January 29, 2006

Whatever happened to MANHOOD?

Whatever happened to the concepts of honor and manhood? Indeed, a male cannot achieve the title of “Man” without having the character of honor, so the two concepts go hand in hand. The concept and practice of manhood and honor seems to be in decline as young males now see being “hard” or a person without conscious as the highest valued behavior trait in the male culture.

It needs to be made perfectly clear to youth that it takes much more strength to be a man, than it does to be hard and without conscious. The ultimate label of respect is to call a male a “Man” and one becomes a man through the manifestation of the rights of passage into manhood, by the demonstration of character and not age. Simply turning 18 or getting hair on your face and chest does not make one a man and neither does shooting someone or the willingness to shoot someone whom you have a beef with.

What it means to be strong and to be a man has gotten terribly off track in regards to the true working definition. People who are actually weak have managed to redefine manhood and strength so that they can appear strong when they otherwise would have be seen as weak using the traditional definition. The street culture, which some call the thug culture, has managed to turn their behavior into the template for behaviorism for those aspiring to be strong and men.

The violence taking place in our streets and communities is not the actions of the strong or that of men. When individuals must take advantage of the element of surprise, stealth, superior weapons, size or some other means, you are not behaving as a man. Drive by shootings, home invasions, robberies, rape and other forms of violence are not acts of people who are strong, but behaviorally are acts of those who are weak and afraid to give their opponent or target an equal opportunity to defend themselves. Without this advantage, many, if not most of these individuals would be too afraid to act because the benefit cost analysis puts them at too much risk.

If one is a gang banger and has a beef with another gang, instead of doing a “drive by” instead have a dual, with armaments of your choice, say 45’s. Find an unpopulated place, stair each other directly in the eye and draw and fire. That’s what men would do. If you want to do a home invasion, tell the occupants when you will be coming and what type of weapons you have, so that they can be prepared. That’s what men would do. All this sissified stealth attacks are not honorable and not the act of real men. If you would not attempt it without the advantage, then you are acting cowardly and not passing the rights of passage into manhood.

When a male is only motivated to act when he has the advantage, then he is being weak. If what you desire is really of worth then you will fight for it like a man regardless of whether or not you have an advantage. Men are not advantage takers. They do not take advantage over other males and they do not take advantage over females, notwithstanding the fact that they often have it and could. There in lies one of the key rights of passage into manhood, which is the ability to control the self and restrain impulses from opportunities. If a male cannot practice self control or impulse control, he cannot be classified as a man. Men act off of principles and rules of honor and will not act based upon advantage and opportunity, which means that a true men will act even at a disadvantage.

Strength is the ability to manifest control physically and mentally and it takes more strength to control oneself than to control others through advantage. Infants have a hard time practicing impulse control over the self and hence adult males who have the same problem are behaving more like children than men. Chris Rock once said that a man is only as faithfull as his opportunities. In other words, fidelity in males is driven by opportunities for infidelity. Well, if that is true, then most males are not being men. It takes much more strength to forgo temptation than to succumb to it. Therefore, the definition of “man” should be reserved for the highest demonstration of strength in males, not the lowest.

The committed family man is the highest manifestation of strength in males, bar none. To be a committed family man dedicated to providing for and protecting a women and children and forgoing opportunities and temptations, is a strong as a male can get. Many men do not commit out of the fear that they will be hurt emotionally. Many men fear their emotions to the degree that they will not let a woman in their hearts and make them feel vulnerable. This is especially true of men who have been hurt emotionally by women in the past and many of these males take it out on other women by never committing or opening up emotionally. That’s not an act of strength on the part of males, but rather, actions constrained by fear, which is cowardly.

Even our nation, which is dominated and run by males, does not embody manhood. Recently, our nation has gone to war with other nations, ONLY when we have a clear advantage, which is not the practice of manhood. To drop bombs down from planes flying at 30,000 feet or from ships far away in the sea, is the act of power, but not the human manifestation of bravery, strength and manhood. Terrorist are often called cowards, but it’s hard to argue that the man in the advanced Abrams Tank is braver than his opponent on horse back with a sword. The fact that the person on horse back decides to find an asymmetrical way of doing battle is only because the person in the Tank will not get on horseback to do battle man to man.

In conclusion, in our society has become really twisted. People who are actually behaving the strongest and manliest are seen as weak and those behaving weak have the power and influence to define it as strong. I don’t know how any of this will change and I really don’t know for sure how it all got so twisted. All I know is that it is indeed…..twisted.


At 1:06 PM, Blogger Scott said...

I hate to say it but this is how its always been.

And as you point out again and again, the punk who fathers 10 kids out of wedlock is the biological winner.

I don't support that but its the truth. And when we have government policies that support out of wedlock birth what else would you expect to happen. Expect a devaluing of fatherhood/manhood.

Any man who stays around it not behaving rationally.

At 2:30 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

I don’t think that government policies are the cause Scott. In places of extreme poverty where adults can barely feed themselves and there is no government assistance, people continue to produce many children. The reality is that sex is in all societies marriage is not. The presence or lack of government assistance has little to do with out of wedlock birth rates. Poverty and government assistance has been on the decline, while out of wedlock births are increasing.

The real cause of this is changing roles of women in a society or culture. When women seek to compete and behave on par with men….this becomes the resultant. In nature, men and women have specific roles and our society attempts to reorder the roles by creating a false equality when nature never meant for man and women to be equal in roles or behavior.

At 8:08 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Your original post is about America or at least that is how I read it. We aren't talking about third world.

At 2:21 PM, Blogger Marc Garvey said...

Scott, this subject can't be defined to arbitrary nation states. It is about human men.

And we have a govt that supports out of wedlock birth? Do you know how much it costs to have an abortion as opposed to having, no less raising, a child? The facts turn your argument upside down.

At 2:21 PM, Blogger Marc Garvey said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums