I watched two youtube videos last night that made me stand up and pay close attention. The first is by Ann Barnhardt and it’s about the word nice. We hear so much in the Sphere about men being taught to be nice and being nice guys. That this is the way they should live their lives and be toward women . . . always (I do not think that mothers/sisters/girlfriends told men this on purpose. Regardless, we have taught our men wrong) I have told the women here to be nice. After watching this video I will never say that again.
Now, before you watch this video I am only going to be discussing what she has to say about the word nice and being nice. Ann Barnhardt is extremely in your face. She pulls no punches. If you decide to watch the video in it’s entirety (I will link to it beginning at where she starts to talk about the word nice) most of you will be uncomfortable and many of you will be downright offended. Regardless of what you think of the rest of the video, I urge you to pay very close attention to what she says about being nice. Don’t lose sight of that for anything else she says that might take you aback. At about the 6 minute mark she begins to apply this meaning of being nice to socialism, Marxism and the Church. But it all applies just as easily to what we have been teaching our men and boys since feminism.
Watch it here.
The second video I watched last night has to do with the path of the Catholic church. Specifically, the video is about Cardinal Dolan inviting Barack Obama to a Catholic event. The salient part for this post (to which I will link the video starting at this point) is that the church, in becoming far more feminine over the past 50 years or so has lost it’s ability to love in it’s truest sense of the word. This applies just as easily to what men have been taught in mine and subsequent generation. Regardless of your religious beliefs, watch this, apply it to manhood and see where it takes you.
While I was watching these videos last night Wudang had this to say, in part (read his whole comment here)
The failure to see the male pole of morality as essentially male leads the view of males as morally backwards compared to women who have more empathy and love. So she becomes a higher more moral and worthy person he should emulate and learn what is moral good and right from because she feels more for other people. That belief alone is enough to subtly put men under the indirect control of females because men will then take their behavioral cues from women and feel that fundamentally the woman is probably right when there is a disagreement in what is right to do because she is the good and moral one.
People also fail to see male morality as connected to love because it seems logical, dry and head based and so void of emotion and hence of love. Men are also burdened with being the bad cop in their morality having to be brutal towards those who just have to be sacrificed for the greater good for life to go on and so seem like beings of lesser morals even when they are doing good. (The same brutality a man directs towards himself when he sacrifices himself for the greater good). But the fact is that a man will often feel very strong emotions connected to these moral choices. A sense of honor that compels a man to stand for his principles in the face of harsh consequences to doing so can generate intense feeling and a man will often feel intense meaning in doing brutal things like going to war. And intimately connected to those feelings will often be a form of love feeling that is directed towards the higher purpose be it family, the tribe, nation, humanity, sacrificing for women etc. It is also the case that mystics of all traditions in describe experiences during deep prayer or meditation of both feelings of more conventional heart based love and of a more universal impersonal love and the latter is associated with experiences in the head (spreading down throughout the body though) rather than the physical heart where individual love is felt). So when you go deeply into the male pole of morality, there is LOVE although an impersonal general one.
There is a weakness in the male moral style and that is that is that it does not come as easily by itself as empathy and love does. Although there are general dispositions for styles of seeing what is right and wrong one needs a particular moral code, a particular purpose to sacrifice for etc. to really bring this forth. So in the absence of clear way of thinking about what is right to do, about what should be the code for a man men might end up with very little to guide them and so realize very little of their moral potential. Empathy for individuals is more fluid and spontaneous and does not require to the same degree specific guidance.
THe male moral code requires the general and so by making generalizations “bad” the foundation male morality is built on disappears. By making casting judgement in itself and immoral act large parts of male morality is made impossible because so much of it is about judging behavior in order to uphold morals from the top down on a broad societal level. By undermining the general rules of justice and fairness male morality is further weakened.
For now, I am going to let the videos and Wudang’s comments stand alone. I really don’t have anything to add as they cover it all for the men. I will say, for the women, I won’t be saying to be nice any more. I will say, however, that we must be civil, polite and conduct ourselves with poise in a disagreement, on the internet or with our husbands and with loved ones. I am not asking for women to come here or anyplace else and completely agree and “be nice”. I am saying disagree, but disagree without being brash. You will be more likely to be listened to and your argument will more likely be heard and understood.
Even more than this, as women, our job is support our men in their true abilities to love. Love is not all unicorns and fairies. It is tough, messy and often frightening. As Wudang said above, a man loves by logic, truth and fairness. A woman loves with empathy. Too much of either one and a family and a society will crumble. Both are necessary and it is your job to support your man in his quest to show love by not being nice, but also to show empathy to him and those around you when necessary. He will see this and take note of it and the two of you will be able to love fully those whom are in your lives.
NOTE: If you did watch all of either video I am not going to discuss the things said regarding anything else on them you might take exception with. I am not knowledgable enough to discuss Islam or satanism to be able to apply a high level of logic to them. Regardless, this is not what this post is about. Whether you agree or disagree with any other points in the above videos, is irrelevant. I know they are hot topics, but we are here to talk about masculinity and femininity.
Pingback: Game in a Christian Marriage | barefoot in a clearing
7man said:
I have also written a couple of posts which included Ann Barnhardt videos.
Divorce by Design
Ann Barnhardt on the Vendée Counterrevolution
The world is so surreal and truth is so trampled upon that it is necessary to be in-your-face. That is what it takes for people to notice and possibly think.
Emma the Emo said:
Hmm, you learn something every day 🙂 I didn’t know the word nice derived from a word for foolishness. It’s even in the dictionary.
But then, it doesn’t mean the same as it did before, so it’s a strange reason to avoid being nice. Gay used to mean “happy”.. and other words have similarly changed meaning.
However, your point is good, we should be civil and polite, rather than nice 🙂 Rational people can tolerate disagreement without becoming enemies and getting personally offended.
CL said:
@ Emma the Emo
Language does evolve, certainly, but consider the way ‘nice’ is used as a bludgeon – “you can’t say that, that’s not nice.” Well, so what? Is it ‘nice’ to feed people’s delusions to avoid (temporary) hurt feelings?
That is the attitude behind the unwillingness to correct children, who then grow into dysfunctional and illiterate adults, among other problems.
Stingray said:
7Man,
Regarding the in-your-face, yes, men especially, do well with this. However, I am coming from a place where I steeped my life in “nice” for a very long time. I have been working on “doing right” in it’s place. On my climb out, I noticed that in-your-face would often make me and other women (and some men) shut down. A word or a phrase would so distract from the message that it could not even be heard. I worked hard to reach a place of in-your-face being ok to speak to me with and I actually prefer it now. A lot of women and not too few men still become distracted. There is a place to present the truth with less distraction and that is the balance I am trying to find.
P.S. Matt King, you are going to laugh at me after reading this, aren’t you? 😉
just visiting said:
It’s better to be good than nice. The two aren’t interchangeable. One is about standing up and living by standards, even when others object. The other is about agreeableness.
Wonderful post Stingray!
Emma the Emo said:
” Is it ‘nice’ to feed people’s delusions to avoid (temporary) hurt feelings? ”
I guess it is nice, but not good 🙂
Jacquie said:
I tried being ‘nice’ as it was explained to me, but I couldn’t seem to do it. I don’t know if I would be referred to as in-your-face, but my children have referred to me as intimidating; is this the same thing? I never coddled my children, always gave it to them straight and they responded well to it. They know that they can always trust what I say and its usually when I am talking to people out and about that they feel like I’m being intimidating. That’s not how I’m trying to be, I just believe in telling it like it is and not mincing words. Most people I know well respect that I do this.
Its on the internet that I have the most problem; like I mentioned with lack of inflection and facial expression I have found myself many times walking on eggshells. I cannot be as open as I’d like to be because someone takes my words the wrong way. So I tried wording my comments in a–gulp, I’m going to say it–‘nice’ way and I do usually feel foolish and read back over my comment thinking “this makes me sound like I’m indecisive and don’t know what I’m talking about.”
Thus is why I like writing my own blog and I’m getting a bit more selective about where I comment. I want to be able to be honest and straight. I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me, I just want to be able to have an open conversation and learn a few things.
Thank you, Stingray for this information. I will never be ‘nice’ again.
Stingray said:
Thanks, JV.
Stingray said:
Jacquie,
You’re lucky. I bought into the be nice PC thing hook, line, and sinker in middle school in the late 80’s. Took me a long time to pull out of it and I’m not nearly all the way there. I don’t seem to have a problem with it online at all though. As a matter of fact, I am able to be blunt online well and it has helped me in person. Online I have time to think before I make a response. I can make the hamster stop and respond cogently. I can’t do that nearly as well in person, then the more I think about it the more nervous I get. That’s never good . . .
I’m glad you like the videos.
Leap of a Beta said:
The videos were hilarious and good. Love them.
The first especially was great about not being nice, but being good, being honest, and being strong. The second was a prime example of how to use that rationally in a situation.
And of course, Wudang’s comments are always good at making you think and make connections you may not have seen before.
YOHAMI said:
Great videos and post.
dannyfrom504 said:
in regards to a man’s perspective on this issue, i shan’t be wordy. i’ll just reiterate what i posted on “warrior class”.
“i have the same propensity to f**k, fight, and kill, as i do to love, nurture, and support.”
none of those characteristics has anything to do with being “nice”, but it has everything to do with being natural. being a man.
Pingback: Link Love « M3
King A (Matthew King) said:
Why would I laugh? You speak the plain truth. If anything I’d laugh with joy over such an important topic finally given direct, articulate expression. We are dying face down in a puddle of sticky cloying sap, a.k.a. The Slough of Nice.
Stingray wrote:
I don’t know how people proceed without role models. The women who loved me the most in my life were the ones who wouldn’t let me get away with anything. I came to understand the word “love” as an action, not a sentiment or want or feeling. People are so easily wounded these days because they grew up in a bubble wherein all violence or even harshness was to be regarded as evil in itself. They are confounded when they meet me, the happily principled, sympathetic with a spine of steel, the one who smiles as he engages in fraternal correction — just as the great women in my life demonstrated to me. And when I say “great,” I mean noble in the highest sense, immaculate exemplars of the feminine, who displayed quiet strength that did not have to announce itself, who taught boys how to be strong men via that quietude.
Being “in-your-face” is not to be avoided as a practical matter (causing them to “shut down”) so much as it is a display of consistency: if someone corrects you with disinterested impassivity, or even with plain kindness, it is impossible to regard that person as malicious. In our tyranny of niceness, we assume that the only cause of disagreement is pique or emotional incontinence, and so we fry their circuits by offering bold disagreement with tranquility.
If your personality adopts a reputation for equanimity, then “in-your-face” actions have all the more impact — the lamb who roars like a lioness. She must have good reason! If, on the other hand, you are a constant naggy whiny bitch, beholden to unreason, then screeching is not much of an uptick from your baseline, and we dismiss you as just another untamed shrew on the perpetual rag.
Matt
Stingray said:
I was thinking of the conversation we had regarding temperance and Derb at another forum. The in-your-face vs. temperance and knowing when to use which is something I am trying to figure out. Ann Barnhardt is always the former.
Yes. It can be debilitating.
Leap of a Beta said:
Just had a first rehearsal for a play and one of the actors touched on this when they went around speaking of the first impressions of their characters.
“I just feel like he’s so good natured, kind, and NICE. That he just never had the attention and validation he needed growing up. So when he could, he invested everything in starting a business to find it. Then when that failed and his wife stopped giving it to him [treating him with respect], he cheated on her with the first woman that showed it to him. He still loves his wife and kids and is a NICE guy, he just doesn’t know what to do with himself sometimes”
And everyone treated his character ad the cheated on wife as victims. Somehow. I don’t get how that works.
Dearly Departed is the play. Nothing special in writing, but interesting
Spacetraveller said:
What a fantastic post that mkes one think!
Thanks Stingray.
Watching the Ann Barnhardt video, I recognised that what she meant by ‘nice’ was in fact the new ‘political correctness’ that necessarily had to accompany feminism to make it work. I was a bit disappointed she didn’t mention this term (or perhaps she did in the earlier part of the video which I didn’t watch?). The man in the second video granted me my wish…
🙂
JV is right. There iS a big difference between being good and being ‘nice’.
Wudang is a very wise man.
I didn’t exactly know about what he talks about, but now he mentions it, I see how correct he is.
All this makes me realise more and more why we have feral children about. Remove the masculine from society (or force them into ‘male only’ domains that the MGTOW movement might lead to) and we are all royally stuffed, to use a British expression.
As I tried to explain to a fellow Catholic woman once on my blog (sadly without success), male and female morality are very different, and rightly so. They are supposed to be complementary. This is why one should never judge a man by female standards, as she was trying to do. Wudang’s comment explains very clearly why.
Pingback: Hold the line. Guard your Gate « stagedreality
Stingray said:
It comes with the “niceness”. One can’t place responsibility on people who simply don’t have the capacity to know or do any better.
Leap of a Beta said:
Meh. Then wouldn’t he be the victim and the wife the perpetrator? I mean, I get that in today’s society the woman is ‘never at fault’ for her actions nor her husbands, but a mindset where both characters are victims of the other and yet neither is seen as a ‘bad person’ just astounds me.
I guess the lack of judgment in today’s society just leaves a foul taste in my mouth at the end of the day.
Stingray said:
Good. It should. But this is where we are headed. Where “nice” is taking us. Be agreeable and when something bad befalls you it was that poor other person over there that did it to you, but he can’t be blamed either because his Daddy didn’t read to him and spanked him once, blah, blah, blah. Personal responsibility and strength are the bad guys. So is placing blame, even when it should be placed.
Leap of a Beta said:
“Personal responsibility and strength are the bad guys. So is placing blame, even when it should be placed.”
Curious to any other men, but does this kind of attitude inspire masculine displays? Either in society or in extremely weak displays made ‘beta’ males. Or even just women that perpetuate those values in words but not in deeds. Does it make you want to find a way to have a display of strength, either in a creative of destructive way? I’ve been finding myself drawn to those opposing urges more recently as my physical health increases, my mental health and inner game become more solid, and with a balanced diet that leads to increased testosterone levels.
Trying to figure out if this is just a thing I’m dealing with individually or if its something all men deal with and learn on their path of masculinity. I suspect its the latter, and will probably have a post on it on my own site later this week. But right now I’m burnt out on posts.
Stingray said:
Leap,
It makes ME want to break stuff, so I can’t begin to imagine how it makes you all feel.
Leap of a Beta said:
hahahahahahaha
❤
David Collard said:
Good post. On the Catholic Church, the last pope used to drive me nuts in this regard. He was all about “love” and mercy, and very little about justice and order. Some of the things he wrote about women and wives were very unrealistic. I used to say to myself, “you try living with a woman for a week, and see how well that works!”
GeishaKate said:
Lifetime is doing an experiment and filming men without women for a week. I may be tempted to watch.
Stingray said:
Kate,
I heard about that. I wish I could remember where I read it, but another female blogger did a post about this (if anyone knows who it is, I would appreciate a link!) I bet a million dollars that they make these guys out to be helpless without the women. The lady who made the blog post said this and I agree with her, that the men will have a difficult time for a while as they don’t have the experience women have with changing diapers, cooking and whatnot, but after a week they would have it down pat and be fine. Of course, we’ll see if they show that. The blogger also made a very good point that they should do a similar show with women being without men for about 6 months and see how they fair. Men have a learning curve. but there are a lot of things that women would really struggle with without men . . . fixing water main breaks or something of the like would be beyond difficult if not impossible.
YOHAMI said:
Carolina did. You should be friends.
YOHAMI said:
http://stakedintheheart.com/2012/07/30/take-the-we-dont-need-any-men-in-our-town-challenge/
her other posts are good too.
GeishaKate said:
Yes, I agree, they should use the same town and then evacuate the men. A funny fictional depiction of this was a movie called Without Men starring Eva Longoria. Of course, we’ve seen it happen in real life also: WWII.
Stingray said:
Thank you, Yohami.
Pingback: stagedreality
Pingback: What we’re teaching them « On the Rock
Pingback: Being Your Own Man | On the Rock