Allowing for Extra

How do you start? Building Capital so that you can gradually become less dependent on your earning ability, seems like a game reserved for the wealthy. Advice is tricky because we have different lifeboats in a shared storm. When people talk of being “self-made”, they are often referring to whether, or not, they inherited Capital or a pre-packaged business from Mom or Dad. It is more complicated than that. Most of us have weird relationships with money. Wrapped in our sense of worth. In our relationship with our parents. In their relationship with their parents. In our politics. The advice I give is deeply wound up in my own story. Our self is a bigger container. The bubble we grew up in. Mine is based in Apartheid and Feminism. One based on inequality and gender roles. For me, starting starts with constraint. Having a firm and absolute hold on what “enough” looks like. Then not feeling like more than that is better. I wasn’t trapped in debt, and had the option of choosing a path to develop skills & knowledge to get an income. So my first steps were pragmatism, spending discipline, and delayed gratification. Building a buffer. A few months spending in the bank. Then putting the extra to work. I realise that extra is a foreign concept for most. That is what needs to change.

Unrequited Love

I went to co-ed schools up till the age of twelve. All my schooling (in the 80s and 90s) was in Westville, which is about 14km away from the Durban beachfront. Playschool was at Cygnet, and we were divided up into the Red, Blue, and Green Groups but all played together. Then when big school started, the little boys were given grey shorts and white shirts, and the girls blue dresses. We had classes together but separate playgrounds.

Once the difference between being a boy and a girl started to become obvious, I was pretty useless. I can still remember the line of the girls I (in one direction) liked. It was all very innocent, but I was still a bit of a creep. Mine isn't a love story of little boys and girls holding hands.

The only way to see the girl I liked was to run across the girls' playground. We were allowed to only because the toilets were on the other side. My ruse was pretty thin. The girls would often sit in circles talking, while the boys playground was relative chaos. I don't know how much this had to do with the choice of uniform.

When I got to Senior Primary, there was one occasion where we had to choose between Woodwork and Knitting. All the boys, bar Trev, chose woodwork. I was accused of being gay (in a very homophobic culture), which to this day I don't understand. Any rational person would know that by choosing knitting I would be getting to spend more time with the girls.

A similar situation happened with the choir. I now have a deep voice. Before it broke, I could sing higher, and was smaller, than most of the girls. Gender Apartheid would stretch to who sat where when we sang. I would again be with the girls. Although, it didn't improve my ability to speak to "them".

Circles or Football. Woodwork or Knitting. High Voice or Low Voice. Developing the skills to see each other as friends was actually quite a challenge. There was one stage when a girl's mother was a teacher. We (two boys and two girls) got to spend breaks in the library at the back of her classroom reading Afrikaans books. That isn't code, because we were incredibly well behaved, and any love felt was unrequited. Not that that stopped me trying. Oozey love letters to someone who didn't want to receive them seemed like a good idea. My crushes got a loyalty that was more curse than cute. The one girl gave the other a note she had written once, "helpful hints and tips to get rid of Trevor". From the age of 13, we went to separated High Schools. I am sure there were a few girls who breathed a sigh of relief.

I joined the Durban Youth Council when I was 16, and that was one of the first regular places where the mixing felt genuinely put aside to work on projects together. Where the girls were not only there on social occasions. Perhaps the difference was I was 16, and a little less creepy, but I still wonder about the underlying lessons we were being taught by the way things were set up.

Often I feel like unwinding some of the discussions about masculinity, femininity, gender roles, consent, expectations, obstacles needs to go quite deep. It feels almost like two parallel cultures we have built up, even though we have lived in the same spaces.

I am embarrassed about many of my trial and error lessons into figuring out the dance we play to find the person we build a life with. I am not alone. That confusion has seeped into building whole societies around gender separation. About seeing the entire other gender as a beauty/strength parade for a romanticised idea of that one relationship. Ideas built around property, protection, purity, survival, competition, success, and community. Gradually we have broken down walls, but there is some difficult building required in the rubble.

Toothy Grin, and Off to Boys' High School

Getting Better

Rachel:

I don't really understand the fuss that was made about the Gillette advert. It simply says we shouldn't treat each other badly. It shows a particular brand of fragility that so many people have pushed back on it. They accuse us of being Snowflakes, and then they are so easily triggered by a polite request to be better. I like it when companies use their platforms for good. Like this, and the Nike adverts and the Nandos adverts. It certainly beats the American ads which are half disclaimers about how the drugs they are selling will make bits of your body fall off.

Tracy:

I didn't like the ad. I find it worrying that Social Movements can be so easily co-opted by Corporates and trivialized. This is a difficult conversation that needs having. It feels similar to the American division in News Media. Years ago, everyone would have watched the same channel and had a view. Now each side gets different facts and reacts. Companies now seem to be picking sides. Even though I agree with you that which 'side' seems obvious here. I also worry that this ad makes out as if the issue is important because it affects men too. We can't deal with #MeToo without saying #ToxicMasculinity harms men.

Peter:

I didn't like the ad for the reasons Rachel says... but am one of those reverse-Snow Flakes if that is the binary choice. It's all just a bit too much, to be honest. All this stuff about Privilege and blah, blah, blah. I get it, but isn't there a time limit on that? Can't people start taking some responsibility for sorting their own stuff out? I really think Jordan Peterson is nailing it. What is wrong with being the traditional male? Without being a dick. Having muscles and enjoying a barbecue isn't toxic. Messing around on the playground is how you learn resilience in a world that isn't fair. A world that isn't safe. It is not just Peterson who makes sense in this space. It isn't a Right-wing push back. If you look at some of the work of David Deida, and others in the spiritual space, having a balance between Masculine and Feminine energies is important. We can't all just have a cry about it when life gets hard. Someone has to provide the backbone. Even if it is the Woman that Mans up.

Michelle:

It's all about choice. I have read some of the Deida stuff and it makes me cringe just as much as the Peterson work. I think the Male/Female divide is lazy. It is how we have always done it, and there are certainly strengths and weaknesses we associate we men and women, but aren't there other words?  The word 'Bridge' is feminine in German, and masculine in Spanish (strong, sturdy, towering). Even when speaking English, German speakers will tend to describe Bridges using feminine adjectives (beautiful, elegant, fragile) and Spanish speakers will use masculine ones (sturdy, strong, towering). We get so deep soaked in expectations that it isn't really a choice. We are making progress on women making "masculine" choices, but boys are still restricted from making "feminine" choices and expected to adhere to positive masculine requirements - strength, provision, stoicism.  

Arno:

There are some hard discussions. In the past there was a play book. Rather, there were playbooks. Everything is now up for discussion, and the world has profoundly changed. 200 years ago, most children died before their fifth birthday. We were mostly poor farmers. We have gone through an industrial revolution where most of us were workers, and then in rich countries we have gradually moved out of our bodies and into our heads.  The playbook has been burned. Most of us grew up in sexually repressed religious cultures that were sexist, homophobic, racist, and xenophobic. You don't need to look further than previous generations to get your cringe on. Maybe we should all just cut each other a little slack and figure this mess out.

Rachel:

Isn't it simpler than that though? We do tolerate negative behaviour from men. We do live in a world where women are fearful, because that is completely rational. They should be scared. We do live in a patriarchal world where there is a pay-gap, and woman are restricted from progressing in the work place in the way men are. Even if on paper they are "allowed", culturally woman are expected to work as if they aren't mothers, and be mothers as if they don't work. Expected to thrive in a male world, while still being feminine. This push back strikes me as a lack of willingness to change that.

Tracy:

There is an element of whataboutism going on here. As Rachel says, there may be other issues but that constantly brings the discussion back to Men. I don't like the trivialisation of the ad, but the #MeToo and #ToxicMasculinity discussions are important. There has to be a way we can have these discussions where an issue gets addressed fully, without each garden path being followed.

Peter:

Ok, but that has to work both ways. We need to be softer on boys, but we also need to be harder on girls. Sometimes you do need a bit of grit to push through, rather than a cuddle. I have seen too many examples where when life gets hard, people opt out. Life is hard. For the people at the top, life is often awful in many ways. Make the choice sure, but then accept the consequences. The only reason they do it is because of the Kudos we often attach to people able to be "Toxic". I don't buy this Choice stuff. You can't have everything. Choice sometimes requires a partnership with someone else who will do the stuff you aren't prepared to do. If you want to Yin, someone has to Yang. Someone has to take out the Garbage. Someone has to fix the toilet.

Rachel:

Sure, but it sounds like you aren't acknowledging the problems. You have jumped directly to why men have it hard. Men have always had the platform. Maybe it is time that we focused the attention elsewhere.

Peter:
I am not Men. I am Peter. Half my ancestors are women. A big chunk of the reason things stay the way they are, is because women are half the parents, and want them to stay the way they are. I don't dispute the problems. I just don't think the public discussion is very nuanced. A lot of people who feel differently about this would rather just crack on with stuff that needs doing than make a lot of noise about it in public. It seems some people choose to be activists, and some people choose to take action.

Tracy:
We can at least be grateful that we are at this messy stage of the discussion, and action is being taken. We are also 50/50 committed to a solution, as you say. Still not sure I like Corporates triggering the chat, but maybe it is a positive that the discussion follows.

Gender Wars

Traditional Western Gender roles can be oversimplified as an exchange of money, muscles and sperm for a home, a family and food. In very conservative households, that can make life incredibly simple. Everyone knows their role and does it. A lot of the time consensually. When there is confusion, you go to an elder and they tell you what the expectations are. No discussion. In a Liberal world, all bets are off. Every expectation needs to be discussed, unraveled and rebuilt. You aren't a category, you are a person. There are no elders to turn to. It is confusing. I believe in a liberal world. I am prepared to wrestle with each decision to come up with something that works. I can fully understand why people would consensually opt in to just doing what they are told. I can't. I am a Donkey. I need to believe in what I am doing wholeheartedly, and if someone pulls too hard... I just stand still even harder.

Ask

I find asking for help difficult. I don't know with clarity, what it is I need, or want. What is available to me? What strings are attached? What is the expectations cost of the help? I come from a culture deep soaked in the idea of self-sufficiency. I don't believe anyone is self-made, but there are many that believe they are. A belief in self-sufficiency, even if it doesn't recognise the support available, is a powerful motivator. Stop whining. Sort it out. It also shrinks the universe of options to something more controllable. Every decision is yours. My options are constrained by my abilities. Part of my resistance might come from being a guy. Delegation is fine. Help less so. Being in control of an organisation which implements decisions doesn't have the stigma of looking for support. We consciously negotiate and agree service and employment contracts. Roles and responsibilities are defined. The softer stuff is far less conscious. Asking isn't whining, but it feels like it.

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

Braai Master

Guys get a lot of grief for Mansplaining. It is when someone (normally a man) explains something to someone (normally a woman) in a condescending or patronising way, without first finding out if the explainee knows more than the explainer. A Braai is a big part of masculine South African culture. A Boys' Braai is when there is only meat, beer and rolls. Chicken is the salad. Whether banter or bravado, it is also a place where a lot of man-to-mansplaining goes on. A lot of guys will talk a big game, and then burn the meat. They aren't particularly interested in finding out if the other person knows more, because the rewards are much bigger for the person with the tongs. The person in charge. The same is true for business. Employees get paid somewhere around their cog value. Cog value goes down as efficiency improves. If you can hire someone else (or a machine), there is little incentive to hand over the tongs. Our biggest focus on community building is our workplace. It's the default place we spend most of our time. It's going to be tough to change the culture if it's a Braai.

Advice-Free Listening (Tim)

I guess it’s a bit of a truism that women are usually better listeners than men, and that men tend to give more advice, while women give more sympathy. What’s interesting to me is that there may actually be some factual basis for this.

According to a fair amount of reliable research, women tend to score higher on something called ‘agreeableness’ than men do. Now I can sense a bit of scoffing coming on, so let me explain. Agreeableness is reckoned to be one of the ‘big five’ enduring personality traits, and it is just what you would expect it to be - an aggregate of qualities like kindness, warmth, sympathy, cooperation and so on. And women are slightly better at this stuff than men, as evidenced by the way that they listen.

Now lets turn back to that listening thing. I can’t speak for all the other gents out there, so I’ll have to reveal a bit of myself. If I’m honest, a lot of the time when I’m listening, I’m mostly just planning what to say in response. Let’s say that you just told me about how you missed your fight and got stuck in the airport for ten hours. I have three kinds of responses that I can give. I can be sympathetic, analytical or competitive. Sympathetic is obviously the most agreeable thing to be, so I should listen carefully and then say something along the lines of ‘Ag, shame, hey. That must have been terrible.’ Interestingly, I’m most likely to say this to a woman, or a close family member.

Going Nowhere

But if you’re a dude, or if I’m not feeling especially agreeable, then most of the time while you’re describing your ordeal, I’ll be planning one of the following responses. I can get analytical and ask you tons of detail questions as if your role in the conversation is to get the story straight in my mind. ‘Was it a connecting flight? Why was it delayed? Did you try…?’ Sometimes this involves advice, but really what’s happening here is that I’ve missed the bloody point. It doesn’t matter what you should have done, or the mechanics of how it happened. The other thing that I tend to do, especially when I have a beer in my hand is to start preparing my own story of a travel snafu that rivals yours. This usually happens in group situations and generally leads to a free-for-all story-telling contest.

Stuck at the Airport

Was there wifi? Was there electricity?

Turning someone’s complaint into a story telling contest is not exactly sympathetic, but it has its time and place. In a social setting we can all share our stories and we can all gain a little perspective while bonding with our mates. No trouble there. 

The response that really annoys me though, is getting analytical, and putting the onus on the sympathy seeker to get all the details straight and to somehow justify the sympathy that they want from us. Most of the time, the very act of seeking sympathy is justification enough to give it.