More Human

This was inspired by a Facebook post from another user. While the background is not here to give a basis in origin, the post should stand on it's own.

--Wag--

------------------------


I like your post, Nathan. I detect an undercurrent of anger herein which is not a bad thing in and of itself, obviously. Years ago, a mentor once told me, "Being angry is no sin but the inappropriate expression of anger is."

If I'm wrong in that assessment of you, bear in mind, my intent is not to judge, per se, but to lead into this: A real man knows his emotions and is in control of them. Here, to clarify again, controlling one's emotions is not bound up in suppressing them but in expressing them appropriately. It applies to all emotions including Love, Hate, various passions, Happiness, Fear, etc. And anger, of course.

We are ruled, for better or worse, by our biology and by our evolutionary past. Biology has assigned to men the role of fathering children and has demanded that we exercise that role as often as possible and with as many mates as possible. It presses that role upon us when we are young so that we may give the best we have. As we grow older, biology tapers off the requirement to breed and abandons the man to wither and die. In times past, men were used up by the time they were in their early thirties. That may still be true, actually!

In the examples you gave of the propensity of men toward violence it makes me wonder if our intellect and reasoning abilities have outstripped our evolutionary path. I wonder if we haven't moved ourselves into a path that evolution didn't intend for another 100,000 years or so. Ergo, we live too long, we think too much, we have emotions and needs which conflict with our too-rapidly developed reason and intellect. But we've lost the connection between our reasoning abilities and our biological needs for the thrills of violence and for other extremes.

Reason should tell us various things but the problem is, our individual reasoning tells us different things in a way which is inconsistent with the reasoning and conclusions of others. We tend to disagree with each other fiercely and with violence at times but there is one thing we should agree upon more than anything else: We should at least conclude that we are all human first.

Human first. Not man first, not woman first, not Catholic first, not Democrat first. Human first. There are those who argue that we are animal first or even Earth (nature) first but I disagree. To be one of those two things reverses our human course to a point that equates us to a part of our world that does not allow any space for our ability to reason and to feel and to think. A denial of sorts. Therefore, I put our commonality at a point in evolution that allows for these traits which make us unique among the creatures of which we know. Make no mistake. I realize that we do have those biological and evolutionary chains which make us misuse and abuse our thinking and reasoning abilities. Even these, however, further define us as essentially human.

That we are human first is only a realization that we are able to consider the various similarities and differences we all have with each other. The most obvious distinctions are biological, of course. Most obvious, naturally, are the many difference between men and women. Those differences have to be acknowledged, of course. To not acknowledge them is dishonest and defeats the purpose of thought and betrays the very humanity we attempt to understand! Biology has forced roles upon us as men and women. Only women can carry a child from conception to birth but only a man can get that process started. In theory, women must choose the man because biology has rendered men incapable of distinguishing which woman with which to mate. Biologically, a man is unconcerned with the future of any child conceived. It is only as time has progressed and evolved that men have adopted the idea of being a long-term caregiver alongside a mate. I offer this as a mere example of how a role can be defined by biology but morphed by reasoning.

And therein lies the root of a meaningful discussion: At what point do we begin to understand what roles are defined by biology and which have been defined by reason and intellect and carried forward through millennia by tradition. Tradition, therefore, can be thought of to be useless at best but counterproductive and even destructive at worst. Do children need to be defined by their blue hats and pink bonnets? At what point do we strip our children of training in the roles they may someday assume? At what point, if ever, do we cease to use the terms, "male" and "female?" If we don't use these terms in the early years at what time do we introduce those terms to our young charges?

Again, it's only an example and can spawn discussion for years to come. Other examples of the biological differences in our humanity are the colors of our skins. The shape of our eyes. The specifics encoded in our DNA. Less certain at this time, but assuredly valid on appearance is the differences between sexual preference. Not proven yet, but definitely a valid proposition that it's also buried in our DNA. And why not? If biology makes some women seek men with whom to have sexual unity, why not some men to seek men? Is biology so concerned with perpetuating the human being that it makes absolutely no room for such a thing? It seems unreasonable to think so.

Are other things biologically denoted for humanity? Belief in god? Criminal propensity? Sociopathy? compassion of the heart? The very time in our life when we will die? I wonder if we will ever see a time when we treat others with discrimination because we know that they will die of heart attacks before the age of 45. After all, we will have learned how to read the DNA code and know that yes, you, sir, will die of a heart attack before the age of 45 so we're not willing to hire you for this position and we're not going to sell you life insurance and please, just go away so we can hang out with that other guy who isn't defective like you are.

Is humanity so crass? Of course, yes. We are. We all want to be better than the next guy in some way. Our penis and breast size are of paramount importance and some humans make a great deal of money convincing other humans just how important this aspect of our biology can be. Oh, you sad creature with the small boobies. Here, let me fix them up for you so yours are bigger than that other lady's. For a fee, of course.

With regard to violence, it is, indeed, an aspect of our fear of our inability to be better than the next guy. As such, let's just beat the crap out of him and if necessary, just kill him. And assert the fact that we're better. And bring on the next one, please. Of course, society has required us to make killing legal and arenas are developed for the purpose. The Romans had The Coliseum for killing people. We have boxing rings and football fields where killing can be done quite nicely, thank you very much.

Nevertheless, there is more to a man than the requirements of biology. More to women as well, of course. Some roles and definitions cannot be denied but others can be questioned. Whether we draw conclusions based on intellect or not will be the only remaining question. For the moment, however, what makes a man a man?

First, of course, is the clear definition of humanity. It makes us part of a whole and if we are not sociopathic animals, we can agree that our only differences at an individual level are based upon a biological and evolutionary need to compete for resources. Strip that away and we are able to clearly understand that we are able to unite together with a purpose that precludes violence toward each other. Save the violence for defence against aliens from space!

Graduating to a definition of what makes a man? I think we can understand that everyone else in the world will exist at differing stages of evolution. As a result, we have to intellectually act accordingly toward each human being on an individual basis. If attacked by a mountain lion, a real man could be expected to violently defend himself from a physical attact rather than cower and allow himself to be killed. He could be expected to make a comparably violent defense against another human being as well. Indeed, if we follow this to it's logical conclusion and look at the opposite side of the equation, we may rationally assume that a human who is willing to attack another human is only human by virtue of his outward appearance. Inside, he is no more than any other animal who is a threat to one's safety.

Can we intellectually understand the vast variances between human beings? Can we see that a person who is of a different skin color is likely no different on the inside than we are? That a woman is no different? A gay man or woman? And yet, they really are different under the skin as well and to refuse to acknowledge that simple fact is to deny one of the most critical things that defines us as human beings. Yes, it cannot be denied: people are NOT all the same and yet, we attempt to revise our behavior and our legal system to treat everyone the same and necessarily so, for efficiency's sake. But in doing so, we deny the very thing that makes us human and we do ourselves a disservice of epic proportions, even if we really don't want to do such a thing.

Part of our problem is that our differences are hidden from us. We can't see the differences that matter and we wouldn't understand those differences, even if we could see them. It's awkward during new meetings. Fearsome in battle. But those differences become critical when attempting to understand how our behavior should vary in any meeting with others.

And there, my friends, is the crux of the matter: Behavior. Yes, it's capitalized because individual behavior is the very thing that defines us as human beings. Are we heterosexual? We'll know that because we desire sex with members of the opposite sex. Are we Christian? We'll know that if we are behaving with love toward all human beings. Are we violent creatures? We know that if we are beating on other people by habit. Our behavior as human beings, however, not only defines us but it reveals us for who we are. As human beings, we are unable to hide who we are because our behavior (and our speech) reveals us. A critical point here is that we cannot hide who we are. It simply isn't possible. There are those who attempt to hide who they are but in doing so, many people understand it right away and realize that they are liars and thus, another reveal is made.

So then the original question morphs into, "What behaviors are typical of men? Of women? Of criminals? Of dogs and cats?

Oh, brother. After all that dialogue and theorizing and speculation and assertion, I think I can finally answer: Nobody really knows.

That's right. What makes you a man is not necessarily what makes me a man. I'm honest, forthright, willing to defend myself and loved ones from attacks and threats. Capable of getting things done and taking care of business. But wait. Those are all things which any human being would do. Note: any human. Male or female. Black or white. Muslim or Christian. Ghetto or upscale.

For the moment, I have to settle for one thing that makes us men: the accessory of a penis. The ability to inseminate women for making babies. That's what makes a man. Because I can see men who bake cakes, are registered nurses and know how to decorate my house and make my hair look nice. But so can various women I know.

Sometimes, the best man for the job or the best woman for the job is, simply, a human being.

When are we as humanity going to realize this?

The barrier, then, is knowing that it's no longer necessary to prove oneself as a labeled creature but as an individual. If you're a man and you can do the job better than a woman, go for it. Same with women. Your success is not a success for women everywhere but a success for you as a person, every other woman or man or human being be damned. By the same token, if a person is in your office interviewing for a job and happens to have a penis, it has no significance if he can do the job better than everyone else. If that individual has a vagina, she shouldn't be considered less capable because of it. What matters is that the requirements of the job are satisfied. If the job requires strength, get the strongest person available. If the job requires a mathematician, get the person with the proven track record as a smart calcuating genius. Of course, if the job requires a vagina (having babies, specifically), get a woman. If it requires a penis and testicles (sperm donation), get a man. Other than that, gender has no meaning and no merit.

Maybe that's the right word: Merit. I may have to leave that for another discussion but still, it takes us to the reconsitituted question: What behaviors make a man a man?

one more thought presses, though. Acceptance. First, acceptance of self. With honesty. You get to define yourself, first and foremost. Most of us didn't get to do that as children. We were handed a definition and told, "Go be that. This is your recipe. Don't deviate from it." For some, being gay was not an option. Being a doctor or a lawyer was not an option. Being a nurse or a CEO was not explained as a possibility for us. Some of us were told that we had to be Mormon or Islamic or biologists. Choice in the matter was not up to us and hell awaited us if we chose to deviate from that plan. In fact, we were told that going astray meant that we were, well, deviants.

Damn.

Those of us who tore up that road map we were given are light years ahead of those who haved toed the line and stuck to the plan they were given as children. That doesn't make us better than they are but it does give us a more important asset: Perspective. We are able to see things a bit more clearly because not only have we suffered, we have seen the suffering we had and we have seen the world on the other side of that suffering. Basically, essentially, we understand. We've become, more importantly than anything. . .

More human.