I bet you don't get this bit in return.
I think it has something to do with women's superior empathetic qualities. It seems to me like (often, in my own relationships) a woman wants to be inspired by/confident in my aspirations and judgement.
Obviously this doesn't encompass all relationships or people and I probably tend to attract women who reinforce my own qualities, so YMMV, but it's interesting to think about.
Anyway, grand op is claiming prestige signaling isn't going to provide results (which is incredibly unlikely in a human pack; maybe a wolf pack, sure, or if the human participants are doin it wrong or are crazy, sure) and you're claiming prestige signalling usually leads to prestige results, so op is wrong and you're right but it doesn't matter because you're talking past each other on separate topics. Ironically it doesn't matter because as you correctly point out, dominance and prestige results are more or less the same most of the time.
The hundred year old manual is talking something totally different from both of you, that there's a moral or ethical need for both results to be exactly identical or else things are going to get unpleasant because prestige means are generally way more pleasant than dominance means. She can either play along with her side of the prestige strategy or unfortunately the dominance strategy will inevitably end up getting played and that's no fun.
Assuming its your responsibility to water the horses, you properly lead a horse to water and it refuses to drink, that's just not going to be fun for anyone involved, it really is the horses job or duty to drink after its been properly led. Note its not just leadership, its leadership with the positive adjectives applied; no fair weaseling out on the obedience obligation due to poor leadership excuses if by the very definition of the claim it only follows from good leadership.
Good luck defining good leadership.
There's also some civilization wide social contract philosophy about good leadership inherently being owed obedience by the nature of the leadership being good, and no other justification is necessary assuming the leadership is good, blah blah blah, all kind of in opposition to the concept of the divine right of kings and hereditary monarchy. To some extent this is the moral justification of democracy, you have to obey the good leader you selected, assuming its not all a sham like modern elections, etc. And this is just applying that large scale societal stuff to a tiny family, for better or worse. This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.
but fucking lol:
> This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.
Yep.
But, more seriously, as a counter, I've spent most of my adult life trying to be less 'manly' and more male (xy-chromosomer ). The western traditions of what it means to be 'a man' have not made my life better. Instead, they've given me anxiety, panic attacks, and caused a lot of feigned aggression, defensiveness, self medication, and regret.
I'm not against tradition, and I have a lot of respect for people who try to keep traditions alive. This one's just not for me.
Isn't this the case in most societies? My sense from history is that is only acceptable for men to cry at extreme events -- such as death of a wife/child/brother, or the loss of a kingdom. The other common trope for crying is if a peasant or low-level official is begging the forgiveness from a king who is about to terminate him. But in the modern society such tragedies happen less often. I cannot think of a time in my own adult life when crying would have been justified.
It's still a common occurrence in Korea as well, so it isn't just the middle-east.
One thing I've realised over the past few years (I'm 22) is the importance of feeling masculine. Not in the generic socially prescribed sense necessarily, but in my own way, that took a lot of contemplation about "what makes me feel masculine?" and obviously the specifics will be different for every man (and I equally think it's important for women to feel feminine in a way which empowers them), but it has made me feel so much more confident and empowered as a human being to be more in touch with my roots so to speak.
Out of curiosity, what does that mean? Were you getting in bar fights or what?
I've spent time trying to become more manly in some ways. I started lifting weights, speaking with my deeper vocal cords rather than head voice, having a bit more of a sense of command, learning how to dish it back or take it in stride if someone gives me some jocular ribbing (rather than getting defensive or avoiding that person), not being whiny under any circumstances, etc. I think that modern western culture overly feminizes men, and it has been a good experience for myself to try to be more masculine.
I turned 40 this year, so it could be an age thing. When I was 20, I probably seemed more similar to you. At least, I was certainly motivated by similar things. I lifted a lot of weights (when I maxed out I weighed around 230 lb), etc. and really identified with masculinity and various male roles.
When I say being more male, I'm not talking about being more 'feminine' (which would just be the opposite), just more Human. For instance, in the past, I would (subconsciously) say to myself, 'what is the right thing to do as a brother, father, son, husband, man?'. Now, I say, 'what actions should I take so that I enjoy my life, the people I care about, the ideas I believe in, etc.?'