Why are heterosexual men shamed into not having friends?

         Over the last couple of years I’ve seen the introduction of, and slow increase in articles about, the idea of men not having friends; or of men not having friendships of substance. One article in the London Telegraph says that of the men interviewed regarding the number of friends they have, “Just over half (51 percent) said two or fewer but one in eight overall said none.” (Bingham, 2015). Another author opens her article with

Of all people in America, adult, white, heterosexual men have the fewest friends. Moreover, the friendships they have, if they’re with other men, provide less emotional support and involve lower levels of self-disclosure and trust than other types of friendships. When men get together, they’re more likely to do stuff than have a conversation. (Wade, 2013)

         According to these articles, and many similar, it is the quantity of friends which dictates quality of friendships. Why?

The Art of Manliness has produced a few podcasts on the subject, including one that generated a reaction of “No $#1t, REALLY?!” from me: Podcast #360: Understanding Male Friendships. In the description, Brett says “It’s a common trope that adult men don’t value friendship as much as their female counterparts, and that men really don’t need or want friends like women do…” but “…that assumption is wrong and comes from viewing friendship from a strictly female point of view”(emphasis is mine) (Mckay, 2017).

Men’s friendships are NOT the same as women’s, and I argue that men have had outstanding, deeply intimate friendships throughout humanity’s history. Only recently has that become threatened, and it is western society’s so-called inclusiveness that is causing the problem. It isn’t that men DON’T have friends; it’s that we are actively discouraged from engaging in intimate, platonic friendships with other men. Any deep friendship between two men is assumed to be sexual in nature.

When I was growing up, male friendships seemed to be commonplace. There wasn’t an issue with men hanging out, looking at a car engine, building a barn, whatever. Men don’t often get together with the stated intent of discussing marital problems or pressing health issues. Those things DO come up, but not the way they do with women’s circles. Men don’t build intimacy through talking, the way women do. Men learn to trust each other through action. Help me build a new bedroom for my child, or work on a transmission with me; that shows me that you care about my wellbeing. Men don’t go from zero to “I don’t feel like my wife finds me attractive anymore” by sitting around the living room over tea. We have to build, repair, fight, or engage in some other strong action which demonstrates mutual regard. In platonic, masculine friendships “What they don't do is sit around as a group, the way women do, sharing their deepest feelings.” (Zaslow, 2010)

The deep, masculine friendships men have enjoyed since the beginning of our species seem to be disappearing. It hadn’t occurred to me that there was a problem until I felt inundated with articles on the subject. I have male friends. I have close male friends who I trust and with whom I would discuss intimate subjects if necessary. If necessary. It isn’t ALWAYS necessary to discuss EVERY intimate subject. Since this so-called “problem” isn’t a problem for me, I wasn’t aware of it. Now I’ve not been given much choice but to be aware, as numerous media outlets have been reporting on it voluminously.

So, I got to thinking about it. Why would men have fewer intimate friendships? What could the fundamental problem be? I think a Slate article provides a small part of it with the title “Society Tells Men That Friendship Is Girly. Men Respond by Not Having Friends.” (Waldman, 2013). Ms. Waldman actually does get into the subject a little more, and makes a rather telling observation when, in discussing masculine friendships in ancient Greek stories, she says “These days, we’re so mystified by strong fraternal feeling that we can only understand the connection between Achilles and Patroclus as gay.”

BINGO!!!

Well, not exactly, but close enough for my purposes. It isn’t that men can’t form close friendships; it’s that we’re pushed away from it by a supposedly progressive society that’s trying so damn hard to be inclusive that it paints ALL male friendships as being homosexual in nature. Perhaps straight men aren’t comfortable being labeled as feminine or gay. Is there something wrong with that? Is it wrong to wish to not be misidentified as something you are not?

Society PUSHES for an admission of what doesn’t exist. Society INSISTS, rather forcefully, that a sexual relationship exists or is in the works. As I scroll through Pinterest, I see references to Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Bucky Barnes (The Winter Soldier) being a closeted gay couple, secretly longing for each other. author goes so far as to say “If Disney isn’t inclined to give audiences a gay superhero, couldn’t they have at least left us the dream of Bucky and Cap?” (Robinson, 2016).  

The lack of a homosexual affair between Captain America and Bucky is viewed as a FLAW in the movie. A Flaw?! Why is an intimate, platonic friendship between men so difficult to conceive of? Why is it necessary to rewrite Sherlock Holmes such that the title character and his companion, John Holmes, now exhibit sexual tension between them? It isn’t that I find homosexual characters distasteful; I’m exceptionally fond of Captain Jack Harkness, among others. My dislike is of the sexualization of platonic masculine friendships and the subsequent shaming of men into friendlessness.

Additionally, it seems that, in a rush to legitimize homosexual relationships, there has been a misapplication of standards such that we can’t just say “homosexuals are ok”. Instead we have to say “any man who experiences any form of deep relationship with another man must be gay.” This gives the appearance of accepting of homosexuality, but only oversimplifies the matter and ends up delegitimizing heterosexual friendships.

“We are close friends. Have been for years”

“We get it” (sly wink), “you do know that it’s ok to be openly gay now, don’t you?”

“What? No, we are friends. We’ve been through a lot together”

“Oh, you poor thing. You must be caught-up in the archaic idea that homosexuality is wrong, so you don’t admit it. How horrible for you, repressing your feelings like that.”

Of course straight men end up without deep friendships with other men when society assumes a sexual component that is not present. Words like “bromance” act to sexualize friendships. Why did this become necessary? Is this an indication of western culture being so obsessed with sexuality that it has become necessary to assume sexuality in everything? For example: I sat at dinner with a male friend a few nights ago. We discussed work, his daughter’s health issues, how lovely the waitress was, how great his marriage is, and (sorry, but I’m not sorry) there is no romantic or sexual facet to it. We worked together for years, stay in occasional contact, and that’s more than enough. Well, it’s more than enough for US. Apparently contemporary society disagrees. We built trust through action, in the way typical of hetero cis-males, and it serves us well. Modern western culture, however, contends that masculine friendships MUST be sexual in nature if there is any depth to them.

I did find it amusing that the waitress left two forks with the cheesecake. I didn’t say “WE would like to try the cheesecake”, I said “I’d like to try the cheesecake”. She didn’t make an overt assumption, but she subtly left a second fork out of consideration for the possibility. I appreciate the gesture; it was sweet, if unnecessary. It’s unlikely I’d share my dessert with a woman, even in a romantic relationship, let alone another man. It’s MY damn cheesecake! And yes, it was really good.

In an Orlando Sentinal article, the claim is made that “…men's friendships often lack the depth of women's relationships…” (Mckeough, 2004). Really? My friendships with other men lack the depth of women’s relationships? I’ll strongly disagree, but it’s not like I’m any kind of expert on the subject of heterosexual male friendships. Oh, wait…

Going back to Brett McKay, perhaps the idea of intimate, platonic, heterosexual friendships being shallow and unfulfilling “… is wrong and comes from viewing friendship from a strictly female point of view” (McKay, 2017). When judging the depth and intimacy of masculine friendships “If we use a women's paradigm for friendship, we're making a mistake," (Zaslow, 2010). In one study “A third of the men in (the study) said they learned positive things from female friendships, but 25% had a negative impression of women as friends, citing issues such as "cattiness" and "too much drama." And women are more likely than men to hold grudges toward friends” (Zaslow, 2010). THIS is what we’re supposed to hold up as the epitome of intimate friendship? Not building a barn together, repairing a car together, or fighting side-by-side, earning trust and respect, but rather we’re supposed to judge the depth of our friendships on a model of sitting around being catty, dramatic, and holding grudges? Ummm, count me out.

For all the modern generation’s claims of being more “accepting”, “progressive”, and “open”, they’ve actually gone so far over-the-line that they’re causing more problems than they solved. The normal, juvenile, attitude of “my generation is better than the previous ones because (insert childish misconception here)”, has led to an assumption that previous generations of men weren’t capable of intimate friendships. The media has contributed to this with Al Bundy, Homer Simpson, and the plethora of brainless male caricatures. Whenever a male character has come close to self-actualization, they are smacked-down by exaggerations of what modern society believes were historical gender roles and rules of masculinity. Because movies don’t portray John Wayne as having had friendships similar to what feminist values consider to be intimate friendship, then it must not have happened.  Heteronormative cultural values must have prevented men from achieving the deep friendships that women are encouraged to have, right?

What if this retconning (1) of our historical figures to be closeted homosexuals, and historical gender narratives such that men are supposed to have had trouble with intimate friendships, is recent, not pervasive? What if this is, as I believe, a by-product of western culture’s inability to view any complex subject on a spectrum of possibilities, but rather as necessitating over-simplification into a binary solution set?

What do I mean by that last (run-on) sentence? In this specific context, that men have traditionally had intimate friendships with other men, with no sexual component, but that contemporary western society has decided that heterosexual men are incapable of that because it’s easier to over-simplify any issue in order to reach quick, self-gratifying solutions, so they must have been gay. Again, I really don’t care if gay men are gay. My issue is that straight men aren’t, and there’s no reason to assume they are. There are still some undercurrents of distrust of gays in some aspects of straight society (it’s unfortunate, true, and contributes to the problem), and so young boys are taught that emotional intimacy is wrong if they are straight, or that they must be gay if they have intimate friendships with other boys. Homosexual men are permitted to be emotionally open with their friends, but straight men aren’t. In response to this acceptance of homosexuality, and the related, unnecessary demonization of heterosexual men having non-sexual intimate friendships, men have decided to just eschew having deep friendships. It’s easier than being assumed to be gay.

Uhh, Rick? What’s wrong with someone assuming that a guy is gay? Are you saying that it’s inherently bad to be gay?

NO!!! The problem is that the straight man is now TREATED as though he is gay. Now he has trouble finding romantic female companionship. He has trouble being emotionally open with straight men because they assume he is gay. He is now going to be SATURATED with offers from gay men (just as women don’t like being incessantly flirted with by straight men for whom they have no interest, so do straight men get tired of constant flirting by gay men).  In order to find the resources necessary to meet heterosexual romantic needs, the man finds himself avoiding deep friendships with other men, which just neglects other needs. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, as it were.

So, because men’s friendships aren’t the same as women’s, and contemporary society has decided that men have historically been subjected to gender norms that prevented them from experiencing emotional intimacy (again, because it didn’t manifest in a feminine manner as currently recognized), then any intimate friendship between men MUST be sexual in nature. Am I far off with that? Again, "If we use a women's paradigm for friendship, we're making a mistake" (Zaslow, 2010).

I end up being even more appreciative of my male friends. I’m blessed with a group of friends who have a very liberal (in the classical sense) education, whether formal or informal. We were taught that men DO have intimate, platonic friendships, and that those friendships are not going to manifest the way women’s do, and that’s the right way of things. Even my (admittedly few) friendships with gay men have not manifested in a feminine manner. Wow, whoda thunk! Even more shocking to the current generation would be that a heterosexual cis-male is even capable of having a platonic friendship with a homosexual man. That likely seems...

          I’m also immensely appreciative of my female friends who don’t fit the modern mold. Women who allow men to be men, while still challenging them to improve themselves. Women who are independently strong and capable, having lifted themselves up rather than tearing anyone else down. I’ve only been directly criticized for my masculinity by one woman, and she ended up revealing a hatred for men in general. I did not allow that interaction to continue.

          Another…challenge(?) that EVERYBODY encounters, irregardless (I did that on purpose) of gender, sexual orientation, political viewpoint, favorite food, etc, ad nauseum, is the expectation many people hold of their romantic partner being their best friend, dedicated to spending all of their time and energy on their partner at all times, no matter what. Western culture has generated the gender-neutral trope of the romantic partner having to be one’s best friend, and anything else is seen as indicative of a poor-quality relationship. This is seen as being part of, or adding to and reinforcing, our feeling of being “in love”, but may not be realistic in every case. While having a strong bond with one’s romantic partner is certainly a wonderful experience, and provides an amazing sense of security, focusing solely on that relationship to the exclusion of all others is not for everyone. Nor should it be. 

          For many people, the security found in a healthy, long-term relationship provides the ability to “…be an individual again and self-actualize.” (Feiler, 2017). Calling this a friendship is “an underwhelming representation of what’s going on,” he said. “What people basically mean is, ‘I’m in a secure relationship. Being close to my partner is very rewarding. I trust them. They’re there for me in such a profound way that it allows me to have courage to create, to explore, to imagine.’” (Feiler, 2017). This is an amazing situation to be in. Unfortunately it isn’t all unicorns and rainbows. We tend to not worry about what a best friend does, to a large extent, when it doesn’t affect us directly. Everything our romantic partner does affects us directly! “Maybe…best friend and romantic partner are two different roles — to be filled by two different people. There are things you’d tell your best friend that shouldn’t be shared with your lover. Some times when you need an outside perspective that a boyfriend or girlfriend just can’t provide” (Dunn, 2012).

          Certainly, some couples are best friends and concentrate on each other. Men tend to have fewer friends than women, and so tend to list their spouses as being their best friends more often than women do, but not 100% of the time (Feiler, 2017). This being said, there are many couples who have amazing relationships, are phenomenally encouraging and supportive of each other, bring out the best in each other, and aren’t each other’s BFFs. They are really good friends. Perhaps they are on par with each other’s BFFs, but the relationship is different, and rightfully so.

          But that isn’t what we’re told we’re supposed to be. Entertainment media is full of the stories of women convincing men to drop every other interest in their life and focus on her. Success is taming the monster. He’s now yours, fully and entirely. Once she has his undivided attention forever and beyond, she will feel secure, right? He is supposed to be satisfied with her and not have need of anyone else in his life. That’s what we’re told we’re supposed to do, so it must be right, right?

In that situation, the man is expected to have a few distant friends, but nobody close. Anyone close will be a threat to the relationship. Even family is pushed aside in favor of the romantic partner. Codependency NE1? Of course men in this situation don’t have close friends; they aren’t allowed to.

While this specific situation is far from the norm, it is sufficiently common, especially in younger couples who lack the maturity to recognize the unhealthy nature of it, as to be a problem.

          Now let’s add a third factor: Men are just overgrown children.

          WHAT THE F@(k, Rick?

          No, that’s not what I believe, but isn’t that the image we’re saturated with? One article in Cosmopolitan is titled “24 Ways Men Are Just Like Babies” (Smothers, 2016). The article, which has the standard list of “all men are childish, and here’s my proof”, repeatedly bashes men with a list of sometimes-true, sometimes-not characteristics that she has observed in some way or other. Some of the items seem to apply to both genders, but that won’t be admitted. Some make perfect sense when looked at from the perspective of someone who doesn’t hate men (straight men find women attractive? How horrible!). Another article lists “12 Ways Men Are Much More Immature Than Women” (Sweeney, 2014). This author has decided that all men exhibit the list of juvenile characteristics, such as “Personal Hygiene isn’t as high on the list of priorities” and “We are much less emotionally aware” (Sweeney, 2014). Wow, thanks pal. I really appreciate the vote of confidence. Did you survey anyone past college-age? As it happens, I strongly dislike being unbathed, and I admit to having cried watching Blackhawk Down and the original Red Dawn. Hell, I’ve come close to crying while watching the Doctor Who Christmas Special. I’m not “emotionally aware”? 

What grown man doesn’t at least come close to crying at this scene, if not outright bawls his eyes out!

          In my observation, utterly unscientific, males have been ENCOURAGED to be less mature over the most recent generation or two. Rather than women setting a higher standard and expecting men to rise up to meet it, western feminism has said that women are permitted to behave similarly to childish males, leaving men no reason to improve themselves through overall maturity? Any time a man was so churlish as to exhibit emotional awareness, he was labeled as homosexual regardless of the truth. While that’s certainly acceptable to a man who IS gay, it’s rather inconvenient for one who isn’t.

          I wish I could find the material again; it’s annoying as heck when I can’t verify something with references, but: I recall an article about research done into how men and women view each other. The results claimed that men simply see women as different. Not better or worse, just different. Difficult to understand on occasion, but that’s all. By contrast, women are alleged to see men as being broken women who have to be “fixed”. According to the researchers, women unconsciously want men to behave like women (I gotta say, from our perspective, that’s really weird). So when men try to foster masculine friendships the way we’re comfortable with, it’s wrong and we’re criticized for it. Rather than accepting that men tend, in general, to be somewhat stoic in emotional expression, more action-oriented rather than conversation-oriented, and build interpersonal relations with other men by working together on mutually-beneficial projects, we are told that we should eschew that and sit around the living room talking about our emotions. It works for women, so why wouldn’t it work for men? Perhaps because we AREN’T women?!

          This certainly doesn’t apply to ALL women, and I don’t even know if that research was validated with repeated testing, but it struck a nerve. It seemed to explain many feminine behaviors I’ve observed. I recognize that something simply “seeming” applicable and correct doesn’t MAKE it applicable and correct, but it’s a starting point for further inquiry.

          How does this affect male friendships? We are criticized for them. We are treated as though we are incapable of having deep friendships. Women need Girls Night Out, but men are too childish to be trusted to the masculine equivalent, so should be criticized for it. Girls Night Out is where women blow-off some steam, but the masculine equivalent is assumed to be more childish, and may lead to infidelity. Obviously it means he’ll be out drinking and trying to pick-up a side-chick, right? The last time I went to dinner with a male friend, we discussed work, how great his marriage is turning out, and his daughter’s health issues. He had a glass of wine with dinner, I had a ginger ale. We left when the music got too loud. Childish? Seems quite the opposite to me, but I’m sure contemporary western society will disagree, or say that I’m lying, or that there’s some other, mitigating factor. I say that this IS the norm for men. Even in my teens this was the norm among my friends.

          Where did the social change happen? When did the past that I remember get retconned into “men are too stoic to have deep friendships” and “men are too childish to be capable of platonic, emotional intimacy with other men”?

          Maybe there IS a crisis of male friendships. I don’t experience it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I, though, believe that the crisis is in a changed narrative regarding gender norms. If a friendship doesn’t manifest in a feminine manner, it isn’t substantial. Instead of men doing things their way and women doing things theirs, and we balance each other out in the larger picture, men are being judged against feminine values. When faced with being told that everything we do is wrong because it isn’t how women do it, what are our options? When young boys are indoctrinated into a world that tells them they are supposed to either be feminine, or behave like alcoholic junior high sportsball players their entire lives, there are no other options, what do we expect is going to happen? “You aren’t able to” and “your way is wrong”. Of course men are going to lack friends. What choice do they have?!

In case it wasn’t immediately obvious, this subject irritates the hell out of me. Judging masculine friendships as insubstantial, shallow, and unsatisfying simply because we don’t engage the way women do is horribly unfair, and just pushes men further away from active participation in mainstream society. Ladies, don’t disregard the importance of what a man does simply because it doesn’t mimic you. Allow for men to be men. Not children, not boys, but men. Don’t assume that our way is wrong simply because it isn’t your way. Expect us to be Men, and don’t lower yourself to childish behaviors in order to attract modern boys. Set the higher standard, and a Man will find you. While you are with him, allow him to be a Man. His friendships won’t be like yours, and that’s ok, they are still legitimate. Don’t delegitimize his views simply because they don’t seem valid from a feminine perspective. Don’t demand that he behave like a woman; he ISN’T a woman. If you have sons, encourage friendships with other boys and recognize that they aren’t going to be like those of your daughters. Don’t sexualize their friendships (it really is creepy. Why do you do that? What is with the sex-obsession and subsequent denial thereof?), but recognize them as legitimate. Look to classical examples of masculine maturity and encourage them. Unless, that is, you are going to be satisfied with producing a modern boy who is confused about who he should be because he is encouraged to behave like a girl, but this conflicts with his natural traits and tendencies. In which case, feel free to contribute to the problem.

          What if society simply expected heterosexual men to be…Men?

Definition(s)

(1) Retcon: “to revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.” (Oxford, 2017)

References

Bingham, John. (2015, November 14). 2.5 million men 'have no close friends' Stark new research                    shows chances of friendlessness trebles by late middle age. The Telegraph. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11996473/2.5-million-men-have-no-close-friends.html

Dunn, Gaby. (2012, December 19). Should Your Partner Be Your Best Friend?. Thought Catalog.

              Retrieved from https://thoughtcatalog.com/gaby-dunn/2012/12/should-your-partner-be-your-

              best-friend/

Feiler, Bruce. (2017, October 12). The New York Times. Retrieved from 

              https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/style/should-your-spouse-be-your-best-friend.html

McKay, Brett. (2017, November 30). Podcast #360: Understanding Male Friendships. The Art of

Manliness. Retrieved from https://www.artofmanliness.com/2017/11/30/understanding-male-

friendships/

Mckeough, Kevin. (2004, November 26). Gender Roles Form Rules Of Friendship

Typical Differences Between Men And Women Dictate How They Will Bond With Others. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2004-11-26/news/0411250049_1_men-friendships-friendships-between-men-honold

Oxford. (2017). Retcon. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/retcon

Robinson, Joanna. (2016, May 8). Is This the One Flaw in the Otherwise Great Captain America:                   Civil War? Vanity Fair. Retrieved from                                                                                                     https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/05/captainamerica-civil-war-steve-rogers-sharon             -carter-bucky-barnes

Smothers, Hannah. (2016, April 13). 24 Ways Men Are Just Like Babies. Cosmopilitan. Retrieved                 from http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a56813/ways-every-man-is-a-baby/

Sweeney, David. (2014, August 13)). 12 Ways Men Are Much More Immature Than Women. College

              Times. Retrieved from https://www.collegetimes.com/life/ways-men-much-immature-

              women-92432

Wade, Lisa. (2013, December 7). American men’s hidden crisis: They need more friends! Salon                       Media Group. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2013/12/08/american_mens_hidden_

crisis_they_need_more_friends/

Waldman, Katy. (2013, December 9). Society Tells Men That Friendship Is Girly. Men Respond by                Not Having Friends. The Slate Group. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/09/white_heterosexual_men_can_t_have_frie

nds_gender_norms_are_to_blame.html

Zaslow, Jeffrey. (2010, April 7). Friendship for Guys (No Tears!). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304620304575166090090482912

Thank you for proving my point for me

Once again, the opposition gives me the resources I need to counter them. Too bad I'm already too cynical to believe that truth will win over emotion.

In the wake of a criminal atrocity, the anti-gun crowd is pushing for more legislation. I already mentioned the Law of the Instrument and my views on legislation. Instead I'll go for the argument of "Why would anyone need a gun anyway; they're just intended to kill and maim". I'll ignore the superstitious aspect of perceived "intent" being manufactured into an object, and address self-defense versus criminal, accidental, and intentionally self-inflicted deaths and injuries. "Intended to kill and maim", as though violence is automatically wrong, no matter what. If THAT is your view, then please simply use THAT as your argument rather than the illegitimate arguments made by the anti-gun crowd, which I'm about to use to prove my point anyway. Moving on...

Apparently, the Violence Policy Center thinks “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.” (Violence Policy Center, 2013, p. 1) (emphasis is mine). They recognize that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700” (Violence Policy Center, 2013, p. 9), and further report that “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program” (Violence Policy Center, 2013, p. 1), as though killing an attacker is the desired outcome. No, stopping the attack is the desired outcome; the criminal’s health is of little concern until the intended-victim’s security is assured. Interesting (note sarcasm font) despite an average of 67,740 instances of Americans using guns in self-defense per year during the reported period, according to their statistics, which refuse to break-down successful instances from unsuccessful ones. Why would they, if they want to maintain the integrity of their study, not make that distinction? Either way, that’s a LOT of legitimate defensive uses to be referred to with the word “only”.  

“But what about all of the injuries, not just deaths, Rick”. Ok, I’ll go there also. According to the Gun Violence Archive, which only shows totals back to 2014, there were 51,881 instances of firearms-related violence in the U.S. in 2014 (Gun Violence Archive, 2017).  That’s deaths and injuries of all legal classifications. While a statistician wouldn’t agree with this method, I’m looking for ballpark figures, so I’ll overlap data using the average from the FBI study quoted by the VPC and say there were a total of 51,881 instances of firearms injuries and deaths, and 67,740 instances of civilians using firearms in legitimate self-defense. That gives us almost 16,000 more self-defense uses than murders, suicides, and accidents. That means that approximately 1.3 people use a gun in self-defense for every one that is hurt or killed by the use of one. That doesn’t even control for the Gun Violence Archive’s numbers still including justifiable homicides and law enforcement shootings. Removing those would push it even higher. And these are the conservative, anti-gun figures!! Imagine if I went with strictly neutral or pro-gun statistics!

 The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says “In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings” (Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, 2017). Even without controlling for justifiable homicides by civilians, and law enforcement shootings, but simply lumping all intentional shootings together, Americans are still approximately 2.14 times more likely to use a gun in self-defense than for murder, suicide, or to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else based on that statistic and the VPC/FBI study.

VPC got their statistics from an FBI study, then left out some important parts that didn’t fit their narrative, but I chose to not emphasize that.

Now we’ll go from the blatantly anti-gun groups to the neutral government statistics. According to a report commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent” (Institute of Medicine, et al, 2013). This during the Obama administration, so I’d like to think they weren’t influenced to a pro-gun stance. “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” (Institute of Medicine, 2013).

The study commissioned by the anti-gun administration found that you’re safer using a gun in self-defense than with any other tool or technique of defending yourself.

Everybody fighting to get rid of guns keeps making my points for me: you’re safer with a gun than without. Empirical evidence, not emotional knee-jerk reactions to criminal atrocities. If you want to consider “feelings” as the deciding factor, then I FEEL safer with a gun, and it happens that science backs me up. So is science great when it validates your viewpoint, but not when it supports mine? My emotions won't be legitimate when they don't agree with you, but yours are when they disagree with me?

 

I know I’m imprecise; the data didn’t allow for strict statistical integrity, but I tried to keep it as close as possible given the resources, time, and fatigue levels available. When producing anything like this, I refuse to use pro-gun sources. Only anti-gun organizations and government agencies (which should be neutral, but normally side with the anti-gun people), that way my sources aren’t biased towards my viewpoint.

With that qualification out of the way, roast me. Where am I so horribly wrong that all of my argument is invalid? Overturn my method (other than what I've already admitted is flawed) and say "Rick, HERE is why guns are evil talismans that turn good people into murders". Just know that I'll fight tooth and nail to find ways to counter YOUR argument with the most legitimate data I can find.

And if your argument simply rests on a dislike of violence, I will grant that reasoning validity, if not applicability in reality. Dislike violence all you want, it is still the basis from which human beings operate. You don't want people to engage in any violence? How are you going to enforce that without the threat of violence? You don't have to like or dislike it; it simply IS, and praying or meditating isn't going to change that. 

Quite the opposite, people who use violence for criminal gain will victimize those who refuse to use violence, unless they're stopped by those who use violence for the good of society and humanity. Again: you don't have to like or dislike it; it simply IS.

Go ahead and practice nonviolence. I respect that. It's beautiful. But you would be well-served remembering that you are protected by those who are willing to use violence on your behalf. 

Oh, yah, and the police you are relying on to protect you? They have NO constitutional obligation to do so. They are absolutely permitted to sit at lunch while you're slaughtered, and they'll win in court  (see DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales for two of the many Supreme Court's decisions on the matter). Your choices are somewhat limited. You may throw the dice and rely on government agencies to protect you, knowing that they're not required to; you can procure a means of self-defense, which will involve violence on your part; or you may practice nonviolence and be victimized by those who don't. I don't like the first or last choices, but I'm not you.

One last point: Why the F'k were suppressors brought into the argument? Stephen Paddock didn't use one. Not even close. All of the arguments about how a suppressor might have made the massacre worse are based on absolute ignorance of what suppressors are and how they work. No, he would NOT have magically been able to kill a bunch more people without being found. Why do you insist on starting from an utter lack of technical knowledge on the subject? Are you afraid that actually knowing something outside of the movie theater will negate the validity of your argument? Well, you're right, but that shouldn't stop you!

Gun Violence Archive. (2017). Past Summary Ledgers. Retrieved from

 http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls on October 4, 2017.

Institute of Medicine, et al. (2013). Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related

              Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2017). Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries. Retrieved from

              http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ on October 4, 2017.

Violence Policy Center. (2013, April). Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense 

              Gun Use An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization 

              Survey Data. Retrieved from http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf on October 4, 2017. 

Anger as the new Indignation

     I keep reading about someone exercising their "right" to free speech in a non-violent manner, disagreeing with Group XYZ's attempt to become THE dominant social power in the west, and that person being met with angry protest. Normally they'll be decried as "racist" or their words being the result of "white, cis-gendered privilege", or something similar. Rather than face the writer or speaker directly and express similar non-violent disagreement, supported by logical (though apparently logic is sexist) arguments, the protesters simply scream and cuss with the apparent intent of drowning-out a voice they disagree with. When removed from the property, or arrested, the protesters claim their right to free speech is being violated.
     Violence against Anglos, especially males, is now socially acceptable, and somehow that is not racist. I recall being told that we're all equal and that initiating violence against anyone is wrong. Apparently that's part of my Anglo cis-male privilege.

"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com). Seems fairly straight forward to me. If you dislike someone based on ("progressive" definitions of) race, you are racist. (though the definition of "race" seems somewhat nebulous anymore, and seems to be contemporary slang for phenotype if I understand correctly). However, since only Anglos are capable of racism, I must be wrong. (since Europe is regularly used as the example of what America should be, I love using references from European publications).
     We're supposedly in the midst of a social revolution. Unfortunately, it seems those active in this "revolution" haven't studied much history beyond what they thing supports their own views. One of the problems with every violent revolution is that it might be successful in the short-term, but it just continues the same problems in the long-term. Group A hates being oppressed by Group B, so they revolt and take over. In their anger, they then oppress Group B. They justify this with the history of Group B's historical oppression of them. Eventually (usually over the course of a few generations) Group B gets sick enough of being oppressed that they revolt, take over, and oppress Group A with the justification of the history of oppression Group A engaged in against them. And over and over and over, etc, ad nauseum. Look at the former Yugoslavia and how the Serbs slaughtered Muslims in response to how the Ottoman Empire oppressed them for a few generations. Revolutions go 'round and 'round, and 'round, with everyone losing in the end.
   

     I am of the belief that this is all simply fueled by a social...evolution(?) away from self-restraint, towards impulsiveness, leading to a cultural-level anger addiction. (here's a wonderful article about how "follow your heart" is horrible advice). The push for spontaneity has lead to various groups behaving in childish ways, and this is being reinforced by politicians who enjoy operating in chaos and misleading those who would rather not think for themselves. It's easier to scream, yell, burn, and smash than to sit down with someone you disagree with and have a reasoned discussion with them on the matter. Heck, you might find yourself (gasp!) AGREEING with your "enemy" in some ways. You might find that (OMG!!) they have some legitimate points. You may learn (No, It Can't Be True!!!) that you can disagree with someone without hating them.
     Yah, right. That won't be happening anytime soon. Anger is too much fun!

     As usual, I'm going slightly off-track. My point has been that destructive anger has taken over as the primary means of social discourse. Instead of behaving like a rational adult (I know, that statement is a micro-aggression. I'm not sorry), Americans have decided to do away with equality, equal opportunity, peaceful coexistence, and now want to have everything given to them, and for their juvenile temper tantrums to be acceptable. This reminds of a 4-year-old I knew quite a while back. With the right guidance, she grew out of that. It was a phase that needed direction towards something more constructive. We, as a society, were on the way to that. We were working towards "whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't sink mine" (which is one of my personal-favorite bumper stickers). "If you work hard and are good at something, you can be successful" has been replaced with "I shouldn't have to work. Your ancestors were mean to my ancestors, so you should give me what you have worked for". That isn't in a specific "racial" context, it is the underlying cry of every social group in existence now. Black, brown, Muslim, female, immigrant, whatever. Everyone can find a period of history in which their group was treated badly by another, and they've been taught that they therefore deserve to have things given to them.

     This is the opposite of equality. This is destructive to the harmony I was raised to see as the ultimate goal. I know, I know, I'm speaking from a privileged position as an Anglo cis-male with an education, secure(?) job, etc. Ignore world history in the mid 20th Century, please; it'll only muddy the waters. Anyway, history has shown that the only way to truly move forward is to forgive. Recognize that things done in the past were wrong. Remember them so that they aren't repeated out of ignorance, but forgive them. Take the advances that have happened in the interim as steps forward, and build on them. Sure, some positive aspects of western society were built with slaves. Instead of tearing those things down as simply representing slavery and oppression, how about we continue to use them for their positive contributions gleaned now, while remembering the bad aspects of how they came to be? "Wow, Thing X really makes my life better. It's a shame its development was made easier because of slave labor a few generations ago. I should remember their sacrifices and not take Thing X for granted. At the same time, I shouldn't hold THAT generation's crimes against the current generation."
     If we aren't supposed to hold the terrorist activities of certain "Islamist" groups against Muslims as a whole, and we aren't supposed to stereotype all of phenotype A based on the activities of Criminal Gang B, whose members are all from phenotype A, why is it ok to hold the activities of people 200 years ago against the current generation? Why is it ok to hold the activities of James Earl Ray against every other "white" person?! ("White" is such a general term. Seriously, do you have any idea how many sub-groups fall under your generalized term "white"? When did Armenians hold slaves in America? When did Swabian Germans oppress Native Americans? Seriously, it gets old!).
     None of my arguments for an objective approach will make a difference. Too many spoiled westerners are addicted to their anger. We will continue to suppress liberal (in the classical sense, not the modern use of the term) speech on university campuses because anyone who doesn't agree with so-called progressives is engaged in micro-aggressions, is racist/sexist/genderist/whateverist and shouldn't be allowed to talk. No matter they agree with the concept you claim to espouse, they just disagree with how you're going about expressing it, as with Professor Weinstein:

     No, we need to shout you down because you don't go along with our narrative. 

     So, I'll shut up for the moment, until I feel another righteous indignation at how inequality is ok, so long as it's directed towards me.

Why do we accept Car Death?

Why are cars acceptable, but guns aren't? Cars are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than guns! How many lives have been saved with cars compared to how many people have been killed by cars?

The conservative estimate of legal defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. in the early 2000's was around 500,000 times annually. Obviously that means that around 475,000 of those uses did not involve shots being fired. And that's on the LOW end; one estimate put it closer to 2,000,000. So, AT LEAST 500,000 instances per year of a firearm being used in legitimate, legal self-defense. Can someone tell me how many lives were saved with cars? How many times did civilians, not EMS, use their car to save a life? How many times did civilians, not law enforcement, use their cars to stop crimes?

Ignoring, for the moment, DUI, negligence, and criminal misuse, MIT says air pollution leads to close to 200,000 deaths annually in the U.S. In Baltimore, MD alone “the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.” Compared to fewer than 500 in the same location, same length of time, from firearms usage. (number achieved by combining 2015 firearms-related murders with estimates of accidental fatalities from the same year, and rounding UP).

From those numbers, guns SAVE 2.5 times as many people as air pollution kills. That's setting-aside crashes and just looking at emissions. Granted, that's emissions from a variety of sources, but aren't automobiles the largest source of atmospheric pollution? "Mobile sources account for more than half of all the air pollution in the United States and the primary mobile source of air pollution is the automobile, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."  Wouldn't banning them remove the primary source of toxic air pollution? Wouldn't we save MORE lives if we got rid of cars, at least in the large cities where they aren't needed, than from every gun control measure combined?

Londoners are calling for the banning of cars in THEIR city. How about we follow THAT European example? I already posted the article from Sweden about the journalist advocating banning cars in the city because they are the weapon-of-choice by terrorists in Europe.

Looking at numbers for 2015 and 2016, you're around 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the criminal or negligent misuse of a car than a gun:

Found at Gun Violence Archive: Firearms related deaths in the United States for the previous two years: 2015-13,492 2016-15,084

Found at Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Automobile related deaths in the United States, same time period: 2015-35,092 2016-40,200

Anti-gun advocates have claimed that firearms are too complicated for human beings to safely operate. Mechanically, guns are quite a bit simpler than cars. Elon Musk agrees with me that cars are too dangerous for human beings!

so why aren't we banning cars? Why do we allow these horrible weapons in our cities, to be used by the criminal and the inept? Why do we blindly accept Car Death? Why are automobiles, which are dramatically more dangerous than guns, so much a part of American culture? Why is it ok for someone with multiple DUI convictions to buy another death machine from the dealer down the street, with no background check, no monitoring, absolutely NO legal limitations on ownership, and very few on use, but the firearms industry is the most highly regulated in the U.S.?

Seriously, this is bugging the heck out of me. Every time I see ANOTHER article about people being killed in a terrorist attack, or a DUI crash, then hear screams about how dangerous guns are, I want to shove someone's face in the statistics. I know they wouldn't care. Cars are fun. Cars are freedom. Cars are...a right? How? Which amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "...the right of the people to keep and use automobiles shall not be infringed?" I don't recall that one from civics class.

But you said...!

No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

                Communication. Conveying ideas verbally. Speaking. Sitting down to talk. Letting someone know how you feel. Chatting. Writing a note. Sending an email. Writing a letter. Penning an article. So many wonderful chances to be misunderstood!

                Verbal communication is exceptionally important to human beings. It’s how we coordinate our efforts towards goals both individual and social. It’s how we attempt to convey concepts, relay information (vital or not). It’s how we try to express the myriad of ideas bouncing around in our heads, like playing billiards with only one pocket and we have one specific ball to get into that pocket, but the other balls are in the way, and the angle sucks.

                There’s a tendency for people to make assumptions about verbal communication. We believe that everyone around us uses language the same way. I suffered through English class in high school with my neighbor, after we played with G.I. Joes together in grade school, so we MUST be using the same definitions and applications for words, right? No. As the title quote today tries to relate: we’re a linguistic mess. We each, every one of us, has slightly different experiences in life, slightly different neurological programming through which we sift those experiences, and these produce (often) mild variations in how we use words.

                So what? They’re just words! He/She knows what I mean! That’s stupid, we’re both speaking English!

                The “So what?” is that the assumption results in dramatic miscommunication that spans the gamut from “I thought you wanted to stay in tonight” to “Why would you think THAT was ok to say, you moron!” to the fate of nations resting on professional examinations of diplomatic exchanges, trying to ensure that precise meanings are understood. Yes, I know the image I used before this paragraph is used quite a bit, and I dislike it because ONE of them is right. A third party put a 6 or a 9 on the ground, and intended it to be interpreted in the way THEY saw it. But how do we KNOW their intent? We don't!

                Children, perceiving themselves as the center of The Universe, often make up their own languages and are frustrated when the adults around them don’t understand. This is part of the process of learning that one is simply a single mote in a vast dust storm known as The Universe, and the other motes don't revolve around us, but rather we ricochet off each other quite chaotically. Adults don’t have that luxury very often. Someone who is expected to behave and communicate in an adult manner must THINK about what they are saying. Caution must be exercised in their word choice, with a consideration for the audience.

                Today’s blathering idiocy was inspired by my scrolling through The Week’s website and seeing an article about Elif Batuman's book The Idiot. Ms. Batuman addresses the linguistic challenges we face by pitting a potential romantic couple against each other with conflicting communication methods. She brings up the idea of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language determines the way you view and organize experiences in your mind. I mention this only as a small part of the overall subject. The language we use in our own minds (normally our first, “native” language) has a strong influence on how we feel about the ideas we're trying to contemplate, and the language we use when speaking or writing places specific limits on how we are able to convey concepts. In The Idiot, the author writes

It was a curse, condemning you to the awareness that everything you said was potentially encroaching on someone else's experience, that your own subjectivity was booby trapped and set you up to have conflicting stories with others. It compromised and transformed everything you said. It actually changed what verb tense you used. And you couldn't escape. There was no way to go through life, in Turkish or any other language, only making factual statements about direct observations.

                Anyone who has learned multiple languages can relate. Some languages lend themselves to mathematics or engineering because of their precise approaches to material existence or manner of expressing numbers producing an ease of mathematical comprehension. Other languages provide a poetic approach that is both emotive and descriptive, while unable to capture specific empirical ideas. Moving from the macro-scale (German vs French) to the micro-scale, does my neighbor mean the same thing as I when describing an event? Does my companion convey immediacy or importance the same way as I? Often the answer is no, but we don’t recognize it unless circumstances unfold such that we’re hit upside the head with the realization.

                Much of the research into this that is provided for public consumption focuses on romantic relationships. The general theme is along the lines of “Men are from Mars, Women are from (insert really distant planet here)”. Generalizations are made, sometimes legitimately, often not. “But he/she said X!!”. Certainly, but YOUR interpretation of ‘X’ is not the same as his or hers. And thus the crux in that environment. But I believe this…challenge (?) extends further than can appropriately be labeled Men vs Women. In my experience, each individual has slightly different language usage, and 99.9% of the population either doesn’t see it, or doesn’t think it’s important. One sibling, who may have a high-reactive neurological make-up and thus is introverted to some extent, has a different idea of what the word “exciting” means than their sibling who is a low-reactive extrovert. They grew up in the same house, with the same parents, same teachers, same city all their lives, but the word “friend” means something different to each of them. Now expand out to the neighbor, who has different parents, is a year older or younger than you, and had a cat rather than a dog. Maybe one of their parents is an immigrant, and that parent’s native language has only one word for “snow” because their ancestors didn’t experience snow much, whereas you may have had an Inuit grandparent, and so learned 30 words for “snow”, each being used dependently on the texture, density, weight, and other characteristics of frozen water drops. How would a conversation about skiing proceed? It would seem to be the same, but tiny differences would lead to minor misunderstandings. Minor misunderstandings lead to different actions and reactions, which lead to major anger.

                What if your audience is from a culture that doesn’t value precision in their actions and products? "Early is on-time. On-time is late" makes perfect sense to me, but may never occur to someone from the culture I currently live in. What if, despite growing up in the same town as you, your neighbor's parents’ or grandparents’ native language leads them to devalue a gender? I tried studying one language that has blatant sexism built-in. It’s no wonder members of that culture, men and women both, are misogynist; they’re saturated with the idea that women are low-value members of society at an existential level, and from before birth. Because they THINK in that language, there’s little opportunity to conceive of another potential reality. How do you communicate certain concepts with someone who’s fundamental perceptions of The Universe are so dramatically different from yours that they are incapable of understanding many of the ideas you hold as universal constants? Additionally, how can you trust your own ability to understand THEM well? How can you reasonably expect to engage in ANY effective communication?

                When speaking on a subject which I care deeply about, I have a tendency to default to a rather precise articulation of American English. A few years ago I realized that my subconscious intent was to convey my thoughts as precisely as possible in order to avoid miscommunication. Guess what; it’s self-defeating. Few people speak that way. I end up confusing most of my audiences. Conversely, most people speak with slang, in a somewhat-vague manner, expecting their audience to “just know” their meaning. To someone like me that’s infuriating. It’s confusing. It’s frustrating. The only difference is that I recognize the difference. Other than that, we’re both facing the same problem.

                I’m not especially fond of the Huffington Post, but I ran across this article recently, and thought this paragraph quite appropriate:

What then is to be done if we are all speaking different languages despite using the same words? Shall we stop trying to communicate altogether? This is not a viable solution, as we still want to reach each other and be known, still want to dialogue and exchange ideas. Because the system is limited does not mean we limit our use of it. Rather, what is important is that we recognize and honor the limitations of language in the face of our desire to know each other, and keep all of this in the front of our consciousness. We must continually remind ourselves that what we mean with our words is probably not what another is hearing. When we receive feedback, in whatever form, that we not immediately react to another based on the assumption that what we said is what the other heard or more importantly, understood. Sometimes the response we are receiving is indeed about what we meant, but so often it is not. We can interrupt a large majority of the conflict that arises in our relationships just by recognizing and staying mindful of the infinite variations in meaning that exist within the very same words.

                Taking a moment to recognize that what I thought they said might not be what THEY thought they said would make an immense difference. Unfortunately we live in a world that teaches us to make assumptions and to react from emotion. Lovely words from various poets say “feeling is everything”, and western society has taken this so far as to burden us with social expectations of instant, emotional, reactions to everything, and to have quick verbalizations of our emotions. The lyrics “Say what you wanna say / And let the words fall out / Honestly I wanna see you be brave” have always irritated the heck out of me. It’s a lovely-sounding song, but it encourages knee-jerk reactions to thoughts and emotions that are dangerous. There's nothing "brave" about being uncaring of someone else's position on any given issue. There's noting "brave" about giving-in to impulses and not caring if your audience understands your or not, is offended or not. The song pressures the listener to never consider their words and tailor them to their audience, but rather blurt-out whatever they are thinking in a way THEY understand, and damn the misunderstanding, full-speed ahead!

                One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers, Stranger In A Strange Land) wrote

“Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as ‘empty,’ ‘meaningless,’ or ‘dishonest,’ and scorn to use them. No matter how pure their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best. ”

                While he was specifically referring to formal behavior between individuals (calling someone “sir” or “ma’am”, showing respect, etc), the idea can be applied here also. Keeping in mind that interaction between people, even those ostensibly similar, is far from efficient and effective, we should show some respect to our audience and make allowances for different communication methods. Perhaps I communicate urgency in a way that you interpret as a lack thereof, and vice-versa. Thus if I were to attempt to communicate that I wished to engage in a specific activity or task immediately, you may believe that I see it as non-emergent and get angry when I begin that task right away while you felt something else was more important and perceived me as feeling similarly. Does this make sense? Semantic difference make an actual difference. The results of a miscommunication may be minor, or they could cause a long-term mess!

               

               I wish I had an answer. I wish I knew of some technique that would influence the entire species such that we'd all interpret every word and concept the same way. I don't. All I can do is take these challenges into account in everything I do. I can try to recognize when related problems exist, and give benefit-of-the-doubt. I can ASK that others do the same, but I can't reasonably demand it. 

               Just know that if I'm using precise words and technical terms, I probably care about the subject quite a bit and am trying MY damnedest to get a specific message across. I'll try to not do that, and take my audience into account instead. Now could the rest of the world please do the same?