How to be a MAN

[ToPleaseHim]

Do you believe that each of you would act differently upon witnessing a child in peril?

Yes. Often.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

Yes. Often.

Jesus. I have had plenty of political disagreements of people but I've never felt our morality was so far apart that they wouldn't care for an imperilled child... or me.

If I seen them injured in a car wreck I'd do all I could for them, I believe they'd do the same for me.

I hope you are wrong.

 

[policywank]

I so wanted to stay out of this thread just because I knew what it would evolve into, which it has, unfortunately for the OP. But this post begs so many questions.

So is a conservative man or one who holds some conservative values toxic by definition? You mentioned your amazing dude who's dominant but also quite liberal. That's why I ask. Is any sort of conservative man toxic just by definition? And if so, what are the parameters specifically that would make it so? Just seems so broad-brushed and blind, but most things are nowadays.

I really don't think that being conservative automatically means you are toxic. But I think the whole idea of what it means to be conservative has been hijacked by the extreme right so it sort of depends upon what you mean. I generally associate with small-c conservatives as people who feel that government should limit their role to only the necessities, raise as little taxes as possible and stay out of people's personal lives. They often tend to be pro-business and religious. There is nothing wrong with any of those things and I know many people who identify as conservative who are genuinely good people.

It is only the further right ideologies who lay on all of the bad stuff that we associate with political conservatism. Consider something like religion. A few years ago I was talking to a Pastor who I would consider to be very conservative and I asked him what he thought of homosexuals. His view was that the bible says it is wrong but it also says that it is not for him to judge and it is for him to treat other people the way he wants to be treated. I am liberal and not particularly religious so I don't quite agree with him. But his view isn't the toxic bile we hear on the matter from many religious people on the right.

Here in Canada we have a more extensive social safety net than there is in the U.S. I have a close relative who is quite conservative and thinks that quite a few of our systems are inefficient and should be eliminated. He also employs 30 people, donates to many charities and volunteers at the shelter downtown. And I have never heard him say derisive things about the less fortunate. His conservative views just happen to reflect his views on how we should manage the less fortunate in our society. He is is a good man.

 

[Escierto]

Do you believe that each of you would act differently upon witnessing a child in peril?

I believe that those extreme right wing fanatics, of which there are millions, would put children in peril. Not only would they not rescue a child in peril but depending on that child’s race they would actually kill the child. This is now occurring all over our country. A child who retrieves a ball in a neighbor’s yard is shot and killed. So no, I have NOTHING in common with these monsters.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I believe that those extreme right wing fanatics, of which there are millions, would put children in peril. Not only would they not rescue a child in peril but depending on that child’s race they would actually kill the child. This is now occurring all over our country. A child who retrieves a ball in a neighbor’s yard is shot and killed. So no, I have NOTHING in common with these monsters.

THIS. Exactly this!

Also, hey @Escierto. Lovely to meet you.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

I believe that those extreme right wing fanatics, of which there are millions, would put children in peril. Not only would they not rescue a child in peril but depending on that child’s race they would actually kill the child. This is now occurring all over our country. A child who retrieves a ball in a neighbor’s yard is shot and killed. So no, I have NOTHING in common with these monsters.

I'm afraid it was a bit of a trick question; we all know that Joe Average political opponent would do the same thing we would. If you really think about it, if you think of a political opponent that you know personally, do you REALLY believe this person would abandon a child in peril? or kill them?

There is tremendous amount of evidence, from through out history, showing that the vast majority of human beings do have a shared morality, particularly when children are involved.

I know it's not attractive to think about, because suddenly your political opponents might just be human beings. Heaven forbid, you may even be able to reason with one another. Maybe they have some bourbon they would share, if you'd just spend 10 minutes not painting them the devil.

There's this belief in the UK (and I think the USA) that your political opponent is your enemy. Or that opponent and enemy are the same thing. We need to stop this; it's absurd.

Anyway... a tale from the trenches. Early in WW1 it was found that the vast majority men would not voluntarily shoot one another. They would often shoot over one another, making a big noise and posturing display hoping to scare off the other side's patrol. There is a report of a British patrol carefully laying down their rifles so that they could throw clods of dirt at the German troopers, the after action report shows that uniforms were soiled at a 2:1 ratio favouring the Brits. Jolly good.

An unarmed Adolf found himself staring up the barrel of a British rifle, only to be told to "get lost" by the man holding it. The man holding it would not shoot an unarmed man.

Men had to be conditioned to kill; to think their enemy as not human and to react without thought. Be careful that you don't forget that your political opponents are human, or terrible things may happen.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

@kinked_a_bit - great post

 

[IrisAlthea]

Do you believe that each of you would act differently upon witnessing a child in peril?

People do, regardless of politics.
I’ve stood on a beach where there are rather bad rip tides when a little girl was wandering further out in the surf, not listening to her mother and grandfather.
There were lots of people there and I was the only one who was mostly out of my clothes and going in the water when the girl decided to turn back.

If it is about politics, ability, initiative, other considerations etc, is impossible to tell.

Jesus. I have had plenty of political disagreements of people but I've never felt our morality was so far apart that they wouldn't care for an imperilled child... or me.

If I seen them injured in a car wreck I'd do all I could for them, I believe they'd do the same for me.

I hope you are wrong.

I'm afraid it was a bit of a trick question; we all know that Joe Average political opponent would do the same thing we would. If you really think about it, if you think of a political opponent that you know personally, do you REALLY believe this person would abandon a child in peril? or kill them?

a tale from the trenches…

The terrible and wonderful thing about humans is that we are capable of both great nobility and horrible cruelty.

It would be easier if the nobility was with some of us and the cruelty with others, but there are great artists who do horrible things, wonderful partners and parents who committed war crimes and even parents who were good parents to some of their children while abusing others.
Most of us stay a bit more in the middle.

Like you said there are people who are great neighbours and aquaintances and who probably would stop and help at a car wreck even with risk to themselves, while holding political views that are quite far from mine. I also know some people who hold similar views as I do when discussing politics, that I wouldn’t trust to do the right (in my opinion) thing in a crisis.
What is more tricky is that you will see the people who vote for throwing out asylum seekers who get very sentimental and helpful about one special case reported in the newspapers.
You’ll see people who go on about how bullies should be treated until it is their grandkid who is the bully.
You have people who talk about womens rights until a woman doesn’t use those rights the way they think she should.
I could go on forever…

In short, humans are complex creatures.

As has been pointed out, conservative, liberal, left, right, socialist are concepts that are used differently in different contexts and all describe a rathe broad range of thoughts and ideas.

For me personally it’s less interesting what you call yourself and more about what actual beliefs and ideas and way of thinking are behind it.
If you seem to have detached from reality and have a disregard for actual facts, I’d rather steer clear.
There are lots of people I can have some common ground with, have a laugh and a drink with or be friends with, even if we hold very different views on politics.
There are some views on some topics though, where I’d say that if you hold them, there is a limit to how close we will get, both for practical reasons and because of how it would make me feel about you.

 

[y=mx+b]

Avoid absolutism.
Avoid extremism.
Strive to be a decent human being.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

People do, regardless of politics.
I’ve stood on a beach where there are rather bad rip tides when a little girl was wandering further out in the surf, not listening to her mother and grandfather.
There were lots of people there and I was the only one who was mostly out of my clothes and going in the water when the girl decided to turn back.

If it is about politics, ability, initiative, other considerations etc, is impossible to tell.

I salute you for doing that; I grew up next to a river and a sea loch (or sea lake...or Fjord... depending on where you come from). I've been in similar situations.

I would attribute that to unfamiliar situation though; most people don't know how to act around/in water.

But nobody was throwing rocks at the kid, or trying to sink them (....right....right???)

Anyway, let's not do the topic to death.

I guess my only point is that most people are good, regardless of which side of right/left they are on. Obviously a fully authoritarian communist or an actual fascist are far more likely to be evil and cruel, but almost nobody is actually in those groups.

 

[stickygirl]

It's a mistake to frame conservatism by the actions of tiny minority. Heroes emerge to rescue this or that person and it has nothing to do with their political background. Could the backyard kiddy shooter have done that if he didn't have a gun in the first place? Why did he buy the gun: perhaps that might point towards his political affiliation?

If the public become convinced that there are boogey men round every corner, then is it a surprise people arm themselves in the mistaken belief that somehow they'll be trained and skilled enough to not shoot off their own foot in the panic of an event?

Politicians and the media are equally culpable in screaming "Fire" into people's lives, because frightened people are easier to control by virtue of buying their vote with promises that can't fulfil.

Conservatism in the UK grew from a political class that attended private schools, inherited wealth and had a sort of benign sense of care and duty towards their country and for those less educated and privileged as themselves. Not any more. I'm guessing the same in the US. The political right in most countries has been hijacked by the "Fire" shouters. History should teach us that it was never the Jews, never the Romas or Slavs or people that just looked different to you.

In the US it looks to me like 80% of political rhetoric is directed at 1.5% of the population, instead of what conservatism used to promise - fiscal stability and social responsibility for all.

So this ^ ramble ought to come back to the OPs question! A man ought to have enough courage to look at the BS in society and politics and recognise it for what it is, AND speak up. So should women.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

A man ought to have enough courage to look at the BS in society and politics and recognise it for what it is, AND speak up. So should women.

Are you insane? what are you trying to do? create some kind of Utopia where people of all backgrounds coexist in peace?

 

[Strixaluco]

Realize that compassion and vulnerability are weaknesses. Use them sparingly and only with people who are worthy.

I have to disagree with this. They are strengths when well used.
It doesn't of course mean it would be useful to show vulnerability to someone attacking you, usually. But if it isn't a physical attack, even that sometimes works.

Though you list many things I agree with, overall there's a lack of compassion shining through, which is very unappealing.

She did and it worked. Sympathy and empathy are wildly overrated

It worked for you. It wouldn't have worked for everybody.

Empathy isn't used enough in this world.

 

[Strixaluco]

My dad died when I was in middle school. I grew up as an anime nerd in the 2000s. I am now obese, full of excuses, and probably 20-40 years from death. I am ontologically, by definition, a man, but not manly, and don't "man up."

How does one become a man? Physically, mentally, emotionally, intellectually, how does man-boy fashion himself into husband or father material, and not merely stumble into such relationships causing permanent psychological trauma to his loved ones? Men, do you have any books to suggest or people to imitate? Women, what do you look for in a man to know he's trustworthy?

I rather skip all that political debate going on here, it doesn't help you at all.

Unfortunately the book I'd recommend isn't available in English. It's about "One year as a gentleman", written by a previously punk journalist who made a year-long hands-on study about being a gentleman, reading about what it used to mean in the past centuries, and what in entailed in sports, wardrobe etc.

And he didn't stop after that year. He says it probably saved his marriage.

Rather than trying to imitate one person, I suggest you try this same method. Dig in! Read, study, learn. I also suggest you refine, like he did, your search into gentleman, not just a man. Sounds oldfashioned, but it's a concept that has been around for centuries and in this era when it's not exactly what most men are, it can get you surprisingly good results.

One crucial part of being a gentleman is seeking to grow as a person. Seeking to be a better man, even though it is not always easy and comfortable.

And that means taking responsibility over your actions, choices and words. Even the choices to not do or say something.

Better means more respectful, more responsible and trustworthy, having more integrity, better manners... The past eras also include courage, for example to defend those in worse position than you. And surely, empathy has a definitely a place in the description of a gentleman.

First thing in practise for you would probably be to take responsibility over taking care of yourself. Which may may sometimes in practise mean getting professional help to get your mental health, physical health, diet and fitness on the right track. And even with that help, one needs to be ready to work on it oneself. Even a lot. Being a top athlete is not the point, but those 4 areas are interconnected.

If you have traumas that need to be worked upon, that work will probably help you to become a better person, too (stepping on traumas tends to be a way of bringing the worst of someone out). It's one way of fixing the foundations.

Oldfashioned manners are most still applicable. The most important thing is, however, the idea behind them: taking others into consideration and making social interactions easier.

That "1 year gentleman" journalist told afterwards that the most difficult thing was, and is, to hold doors open for other people. Because it meant actively paying attention to other people, in order to do them this small gesture.

It's impossible to list everything, but as a nerd I'm sure you're able to dig further from here.

One more piece of advice: more important than showing signs of being trustworthy is to actually be trustworthy. Strive to be and act good, instead of looking like it.

 

[policywank]

People do, regardless of politics.
I’ve stood on a beach where there are rather bad rip tides when a little girl was wandering further out in the surf, not listening to her mother and grandfather.
There were lots of people there and I was the only one who was mostly out of my clothes and going in the water when the girl decided to turn back.

If it is about politics, ability, initiative, other considerations etc, is impossible to tell.








The terrible and wonderful thing about humans is that we are capable of both great nobility and horrible cruelty.

It would be easier if the nobility was with some of us and the cruelty with others, but there are great artists who do horrible things, wonderful partners and parents who committed war crimes and even parents who were good parents to some of their children while abusing others.
Most of us stay a bit more in the middle.

Like you said there are people who are great neighbours and aquaintances and who probably would stop and help at a car wreck even with risk to themselves, while holding political views that are quite far from mine. I also know some people who hold similar views as I do when discussing politics, that I wouldn’t trust to do the right (in my opinion) thing in a crisis.
What is more tricky is that you will see the people who vote for throwing out asylum seekers who get very sentimental and helpful about one special case reported in the newspapers.
You’ll see people who go on about how bullies should be treated until it is their grandkid who is the bully.
You have people who talk about womens rights until a woman doesn’t use those rights the way they think she should.
I could go on forever…

In short, humans are complex creatures.

As has been pointed out, conservative, liberal, left, right, socialist are concepts that are used differently in different contexts and all describe a rathe broad range of thoughts and ideas.

For me personally it’s less interesting what you call yourself and more about what actual beliefs and ideas and way of thinking are behind it.
If you seem to have detached from reality and have a disregard for actual facts, I’d rather steer clear.
There are lots of people I can have some common ground with, have a laugh and a drink with or be friends with, even if we hold very different views on politics.
There are some views on some topics though, where I’d say that if you hold them, there is a limit to how close we will get, both for practical reasons and because of how it would make me feel about you.

I think that in a direct person-to-person context people generally seek to be good to each other. Perhaps I am naive but I believe that the proportion of people who would not help a child in distress is very small. These people are sociopaths and other highly dysfunctional individuals who can exist anywhere on the political spectrum.

It gets complex when we get into abstract philosophical matters and incomplete or inaccurate information.

I don't know anyone who is pro-poverty, pro-drug addiction or anti-child welfare. I could probably fill a page with issues where in principal we all (or most of us) want the same things. Immigration policy that is compassionate but realistic. Tax policy that is fair. Employment with dignity. Etc.

Where we differ is largely in how to achieve those things and in the very real need to make trade-offs between priorities competing for finite resources.

Unfortunately, in the process of advocating for various positions our media and political class has adopted a problematic (and arguably unethical) propensity to engage in misinformation or selective use of information. Meanwhile our social media driven society further confuses matters and a shocking proportion of people seem to have abandoned any real efforts to seek truth and balance.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a dickhead. The dickheads are the ones that are unable to listen to your perspective and seek to impose their will and perspective on you. And we would always be wise to turn that back around on ourselves. Rarely is one person or one group 100% wrong and the other 100% right - we all do well to keep that in mind lest we be the dickhead.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

"One year as a gentleman"

I actually read a lot of articles which probably contained the same information as this; but alas I don't think there is one book in English which is a direct equivalent.

 

[Strixaluco]

I actually read a lot of articles which probably contained the same information as this; but alas I don't think there is one book in English which is a direct equivalent.

I think that book actually started as a joke. The writer was pretty much the opposite to a gentleman originally. Meaning the change was huge! From self-centered to attentive and considerate. Even his career changed as a result.

 

[GlasDomDaddy]

I think that book actually started as a joke. The writer was pretty much the opposite to a gentleman originally. Meaning the change was huge! From self-centered to attentive and considerate. Even his career changed as a result.

I've heard of a lot of people going through that same experience. It's a journey from "it's all about me" to "it's hardly about me"

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

I've seen a lot of good thoughts here.

My 2p
The whole "toxic masculinity" thing is deeply discouraging for a lot of guys who haven't had good role models, but can be addressed in a single concept.
Toxic masculinity is masculinity without compassion.

Yes, practice self-discipline, physically and mentally.
Yes, be willing to go into harm's way for others (not necessarily violence; male firefighters are definitely masculine.)
Yes, stand up for yourself and what is right.
Yes, traditional manners & courtesy have a place.

But always with compassion.
Violence (even verbal or emotional) is for self-defense and defense of the weak & innocent, not your go-to form of communication.
Stand up for yourself, but don't be an entitled d-bag or bully.
Practice manners out of kindness, not "and then she'll owe me".
Practice self-discipline; exercise, managing your eating, personal hygiene, dressing well, as a means to your own health and well-being, not to intimidate or brag.

Strive for competence in something.
It doesn't have to be super exciting or sexy, but get good at something. A foreign language, household electrical work, cooking two or three different meals, surfing, bird watching, drawing; something. It is a lot easier to be genuinely confident when you are good at something other that "looking confident" or "having money you didn't earn".

For reading; Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are a great place to start.
Miyamoto Musashi has valuable insights (even though some are a little extreme to my way of thinking).
Note that all three were very much free thinkers, lived as physical a life as they were capable of (Epictetus was disabled), and were more concerned with refining and improving themselves than what others thought.

 

[Strixaluco]

I've seen a lot of good thoughts here.

My 2p
The whole "toxic masculinity" thing is deeply discouraging for a lot of guys who haven't had good role models, but can be addressed in a single concept.
Toxic masculinity is masculinity without compassion.

Yes, practice self-discipline, physically and mentally.
Yes, be willing to go into harm's way for others (not necessarily violence; male firefighters are definitely masculine.)
Yes, stand up for yourself and what is right.
Yes, traditional manners & courtesy have a place.

But always with compassion.
Violence (even verbal or emotional) is for self-defense and defense of the weak & innocent, not your go-to form of communication.
Stand up for yourself, but don't be an entitled d-bag or bully.
Practice manners out of kindness, not "and then she'll owe me".
Practice self-discipline; exercise, managing your eating, personal hygiene, dressing well, as a means to your own health and well-being, not to intimidate or brag.

Strive for competence in something.
It doesn't have to be super exciting or sexy, but get good at something. A foreign language, household electrical work, cooking two or three different meals, surfing, bird watching, drawing; something. It is a lot easier to be genuinely confident when you are good at something other that "looking confident" or "having money you didn't earn".

For reading; Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are a great place to start.
Miyamoto Musashi has valuable insights (even though some are a little extreme to my way of thinking).
Note that all three were very much free thinkers, lived as physical a life as they were capable of (Epictetus was disabled), and were more concerned with refining and improving themselves than what others thought.

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

I think that book actually started as a joke. The writer was pretty much the opposite to a gentleman originally. Meaning the change was huge! From self-centered to attentive and considerate. Even his career changed as a result.

What language is it in?

 

[Strixaluco]

What language is it in?

Finnish. So don't dream of using Google translatlor, it does awful job with Finnish.

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

Finnish. So don't dream of using Google translatlor, it does awful job with Finnish.

Perkele.

 

[Strixaluco]

Perkele.

Can't say that isn't fitting

 

[OlderFitterWiser]

Don't imitate anyone, be yourself.
30 minutes exercise a day and stand by what you believe.