What’s wrong with men?

[MrThatsDifferent]

Damn these new reports are so depressing and upsetting. WTF is going on with men? What’s causing all of these rage shootings? Why are men still raping women and children? Why is physical abuse still a thing? Why is war with other countries still even an option?

Why will men choose violence against others before therapy to treat their rage or depression?

When and how will this insanity end? It has to bloody end!

[American GenX]

You should post this in the off topic session and not paint half the population with the same brush.

[sailinlight]

Considering you username, aren't you a man? Why don't you answer?

[Kris]

Interesting how men are so much more interested in protesting this post, rather than trying to answer why there is an issue of violence with men, and how to do something about it.

[BlueHouse]

Interesting how men are so much more interested in protesting this post, rather than trying to answer why there is an issue of violence with men, and how to do something about it.

+1000

How long until someone posts "not all men"?

[bacchi]

It's not an answer to all of those questions but the Atlantic had an article earlier this year about masculinity.

Feminism may have provided girls with a powerful alternative to conventional femininity, and a language with which to express the myriad problems-that-have-no-name, but there have been no credible equivalents for boys.

Add to that confusion a declining standard of living for many people and there's a lot of anger. Trump speaks to them for a reason -- no identity, no outlet, no hope.

[FrugalToque]

Why will men choose violence against others before therapy to treat their rage or depression?

Having been raised in the 80s, I can answer this pretty easily.

Rage, self-righteous anger and brooding silence are acceptable male emotions.
Compassion, kindness, sadness are not.
The punishment for acting out of character is social ostracization and, eventually, violence.

As someone who was ostracized for acting incorrectly, once even beaten unconscious, I speak from experience.

If you get sad, you suck that up and don't talk about it.  You pretend you're doing a macho, silent thing.

Fucking thing is, I somehow managed not to go off and murder anyone over it.
But until we spend a couple of generations NOT teaching that shit to boys, we have to spend generations putting up with this kind of violence.

Toque.

[Kris]

Why will men choose violence against others before therapy to treat their rage or depression?

Having been raised in the 80s, I can answer this pretty easily.

Rage, self-righteous anger and brooding silence are acceptable male emotions.
Compassion, kindness, sadness are not.
The punishment for acting out of character is social ostracization and, eventually, violence.

As someone who was ostracized for acting incorrectly, once even beaten unconscious, I speak from experience.

If you get sad, you suck that up and don't talk about it.  You pretend you're doing a macho, silent thing.

Fucking thing is, I somehow managed not to go off and murder anyone over it.
But until we spend a couple of generations NOT teaching that shit to boys, we have to spend generations putting up with this kind of violence.

Toque.

See, this is the beginning of a real conversation.

[Letj]

Interesting how men are so much more interested in protesting this post, rather than trying to answer why there is an issue of violence with men, and how to do something about it.

Good observation. They understand very well what the OP is getting at.  It’s a fact that nearly all these type of violence are perpetrated by men.

[the_gastropod]

I think this behavior primarily stems from homophobia and misogyny. Toxic masculinity like this, I think, comes from trying to prove how opposite you are from gay men and women.  It’s both a little funny and endlessly depressing how much of it is just plain old marketing, though. There’s nothing about a pickup truck being masculine that makes any sense. But in the ol’ US of A, it is the zenith of being manly. And a bicycle is seen as childish at best. Eating a steak? Super manly. A salad? Or god forbid tofu? SOYBOY! Die from a heart attack like a man!

I do think younger generations are largely seeing this absurdity for what it is. A society that increasingly values women, gays, transexuals, and all the other “others” should be enough to eventually extinguish this behavior I hope.

[Metalcat]

Why will men choose violence against others before therapy to treat their rage or depression?

Having been raised in the 80s, I can answer this pretty easily.

Rage, self-righteous anger and brooding silence are acceptable male emotions.
Compassion, kindness, sadness are not.
The punishment for acting out of character is social ostracization and, eventually, violence.

As someone who was ostracized for acting incorrectly, once even beaten unconscious, I speak from experience.

If you get sad, you suck that up and don't talk about it.  You pretend you're doing a macho, silent thing.

Fucking thing is, I somehow managed not to go off and murder anyone over it.
But until we spend a couple of generations NOT teaching that shit to boys, we have to spend generations putting up with this kind of violence.

Toque.

This combined with the still staggering incidence of physical and sexual abuse that children still experience is very dangerous.

People really dramatically underestimate the degree of child abuse in our society, and to then socially not allow the boys who experience it to ever feel vulnerable?? That just creates ticking time bombs.

Until we live in a world that actually understands how many kids are walking around traumatized, we aren't going to make much progress in helping people be functional, healthy members of society.

[norajean]

"sic semper erat, et sic semper erit"

[Morning Glory]

Maybe it's the heat, making it worse. Shootings per weekend in Chicago are correlated with temperature. Hot countries tend to be more violent than cold countries. Society is less violent now than at any point in history. Could be the central ac???



 

[gooki]

Because society.

We fail to prevent child hood abuse.
We fail to support those in need.
We glorify war.

[marty998]

Because society.

We fail to prevent child hood abuse.
We fail to support those in need.
We glorify war.

We also value the wrong people as role models.

[chemistk]

There's certainly a lot of societal indoctrination that goes into it. No emotions, be tough, you're entitled to be the leader of your household, etc.

But we've also witnessed an immense erosion of historically-male roles and norms in the past century. A lot of cultures, especially religious, don't jive with that. The perception that men are more and more being used for reproduction and stepping stones for women (who rightfully deserve parity at least) is not one that many cultures with entrenched gender norms take lightly.

"sic semper erat, et sic semper erit"

Although you're not necessarily wrong, this is really disingenuous - the notion that nothing can change is, arguably, completely antithetical to the establishment of equality for genders/races.

I have three boys and my sincerest hope is that my legacy will have been to raise them to be better than I was, to be better than our cultural ancestors were, and to be better than what society today assumes they could grow into.

[GuitarStv]

There are significant physiological differences between men and women, and I often wonder if the modern tendency to pretend that they don't exist does research into questions like this a disservice.  Certainly, physiology doesn't completely control action but hormonal balance (as a single point of reference) differences have been shown to have some impact upon decision making (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4220662/).

The combination of this sort of biological predisposition in addition to the significant impact of social conditioning (which are slowly changing for the better, but certainly has a long way to go . . . and has historically rewarded aggressive behaviour in men) is likely to blame.  Then you throw in other things - like a much higher tendency for men to avoid psychological help (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28691375/) and it all starts to make sense.

[shelivesthedream]

I have for some time privately theorised that the lack of unskilled physical employment and the lack of simple physical recreation is doing great disservice to teenage boys in modern Western society. They have all these raging hormones and no positive outlet for them. Sure, many things about ye olden tymes were terrible, but it's a shame that a teenage boy used to be able to earn his own money (and therefore a degree of independence and self-respect) hefting bales of hay around (or similar work that just needs youthful vigour and testosterone-fuelled muscles and endurance) and nothing has replaced it. Likewise, it's often hard to access simple physical recreation like playing football on some wasteland, swimming in a river or taking your shotgun out to the woods and firing rage shots at every squirrel you see until you calm the fuck down and go home with a grand plan to make a squirrel tail hat.

It's hard to be a "manly man" these days. It's all so artificial. It's easier to be a non-manly man, which is nice because there have always been people like that, but I don't think anything has replaced the ease with which young men used to be able to let their feelings physically.

[former player]

Co-incidentally (I think) I came across this article about woman-hatred becoming part of right-wing radicalisation -

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dyv7by/anti-feminist-gen-z-boys-who-hate-women?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[RetiredAt63]

Co-incidentally (I think) I came across this article about woman-hatred becoming part of right-wing radicalisation -

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dyv7by/anti-feminist-gen-z-boys-who-hate-women?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

It isn't new.  Read abut the Ecole Polytechnique massacre.  That was back in 1989.  And it is still here, as we saw in Toronto with the van guy in 2018.

What is new is the numbers.  And the increasing sense of entitlement.


In a way I blame the teaching of history.  It is all about wars and rulers and what country did what.  It shows so little of daily life.  When most people were poor farmers and both husband and wife basically worked from home, the wife's contribution was seen as just as valuable as the husband's, because it was*.  It was a full time job running the house and all the related activities.  Industrialization took over more of her jobs than his jobs and women had to adjust.  Now modern industrialization is taking over many of the men's jobs and they are having to adjust.  It isn't easy.  It's even harder when you don't realize the reasons behind why your life is so different compared to your male ancestors.  And why your female relatives' lives are so different from their female ancestors.  And how much the general economy has changed and how it is affecting young people (and really every age group).

* This historian has looked at some of these basic roles and who did what and how important it was to society.

https://acoup.blog/

See especially his sections on farming and clothing.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I have for some time privately theorised that the lack of unskilled physical employment and the lack of simple physical recreation is doing great disservice to teenage boys in modern Western society. They have all these raging hormones and no positive outlet for them. Sure, many things about ye olden tymes were terrible, but it's a shame that a teenage boy used to be able to earn his own money (and therefore a degree of independence and self-respect) hefting bales of hay around (or similar work that just needs youthful vigour and testosterone-fuelled muscles and endurance) and nothing has replaced it. Likewise, it's often hard to access simple physical recreation like playing football on some wasteland, swimming in a river or taking your shotgun out to the woods and firing rage shots at every squirrel you see until you calm the fuck down and go home with a grand plan to make a squirrel tail hat.

It's hard to be a "manly man" these days. It's all so artificial. It's easier to be a non-manly man, which is nice because there have always been people like that, but I don't think anything has replaced the ease with which young men used to be able to let their feelings physically.

To play off of this, there does not appear to be any cohesive vision of what is manly or any sort of aspirations in that regard. In the "old days" there were a tremendous amount of problems, but there was a cohesive vision with some positive traits that I believe helped - providing for a family, protecting others, etc. I'm not saying this is necessarily the perfect set of traits. I'm not saying they were executed well even for the ones that were good. I am saying that we need to have a significant focus on what we're going towards and not just what we're going away from.

If I were growing up now, at least as I'm seeing things, I would hear a lot about toxic masculinity and all of the problems men cause, but not much at all about the positive attributes of masculinity or what masculinity, if positive, could look like. I'm not trying to minimize the issues that are out there. I am saying that in my experience, a consistent focus on the negatives can be problematic if you're trying to raise a generation of young people to do better.

[FrugalToque]

There are significant physiological differences between men and women, and I often wonder if the modern tendency to pretend that they don't exist does research into questions like this a disservice.  Certainly, physiology doesn't completely control action but hormonal balance (as a single point of reference) differences have been shown to have some impact upon decision making

I don't see a "modern tendency" that makes things worse.

The 1980s were much, much worse for violence than right now.  You could get beaten up at school on a regular basis and the teachers might blame *you* for being a "Tattle tale" if you complained.  Meanwhile, the teachers told us - literally told us - that boys were better at math and girls would need special help with it since their brains couldn't handle three dimensions properly.  So, if "pretending there are no biological differences" was the problem, then the 1980s would have been a golden era.  They were not.

My kids certainly don't have to put with that level of violence - or sexism - at their school.

Toxic masculinity has been around way, way longer any perceived modern tendency to "pretend" biological differences don't exist.

Besides, there's a good reason to pretend biological differences don't exist in school - we know that telling people they're going to suck at a subject because of their sex/gender/race etc. makes them worse at it.

Toque.

[Sibley]

There's also an element of self-fulling prophesy. Example: "incels".

You've got a guy who has low self esteem. Wants a girlfriend. Thinks that he can't get a girlfriend. Then engages in behaviors that pretty much ensure he won't get a girlfriend: poor physical hygiene, poor behavior, objectification of women in pretty much all circumstances, etc. Add in mental illness, which if it wasn't present initially is more likely to develop. At this point, he won't get a girlfriend for legit reasons - who wants to date a guy who doesn't bathe, doesn't do anything productive ever, and is unpleasant to be around? So he doubles down rather than doing an overhaul of the thought process and behaviors.

Men aren't inherently bad. Our society has seriously done men a disservice in so many ways, from the education system to work opportunities to emotional repression. Of course it ends with violence.

[GuitarStv]

There are significant physiological differences between men and women, and I often wonder if the modern tendency to pretend that they don't exist does research into questions like this a disservice.  Certainly, physiology doesn't completely control action but hormonal balance (as a single point of reference) differences have been shown to have some impact upon decision making

I don't see a "modern tendency" that makes things worse.

The 1980s were much, much worse for violence than right now.  You could get beaten up at school on a regular basis and the teachers might blame *you* for being a "Tattle tale" if you complained.  Meanwhile, the teachers told us - literally told us - that boys were better at math and girls would need special help with it since their brains couldn't handle three dimensions properly.  So, if "pretending there are no biological differences" was the problem, then the 1980s would have been a golden era.  They were not.

My kids certainly don't have to put with that level of violence - or sexism - at their school.

Toxic masculinity has been around way, way longer any perceived modern tendency to "pretend" biological differences don't exist.

No, I agree with you here and that wasn't my point at all.  From my perspective at least, things are much better today than they were in the '80, which were much better than they were in the '50s as far as tolerance of assholish male behaviour goes.  Certainly there's a long way still to go, but things do seem to be moving in the right direction.

That said, there absolutely is a modern tendency to pretend that phsyiological differences between men and women don't exist.  This is simply factually untrue, and it's bizarre that it even needs to be mentioned.  Is it the whole problem?  Absolutely not, and I said as much in the parts of my post that weren't included above.  But it is contributing in some way to the problem and shouldn't be ignored out of hand.  At least that was the argument I was trying to make.

Besides, there's a good reason to pretend biological differences don't exist in school - we know that telling people they're going to suck at a subject because of their sex/gender/race etc. makes them worse at it.

Toque.

This is the same argument and line of reasoning that people use to fight against affirmative action and welfare, is it not?  That affirmative action and welfare are effectively telling people they're going to achieve less and thus result in those same people not working as hard?

That aside, do you have any studies that I could read about the phenomenon?  Personally, I tend to believe that the facts should be represented honestly and then people should be allowed to do with them what they will . . . lying to everyone (even for the best of intentions) is always seems to turn out to being the wrong course to take.

[FrugalToque]

To play off of this, there does not appear to be any cohesive vision of what is manly or any sort of aspirations in that regard. In the "old days" there were a tremendous amount of problems, but there was a cohesive vision with some positive traits that I believe helped - providing for a family, protecting others, etc. I'm not saying this is necessarily the perfect set of traits. I'm not saying they were executed well even for the ones that were good. I am saying that we need to have a significant focus on what we're going towards and not just what we're going away from.

If I were growing up now, at least as I'm seeing things, I would hear a lot about toxic masculinity and all of the problems men cause, but not much at all about the positive attributes of masculinity or what masculinity, if positive, could look like. I'm not trying to minimize the issues that are out there. I am saying that in my experience, a consistent focus on the negatives can be problematic if you're trying to raise a generation of young people to do better.

I don't think about trying to be a "manly man" anymore, although that was a really big deal to me (when I felt I was failing at that ideal) back in high school and some of University.

Maybe we should not be teaching children to be "masculine" or "feminine", as some artificial ideal that changes from decade to decade and culture to culture, but teach them to be decent human beings.

e.g.
I am 12 years old.
I see another human being who is sad and talking about suicide because of peer ridicule.
Should I mock this fellow child, help this child myself or contact a trusted authority?

Does the answer have anything at all to do with what traditional masculinity or traditional femininity would have me do?
No.

Toque.

[FrugalToque]

This is the same argument and line of reasoning that people use to fight against affirmative action and welfare, is it not?  That affirmative action and welfare are effectively telling people they're going to achieve less and thus result in those same people not working as hard?

Affirmative action could be taken that way, but it's a separate issue from the problem of telling people, "Your group performs badly at 'x'"
https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/stem-gender-gap-research-on-telling-girls-they-re-bad-at-math.html
There are lots of studies like that, but that one basically says teaching kids "Boys are better than girls at math" causes the boys to coast and the girls to give up.

Another, simpler study, showed that all you had to do before an "emotional recognition" test was remind men that they were men (i.e. ask for gender at the beginning of the test) and men automatically performed worse (Like "Oh, this is a gender-based study.  I am male.  I will probably do bad with emotions.")

That aside, do you have any studies that I could read about the phenomenon?  Personally, I tend to believe that the facts should be represented honestly and then people should be allowed to do with them what they will . . . lying to everyone (even for the best of intentions) is always seems to turn out to being the wrong course to take.

I think that the biological differences, as they express themselves in math score, ability to sew, linguistic achievement etc. are soooo small and hard to determine with good experimental observations, we should not risk the danger of perpetuating biases by talking about them as if those biases have solid, scientific backing.

Let the children learn the best they can without poisoning them with the bigotry of their ancestors.

Toque.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

To play off of this, there does not appear to be any cohesive vision of what is manly or any sort of aspirations in that regard. In the "old days" there were a tremendous amount of problems, but there was a cohesive vision with some positive traits that I believe helped - providing for a family, protecting others, etc. I'm not saying this is necessarily the perfect set of traits. I'm not saying they were executed well even for the ones that were good. I am saying that we need to have a significant focus on what we're going towards and not just what we're going away from.

If I were growing up now, at least as I'm seeing things, I would hear a lot about toxic masculinity and all of the problems men cause, but not much at all about the positive attributes of masculinity or what masculinity, if positive, could look like. I'm not trying to minimize the issues that are out there. I am saying that in my experience, a consistent focus on the negatives can be problematic if you're trying to raise a generation of young people to do better.

I don't think about trying to be a "manly man" anymore, although that was a really big deal to me (when I felt I was failing at that ideal) back in high school and some of University.

Maybe we should not be teaching children to be "masculine" or "feminine", as some artificial ideal that changes from decade to decade and culture to culture, but teach them to be decent human beings.

e.g.
I am 12 years old.
I see another human being who is sad and talking about suicide because of peer ridicule.
Should I mock this fellow child, help this child myself or contact a trusted authority?

Does the answer have anything at all to do with what traditional masculinity or traditional femininity would have me do?
No.

Toque.

I definitely agree that there are certain things that have absolutely nothing to do with masculinity or feminity - they're just about being a good person. Your example perfectly fits this. However, it seems to fly a bit in the face of the reality I see in almost every group I see of wanting to band together and have positive attributes of the groups. A very clear-cut example of it is that almost every culture has it - hey, look at us, we do this and this and this awesome and let's celebrate the good aspects of us. It's not frowned on as a bad thing - there are significant positive attributes for it.

What we have now, though, is a sizeable amount of media and general cultural influence talking about all of the negatives of masculinity. Even if we were to want to dispel any general notions of masculinity or feminity overall, that's not what's happening. We just have a large general group of talking points against toxic masculinity - against negative attributes of masculinity or at least that's what it seems. There are plenty of other voices out there talking about what masculinity should be like - although I'm sure many on here would disagree with a lot of them. What I'm not seeing is the groups that talk a lot about toxic masculinity putting forth a cohesive vision of what positive masculinity is. It's like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The groups that talk about toxic masculinity then often say what you said on the other end - that well, masculinity probably shouldn't be emphasized or highlighted, it's outdated and whatnot. So, on the one hand, it's toxic and there are significant issues. On the other hand, if someone wants to try to say something positive about it, then it's not relevant. It might work for some people to simply hear toxic masculinity on one side and don't talk about masculinity on the other side because it's outdated or aspects of it change from generation to generation, but for me, I know that if I were raised with this odd confluence of ideas on masculinity, I would be extremely confused, frustrated, and much more likely to cling onto aspects of masculinity from whoever was willing to talk about anything positive about it whether or not it was truly a positive attribute or not.

I just think that if we're going to really confront the problem from a generational situation, we need to highlight positive attributes of masculinity - we need a vision of what it can look like, or we'll fail the next generation in trying to raise up men who don't have some of these negative behaviors we want to eliminate.

[GuitarStv]

I think that the biological differences, as they express themselves in math score, ability to sew, linguistic achievement etc. are soooo small and hard to determine with good experimental observations, we should not risk the danger of perpetuating biases by talking about them as if those biases have solid, scientific backing.

I agree with this (and from everything that I've read, the science backs up there being no real difference between male/female children in the types of areas you've listed).

But what I was talking about earlier were physiological differences due to hormone balance that impact decision making as it relates to risk taking.  There is measurable difference there.  That implies to me that there are likely some different strategies and techniques that should be taught/employed to help male/female children to manage their actions.  Treating children as exactly the same in this aspect may well be problematic and cause poor outcomes in these instances.

[chemistk]

To play off of this, there does not appear to be any cohesive vision of what is manly or any sort of aspirations in that regard. In the "old days" there were a tremendous amount of problems, but there was a cohesive vision with some positive traits that I believe helped - providing for a family, protecting others, etc. I'm not saying this is necessarily the perfect set of traits. I'm not saying they were executed well even for the ones that were good. I am saying that we need to have a significant focus on what we're going towards and not just what we're going away from.

If I were growing up now, at least as I'm seeing things, I would hear a lot about toxic masculinity and all of the problems men cause, but not much at all about the positive attributes of masculinity or what masculinity, if positive, could look like. I'm not trying to minimize the issues that are out there. I am saying that in my experience, a consistent focus on the negatives can be problematic if you're trying to raise a generation of young people to do better.

I don't think about trying to be a "manly man" anymore, although that was a really big deal to me (when I felt I was failing at that ideal) back in high school and some of University.

Maybe we should not be teaching children to be "masculine" or "feminine", as some artificial ideal that changes from decade to decade and culture to culture, but teach them to be decent human beings.

e.g.
I am 12 years old.
I see another human being who is sad and talking about suicide because of peer ridicule.
Should I mock this fellow child, help this child myself or contact a trusted authority?

Does the answer have anything at all to do with what traditional masculinity or traditional femininity would have me do?
No.

Toque.

I definitely agree that there are certain things that have absolutely nothing to do with masculinity or feminity - they're just about being a good person. Your example perfectly fits this. However, it seems to fly a bit in the face of the reality I see in almost every group I see of wanting to band together and have positive attributes of the groups. A very clear-cut example of it is that almost every culture has it - hey, look at us, we do this and this and this awesome and let's celebrate the good aspects of us. It's not frowned on as a bad thing - there are significant positive attributes for it.

What we have now, though, is a sizeable amount of media and general cultural influence talking about all of the negatives of masculinity. Even if we were to want to dispel any general notions of masculinity or feminity overall, that's not what's happening. We just have a large general group of talking points against toxic masculinity - against negative attributes of masculinity or at least that's what it seems. There are plenty of other voices out there talking about what masculinity should be like - although I'm sure many on here would disagree with a lot of them. What I'm not seeing is the groups that talk a lot about toxic masculinity putting forth a cohesive vision of what positive masculinity is. It's like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The groups that talk about toxic masculinity then often say what you said on the other end - that well, masculinity probably shouldn't be emphasized or highlighted, it's outdated and whatnot. So, on the one hand, it's toxic and there are significant issues. On the other hand, if someone wants to try to say something positive about it, then it's not relevant. It might work for some people to simply hear toxic masculinity on one side and don't talk about masculinity on the other side because it's outdated or aspects of it change from generation to generation, but for me, I know that if I were raised with this odd confluence of ideas on masculinity, I would be extremely confused, frustrated, and much more likely to cling onto aspects of masculinity from whoever was willing to talk about anything positive about it whether or not it was truly a positive attribute or not.

I just think that if we're going to really confront the problem from a generational situation, we need to highlight positive attributes of masculinity - we need a vision of what it can look like, or we'll fail the next generation in trying to raise up men who don't have some of these negative behaviors we want to eliminate.

I generally agree with you re: the need for highlighted examples of positive masculinity.

That being said, I have always viewed the "war on men" (which I do not buy or believe FWIW) as a crusade of sorts, similar to cultural crusades against white supremacy & conservatism - with the intent to snuff out entirely the mindsets that lead to unfavorable make actions and behaviors.

Whenever a topic like this comes up, there's always those who are quick to excuse themselves with "but not me" loopholes, and whether they are truly exemptible matters far less than the idea that anyone can provide enough personal anecdotes to excuse themselves from being labeled as counter to the crusade.

There seems to be this pervasive "boys will be boys" mentality that still exists to this day and for a long as groups or cultures are willing to shelter males who demonstrate all the negative qualities, the negative qualities will forever be perpetuated among new generations. It's incredibly easy for men (especially) to buy into the idea that they are being subjugated by women, and extra easy for white men. And so generationally the cycle starts anew.

I don't think it's actually possible to eradicate those negative traits, it would be nice, but I do think the crusade needs to continue to be waged - not against those who already are too far gone, but against the uptake of bad examples of masculinity in future generations. It's incredibly important to have positive role models, but it's also important for younger boys and men to understand why certain behaviors are unacceptable and to help them come that understanding in a healthy environment. 

[FrugalToque]

What we have now, though, is a sizeable amount of media and general cultural influence talking about all of the negatives of masculinity. Even if we were to want to dispel any general notions of masculinity or feminity overall, that's not what's happening. We just have a large general group of talking points against toxic masculinity - against negative attributes of masculinity or at least that's what it seems. There are plenty of other voices out there talking about what masculinity should be like - although I'm sure many on here would disagree with a lot of them. What I'm not seeing is the groups that talk a lot about toxic masculinity putting forth a cohesive vision of what positive masculinity is. It's like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The groups that talk about toxic masculinity then often say what you said on the other end - that well, masculinity probably shouldn't be emphasized or highlighted, it's outdated and whatnot. So, on the one hand, it's toxic and there are significant issues. On the other hand, if someone wants to try to say something positive about it, then it's not relevant. It might work for some people to simply hear toxic masculinity on one side and don't talk about masculinity on the other side because it's outdated or aspects of it change from generation to generation, but for me, I know that if I were raised with this odd confluence of ideas on masculinity, I would be extremely confused, frustrated, and much more likely to cling onto aspects of masculinity from whoever was willing to talk about anything positive about it whether or not it was truly a positive attribute or not.

I just think that if we're going to really confront the problem from a generational situation, we need to highlight positive attributes of masculinity - we need a vision of what it can look like, or we'll fail the next generation in trying to raise up men who don't have some of these negative behaviors we want to eliminate.

Yes, I take great care to teach my two sons that "toxic masculinity" is the dangerous part of "masculinity" and that while we don't have a great definition of the latter, it's pretty easy to recognize the former by the way it refuses to acknowledge feelings other than anger and its synonyms.

But it would be helpful to have role models for non-toxic masculinity.

For now, it's camping, running, lifting weights, bicycling, volunteering, earning money with simple tasks, being a good friend, offering help, showing hospitality.
But I'm hard pressed to find any good role-model actions I take as being the exclusive province of men vs women.

Toque.

[StarBright]

This is the same argument and line of reasoning that people use to fight against affirmative action and welfare, is it not?  That affirmative action and welfare are effectively telling people they're going to achieve less and thus result in those same people not working as hard?

Through another lens you could say ignoring gender in education and affirmative action are actual similar because they are both about removing cultural systemic barriers.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I generally agree with you re: the need for highlighted examples of positive masculinity.

That being said, I have always viewed the "war on men" (which I do not buy or believe FWIW) as a crusade of sorts, similar to cultural crusades against white supremacy & conservatism - with the intent to snuff out entirely the mindsets that lead to unfavorable make actions and behaviors.

Whenever a topic like this comes up, there's always those who are quick to excuse themselves with "but not me" loopholes, and whether they are truly exemptible matters far less than the idea that anyone can provide enough personal anecdotes to excuse themselves from being labeled as counter to the crusade.

There seems to be this pervasive "boys will be boys" mentality that still exists to this day and for a long as groups or cultures are willing to shelter males who demonstrate all the negative qualities, the negative qualities will forever be perpetuated among new generations. It's incredibly easy for men (especially) to buy into the idea that they are being subjugated by women, and extra easy for white men. And so generationally the cycle starts anew.

I don't think it's actually possible to eradicate those negative traits, it would be nice, but I do think the crusade needs to continue to be waged - not against those who already are too far gone, but against the uptake of bad examples of masculinity in future generations. It's incredibly important to have positive role models, but it's also important for younger boys and men to understand why certain behaviors are unacceptable and to help them come that understanding in a healthy environment.

I think we are very much in agreement.

I agree that it's not a matter of men being subjugated or a war against men or whatnot. I definitely agree that boys need to be taught about certain behaviors that are unacceptable and why. I think that to bring it beyond the venting of men do bad things, the vision of what positive masculinity is must be emphasized, and emphasized even more than the negatives. My background is a religious culture of an extreme focus on negatives in terms of what I should not be doing without any cohesive positive vision for what life should look like - or at least where anything like that was given 5% of the time with 95% of the time on the negative side of it. In my experience, this is the exact reversal of how things should be done. It certainly did not work for me.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

What we have now, though, is a sizeable amount of media and general cultural influence talking about all of the negatives of masculinity. Even if we were to want to dispel any general notions of masculinity or feminity overall, that's not what's happening. We just have a large general group of talking points against toxic masculinity - against negative attributes of masculinity or at least that's what it seems. There are plenty of other voices out there talking about what masculinity should be like - although I'm sure many on here would disagree with a lot of them. What I'm not seeing is the groups that talk a lot about toxic masculinity putting forth a cohesive vision of what positive masculinity is. It's like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The groups that talk about toxic masculinity then often say what you said on the other end - that well, masculinity probably shouldn't be emphasized or highlighted, it's outdated and whatnot. So, on the one hand, it's toxic and there are significant issues. On the other hand, if someone wants to try to say something positive about it, then it's not relevant. It might work for some people to simply hear toxic masculinity on one side and don't talk about masculinity on the other side because it's outdated or aspects of it change from generation to generation, but for me, I know that if I were raised with this odd confluence of ideas on masculinity, I would be extremely confused, frustrated, and much more likely to cling onto aspects of masculinity from whoever was willing to talk about anything positive about it whether or not it was truly a positive attribute or not.

I just think that if we're going to really confront the problem from a generational situation, we need to highlight positive attributes of masculinity - we need a vision of what it can look like, or we'll fail the next generation in trying to raise up men who don't have some of these negative behaviors we want to eliminate.

Yes, I take great care to teach my two sons that "toxic masculinity" is the dangerous part of "masculinity" and that while we don't have a great definition of the latter, it's pretty easy to recognize the former by the way it refuses to acknowledge feelings other than anger and its synonyms.

But it would be helpful to have role models for non-toxic masculinity.

For now, it's camping, running, lifting weights, bicycling, volunteering, earning money with simple tasks, being a good friend, offering help, showing hospitality.
But I'm hard pressed to find any good role-model actions I take as being the exclusive province of men vs women.

Toque.

That makes sense, and I see what you're saying about difficulties there. I just think that a discussion needs to be had about what positive masculinity looks like. I'm not even saying positive masculine traits have to be truly exclusively the province of men. To bring it back to the cultures thing, different cultures can emphasize their positive strengths without saying that those positives are exclusive to their culture - just that they're positive and they're part of their vision of what their culture looks like. I have aspects of different cultures that I admire because they are attributes I admire in general. I admire the respect of the elderly that is shown in many other cultures but often lacking in American culture, or aspects of frugalness in other cultures for a couple of examples. I can do that and hold those attributes up in my mind as positive aspects of those cultures without excluding other cultures or saying it's just those cultures or people within those cultures that hold those positive attributes. I think we as relatively intelligent people :-) should be able to come up with something similar for masculinity. It seems worth it to me.

[shelivesthedream]

It's hard to be a "manly man" these days. It's all so artificial. It's easier to be a non-manly man, which is nice because there have always been people like that, but I don't think anything has replaced the ease with which young men used to be able to let their feelings physically.

To play off of this, there does not appear to be any cohesive vision of what is manly or any sort of aspirations in that regard. In the "old days" there were a tremendous amount of problems, but there was a cohesive vision with some positive traits that I believe helped - providing for a family, protecting others, etc. I'm not saying this is necessarily the perfect set of traits. I'm not saying they were executed well even for the ones that were good. I am saying that we need to have a significant focus on what we're going towards and not just what we're going away from.

If I were growing up now, at least as I'm seeing things, I would hear a lot about toxic masculinity and all of the problems men cause, but not much at all about the positive attributes of masculinity or what masculinity, if positive, could look like. I'm not trying to minimize the issues that are out there. I am saying that in my experience, a consistent focus on the negatives can be problematic if you're trying to raise a generation of young people to do better.

I concur, and what I'm really thinking of are the proper olden days. Like, pre-Victorian. When actually, contrary to the surface-level national-level history most people learn about, both men and women were economic actors and your average woman wasn't all repressed by the patriarchy and stuff. And really, yes, it was not all good olde tymeyness. But there was a conception of "a good, manly man" which didn't involve things like beating your wife. It involved things like doing a full day's physical labour, being respected for your uprightness and honesty, treating women kindly... Clearly not everyone lived up to that, and it was predicated on a society that doesn't exist any more, but what I don't see at the moment is an actual positive ideal of a manly man for teenage boys to look up to.

I don't see a "modern tendency" that makes things worse... Toxic masculinity has been around way, way longer any perceived modern tendency to "pretend" biological differences don't exist...Maybe we should not be teaching children to be "masculine" or "feminine", as some artificial ideal that changes from decade to decade and culture to culture, but teach them to be decent human beings.

(Sorry for mangling your posts but I didn't want a huge quote to be longer than my post!)

Modern gender messaging is actually highly gendered at the same time as assuring us it doesn't exist. Gender and sexuality are supposed to be primary parts of our identity, and you have to be able to answer the questions of "What gender are you?" and "What sexuality are you?" It's not allowed to not matter to you, or to not be a major part of how you conceive of yourself. Unless I'm attracted to someone particular and want to date them, my sexuality is incredibly minor when it comes to how I think of myself and my identity. But sexuality is called to my attention all the time if I pick up a newspaper. It's become the opposite of "it doesn't matter what sexuality you are, love is love". It's all "how do you define your sexuality with one of these labels?" - and opting out isn't an option. Same with gender. You have to have a gender identity - a single word or short phrase expression of your gender. It can't not matter to you. But my being a woman is only moderately important to my sense of self. Sometimes it is more important (whyyyyyyy can men not be handed a pair of functional breasts in the delivery room?) but it's only somewhere in the middle of the list when asked the open question "What makes you you?"

I am a straight white woman, so I'm sure someone will think I'm speaking from a place of privilege. But I don't think I am. I think "It should be illegal to be fired because in your private life you date someone of the same sex" and "it should be OK for a man to wear a skirt just like a woman wears trousers" and "girls shouldn't be told they're bad at maths" are not the same as the current fervour to Definitively Define your gender identity whether you care or not. The former are about what you do, not what you are. I currently have an Android phone but that doesn't mean I am an Android user to my very core. It's a tool I use, not a facet of my soul. Public discourse around gender actually places a huge weight on the very trait they are trying to say doesn't matter.

I honestly believe that many attributes that these days we are trying to stop people discriminating against were actually (in general) better accepted in the pre-modern era. Especially disabilities or disfigurements. Almost everyone would have a family member who went blind from childhood measles, or had smallpox scars, or had lost an arm in a farming accident. They would be known by their community as an individual and supported in their probably economically inactive life. It's only now that we can go through life without regularly encountering disability that we recoil when we see it and don't know how to act around people - and view it as a moral failing rather than a fact of life. Obviously "village idiot" isn't a pleasant term, but I think our modern eyes can miss the sense of collective responsibility for an individual who wasn't able to live a "normal" life and the fact that they still belonged to the community.

In terms of toxic masculinity, it would be interesting to think about the decline of belief in objective morality and the rise of a sense of masculinity which is focused on competitive surface traits and voided of any sense of moral character. Are they related? I don't know. It's really really really hard to think yourself back into a worldview which no longer exists. Mr SLTD has this idle plan of writing a young adult novel which genuinely captures the medieval worldview, but whenever we talk about it, it seems like an overwhelming task. When even time is a different theoretical concept and subjective experience, how can we think ourselves back into what a medieval person would have thought about man and woman and their respective traits and value? We spend more time talking these days about the details of gender identity than about what makes a good person.

I think part of the problem with modern society is the removal of autonomy from your average teenager. The apprentice system had a lot of downsides, but it did have its advantages. Teenage boy gets to go and pretend to be a grown up in a safe place away from home under the care of a (hopefully) male role model. (Let's just ignore the similarities between complaints about rowdy apprentices and Everyone's Invited for a second...) Back in ye olden tymes, they didn't have the concept of teenager that we do today, but they still had a post-child pre-adult phase of life where you get to try out who you want to be and your primary day-to-day relationships are with peers and external role models rather than your parents. Crucially, role models who were known personally to the teen, so no rose-tinted glasses or Instagram filters to make anyone seem perfect. Nowadays, that period is spent in school. So it's just a continuation of being a child. Which teenagers haaaaaate. And outside school, as I said upthread, there aren't a whole lot of options for typical pychologically and socially healthy male activities for these immature pseudo-grown ups. They socialise almost exclusively with their immediate peers, so have no experience of being at either end of the natural hierarchy that comes with age. Of course they end up being dumbasses jockeying for position by doing stupid things because they are never given the kind of natural authority that might come with having a younger kid bring you water in the field when you whistle.

Mr SLTD have been talking to each other about rape culture in schools/among young people lately, and wondering what we can do to help our kids with it when that time comes. (Eldest currently 3yo.) It's really hard. You can't protect them from it completely because that means shutting them up in an ivory tower for the rest of their lives. You can try to arm them against it, but it's a lot to ask of a teenager to defy their peers. You can try to find them "good" friends, but ultimately they like who they like. At the moment I think our best bet is to find them a time-consuming, social, psychologically-healthy hobby by the age of ten. That way they will be motivated to spend their teenage spare time on their hobby rather than engaging in more destructive vapid teenage posturing. (Obviously the other stuff is good too, but if they want to they can find their way around internet blockers, lie about where they're going, etc. My hope is to make the motivation internal, as well as have external constraints. I want my kids to WANT to not pass nude pics around with their friends because they're too busy debating the greatest tiddlywinks match of all time or whatever.)

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Mr SLTD have been talking to each other about rape culture in schools/among young people lately, and wondering what we can do to help our kids with it when that time comes. (Eldest currently 3yo.) It's really hard. You can't protect them from it completely because that means shutting them up in an ivory tower for the rest of their lives. You can try to arm them against it, but it's a lot to ask of a teenager to defy their peers. You can try to find them "good" friends, but ultimately they like who they like. At the moment I think our best bet is to find them a time-consuming, social, psychologically-healthy hobby by the age of ten. That way they will be motivated to spend their teenage spare time on their hobby rather than engaging in more destructive vapid teenage posturing. (Obviously the other stuff is good too, but if they want to they can find their way around internet blockers, lie about where they're going, etc. My hope is to make the motivation internal, as well as have external constraints. I want my kids to WANT to not pass nude pics around with their friends because they're too busy debating the greatest tiddlywinks match of all time or whatever.)

Just wanted to say this idea is really interesting and is making me think a lot. Thank you for sharing.

[shelivesthedream]

And finally... the most positive description of masculinity that I have ever read is the original Scouting for Boys by Robert Baden Powell. Ultimately, I don't think what makes a good man is different from what makes a good woman. Personally, that's very strongly grounded in my religious beliefs (Roman Catholic), though I believed it before I converted and simply found it echoed and reinforced in Catholicism. However, I do think that the "for boys" aspect of what is ultimately just a character-building guide for young children is important in the success of the book. "A scout is clean in thought, word and deed" is the most memorable maxim, and isn't that a good motto for all people everywhere?

ETA:
If you look at the full Scout Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Law), then for an organisation whose purpose is forming boys into men, it is actually completely ungendered. Regardless of whether you agree with it all or not, it's interesting to see that this organisation which was founded to promote positive masculinity to boys actually has nothing to do with the external trappings of current toxic masculinity. You could copy and paste the whole thing and it would make a perfectly fine set of rules for a girls' organisation trying to promote positive images of womanhood.

[GuitarStv]

"A scout is clean in thought, word and deed" is the most memorable maxim, and isn't that a good motto for all people everywhere?

I think there are issues with it.  What if you've been indoctrinated to believe that expressions of human sexuality (masturbation, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.) are somehow dirty.  Then it is pitting itself against one of the most powerfully compelling aspects of being human - which seems destined to fail.

[wenchsenior]

It's hard to be a "manly man" these days. It's all so artificial. It's easier to be a non-manly man, which is nice because there have always been people like that, but I don't think anything has replaced the ease with which young men used to be able to let their feelings physically.

To play off of this, there does not appear to be any cohesive vision of what is manly or any sort of aspirations in that regard. In the "old days" there were a tremendous amount of problems, but there was a cohesive vision with some positive traits that I believe helped - providing for a family, protecting others, etc. I'm not saying this is necessarily the perfect set of traits. I'm not saying they were executed well even for the ones that were good. I am saying that we need to have a significant focus on what we're going towards and not just what we're going away from.

If I were growing up now, at least as I'm seeing things, I would hear a lot about toxic masculinity and all of the problems men cause, but not much at all about the positive attributes of masculinity or what masculinity, if positive, could look like. I'm not trying to minimize the issues that are out there. I am saying that in my experience, a consistent focus on the negatives can be problematic if you're trying to raise a generation of young people to do better.

I concur, and what I'm really thinking of are the proper olden days. Like, pre-Victorian. When actually, contrary to the surface-level national-level history most people learn about, both men and women were economic actors and your average woman wasn't all repressed by the patriarchy and stuff. And really, yes, it was not all good olde tymeyness. But there was a conception of "a good, manly man" which didn't involve things like beating your wife. It involved things like doing a full day's physical labour, being respected for your uprightness and honesty, treating women kindly... Clearly not everyone lived up to that, and it was predicated on a society that doesn't exist any more, but what I don't see at the moment is an actual positive ideal of a manly man for teenage boys to look up to.

I don't see a "modern tendency" that makes things worse... Toxic masculinity has been around way, way longer any perceived modern tendency to "pretend" biological differences don't exist...Maybe we should not be teaching children to be "masculine" or "feminine", as some artificial ideal that changes from decade to decade and culture to culture, but teach them to be decent human beings.

(Sorry for mangling your posts but I didn't want a huge quote to be longer than my post!)

Modern gender messaging is actually highly gendered at the same time as assuring us it doesn't exist. Gender and sexuality are supposed to be primary parts of our identity, and you have to be able to answer the questions of "What gender are you?" and "What sexuality are you?" It's not allowed to not matter to you, or to not be a major part of how you conceive of yourself. Unless I'm attracted to someone particular and want to date them, my sexuality is incredibly minor when it comes to how I think of myself and my identity. But sexuality is called to my attention all the time if I pick up a newspaper. It's become the opposite of "it doesn't matter what sexuality you are, love is love". It's all "how do you define your sexuality with one of these labels?" - and opting out isn't an option. Same with gender. You have to have a gender identity - a single word or short phrase expression of your gender. It can't not matter to you. But my being a woman is only moderately important to my sense of self. Sometimes it is more important (whyyyyyyy can men not be handed a pair of functional breasts in the delivery room?) but it's only somewhere in the middle of the list when asked the open question "What makes you you?"

I am a straight white woman, so I'm sure someone will think I'm speaking from a place of privilege. But I don't think I am. I think "It should be illegal to be fired because in your private life you date someone of the same sex" and "it should be OK for a man to wear a skirt just like a woman wears trousers" and "girls shouldn't be told they're bad at maths" are not the same as the current fervour to Definitively Define your gender identity whether you care or not. The former are about what you do, not what you are. I currently have an Android phone but that doesn't mean I am an Android user to my very core. It's a tool I use, not a facet of my soul. Public discourse around gender actually places a huge weight on the very trait they are trying to say doesn't matter.

I honestly believe that many attributes that these days we are trying to stop people discriminating against were actually (in general) better accepted in the pre-modern era. Especially disabilities or disfigurements. Almost everyone would have a family member who went blind from childhood measles, or had smallpox scars, or had lost an arm in a farming accident. They would be known by their community as an individual and supported in their probably economically inactive life. It's only now that we can go through life without regularly encountering disability that we recoil when we see it and don't know how to act around people - and view it as a moral failing rather than a fact of life. Obviously "village idiot" isn't a pleasant term, but I think our modern eyes can miss the sense of collective responsibility for an individual who wasn't able to live a "normal" life and the fact that they still belonged to the community.

In terms of toxic masculinity, it would be interesting to think about the decline of belief in objective morality and the rise of a sense of masculinity which is focused on competitive surface traits and voided of any sense of moral character. Are they related? I don't know. It's really really really hard to think yourself back into a worldview which no longer exists. Mr SLTD has this idle plan of writing a young adult novel which genuinely captures the medieval worldview, but whenever we talk about it, it seems like an overwhelming task. When even time is a different theoretical concept and subjective experience, how can we think ourselves back into what a medieval person would have thought about man and woman and their respective traits and value? We spend more time talking these days about the details of gender identity than about what makes a good person.

I think part of the problem with modern society is the removal of autonomy from your average teenager. The apprentice system had a lot of downsides, but it did have its advantages. Teenage boy gets to go and pretend to be a grown up in a safe place away from home under the care of a (hopefully) male role model. (Let's just ignore the similarities between complaints about rowdy apprentices and Everyone's Invited for a second...) Back in ye olden tymes, they didn't have the concept of teenager that we do today, but they still had a post-child pre-adult phase of life where you get to try out who you want to be and your primary day-to-day relationships are with peers and external role models rather than your parents. Crucially, role models who were known personally to the teen, so no rose-tinted glasses or Instagram filters to make anyone seem perfect. Nowadays, that period is spent in school. So it's just a continuation of being a child. Which teenagers haaaaaate. And outside school, as I said upthread, there aren't a whole lot of options for typical pychologically and socially healthy male activities for these immature pseudo-grown ups. They socialise almost exclusively with their immediate peers, so have no experience of being at either end of the natural hierarchy that comes with age. Of course they end up being dumbasses jockeying for position by doing stupid things because they are never given the kind of natural authority that might come with having a younger kid bring you water in the field when you whistle.

Mr SLTD have been talking to each other about rape culture in schools/among young people lately, and wondering what we can do to help our kids with it when that time comes. (Eldest currently 3yo.) It's really hard. You can't protect them from it completely because that means shutting them up in an ivory tower for the rest of their lives. You can try to arm them against it, but it's a lot to ask of a teenager to defy their peers. You can try to find them "good" friends, but ultimately they like who they like. At the moment I think our best bet is to find them a time-consuming, social, psychologically-healthy hobby by the age of ten. That way they will be motivated to spend their teenage spare time on their hobby rather than engaging in more destructive vapid teenage posturing. (Obviously the other stuff is good too, but if they want to they can find their way around internet blockers, lie about where they're going, etc. My hope is to make the motivation internal, as well as have external constraints. I want my kids to WANT to not pass nude pics around with their friends because they're too busy debating the greatest tiddlywinks match of all time or whatever.)

Great post!

[joe189man]

oof i am scared to jump into this one but feel a solution could ultimately change humanity (i dont have a solution). I will preface the folowing by saying these are my opinions. Men need a job and a purpose/meaning. They need to be physically active. We are basically the same genetically as we were 10's of thousands of years ago. Well before farming, scientists assume we were tribal hunters and gatherers. Tribes kept everyone in line working for the greater good of the tribe, if a guy didnt contribute or acted out of step, maybe he went hunting and "fell off a cliff", as in he was removed from the tribe. Guys in these times had constant work and purpose, provide safety to the tribe, feed the tribe, build and make things to support the betterment of the tribe.

I would argue today many men have no driving purpose/meaning and no daily outlet to be physically active. The physically activity hits home for me, i am a much better person when i work out consistently - much nicer, less stressed, relaxed. I think in recent times men dont have a "tribe" the are beholden to or are responsible for. They also have idle time with fewer responsibilities allowing social media and influencers persuade them over time.

[shelivesthedream]

"A scout is clean in thought, word and deed" is the most memorable maxim, and isn't that a good motto for all people everywhere?

I think there are issues with it.  What if you've been indoctrinated to believe that expressions of human sexuality (masturbation, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.) are somehow dirty.  Then it is pitting itself against one of the most powerfully compelling aspects of being human - which seems destined to fail.

Hm, a quick Google suggests that the language hasn't been updated for newer editions, which I agree is odd. I have a reprint of an old (certainly pre-WW2, if not pre-WW1) text and don't think the word "clean" would have been read the way you read it at the time - as pertaining primarily to sexuality. In fact, this may be an example of the primacy of sex (and gender) in modern culture, that you see it as referring primarily to sexual sin morality rather than, say, not wishing harm on someone you're jealous of (clean thoughts), not gossiping or swearing (clean words) or not taking bribes (clean deeds).

In our new post-truth era, surely "clean" can mean whatever it means to you? I'm not sure how something which reads "be moral in your thoughts, words and actions" suddenly means "no masturbating, no pre-marital sex, no homosexuality".

[shelivesthedream]

Men need a job

Funny post for a FIRE forum :)

[joe189man]

Men need a job

Funny post for a FIRE forum :)

Ha, at least young teens and young men pre family or focus of purpose, "idle hands make the devils workshop"

[shelivesthedream]

@wenchsenior Thanks!

[Syonyk]

I'll argue that this is a problem with boys, not men.  Our society has, almost entirely, lost the concept of men, and generates a huge number of "boys who shave," to use  turn of phrase that I think captures the problem well.

Our culture is somewhat unique in the world in terms of not having a "transition to manhood" point for boys, and it shows.  Not only have we lost the concept of what a man is supposed to be and have fewer examples of it (I'll suggest "men of character" is an image of what we ought to emulate), we've lost the concept of training boys in that way and in telling them, "Today, you are a man."

Most cultures throughout history have some ritual or another of the sort.  They vary throughout time and space, but they all have the same core: "Yesterday, you were a boy, were treated as a boy, and were expected to act as a boy.  Today, you are a man.  You are expected to act as a man, and we have trained you in what that looks like."  Today?  Well, you can still be a boy at 40, in all practical terms.

When a culture has lost that, has no interest in re-establishing that, and boys are left to find their own way, yeah.  Things get messed up.  Same as they have throughout history.

I could go on a rant about how most schooling is suited to girls, and how little boys are expected to act like girls in school (sit quietly and learn), but that's probably another thread.  Study after study, experiment after experiment has shown that girls learn just as well as boys if you use a boy-focused method (typically outdoors, physical, and high energy), but boys do not learn well in an environment suited to girls (quiet classroom desk time).  That virtually 100% of elementary teachers are women isn't really addressed either.

[GuitarStv]

"A scout is clean in thought, word and deed" is the most memorable maxim, and isn't that a good motto for all people everywhere?

I think there are issues with it.  What if you've been indoctrinated to believe that expressions of human sexuality (masturbation, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.) are somehow dirty.  Then it is pitting itself against one of the most powerfully compelling aspects of being human - which seems destined to fail.

Hm, a quick Google suggests that the language hasn't been updated for newer editions, which I agree is odd. I have a reprint of an old (certainly pre-WW2, if not pre-WW1) text and don't think the word "clean" would have been read the way you read it at the time - as pertaining primarily to sexuality. In fact, this may be an example of the primacy of sex (and gender) in modern culture, that you see it as referring primarily to sexual sin morality rather than, say, not wishing harm on someone you're jealous of (clean thoughts), not gossiping or swearing (clean words) or not taking bribes (clean deeds).

It was just the first thing that sprung to mind - given that the dirtiness, immorality, and evil of these sexual actions was very clearly explained in several of the churches I attended as a child.

I have many other questions too though.

How is this masculine behaviour?  In what way does feminine behaviour differ?

Why is swearing bad?  There's actually a fair amount of research that indicates swearing is physically beneficial to people as an effective non-pharmacological hypoalgesic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing).  Swearing appears to be a good indicator of a person's honesty (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550616681055).  There has been no correlation found between swearing and low intelligence or lack of vocabulary (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S038800011400151X).  So why is this something we want to discourage?

Is thinking something negative about another person really bad?  Like, I'd certainly argue that people need to learn to let go of things and remain calm . . . but isn't it completely natural to have angry thoughts?  How a person chooses to deal with this anger would seem far more important than trying to prevent it from arising to begin with.

In our new post-truth era, surely "clean" can mean whatever it means to you?

I don't believe in 'post-truth' anything.  Objective reality exists, as it always has.  But if 'clean' means anything I want it to, then it also means nothing.  That would kinda render the guidance of how to be masculine utterly useless, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure how something which reads "be moral in your thoughts, words and actions" suddenly means "no masturbating, no pre-marital sex, no homosexuality".

Are you arguing that masturbation, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality are examples of moral behaviours?  :P



I'm not trying to attack you, or make light of your initial suggestion - but a message as powerful as 'this is the right way to be a man' needs to be carefully examined from many angles.

[shelivesthedream]

@GuitarStv The particular examples I chose are not important. The point I was aiming at was that there are examples of moral and immoral thoughts, words and deeds that are not related to sex that the theoretical "reasonable person" might mention, not things I necessarily agree with. I'm happy to substitute any other non-sexual examples you might that a reasonable person might bring up. You mentioned masturbating, pre-marital sex and homosexuality as dirty, where you were equating dirty with immoral, so those are the sexual examples I ran with.

The actual examples and whether or not they reflect your, my or anyone's morality are not the point. Nor is this:

I don't believe in 'post-truth' anything.  Objective reality exists, as it always has.  But if 'clean' means anything I want it to, then it also means nothing.  That would kinda render the guidance of how to be masculine utterly useless, wouldn't it?

The relevant point there is that in my opinion, a correct reading of the original quote through the eyes of the time means that we should consider "clean" equivalent to the modern use of the word "moral". So, to give a more fleshed out example which diminishes the punchiness of the original, one could say "a scout is clean in thought, word and deed" is equivalent to "a scout adheres to their moral code in thought, word and deed". Because the point here, within the broader context of the thread, is not what morality is and what deeds are moral or not. It is that toxic masculinity evacuates the experience of manhood of any moral character.

How is this masculine behaviour?  In what way does feminine behaviour differ?

In fact, toxic masculinity says "I am a man because I am not a woman" rather than "I am a man because I am not a boy". In order for it to be masculinity rather than adulthood we do of course need both, but we do need both, and modern masculinity lacks or distorts the latter and obsesses over the former. It may sometimes use the rhetoric of not being a boy any more, but when you look closer at it, it equates boy with woman - which is ridiculous.

Some people disagree with that, I think. So while I agree that "a message as powerful as 'this is the right way to be a man' needs to be carefully examined from many angles" I think it's important to establish the proper domain of masculinity as a concept before asking what good and bad masculinity looks like. Taking these two questions separately: What makes a boy different from a man? Moral character and sense of responsibility, according to me. Same as a girl and a woman. What makes a man different from a woman? Well, I think that's actually a tougher one to answer. What do you think?

[GuitarStv]

How is this masculine behaviour?  In what way does feminine behaviour differ?

In fact, toxic masculinity says "I am a man because I am not a woman" rather than "I am a man because I am not a boy". In order for it to be masculinity rather than adulthood we do of course need both, but we do need both, and modern masculinity lacks or distorts the latter and obsesses over the former. It may sometimes use the rhetoric of not being a boy any more, but when you look closer at it, it equates boy with woman - which is ridiculous.

I had written up a definition of what 'toxic masculinity' meant to me, but the more I think about it, the more this definition seems to make sense.  I like it, thank you!

Some people disagree with that, I think. So while I agree that "a message as powerful as 'this is the right way to be a man' needs to be carefully examined from many angles" I think it's important to establish the proper domain of masculinity as a concept before asking what good and bad masculinity looks like. Taking these two questions separately: What makes a boy different from a man? Moral character and sense of responsibility, according to me. Same as a girl and a woman.

This reasoning is very compelling, and makes sense to me.

What makes a man different from a woman? Well, I think that's actually a tougher one to answer. What do you think?

It is a tricky question and reviewing my thoughts on it, I'm not entirely sure that my views aren't mired in 50s-era sexism.

First gut feeling is that while they both have responsibility, men have slightly different responsibilities than women.  This manifests in crisis situations.  Like on a sinking ship, I'd expect a masculine man to help get the women and children into the lifeboats first.  I'd expect a feminine woman to make sure that the kids are safe in the boat.  This concept of masculine being a protector by meeting danger and feminine being a protector by sheltering children seems to be very deeply embedded in the way that I think of the concepts and that's not something I've realized before.

[Kris]

How is this masculine behaviour?  In what way does feminine behaviour differ?

In fact, toxic masculinity says "I am a man because I am not a woman" rather than "I am a man because I am not a boy". In order for it to be masculinity rather than adulthood we do of course need both, but we do need both, and modern masculinity lacks or distorts the latter and obsesses over the former. It may sometimes use the rhetoric of not being a boy any more, but when you look closer at it, it equates boy with woman - which is ridiculous.

I had written up a definition of what 'toxic masculinity' meant to me, but the more I think about it, the more this definition seems to make sense.  I like it, thank you!

Some people disagree with that, I think. So while I agree that "a message as powerful as 'this is the right way to be a man' needs to be carefully examined from many angles" I think it's important to establish the proper domain of masculinity as a concept before asking what good and bad masculinity looks like. Taking these two questions separately: What makes a boy different from a man? Moral character and sense of responsibility, according to me. Same as a girl and a woman.

This reasoning is very compelling, and makes sense to me.

What makes a man different from a woman? Well, I think that's actually a tougher one to answer. What do you think?

It is a tricky question and reviewing my thoughts on it, I'm not entirely sure that my views aren't mired in 50s-era sexism.

First gut feeling is that while they both have responsibility, men have slightly different responsibilities than women.  This manifests in crisis situations.  Like on a sinking ship, I'd expect a masculine man to help get the women and children into the lifeboats first.  I'd expect a feminine woman to make sure that the kids are safe in the boat.  This concept of masculine being a protector by meeting danger and feminine being a protector by sheltering children seems to be very deeply embedded in the way that I think of the concepts and that's not something I've realized before.

What about me, a woman with sailing experience who hates kids?

[Syonyk]

What about me, a woman with sailing experience who hates kids?

Congratulations, you're an exception to the general case.  Enjoy.

[RetiredAt63]

Bunch of thoughts.  First, scouting was very popular with girls when it first began, and BP's wife was very involved.  It was Victorian morality that separated them.  Scouts Canada is now open to youth, not boys, and it is very suitable for girls who like the activities involved in Scouting.  DD, for example, hated Sparks (youngest level of Canadian Girl Guides) and loved Beavers, Cubs, and Scouts.  They do have a good approach and it has nothing to do with gender roles (see below) 

Second I am reminded of thoughts of early human societies, where girls acknowledgment as women was either their first menstruation or their first baby.  Given the rates of maternal mortality, having a baby was a major challenge and having your baby to look after makes you grow up very fast if you are not already.  Boys into men often had more extrinsic markers - killing your first big game animal, or having ritual tattoos, or whatever.  Generally these societies also had the children learning these roles as they grew up, so they learned about the tasks they would do as adults as they were children.

Third, I was born in the early 50s.  I would not wish that time on any child again.  Boys will be boys was alive and well.  Nothing like having snowballs with small sharp stones in them thrown at you by boys and being told that Boys will be boys, to realize there is a double standard.  And this was a middle-class neighbourhood.

I do think that we are extending that middle period, possibly to the detriment of both young men and young women.  We were expected to either go to work after high school (grade 11) or go onto technical school or university.  We were not expected, as a generation, to be still living at home or otherwise dependent on our parents for any longer than we had to be.

Back to Scouting:  Yes there is a religious aspect but it is pretty general.  Religion (or absence of it) is not an issue in Canadian Scouting.

Beavers

Beaver Scout Law

A Beaver has fun, works hard and helps family and friends.

Beaver Scout Promise

I promise to love God and to help take care of the world.

Motto for the Beaver Scouts

Sharing, Sharing, Sharing.


Cubs

Cub Scout Law

The Cub respects the Old Wolf, 

Spoiler: show

(in our pack that was me, I was Akela)

The Cub respects himself/herself.

Cub Scout Motto

Do Your Best.

Cub Scout Promise

I promise to do my best,
To love and serve God, to do my duty to the Queen;
To keep the law of the Wolf Cub pack,
And to do a good turn for somebody every day.