Pride
What is "pride"?
I've been wondering about this concept central to masculinity. In my mind, there's nothing more central and grounding for a man to feel prideful.
What are your thoughts about pride?
I've been wondering about this concept central to masculinity. In my mind, there's nothing more central and grounding for a man to feel prideful.
What are your thoughts about pride?
Comments (65)
From there I think the concept is so subjective that what one person takes as pride could be anything from foolhardy to deluded to correct positive self-evaluation to stubborness to entitlement to 'not hating yourself' to a lack of shame and so on.
Women too? How does this manifest in?
Children, husband, nurturing?
Quoting Wallows
I think this is true. A man should feel proud in his personhood, and his performance should bear some relationship to his pride. So, if a man feels pride in his skill with tools, he should be able to get good work done with his tools. If he is proud of his hunting prowess, then he should be able to bag a deer every now and then. It isn't so important what a man feels proud of, but that he should have accomplishment about which to feel pride.
Boys should be raised to be proud of themselves, and to do something about which to be proud.
Having shame and embarrassment in one's self might sometimes be justified, but usually it is a sign of somebody who has been beaten down.
Pride is important for women too, but is likely to manifest itself in different terms than for men.
Black pride and Gay Pride both seek the redress of past humiliations. So, some kinds of pride have a healing function.
If you’re asking how men and women feel pride and whether there is a difference ... I imagine so, but I wouldn’t consider the difference to be spectacularly different. In general terms women are more interested in people than men and men are more interested in things, so, I guess we could insinuate that men lean more toward pride in technological achievements and material production than women, and that women lean more toward social achievements and relationships than men?
That would be a very surface view and one that only offers solid enough premises but likely faulty conclusions as there are more nuances involved that probably swing such differences closer together.
I would say pride has a tendency to shift more toward the regard of people and how they feel they fit into a group and the groups attitudes toward them, than to a more singular, meaning segregated, self-evaluation and ‘joy’ at one’s own progress irrespective of societal pressures and ideals (which are forever part of human life to some degree).
Hope that covers it?
So where does wallowing fit in here.
Performance? *Cringes*
In terms of what?
How?
Hmm, yes, I suppose so. This is fascinating. Different kinds of pride? And, how does pride instill healing into a human being?
What did you think I meant -- skill at fucking? Well, some guys do it better than others.
And where does philosophy fit in here? It seems like the antithesis, seemingly.
Pride can't be injected like testosterone; pride has to be built up. Pride for the beaten down requires a change process over time in which persons reinterpret themselves as capable, adept, strong, men worthy of respect because of who they are.
Things are better now than they used to be for many people because of pride movements. Gay pride is 50 years old now. Its work was completed for its 1969 generation a long time ago. Subsequent generations of homosexuals experiencing prejudice need a pride movement too. So do blind people, deaf people, wheelchair-bound people, blacks, and so forth.
Years of work by various 'uplift' or 'pride' groups have considerably diminished the sense of inferiority that groups I mentioned experienced. It's what gives confidence for a group of deaf friends to go out on public transportation and confidently sign to each other, go to bars, restaurants, and so forth.
I don't know why you would read what I said that way. man (generic human) is first and foremost an actor, one who performs roles in life. How one interprets the roles one has, or the roles that are available is a philosophical task. Even someone doing something "merely mechanical" or menial or unpleasant (like a machinist, custodian, or a sewer worker) can and should place his work in a larger context. That's a philosophical task.
You have meditated plenty on your role in life. Many people here have. If philosophy has nothing to say about how one exists in the ordinary world, then what the fuck good is it?
One can gain pride from a successful assessment which find the true value of one's work in the real world. It can be difficult, but even anonymous paper processors in the back offices of brokerages have a real function in the world. And they are real people functioning in the world, and who may loathe their work. That's worth philosophizing about, I'd say.
Linguistic confusion.
Again, things have changed over time, and many women are in something of a bind. They used to stay at home and care for children and do homemaking work. The reason so many women gave up that role and took wage work was that the man's income no longer was adequate to support a family with one job. (This changed, starting in the 1960s). Most families discovered that two incomes were necessary for them to maintain the lifestyle they had, or had lost and wanted to regain.
Women who have gone into hourly wage and salaried work have found it a mixed blessing. Yes, it has produced the kind of income their family needed (husband's and wife's together). But children and homes don't take care of themselves. So, more work.
Plus, women discovered what a lot of men discovered: work sucks. So, women, like men, have to find some sort of validation in their sucky jobs, just like men do. It can be difficult.
Quoting Wallows
What, exactly, do you mean by that? I am confused or you are confused? (It wasn't an attack, so lower your shields.).
Don't you know? I have a PhD in Wittgensteinian analysis. (Think about the oxymoronic quality of that statement).
Quoting Bitter Crank
OK, goodnight.
:cool:
Pride is pleasure at, or a high opinion of, one’s accomplishments or value.
This is fine and commendable only so long as we aren’t positioning this value in relation to those around us. But we do, don’t we?
Can I still feel proud of my skill with certain tools when I observe someone demonstrating more skill with the same tools? If my sense of pride hinges on being the ‘best’ at something, then discovering that I’m not is bound to knock that pride around a bit.
If my pride takes a knock in this respect, how do I recover from it? Do I feel the need to claw my way back to that original relative position at all cost, or can I still find pleasure in my accomplishments or value?
All good questions. You tell me?
Ah, that too. Although usually I only use the term there to refer to the parade.
No, no. More like, "Everybody wants to bone me. Mm-mm."
As if the concept didn't apply to you...
:brow:
I'm just saying it's not a term I normally use. ¯\_(?)_/¯
Do I feel pride about anything? I don't think so. I like stuff I interact with, that I'm a fan of, etc., and sure, I like myself, too, but I like most things really, and most people.
For example, I like my country a lot, but I like every country, every place I've spent time in. I wish I had endless time and endless resources so I could live everywhere for awhile.
Even with sports--and I'm a big sports fan, I'm a fan of a bunch of different teams, and there aren't any teams I hate. I have a "rooting hierarchy" basically. I wouldn't say I really have "pride" in my teams, in my country, etc., because to me that suggests placing it on a pedestal above other stuff, and I like almost everything. I like variety.
Yeah, so once again I can almost hear you say that there's no objective quality to the concept of pride.
Is that right?
I think it makes sense to describe statements or behavior as exhibiting pride or being prideful (I agree with the distinction suggested for those two earlier in the thread). I would say that statements (in terms of utterances we can observe others say) and behavior (again, in terms of observables) are objective.
In what manner are they objective?
Utterances we make--so sounds we make, for example, and behavior we exhibit--so motions we make with our bodies, for example, aren't mental phenomena. (They're correlated to mental phenomena, obviously, but they're not literally mental phenomena.)
And how does that related to "pride" as a human construct?
What I said is that I think it makes sense to describe some utterances and behavior as exhibiting pride or being prideful. So in that sense, I think it makes sense to say that pride can be objective--that is, insofar as it's referring to particular sorts of utterances or behavior.
So, what kind of utterances or behavior do you surmise as being worthy of a person who experiences pride?
For example, take a cheer that New Jersey Devils fans shout during games--"Rangers suck, Islanders blow, Flyers swallow"--that's a Devils pride chant.
So, I was under the impression that pride (for males at least) manifests in rather peculiar ways. Ahem...
Anyway, I don't think you're really being sincere; but, I digress.
Yes, I was being sincere. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the first part.
This I find rather odd. To have pride because someone roots for a particular set of complete strangers to him to win a game.
- there is no personal accomplishment involved
- the accomplishment is by total strangers
- the accomplishment is completely independent of the person who is happy about it with pride.
I'm proud of personal accomplishments and personal qualities.
Then again, someone would be also right, who said that I ought not to be proud of those, if I believe in determinism. (Which I believe in. In fact, it's impossible to believe otherwise, if you think logically.)
So I have no reason to feel pride, or to boast about it, either.
Maybe this is why pride is included in the set of seven deadly sins. Because it is a logically unwarranted phenomenon.
I have come to understand quite the opposite as being true, after observing that pride is a deconstruction of a natural innocence. But also, as you are finding in this thread, the word functions differently in different contexts.
The pride that is sinful is rooted in a personal insecurity, where one's need is to promote his image in order to gain recognition. One aspect of that, is a fear for being denigrated by others, and when you observe how "masculinity" develops in boys, you will see that it begins as they are mocked or ridiculed for their sensitivities. There is a cultural error that suggests sensitivity, kindness, tenderness are feminine qualities, while toughness and brutishness are masculine qualities. So boys gradually become aware that they are behaving in a "feminine" manner, that empowers their insecurity, to begin closing their sensitive side and developing machoism.
So, while it is pride in conforming to the established "male" character, so that Daddy can be proud of his "tough wee man", and likewise the wee man is proud to be big and tough like his Dad, it really does make us feel ashamed of the part of us that is naturally nice.
When a person does not conform to the role for their gender as imposed by the dominant power/s, they are forced to defend their identity. Because the nature of those who persecute them is sinful (they do not love and support them for who they are in truth - pride is placing conditions on their love), the child finds that expressing pride is a response that deflects the ridicule. Ultimately it is because sin is achieving it's objective, that it momentarily succombs in order to groom the child's confidence in relying upon sin (consider Luke 11:15-22). Then, when they find support from others who sympathise, they join the culture and, taking pride in the established resilience to the injustice, grow to conform to the image of their preferred culture.
Pride takes many forms, not just gender. For instance, there are cultural contentions like washing hands after using the toilet, veganism, sports, music, etc. (For instance, my father bought a computer for me when I was young because he thought I would do well with computers, but in the culture of my town in that time, typing was a woman's job, and I didn't know that computers were about more than typing so I wasn't interested until later in life when it came to me as a supporting tool for other interests). Similarly, there is an older generation who did not have computers, and having been put to shame by the smart confidence of the younger generations, took pride in not adapting. So they are stuck, by pride, in a state of ignorance. They are afraid to learn, because it robs them of dignity - a dignity that they believe us owed to them on account of having predated the technology, and humbling themselves to be taught by the generation that culture says they should be the teachers of.
So that is why I have said that pride is not a central part of being a man, because it in fact robs us from our confidence in being who we truly are meant to be. When you look at children, they don't have such shame in their wholeness of character. In fact, children have no shame whatsoever, until pride works it's way in through the workings of the sin in the world around them, that develops a sense of insecurity and shame for the parts of the boy that it is ashamed by.
That's why Jesus says that we must "turn back and become again as a little child", and other language in the same faith explains that we must "circumcise the foreskin of our heart" (which is poetry, of course - does a heart have foreskin? .. no, but of course there is a parallel effect of the foreskin as being a garment, just as our pride shields our heart from exposure).
One more step, is Genesis 3:16 "your sorrow will multiply and your childbearing will be full of pain, for you will long for your husband but he will be a ruler toward you". Can you see how the man's sin, having become ashamed of his sensitive, real side, and having buried it under machoism and brutishness, is depriving the wife of the intimacy and fulness of love that she naturally craves?
That's why I am more inclined to say that pride takes away from the man, an essential part of being a man, and as a result of finding frustration in his female companion, finds sympathy in his male companions, that where society encourages, can develop into more gratifying acceptance of who we truly are (ironically - seeing as it is all based on a self-denial of part of who we are made to be!).
Likewise, the girls are hurt by the guys' insensitivity and brash womanizing, so they find more fulfilling love in their female friends (because it is that female-type nature that the man has been groomed to cut out of his character in pride).
Now, all of this is not to say that we shouldn't be confident in who we are, or acknowledge our strengths and achievements, because that is simply a recognition of truth when it applies, and it is possible to be so honest while being humble, that comes from a spirit that is securely set above all reproaches (noble).
So we find the truth in this, that love is an opposite of sin, where sin operates to do harm for a self-centred purpose (such as exalting one's self by dishonouring others), whereas love exalts the truth, (even while risking indignity by those who would judge enviously), and love, while putting on display things that are worthy of praise, selflessly encourages others to aspire for greatness where it will produce the same rewards in them.
SZ, you appear to be connecting the wisdom of an old soul with the wisdom of the scriptures.
You must forgive me, but I am skeptical of the scriptures. Can you please quote the book and line number of the quote by jesus up in the quoted quote? Thanks. I wish to check the CONTEXT in which J said "turn back and become again as a little child".
Would you please be so kind and provide the name of the translation, the book, and the line numbers? Thanks.
I will be frank why I ask you this: I believe one must handle stand-alone quotations with extreme care. The media is full of misplaced quotes that mean polidirectionally other than in the context they had been uttered.
Please provide the translation name, and the line numbers of the quote "turn back and become again as a little child".
Looking forward to reading it in context, much appreciation for your future requested effort.
At that hour the disciples came to Yeshua, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
And He called a child to Himself, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Amen, I tell you, unless you turn and become like children, you shall never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then shall humble himself like this child, this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in My name, welcomes Me.
That's beautiful. Thank you.
But other qualities of children are not shown here as prerequisites.
You also wrote, that the above applies, because:
Quoting Serving Zion
But how can a child humble himself when he has no shame? To humble oneself, one must have pride. Humbling yourself is a process of losing pride and shame. Once you went through the humbing, then you achieve the state of being humble. If you have no pride, no shame, then there is no objective in humbling yourself... it's like telling a fish to burp, or telling a lion to give up eating carrots. (Sorry, not wanting to make it sound trivial or funny. These two apply in the sense that you can't give something that you don't have.)
So I could see the point if Jesus had said, "You must become like a child, without pride, without shame; and you must humble yourself to achieve that state." This would mean what you see in the quote. But the quote says "You must humble yourself like the child" which means that the child went already through the phase or action of humbling himself or is in that phase or action. Which is not true, because he can't give up pride or shame, since he's got none.
I may sound like I am splitting hairs, and lo and behold, indeed I am splitting hairs. My expectations are high of a believed almighty, who knows everything. He should know the elements of style, and what constitutes clear communication.
Oh, and one bit of advice, meant well, and sincerely, to improve your style to make it even more reflective of a wise old soul. You wrote, "until pride works it's way in through" whereas you should have written "its" in the middle. No apostrophe.
I would never correct anyone's English on this site, it is a bit insulting, and who should throw the first stone anyway? I make my share of mistakes in Engish already. I hope you are above that and receive my gentle correction with the same spirit as I give it to you with. I give this advice to you only with positive intentions.
That's very astute and you seem to be making an observation that I can't say is untrue .. so I had to look at the original Greek language, because yes, I would agree that it wouldn't reach my expectations of a word of truth, to have such a logical problem. So I have found an opportunity for improvement in the translation, where it says "Whoever then shall humble himself like this child", it naturally lends itself to read as you have done "Whoever then shall humble himself like this child [has done]" .. whereas a more exact translation might say "Whoever then shall humble himself [to become] like this child".
I find this through the Strong's concordance on this website: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/18-4.htm, where it says
.. so we do have problems by not getting the full meaning of the original language (and by getting deficiencies through the translators' best efforts).
Here's some better comparisons:
Berean Literal Bible
Therefore whoever will humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens.
Christian Standard Bible
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child--this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Contemporary English Version
But if you are as humble as this child, you are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Good News Translation
The greatest in the Kingdom of heaven is the one who humbles himself and becomes like this child.
That's interesting.. thanks for mentioning it! (I do disagree with a few of the rules in English, because they are wrong). So I did a Google search for "apostrophe rules" and I found this article:
https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp, where rule 8 contradicts rule 1a:
Rule 1a. Use the apostrophe to show possession. To show possession with a singular noun, add an apostrophe plus the letter s.
Examples:
a woman's hat
the boss's wife
Mrs. Chang's house
(So that is how I used the apostrophe)
.. but Rule 8 says this:
Rule 8. The personal pronouns hers, ours, yours, theirs, its, whose, and the pronoun oneself never take an apostrophe.
Examples:
Correct: Feed a horse grain. It's better for its health.
Incorrect: Who's glasses are these?
Correct: Whose glasses are these?
Incorrect: Talking to one's self in public is odd.
Correct: Talking to oneself in public is odd.
.. and I do not like it. Maybe it is pride, I will need to consider it. Sometimes, just as my topic has said, culture is wrong and the non-conformity is the right thing to do. I'll think about it.
Shame is a means to understanding the value of pride, encouragement, and success and failure. We’re not particularly good at taking criticism. Maturity is the ability to take harsh criticism and to assess as readily as possible what others have to offer.
We simply cannot take everything everyone says with the same degree of sincerity and so as individuals we have to come to a compromise and willingly accept that we’ll dismiss good criticism and accept bad criticism no matter how careful we are.
Beauty, or ugliness, is revealed when we make mistakes not generally when we have a lucky success. It is rarity to see beauty exposed in success - pride being the boon of failures had and the poison of failures avoided.
It's this pronoun I am talking about. Its proper spelling lacks an apostrophe. It's not a big deal, but it's the most common mistake made in English spelling even by its most learned users. It's a world of a difference when it reflects its users academic ability and learnedness.
Thanks for delving into the issue of how to be childlike in the Christian sense to illuminate the wording for my sake. I hope there was something in it for you, too... and it looks like there was.
I think that pride has a tendency to overlook this. When we are proud ‘in our personhood’, we claim all the credit for an accomplishment, often without regard for those who have contributed to the achievement: those who designed or produced the tools we wield with the skills that we’ve been given the opportunity to learn from willing teachers, for instance.
I notice that @Bitter Crank made some distinctions between masculine and feminine roles and how pride is manifest. I don’t normally subscribe to gender stereotypes, but there’s something in this, I think.
I wonder sometimes if there is undue pressure on men in particular to be defined or identified only by achievements they can be proud of - specifically what they do without help.
I think that many women build a sense of pride in association, and often define their ‘personhood’ by certain relationships they can be proud of. The interesting thing is that women also feel pride in their own skills and achievements, just as men do.
Would you say that men also feel a sense of pride in their relationships? Or would they consider this a weakness of sorts? I notice that @Terrapin Station has mentioned pride in relation to sporting teams.
So if we return to the questions I asked before, when pride in a certain skill or achievement is dented (as in ’s example), I think women perhaps recover more easily than men because of the pride they also draw from their relationships.
Which takes me back to the first comments I made here about the contribution of others in our accomplishments. If we accept that anything we achieve is not so much a purely personal effort as a combination of awareness, connection and collaboration with the world around us, than I would argue that being able to draw pride from our relationships is a key element of that. It allows us to feel proud of collaborative achievements - accomplishments that others have contributed to.
...as opposed to the apostrophe in ‘user’s’? :wink:
Good catch.
It just looks wrong to me because of the principles of rule 1a, but I guess I can grow to appreciate it. The examples you gave here have helped me to appreciate it too! :D
I understand your advice about guarding reputation, and I will make use of that. Being mindful of the cost, I do think that sometimes I will choose to break the rules where it is useful for special emphasis.
Quoting god must be atheist
Yeah I didn't notice it until you said it, but now I am thinking more too, about the nature of humbleness being measured as an absence of pride, and looking to see whether there is any distinction of honour between persons of perfect humbleness (which I can't recall from memory). So, yes I will be understanding better as I continue to observe with that context. Thanks! :)
With sports, it's similar to, though not exactly the same as, national pride. People often have pride in their country where, with respect to what their pride is focused on, they didn't do any of that stuff personally. National pride might be about the country's history, its accomplishments in terms of what various citizens have done, its laws, it might be about what's considered to be the country's "attitude" where the person with pride in it doesn't really have that attitude themselves, etc.
With sports, fans tend to identify with the teams they support. They say, "We won!" "We just signed Jones!" "We've got a long road trip starting next week," etc. Fans see themselves as part of the team's organization (and to some extent, the team would probably agree, because without the fans, especially the ones who go to games, the teams wouldn't exist).
But team sports teams don't fight for scarce resources. So there will be no survival value if your team wins the world series or something. Only pride.
You explained it: we ought not to feel pride for our respective nations' past successes. So why ought we to feel pride for our respective and competing victories? You said it best.
I am still at odds why the outbursts of pride after a victory at a hockey game or football match. If you bet, you can grin if you win. If you lose, you can gnash your teeth.
It's like being proud of winning the lottery. "I know how to pick numbers," and beats his chest with his fist. (An imaginary person.)
It leads to lynchings to maintain the border between supreme and non-supreme.
But if it's fluid, maybe not.
Since the emotion exists, it undoubtedly has a role somewhere, but like all emotions, it needs to be strictly controlled.
Religion warns against (uncontrolled) pride: Thirty-third Greater Sin: Pride or Arrogance
The worst form of pride is the refusal to worship God, which is otherwise his due:
Then there are individuals who do not deny the existence of Allah (S.w.T.) but they show their arrogance against Allah (S.w.T.) by not worshipping Allah (S.w.T.) and by disobeying Allah (S.w.T.)’s orders regarding obligatory and prohibited acts.
On the other hand, it is not allowed to be humble with atheists:
A disbeliever is not deserving of respect because he does not acknowledge Allah (S.w.T.), the Supreme Being and in effect has degraded himself to a despicable position of those who openly defy Allah (S.w.T.).
Islamic religious law is adamant that other believers should be approached with humility while atheists must be despised.
I didn't see anyone comment on this aspect/distinction/ item #2:
1. Proud of children, country, accomplishment's/self-esteem, etc.
2. Ego: exaggerated self worth.
Item two is also the one that is generally connected with the sin of pride... . For example; wars, violence, stubbornness, narcissism, et al..
Jane Austen said all there is to say about it.
It's a great theme. Pride is something like the enjoyment of (a sense of ) status.
In its more 'innocent' form, it's maybe conforming to the norm, being good enough. 'I am a brave solider, a good doctor, a compassionate friend, a responsible citizen.'
In its more exciting (sometimes toxic) form, it's the cult of the genius. To succeed as an artist is to be a one-of-a-kind item, an alpha in the Brave New World. And then there's the more practical sense of wielding political or economic power (Logan Roy).
Who would you rather be, Kurt Cobain (despite his end?) or some rich VP of SomeCorp? Or to make it more interesting, the choice is between being a posthumously discovered great artist who lives mostly without recognition or again some rich person who lives in luxury but is otherwise not glamorous.
I'm trying to emphasize a distinction between 'quality' and pure material power, or the 'spiritual' versus the blandly economic. The question is related to whether it's better to live a low-stress life in a simple cabin with lots of books but no one to command or a high stress life with lots of money and menials. In other words, what is noble? (I realize I left out many other fascinating options, like activism for instance.)
Could you not love pride? In that case, are you not loving yourself?
Because the one that has pride, has pride only by himself. Pride, in the case of having of others, is misused, since the correct term would be "admiration".
Lets say that pride is a "First Person Only" use, in the subject and object. (I can only have pride by I)
Therefore, admiration is a "Thrid Person Only" use, but only in the object (I can have admiration for He)
One sense of pride is the negation of shame about something. proud(x) = ~ashamed(x).
The other sense of pride is shame at the negation of something: proud(x) = ashamed(~x)
Something like Gay Pride is usually used in the first sense. Gay Pride is usually just about not being ashamed to be gay. It's not about being gay being superior to being non-gay; just about being gay being not-inferior to being non-gay, because there are people who assert that being gay is inferior.
Something like White Pride, on the other hand, is usually used in the second sense. White Pride is usually about how there is something shameful about not being white. It's about being white being superior to being non-white, not just about being white being not-interior to being non-white, because nobody is asserting that being white is inferior.
That second sense isn't always bad though. Most of the kinds of pride in achievements are of that second kind. For example I'm proud to have gotten good grades in school, in that I would feel ashamed to have gotten bad grades, and I'm glad that I didn't. I think it only becomes toxic when someone has that kind of pride about things that either aren't actually rankable in terms of superiority or inferiority (like race, sex, etc), or about things that are beyond someone's personal control (like how rich or poor your family is, or what abilities or disabilities you were born with). About those things, it is more appropriate to feel pride only in the first sense, of being merely unashamed.