Within the men's rights movement, there is a fairly prevalent thought that shaming language is feminist invention and should be avoided. And it often comes up in the comment sections on men's rights blogs that some commenter or other is using shaming language to make their point, and therefore can be disregarded as a feminist.
But the problem is not terms like “man
up”, the problem is their application. Telling men that they need
to “man up” and get married is not a bad thing to say because the
idea that men should put away childish things and act like men is
evil. It is a true and valuable sentiment. The problem is that the
main reason men are not getting married is not because of perpetual
childhood. The problem is that the pool of women that they are
finding acceptable for marriage is shrinking. And beyond that, the
problem is that the whole marriage contract is stacked so sharply
against men that even if a man does find a woman who he would to
spend the rest of his life with, and to raise children with, he still
has reason to pause. There are plenty of men who believe that with
family law being what it is, no woman is worth it, and I'm not saying
that they are wrong. This does not come out of childishness, but out
of a rational assessment of risk.
The call for men to man up and get
married is so common that the phrase itself has become somewhat
repugnant. But the fact that the phrase is so commonly misapplied
does not mean that the sentiment is wrong. Their truly is a
phenomenon of men in my generation (I'm 27) extending the adolescent
life style well past when it should be put behind them.
For these men, the sentiment behind the
phrase man up truly does apply. Not because they need to go get
married, but because they need to stop acting like children.
The reason that there is nothing
inherently wrong with shaming language is because for a man to react
to being dealt a hand that is worse than some others have been dealt,
by simply sitting around and pouting, is shameful. Men who pity
themselves, either to the point of inaction or impotent action, are
stomach turning creatures. And they should be ashamed.
When a man is dealt a bad hand, he
analyzes the data at his disposal and then fearlessly takes the best
action he can even though it might involve a great deal of risk. He
does so without need for pity because for a man to do what is right
is enough.
We have examples of men acting like men in the Bible. In Daniel
chapter 3, Shadrack, Meshach, and Abendnego react to king
Nebuchadnezzar, who has just demanded that they worship his false
idol or be burned alive. They tell him “we
are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God
whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace,
and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it
known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship
the golden image which thou hast set up.” They didn't have to
think about it because they knew that God could save them, and even
if God didn't they would still rather burn alive than submit to the
evil orders of their king.
This
sentiment was echoed again by British solders in WWII, when they were
facing apparent certain doom on the beach of Dunkirk. From there they
sent a three word transmission: “And if not” to let the people
back home know that they considered their mission more important than
their lives. These British solders acted as men.
And
finally I can't help but include this example from Braveheart of a
man acting like a man in the face of adversity.
Beyond the fact that shaming language like “man up” is not bad in
and of itself, it also is something of a one way street. A woman who
wallows in self pity is contemptible, but not in the same way as a
man. And I don't think that because of cultural conditioning or
because of some bits of feminism that I have not yet purged from my
thinking. I think that because the need to not submit to your
circumstances, but to fight for what is right regardless, is a part of
being a man, and a part of how men and women are different.
Well said. The blanket aversion to shaming language is silly. Moreover, refusing to differentiate between those who are merely bachelors and those who are 40, but acting like 25 year olds, does a disservice to those who need to grow up. "Wow, this is a crappy apartment. But you get to go out to the same dive every night? That's still not awesome."
ReplyDeleteA crappy apartment and going to the same dive every night at age 40? Ugh, I think you just described one of the outer circles of hell.
DeleteYou don't seem to get shaming language. Shaming language is and ad-hominem attack to dismiss argument. Something like "What you are saying is wrong because you are a loser". So, instead of using arguments to disprove points, you use emotional attacks to shut up debate . You can see more at
ReplyDeletehttp://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
The way I've seen the term "shaming language" used has a much broader scope than that. As it is used in many a discussion thread, any time anyone suggests that a thought, idea, or action is not manly, they are accused of shaming language. It could be that the accusers are using the term wrong, but I don't often see them called out on it.
DeleteSo unless a man has a wife and children, he is a man-child? Sorry, bud, but this world has enough people already. I know your god orders you to reproduce, but my logic tells me to do otherwise.
ReplyDeletePerhaps men aren't marrying due to divorce rates, no-fault divorce laws, gender bias against men in family/divorce courts, and the fact that around 75% of divorces are initiated by women; the majority of which are no-fault divorces. I'm no mathematical genius, but I wouldn't gamble with those odds.
You have issues with reading comprehension. I don't find anything wrong with not marrying. Even for reasons besides family/divorce court. I do have a problem with men that continue to act like children because the world is too hard. I never say that acting like a man means getting married.
Delete