I understand honor as a system of accounting for men’s souls. There are credits and debits, investments, loans, outstanding debts. Honor is gained, wagered, lost and regained. In the best case scenario, a man accumulates enough wealth to withstand inevitable short-term losses and indignities. Substantial achievements offer a cushion, a safety net pop psychologists refer to as “security.” Luxury is not having to worry about the little stuff.
Like my pal’s dad. He volunteered for a second tour in ‘Nam so his brother wouldn’t have to go. So what if he reps out his bench presses with ABBA blaring in his headphones. He earned it, and he sure as hell doesn’t need my approval. Not too many guys have portfolios that contain valor these days.
Honor can be a confusing term because it is often used so casually. At the most mundane level it has come to mean merely “good” or “to hold in high esteem.” Honor roll, “honor diversity,” “honor the earth,” Honor Golden Retrievers. I am speaking of honor in a less pedestrian sense.
James Bowman, in Honor – A History, wrote of both reflexive honor and cultural honor. Bowman’s reflexive honor could also be described as “face”—the need to respond to an attack or an insult to avoid looking weak or inferior. His cultural honor “comprises the traditions, stories and habits of a particular society about (among other things) the proper and improper uses of violence.” He also reminds readers in his introduction to the concept that “in spite of the discrediting that honor has undergone, the basic honor of the savage—bravery for men, chastity for women—is still recognizable beneath the surfaces of the popular culture that has done so much to efface it. If you doubt it, try calling a man a wimp or a woman a slut.”
Building on Bowman’s ideas, a man’s honor is his private and public sense of worth as a man. Honor is a reputation for strength and the courage to use it when necessary to defend that sense of masculinity. The female shaming language often discussed here works precisely because it taps into a man’s need to defend his honor. If he feels he has been shamed or that he has dishonored himself, he wants to balance his books somehow.
When men compete with each other, provided that it is a fair fight—“apples to apples”—men gain honor for more than just winning. They gain honor from having the courage to fight in the first place, for what dog fighters call gameness—perseverance, spunk, determination. Men respect other men who show courage, even if they almost always lose. Men in competition with each other are esteemed, win or lose, for good sportsmanship, fairness, heart, even compassion—all aspects of Bowman’s cultural honor.
One time I ended up in a half-drunken sparring match with a buddy of mine. He loved to fence with shinai, and no one else at the party would do it. So I went out and played samurai with him for a few minutes. His bamboo sword left my forehead bleeding. But that didn’t matter. I know I gained his respect and we became better friends that night. Poetically, our friendship also ended over a matter of honor, years later.
Competition with women is almost always a net loss of honor for a man. Men don’t consider competition between men and women to be “apples to apples.” And I don’t think women do either.
To clarify, I’m not talking about “play” competition. Playing against your girl on a video game or a board game or miniature golf doesn’t count. I’m talking about competition that matters.
A woman has much to gain and very little to lose by competing with a man who she thinks she can beat. No one will think her less of a woman for losing, because womanhood has nothing to do with competing with men. But if she beats a man, it will be a triumph of David over Goliath. Men will cheer her on, because in squaring off with a man she shows courage, and everyone loves an underdog.
But what does the man have to gain? He shows no courage by entering the ring with a woman. He is expected to win. If he does, his victory is shallow and unsavory. He gains no honor in beating a woman—the idea is offensive even to a modern man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. Imagine the sportscaster shouting about how he “really slaughtered her.” How ignoble!
And if he loses, the loss is so much more humiliating. While her womanhood is never in question, his masculinity is on the line. He ends up looking like a poor specimen of manhood. Women won’t respect him, and men will be ashamed to be associated with him. He would be better loved by all for cheating and obviously throwing the fight, or for graciously bowing out. To give maximum effort and be bested by a woman is emasculating, no two ways about it. The same rules simply don’t apply. “Apples and oranges.”
Dude, you got ownd by a girl!
This all probably seems pretty obvious to most men. Somewhere deep in your left nut you know that competition with women is a net loss of honor. But I wonder if those honorable instincts are handicaps for men who, in our society, are expected to compete with women for things that matter. When you find yourself in direct, serious competition with women, do you pull back? Do you opt out? Do you go in swinging and come out feeling depleted and ambivalent? If you agree that there is no honorable triumph over a woman—save in the bedroom or in matters of romance—how does that affect the decisions you make in life?
And, as it pertains to The Spearhead, how do you feel when you tell a female or a feminist “what’s what.” What have you gained when, in your eyes, you’ve won an argument with a feminist? Was it worth your time? It’s something to think about.
