Real Men are Brave and Strong

Disclaimer: Given that men and women are equal representatives of the human race, the qualities of a real man may be identical to the qualities of a real woman or simply, a real person.

I was raised in a culture that clearly defined what it meant to be a real man. As a male in this environment, the importance of achieving real manhood can not be overstated. As a dyed in the wool skeptic and moral relativist, I would be disappointed if my opinions were interpreted by anyone as some universal definition of manhood.

Real Men are Brave:

If “brave” means “fearless,” I would have to judge one who claims this quality a liar. The fear

response is hardwired into humans and most other animals, so fear is a given. True courage is the ability to do the right thing in spite of one's fear. If we use this second definition, I agree that bravery is necessary to real manhood. A real man has the guts to stand up for the underdog, the unpopular, and the underrepresented. Ironically, many of the characteristics of real men, as defined by culture, are rooted in fear and cowardice.

Real Men are Strong:

I place a high value on physical strength and put forth a good deal of effort to develop and maintain it. However, this quality can easily be dismissed as essential to real manhood. A frail and weak individual who puts himself between danger and someone vulnerable to harm would certainly meet the standards of real manhood. I would specify strength of character as a necessary component of real manhood.

Real Men Wear Prescribed Hairstyles and Clothing:

In my hometown, this prescription includes short hair, with either khaki pants and boat shoes or camouflage and boots. While there is nothing wrong with enjoying the prescribed stuff, I consider one who fears to deviate from it, a coward. No courage at all is required to conform. Fear of being different is indicative of one who does not have what it takes to be a real man.

Real Men Take Care of Their Own:

This is an instinctual characteristic found in many lower animals. Real chimps, baboons, and bison take care of their own. A guy who demonstrates this quality has not distinguished himself beyond the level of a primate. I think a real man must set the bar higher. A real man should take care of all who are unable to defend themselves from abuse and exploitation regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, political group, regional affiliation, socioeconomic status, or even species. One who only takes care of his own is less than a real man.

Real Men View Homosexual Behavior with Disgust:

If this were true, we would have to exclude Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, and Richard the Lion Hearted from the category of “real men.” A large research study tested attitudes about homosexuals in self-identified heterosexual men. The men were then divided into two groups, homophobes, and non-homophobes. Both groups were hooked up to plethysmographs (instruments for measuring erections) and asked to view male, homosexual,

pornographic videos. Only the homophobe group became sexually aroused. This response did not occur in the non-homophobe group. In other words, guys who have huge issues with gay people are often covering for their own homosexual tendencies.

Real Men Take Charge:

Yes, I would say that taking charge when the situation warrants is inherent to real manhood. However, one who wants to take charge in ALL situations is simply arrogant and self-deluded. Real men have the maturity to defer to a more qualified individual when one is available. An intelligence that exceeds the level of any single individual within a group emerges whenever a group of people cooperates and respectfully works together. 

Real Men Express only One Emotion, Anger:

Unless damaged, all people experience the full range of human emotions. Which requires greater courage, to express emotions that show vulnerability or to hide them? Hiding is not a behavior I typically associate with being a real man.

Conclusions:

Make your own.

Is Atheism in Men Caused by Bad Father/Son Relationships?

A few years ago, my cousin informed me that his minister delivered a sermon on atheism. The minister indicated that in men, the best predictor of atheism is bad relationships with their fathers. “YOU had a bad relationship with YOUR father and now YOU are an atheist!” This bothered me, because it was true. And, while I was certain that there was no causal relationship between my atheism and conflicts I had with my father, I could completely understand how this coincidence might inspire a compelling sense in my cousin that his minister had nailed it.

 I looked for research on atheism and father issues and found a piece called “The Psychology of Atheism,” by Paul C. Vitz, a psychology professor at NYU.[1]  Dr. Vitz admits to a brief period of atheism in his youth which he attributes to social

conformity (Interestingly, he does not attribute his subsequent Catholicism to social conformity). I have great respect for information yielded from well-controlled scientific studies in the field of psychology. However, “The Psychology of Atheism” doesn’t cite a single scientific reference. Not one! To my knowledge, no supporting scientific evidence exists for Dr. Vitz’ theory.

 Vitz’ essay presents an anecdotal argument that since Hobbes, Voltaire, Freud, Zedong, and Hitler all had fathers who were weak, unloving, or not present, then father issues must have caused their atheism. In fact, while all of these men questioned dominant religions, Hobbes was a Christian[2], Voltaire a Deist[3], Zedong a Buddhist/Taoist[4], and Hitler a Catholic. Pope Pius XI negotiated the Reichskonkordat agreement, which actually lent moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime in Germany.[5] And, Hitler made his views on God very clear, “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."[6]

 Freud was an actual atheist and did a good deal of philosophical writing on the topic.  In “The Future of an Illusion,” he reasoned that as children, we are weak, ignorant, and helpless by nature. We are comforted through childhood by parents whom we consider strong, knowledgeable, and invulnerable. As adults, when we realize the imperfections of our parents, we would once again be thrown into a deep sense of fallibility. Freud believed it an adaptive evolutionary trait to invent invisible, magical parents who were all-knowing, all powerful, and immortal. Like our terrestrial parents, the magical ones protect us from danger, punish us when we are bad, reward us when we are good, and have the answers to all of our questions.[7] 

 Let’s stop here and ask a question. Which argument seems more reasonable? Freud’s argument that man invented God to fill in the gap left by Earthly parents, or Vitz’ argument that the atheist is angry at his Heavenly Father because of a bad relationship with his Earthly one? Neither argument was based in scientific research, but one will “feel” more true to you depending on your own pre-existing beliefs.

 There are obviously many rational problems with making assumptions about an enormous and diverse population like the atheists based on the idea that Freud and I had bad relationships with our fathers. Vitz cannot assume that this is the case for other atheists, since no supporting data exists. It is likely that many men have rocky relationships with their fathers. Some of them happen to become atheists while others happen to become theists.

 Without evidence, neither can we assume that Freud is accurate in his assumption that all religious people have needs for safety and answers. In this case, however, scientific evidence abounds. The fight or flight response is present in all animals, including humans.[8] Likewise, curiosity is an intrinsic human motivator.[9] A 2003 article cites numerous studies from scientific journals supporting Freud’s basic assertions that religious thought is a natural by-product of brain function[10].

Discerning and using objective evidence to determine accuracy is a relatively new development in humans. Making broad assumptions without sufficient evidence is much more characteristic of the way humans think. In simple terms, the mind is a machine that takes tiny amounts of information, makes sweeping generalizations, then “feels” these generalizations are accurate and reasonable. This is a fundamental cognitive error responsible for much death and suffering across the ages. Tendencies towards making sweeping generalizations are hard wired into us and are essential to navigating human life.[11] Imagine having to consider the universe of potential outcomes prior to every decision you make. NOT making sweeping generalizations based on small amounts of information would completely paralyze us!

So, we work within our inherent limitations and try our best not to screw up. One way to avoid screw ups is the choice to consciously override gut feelings whenever reason and overwhelming objective evidence disputes said feelings. In other words, if the majority of scientific evidence says one thing and my gut says the opposite, my gut has a high likelihood of being wrong. Science is never able to provide the absolute answer, only the best possible answer according to evidence available at a given time.

Just for kicks, I researched the best predictors of atheism. What I found brought a broad smile to my face. Turns out a primary predictor of atheism is… IQ.[12] 

---

[1] "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism Paperback – October 18, 2013." Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism: Paul C. Vitz: 9781586176877: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[2] Fuller, Timothy "The Idea of Christianity in Hobbes’s Leviathan." JSTOR (n.d.): n. pag. JSTOR 192.168.82.205, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[3] "Voltaire - Biography." Voltaire. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[4] "Religion - East and Southeast Asia - Modern China." - Mao, Religious, Daoist, and Zedong. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[5] Peter Hebblethwaite; Paul VI, the First Modern Pope; Harper Collins Religious; 1993; p.118

[6] Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

[7] "The Future of an Illusion Paperback – June 30, 2011." The Future of an Illusion: Sigmund Freud: 9781614270867: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[8] "The Enduring Importance of Animal Models in Understanding Periodontal Disease." Taylor & Francis. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[9] "The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation  ." Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[10] Boyer, Pascal. "Religious Thought and Behaviour as By-products of Brain Function." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7.3 (2003): 119-24. Web.

[11] "Cognitive StudiesVol. 10 (2003) No. 1 P 76-92." Developmental and Computational Neuroscience Approaches to Cognition: The Case of Generalization. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[12] Zuckerman, M., J. Silberman, and J. A. Hall. "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations." Personality and Social Psychology Review 17.4 (2013): 325-54. Web.

On Men and Guns

I love westerns, biker flicks, and gangster movies. I like guns, and swords, and other dangerous toys. Courage, strength, violence, and heroes are concepts that resonate with my inner 7^th grader. A thirst for adventure is the emotional element that draws me to dangerous themes.

That said, while I own guns, I have never carried one or even considered it. Why would I? If tears say, “I am sad,” and punching a wall says, “I am angry,” then carrying a gun says, “I am scared.” And, I am not scared.

Only a terrified person would need to have a firearm on his person at all times. Some situations warrant such fear. If one is in combat, law enforcement, a violent street gang, or any position where one might reasonably expect to be the target of some else’s firearm, then carrying a weapon is sensible. But, what level of paranoia and anxiety would be required to prompt a person living in ordinary circumstances to believe that, at any moment, someone might try to kill him? If life itself is so goddamned frightening to you that you feel the need to carry a firearm everywhere, I interpret that as a need for psychiatric treatment. And, if I’m not mistaken, an absence of psychiatric problems is a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed weapon permit.

I have been fortunate in my life. At 53, I have resolved every conflict through conversation and/or an ass whipping. Whether I am at a motorcycle rally or in a bad part of town late at night, I move through life without fear of my fellow man.  I’m not saying that I am against guys carrying firearms, only that those who do are also carrying more fear than I can muster.