me, be less aggressive when it suits me. Very confusing.
I suspect there is probably some connection between the soft competition style and what is referred to as a 'micro-aggression.' Probably just some form of of subtle communication which might signal competition and, in a functional society, would be filed under 'not a big fucking deal (if it was really ever there at all)' and also 'subject to change at a moment's notice.'
Regarding domestic abuse, I am reminded of how things played out here in the States in regions that enacted laws requiring someone to be arrested every time the cops are called out to a domestic disturbance. The basic gist is that women's groups believed cops were not punishing abusive husbands because cops were just ignoring the problem. As it turns out, it was mostly women who increasingly got arrested; the cops would talk to the kids about what happened, and it would turn out mom and dad were shouting and mom threw a dish at dad, and the neighbors called the cops. So off mom goes to cool her heels in lock up overnight. Whoops? Turns out that applying the rules of "no violence" fairly between the sexes puts a lot of women behind bars for a bit. More than before because men never thought to complain about it, after all, it isn't like the dish hit them, no big deal.
I hope to have a more thoughtful response to the essay later, just wanted to toss that off as I was thinking of it :D
Seriously if I got the law involved every time a girlfriend took a swing at me, well there would be a lot of cops involved. Instead I tend to react with "well that was fucked up, I think I'll remove myself from this situation for a while and come back when you're less murderous."
"But males have a really awesome way of resolving these types of squabbles on their own..."
Ok, so here's a true story. "Himself" is the monicker I will give to my nearest and dearest spouse and next of skin.
Picture Himself. Right now he is a ball of righteous fury, and he is stomping furiously across his field to set the world to rights. It seems that the local gun club has accidentally allowed some of their dogs to stray among his flock of sheep, who have been running about in an unnerved way. He strides towards them, eyes like two lightning bolts ready to be hurled, every step a seismic tremor. Picture me. Breathlessly running, walking to try to keep up. He is, of course, in his rights, but I'm thinking they've got guns, and things escalate. I have no idea what I could do if things escalate, but I feel I need to be there if they do. Picture the members of the local gun club (who, of course, we personally know), precisely positioning themselves outside of the field boundary to Himself's domain, which they are unwilling to cross, from where to call their dogs. They, too, become aware of him, and of the righteous fury he is clearly carrying to a confrontation with them. And I immediately notice each man carefully checking to make sure his gun is uncocked and hanging, like an L-shape, harmlessly over the crook of his arm, each man is body-language shrinking himself and making himself as unthreatening as possible while awaiting the coming onslaught. Which I am just close enough to hear, as Himself explodes with: "You people, out on a Sunday, with your dogs and your guns! What's wrong with a game of golf!" Stunned silence, then one man laughs. Then they all laugh. Then Himself laughs. At this point, seeing nothing will escalate, I make my retreat, walk slowly back to the house, put the kettle on, knowing that in 20 minutes or so, a cup of coffee will be welcomed at the debriefing.
PS. I'm enjoying the series... h/t Mark Bisone - recent Deimos report. Thank you.
I think a lot of these differences, eg been subtle vs direct competitive instincts, are incommensurable, which of course is why historically men and women have tended to segregate their society from relatively young ages. Otherwise, the men feel like they're always walking on eggshells lest they cross some invisible line, while the women are constantly on edge because every time a man disagrees with her directly her hindbrain starts shouting that she's in physical danger. What seems brutal or cloying to one seems quite comfortable to the other.
Regarding martial arts, I'm not so sure. One of the most insufferable speech-policing office zampolit I've ever known was a boxer.
I do think you're onto something regarding domestic abuse and malformed male aggression instincts. It's quite possible that the resentment that grows alongside the constant frustration of these instincts, which prevents their finding a healthy expression, ends up coming out in ugly ways in some cases.
That's very insightful regarding the interplay between two distinctive competition styles. I think men and women both benefit from borrowing from one another in some respects to facilitate more effective interpersonal communication. In this context, men benefit from learning some finesse in much the same way women benefit from learning some assertiveness. What's weird about many women in today's modern culture is that they conflate assertiveness with undue aggressiveness. It's almost as if all that hindbrain screaming in response to direct communication from men has produced a false belief that the threat must be extinguished, by smothering masculine nature altogether. Quite unfortunate.
A shame about the boxer. Maybe they were lacking the kind of grounding that many only find through grappling, pun intended, nyuck nyuck nyuck.
Quite often, when men and women try to act like the other, the result is something parodic and off-putting - drag queens or boss bitches, basically. Without an instinctive understanding of the many nuances of an embodied identity, the LARPer overcompensates by emphasizing the grossest, most visible features, while remaining blind to the subtleties.
In my view, while men and women certainly can learn from another and grow from this, the partnership of marriage is strong because it allows each to fully develop their own native strengths - men becoming more masculine, and women more feminine, because each can rely on the other for what they aren't good at.
That's a really good point. Your comment about marriage gets at the heart of what I meant about borrowing from one another, but learning is a much better word than borrowing. It's not adopting feminine or masculine traits that produces an optimal balance between masculine and feminine energies, but rather the product of each sex honing their own innate strengths, as well as their understanding of when to let the other make up for comparative innate shortages. Thanks for bringing some thoughtful refinement to the conversation (as usual ;-) ).
Yes, "the challenge is that subtle competition is very difficult, if not impossible, to regulate directly, unlike overt competition which is amenable to direct dissuasion". And the evil pathocratic cabal that currently lords it over us arguably used feminine methods to gain and maintain the power they currently wield. They subverted societies formerly led by men. They fear the male ways?
Precisely so. However, I have often wondered - given that their control is so thoroughly grounded in manipulation, misdirection, and misinformation, all indirect and subtle - how stable will it truly be against direct challenge? Is the noise around our necks a Gordian knot?
Great comment on a really great article! The legal system is absolutely toxically feminine today. Just ask any man who's had to deal with "domestic-relations court" (or whatever name it goes by in your jurisdiction). It's a real hen house. That feminist lie that women have to be twice as good as men to overcome the oppressive patriarchy is completely opposite the reality.
Hmm...Just for kicks, I just searched "domestic relations court unfair to men" and one of the top results on my search engine is a Guardian article titled, "The Idea that Family Courts are Biased Against Men is Dangerous." No shock, it's written by a woman. Lol, so fitting. To be fair, some results that populated do seem to be taking an interest in men. So that's...something...
I've heard lots of sad stories about family court, but among the saddest to me are those that involve fathers having their parenting rights diminished even when they demonstrate a clear and obvious desire to be highly involved in the lives of their children and have not been proven to pose a serious threat to them.
"Orient yourself to truth, virtue, and epistemic humility. Be utterly obsessed with how not narcissistic this makes you. See what I did there?" Heh heh! Excellent!
The phrase effective narcissism just tickles me! People use the word narcissism a lot, quite rightly in many cases, but I do wonder if sometimes it is overused. This phrase is the result of wondering if and how a person can leverage their ego for their own virtuous betterment. "Tonic Narcissism?" LOL
"A virtuous woman asks why she is taking action, for why she takes action will directly influence how she takes action. She challenges her answers socratically, examining them carefully for motivated self-deception." LOVE THIS! If only there were more of this... how much better would our world would be?
Indeed. I think this is one reason I wanted to expand on delusion in the third essay, because I'm quite confident the skill of monitoring for motivated self-deception is widely lacking in our modern culture. Anyone who hopes to stay on the virtuous path must develop and apply this skill.
So, remarkably I have only one point to pick at here; this is a really great essay! High five.
The only thing I would bring up, and it is really small to your point but maybe useful, is that examining WHY you are doing something, your motive, is only one point of consideration. There are (as Smith makes clear) 4 aspects that humans consider when judging the virtue of an action:
1: Motive
2: Effects on others (counter party)
3: How well the act conforms to social norms
4: The effects if the act was to become general (What if everyone did this?)
Motive is of course important, as you correctly point out. The effects on others is really important too, as asking "Why am I doing this" demands the question "What is the 'this' I am doing?" (Hopefully your internal monologue has less awkward grammar :D.)
Conforming to social norms is important, although as your essay points out, women are naturally very good at that aspect.
As to the general effects, well, if we have trouble imagining that (and we often do) we are definitely living it now with regards to toxic feminine competition becoming the standard of how we are expected to interact in nearly all organizations. Egalitarianism means I am punished by you when I excel, indeed!
This was a very thorough, carefully thought through, and insightful piece. Excellent stuff.
One of the constant frustrations for me throughout high school, and frankly also after to a degree, was the way that male competitive behaviors were strictly policed and even pathologies, whereas female competition was simply ignored by authority figures. Mean girls starting rumors to character assassinate? I sleep. Wrestling with your friends in the hallway? Detention! (Okay usually we'd just get yelled at). Not that I wanted the girls to be punished for competing like girls, I honestly didn't much care what they did ... I just wanted us boys to be left alone.
Another factor is in the legal system, regarding the definition of abuse. Physical abuse is, rightly, illegal and punished. Emotional abuse, however, is perfectly legal, and generally ignored. A great many men suffer as a result.
Of course, the challenge is that subtle competition is very difficult, if not impossible, to regulate directly, unlike overt competition which is amenable to direct dissuasion. Instead, it must be discouraged, or rather channelled, subtlety. A wise society recognizes both modes, however, and enacts measures to ameliorate the worst excesses of both.
One possible explanation for the experience you shared is the female preoccupation with safety. When some women see such antics playing out between boys and men, especially if they have any kind of supervisory role over them, they tend to think intervention is needed to prevent injury or 'train them to behave in a safe and civilized society.' But males have a really awesome way of resolving these types of squabbles on their own, and it's important for them to engage in mutual combat for a variety of reasons that may be easily missed by women whose natural instincts have evolved to encourage caution. Sadly, many of these women also miss how they can benefit from aligning with very dangerous yet gentle men, and risk depriving themselves such access with every hallway brawl they punish. Similarly, I've wondered how many instances of male:female domestic violence might be an unintended consequence of smothering the psychological need for combat and risk-taking out of boys who grow up to be maladapted men.
I'm willing to bet that the urge to stop boys from being boys, as the saying goes, goes double for women who have never trained bjj or some other type of martial art, which is one reason I think most people should probably at least try to acquire some experience in this area -- so they may better understand the difference between sparing and inappropriate violence.
To your point about the legal system, I agree on all the physical stuff you mentioned. When it comes to emotional abuse, the very sad thing with respect to men getting the brunt of it is that they have no built-defense for it. Their instincts against attacks inform a much more direct approach; and many are uninformed and unpracticed in the way of detecting this type abuse. Many men who try to defend themselves verbally end up being gaslit by a woman who tells them that, actually, they are the toxic aggressor provoking her actions and should correct their behavior. Sometimes it's the same woman that tells them they need to 'man-up' whenever it pleases their own interests. Be aggressive when it suits me, be less aggressive when it suits me. Very confusing.
I suspect there is probably some connection between the soft competition style and what is referred to as a 'micro-aggression.' Probably just some form of of subtle communication which might signal competition and, in a functional society, would be filed under 'not a big fucking deal (if it was really ever there at all)' and also 'subject to change at a moment's notice.'
Regarding domestic abuse, I am reminded of how things played out here in the States in regions that enacted laws requiring someone to be arrested every time the cops are called out to a domestic disturbance. The basic gist is that women's groups believed cops were not punishing abusive husbands because cops were just ignoring the problem. As it turns out, it was mostly women who increasingly got arrested; the cops would talk to the kids about what happened, and it would turn out mom and dad were shouting and mom threw a dish at dad, and the neighbors called the cops. So off mom goes to cool her heels in lock up overnight. Whoops? Turns out that applying the rules of "no violence" fairly between the sexes puts a lot of women behind bars for a bit. More than before because men never thought to complain about it, after all, it isn't like the dish hit them, no big deal.
I hope to have a more thoughtful response to the essay later, just wanted to toss that off as I was thinking of it :D
Ah, the law of unintended consequences....
Seriously if I got the law involved every time a girlfriend took a swing at me, well there would be a lot of cops involved. Instead I tend to react with "well that was fucked up, I think I'll remove myself from this situation for a while and come back when you're less murderous."
This give me an idea for another essay...hmm. Good for you for removing yourself from the situation, that can be very difficult to do.
"But males have a really awesome way of resolving these types of squabbles on their own..."
Ok, so here's a true story. "Himself" is the monicker I will give to my nearest and dearest spouse and next of skin.
Picture Himself. Right now he is a ball of righteous fury, and he is stomping furiously across his field to set the world to rights. It seems that the local gun club has accidentally allowed some of their dogs to stray among his flock of sheep, who have been running about in an unnerved way. He strides towards them, eyes like two lightning bolts ready to be hurled, every step a seismic tremor. Picture me. Breathlessly running, walking to try to keep up. He is, of course, in his rights, but I'm thinking they've got guns, and things escalate. I have no idea what I could do if things escalate, but I feel I need to be there if they do. Picture the members of the local gun club (who, of course, we personally know), precisely positioning themselves outside of the field boundary to Himself's domain, which they are unwilling to cross, from where to call their dogs. They, too, become aware of him, and of the righteous fury he is clearly carrying to a confrontation with them. And I immediately notice each man carefully checking to make sure his gun is uncocked and hanging, like an L-shape, harmlessly over the crook of his arm, each man is body-language shrinking himself and making himself as unthreatening as possible while awaiting the coming onslaught. Which I am just close enough to hear, as Himself explodes with: "You people, out on a Sunday, with your dogs and your guns! What's wrong with a game of golf!" Stunned silence, then one man laughs. Then they all laugh. Then Himself laughs. At this point, seeing nothing will escalate, I make my retreat, walk slowly back to the house, put the kettle on, knowing that in 20 minutes or so, a cup of coffee will be welcomed at the debriefing.
PS. I'm enjoying the series... h/t Mark Bisone - recent Deimos report. Thank you.
I think a lot of these differences, eg been subtle vs direct competitive instincts, are incommensurable, which of course is why historically men and women have tended to segregate their society from relatively young ages. Otherwise, the men feel like they're always walking on eggshells lest they cross some invisible line, while the women are constantly on edge because every time a man disagrees with her directly her hindbrain starts shouting that she's in physical danger. What seems brutal or cloying to one seems quite comfortable to the other.
Regarding martial arts, I'm not so sure. One of the most insufferable speech-policing office zampolit I've ever known was a boxer.
I do think you're onto something regarding domestic abuse and malformed male aggression instincts. It's quite possible that the resentment that grows alongside the constant frustration of these instincts, which prevents their finding a healthy expression, ends up coming out in ugly ways in some cases.
That's very insightful regarding the interplay between two distinctive competition styles. I think men and women both benefit from borrowing from one another in some respects to facilitate more effective interpersonal communication. In this context, men benefit from learning some finesse in much the same way women benefit from learning some assertiveness. What's weird about many women in today's modern culture is that they conflate assertiveness with undue aggressiveness. It's almost as if all that hindbrain screaming in response to direct communication from men has produced a false belief that the threat must be extinguished, by smothering masculine nature altogether. Quite unfortunate.
A shame about the boxer. Maybe they were lacking the kind of grounding that many only find through grappling, pun intended, nyuck nyuck nyuck.
Quite often, when men and women try to act like the other, the result is something parodic and off-putting - drag queens or boss bitches, basically. Without an instinctive understanding of the many nuances of an embodied identity, the LARPer overcompensates by emphasizing the grossest, most visible features, while remaining blind to the subtleties.
In my view, while men and women certainly can learn from another and grow from this, the partnership of marriage is strong because it allows each to fully develop their own native strengths - men becoming more masculine, and women more feminine, because each can rely on the other for what they aren't good at.
That's a really good point. Your comment about marriage gets at the heart of what I meant about borrowing from one another, but learning is a much better word than borrowing. It's not adopting feminine or masculine traits that produces an optimal balance between masculine and feminine energies, but rather the product of each sex honing their own innate strengths, as well as their understanding of when to let the other make up for comparative innate shortages. Thanks for bringing some thoughtful refinement to the conversation (as usual ;-) ).
Yes, "the challenge is that subtle competition is very difficult, if not impossible, to regulate directly, unlike overt competition which is amenable to direct dissuasion". And the evil pathocratic cabal that currently lords it over us arguably used feminine methods to gain and maintain the power they currently wield. They subverted societies formerly led by men. They fear the male ways?
Precisely so. However, I have often wondered - given that their control is so thoroughly grounded in manipulation, misdirection, and misinformation, all indirect and subtle - how stable will it truly be against direct challenge? Is the noise around our necks a Gordian knot?
Great comment on a really great article! The legal system is absolutely toxically feminine today. Just ask any man who's had to deal with "domestic-relations court" (or whatever name it goes by in your jurisdiction). It's a real hen house. That feminist lie that women have to be twice as good as men to overcome the oppressive patriarchy is completely opposite the reality.
Hmm...Just for kicks, I just searched "domestic relations court unfair to men" and one of the top results on my search engine is a Guardian article titled, "The Idea that Family Courts are Biased Against Men is Dangerous." No shock, it's written by a woman. Lol, so fitting. To be fair, some results that populated do seem to be taking an interest in men. So that's...something...
I've heard lots of sad stories about family court, but among the saddest to me are those that involve fathers having their parenting rights diminished even when they demonstrate a clear and obvious desire to be highly involved in the lives of their children and have not been proven to pose a serious threat to them.
"Orient yourself to truth, virtue, and epistemic humility. Be utterly obsessed with how not narcissistic this makes you. See what I did there?" Heh heh! Excellent!
The phrase effective narcissism just tickles me! People use the word narcissism a lot, quite rightly in many cases, but I do wonder if sometimes it is overused. This phrase is the result of wondering if and how a person can leverage their ego for their own virtuous betterment. "Tonic Narcissism?" LOL
I like it, too. Good one!
We need to leverage everything we can toward virtue in these poisoned times.
"A virtuous woman asks why she is taking action, for why she takes action will directly influence how she takes action. She challenges her answers socratically, examining them carefully for motivated self-deception." LOVE THIS! If only there were more of this... how much better would our world would be?
Indeed. I think this is one reason I wanted to expand on delusion in the third essay, because I'm quite confident the skill of monitoring for motivated self-deception is widely lacking in our modern culture. Anyone who hopes to stay on the virtuous path must develop and apply this skill.
So, remarkably I have only one point to pick at here; this is a really great essay! High five.
The only thing I would bring up, and it is really small to your point but maybe useful, is that examining WHY you are doing something, your motive, is only one point of consideration. There are (as Smith makes clear) 4 aspects that humans consider when judging the virtue of an action:
1: Motive
2: Effects on others (counter party)
3: How well the act conforms to social norms
4: The effects if the act was to become general (What if everyone did this?)
Motive is of course important, as you correctly point out. The effects on others is really important too, as asking "Why am I doing this" demands the question "What is the 'this' I am doing?" (Hopefully your internal monologue has less awkward grammar :D.)
Conforming to social norms is important, although as your essay points out, women are naturally very good at that aspect.
As to the general effects, well, if we have trouble imagining that (and we often do) we are definitely living it now with regards to toxic feminine competition becoming the standard of how we are expected to interact in nearly all organizations. Egalitarianism means I am punished by you when I excel, indeed!
NOTE: Comment was removed at Jerome's request because it was an edit he intended only for me. Thanks, Jerome!
Well at least we learned how this works. The comment is gone but the now-irelevant responses remain. Oh well...