It's archaic, baby. What David Deida and Hollywood teach us

It was a long time ago that I came across this book by David Deida by chance. Today, I still pick it up now and then to read one chapter or another. At some point in the winter of 23/24, I sat down and summarized the first, central chapters – not in general terms, but with the question in mind of what concrete instructions for attitude and action Deida gives. It turned out that these instructions can be divided into three areas:

What your “general setup” as a man could be – before you come into contact with a woman, so to speak,
what attitude you might have towards your woman in general, and
how you could behave towards your woman in situations of nagging, arguments and anger.

In this article, I will first share my book-summarizing notes in these three areas. Then I will go into the first one in more detail and refer to some gentlemen in well-known Hollywood movies, which, I think, illustrate Deida’s thoughts excellently.

And If you are interested, you can find Deida’s book on Amazon.

What you better be: A man with a purpose

If you have a masculine core, and masculine desires, you better not suppress them [Ch. Foreword]
Know your mission and align your life to it [Ch. 7]
Appears as direction or clarity of purpose, and vision. Being more assertive (bestimmt, sich durchsetzend) in their needs and desires. Not to be a wimp (Schwächling), and not to be weak, and not ambiguous (mehrdeutig) to really trust. [Ch. Foreword]
Driven by a sense of mission. You may not know your mission but unless you discover this deep purpose and live it fully, your life will feel empty at it’s core. Even if your family life and intimate relationships are full of love. [Ch. Foreword]
If you don’t know your purpose, discover it, now [Ch. 11]
Where do your fears stop you from making a larger contribution etc.? [Ch. 4]
Spend a minimum of one hour a day doing whatever you are waiting to do (you simply love to do, what you feel you need to do) until… [Ch. 1]
Prioritize your highest purpose over your relationship; your mission is your priority …admit that your intimate relationship is just not as important to you as the “mission” in your life [Ch. 7]

Live with her

The feminine always seems chaotic and complicated from the perspective of the masculine [Ch. 1]
Don’t let her distract you (from your purpose) [Ch. 15]
A superior man sees his woman’s moods not as a curse, but as a challenge and an amusement [Ch. 18]
Accept that things will never be different in a fundamental way [Ch. 1]
Don’t think this testing will ever end [Ch. 15]
Assume that your woman is going to be forever the way she is today. [Ch. 1]
Be honest about your edges. [Ch. 4]
Never betray his own deepest knowledge and intuition in order to “go along” with the woman. Make your own decision. [Ch. 6]

Fight with her

Understand your woman’s complaining, challangign, doubting, distracting, purpose-underminging… as tests for strenght, integrety, openness (one of her deepest pleasures in intimacy) [Ch. 15]
Don’t let her scare you away (from her) [Ch. 15]
Don’t close down in the midst of pain – rather live with a hurting heart than a closed one [Ch. 2]
Don’t tolerate her mood. And don’t talk about it with her. Patricipate in it. …Penetrate her closure with your fearless presence [Ch. 18]
Make no effort to bring an end to that which pisses you off [Ch. 1]
Occasionally, talking with her helps but not as often as humor and physically expressed love [Ch. 18]
The feminine part of your woman is … closing in what ends up being an emotional test of your capacitay to open her [Ch. 18]
One of the largest gifts you can give your woman is your capacity to open her heart when it is closed. …your masculine thunderbolt of love can brighten her darkness in a way shen cannot do for herself [Ch. 18]
Open the front of your body, look the other person in the eyes… [Ch. 2]
Praise her, praise is food for feminine qualities [Ch. 17]
A man should not tolerate bitchy and complaining moodiness (but he should serve her and love her) [Ch. 18]

Sounds familiar?

For me at least, this was something completely new, and in stark contrast to everything I have heard before. Also, quite the opposite of how I have reacted intuitively probably every single time. So it’s not about talking about the content, and I lose if I strive to put the argument aside as quickly as possible and be peaceful again (paragraph 3). I should refrain from compromising with my woman (on issues that are crucial for me) and I cannot expect that our life together will lead to a calm, peaceful mutual understanding over time (paragraph 2). And it is not enough that I should have a relationship that is very important to me, but I should also have a purpose that is actually more important to me than my relationship ( paragraph 1).

That was quite confusing for me at first, and I am tempted to say: no one ever taught us that. But that’s not true. In fact, no one ever taught us in words and explicitly, but nevertheless we have been shown this attitude, in an eminently positive light.

Stanley Goodspeed (Nicholas Cage) comes to mind, an FBI chemical weapons specialist, in Michael Bay’s 1996 action thriller “The Rock”. While having sex with his girlfriend Carla Pestalozzi (Vanessa Marcil) in one of the opening scenes, he receives a phone call. In the middle of action, he breaks off and sets off to save San Francisco from a catastrophe.

I am thinking of Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro), a seasoned and highly skilled professional thief who leads a crew of criminals, in the 1995 Michael Mann film “Heat”. Neil doesn’t only prioritize his purpose over his (romantic) relationships; moreover, he realizes that for what he does, a (romantic) relationship can be a risk. Consequently, he lives by the rule:
“Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.” Then, heat does come around the corner and Neil walks away from his new girlfriend Eady (Amy Brenneman). Ironically, when he leaves her in the car behind the airport hotel, he actually assumes that he will be back shortly. Either way, his act of revenge – executing the traitor Waingro (Kevin Gage) in his hotel room – is the purpose that Neil puts, at this decisive moment, above everything else.

And I am thinking of his counterpart Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) in the same movie, who is fully committed to police work, is absorbed in it, is needed, and only rarely, and late, shows up at home.
His wife Justine: “(…) She’s not ok, neither am I. I made dinner for us four hours ago. Every time I try to maintain a consistent mood between us you withdraw.
Vincent responds: “I got three dead bodies on the sidewalk off Venice Boulevard. I’m sorry the God damn chicken got over cooked.”

You can think what you like about David Deida, but you can find a whole series of Hollywood films – or more precisely, portrayals of the male lead in them – to back up his view on things. For me, it was something special to receive a late, analytical and wonderfully archaic explanation of these scenes, which certainly had a small impact on me as a teenager and young man.

All in all, it has opened my eyes and I try to live it as best I can: On the one hand, the purpose thing, and on the other, the attitude towards others in everyday life. My provisional conclusion is that Deida is probably right with his revolutionary theories. And I can see that it’s damn hard to put into practice.