Truthful or Proper?
by drD
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8213933/
Some aspects of social reality are considered improper and remain unspoken, in any culture, challenging truth seekers to tread lightly. In our modern culture men are especially challenged, by vast inconsistencies between what is observably so and what is proper and acceptable to mention.
Why men, more than women? Why do men worry about upsetting women, more than the other way around?
Unequal in arguments
While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments, the research shows just the opposite, surprising our expectations. Women tend to be more insistent, according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. Women argue more in almost half again as many marriages as men.
In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent, by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent. So in these most severe arguments, we see an almost complete separation between men and women.
Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and remain bitter for longer afterward, while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts, recover from them more quickly, and are ready for another round. Generally, it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around.
Men tend to concede, placate, or withdraw in arguments with women, thereby allowing women set the standards were what is or is not acceptable in the relationship. As in the above animation, it is ordinarily the woman who sets the standards and the man who tries not to offend.
Insistence has been a viable tactic for women, to test the strength of a commitment, while a reluctance to offend has been a more viable for men, who must rely on women to transport their genes into the next generation.
Chivalrous Standards
We hear little of chivalry, and some consider it nothing more than a flimsy folk-tale. Yet human passions are highly chivalrous, supporting women and protecting them from men who might harm them.
An illustration or two should suffice. A man and a woman are in a nightclub, and quarrel. If he throws an ounce of whiskey in her face, it is clearly an assault, and an undercover policeman would arrest him on the spot and jail him. If she throws a splash of whiskey at him, it is merely a rebuff or perhaps an expression of exasperation. Who would want to jail her? Surely, anyone who did would be unwelcome back at the club.
Men who understand temperamental women gain their admiration, and perhaps their sexual favors as well, whereas men who offend women are treated accordingly.
Men who understand temperamental women gain their admiration, and perhaps their sexual favors as well, whereas men who offend women are treated accordingly.
We are not chivalrous simply because men are physically stronger. A Justice survey [ii] asked men and women to judge the seriousness of various transgressions. If a man stabbing a woman to death with a knife is rated a 10, meaning truly heinous and indeed unforgivable, then a woman stabbing a man to death with a knife is rated only a 6, meaning surely serious but perhaps understandable under the circumstances.
Why so? Men have been expected to protect women, and the lowlife thug who knifes a woman is hardly a man at all. On the other hand, a woman who just whacked her mate is still very much a woman, and furthermore, she may be quite available, although a tad risky. A man who understands her predicament surely gains her favor, and may join with her later to sire rug-rats with similarly understanding attitudes.
Why so? Men have been expected to protect women, and the lowlife thug who knifes a woman is hardly a man at all. On the other hand, a woman who just whacked her mate is still very much a woman, and furthermore, she may be quite available, although a tad risky. A man who understands her predicament surely gains her favor, and may join with her later to sire rug-rats with similarly understanding attitudes.
Men who catch a few blows file police complaints only a tenth as often as do battered women, and so seldom come to our attention. [iii] Here again, our public conduct follows our genetic interests. What sort of fool would hand his wife over to the men in authority and probably lose her, just because she takes a swing or two? A woman, on the other hand, must count on a man for her safety, and she benefits from punishing the reckless egotist who goes too far over the line.
Chivalrous Tinted Glasses. Human culture appears to be naturally chivalrous, supporting women against offending men, more than it is sexist, as is commonly claimed, supporting men against women. Why do so many believe otherwise?
We are now expected to compliment women on their multiple talents and many achievements, while it is considered sexist and terribly improper to notice limitations or moral failings. And it is now somewhat improper to honor men for any special strengths and virtues, as it can offend women, while it is conspicuously commonplace to condemn men for the many ways men mistreat women. So social propriety exaggerates some facets and conceals others, yielding a highly biased impression of men and women.
Chivalry itself is a master magician, here painting an illusion of culture as callously un-chivalrous and prejudiced against women while concealing itself as the agent of its own illusion.
" A man defending husbands vs. wives or men vs. women
has got about as much chance as a traffic policeman
trying to stop a mad dog by blowing two whistles."
-Ring Lardner
The Challenge
So far as boys and young men are to mature into responsible adults and continue to contribute to our society, our next generation of males must learn to sort through the prejudice and gain confidence in themselves and in what men typically contribute to our shared quality of life. Young men must understand what is socially proper to say, in order to get along, and yet realize the realities behind the propriety, to use as a foundation for confidence and for constructive contribution.
i. J. Gottman and R. Levenson, "The Social Psychophysiology of Marriage." In P. Noller and M. Fitzpatric (eds.), Perspectives on Marital Interaction (Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1988), 182–202.
ii. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Crime Severity (Washington, D.C.: US-GPO, 1985): as cited in W. Farrell, 1994, 214.
iii. Suzanne Steinmetz, The cycle of violence. Assertive, aggressive, and abusive family interaction (New York: Praeger Press, 1977).
.
