Honour

roe_ · 2014-04-17T23:24:19+00:00

Short answer: etymology.

Honour was the name for the codes of conduct that men from the same in-group had for dealing with each other in the competition for alpha spots in the male hierarchy.

It didn't apply to women because women didn't (by and large) compete in male hierarchies. Women (historically, and still to a large extent still) have their own social modes of conduct, which are based on consensus, and a "crab-basket" mode of status-seeking (this is not just me talking out my ass - the "crab basket" model was actually developed by social scientists).

TRP has it's share of masculinist reactionaries who want to reclaim these ancient modes of conduct, and in the ancient world, women need not apply.

Women can (in principle, in the modern world) compete in male hierarchies, but <insert usual caveats about the pull of biology here>

SirNemesis · 2014-04-18T02:07:21+00:00

This MRI study showed that men get enjoyment out of seeing a cheater get an electric shock, whereas women empathize with the cheater. I think this is fundamentally what people mean when they say women have no honor. Men put morality and justice above wellbeing, whereas women do the opposite. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-01-18-schadenfreude-study_x.htm

IIHotelYorba · 2014-04-18T10:55:32+00:00

Women can have honor. But why would they when no one requires or expects them to? Honor is something you leverage, (a form of credit,) in order to gain opportunity. It's risk. You promise to pay if you lose, etc. Women often aren't required to leverage anything and are given opportunities carte blanche in order for people to have a shot at ingratiating themselves with them, or they're given them out of sexist pity.

Having honor when no one expects you to is like taking a no money down deal and demanding to put money down. There may actually be good reasons to do it, but you're incentivised not to and most people won't.

mikado12 · 2014-04-17T21:38:15+00:00

As he is a mod of /r/theredpill I am taking his opinion to be representative of RPers.

I don't believe this. Honor is a quality of worthiness/respectability, and yes, women are capable of having it as well as men, but it's earned in both cases.

SirNemesis · 2014-04-18T01:58:16+00:00

I'd put it this way:

A man will acknowledge that he's doing a bad thing by cheating on his girlfriend. He'll cheat anyway.

A woman will decide that it isn't cheating because of so and so alleviating circumstances.

For example, an instance where a girl literally was asking for it (rape): "Twenty four. Marina has been in love with me for years. She has a boyfriend, though they are in a hiatus. She’s on my bed after kissing heavily, says she cannot have sex with me because she’s in a relationship, but says we could have sex if I rape her. I pass on the offer. Next day she thanks me for my White Knight morals, then gets off my radar." http://yohami.com/blog/2013/04/07/girls-with-boyfriends/

Edit: I should note that I'm speaking in generalizations of course.

goatismycopilot · 2014-04-18T01:07:41+00:00

I am waiting for the influx of lengthy explanations and justifications about why men and only men can have honor.

[deleted] · 2014-04-18T20:40:34+00:00

As he is a mod of /r/theredpill I am taking his opinion to be representative of RPers.

This is the wrong approach to judging content. The mods have strong opinions about the topics discussed there, but at times they differ from the consensus. It's better to think about the issues and viewpoints brought up there and come up with your own approach based on your circumstances. After all, it's better to have a conversation with an informed individual that has a unique viewpoint rather than someone who parrots a popular opinion.

many people on TRP seem to think that the point of TRP is just to get laid no matter what

Not at all true. The point of TRP is to understand sexual dynamics and the relative success/failures of certain strategies without prejudgment or imposition of an arbitrary moral architecture (i.e., what works). Once that is understood, you can apply it in whatever manner you choose.

My understanding of his point on honor requires an understanding of how one can be judged to have honor. I'll avoid the philosophical backgrounds behind its varying definitions (mostly because I'm not as well versed in that) but rather try and come up with a succinct version of what it represents in this discussion. Understandably, it will not encompass every accepted use of the word, but the concept is more important than the semantics.

In a sense, having honor is not compromising on a set of personal moral/ethical codes regardless of circumstances. What is implied in this definition (in order for other people to also believe that you possess honor), is that you have some power that others deem valuable. If you cannot exercise power over a situation, stating that you will not compromise over it makes you look foolhardy and oblivious, not honorable. Similar concepts have been discussed on TRP in regards to when chivalry is admirable/ respected and why white-knights are ridiculed.

When it comes to looking for an ideal, loving relationship, many women would agree that they prefer men who are more powerful and successful than them, even if the woman is successful herself. They prefer a leader rather than a follower. It's considered a man's duty to express interest in order to start a relationship in the first place. It's considered his duty to create the agenda. It's considered his duty to create passion. It's considered his duty to resolve economic hardships.

In these relationships, power is deferred to the man, and it is his duty to not only consider his own well-being in his decisions, but hers as well. And often, he must compromise his own ambitions and preferences to maintain the relationship in spite of the power he holds. This is where he could be considered an honorable person. A woman can arguably be considered honorable if she were in the same position, but such an arrangement is atypical in a modern ideal, loving relationship.

Now, you can say that women do indeed hold power in relationships the form of attractiveness. However, while she can possess physical beauty, she cannot easily exercise power with it for the reasons stated above. Simply put, it's the man who takes a lead in starting most successful relationships. Attractiveness gives her value, but does not change the leader/follower dynamic of the relationship.

The point on loyalty is less interesting to me. Loyalty and trust are earned and should be easily revoked. Some people operate with the notion that others should have the same ethical framework as them and are disappointed when people shockingly decide to act with their own interests in mind. Both men and women can be loyal, until it is no longer in their interest to be loyal.

Title	Honour
Author	the_fluffy_one_
Upvotes	6
Comments	59
Date	April 17, 2014 9:09 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/23aw4v/honour/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/honour.285871 https://theredarchive.com/post/285871

Comments