Who Is More Of A Man?

[digdeep]

I am extremely surprised that this is such a hot topic, but it is. So I might as well add my two cents...

I think it is a bit of a concensus that fighting is not the manly thing to do, but I don't think everyone is considering the circumstances and mentality of those like Chris Brown. Many people grow up in violent, abusive, environments that require an individual to physically fight in order to survive. It becomes an instinctual response at some point to defend one's self by any means possible; normally physical violence. Living this way encourages those to than use fighting as the solution to any problem.

Other circumstances require individuals to constantly prove themselves by way of physical violence in order to uphold an image that will protect themselves in their daily worlds.

Additionally, different people have different thresholds of feeling threatened, and some are much quicker to fight than others.

However, making this topic a test of manhood, is impossible. It is cultural relativism. In some cultures, families, and communities in the United States and World, one is less of a man for not fighting to prove his power and supremacy, and in many more aristocratic, religious, cultures, fighting is looked down upon.

Though violence is never a solution to a problem, it is the only means by which some know how to solve a problem.

Chris Brown may be wrong to the majority of us, particularly those who have lived longer and understand how futile fighting truly is, but fighting for many is and will forever be their only solution to any threatening situation.

[Leo99]

This happened at a place I used to work:

There was this worker who was a discipline problem. He was on his way out the door and he knew it. A supervisor in another department told him to perform some task. The worker said he'd get to it eventually. The supervisor said, No, do it now. They went back and forth until it escalated. By this time the manager of the department was upon the scene to settle things down. The worker said the supervisor's girlfriend was a ho who was in his bed last night. The supervisor, black belt and former Army Ranger, swung at the worker. The worker ducked and the manager was struck in the face. The worker was escorted off the property and the superviser was taken to the director's office. The director explained that fighting was not the right thing at work and that in order for the superviser to keep his job he needed to apologize for his behavior. They gave him a couple days to think about it. The superviser refused to apologize because he felt justified in his behavior. He was fired. A lot of people at work thought he should have been fired irregardless of the apology but others felt he was justified to defend his girlfriend's honor.

[Blarg]

It's true that in many neighborhoods and cultures, the rules is that if you fight once, you'll avoid 100 fights, but if you refuse to fight once, you'll be fighting every day for the rest of your life.

People who have not grown up in these neighborhoods or cultures find it difficult to believe that could be true, but it is. They give their response to violence, which is after all the more sensible one -- avoid it and realize it doesn't accomplish anything significant, while potentially leading to all sorts of negative outcomes. It's a good answer, but isn't the last word on the matter and doesn't always work.

It kind of brings to mind Marge Simpson's oblivious advice to Bart when he's getting beat up by bullies: "Bart, boys who beat you up are not your friends!"

On the other hand, people from more violent upbringings often think that others who think violence is always a foolish response are both impractical and cowards too, and just kidding themselves and using a lot of words to cover the fact that they can't or won't stand up for themselves and do the right thing to keep jerks, predators, and scumbags from running all over them and everybody else.

It's hard for people from one world to understand the other and give it any credit at all. That's because the correct answer for each world doesn't ring true for the other and is in many ways the opposite.

Add in the fact that there are at least some forms of punks and thugs in every world, and you get even more confusion and people talking at cross purposes with each other.

Even if it's the nature of people to butt heads and never really understand others without having walked many miles in their shoes, it's definitely true that common to all of us is a need to be more in control of our emotions, and therefore more in control of the outcomes of our behavior.

Whatever the circumstances of our lives and our backgrounds, establishing control of our emotions helps us adapt to them better. Certainly controlling our emotions in the face of potential violence helps both the pacifist both remain a pacifist on the one hand and escape falling into denial about real physical threats on the other. And controlling emotions helps the streetwise keep their lives and futures intact by reminding them to be alert for opportunities to avoid conflict instead of being a hair trigger waiting to be pulled by each passing clown or even people who have no idea what they're so mad or paranoid about.

There is always an appeal in stock answers to every question, and all the more so about matters as touchy as how to define masculinity and what to do in violent situations. Much thinking and discussion is little more than regurgitating one stock answer or another, and mixing them around. In volatile discussions like this one, which deals with such high-pressure situations full of potential danger, failure, and recrimination, we have to take care that we really hear each other instead of just facing off and firing blanks, getting nowhere and contributing nothing to people with different outlooks and experiences. The one thing we can probably all agree on is that emotional control is never a negative in high pressure, dangerous situations(nor in forum discussions), and few of us wouldn't achieve better outcomes by being alert and taking responsibility for our emotions in potentially violent situations rather than thinking in fixed patterns about such a complex, changing, and dangerous world. There is not much point in being so cowardly that one always fights nor so wise that one suffers.

[CrisBrown]

Hi digdeep,

Your point is potentially well-taken, however, I think you may have pissed a post or three, because I was one of those who was arguing against a violent response.

As for the idea that those arguing in favor of violence grew up in violent families or neighborhoods where they had to fight to defend themselves, that might be true. Even if it is true, however, it doesn't excuse clinging to those attitudes in the face of reason or societal condemnation.

Let's change the subject just a bit. If someone were arguing in favor of raping women who wear "revealing" clothes -- I put that in quotes because it's a wholly subjective standard -- would anyone defend the would-be rapist on the grounds of "well, that's how some people were brought up?" No. We'd say that a crime is a crime, and the rapist's subjective standards of behavior, based on his background, are irrelevant to the woman's right not to be raped.

This is not much different. Physically attacking someone is criminal battery, and the law is well settled that mere words, no matter how subjectively offensive, are never an excuse for battery. "But that's how I was brought up" is no more an excuse for battery than it would be for rape.

Cris

[digdeep]

Thanks for the reply Chris:

I noticed later that my post was out of context, due to the fact that you were not an advocate of fighting; I had read this post a long time ago, and just chimed in somewhere; obviously in the incorrect place.

A clarification needs to be made here. I am not a proponent of physical battery any more than are you, but since this in the psychology forum, I wanted to touch on an important insight into the mind of a fighter, that many may be missing. Disclaimer: This insight does not any way condone those actions, instead it proposes a alternative viewpoint that seems to be being missed by many.

The person in this case, Erostratus, or whomever, was the one being provoked, and he simply proposed that a fight may be in order to solve this problem. From my interpretation, he did not attack the other person because he pissed him off, nor did he suddenly violate that person because he had the urge. Instead, he proposed what he felt was a viable solution to a problem instigated by another person. If the other person was able and willing, he would have stepped outside and fought. At that point it would have been a mutually agreed upon solution to the issue, and the one less battered would get his way.

This is very different from a man jumping across the poker table and beating the hell out of someone because he drew out on him to a 1 outer. That would be a clear violation of the other's space, more closely related to your rape analogy.

The insight then, is that different people have different ways of solving their problems. From a psychological perspective, mental and verbal abuse can be as or more harmful than physical abuse.

Therefore, understanding that the opponent who began his tirade was more out of line than Erostratus, because he violated Erosratus by setting in with his VERBAL abuse, to which Erosratus prososed PHYSICAL abuse to solve the problem is a key point that many fail to acknowledge.

Furthermore, making a judgement call that phsycial abuse is "worse" than verbal abuse is simply preposterous, regardless of the law.

This site is dominated by so many superior intellects, it is the common misconception that those with strong minds can ignore and disregard veral abuse, by simply being the bigger man, and displaying greater self-control. This takes exceptional mental strength, and self-contraint, that many may completely lack, or many may lack due to stress or other extraordinary circumstances at that particular moment in time.

[Al Schoonmaker]

If you can't take verbal abuse, don't play poker.

It goes with the territory, and, if people recognize that you can't handle it, they will exploit your vulnerability.

Regards,

Al

[RydenStoompala]

It's so obvious. The guys who caught the miracle cards is a "two guy' specialist from the state prison, someone who just isn't happy unless he's naked and biting a pillow.

[CrisBrown]

Hi digdeep,

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, making a judgement call that phsycial abuse is "worse" than verbal abuse is simply preposterous, regardless of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about whether verbal abuse -- in the context of a continuing relationship -- can be as damaging or even more so than physical abuse. That's true. Been there, done that, had the therapy.

Rather, this is about whether verbal insults hurled at a poker table could ever justify physical violence. That is a clear "no."

You can insult me, my partner, my parents, my kids, and my dog. I'm going to ignore you, and if I can't ignore you, I'll ask the dealer or call the floor to end it. If they can't, or won't, I'll leave. I might even be angry on the way home and mutter a string of curses that would make a sailor blush.

What I'm not going to do is challenge you to step outside so we can settle it with violence. And if someone does that, over insults hurled at a poker table, they're turning an ignore-or-walk-away situation into a life-or-death situation. That's not smart ... by any reasonable standard.

Cris

this is why I only play on the internet. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[digdeep]

I agree. Going on tilt from little comments like this will surely be a player's downfall if he/she is unable to overcome whatever sensitivity one might have with respect to verbal abuse.

Again, I am not supporting the notion of fighting at a poker table to prove you are right, or even to shut up some annoying idiot. I was trying to give an insight into why a person might respond this way.


Thanks for the reply.