Understanding Respect

For the Christian man, it begins with one’s self.

Readership: All
Theme: Redemptive Headship and Masculinity
Reader’s Note: The capitalization of words indicates a theoretical concept.
Length: 1,300 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes


This post is a continuance of the previous post, Restoring Respect (2022-9-28).  Here I’ll offer answers to the questions posed before.

The systems diagram for masculine development (given in the previous post) appears below for the reader’s convenience.

1. Why is there a moral incongruency surrounding Honor and Respect?

There are several reasons here, maybe more.

  1. The qualities that make a man honorable (e.g. altruism, ethics, honesty, morality, etc.) have little to do with the things that draw respect (e.g. expertise, power, authority, and female attention).
  2. There is much uncertainty about the constitution, motivations, and social value of a man with Honor, but there is no question about a man who has demonstrated concrete accomplishments.
  3. The one link between Honor and Respect is in Reputation and Status which few men can achieve while still maintaining moralistic qualities of honor and virtue, due to competitive dynamics.
  4. There exists somewhat of a theoretical / moral dichotomy between those men who are altruistic, honest, and so on, and those men who can get the job done.  There shouldn’t be, but realistic people recognize this stereotypical difference as being common and therefore use this dichotomy to consider whether a particular man is well-suited for his position and responsibilities.  For example, it is appropriate for honest men to be accountants, teachers, pastors, etc., whereas it is also appropriate for rough and ready men to be businessmen, construction workers, lawyers, soldiers, etc.  Some types of professions, like policemen, politicians, and public stewards must have a certain combination of traits and are therefore honored or respected according to their position and/or their service to the community.
  5. The ethical system used in “natural” human mating conforms to a Power based ethical system.  “Only the strong survive.”  “All is fair in love and war.”  Within this system, other ethical systems, including Christian ethics, are summarily discarded.
  6. In a gynocentric world order, a Biblical ethical system (viz. traditional / Christian notions of Honor and virtue), as well as any strength of Purpose that a man might have, are totally disregarded as qualities that do not register on the female radar.  Or if they do, they hardly make a man exceptional.  The gynocentric order therefore ignores or discounts these traits.
Looksmaxxing highlights physical appearances, status, and SMV, which can draw respect.

2. What is the profile of a man who “rightfully deserves the respect of other men”?  What does that profile look like?

First off, asking this question is an attempt to break free from the gynocentric social stronghold and reinstate traditional standards for assessing men.  As such, it poses an affront to this order which men should be aware of.

The answer is that it depends on the surrounding social order that sets the standard of what is to be respected in a man.  Here are three broader social systems for the reader to get the gist.

  1. According to the gynocentric world order, only tall, hawt, wealthy, high status men are afforded respect because of what they represent to the Feminine Imperative. 
  2. According to traditional standards and the way of men, it is the man who has made significant progress through at least one of the series of steps that lead to Respect (depicted in the diagram above).  These men are respected for what they provide to their family and/or the community, e.g. inspiration, leadership, material support, security, stability, wisdom, etc.  Contributing good genes is included in this, which reveals that the Feminine Imperative imposes a distortion of sociality by cherry picking and magnifying these specific qualities and summarily rejecting all others by demonizing men and masculinity in general.
  3. According to the traditions of faith, there is a long list of Biblically inspired habits and traits, as well as many personal spiritual goalposts that could be used as a measuring stick for determining whether a man has attained a significant standing with God that would be worthy of another Christian man’s respect.  Here’s a few for starters: 1 Corinthians 12:4-11; 28-31; Hebrews 5:13-14; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9; et al.

The fact that one’s social group is vitally important towards establishing Respect is why I advised men to find a social context in which Reality = True (for himself) in which he can develop Flow and work toward those things that would bring him Respect.

I also have to mention this.  A different and somewhat harshly self-critical way to approach this question is to question the question itself.  Are we asking this question out of envy and laziness, because we think, “It’s nawt faaaiiir that tall, fit, good looking men get a shortcut to Respect (and all the benefits and poozy that come with it), while all us other guys have to go through all this work just to make something of ourselves?”

Not much honor here, but there’s a whole lot of respect for men who can do this kind of work.

3. What can be done to assign honor and respect to those men who are rightfully deserving of it?

This turns out to be a trick question because it depends on the social system as I described above.  Unless one is in a position of power and authority, it would be easier and wiser to switch social groups than to try changing the one you’re in.  This might explain why a lot of men go church hopping, especially when they’re young.  They’re looking for respect, as well as a community they can fit into.

Within just about any social group you might find, the men who are receiving respect are the ones who already deserve it, according to that group’s standards.  This is true for both the gynocentric worldly system and the church.  Respect cannot be manufactured out of thin air without a dynamic social setting.

This applies on the individual level too.  If a man is not giving you the respect that is common to decency, then he’s not trustworthy.  If a woman is not giving you respect, it’s probably better to NEXT her instead of trying to earn her respect.  Some caveats apply, such as when you’ve done something truly offensive, or if you know you should change your ways to fit into a certain group.

What the question is really asking is this:  “How can Christian men who normally find it difficult to receive honor and respect in this world receive the same from other Christian Men, or possibly from anyone during their time living in this world?”  The answer lies in how Christian men choose to treat each other. We have the choice to respect or disrespect whom we please and for whatever reasons we choose.

So perhaps the question boils down to this:  “What does a man have to do or be, to be worthy of MY respect?”  And…  “Does my yardstick for respect correspond to my Christian beliefs?”

Hint:  The answer is in Ephesians 5:21 and Matthew 7:2.  IOW, we should show respect to any man we would consider a brother in Christ.  He may not have rightfully earned it (according to your own measure), but giving it anyway would foster his faith and further the grace of God in one’s community.


Respect is an integral part of male comradery.  Giving respect begins with each individual man and how he gets along with other men.  A man can and should demand respect, but he should be diligent in showing it too.  Furthermore, we should honor and respect older men as a regular habit (Leviticus 19:32), encourage other men (Colossians 4:6), teach and mentor younger men (Titus 2:6-8), and keep our values untainted by worldly influences (James 1:27), all of which have been repeated here many times before.

If respect is not forthcoming from a particular social group after you’ve given diligent effort, then one might consider shaking the dust off one’s shoes and searching for greener pastures.

This post and the last should help us understand why things are the way they are.  It may be difficult to change the scenery on the ground, but it’s not impossible.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Archetypes, Choosing A Profession, Collective Strength, Competence / Competition, Decision Making, Determination, Discipline, Ethical Systems, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Honor, Identity, Inner Game, Introspection, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Organization and Structure, Personal Domain, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Sphere of Influence. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Understanding Respect

  1. thedeti says:

    The word is camaraderie. It is not “comradery”.

    I know that “comradery” is allegedly acceptable alternative spelling. In my view it is not. We have destroyed the English language enough.


    Liked by 2 people

    • Kentucky Gent says:

      I replied to you on the previous article.


    • Oscar says:

      English is what happens when five languages go to a bar separately, get in a drunken brawl, and leave best friends. Only those of us who learned it as a second language understand how weird it is.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Only those of us who learned [English] as a second language understand how weird it is.”

        I’ve come to see this after teaching English in Taiwan for years. Even after omitting idioms and all the various literary devices and 250 figures of speech, the English language has many oddities that cannot be rationally explained.

        Here’s a simple example: boot, food, fool, root, toot / foot, good ??? Or how about rough, tough / through / ought / bough ??? There’s no consistency between spelling and verbal pronunciation at all! Another example is the twelve verb tenses based on the sequence of events in time. WTH? I won’t go into the hundreds of articles used for different nouns, and why some prepositions are appropriate while others are not. Students are already confused and I haven’t even gotten to the 5 cases, subjunctive mood and active vs. passive voice.

        Oh yeah, there’s also lots of common words that have no direct translation into other languages, like “if” and “wish”, and English is totally missing words that exist in other languages, like different kinds of relationships, different kinds of love, different moods, etc. Charlie Chaplin parodied this discrepancy in one of his movies.

        “Camaraderie” is the French spelling. Maybe using the German “Kameradschaft” is also good.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Pshaw.
      Keep English English. Comrade and comraderie. Your version is just a failed transliteration from French.

      I don’t give a damn if the computers or diction book writers disagree. English was better before standardized spelling. More readable too, once you ken that everything sounded like it looked. Standardized spelling destroyed more than it ever gave.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. thedeti says:

    Some thoughts:

    1) We have to discard and set aside women’s concepts of “respect” which are completely different from those of men. To women, respect means “do what I want you to do when I want you to do it without me telling you, and don’t treat me like a piece of @ss you just want to have sex with” and “Treat me like the queen I am and give me everything I deserve”. These are ridiculously caricatured distorted version of “respect” and have nothing to do with men’s concepts.

    Women also have no concept of honor at all. To women, it means slavish candor and honesty.

    2) we also have to set aside modern Christianity’s/Churchianity’s concepts of honor and respect. Those institutions’ notions of honor and respect revolve entirely around marriage, sexual morality, and fatherhood. Western churches’ discussions of these concepts have nothing to do with men qua men; but instead as men qua husbands, fathers, and workhorses. As I have said, increasing numbers of men will find marriage, sex, and family options completely foreclosed to them, so Church notions of these ideas are not useful or accurate.

    Today’s Church is completely unable to see or deal with men as individual humans. It can address men only in their limited roles as breadwinners, husbands, and fathers. Those concepts and roles will become increasingly irrelevant and useless to men in the coming years and decades. Today’s church has no concept of masculinity. There is simply no way to discuss honor and respect without a base understanding of maleness and masculinity, and today’s church is completely incapable of that.

    3) No discussion of this can be had without relating this to Jack Donovan’s seminal work, The Way of Men. Summed up, it is this: The way of men is to join a tribe of other men. Every man is evaluated by other men in the tribe, and assigned places in the tribe, based on four key attributes: courage, strength, mastery, and honor. Bravery/perseverance in the face of adversity. Physical conditioning and fitness. Personal mastery over one’s body and emotions; professional competence and preeminence. Dealing with other men with personal and professional integrity.

    Courage, strength, mastery, honor: that’s how men confer respect on one another. (Interesting, isn’t it, that a gay man has a better concept of honor and respect than our Church, despite over 2000 years of writings and resources at her disposal?)

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Donovan cites James Bowman’s take on honor. According to Bowman there are 2 categories of honor that he labels reflexive honor and cultural honor.

      Reflexive honor is understanding that a man cannot let another person walk over him without consequence. This ties to strength, mastery and courage and becomes readily evident in locations and times when violence or the threat of violence is what keeps the tribe safe. Cultural honor is more focused on being a good man within the framework of the existing culture and I would argue is what people commonly think of and see in rule based societies where men have largely been tamed.

      The Way of Men is a good read.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Derek Ramsey says:

    I just wrote my thoughts on honor and respect in this comment. Regardless of the mechanics of male/female honor/respect, Christians are commanded to honor and respect their spouse. It is not optional.

    “The one link between Honor and Respect is in Reputation and Status which few men can achieve while still maintaining moralistic qualities of honor and virtue, due to competitive dynamics.”

    Paul and Peter emphasized giving respect and honor to one’s spouse and deemphasizing one’s own status. Few men can achieve enough status by their own efforts to receive the respect and honor that the Bible commands that they receive. Competitive dynamics—power struggles—are antithetical to Christianity.

    I wrote my previous comment before reading this post. There I said

    “Neither respect nor obedience can come from [head] status alone, or else logically a culture where wives have higher status (i.e. this one) would mean a husband receives no respect, nor obedience. He’d be respected and obeyed in a patriarchal culture like Ephesus, but in America he’d be—at best—a mere figurehead and—at worst—subservient.”

    …which is quite frankly the same point being made in the OP:

    “This turns out to be a trick question because it depends on the social system as I described above. Unless one is in a position of power and authority, it would be easier and wiser to switch social groups than to try changing the one you’re in. This might explain why a lot of men go church hopping, especially when they’re young. They’re looking for respect, as well as a community they can fit into.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:


      “Paul and Peter emphasized giving respect and honor to one’s spouse and deemphasizing one’s own status.”

      What passage of scripture are you referring to here?


      • ramman3000 says:

        Explicitly with respect to husbands and wives, Paul in Ephesians 5:33 and Peter in 1 Peter 3:7.

        Giving honor and respect and/or deemphasizing one’s own status are overall themes of the Gospel of John, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Peter, and others. I wish I had time to do a full study on the topic, but there is no way I can get that done before you’ve concluded with this series, as I’d have to closely reread most of the NT.

        For what it’s worth, I see honor and respect as synonyms. Like “Faith” and “Trust”, translators use these words interchangeably. I’m quite sure there are different contexts to which honor and respect apply (which others have noted), but the words themselves mean more-or-less the same thing.


      • thedeti says:

        I am not entirely sure what Peter meant by the husband is to “give honor to the wife as the weaker vessel” but I’m pretty sure Peter did not mean to “respect” the wife as the husband expects to be respected. From the context I suspect he means “honor” as “be nice to her, be kind to her, because you live with her and because she doesn’t see life the same way you do, and because if you don’t you’ll become bitter.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:


        “I am not entirely sure what Peter meant [..] …as the husband expects to be respected.”

        I also cannot be dogmatic on the point, but you have also imputed expectation where none was stated.

        “From the context I suspect he means “honor” as “be nice to her, be kind to her, because you live with her and because she doesn’t see life the same way you do, and because if you don’t you’ll become bitter.”

        Context, yes.

        1 Peter is about the suffering of the Jewish diaspora, foreigners, slaves, spouses, and believers among unbelievers. Peter says that believing slaves should submit to their (unbelieving) masters (male or female), in the same way believing wives should submit to their (unbelieving) husbands, in the same way believing husbands submit, respect / honor to their (unbelieving) wives, in the same way the young submit to their elders. This echoes Paul in Ephesians 5, which is a chiastic structure, that associates submission, head-body metaphor, equality, unity, and respect / honor.

        As for whether the exact nature of respect is identical when coming from a man or a woman, I said “there are different contexts to which honor and respect apply.” Paul speaks of respect in a marriage of two believers, Peter speaks (primarily) of respect in a marriage of only one believer, so the precise nature of that respect would certainly be different, but the mere fact of respect and honor are the same.

        But I will note one thing: giving honor to one who is weaker is a much stronger and difficult action than giving honor to one who already commands it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “I am not entirely sure what Peter meant by the husband is to “give honor to the wife as the weaker vessel” but I’m pretty sure Peter did not mean to “respect” the wife as the husband expects to be respected.”

        thedeti, obviously Peter was not telling husbands to “respect” wives in the same manner he told wives to “respect” husbands. He just got done telling slaves to obey their masters in 1 Peter 2, even the bad ones, as a glory to God and starts off chapter 3 with “wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands” so that any unbelieving husbands might be won over through her service to him. He hammers the concept of submission home in verse 6, “…like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.”

        1 Peter 3:7 sheds some light on the subject of husbands respecting their wives as the weaker partner. I show the same type of respect and love to my children by not holding them to standards that exceed their capacities as grade school aged kids. To do so would cause hardship and frustration for them and ultimately they would be crushed by only knowing failure. Wives tend to be weaker emotionally, need spiritually leadership because of this and of course are almost certainly weaker physically. This means men love and show respect to their wives by being patient with them, guarding her physically and guiding her using God’s biblical standards.

        On the flip side, a wife respects her husband with submission and obedience and in doing so glorifies God. Same word in English. Very different applications for each spouse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        While it is a matter of course that those under authority should honor and respect those who have authority over them, it is entirely possible, even appropriate, for an authority to honor and respect those who are under his authority, similar to what deti and RPA described above. But this in no way undermines the structure of authority. If it does, then it has crossed a boundary and is no longer honor or respect.

        Liked by 3 people

      • As far as the NT goes. Honour means to appropriately recognize the value of. Value a penny as a penny and a dollar as a dollar. And if someone brings you a hundred penny’s you take that as a dollar even if it’s annoying.

        You can think of honoring parents thusly, a woman may be a neglectful, terrible mother, but the daughter would still not exist without her, so if she comes to her daughter for shelter and provision when she’s old the daughter can’t just leave her by the Yangtze to die.

        Honoring a wife as a weaker vessal just means ‘value what she does for you even though she’s obviously not as strong, smart, or stable as you. Give her credit when she’s doing her best.’ It’s really a very anti feminist verse. It’s saying her best may be a dime to your dollar but ignore your dimes.

        Dalrock was correct that chivalry screws everything up. Post chivilristic ideas of honour are screwed, I don’t know why y’all want anything to do with them.

        There are actual virtues associated with chivilristic honour, like loyalty, but for me, I’ll play up the virtues themselves and leave honour in the rubble heap. Modern honour is the conservative excuse for losing.

        Respect in the New Testiment pretty much just means ‘partiality’, usually improper partiality. But yeah, wife should be partial to her husband and vice versa. I have no idea what the modern post feminist concept of ‘respect’ is supposed to mean, or what we have to do with it. Modern respect just seems like a proxy word for ‘do what I want (even if I don’t say what I want)’, that pretends to only mean ‘be polite’.

        I don’t really give a fig about modern ideas of honour or respect. Is there some reason I ought too? They seem to exist just to muddy the water.

        My family unambiguously views me as the ruler of my household, of them. That’s how it ought to be. I’ve seen cases in Christian circles where a wife says ‘I respect my husband’ to avoid saying she doesn’t actually view him as ruler.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Scott says:

    Not sure if this counts as “click bait” but I need some love over at my new place.

    The Age of Subjectivity: Futurism sounds kind of fun, but… (2022-9-29)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      I am following your new blog. For the past 10 years or so, your main audience was men in the Manosphere / Red Pill. But now, it seems like you are writing to an audience of counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. This is a big change. You’ll have to be patient while you grow a new audience.

      In my opinion, you might get more traction by sticking with the Christian Manosphere rather than changing topics / audiences.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “it seems like you are writing to an audience of counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists.”

        Don’t forget me. I’m precisely and squarely in his main audience. When I was very young (~2nd grade) I wanted to be in that field. Though that changed, I’m still extremely interested in psychometrics and HBD. The people interested in these topics go well beyond the mental health profession. Among these (mostly non-Christian in my experience) people, the ‘Red Pill’ is a not uncommon meme. I think there is more overlap than you might think.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        You might actually be surprised at the crossover.

        For example, in yesterdays ACX post: Highlights from the Comments on Unpredictable (2022-9-29), Scott (Alexander, not me) featured my comment in which I discussed my graduate school experience as a facilitator for mandated Domestic Violence groups.

        This, you may recall is a heavily Duluth model oriented group that shaped my pre-Red Pill trajectory.

        He specifically requested I write more about that experience.

        Scott has a huge following on his site of left-leaning (think Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson “left”) types.

        This morning after he featured me I received 60 new subscribers and they are still piling up as of 1:30 p.m.

        This is an opportunity to bring an issue like this to people who might not normally ever hear “our side” of the story.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Scott Alexander has talked about Red Pill stuff before. Way back in 2014, when Alexander was writing as “Slate Star Codex”, his essay “Radicalizing the Romanceless” got a lot of play around here.

        Slate Star Codex: Radicalizing the Romanceless (2014-8-31)

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Pingback: Summary of Red Pill Redemption | Σ Frame

  6. Pingback: Restoring Respect | Σ Frame

  7. Pingback: What does redemption look like for men in churchianity | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s