A third possibility

"Attempts to confront or wake up patients during the events frequently lengthens the parasomnia episode and may induce resistance or violence from the patient."
-- WebMD's emedicine entry on Somnambulism

In comments for the previous entry, Doctor Science points us to an insightful post from Kit Whitfield (aka Praline) that suggests a possible third explanation for the insane popularity of the Munich Analogy -- an explanation other than the obvious ones of unbelievable stupidity or willful dishonesty.

To review, briefly, this analogy is employed to suggest that any response to hostile nations other than Kill All the Bad People is mere appeasement. This assertion is deeply confused and irreconcilable with the facts of any given case, with history and with any prospect for effectiveness. It claims that every enemy currently demanding our attention is ≥ Hitler and that therefore said enemy will respond only to the application of unrestrained lethal force (which is to say, they cannot be expected to respond, only to be exterminated in their unalterably non-responsive state). It claims that any approach other than such extermination is naive and ineffectual and thus the moral and practical equivalent of unconditional surrender. For proponents of the Munich Analogy, there is therefore one and only one possible response to hostility: extermination.

This is brutally, self-destructively stupid. The slightest thought or exploration exposes the idea as nonsense. It seems impossible that any sentient being could find the idea persuasive. The fact that someone is capable of speech, therefore, can be taken as proof that he is too smart to credibly believe what he is saying when he invokes the Munich Analogy.

In the previous post, I suggested there could be only one other possible option: that these people don't believe what they are saying, i.e., that they are saying something they inescapably know is not true, i.e., that they are lying.

But of course there is another option. When someone says something that they are smart enough to know is insanely false they may be lying, or they may just be insane. They may, somehow, have come to believe that this insane thing is true. (If insane strikes you as too strong a term, substitute "deluded" or "delusional." But keep in mind that we're talking about a form of delusion that leads inexorably to an exterminationist "Kill All the Bad People" mentality -- the same mentality that is universally described, in its aftermath from Sarjevo to Kigali, as "madness.")

Where does such delusion come from? How does someone become convinced that this unreal madness makes any kind of sense at all?

Here is where I will turn to KW/Praline, writing about "Macho Sue":

The essential story structure of a Macho Sue tends to revolve around untouchable pride. If love means never having to say you're sorry, being Macho Sue means the whole of reality loves you. Typically, Macho Sue's storyline follows a certain trajectory: he begins by acting egregiously, picking or provoking fights and causing problems. However much the ensuing difficulties can be laid at his door, Macho Sue is not about to apologize, in any way. So the problems continue -- only to be salvaged by some immense reversals that give the impression that he was right all along. The man he insulted turns out, suddenly, to be a bad guy. The woman who dislikes him falls into his strong arms when he solves a problem that is not the same problem he caused for her. People change their personalities, storylines shift and flip like a mechanical maze popping up new paths and lowering old gates in order to keep Macho Sue from ever, ever having to backtrack. As John Wayne says, "Never say sorry -- it's a sign of weakness."

Similarly, Macho Sue's suspicion of the unfamiliar is inherently right, because he already embodies all that is good and right: if something were good, he would already be doing it. Hence, anything new to him is some sort of corruption of the proper way of doing things. Usually it's assumed that Macho Sue has a code of honor that is at heart the right one, that if people disapprove of his behavior it's only because they don't understand him and his righteousness, that his code of honor is never found inadequate to a situation, and that he never falls below it. It's not only apologizing that's considered too emasculating for him to endure, it's learning. For his character to be improved and matured by encountering new circumstances would be a humiliating admission that he wasn't just as he should be from the beginning.

That passage is about a particular species of bad fiction, but it applies just as well to a particular species of bad person. The flaw in both cases is the same: characters incapable of change and growth. (I'm reminded of a saying from church: "God loves you just the way you are, but God loves you too much to let you stay that way.")

Characters that cannot grow, that see no need to grow, cannot adjust to reality and so they force reality to adjust to them. Funny thing, though, about reality: It doesn't care what you think. And it's got a nasty habit of reasserting itself with a vengeance. How does that proverb go? "Untouchable pride goeth before destruction, and a Macho Sue before a fall." Something like that.

I'm not sure that the self-deluded exterminationist is in an entirely separable category from the mere liar. The primary audience is different, but the act is the same. Yet where the liar is wholly willful, the self-deluded fool is only partly willful, and that "partly" may provide a toe-hold of hope ("There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead ..."). Neither utter stupidity nor wholly willful duplicity can be engaged, but delusion suggests at least the possibility of a productive response.

Here is where I wish I could tell you how best to present such a response. Instead, annoyingly, this turns out to be one of those posts where I conclude by asking you to supply the conclusion. Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

Comments

[Axiomatic]

Reason with them? Chris, that's appeasement.

[Jesurgislac]

Here is where I wish I could tell you how best to present such a response. Instead, annoyingly, this turns out to be one of those posts where I conclude by asking you to supply the conclusion. Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

Outline, in explicit detail, exactly what the direct and obvious implications of their views are.

At least some of the time, and the rest of the time, it's good exercise and prevents the insane from thinking their insanity is normal.

Of course, people don't like you for pointing out, explicitly, what they've chosen not to think about. Do you want to convince people, or to make friends?

[Praline]

I have to wonder whether the inspiration for the latter was Terry Goodkind or oh John Ringo no.

Actually no - I've never read Terry Goodkind, and the first I heard of 'oh John Ringo no' was on this thread about a week ago. But it's a generally applicable principle, and a widespread fault.

Re The Searchers - and I don't want to threadjack either, so if people really want to discuss it we could move it to the Macho Sue thread on my website if you like - the John Wayne character is a character that different people see different traits in. Some see him as an anti-hero, some as a redeemed hero, some see him as rewarded, some as punished. If you read Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream, you'll find quotes from quite a few people who claim that Ethan Edwards is the ideal type of American manhood and exactly what we need, in spirit, to combat those terrorist bastards. That makes him a pretty dangerous myth: some people think he's exactly what a man should be, and some of those people have their finger on the trigger.

The film is ambiguous enough that people can take away conflicting interpretations. The main point, though, bigotry and murder plans aside, is that a Macho Sue's behaviour would attract words like vain, drama queen, petty, tantrum and self-indulgent if it were shown by a woman, or by a weedy little guy with a high-pitched voice. Manhood is an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. I think alternative role models are important: how often do we see manliness presented as inseparable from violence, or the capacity for violence when provoked? Far too seldom - despite the fact that the vast majority of men have a whole array of non-violent virtues that they're not praised for nearly enough. The gunsel in The Magnificent Seven insists that the farmers are the real heroes, but not enough people listen. To too many people, violence is essential.

It makes me sad to think that all the men I most admire are condemned because they refuse to engage in a vice.

I think what we're dealing with is a sense that it's virtuous to believe in Narnia even if it doesn't exist: that heroes fight the enemy, and that not supporting that principle - even if it's inappropriate - is to deny the virtues of heroism. If you want to convince people who think like that, you're not going to get anywhere by saying that heroism is a dangerous concept; it's attacking an idea that's too important to them, and that is not, in itself a bad one. Admiring good people and wishing to be like them is not a vice. The problem is that the neocons are currently insisting that heroism is entirely their province, and the liberals are hesitating to try claiming any heroism for themselves, because they're uncomfortable with bombast.

But there's a difference between bombast and genuine idealism. The necons heroism is all chickenhawkery, hollow chest-thumping. We can do better than that. We have to. And we have to do it positively, as well. Hating Bush is not unreasonable - it's reasonable to hate the hateful, like it's reasonable not to tolerate intolerance - but we need to make a lot more noise about what we're for, as well as what we're against. Like I said last week, Democrats who complain that Republicans will use any advances they make to attack them are dreadfully letting down their party and their people. It's a policy of dealing with Republicans and their potential sympathisers by, to use the word in its proper context, appeasement. Instead, we could relish the chance to thrash the issue out: push for a victory, celebrate when we get one, and when neocons try to use that victory to turn people against us, just front up and fight them. Because they're wrong, and we shouldn't be afraid to say that. People who think we're wrong won't change their minds unless we give them reason to, and we won't do that unless we stand up for what we think is right.

The neocons have kidnapped the idea of heroism, and it's time to get it back. Some people are swayed by facts and figures, and some by charisma and emotion. The latter are less rational, but that doesn't mean they're wicked: it's just that currently, only wicked people are interested in preaching to them. As long as we leave it that way, we're abandoning people to be seduced by politicians whose aim is to get them voting against their own interests. We need to reach out to them in language that will engage their attention.

As to whether the neocon politicians actually believe that discussion is appeasement, and appeasement is weakness - well, the way they deal with their political opponents certainly suggests they do. (Which is why appeasing them is not a good idea.) I don't know if they believe it intellectually, but I very much doubt they've thought it through. It's a belief that feels good to them, so why abandon it? George Orwell's word 'bellyfeel' from Nineteen Eighty-Four comes to mind, what he defines as 'a full emotional understanding ... But this is not an adequate translation ... bellyfeel ... implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today.'

In a way, though, I'm not sure it matters. The people to reach out to are not the politicians, but the voters who may be swayed by them. I think they're scared and want to feel heroes are protecting them, and, in their wicked way, the Republicans have been doing a better job of offering that. We must reject demagoguery, but that doesn't mean we should reject those who listen to demagogues. We need to keep our love for truth, and set aside our fear of passion.

[Tonio]

A deep fear that admitting you're wrong will cause everything about your world to collapse. Because there is already a hole in your psyche that you are trying really really hard to build house-of-card walls around to avoid facing it.

Surely that "deep hole" is simple fear of insecurity, of being victimized by people stronger than yourself. Perhaps some Macho Sues were in fact victimized, and perhaps others were taught that the only way not to be a victim is to victimize others.

[alfgifu]

Jesurgislac, the trouble I've had with this approach:

Outline, in explicit detail, exactly what the direct and obvious implications of their views are.

At least some of the time, and the rest of the time, it's good exercise and prevents the insane from thinking their insanity is normal.

Of course, people don't like you for pointing out, explicitly, what they've chosen not to think about. Do you want to convince people, or to make friends?

Is that more than once a polite but forceful discussion has ended abruptly when the explanation has become clear and piercing enough that the person I'm speaking to cannot think of a way to refute it. Instead of admitting that they may have made a mistake, or even being willing to consider that there might be a reason that their position sounds so illogical when outlined to them, they have responded with some variant on 'Oh, but you're so [well-read][intellectual][fast-talking] that you could convince me black is white.' From that point on there is no hope of getting through, or of ever getting back to a position of mutual trust. When the debate is with a family member, the loss of mutual trust can be very painful indeed.

Praline, I am in deep, deep awe. What an incredible analysis, and so eloquently phrased.

Presumably the challenge, if we are trying to reclaim heroism, is to find (and probably reclaim) the heroes. Not just fictional and historical heroes, either. We need current, visible, active and attractive figures who can provide accessible role models. We need to find, expose and emphasise the virtues that we are looking for and bring them into the public eye again and again until a sort of composite picture of the ideal has gathered enough weight to be more than merely an anti-Macho Sue. That is, to have a positively rather than negatively defined quality: to be Gawaine rather than Lancelot, perhaps? Or should we call it Praline? ;)

[Praline]

Aw, gee. Thanks, Alfgifu. :-) I agree with what you're saying: I reckon that attractive behaviour, be it assertive but friendly on an inter-personal level or inspirational on a public level, is by far the best tactic. Which doesn't preclude serious discussion, but you have to gauge your audience. You want them, not just to abandon their side, but to come join theirs. Holding out a hand works better than pointing the finger.

I recall an article somewhere online that I've tried to find several times since, that made an interesting point: to certain people, the aim is always to protect those inside the circle and repel those outside. If you try to erase the circle, they'll oppose absolutely everything you say; if, however, you try to enlarge the circle, once you get more people in, they'll be equally strong in defending them. So the aim is to enlarge the circle until everybody's inside. A hundred and fifty years ago, for instance, people of that character considered you a crazy radical if you suggested votes for women; now they make universal suffrage one of their great points of virtue. Hence, this article suggested, it was a big tactical mistake for anti-Vietnam protestors to burn the flag. What they should have done is brandished it and shouted about how the warmongers were betraying it.

Seems applicable now, I'd say.

[pointatinfinity]

Bosh: I imagine the thinking goes like this:

A is true, I know it is true.
B occurs. B is related in some way to B.
Since A is obviously true, in what way is B evidence of A being true?
Hmmm, how about C. That sounds good, I'll go with C.

People like this are sure that C is a good piece of evidence for A but there's really non analysis at all of whether C makes any sense at all.

Very good analysis of it, thanks (I think you meant "B is related in some way to A, though") --- although of course this occurs at the meta level that it seems to me many of those people are not consciously aware of. If they were consciously aware of their meta-ideas, I think they would have been a lot more sensible. I believe you and I were saying the same thing, Bosh, and I agree with you now; your model of their meta-idea clarified more than you'd likely guess.

Tonio: Surely that "deep hole" is simple fear of insecurity, of being victimized by people stronger than yourself. Perhaps some Macho Sues were in fact victimized, and perhaps others were taught that the only way not to be a victim is to victimize others.

A good guess, I think, but in my experience, using "simple" in a discussion of psychology is like using "obviously" in a math proof --- the reader should immediately look right there to check the reasoning with a fine-toothed comb, because that is a mask for hasty, sloppy reasoning. People are too different for one reason to fit all instances of a given pattern.

Praline: We can do better than that. We have to. And we have to do it positively, as well. Hating Bush is not unreasonable - it's reasonable to hate the hateful, like it's reasonable not to tolerate intolerance - but we need to make a lot more noise about what we're for, as well as what we're against.

Praline, that is to me the most important part in an entry made of awesome. Because I have to agree with Algifu's response to Jesurgislac:

Jesurgislac, the trouble I've had with this approach:

"Outline, in explicit detail, exactly what the direct and obvious implications of their views are.

At least some of the time, and the rest of the time, it's good exercise and prevents the insane from thinking their insanity is normal.

Of course, people don't like you for pointing out, explicitly, what they've chosen not to think about. Do you want to convince people, or to make friends?"

Is that more than once a polite but forceful discussion has ended abruptly when the explanation has become clear and piercing enough that the person I'm speaking to cannot think of a way to refute it. Instead of admitting that they may have made a mistake, or even being willing to consider that there might be a reason that their position sounds so illogical when outlined to them, they have responded with some variant on 'Oh, but you're so [well-read][intellectual][fast-talking] that you could convince me black is white.' From that point on there is no hope of getting through, or of ever getting back to a position of mutual trust. When the debate is with a family member, the loss of mutual trust can be very painful indeed.

People like that would once they're in a corner turn to ad hominems, in my experience: "Stop that, you're always complaining about me just because you have this delusional idea that you hate me..." etc. Therefore, the only way I have found to counteract their problems when they directly affect me is to say something like "I know you value X; but I value Y more, and going with you on X would mean going against my Y, so I am going to disagree with you on X and stand by Y."

Quiet assertiveness and total conviction of your own stand (rather than against theirs) seems to be the only thing that has had any success at all. Which is what Praline is saying.

[Hawker Hurricane]

There is a type of person (mostly male) that I'll call "The Warrior Archtype". For samples, we have Alvin York, Audie Murphy, Chesty Puller, Gregory 'Pappy' Boyington... such people are needed in the military, especially in wartime. They are the ones who really lead, who accomplish what needs to be done in the brutal enviorment that is war. The problem with such people is that they are *Not Fit For Polite Company*. During peacetime, they drink too much, they pick fights, they insult those who are (nominally) thier superiors... They are troublemakers, if they didn't wear a military uniform they'd either be in jail or be the sadistic cop who should be in jail. Thier tragic tendency is to fall apart after the war is over...

Such people should NEVER EVER be given political power. They aren't suited for it. For evidence, I give you President Grant and Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham: two people who should have written thier memiors, given speeches on Memorial Day, and quietly drunk themselves to death reliving thier glory days.

NeoCons are *pretending* to be that sort of people. They wish they were (or had been) the "Real, True, Warriors" but for some reason missed thier chance (the reason usually being a desire not to be shot at by rough strangers). John Wayne can pretend to be such a person, but he's an actor, pretending to be a different person is what he gets paid for. For Dick Cheney to pretend to be such a person is a farce. Real True Warriors should never be given political power, people pretending to be RTW's should be laughed out of politics.

(I spent 20 years in the Navy, I've met 'RTWs'. I'm not one of them. I'm one of the guys who stand behind him and pass ammo to him, and then later try to get him out of the bar before the Shore Patrol shows up.)

[Dorothy]

Sorry, no time for reading comments this morning so I'm just going to toss this out:

I once worked for a MS, and for me at the time, the only option was quitting, followed by a few months of psychotherapy. I wish I could say I learned how to handle an MS personality on a case-by-case basis, but for me the only option is avoidance. I just don't have the personality to stand up to one. MS sounds very much personality disorder (crunchy hard shell, crumbly core), and even the psychologists throw up their hands in despair over that one. But IIRC Praline offered us an idea for tackling the culture of MSism: we need better stories. We need better memes, archetypes, role models.

Just keep sending them out into the world, and hope for the best.

[Dorothy]

like narcissistic personality disorder

[pointatinfinity]

Such people should NEVER EVER be given political power. They aren't suited for it. For evidence, I give you President Grant and Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham: two people who should have written thier memiors, given speeches on Memorial Day, and quietly drunk themselves to death reliving thier glory days.

NeoCons are *pretending* to be that sort of people. They wish they were (or had been) the "Real, True, Warriors" but for some reason missed thier chance (the reason usually being a desire not to be shot at by rough strangers). John Wayne can pretend to be such a person, but he's an actor, pretending to be a different person is what he gets paid for. For Dick Cheney to pretend to be such a person is a farce. Real True Warriors should never be given political power, people pretending to be RTW's should be laughed out of politics.

Hawker Hurricane, that is an excellent point. I suspect that what is going on when people vote such RTWs in office is "They worked well in war, therefore they should work well in politics." I think that this ties in to the human tendency to try to simplify by sticking labels on things: Good Man, Bad Man. They want to keep things clear, that being a Good Warrior deserves the label Good Man, without stopping to the effort of distinguishing being good at various things does not preclude you from being bad at others.

And I wonder if the people trying desperately to be RTWs are creating conflict where none should actually be, because conflict makes them feel at home, because conflict covers up their peacetime incompetence.

[MikhailBorg]

There was a time when I might have voted for McCain, in part because he'd actually fought in a war, and perhaps wouldn't sit in the Oval Office thinking that if we shot enough Iraqis, we'd start getting extra lives and armor bonuses so we'd be ready for the Big Boss at the end and a triumphant roll of the credits.

I'm no longer convinced he understands that concept.

[Praline]

Interesting point, HH.

Not Fit For Polite Company

And also, if Audie Murphy's story is anything typical, profoundly scarred and troubled by their experiences. The fact that someone's good at killing doesn't mean it doesn't harm them, and politicians should never them into combat unnecessarily. Everybody suffers.

[Praline]

Um, I mean 'never send them', not 'never them', which makes no sense. Bleh.

[lonespark]

perhaps wouldn't sit in the Oval Office thinking that if we shot enough Iraqis, we'd start getting extra lives and armor bonuses so we'd be ready for the Big Boss at the end and a triumphant roll of the credits.

McCain is surely not a person who understands that concept. Many soldiers do, though, much better than many civilians. It really just depends on the person, but the people who really keep hold of that truth in the face of pressure are rare and precious leaders. Often enough, they're too smart to want the job.

[hapax]

If you try to erase the circle, they'll oppose absolutely everything you say; if, however, you try to enlarge the circle, once you get more people in, they'll be equally strong in defending them. So the aim is to enlarge the circle until everybody's inside.

"He drew a circle that shut me out--
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win
And we drew a circle that took him in!"
--Edwin Markham

[Praline]

Hapax: cool. :-)

[ericblair]

McCain is surely not a person who understands that concept. Many soldiers do, though, much better than many civilians.

Remember, too, that McCain was not a general officer. His experience in theater was as an aviator, which means your job is to get this bit of metal on that target and not worry about anything else. This sort of blinkered attitude doesn't translate well to strategic concerns, and it showed with his monomanaical concern about keeping the US in Iraq, damn the consequences.

I've had some coworkers and clients that absolutely would not be happy unless they were in a fight with someone. These people have their uses: they can be smart and dedicated, but you really have to put them into jobs that require constant conflict that stresses other people out.

[McJulie]

Laird Wilcox, who's probably the foremost expert on American extremism of both the left and right varieties

Side note: when I was in college in the 1980s I interviewed Laird Wilcox for the student paper, in advance of him coming to give a talk. He wrote a letter afterward to thank me for not misrepresenting his views. Apparently that happened to him a lot.

I think alternative role models are important: how often do we see manliness presented as inseparable from violence, or the capacity for violence when provoked?

Well, the AFI had the sense to name Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch as the number one American movie hero of all time. When people start talking about manliness defined outside of violence, Atticus Finch always comes to mind.

Incidentally, the Wiki link shows the complete link of "50 greatest heroes" and "50 greatest villains." I count 9 female heroes and one of them is a dog. 14 female villains.

to certain people, the aim is always to protect those inside the circle and repel those outside. If you try to erase the circle, they'll oppose absolutely everything you say; if, however, you try to enlarge the circle, once you get more people in, they'll be equally strong in defending them.

I think another way to describe this is that some people are more tribal than others. You can't simply erase their innate tribalism -- it's an instinctive thing that they don't have a lot of control over. But you can change what they think of as tribe.

Hawker Hurricane:
NeoCons are *pretending* to be that sort of people. They wish they were (or had been) the "Real, True, Warriors" but for some reason missed thier chance (the reason usually being a desire not to be shot at by rough strangers).

This is an excellent analysis. Their posturing really seems to appeal to people who want to see themselves as Real True Warriors, without, you know, the hard part.

[Fraser]

Sands of Iwo Jima is a commentary on the kind of officer Hawker Hurricane refers to: John Wayne is a great Marine, but he's unfit for any life outside the Corps, and comes off unfavorably compared to John Agar as the draftee who plans to return to civilian life (this contrast heavily undercut by Agar's metahuman-class woodenness, alas).

Having seen letters come in regularly to the paper detailing how everything is going perfectly in Iraq and Bush's brilliant leadership has crushed the Taliban (only the liberal media hide the truth!) I believe there are people you can't shock out of their delusion.

A related question, how do you deal with the people for whom "Well, how would you feel if this happened to you?" "What if a Democrat claimed this kind of power?" means nothing (in the sense that they believe it would be Completely Different if it happened to them and that Democrats do not have the right to the kind of powers Bush has asserted).

[Joolya]

pointatinfinity: ar you my sibling??? (half-siblinsomething else i've noticed about my personal "macho sue" (who in many aspects of his self is liberal, intellectual, interesting - but who is a deeply unhappy person whose soul is somehow sick) is that when this person is confronted about anything he might be wrong about, said person's voice morphs exactly into GWB's.
he would be horrified to know this about himself.

[Praline]

Their posturing really seems to appeal to people who want to see themselves as Real True Warriors, without, you know, the hard part.

That's sort of an aspect of the Macho Sue myth: by loudly admiring such characters, a certain type of man feels like he's partaking in their supposed masculinity, without having to do anything else. The act of appreciating such virtues is seen as a sign that you, too, possess them - because they're seen as so obviously admirable that nobody could possibly disparage them, except through incomprehension or jealousy. Making a lot of fuss about manly warriors proves that you do understand and aren't jealous, hence you have warrior traits as well.

Load of cobblers, of course, but for people this hung up on capital-M Manhood, a lot of it is about display rather than accomplishment. Being a warrior-fan is like wearing a football T-shirt or, if you were a deer, having a big pair of antlers: it makes your manhood clearly visible to others. (Or at least, others who accept that particular signifier as masculine.)

A sports T-shirt is fine. Display masculinity is a bit pointless - you're a man because you have one X and one Y, you don't need to prove what's clearly already the case - but a T-shirt is harmless. Anybody who expects people to die so that he can display his own masculinity back home, on the other hand, is well overdue a kicking.

[pointatinfinity]

pointatinfinity: are you my sibling???

Your choice of username sounds female, Jooiya; I do not have any sisters, alas, and your syntax style doesn't sound like any of my brothers. So no, not in blood. But I'll gladly form a sisterhood/brotherhood Children of Macho Sues Support Group.

[Hawker Hurricane]

Now, not to contradict but to clarify... one can go to war and not be a Warrior. For movie examples, yes, 'Sands of Iwo Jima'... also 'Heartbreak Ridge' (with Clint Eastwood as the Warrior), and 'A Few Good Men' with Jack Nicolson (acting circles around Tom Cruise) as the 'Warrior without a war'.

And people who are 'good' at war can become good at political leadership. See G. Washington and Dwight Eisenhower... but they weren't (by my definition) RTW's.
RTWs rarely make good general officers. At that rank, you need more diplomacy and planning and logistics and strategy. Sometimes RTWs are brilliant tactically, sometimes they just get away with stuff because of audacity... (see Custer, Col. Armstrong, Gettysburg and Little Big Horn)

I'll repeat: Military units need RTWs for combat. In peacetime, you need to keep them engaged in things that prevent them from damaging the local inhabitants... making Chesty Puller the commadant of Marine training was brilliant. Putting Randi Cunningham as commander of Top Gun was a good idea. Making 'Duke' Cunningham a congressman was a mistake...

[Praline]

Military units need RTWs for combat. In peacetime, you need to keep them engaged in things that prevent them from damaging the local inhabitants

Attack dogs do not make good guide dogs, in other words, and you don't put them to the same tasks. (?)

[Hawker Hurricane]

Praline:
Well, yes, just don't push the anology too far...
German Shepards make excellent guide dogs, police dogs, guard dogs, attack dogs, and (amazingly enough!) sheep dogs. But I wouldn't want a dog *trained* as a attack dog used as guide dog...
(People are more flexible than dogs, of course)

The thing to really remember is that many skill sets and attitudes do *not* cross over. The man who willingly called an airstrike on his own position to kill the enemy may not be the man you want deciding when to stop negotiating and start droping the bombs...

I hope I said this in a way that got my point across...

[Dash]

Richard Weaver claims that conservatives argue most comfortably from definition/category, while liberals argue most comfortably from cause/consequence. While I question some of his reasoning (his example of a conservative was Lincoln arguing against slavery), listening to conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Schlessinger makes clear that their first reaction to any problem is to try to categorize it: this is an example of an X; the reason he says that is because he's a Y. (I know that latter example looks like a cause argument, but in fact it's simply establishing a category.) In fact, part of the problem conservative radio show host Kevin James ran into in the by now viral Chris Matthews smackdown (aside from general nincompooposity) was that he wasn't prepared to answer the question of why he wanted to put something in the category of "appeasement."

If this is the case, then it might be most effective to frame one's argument towards questioning whether X belongs in the category it has been placed in--i.e. raising questions about definition and categorizing--rather than, as liberals (according to Weaver) tend to do, in terms of what will happen if....

[Jeff]

John Wayne can pretend to be such a person

If John Wayne can pretend to be ANY sort of person (short of a zombie), he's a MUCH better actor than I ever gave him credit for!

[Hawker Hurricane]

Wait... Lincoln? *Abraham* Lincoln? A conservative? Ummm... wouldn't preventing the spread of slavery/eventually eliminating slavery be a liberal idea in 1860?

[dr ngo]

it was a big tactical mistake for anti-Vietnam protestors to burn the flag. What they should have done is brandished it and shouted about how the warmongers were betraying it.

Actually, a number of protesters tried this at the time. It didn't work in terms of perception, by and large; the public continued to focus on flag-burning - probably less common among protesters than flag-waving, if I had to guess - and assume that the Flag was the personal property of the administration and the hawks. (Of course the President would always wrap himself in the flag, but then that's only to be expected.)

Whether the media were to blame for this (mis)apprehension or some other constellation of circumstances was, I can't say. But the idea of reclaiming patriotism for the left was there throughout the Vietnam war, as was the practice of publicly asserting it (through flag-waving or other symbolic means), in quite a few marches and demonstrations.

Strangely enough, it appears that Truth does not always vanquish Falsehood.

Who knew?

[Hawker Hurricane]

Flag Burning: I've burned quite a few. As per the U.S. flag code: "When a flag is too stained to clean or too torn to repair, it shall be disposed of by burning".

The symbolism of burning is purification: the flag is unclean, and must be purified. The early anti-Vietnam war protesters KNEW this. They were symbolically attempting to purify the country that had been made unclean by a unjustified war.
Alas, that wasn't communicated by the media. The message was distorted, and flag burning became a sign not of ritual purification but of disrespect, not only for the flag but for the country it stands for.

"A lie can travel around the world while the truth is still putting on it's boots."

[Praline]

You're being quite clear, as well as interesting, HH. :-) It's an interesting point about the flag - another distortion, alas, of which there are too many. Personally I have no objection to flag-burning - if you can't burn a flag, you don't have free speech - but that was an example the article gave. I guess, in a PR war, perhaps you need to be as sure as you can be that your gestures will be as hard as possible to misrepresent...

[Dash]

HH: Wait... Lincoln? *Abraham* Lincoln? A conservative? Ummm... wouldn't preventing the spread of slavery/eventually eliminating slavery be a liberal idea in 1860?

Yes, precisely the problem I have with conservatives trying to claim Lincoln as one of their own. The man was in fact very much a progressive. That said, and given that anyone can use any type of argument, I think Weaver has a point that it is a basically conservative move to say, "X is an instance of a known category, Y." That is, one claims that a category has already been established, is part of a sort of tradition (using the term VERY loosely), and that all one is doing is identifying, not where it belongs, but where it is already. That's basically conservative. It attempts not to actually move anything around. What is, is good, or at least correctly identified.

Praline & HH, similar problems occurred when protesters flew the flag upside-down, using a signal for a ship in distress. The problem with symbolism is that it is to a degree left open to the viewer/audience, and whoever names it first owns it.

[lonespark]

Sooo...putting American flag stamps upside down on my mail...

I did a presentation in philopophy class on manhood, heroism, warriors and violence. I got to use what I thought was the perfect song as my text and title: Fred Small's "Every Man." One of my points was that we all exist as a balance between violence and vulnerability, and on a continuum between idealism and complete disillusionment.

I had the continuum for warriors as knight--soldier--killer. The knight doesn't deviate from his ideals of honor, or Truth, Justice, and the American way. The soldier represents the variations of average human personality thrust into violent situations. Likely he'll do some things he's not proud of, but he doesn't completely lose sight of the ideals, or desire to continue unnecessary violence. The killer, well, he's very good his job. Too good to fit in the mainstream of society, and there's less and less call for berserkers these days.

I recommend the song to everybody. It's got John Wayne! Ok, no it doesn't. But it reminds me of John Wayne. And it made my dad cry.

[Hawker Hurricane]

The difference between a war hero and a psychotic murderer is not why he kills, but *who*.

Yes, there's more to it than that. Oversimplification can be a problem.

Funny that you mentioned beserkers, lonespark (or is it Ionespark... I can't tell.) The beserker was one of the examples of what I'm calling "the real true warrior" in my source material (which, now that I'm home, I'll look on the shelf and find... "Shooting Blanks: War Making that Doesn't Work" by Alfred Nofi and James Dunnigan).

Flags upside down: my military career was spent as a Navy Signalman. I know every rule about flags, display of, shipboard, that there is. Officially, flying your flag upside down is a sign that your color guard is stupid and doesn't know which end is up. That it indicates distress is traditional, not part of the flag code. If a warship flies it's flag upside down, the signalmen on the other ships will mock them. If a civilian vessel flies it upside down, they'll ask if they need help.

[Dash]

HH: Officially, flying your flag upside down is a sign that your color guard is stupid and doesn't know which end is up.

Thus neatly illustrating the difference between a sign and a signal.

That it indicates distress is traditional, not part of the flag code.

Interesting! Thanks for the clarification.

If a warship flies it's flag upside down, the signalmen on the other ships will mock them. If a civilian vessel flies it upside down, they'll ask if they need help.

Help, like keeping their vessel afloat, navigating, etc., or help like, "hey, buddy, you want us to show you how to clip that thing on the halyard so it actually ends up in some recognizable orientation"?

[Doctor Science]

I think a major part of the problem is a subtractive model of masculinity. If manhood is defined not as "being a good person and male" it's easy to have role models like Atticus Finch -- who can be a model for both men and women. But if manhood is a virtue that women do not display, then only strength and violence will do. At the extreme, every other virtue becomes effete, unmanly, because it does not show you are a *man*.

HH, I find your comments very interesting, and I'm going to get "Shooting Blanks" out of the library, it sounds like just the sort of thing I like. My father was (briefly, in 1945) a clerk for Chesty Puller, and described him as "a great Marine, but a very troubled man."

I'm particularly interested in any insights you male-type people have into how manhood is constructed, and whether you think the model of "subtractive masculinity" is indeed operating. Why does masculinity seem to be so frail, needing to be proved over and over? How do you guys get off that particular merry-go-round?

[Doctor Science]

*Use* preview, duh. I meant, If manhood is defined as "being a good person and male"

[Hawker Hurricane]

Dash: Help as in "are you in trouble and require assistance putting out the fire/stopping the flooding/dealing with the injured/putting down the mutiny/disarming the bomb/feeding the crew/finding the way to San Jose etc?"
I was required to memorize "The 16 ways a ship indicates that it is in distress", flying the flag upside down wasn't one of them... probably because some national flags can't be upside down (Great Britain, for one).

Dr. Science: I use a definition of manhood that is really a definition for adulthood: You are a man (adult) when you willingly take responsibility for your actions.
But that's not a definition of manhood.

Dunnigan and Nofi write the coolest books about the military. They are (or were) civilian analysts for the Pentagon/CIA and wargame designers, and have a lot of great titles... "Victory and Deceit: The Art of Deception in Warfare", "Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You Aren't Supposed to Know" (with two sequals covering WW2 and Vietnam), "Victory at Sea: World War II in the Pacific" to name the other titles I own.

[Doctor Science]

HH:
You are a man (adult) when you willingly take responsibility for your actions.
But that's not a definition of manhood.

What definitions do you think the men you've served or worked with use? Do you think their choice of manhood self-definition has changed over historical time, or as they themselves mature?

[Chrissl]

Hawker Hurricane wrote: ... probably because some national flags can't be upside down (Great Britain, for one).

Former Girl Scout knowledge says:
Oh yes, it can -- but the difference is rather subtle unless you know what to look for.

It's true, though, that the Union Jack does not make a terribly efficient "I'm flying this upside down on purpose" statement, since most people won't even notice if it's wrong. The US flag is much more obvious.

[alfgifu]

On berserkers and the vulnerability of masculinity: my younger brother, when he was in his very early teens, encountered a particularly nasty form of bullying. He doesn't look much like a Manly Man and never has - though tall, he's thin and carries himself with a habitual stoop of the shoulders. He makes light of everything and is generally amiable. However, when taunted beyond endurance, he can flip over suddenly into a state of insensate rage - hard to call it anything but berserk, really - and develops the disconcerting ability to smash people to the ground. I grew up with him and was on the receiving end once or twice. Painful.

Anyway, when he was about thirteen, some of his classmates found out about this and thought it was hilarious. They used to surround him (six or seven of them) and keep throwing insults until they reached the danger point. Then, predictably enough, he would thrash them. Afterwards, though, he was always ashamed of himself and would willingly take responsibility for the entire incident (they generously let him do so) and as he was unhurt and six or seven other boys were rather battered, he got a reputation with the school as an out-of-control bully.

All of which is only tangentially related to this discussion, but does illustrate some of the damage that perceived notions of masculinity can do. With time and a bit of counselling, my brother learnt to control himself. I've not seen him lash out for years now. Despite his berserker tendencies, he's one of the gentlest men I know - and, naturally, his self-esteem suffers because he knows he doesn't come across as a 'masculine' type. Atticus Finch is a great role model, but I'd love to be able to point to someone more here and now and tell my brother that, yes, he might not be drinking the blood of his slaughtered foes every morning and listening to the lamentation of their women, but you are infinitely more heroic than those Macho Sues any day.

[Hawker Hurricane]

Dr. Science: The men I served/worked with had many different defintions, mostly involving drinking and whoring. Some involved violence, and the ability to get away with petty crimes.
I spent many years trying to teach children who happened to be legal adults my definition of 'adulthood'.
My definition didn't change as I aged, but I did watch other people change thier definition.

Distress signals: I had to look, and found this
http://www.cruising.sailingcourse.com/images/distress%20signals.gif

That's the official. But as I said, if you're out there and your boat is sinking, anything that gets the attention of others is a good thing.

[hapax]

HH, I have to admit that I take comfort that flames or smoke spewing from a vessel are "officially" regarded as signs of distress.

Re definitions of manhood: the incomparable Echidne of the Snakes has addressed this issue from time to time. She finds it interesting, as do I, that no women of our acquaintance ever feels the need to define or defend our "feminity."

[lonespark]

alfgifu, your brother sounds a lot like a dear friend of mine. He was the one you wanted on your side if things got sticky, but you didn't want to piss him off. Not because he's take it out on you, but on the surrounding material objects, which got him kicked out of a few apartments. He recently joined the Navy. Hopefully there's an HH out there to help him be a better man.

hapax, there certainly are women who feel a need to defend or prove their femininity. In many cases this seems to be equated with sex appeal, and is therefore proved by stealing someone's boyfriend or hurting/killing someone who stole or interefered with your boyfriend/husband. Maybe violence isn't considered "feminine," but in this context it isn't masculine either.

Outside of that, though, there are plenty of examples of girls/women doing extreme things to prove that they are "real" or "good" girls or women.

[Doctor Science]

lonespark:

There's certainly a lot of pressure, especially on young women, to be the right kind of feminine. But I've rarely heard "if you don't do X you aren't *really* a woman" very often, and it doesn't get tossed around as a casual insult. Gore, Obama, and Edwards have been the targets of amazing levels of "unmanly" accusations; Hillary doesn't get accused of being "unwomanly" nearly as much, though she gets more than her share of other garbage. A "bitch" is still resoundingly female, after all.

A lot of it must be the nature of hierarchy. Higher rank is *always* less stable than low, and aspiring to move up is always understandable and natural. But it's instructive to observe how much propping up and policing male domination seems to need, compared to, say, racism. White people do not feel constrained by their race to only do or feel or wear certain things, while black people feel constrained all the time. In contrast, boys (for most obvious example) have much less freedom of feeling, expression, ambition, and clothing than girls, and this has been true since the early 1970s.

[Hawker Hurricane]

My observations of 'womanhoodness' is, of course, second hand: two daughters, one now 20 (TWENTY! I'm old!) the other 15. They are very different; the oldest is athletic, tomboyish, and agressive (and married and a mother, now). The younger is delicate, shy and slow developing. They attended the same schools (five years apart), and I noticed...

The Junior High School was in a very Hispanic neighborhood, and the definition of 'womanhood' followed the Mexican pattern: Dresses, make-up, and showing more skin than I expected a 13 year old to display. Niether daughter matched it. The elder, being agressive, didn't put up with it, being athletic she was quite capable of 'defending' herself. The younger, being as she was found herself quite picked on for not being the 'right' kind of 'lady'.

The High School was in a more upper middle class caucasian neighborhood (we live on the border between the two), and was large/diverse enough that my eldest could join the 'dancers' clique and avoid groups who didn't like her. My younger is now in that school, and has slowly built up a group of friends who, like her, aren't ready to give up little girl things.

Which matches my own experience, as a skinny bookworm with wierd hair, I was picked on in Jr. High, in high school I passed 6' in height and learned that if I held my head up and acted like I wouldn't back down the bullies left me alone...

My military experience shows the opposite of what Dr. Science points out: higher rank is always more stable and secure than lower. Junior enlisted men are busted out for things that are ignored among the Chief Petty Officers (rumor has it takes a act of congress to bust a CPO). Junior officers are often forced to resign for minor infractions, while senior officers (I'm looking at the C.O.s of the USS Stark and USS Iowa) are allowed to 'retire at full pay and benefits' for doing things that killed off dozens of thier men.

[Ecks]

HH: probably because some national flags can't be upside down (Great Britain, for one).

As has been pointed out already it can... with the added benefit that pretty much only British people who have grown up with it are intimately familiar enough to quickly detect the signal - which makes it a wonderful way on a battlefield to let the rest of the army know that your flank is in trouble, without necessarily tipping off the other army. Or so British rumour would have it :)

More importantly, Dr. Science asks about subtractive masculinity. Dov Cohen and Dick Nisbett wrote a brilliant book on the "culture of honor" in the US south (and other places - mediteranian countries, the middle east, etc), which stands in contrast to the "culture of dignity" elsewhere. In a culture of honor, men have honor which is a zero sum substance. If someone insults you, your manhood, or your wimminz, and you don't respond with aggression then they have gained honor and you have lost it. You are then liable to be seen as a pussy or weakling, having signaled that you are unwilling or unable to stand up for yourself, and that you are therefore available to be taken advantage of. Insults are therefore not to be brushed off, because they DO stick to you, and it's very imporant to be polite and smile at people if you aren't an alpha dog, because they WILL feel the need to settle the score if they think that you might be seen to have slighted them - they have to, because otherwise you've won, and they've lost.

In cultures of dignity, in contrast, everybody has dignity, it is considered innate, and impossible to remove. If you insult me, then I can just roll my eyes and decide you are a wanker, and nothing much has changes. If you beat the crap out of me, then I have been offended, and everyone should agree that I am right, and you are an ass.

I find it explains a lot.

Brilliant thread everyone. I've *really* enjoyed reading it... just high grade stuff all around!

HH & Praline, your comments about neocons who think they can painlessly partake of RTW status by being cheerleaders for RTWs immediately bring to mind Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Both avoided military service when they were of appropriate age, and now that they are safely beyond the possibility of military service, they bluster - from the comfort of the radio studio - about how "we" are fighting terrorism and how "we" deposed Saddam Hussein. I have even heard them state that "we" liberated France from Nazi Germany. It's so easy to talk about getting tough with Teh Bad Guys when someone else is doing the tough (and sometimes fatal) work.

[Raj]

HH & Praline, your comments about neocons who think they can painlessly partake of RTW status by being cheerleaders for RTWs immediately bring to mind Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Both avoided military service when they were of appropriate age, and now that they are safely beyond the possibility of military service, they bluster - from the comfort of the radio studio - about how "we" are fighting terrorism and how "we" deposed Saddam Hussein. I have even heard them state that "we" liberated France from Nazi Germany. It's so easy to talk about getting tough with Teh Bad Guys when someone else is doing the tough (and sometimes fatal) work.

----------------
Yes, I, Raj, posted the comment above. Evil Typepad!