Men have ego. Men have pride. Men have hubris. These undeniable characteristics of the male psyche drive our actions. It's often why we pursue evident achievement in life - attaining relative success in regards to women, cars, and material wealth as a means of aggrandizing our own self-image. We want to be better than everyone. And we want our peers to view us with respect for our achievements and our personhood.
But ego and pride do not only spur us to positive action, they dictate how we deal with others. Ego and pride are those tiny voices in our heads coaxing us into aggressive behavior at the merest slight. Ego and pride tell us what we're worth and defy those that belittle our value. It's not just a classic song - we all really want r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
Yet the task of gaining respect, or more specifically in the context of the above paragraph, maintaining respect is constrained by one's own limitations. In a crowded bar, smaller men are constrained by their relative stature. These men must understand the danger, like embarrassment in a physical altercation or a broken eye socket, consistent with their aggressive action. The smaller man's desire to maintain a powerful frame comes with some risk, primarily the opposing reaction of those that "disrespect" him for purposes of their own status boost.
In school, our age and subordinate status as schoolchildren restrain how we can approach teachers, even those of an undeniably caustic disposition. "Backtalk", even to a teacher who engages in unjustified criticism or outright demeans students, can have repercussions (never really stopped me as a teen). The teacher has power not easily subverted by crusading kids who refuse to sit down and shut up.
In the workplace, there is a structural hierarchy. The bosses can do and say whatever they want. The middlemen can treat the worker bees in the same fashion. And the workers generally sit there and take it, afraid to respond in kind as their livelihood depends on falling in line.
But when do we, as men, stop taking shit? At what point do the material gains of a good grade or a nice paycheck no longer outweigh the spiritual belittlement at the hands of a rotten professor or an asshole boss? At what point does one refuse to accept his own debasement merely to collect a paycheck or avoid physical harm? Is there a point when we absolutely must speak up, when some behemoth callously cuts the line at McDonald's or our bosses deny all our hard work? Is the respect, the ego, the pride we have for ourselves more important than the dangers of a bad reaction from those we confront?
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure just about everyone has experienced such a conflict.
30 comments:
Usually, sadly, it doesn't pay. You'll just get fired or beaten up, and still accomplish nothing.
There are exceptions. I'm told in jail, if attacked, you should fight; even if you lose, if you do enough damage, you won't be raped.
As Napoleon said, God is always on the side of the big battalions.
Obsessing over getting respect from others is generally something adolescents do or men with weak egos. Secure people dont obsess over respect too much, they are satisfied with their own opinions.
I make a distinction between serious and trivial threats to me - the tough guy at the bar who has something to prove means nothing to me. Even If I am tougher than him, I have nothing to prove, and it is not my job to play some bit role in his personal life drama. Lots of guys have little going for them and pick fights because it is the one way they know to prove themselves. It is not my job to oblige these losers.
Now, if someone seriously threatens my interests or rights, then I will fiercely fight back. But over respect???? Puuleeze. How insecure do you have to be......I am not a kid anymore.
So I guess I never engage in this kind of pointless ego jockeying so beloved of the insecure adult male or the normal adolescent male, but only when my genuine interests or rights are threatened. I feel bad for guys who fight over *respect*.
In civilized society the best recourse isn't outright defiance. It's devious machinations to bring about your enemy's downfall.
So your bully of a boss is making your life miserable? Dig up some dirt on him and find subtle ways to bring it to his superiors' attention. Can't find anything good? Then you may have to resort to outright sabotage or character assassination. All the while maintaining plausible deniability.
Is it honorable? Of course not. But it stands a far better chance of bringing about your oppressor's downfall.
john you are way off
for most of human history men accepted no disrespect. Accepting disrespect was weakness, showed you lacked honor and courage. Why do you think dueling in all it forms last so long
Stonelifter, for much of history, accepting disrespect had much more serious consequences, so it was actually a non-trivial threat to your rights. That being said, there were periods in history when not accepting disrespect became a pointless cult that served no real purpose whatsoever and cost people lives and serious injury for precisely.....nothing. It was just pure ego jockeying. Entire periods of history were infested with the mindset of the insecure, adolescent male. This is not something worth perpetuating.
I am not saying you should tolerate serious disrespect or allow your rights to be trampled on. I certainly dont. I merely propose not obsessing over disrespect and learning to make distinctions between serious disrespect and serious challenges to your interests and rights, and trivial ones. In many situations if you shrug off and laugh at an attempt of a *big* guy to pick a fight with you rather than meet his challenge head on, you maintain your self-respect - and the respect of onlookers - much better than if you met the idiot on his own terms, which is a kind of agreement to play by HIS rules (why should you?). It depends on how you do it - simply show no fear at all, but dont be challenging or escalating either. Its not hard. The two idiots going at it like dogs in the yard hardly win anyones respect.
Point is, there are guys out there who have NOTHING going for them, like NOTHING.....the ONE thing they can do to feel good about themselves is pick fights. Even if they get beaten up bad, they dont really care - it is the one thing in their lives. Is It YOUR job to play by THEIR rules? Sorry, I got tons going for me, and I dont need to participate in some losers life drama.
A mature, secure adult male does not do ego jockeying, but he DOES stand up for himself. I think a CLEAR distinction between the two is needed as this subject has serious potential for confusion - I dont feel that ONE really offered that kind of balanced, mature distinction. Some of his examples are simply ego-jockeying.
You don't have to submit to anything from a boss. There are always other jobs you can go to and that gives you leverage. Most bosses know they have to treat their good employees at least decently or they'll lose them. On the other hand, when I've dealt with any government official it's much more difficult to get good treatment because there aren't alternatives. For example, when I was in school I hated my public school teachers but my parents couldn't really afford to send me to a private school I might've liked better because they were forced to pay taxes to the public school and would've had to pay twice for my education by sending me to that private school instead. A country where the government was the only employer and service provider would be the real nightmare to live in.
"But when do we, as men, stop taking shit?"
My husband would not, cannot, let others walk all over him. He's quiet and nerdy, church-going and upstanding, typical excuses I've seen others make for weakness.
And, yes, he's even been banned by the nearby Burger King per your example for losing it with the rude and dumb staff. So what? He's never been in danger because he doesn't go looking for fights, but he won't tolerate bad behavior or insults from others. He's never been in a truly dangerous situation, but he's smart and I know he wouldn't engage. BTW, after awhile, he went back despite the "ban" with no problems.
I do think you speak for a lot of people in these parts, though.
"In school, our age and subordinate status as schoolchildren restrain how we can approach teachers, even those of an undeniably caustic disposition.”Backtalk", even to a teacher who engages in unjustified criticism or outright demeans students, can have repercussions (never really stopped me as a teen). The teacher has power not easily subverted by crusading kids who refuse to sit down and shut up."
Teachers encourage constructive criticism and dialogue with their students. I think good example in school is how seniors have higher status than those below them. A coach I knew summed it up nicely, "Captains, who must be seniors, are the highest, non-captain seniors below them, then juniors, pond scum (i.e., sophomores), and freshmen".
Freshmen hazing is a method of reinforcing this hierarchy, and engaging in it was rather enjoyable, especially after using subterfuge and surprise, usually by playing the part of the helpful senior or their new best friend to teach them the ins and outs. I even warned one freshman about freshman hazing and how hardly anyone could be trusted, that people will act like your friend only to turn on you, which is exactly what I did to him.
Despite the hazing, they usually understood that it was a phase from which to be graduated. Not only are people hazed for being freshmen, but also for stepping out of line with a higher classman. Even among seniors, the senior prefect and other ranks take precedence over others. While actual hazing methods are top secret, they did not involve anything illegal (at least mine).
"The bosses can do and say whatever they want."
It does feel that way sometimes but the truth of the matter is even superiors have to follow the rules.
"At what point does one refuse to accept his own debasement merely as a means of collecting a paycheck or avoiding physical harm?"
In certain contexts this debasement is a test to see how much you are willing to take.
"Is there a point when we absolutely must speak up, when some behemoth callously cuts the line at McDonald's or our bosses deny all our hard work?"
Certainly! I remember someone who blatantly cut in line at a Starbucks who was talking on his cellphone. I proceeded to cut back and he said, "What do you think you're doing?" To which I responded by saying, "Just taking back my place. I was here before you were so naturally I should go first". Then he mentioned how "important" he allegedly is. I then told him that I wouldn't care if he were the Pope or Queen of England, he would have to wait his turn. I don’t really care for Starbucks, but will go if there’s nothing else around. Atomic Bean Café, Cocoa Bar, Café Grumpy, and Subtle Tea are good depending on where you are.
You don't have to submit to anything from a boss. There are always other jobs you can go to and that gives you leverage. Most bosses know they have to treat their good employees at least decently or they'll lose them.
This is partly why I support unions. To put it bluntly - you don't matter.
Sure, if you're in a company of 5 people, you really do matter because you leaving has a big impact. But if you work for Halliburton or Bank of America, they won't miss you even a tiny little bit if you leave.
There's so many people working for mid to large size companies that one person (i.e. you) makes essentially no difference. And they can find tons of people who will gladly take your position when you quit and probably do it just as well as you do.
(White collar workers like to think this only applies to blue collar workers, but it doesn't.)
"You don't have to submit to anything from a boss. There are always other jobs you can go to and that gives you leverage."
This isn't the 90s anymore where employees had the bargaining power they once had. In this recession employers are the ones who could dictate demands at the negotiation table where they acknowledge the employees' lack of leverage because where else would said employee go? Even invaluable high achievement employees know this (though many act as if they don't, much to their potential detriment), but are usually intelligent enough to maximize their job security and promotion chances.
Jay M: "Freshmen hazing is a method of reinforcing this hierarchy, and engaging in it was rather enjoyable."
I think it would be best for everyone if you just killed yourself.
A bigger guy cut in front of me in line at Safeway a few months ago. Amazingly brazen. Don't know what I could have done - and likely to be arrested too. I just noted what car he was driving. If I ever see it on the lot, I'll superglue his doors.
Why do you think dueling in all its forms lasted so long?
Why do you think the last legal duel in California was in 1859?
Dueling was between equals. A low-status man took abuse from his superior. An upper-status man would have his social inferior flogged for any disrespect.
This post isn't about race, but this question of "respect" is actually the best reason to avoid blacks as much as possible. The trademark emotional weakness of blacks is to interpret nearly every interchange as an opportunity to detect "disrespect." It's an interesting question whether this trait is quintessentially black, or just transplated Southern-ness. A long forgotten is historian named W.J. Cash argued for the latter, in "The Mind of The South."
"This is partly why I support unions. To put it bluntly - you don't matter."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
No one cuts in line in America, so I have no idea where all these stories are coming from. I have literally never been cut in line in America.
And if I was, there are ways to deal with it without getting into a fight. Simply tell the guy where the line starts, nine times out of ten it is just a misunderstanding. If the guy refuses - which I almost cannot believe would happen - you can simply call the security guard or the manager, etc.
Even if I was ten times tougher and badder than the line cutter, getting into a fight over something so trivial is pathetic.
Not a Hacker:
Thomas Sowell makes the latter argument in "Black Rednecks and White Liberals."
I have no idea where all these stories are coming from.
Well, it never happened to me, either, until I was 54 years old. People have changed, is all. But this stuff about calling the mgr. is really naive. I got thrown out of a different Safeway recently for asking the checker why she accepted a woman with 40+ items in the 15-express lane. She told the mgr. I was harassing her.
Twenty years and three jobs ago I had a supervisor who greatly disliked me. After some initial hesitancy I developed a coping mechanism that was basically a form of passive-aggressive behavior. I did just enough work, both in terms of quality and quantity, to meet the requirements of my job description, even though I was quite capable of doing more.
After several months I ended up leaving the job for unrelated reasons, so whether this strategy would have worked in the long run I cannot say.
I never took shit from anybody and knew my self-respect was more important than some paycheck or some scrapes. I challenged the highest status male (usually in good natured fun or sport) in any group of I guys I was a part of. That was equal parts me being comfortable as the outsider who told it like it was and being naturally aggressive and status seeking.
That attitude severely retarded my advancement from job to career until I found a job that was a natural fit for me: mortgage broker.
During the mid 1990's-early 2000's housing boom, the bigger of a confrontational asshole you were, the more job security you had until the house of cards came crashing down around 2006 or so. I recommended people choose their battles more wisely than I did and learn that taking shit is part of paying your dues akin to hazing or boot camp. Learn to take some things in stride and stand up for your pride when it really matters.
Any cop will tell you that when they break up a fight, it's almost always the smaller guy who started it.
Ok John
I think we're pretty close in opinion. Where feet apart on the topic, not miles. You are right, sometimes it's not worth it, and often men take offense when none was actually given or meant.
However, I will not accept disrespect from some quarters. I kicked my brother-in-law out of my house because I will not be disrespected in my house. Or allow others to disrespect what I hold dear.
I will not take it from women and negros. Whom seem the most eager to be disrespectful. Probably because both are protected classes.
damnyankees are another class of men who seem to offer disrespect on a constant basis
I cannot recall the last time a mexican or a local White man was blatantly being an ass to me. Course I live in the country, and respect still matters. I've also noticed what counts as respect and disrespect differs from place to place
-----
Why do you think the last legal duel in California was in 1859?
-----
Because men have become women. It says no good thing about our masculinity that dueling is out of favor and illegal
Respect at my work is a funny thing. There is a constant barrage of insults and the like, but no real disrespect. Often enough we slam the men we like the best.
Management treats us well. I haven't had a bad boss in years. Probably has to do with everyone's military background.
I'm a big man, and looking back over the years, it's almost always the little guy trying to push things. Doesn't happen to me anymore because I'm older, don't spend time in bars, or around people I don't know, etc but it seems to me it was the smaller guys back in my college and enlisted days
Gertrude, sounds like you have a good man. I wish more Christian men would start acting like men
Contrary to what "self-improvement" guys may say, there is scientifically no way to get respect from someone if you don't have what it takes to back your threats up. In other words, words are good, but if your words are empty, you will go nowhere.
As Roosevelt said (and you can trust him: he was a PigMan), "Be gentle, but carry a big stick".
The reason jerks and muscular guys naturally and quickly reach the top of social status in any social organization is because they can back up their threats to others with concrete violence, without necessarily the need to do it.
So the only way for nerdy types to get respect by everyone, including muscular jerks, is by having real, tangible power (economical, military or political).
"Obsessing over getting respect from others is generally something adolescents do or men with weak egos."
John is right, respect is something that should flow naturally to you, without the need to assert yourself several times.
So part of the reason why modern women "wear the pants" in households is because they have more power and rights than men in our current society.
Bad day at work, One?
At what point does one refuse to accept his own debasement merely to collect a paycheck or avoid physical harm? Is there a point when we absolutely must speak up.. Is the respect, the ego, the pride we have for ourselves more important than the dangers of a bad reaction from those we confront?
The answer depends on each individual, and on the immediate situation. You will tend to be more cautious if you have a 3-year old daughter in tow for example, versus if you are out drinking a night with some running buddies. Ramming the back of someone who cuts you off in traffic makes little sense on a fast-moving freeway or city street. Too much property, money and physical risk is at stake.
Maybe you could look at it in various levels: physical size of opponent, property or person belonging to you that you must protect, level of monetary risk (getting fired by talking back to boss for example), level of social ridicule risk, level of universal principle involved (some people will endure torture because of some religious or moral or political principle involved). So there is no hard and fast rule.
There is nothing wrong with wisdom and prudence, and there will be a time dimension to all decisions. If you need the job why antagonize a boss with blunt ridicule? Wisdom would phrase concerns more subtly. But a time dimension can eventually work in your favor. If you already have another job offer in hand, and don't need the reference, then you have greater scope to lay it on the line. Each individual has to calculate the particular level of risk, reward or penalty involved, compared to the potential monetary, physical or psychic payoff.
As for times when you absolutely must speak up- there are those times- especially when some fundamental moral principle is involved. You can skip on tell the boss he is full of sh___t, but if you find out creepy neighbor Sam is molesting kids across the street, then that is something you should not skip on if you have the evidence or reasonable suspicion.
not a hacker said...
This post isn't about race, but this question of "respect" is actually the best reason to avoid blacks as much as possible. The trademark emotional weakness of blacks is to interpret nearly every interchange as an opportunity to detect "disrespect." It's an interesting question whether this trait is quintessentially black, or just transplated Southern-ness. A long forgotten is historian named W.J. Cash argued for the latter, in "The Mind of The South."
Dubious nonsense. Blacks as a group are no more likely to have emotional" crazed responses than whites. If anything, using your broad brush approach, historical data shows white culture has much more "hair trigger" violence and emotionalism - in particular white southerners and northern groups such as the white Irish.
Touchiness, obsessive cravings for "respect" leading to hair-trigger violence, etc, are all things that have characterized white southern male culture, and is so documented by your WJ Cash, Grady McWHinney and most recently Thomas Sowell. The free-ranging violence and mayhem of such old-line Irish hoods as "San Juan Hil"l and "Hell's Kitchen" makes today's ghetto mayhem seem like a Boy Scout rally. All the ghetto riots of the 1960s, did not kill as much as one moderate-sized Irish riot in the 19th century (Sowell 18981, 2005). The phrase "Fighting Irish" has a much grimmer historical reality than today's pleasant Norte Dame football teams.
Citrus, I can't even begin to understand how you've managed to confuse respect with coercion. Being respected is not the same thing as violently intimidating people into doing things your way.
Furthermore, where exactly in normal life can you rise to the top of a social organization through violent intimidation? Do you think Apple is going to hire you if you insinuate that you'll start tearing the place apart if you don't get the job or if your co-workers won't (pretend to) worship you? If you start chimping out, you'll just end up in jail and accomplish nothing.
"Respect" and "disrespect" are better adverbs than verbs.
i.e. one is treated with respect, not "respected"...
John has it completely backwards. His facade doesn't sway me. If being angry over rights is something that is not insecure then what do you say of men's rights activists and their whiney websites? If anything John I'm concerned about your mental health. You seemed to have swallowed liberal dogma hook, line and sinker. In the same breath I can just see you scolding those who disrespect political figures like Barack Obama.
Post a Comment