In support of the rage of man

[bennyboy]

I'm going to be coming with a couple unpopular lines here:

1) rage is natural, and is not dysfunctional
2) the social norms which are anti-rage are unfair


All expressions of emotion are instinctive, and most of them are not really within conscious control.  When a child cries, the child doesn't really want to cry-- it just cries.  We understand this, and while it's annoying, we recognize that we have to put up with it.  When a fat person compulsively eats, he doesn't really want to get fat-- but the fat person is sometimes unable to subject his instinctive drive to rational truth.  When a woman is needlessly unpleasant due to PMS, we don't like it, and we might even complain about it-- but it's accepted that this is just part of the way some people are.

Men who get angry get none of this consideration.  We have a million years of ruthless savagery ingrained in us.  Most men who anger easily don't like that fact.  They fight against it, are ashamed by it, and when their instincts subject their rational minds in a moment of loss of control, they have about as much control over it as they would an epileptic seizure.

In general, while an aggressive man is clearly a menace, and the behavior is not to be encouraged, I'd also say that demonizing people who have a problem controlling ANY instinct is unfair, and unlikely to produce good results.  Quite the contrary-- using humiliation to moderate a man's behavior is likely to make him feel deeply troubled and insecure, and increase the behavior overall.


I'm not sure what can be done about it.  Probably, really aggressive guys need some vehicle for their aggression-- maybe war, maybe manual labor and lots of it.  But treating aggressive men like they want to feel that way, like they are doing it very much on purpose-- I just don't think that's the way things are.

[Belacqua]

I'm going to be coming with a couple unpopular lines here:

1) rage is natural, and is not dysfunctional
2) the social norms which are anti-rage are unfair


All expressions of emotion are instinctive, and most of them are not really within conscious control.  When a child cries, the child doesn't really want to cry-- it just cries.  We understand this, and while it's annoying, we recognize that we have to put up with it.  When a fat person compulsively eats, he doesn't really want to get fat-- but the fat person is sometimes unable to subject his instinctive drive to rational truth.  When a woman is needlessly unpleasant due to PMS, we don't like it, and we might even complain about it-- but it's accepted that this is just part of the way some people are.

Men who get angry get none of this consideration.  We have a million years of ruthless savagery ingrained in us.  Most men who anger easily don't like that fact.  They fight against it, are ashamed by it, and when their instincts subject their rational minds in a moment of loss of control, they have about as much control over it as they would an epileptic seizure.

In general, while an aggressive man is clearly a menace, and the behavior is not to be encouraged, I'd also say that demonizing people who have a problem controlling ANY instinct is unfair, and unlikely to produce good results.  Quite the contrary-- using humiliation to moderate a man's behavior is likely to make him feel deeply troubled and insecure, and increase the behavior overall.


I'm not sure what can be done about it.  Probably, really aggressive guys need some vehicle for their aggression-- maybe war, maybe manual labor and lots of it.  But treating aggressive men like they want to feel that way, like they are doing it very much on purpose-- I just don't think that's the way things are.

Agreed. Anger is good, when justified.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lists anger as one of the passions that is necessary but dangerous -- it has to be held to a wise middle path. When allowed to go too far, it makes us crazy. But if you see something that should make you angry and you remain indifferent, this is also a moral failing. 

The trouble is that Aristotle doesn't give any specifics about how and when and how much we ought to get angry. A wise man knows this, and getting angry correctly is one of the things that makes him wise.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I'm not sure what can be done about it. 

But if society demonises aggressive male behaviour then eventually men will evolve to be less aggressive and society can function better.

Men have too much privilege as it is because of their aggressiveness. It needs to be curtailed or channeled. There are plenty of ways of channelling aggressive behaviour in a positive way.

[Belacqua]

I'm not sure what can be done about it. 

But if society demonises aggressive male behaviour then eventually men will evolve to be less aggressive and society can function better.

Men have too much privilege as it is because of their aggressiveness. It needs to be curtailed or channeled. There are plenty of ways of channelling aggressive behaviour in a positive way.

Currently aggression is encouraged throughout the Anglophone world.

In every popular movie, the hero is the one who makes the most effective use of violence. 

If physical violence isn't possible, verbal aggression is considered a useful substitute. Those who speak against this are told to shut up and take it.

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm going to be coming with a couple unpopular lines here:

1) rage is natural, and is not dysfunctional

That's a gross oversimplification. Something can be "natural" and dysfunctional at the same time. It can be a matter of intensity, or the effects on a person's environment, health and social life. If you're enraged on very rare occasions, under reasonable circumstances - that's understandable. If you blow a fuse every time anything doesn't go your way - you have a problem. Aggression doesn't have to be a symptom of an underlying dysfunction, but it often is.  It's similar to - say - depression. Everyone gets sad once in a while, when something bad happens, but if you live in that state for a long time, regardless of circumstances - that's not "natural".

2) the social norms which are anti-rage are unfair

Social norms - unfair? Say it isn't so...

Do you think society is "fair" to anybody? People who don't fit in, or can't keep up, get stigmatized, punished, or - at best - left to their own devices. And personally - as someone who does have some largely untreated anger issues (among others), severely affecting my life - I don't feel too bad for aggressive and violent people, because most of the ones I come across can't accept that they have a problem and need help. And rage feels really good, especially if one's addicted to it. And if I'm being punched in the face - or even just verbally abused, or threatened - by someone, I don't really give a flying f*ck about the c*nt's troubled childhood, or hormonal imbalance. It's one thing to be ill, another to be a danger to other people.  

All expressions of emotion are instinctive, and most of them are not really within conscious control.  When a child cries, the child doesn't really want to cry-- it just cries.  We understand this, and while it's annoying, we recognize that we have to put up with it.  When a fat person compulsively eats, he doesn't really want to get fat-- but the fat person is sometimes unable to subject his instinctive drive to rational truth.  When a woman is needlessly unpleasant due to PMS, we don't like it, and we might even complain about it-- but it's accepted that this is just part of the way some people are.

LOL... If by that you mean, that whenever a woman behaves in a way we don't find pleasing, or proper, we assume she's about to be bleeding from her tw*t, then sure - it's "accepted"...

That's off-topic, but I recommend researching how PMS symptoms differ drastically in in other cultures - if they exist at all.
Is PMS Real? Or is it just a figment of our menstruation-fearing culture?

Men who get angry get none of this consideration.  We have a million years of ruthless savagery ingrained in us.  Most men who anger easily don't like that fact.  They fight against it, are ashamed by it, and when their instincts subject their rational minds in a moment of loss of control, they have about as much control over it as they would an epileptic seizure.

And yet a lot of them don't seek help. Instead, it's common to romanticize and/or rationalize one's outbursts. And - again - I speak from personal experience.

In general, while an aggressive man is clearly a menace, and the behavior is not to be encouraged, I'd also say that demonizing people who have a problem controlling ANY instinct is unfair, and unlikely to produce good results.  Quite the contrary-- using humiliation to moderate a man's behavior is likely to make him feel deeply troubled and insecure, and increase the behavior overall.


I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Therapy and medication.

/thread

[chimp3]

@bennyboy

Sometimes men are dickheads and should be treated accordingly. No good comes from infantilizing adults of any gender.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure what can be done about it. 

But if society demonises aggressive male behaviour then eventually men will evolve to be less aggressive and society can function better.

Evolution doesn't work like that.  Unless you're talking about eugenics, the species will have to survive at some point without a Costco to buy discount doilies at.  At some point, we're going to interact with animals, with hostile others, and so on.

You're also making a very big mistake in assuming that aggressive men have an evolutionary disadvantage, right here and right now.  I very much doubt that. It seems to me that the pacifist types are likely to be much less successful on the breeding front than red-blooded alpha males, and for obvious reasons.

---

@bennyboy

Sometimes men are dickheads and should be treated accordingly. No good comes from infantilizing adults of any gender.

Yep, and sometimes children are little shits, and women are psycho bitches from hell.  We're chimps with better technology.

But pretending chimps choose to act like chimps just to be dickheads is unrealistic and unfair to chimps.

---

Currently aggression is encouraged throughout the Anglophone world.

In every popular movie, the hero is the one who makes the most effective use of violence. 

If physical violence isn't possible, verbal aggression is considered a useful substitute. Those who speak against this are told to shut up and take it.

A good example is that we'll pay the most brutal black men we can find to line up in a football game and smash their skulls into each other's abdomens for our vicarious entertainment. . . and then act shocked and outraged when they do something brutal when they have conflicts in their daily lives. And it's not just men who enjoy it-- there's a fascination among the females of our species with brutes. I'd imagine it's something about knowing that if the shit hits the fan, you have a moderately well-trained gorilla to rampage on your behalf.

---

Therapy and medication.

/thread

Yep, works great for misbehaving children, and cures homosexuality with outstanding success. . . because medication is the best cure for whatever you decide is wrong with someone else. You forgot to mention frontal lobotomy and castration, by the way.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In every popular movie, the hero is the one who makes the most effective use of violence. 

'Every' popular movie?  Really?

Boru

[I_am_not_mafia]

BRING DOWN THE PATRIARCHY AND SMASH THE SYSTEM!

[Homeless Nutter]

Therapy and medication.

/thread

Yep, works great for misbehaving children, and cures homosexuality with outstanding success. . .

No. It works reasonably well for mentally ill people. Neither misbehavior of children, nor homosexuality are illnesses.

because medication is the best cure for whatever you decide is wrong with someone else.

No. Therapy and medication are the best treatment we currently have for mental disorders.

 You forgot to mention frontal lobotomy and castration, by the way.

No, I did not.