Donald Trump embodies toxic masculinity. His idea of manhood is bullying, womanizing, mocking, gluttony, arrogance, cruelty, getting his way by any means, and an abundance of greed.
President Obama represents the best kind of masculinity. He is confident, respectful to woman, smart, civil to all, dignified, compassionate, health-oriented and a family man. Would that there were more like him.
95
Uh, that's the thing about being a guy, you know that your masculinity is going to be toxic to somebody. Also, usually, the 'offended' never have the nerve to articulate the nature of the toxicity, because it's some mundane, so immature, so silly, so petty. Oopps, was I getting toxic?
30
Buck up men. Get over yourselves. Be respectful, humble and pull ones weight in life.
20
So curious - at the same time that the same people are frothing at the mouth over the alleged inconsequential categories of sex and gender, they simultaneously worship these and other demographic categories if they are deemed low on the totem pole of perceived traditional hierarchical power structures. Celebrate your female body. Embrace your transgender identity. Love your black and brown bodies. The only people who are shamed for identifying with their corporeality are white able bodied males. The philosophical idiocy is astounding.
31
Picture of Gary Cooper on a horse. Ironic. He made ~ 60 movies and never played a bad guy. However, he was somewhat of a cad, cheating on his wife with Patricia Neal (25 years his junior). It seems like when she became pregnant he insisted that she get an abortion, so as not to sullen his reputation. She had it and in her biography she says that he waited in the car because he couldn't risk being seen entering the doctor's office. Nice guy. -- Not!
17
Is there such a thing as toxic womanhood or is this only a problem that infects men?
40
If the American Psychological Association believe there is an overabundance of "toxic-Masculinity" in the United States, it will have a field day in the Middle East, Africa, and most of the rest of the world.
39
I don't believe anyone is interested in demonizing ALL men and masculinity. But, like white privilege, the ramifications of male privilege and "typically masculine" behavior are pretty far-reaching once you start looking into them. So it can seem like everything a man says & does is under attack, just because it's a man saying or doing it. IMO what's really happening is that everything is up for examination --- not the same thing as attack. There's a huge number of behaviors that are considered OK for men but not for women (and vice versa), and it's worth looking at ALL of them and asking "why?"
I tend to think of this process in kind of the same way as when you have to learn tact as an adolescent. People start calling you out on behavior you consider natural, normal, and honest, and you spend a certain amount of time going "why is everybody so dang sensitive all of a sudden? I should be able to be honest and tell someone they're stupid if they're stupid, or call them fat if they're fat." Eventually, most of us start to appreciate that tact and good manners is a two-way street, and it's not necessary to say out loud every negative thing you think. Some people never outgrow this phase, though, and end up with a lifelong resentment against "political correctness" because they are unable to develop their capacity for empathy.
The same thing is happening with the concepts of "masculinity" and "masculine behavior" now. Relax --- it's a phase, or at least it can be.
16
Toxic maculinity in Saudi Arabia?
Looking for guidelines from the Arabic Psychological Association.
And what about the genetic turbo-charging effect from polygamy, where aggressive, hyper-alpha males take multiple wives and father dozens of children? And the less aggressive males, in turn, have no wives or children at all, because the ratio of births in humans is still about 1 to 1.
Analyze that.
14
This debate is pure nonsense. Men should be expected to be gentlemen and protectors of the opposite sex and they can absolutely do so while maintaining their masculinity. Missing from this debate is a discussion about the lack of moral & Judeo-Christian values. Men who honor & love God typically are not toxic - of course, faith is usually missing from these debates as progressives view religion as suffocating & outmoded.
12
"If you listen to liberal women complaining about the male-feminist cads and “soft-boys” in their dating pool, progressive culture seems to have ended up creating a lot of Uriah Heeps and Gilbert Osmonds — men pretending to reject the masculine vices, but really sublimating them into softer forms of exploitation."
Thank you Mr. Douthat for your perfect portrait of Mike Pence.
20
First, anything defined and codified by committee is by its very nature suspect and potentially near-beer. Secondly, we live in the age of gender multiplicity and diversity. LGBT, Trans, Queer and hundreds of variations of gender identity reflect the wide spectrum and celebratory "rainbow" of human expression. Any attempt to force us back into the iron constraint of "the binary," is wrong headed, mean-spirited, dangerous and sloppy thinking. Our clown president proudly wears the binary beanie and we can only hope he and his cohorts represent the waning representation of this malignant zeitgeist.
4
@gemli...BRAVO! Well said!
2
Wonderful! Ross, we love you!
1
So football needs to go away?
4
This entire discussion is profoundly offensive.
10
Thanks for this analysis of "masculinity." I look forward to your next column on "white-ininity." Assigning a gender to human characteristics is as nonsensical as assigning a race to human characteristics.
10
Well done, APA! Keep telling yourself you're relevant!
Interesting that the article takes issue with the APA and uses European examples from its literature (except the movie stars and Gilbert Osmond).
In American lit by males, there isn't the tidy resolution to the way a male is supposed to behave. Instead, it's always "light out for the territories" as Huck Finn does or walk off into the rain, as Frederick Henry does. Examples of American masculinity almost never get back into society in any proper way, and so the resolution or understanding of toxic masculinity that Mr. Douthat shows doesn't actually come, very often, for the Yanks. There is a benefactor, a marriage, a revealed lost fortune, a long-lost cousin, a rightful heir, etc. to welcome most Brit men into proper society, but in America, there is only a green light and a set of eyes on a billboard for Jay Gatsby and his like. There is only dead Pap, shot in a gambling dispute, and a world full of slavery for Huck Finn, and what's left for Holden Caulfield or Frederick Henry or James Marcher or other American male protagonists? For a male protagonist from a book written by a male, to my mind, Ishmael seems to be the best example of avoiding the limits of toxic masculinity. Better to try to melt into the lives of others and see the world from multiple perspectives than to chase a white whale because it "dismasted" you. (Now that's toxic masculinity!)
9
Imagine Darcy, Heathcliff had had sex, a transitional girlfriend or something along those lines.... The times get the masculinity they deserve and men will project it as they can. That masculinity again will differ from the one found in books about our time and it won't be homogeneously expressed. Maybe we should strive for a better society but we will continue to atomize. That said, I do see the appeal of the Victorian age for Catholic rightwingers. (Sexual Repression? Yes!) A lot of brooding and sublimation, suffering and moral high ground.
6
Does anyone in the known universe actually care what the A.P.A. says or does?
16
A lot of the people in the APA are therapists with plenty of experience treating men. These include men damaged by growing up in provincial places where there is tolerance of only one kind of manhood (the “toxic” kind). Men who have been so stoic in being men and supporting their families that they can’t feel anything anymore. Men who have failed, and who want to kill themselves because this failure destroys their manhood. Maybe the people who developed the APA guidelines know something whereof they speak?
12
All of human history until very recently was just one long Fury Road (see, Thomas Hobbes). There was no navel-gazing. No pacifism. No Pink Hats. No guarantees against tooth and claw save the safety of the herd. Even in the past century the most cultured and genteel of nations succumbed to atavism and committed wholesale genocide. Civilization is the scantiest of veneers.
...So go on, carry on stoning Gary Cooper.
6
Republican ideologues are not John Wayne.
They use power unfairly by kicking people when they're down because they assume a natural order of hierarchy that rightly allows that.
Then they whine when kicked in return and cry like babies when confronted, as they scream false equivalence.
They are the entitled chickenhawks who vote for war as they themselves avoid it.
Yet they posture as men, like Trump, while letting everyone else carry their weight.
We Progressives call them out, and we declare their puerile manhood to be toxic.
17
Mr. Douthat is a smart guy. But this column was a mess of garbled generalizations. Sir—even though you are an opinion columnist, you don’t have to have an authoritative position on every issue (19th c. Romanticism and APA discourse?). What about spending one of your columns discussing all the wonderful things you’ve learned about that have opened your heart and made you feel grateful? That might have less of the feel of mansplaining (Which ironically, this column seemed to boldly display).
14
Silly is the man who complains who he is without knowing who he is, his fragile ego wrapped up in defending toxic masculinity (father knows best) ( God told me). And then blame that toxicity on the ‘other’.
Whew. Time for confession Mr. Douthat.
8
I suppose this is the theology contest of the moment. With all the agonizing over masculinity lately, you would think that Gillette had nailed 95 theses up on the wall, rather than just make a commercial. Oh the agony! The horror!
On the other hand, this is a lot safer ground for you, rather than revisiting yet again the complete and utter destruction your rabid support of the Republican party has wrought.
The horror indeed!
8
blah blah blah - how about discussing reality and not fiction by looking at how boys are raised not how novels - especially out-of-date novels - have portrayed them?
12
Interesting essay. (And any essay that uses Pride and Prejudice to make its points gets a thumbs up from me!). The section about dating sites struck a nerve with me. I'm out there dating, and in online profiles I read again and again that women (liberal New York women) want men who are "dominant", "real men," "no boys," "alpha males." The line between these imagined men and toxicity is what exactly?
11
Think of all of the good, honorable, decent men in your life. There is nothing toxic about real manhood. The title "man" is something boys strive for as they grow. I did not feel I had earned the title until well into my thirties after decades of striving to emulate the best in my father and other honorable men in my world. Why take that path from boys?
9
Here in Australia, yesterday in our strata (condo) complex two young guys who I see wearing orange high-viz jackets so presumably work in construction, had another party
beer and girls and very loud voices on their balcony facing our common courtyard - disturbing up to 62 other residences facing the same close courtyard.
Being a long-time resident building committee member I let it go for hours from maybe 430pm - not near most people's bedtime.
Then we noticed a police car outside at 726pm - ah ! someone else called the police - we watched them enter the building - a sudden cessation of loud conversation, the music turned off - peace !
Then later it started again - until just after 10pm I went out to the courtyard, saw and heard very loud confident male voices as 2 guys and 1 girl came out to the 3rd floor balcony, one guy saw me standing there, so I called out 'excuse me guys - can you put a cork in it !? [guy repeated 'put - a - cork - in - it ...' ?] - 'be quiet' - you've been disturbing the peace for hours - the police already attended [they said 'the police came at 730' - agreed] - that should give you the message!'
the guys said 'OK we'll shut it down then' - they politely agreed and did so. Again. As they've done on a previous occasion when the police were called to their Disturbance of the Peace.
As a gentle quiet (confident) male I admire their brash confidence but am disturbed by the noise from these loud confident males (especially after beer).
3
"If you listen to liberal women complaining about the male-feminist cads and “soft-boys” in their dating pool, progressive culture seems to have ended up creating a lot of Uriah Heeps and Gilbert Osmonds — men pretending to reject the masculine vices, but really sublimating them into softer forms of exploitation."
Well, Trump did say that young men were gravitating to Bernie Sanders' campaign just to get dates. But in fairness to Ross, I recognize his characterization in some of my Baby Boomer contemporaries.
On the other hand, based upon my mother's recollection and considering that a photo of Gary Cooper adorns this op-ed, it appears that the overwhelming majority of those drooling over Mr. Cooper were not male.
In Madison Avenue parlance masculinity, like other toxic substances such as liquor, are eminently marketable.
2
I'm curious as to whether the American Psychological Association has guidelines on how to deal with female pathology along with its guidelines on male pathology.
7
I've yet to hear a reason for why masculinity is so very delicate.
4
This is not Susan Fitzwater but her husband.
The two of us have been married forty years. Ups and downs? Oh yes! Bad moments? Quite a few! Good moments? Yes--I think so.
Mr. Douthat, I am approaching seventy. I'll turn seventy this coming August. Study if you will my gray hairs. Scratch that--my WHITE hairs. I said good-bye to BROWN hair many a sad year ago.
And I think, sir, I have never in my life sought a ROLE MODEL. Or asked myself, "What's the paradigm here? What are the ground rules? The parameters? Should I be burly and manly--like Gary Cooper (vide photograph) or Humphrey Bogart or Clark Gable? Should I be warm and sensitive like Alan Alda or Tom Hanks? Should I be detached and Olympian like. . .like. . ."
. . like I don't know. I can't THINK of any "detached and Olympian" movie stars. When I do, I'll let you know.
Mr. Douthat, isn't it the case--you simply live life day to day--you make the best choices you can--you endeavor (as much as a weak and erring human being CAN endeavor) to do the right thing and be the right person?--
--and words fail me. A line of Horace comes to mind:
Naturam expellas furce, tamen usque recurret.
"You drive out nature (that is, your OWN nature) with a pitchfork, it'll still come running back."
Very true.
So work on that nature of yours. Make it wiser. Kinder. Juster.
So you won't be embarrassed--
--when it comes running back.
"Cause it will.
Trust me.
It will.
11
While surprised that a person who reads literature and some of its subtlety can be a conservative, I'm not surprised that Douthat is engaging such a silly controversy while his "movement" is being exposed for the racist, fiscally irresponsible fraud that it is. Our "Rome" is burning, literally and figuratively, and the conservative movement is constipated, desperately trying to squeeze out small-time legislative swindles while leveraging irrelevant cultural wedge issues to mobilize a largely ignorant, intolerant base.
5
The are two kinds of men: family men and all the rest. Women can be devided in the same way. There is nothing better than a traditional marrage with the man as the head of the family protecting wife and children from evil.
When you seperate sex, marrage, and children you embark on the modern world made possible by contraception and abortion. It will never work well.
3
Oh Plueeze. You want toxicity? See female-on-female toxicity. Magnitudes more prevalent and infinitely more toxic than the male toxicity that being foisted upon the public. Then there's female-on-male toxicity. Yes, peer reviewed research indicates that when DV rears its ugly head and both parties are swinging at each other, 70% of the time the 1st blow is delivered by the female. Additionally, its an aggressive, not defensive blow. If a fact that females are more likely to hit, but yes, men are more likely to produce damage. Fine, then don't clear the holster.
9
While were at it, let's go back a bit farther to the ancient Greeks. Consider Hercules, or Heracles as the Greeks called him. He rather famously lost his temper and killed his wife and children after being driven mad by Hera, queen of the gods.
How much more toxic can a male get?
When he recovered his sense, he asked the oracle at Delphi what he needed to do to atone. The oracle ordered him to serve King Eurystheus, who gave him twelve seeming impossible tasks, which he completed successfully. Several of the tasks involved capturing or killing famously dangerous or elusive beasts and an assortment of monsters.
This sounds like a culture grappling with toxic male energy to me.
You can go back even farther, to Gilgamesh, if you want. I'm sure you could find some of that toxic male energy there as well. It's even possible that the Neanderthals died out because they didn't have enough of it and the moderns wiped them out, but that's idle speculation for which I have no evidence.
There might be something new under the sun but this isn't it.
4
Hard to rely on what are all fictional literary men. How abou some reality?
4
Interesting to note that Obama, a considerate, compassionate, sensitive “soft” man was very comfortable in his masculinity and was seen as being so.
Whereas the aggressive sexual assaulter and Alpha Misogynist of Mar A Lago is constantly having his “toxic masculinity” judged as evidence of his insecurities and neediness.
The ironies!
9
We also have a culture that features the lone male, even a
lone male with a partner from an inferior background, the
Lone Ranger. Tonto takes orders. Then: Shane, riding off alone.
Eastwood's Preacher, a girl yelling after him as he disappears
into the sunset, "I love you, Preacher." High Noon? The wife,
a Quaker, kills. In this case they can ride off alone. Ahab refuses the option suggested by Starbuck, a Quaker, to turn
back, hull full of whale oil, to Ahab's wife and a child born in his absence. Ahab is the center of attention and needs it that way, even unto death. The chronic observer, Ishmael, survives to tell the tale, floating on a cannibals coffin.
We've known the loner hero since Ulysses, who will be off again to a strange land, once he's told his story. It's all about
him. I could go on......women stay behind.
4
ross, how do you do it? you are the most sophisticated creator of straw-men i've ever known.
to state the obvious (because you seem to ignore it, patently): the present tense is the here-and-now, where it's today's problems we really need to deal with. just because someone (a person, a movement, an organization) decides to discuss it and take up the modern cause (whatever it is), is not to say that anyone is ignoring history.
i'm going to stop there, you simply make up arguments to get paid, i've just wasted my time since "the times" is certainly not going to get rid of you because you fake it. they need their straw men too.
8
Yes. Men are bigger, stronger, more physically violent and more aggressive than women. They are also more creative than women. It is the drive of men for conquest that leads to creativity and the building of better societies. And why is it that progressives only admit there are differences between the two sexes (at least the two major sexes) when they make men look bad.
Most often in history, societies have needed men who suffered from toxic masculinity. They needed warriors and explorers and men who were willing to take incredible risks. Most of the negative effects of male violence can be socially controlled when their expression is inappropriate. But don't pretend that society hasn't needed manly men to do manly things throughout history. And in the long run masculinity as led to a much more civilized environment for most of us.
As for male feminists and soft boys -- back in the hippie era I had a saying about the peace and love gurus. Almost all were male, they preached free love. And basically what they meant was they wanted sleep with your girlfriend, not you to sleep with their gf -- or boyfriend. It was just a scam that worked at the time.
Moreover -- the attributes that are found in males are wired in. Men can be socialized and controlled, but those attributes won't disappear.
3
Progressives: Bad behavior by a man = All Men Are Bad
Conservatives: Good behavior by a man: All Men Are Good
That is absurd, right?
4
What's actually toxic is this PC identity politics stuff. Is it because of "toxic femininity"? How does that label feel? We're falling into some awful new-Victorian age of moral prudery. It's everywhere. Shame on us.
7
Ross, Your first paragraph is completely false. Past evils of male toxic masculinity in human experience have NOT been forgotten.
5
Very good op-ed. My favorite are: "But the New Progressive Man isn’t much of a success either: If you listen to liberal women complaining about the male-feminist cads and “soft-boys” in their dating pool, progressive culture seems to have ended up creating a lot of Uriah Heeps and Gilbert Osmonds — men pretending to reject the masculine vices, but really sublimating them into softer forms of exploitation.”
What this tells me is toxic masculinity exists only in the eyes of the beholder; in other words, if the woman does not like the man making advances toward her, then he is blamed as toxic; if the woman likes the man, then he is not toxic at all. Just as if a sexual encounter goes bad, then it is rape, but if it is successful, gratifying the physical needs of the woman, then it is OK, and she comes back for more (that’s why abortion must remain an option).
Although he focused on European, particularly British novelists, Douthat could have plucked some “toxic males” from American literature, such as Jay Gatsby. In the Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald dealt with “toxic masculinity”, by juxtaposing Gatsby against Nick Carraway, who epitomizes the “soft-boy” loathed by the modern feminist.
However, Faulkner’s Flem Snopes, the Mississippi scoundrel, whose family comes to dominate Yoknapatawpha County after the Civil War into the early twentieth century. Flem is about as toxic as a man can be, making Harvey Weinstein (and Bill Clinton) look tame! Cheers!
5
A few random thoughts on la difference tres deroutant:
Everyone needs gain more awareness of themselves and others and refrain from the Manichean black-and-white, a perfectionist lens and/or a labored, bogus "woke" PC agenda or litmus test (of any ideology). Those are killers.
Men certainly need tame the testosterone beast to forge good relationships, and resist the "masculinity" reinforcement so pervasive in our advertising- and sensation-addicted culture.
And men also need to experience respectful response in their work. It's perplexing to be complained of not being empathic and as soon as exhibiting some, one iota beyond an unknowable "enough," be relegated to the friend zone and eclipsed by a badboy who gets a damsel's motor running. It's easy to shake one's head and mutter, "Hypocrites, make up your mind," but the point of that stereotype is that we are complex, animal creatures. Much peer-reinforced "understanding" and expectation is narrowly focused intellectually, as if a human relationship is an academic and abstract exercise, with watchful dogma-minders over one's shoulder.
There's also objectification of men - surprise! - as much as by men, just differently. I recall overhearing one person ask her friend who'd just barely met me, "Well, is he a dud?" Thank you, humans. Then there's the unilateral covert manipulation to get pregnant...that's a fun one.
Btw, Ross, as sources of "softboy" complaints I'd consult women, not college princesses. There, I said it.
Douthat sensationalizes and misrepresents the APA report in a way that makes me question his real commitment to men. He writes "The trouble with men, the guidelines argue, is that they’re violent and reckless," an idea not present anywhere in the report, which in none of its heavily footnoted and academically starched 36 pages argues for such an amateurish characterization of men.
In fact, the report states the exact opposite: "though the the vast majority of males are *not* violent, boys and men commit nearly 90% of violent crimes in the United States (United States Department of Justice, 2011), p. 19). And, "although most violence is perpetrated by men, most men are *not* violent. Consequently, men are often stereotyped as aggressive and violent [ Hi there Mr. Douthat ! ]. These stereotypes can have negative consequences."
Uh-oh. Enter a complex idea -- most men are *not* violent (the exact opposite of what Douthat says the report propounds), but some are, and violent crime is committed mostly by men.
Douthat also calls the APA's document "guidelines for treating male pathology". The real title is "Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men."
I'm glad Douthat isn't a firefighter. He's the guy who shows up to the 5-alarm gender blaze asking where to dump his gasoline.
Anyone carefully reading the report start to finish will easily conclude it's just another academic tome
7
I have 2 ideas of men who seem to a woman's eyes at least to be very sexy, yet seem to be sensitive and open and committed to a better world: Justin Trudeau and the journalist Jacob Soboroff. That is, if you think what women think matters here. Some men don't. They just want to impress other men.
3
Heterosexual females don't want a brute, but they don't want a wimp either.
When the car breaks down or the predator looms or any external threat arises, the man is expected to, well, act like a man.
Marines, Green Berets and Navy Seals sometimes have difficulty in adapting to peace-time life. But when you need to invade a hostile island as a life or death matter, do you call on Oscar Wilde, or John Wayne?
4
I think in the age of man hating progressives and feminists, toxic masculinity will always exist and never go away because it’s simply a “legitimate” way to disliking men. Toxic Masculinity is just code word being sexist against men.
Think about it - if I said that women should stay at home, cook and take care of the kids then I’d be raked over coals. If I said that men should stop being competitive, aggressive, playing sports, being physical vs. emotional, stop hunting animals, then I’d be called an enlightened person.
6
Look at social media: many, many young women are, by default, demeaning ALL men, and especially "old white men" and even young men.
The MeToo movement has encouraged this, and encouraged "victimhood" and male bashing based on "feelings".....I say this as a woman and a life long feminist.
4
"Toxic" masculinity in the U.S.?
It's obvious today in the U.S. it's not nearly enough to be on the right side of the actual laws which exist to be a law abiding citizen, and therefore to have a worthwhile life. No, there are any number of cowards on all sides of political spectrum who devise any number of frameworks which if you can't fit in them will do all they can to plunge you to bottom of society and next to criminal status.
On the right, for example, you have the religious condemning gay people not to mention condemning people for views other than the religious, and you have racists and you have money snobs, and on the left you have groups defining terms such as racist or sexist or inventing concepts such as toxic masculinity with no real objectivity but rather along subjective, changing by the minute and situation lines with result that every citizen has to navigate a next to incomprehensible social sphere and there really is no comprehensible idea of being a worthwhile, law abiding citizen.
As for free speech in the U.S., at this point it's a sad joke. Sure free speech is enshrined, our right as citizens, but the incomprehensible maze of private sphere and all the bitterness, cowardice, and often illogical and poorly created and often incompatible social standards of both left, right and center have left a wasted cultural sphere where we might as well declare all thinking and life toxic it's so pathetically limited and shot through with branding and phoniness.
"mysticism of the Celts, Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant and John Wayne"
Somebody has kissed the Blarney Stone so hard he is in danger of being accused of assault.
1
I find myself shaking my head with mirthless humor that Ross Douthat - the defender and champion of the straitjacket of Victorian family values - doesn't seem to recognize that his own view of traditional marriage is a closed-door prison for men and women alike.
6
"there is no single “traditional” model that can encompass (etc etc etc...)"
- But yet, in Douthat's worldview, a single model for all women suffices: pregnant and subservient.
3
Just wondering what the current political bias looks like in field of psychology and the APA.
2
I’m not sure what Mr. Douthat is getting at in this article, it is beyond my intellectual capacity of understanding. Gary Cooper on a white horse? A new progressive man? How about just being a good person. Should not be too hard to do.
2
Why and who decided to call it toxic manhood........that is just a bad name. Toxic ?? I certainly have had my share of unwanted attention in several ways but would not call this toxic. I feel by calling it this you put off the very men that need to improve their behavior, need to learn respect.
The guidelines were simply discussing men within current American culture and the cultural traditions and expectations they current live with. How sometimes those models can lead to an inability to live life with function and a reasonable level of happiness. That they were sometimes solutions that caused, not solved problems.
Mr Douthat is an intellectual and empathetic failure when it comes to the "new progressive man" he derides. The ones who share more common human traits with women whom by extension must also in not going by Mr Douthat's wants must also be failures.
I am sorry for your snowflake incel tears. I am sorry for your wife, and if you ever have daughters or sons... They will need the help the APA will help provide.
3
Mr. Douthat, you're very well-read, its well-known. But something is happening and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?
3
To add to what Ross has written, the historic 'stereotype' of aggressive males is a caricature, one that was never taken seriously in any Western culture, to say nothing of the Victorians; but which is a fetish of political pamphleteers and social workers. Read Don Quixote or look at Shakespeare's Falstaff. Look how stupid the "macho" poses of Trump are. Does anyone think a military academy wants to turn out an army of Trumps? Like doh, an army is led by sacrifice, discipline, tact, patience, merit, and loyalty. Where does Donald come in?
Go back to Greco-roman times. While they were both warrior societies, both the Greeks and the Romans ridiculed boastful males and casual display of dominance in their art, and the Greeks demonstrated that it was a tragic flaw not an asset. As for the phrase "toxic masculinity" it's time to squelch it. The correct term is hyper-masculinity which is not much more than a cartoonish affectation.
3
Conservatives like Douthat will always look backwards to find their ideals. What the APA is focused on is evolution and what ideal qualities will serve men best now and in the future. So enjoy your daydreams about silent men on horseback, Ross, while the rest of us enjoy the emergence of men who revel in their newfound buffet of acceptable attributes. Like the tearful native American man we all watched yesterday, who was so much more compelling and attractive than the young boor who thought he could intimidate him. Yuck.
4
So all men are mouth breathing knuckle draggers that need therapy.... except when we need them to storm Omaha beach, invade Kuwait, or fight in nonsense wars in the Middle East and tell impressionable 18 year olds it's for glory and honor. What about the men working now without pay in the CG, TSA, or other gov't services? I've heard enough with how "evil" men are as they sacrifice for the good of societies around the world. I'm a psychologist. This article and the APA's stance is nonsense. Men are far more individualised and complicated than that.
4
The cited American Psychological Association's model of manhood marked by "emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance and competitiveness”, reads to me as so much Newspeak of leftist radical Democrats.
The image of young Gary Cooper as a cowboy on horseback, and the later images of "good" gunslingers, played by Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, and Lee Van Cleef, these are the most memorable images of a US male that stay in collective memory.
Among Western cultures America is uniquely bitter and twisted about masculinity. This is a direct result of our bitter and twisted history of slavery, native genocide and gunslinger justice that are neither meritorious, justifiable or exceptional except in the latter's use in describing the real truth of white American masculinity being exceptionally dishonest, exploitive and unjust.
Today it's the white supremucist face of a MAGA teen harassing and threatening a peaceful elderly native American veteran exercising his freedom of speech, movement and assembly rights in a public space.
These teens represent a group of European American frauds who give lip service to civil and human rights while it is exactly they who oppress and steal these rights and freedoms from American citizens and foriegners whom they want to control through their propaganda and actions. Those they can't control, they try to destroy through violence, a rigged system of governance and incarceration. They are the biggest threat to everyone's human rights and freedoms, in the USA and abroad.
Just say no to their behavior and stop electing them to office, and sue them when they violate civil and human rights.
The world should be about egalitarianism and freedom not walls, harassment and oppression.
5
Maybe our entire society is the artificial construct that puts impossible demands on men and women. Human behavior, aggression, and stoicism were forged long before there were cities that dwarfed the individual and work that demeaned him. Rats in a box would display the same spectrum of pathologies. All "civilized" behavior is, at bottom, an affectation, a thin veil that can be torn off at a moment's notice. Men who go off to war and commit all sorts of atrocities, come back home and mostly resume their lives as docile citizens. Who would ever suspect they are the same two people? Looking for something "genuine" in ourselves is a fools errand. Living according to various codes imposed internally and externally, we're all a bunch of phonies, and it is often those who are most adept at changing masks, who are most rewarded by the fabrication we dignify as "civilization".
1
Oh my god, yes. Just reading the first paragraph, I cannot tell you how alienating it has been sometimes to talk with today's well-intentioned 20-year olds.
They have a script for themselves, in which they are the first to care about pretty much everything. Sometimes I want to tell them: my father, who grew up in the deep South, came out of the closet before you were even born. You are going to tell *me* about LGBT rights? They might be "woke," but they are as ignorant as they come.
We desperately need this generation to find continuity of cause with their predecessors, rather than flailing about in paroxysms of call-out culture.
1
Been reading you off and on for years. Who are these straw men you claim to know so intimately? They show up over and over again--progressives, liberals, the left, great swaths of humanity supposedly comprehended and often dismissed by these labels. Here's the impression I usually carry away from reading you: this man has been wounded in the past and has taken to railing against his former/current oppressor who he disguises as a sociopolitical abstraction. Look at your first sentence in today's column: "society's progressive vanguard" is making a certain "assumption." Who are they? The APA? Only the APA? Whoever they happen to be in a given column, you present them as the Other whose mistaken values, thoughts, feelings, intentions and strategies are known to you. You can see through them to their rotten core. I wish you'd get over that "frustrating tic." For me, you are far more engaging and persuasive (and far less tortuous) when your columns offer fewer of Them and more of You.
2
So we've come so far down this road that masculinity is now officially considered "toxic" and "pathological".
If a man is too silent and stoic, he's toxic. If he's too aggressive and outspoken that's also toxic. But if a woman is stoic she's strong, and if she's aggressive and outspoken she is to be applauded. Okay.
Those behaviors that we associate with the feminine are always good. Those that we associate with the masculine are bad. Okay.
Got it. This country has officially become toxic and pathological.
3
On today’s menu at Café Douthat: Daube du jour, comprised of warmed-over pop psychology, amateur sociobiology and social anthropology with plenty of literary references to showcase the chef’s ‘erudition,’ acquired by studiously plowing through the reading list for his freshman humanities program - without resort to Cliffs Notes no less!
Talk about rubbish...
4
So Ross your notion of gender equality includes forcing a woman to carry something in her body that she does not want to carry?
Or let me put it a different way - forcing a woman to endure statistically a more dangerous medical condition when a much safer one is available IF SHE COULD CHOOSE IT!
Or to carry on - to force a woman under pain of losing her soul (if not under fear of breaking some GOP theocratic induced legal ban on safe contraception or pregnancy avoidance like Plan B) - to eschew one of life's greatest pleasures one that men freely and expectedly partake in?
Look I think you are swell - but you'd be a lot sweller if you just would give it up that your GOP is the biggest most blatant fomentor of misogynistic and racial discord in the USA.
And they are aided by the Russians - who troll and manipulate major online media to cause divisions in our unity and gaslight our principles and objectives.
Yet the GOP's silence/acquiescence/gaslighting re: this issue is astounding - and incriminating. All true Americans should be up in arms.
The GOP needs lots of us confused and frightened - angry - feeling victimized while feeling superior for no clinically right reason. It needs people to think they have power/privilege when they really don't and then to defend that falseness with their vote.
Listen to GOP/Trump grassroots. It ain't pretty and the GOP propaganda machine feeds the ugliness.
Want better men - create an intellectually honest secular ethical GOP.
3
Yet, you won't have me to believe that most male American children feel that they have to be superior to American, at school and anywhere else.
Douthat writes: "The human male is a dangerous figure — generally bigger, stronger and more violent than the female of the species, free from the vulnerability that pregnancy entails, and therefore often distinctively threatening, to women and other men alike."
As usual, given his pro-forced birth political agenda, Douthat just couldn't resist conflating "female of the species" (a.k.a. human women) with "pregnancy" and then further conflating pregnancy with "vulnerability."
This isn't an article about the recent A.P.A. guidelines. It's just another in his never-ending series of navel-gazing soliloquies in which he fantasizes about living in a world where women are sentenced to lives of reproductive servitude--and where we are so transformed by his superior understanding of our sole purpose on this earth that it doesn't occur to us to fight back.
One thing is certain, Douthat should definitely refrain from looking in a mirror if his goal is to find examples of non-toxic masculinity.
3
Thanks for the piece, yet too many words, too much thinking.
Men (including transgender men), I invite you to take the journey from your heads to your hearts by doing a men's weekend, FEELING what’s inside, and from there, working on growing your emotional fluency. "Toxic masculinity" often encompasses a wide swath of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. While it’s sometimes black and white, more frequently it presents as shades of gray. It is quite doable to unravel the threads of that fabric and transmute the toxicity into healing and nurturance. Using tools and a strong support system, I have empowered myself in many ways and eliminated many of my toxic behaviors. And the work continues…
Do YOU have any shades of gray within that spectrum of “toxicity”? When you decide to take stock and make positive changes for yourself and those you love, do some thread unraveling. Go do a New Warrior Training Adventure weekend (or ANY growth program that sings to you) and build your emotional literacy and fluency. One man at a time, we can change our lives for the better:
https://mankindproject.org/new-warrior-training-adventure/
1
This is a “not all men” argument where Douthat disassociates today’s reality by leaning into fiction created in the past.
4
How about a human archetype? Stoicism, courage, compassion, humor and empathy do not seem to bound to any particular combination of chromosomes.
2
If men should stop being men, what shall they be?
Mr. Douthat:
Read "The Mermaid and the Minotaur" by Dorothy Dinerstein.
Then, re-write this column.
I'm unclear on the concept of "toxic masculinity". Is there a toxic femininity? Is it the successor to the opprobrium formerly leveled at testosterone? Are the APA guidelines for its treatment like the guidelines for treating homosexuality?
1
Maybe men are products of a Darwinian lag in our skill set from the time when kill or be killed was actually the paradigm for who got to pass on their genes. That doesn’t make us pathological. Give us 10,000 years of women choosing the right guys and we’ll get over it.
Wow! What planet do you live on Ross. It is not hard for young men today to choose beter role models. They create them every day. I have never actually heard a sexist word out of my 22 year old son. He is actually shocked when I have to explain to him cultural sexism. It just isn't this complicated. We are all human beings with the same right to be here and be recognized-- race, sex, gender-- get over it Ross.
4
While gender based "Toxicity" is open to innumerable definitions it does seem to be the current go to label being hurled by some of those pationate about gender based grievance. It's clumsy, mean spirited and detracts from the fundamental work needed to create a cooperative world where everyone can contribute.
2
How does an article on toxic masculinity ignore fratboy rape culture, #MeToo, or the behavior of the boys-will-be-boys of Covington Catholic, only to single out for criticism psychologists who are wrongly assumed to all be progressives? There is nothing in Victorian literature that comes close to the behaviors that were actually prevalent then and that we are witnessing in painful, prurient detail in our culture today thanks to modern mass media. In criticizing the tools of cultural analysis, and offering an anachronistic milquetoast alternative, the author here is minimizing the cultural disease. This is all very much beside the point.
1
Interestingly, Douthat’s article makes the same points as does the APA, except Douthat, for some reason, chooses to be aggressive in pointing to the APA as his straw man. Douthat’s article actually makes many good points, and uses literature well in doing so, but by choosing to joust at simple and obviously good ideas (like showing boys love and kindness, and not overemphasizing aggression) essentially Douthat comes off to this psychologist as being a caricature of the little boy with his chest puffed out, ready to cry because his feelings are hurt.
1
As a gay man, I can say the toxic manhood issues, seem more to be toxic mental issues from straight men who seem to think their testosterone and testes are some type of commodity. They don't realize the pendulum has shifted and woman are the now the more important sex. Women create life--what can men do? They are about as needed in procreation and proliferation of the species as we are--so welcome to the gay world straight men ;)
1
There is nothing toxic about masculinity. There is toxicity from bad morals and bad ideas but those aren't the same
1
"The trouble with men, the guidelines argue, is that they’re violent and reckless, far more likely than women to end up in prison or dead before their time."
Nope, that isn't what it says. Go read for yourself.
2
"One of the frustrating tics of our society’s progressive vanguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past, that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty."
What a ridiculous assertion! No one on the Left believes this; it's just a meme that the Right tries to pin on us just to demonize us.
Black Lives Matter is fighting the SAME battle that MLK fought, which is the same battle that W.E.B. DuBoius fought, which is the same battle that the Civil War was fought over, etc. No one on the Left believes that this generation is the first to "wrestle with [the] dominance and cruelty" of anti-Black racism!
Similarly, the Left doesn't believe that women have only recently understood the "dominance and cruelty" of sexism! Remember Billie Jean King? Geraldine Ferraro? Rosie the Riveter? Annie Oakley? Susan B. Anthony? All the way back to Queen Esther in the Old Testament!
The concept of "wokeness" isn't that we on the Left had sudden epiphanies about the injustices of the world. Rather, "wokeness" applies to the people who didn't previously acknowledge that these issues existed, or that they were systemic, or that they were subtly pernicious, etc.
Oppressed people don't need to be woken; the oppression they inherited from history wasn't "invisible" to them.
Rather, people who are now "discovering" oppression that had been "invisible" to them in the past simply weren't noticing what was happening in plain sight!
2
His observations are not unreasonable, but what point is Mr. Douthat trying to make with this piece? I have no idea.
1
We are mired in concepts that condemn us to infinite confusion. There is utterly and absolutely no meaning in skin colour.
And there is no such thing as ‘masculinity’.
We’re supposed to believe that 50% of the population is infected with some kind of pathogen that is causing major societal problems?
I don’t buy it.
1
"One of the frustrating tics of our society’s progressive vanguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past, that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty."
Incorrect. This the first generation attempting to do something actionable and long lasting about dominance and cruelty. And kudos to progressives for leading the charge against the racism and sexism still endemic to our society.
We've seen enough sordid reports of toxic masculinity in the headlines to know the disease is widespread and not in decline. R. Kelly. Harvey Weinstein. Matt Lauer. And of course the vapid narcissist occupying the Oval Office.
Progressives are not cowing men into becoming cads or soft-boys. Those have always existed, too. The agenda is equality between the sexes while appreciating the positive traits we associate with masculinity or femininity, whether exhibited by men or women.
Conservatives need to "man up" and recognize that progressives are not attacking manhood. They are just asking men to behave like decent human beings. Especially towards women.
4
Stripped of the alleged toxicity, what about "masculinity" would make it masculine. The locution "toxic masculinity" is not meant to distinguish it from some other kind; it is meant to denigrate masculinity as a concept.
The photo at the top of the column is worth contemplating: Gary Cooper as a young, mascared man. OK--he was an "actor" (aren't we all, in one way or another, starring in the movie inside our skulls). But think of his greatest role--the alone-in-the-street sheriff in "High Noon," waiting for death, defending a town filled with cowards, willing to sacrifice despite being married to a beautiful woman and a pacifist who wants him to escape to be with her--who among us wouldn't take that deal?
Fiction--of course. True--you betcha. If men and women are willing to sacrifice this archtype on the altar of no-exceptions "equality," and rigidly-enforced uniformity, it won't be fiction. It won't be true either.
Who are these "dangerous", "threatening", "violent", "toxic" men the writer refers to? I don't know any outside of movies and television. The men I know are generally calm, thoughtful, nice, loving people, no more prone to outbreaks of anger than the women I know, possibly less so.
It is a fact that there are more violent offenders in prison that are men than women. However, to take a different example, it is a fact that most NBA players are African-American. But to state "African-Americans tend to be NBA players" or even excellent basketball players, would be absurd. And to assume an African American is an excellent basketball player is prejudice, you have "prejudged" him or her based on skin color.
The same applies to men and violence. Most violent offenders are male. But to say men tend to be violent is absurd. And please don't prejudge me as violent based on my Y chromosome.
1
As a man in his 50's with an 18-year old son and several 30-ish men in my extended family, it seems to me the world may be more complicated and changing constantly but some rules remain pretty straightforward:
Treat everyone, including women, with respect and dignity at all times. And that means everywhere--the workplace, socially and in your community.
When it comes to intimacy and sex, never try to push a woman beyond any spoken or implied limits. If the worse case scenario is that she is wondering why you haven't moved faster, that's not a terrible thing. When if in doubt, talk to her about it. She'll tell you.
Every woman, individually, has their own vision of what kind of man is attractive to them. And in some cases, it changes over time as her life experiences change. Therefore, be yourself and don't try to contort yourself to become anybody else's vision of a "man" but your own. You can't fake some alter-ego version of maleness to please a woman for very long--both of you will be unhappy eventually. Better to be yourself and attract someone who likes the man you actually are instead of somebody else's version of what a man should be.
3
It’s funny how the progressives who are open to all and champion those who Choose to define themselves however they see fit but yet are the most opinionated on how Men should conduct themselves.
Let people be who they want to be and stay out of trying to define Men
I promise, this will backfire for you all but if you want to poke a bear...have at it!
3
One of the tics of our society's conservative vanguard is the assumption that every evil for which it was entirely responsible was successfully dealt with by craftily administered doses of dominance and cruelty, dishonesty and guile, racial prejudice and hate.
1
A real man doesn't need to be violent, abrasive, rude, threatening, all knowing about everything, completely independent, self-made, or any of that other blithering nonsense.
My Dad, who was born in 1928, was a man who believed in cooperation. My grandfathers who were born in 1900 and 1901, and in Texas, didn't think there was any difference between them and people of coloring other than culture. None of the three were violent, argumentative or cruel although all three did believe that women's place was in the home or rather, working side by side with her man on the farm. They thought the most dangerous woman or man was the one without a family.
I don't know about my Grandpas but Daddy did not care if two men lived together or if two women lived together. He thought that if they loved each other they and God would work it out in the end, but it 3 was none of his, my Dad's, business. We knew women and girls who had abortions and to us it seemed better an early abortion than a child who lead a miserable life.
My mother didn't believe any of this. She was racist, sexist, etc., etc..
Of course all of this was before the Silent Majority and Religious Right came along determined to make America the Christian equivalent of the Wahhabism.
Religious orientation only works in small communities. It never does well when it attempts expansion. That is not because of the heart of any religion, it is because small minded people try to suppress people who they rule over.
1
Ross is the most imperfect messenger. Masculinity needs to be tempered by those who seek to know when they are wrong. Please try it Ross . . . and then get back to us, hmm?
1
"The human male is a dangerous figure — generally bigger, stronger and more violent than the female of the species, free from the vulnerability that pregnancy entails, and therefore often distinctively threatening, to women and other men alike."
The statement above, and the APA report is nothing more that Misandry at it's worst. Funny how we just about never hear that word, but do hear the word misogyny. Constantly.
The APA report and your quote above just perpetuate the American Pop Culture pastime (in various circles) of endless male-bashing.
MIndless, pointless, and quite wrong. Emasculating men endlessly solves no problems.
2
Statistically, the last male to get a four year college degree in America would fall somewhere around mid-21st century. Yes, that is how far and how fast male educational attainment has been declining over the last decades. If it were to continue at the same pace, males would be relegated to a more or less permanent position of inferiority in our society. Is that the goal?
Men had a biological and social advantage over women, backed by some religious beliefs, and they pushed it too far, creating a system, in some societies, of near enslavement, and certainly entrapment, of women. Are women inherently better? Would they have not carried out some version of the same thing if they had the opportunity? If women are in charge, will we automatically have a fair and just society? I doubt it.
I will not argue this point, but male sexuality is by inherent nature aggressive. Some men have mental illnesses, or lack of full social development, that causes them to harness that aggression for horrid, illegal actions. Therefore, we should indict all men with the acts of those who are sexual sociopaths? (Turning again to statistics: 1 on 5 persons is likely to be a sociopath, meaning someone who can harm others and feel no remorse.)
We can make a better society by nurturing educational efforts, but we should start as seeing these problems as intensely human ones, not just an affliction of males.
1
Perhaps Douthat thinks the "evil" of toxic men is a new woke thing yet it is not. If you are late to the party shame on you. Women, throughout history have had no problem whatsoever identifying the problem, merely the difficulty of men hearing us.
1
I never comment on articles, but Mr. Douthat needs to read this. His entire piece is based on a mis-interpretation of the APA article that was positing a connection between maladjusted masculine traits and violence. Firstly, there are no guidelines. It’s not requiring any new policy, or being incorporating into broad application vehicles like the DSM. The link goes to an academic article that is arguing that traditionally masculine qualities, such as the encouragement of emotional repression, can be maladapted in ones early years and later lead to increased use of violence as a means of problem solving. The article is a thought piece that argues that this socialization around a warped male code might be an explanation for male violence, and that there are preventative tactics one can take to keep at risk boys from growing into violent men. It’s not a guideline. He’s mis-interpreted the APA article, and in some instances mis-referenced it or drawn out components of it that were so far afield from the broader point. For example, the APA article never uses the words homophobia in characterizing mal-adjusted masculinity, nor does the article claim that this will lead men to rape. Mr. Douthat appears to have crafted a reality within the APA article to suit where he wanted to get to in his Oped. That’s just poor writing. Any annoying to the reader. If there are actual guidelines, please link them. But as far as I can tell, he is fabricating the basis of his premise.
2
This entire conversation about toxic masculinity is a reality distortion created by feminists to advance a false and damaging narrative about men in order to advance feminist goals. Some basic facts about Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which includes sociopathy and psychopathy, will set the conversation on solid factual grounds. The prevalence of ASPD, trends higher in women (22%) than in men (16%). Could this conversation by women be an attempt to change the subject?
1
I read this thought somewhere I don't remember: When you are talking about man and manliness, you are talking about sociology; when you talk about male and maleness, you are talking about biology. Maybe what I read was about women and female, "-logies" remaining the same. Whatever, maybe it's a healthy sign that I don't remember what gender I read about.
1
There's plenty of toxicity to go around. In women it just manifests slightly differently - malicious gossip, exclusionary behavior, backstabbing, gaslighting - but it springs from the same dynamic, the same lack of connection to and examination of their own emotions and motives.
Personally, I'd rather deal with males suffering from this syndrome than females. Men who embrace traditional manhood wear it on their sleeve - you know it's there and so at least you can understand what you're dealing with. But women? It's all behind your back and under the surface.
12
You do not get it at all. The only reason men behave the way they do, is because they have the permission from women. Do you really think all those suicide vest terrorist do not have the backing of their moms wives sisters who believe in martyrdom! Women are half of the human species, without their permission or submission, nothing happens.
4
As a Man, to learn Humility, you work. And, that's called "Work". I mean, who was your Maid last week ?? You better be able to provide AND cook your own food, and then do your own dishes. And then, pick up after yourself, and do your own laundry. And then, keep on going from there .
It's hard to judge Manhood, but you don't get anywhere by being rough or "macho" with anything, or anyone. You earn your keep. You're real. You don't just "pose". Respect, Trust, Love ... those all take Time, and that's the Test of a "real" Man.
I don't see any dirt on macho Gary Cooper's hard-workin' jeans, or any dust or manure on his boots . Hollywood ...
Get real.
"[T]his perpetual present-tenseness, pervades the latest flashpoint in the culture war over the sexes."
This is because we live in the present and not the past. The "progressive vanguard" does not want to make American great AGAIN, we believe it already is great and don't want to live in the 1950's.
2
Mr. Douthat, do you want an example of "non-toxic manhood"?
Try Barack Obama.
22
Non-toxic masculinity is all over the place. Turn off the TV, put your phone away and go to a church. Or a volunteer center. Or a Boy Scout meeting. You’ll see what I mean.
Richard
11
Thanks for clearing that up.
2
Why couldn't I have been a white man when it was groovy?
4
Did Ross select the title for this column: "in search of non-toxic manhood"? Because if he did, he's never going to find it. If you have to search for non-toxic-manhood, it's probably hopeless.
2
I ditched gentlemanly a long time ago in favor of the non gender based Common Courtesy. Teaching men to treat women differently because they are women is always a mistake. It leads men to expect women will return the favor by picking up their dirty socks.
8
Real men don't read books. That's for eggheads and nerds.
When I was growing up men had long blow dried hair and wore flowery shirts and tight pants. Some had earrings and wore necklaces and jewelry. They sometimes went shirtless outdoors and wore short shorts. Many danced to disco music and listened to music about peace, love and understanding. The fashions and styles of that era are now mocked as being effeminate in the comments sections on YouTube.
Today's pop culture is masculine and boys want to be perceived as tough. Misogynistic hip-hop and violent imagery gansgter rap is the driver of styles and fashions today. Teen pop stars like Justin Beiber covered in tattoos with saggy pants and buzz hair cuts are the norm and signal that they are not to taken as effeminate.
Change the culture and you will change the boys.
2
It's so cute that you draw mostly on two 18th century British writers to inform your view of what historical masculinity must be!
7
I assume the author inteded to reference the villain Alec d'Urberville in "Tess of the d'Urbervilles," though the hypocritical Angel made a poor hero indeed.
2
Seriously?????? I find the males of the GOP, groveling at Trump's feet , about as masculine as Barbie dolls. I am married to a man who knows that masculinity is not about bullying....In fact, he will tell you the bigger the bully, the weaker a man really is.....He makes fun of the Trump minions and Trump himself for their "macho" posturing to men as weak as they are.
As a woman, a man who brags about his conquests, is a man who takes a lot of cold showers....Time to quit pretending that these jerks are masculine..Any woman married to a real man knows what these men are....and most certainly, what they are not......
17
Using the word "masculinity" and the word "toxic" together is textbook bigotry. Men have no choice but to be masculine, and to attach our manhood to a feminist-sponsored guilt for being human is simple dehumanization. The idiotic notion that people can be reprogrammed for the sake of a subculture's agenda is the stuff of fascism and nightmare. "Toxicity" is a form of original sin, which we're supposed to spend our lives apologizing for, at the expense of our self-worth. My masculinity isn't toxic, any more than my Jewishness is greed, or my skin colour is stupidity, or your feminism is self-impressed arrogance. Perhaps toxic masculinity is "just a symptom of the way society puts so many unfair pressures on men to conform to a system which celebrates women", while consigning men to eternal penance. Let's make this clear: using the inherent traits of any group or individual as an insult is pure racism, sexism, or some other flavour of bigotry. Condemning the inherent traits of any group as evil, and demanding impossible changes from them in order to lift such condemnation, is called...are you fully awake?...eugenics. Demanding self-emasculation as the price of full membership in society is loathsome in the extreme. Condemning all men for the actions of a minority is no different from condemning all blacks or Jews or trans, and the threat that inevitably accompanies it is exactly what you expect from the alt-right.
I'm keeping mine. You give yours up if you want.
14
Vive la différence! I’m a very adventurous and thrill seeking type of woman, I like scaring and challenging myself. I’m very independent and not at all girly. I have always been a feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and respect. I’m part of this “educated liberal woman” pigeon hole. I also love manly men, with good manners, good aftershave, who offer to pay and are gallant. I like cowboys and firefighters and soldiers and men who can fix a car and build stuff. I like them to be able to hold their liquor and if they ever needed to come to someone’s defense, be able to kick some butt. Also huge points if they can dance with you and twirl you around and hold you against their chest. Why, WHY would anyone want to deny the world of these kinds of men? I couldn’t agree more with this article. Let’s leave their testosterone intact and focus on the solutions to what causes some of them to abuse their power with violence, which is not caused by “masculinity” by itself. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water meanwhile.
9
Barack H. Obama is the perfect example of non-toxic manhood. He has intelligence, integrity, ethics and empathy.
21
probably should talk to some women in the world and see if they agree with your pov here.
also, they're not saying "stoicism" or some of those other traits they've singled out are problems in themselves, but that they can all, taken together, create unsustainable and oppressive conditions within which man must exist, unless he is responsible and goes to therapy and works it out.
i think some people forget that becoming a better person is work, and we should all be working on becoming the best we can be. men, too.
6
Unfortunately, I think there’s been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding on the APA guidance. The guidance was intended to point out that over reliance on a few key traits associated with traditional masculinity could lead to poor health outcomes. This wasn’t a sweeping social indictment against traditional masculinity, as many have implied.
That being said, there is a social context here. I think it’s fair when Douthat points out, “in the actual history of the human race ‘traditional masculinity’ as a single coherent category simply does not exist.” Additionally, the leftist #metoo critique of traditional masculinity suffers from a common problem in political / social discourse: the critique is really good at explaining what’s wrong, but is lousy at providing a positive argument for what is right. “But the New Progressive Man isn’t much of a success either...” The fact that there is no liberal consensus about the type of masculinity men should embody strongly supports the idea that both the right and left should be a little more open-minded.
5
Dunno exactly where you may be going, Mr D, because can't get past your opening paragraph.
This codger in his 8th decade believes it self-evident, no way a "... frustrating tic ... [limited to] our society’s progressive vanguard ... " by any fair definition of such.
Rather, every component of every generation believes itself to be the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty.
Nor is the manifestly-incorrect assumption limited to those two ... verities. Which of life's ... substantive and only slightly complex phenomena - human or otherwise does any part of any generation react to with "It was ever thus"? Even if and when the previous generation calls it to its attention.
Please let me know asap. I want to read the rest of your column.
That commercial is so sickeningly condescending!
2
Do individual men (or women) act inappropriately? Of course. But this 'toxic manhood' imbroglio is another in the never-ending obcession of judging all by the actions of a few. Individuals are repsonsible for their own actions, words...etc.
5
Is Heathcliff's romantic appeal really toxic?
The dude was nuts!
First of all, his primary m.o. is revenge. And what revenge it is. Look at his relationship to his wife: physical and emotional abuse, kidnappy/rape-y/exploitive. Or his son Linton: He treats his son like garbage: more physical and emotional abuse, kidnappy + exploitive tactics. He treats his near and dear as opportunity to acquire capital, vehicles for exploitation and humiliation. Look at his revenge toward his adoptive brother: play into his gambling, drinking addictions to the point that he acquires all of his property. Refuse to allow Hindley's son Hareton to become literate.
For anyone who is confused about whether or not such behaviors exemplify toxic hyper macho behavior, seek help immediately. That includes you, RD.
4
Trump is a distillation of male psychopathology. The US is a public mental health basket case.
9
What does manhood mean in any era?
John Wayne, Elijah Muhammad and Bayard Rustin dodged the military draft during World War II.
Dick Cheney, Donald Trump and Muhammad Ali avoided the military draft during the Viet Nam era.
Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump and Tiffany Trump have not volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force nor performed any humble humane empathetic community service.
Alexander the Great was a manly gay military conqueror.
How much manhood do Catholic priests represent? How much manhood do gay men represent? How much manhood do baby daddy sexual assaulters and harassers and adulters men represent?
How much manhood did Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha represent? How much manhood do bachelors represent? How much manhood did Mahtama Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther Luther King Jr. represent?
6
The problem is that too much of the media discourse is driven by women who see themselves as rivals to men or otherwise simply don't like them. You're not going to get any positive concept of masculinity from the Roxane Gay's or Amanda Marcotte's of the world. Not today, not ever.
But most women like masculine men. They like men making the first move. They like men who earn more than they do. They like some level of male attainment, competence and even occasional leadership/aggression.
Start with the premise that there is nothing wrong with masculine men and feminine women. Call out negative behaviors among both genders. But calling an entire gender "toxic" or "problematic" or whatever the current buzzword may be is a sign of a person who most likely has some personal problems they need to fix.
6
And what about the impact of the Internet’s biggest business, pornography? Being visually motivated, many of our men are addicted to porn and its toxic imagery demeaning both men and women. Porn is toxic for all of us.
2
In my experience, non-toxic, supportive, warm, and true gentlemen are rewarded by their girlfriends/wives who cheat with toxic, violent, non-supportive dirtbags.
4
The gentle readers of the New York Times are right to reject broad labels of what it means to be a man in the 21st Century. But if RD made the same argument on Fox News you could likely hear pistols cocking all across America. In Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea or anywhere in Africa the hysterical laughter would only momentarily interrupt the violence. Instead of Victorian romanticism perhaps a review of "The Lust To Annihilate" might shed some light on the socio-biological urge for men to make war and dominate.
Everyone seems to be discussing toxic masculinity as a broad concept. I'd like to drill down to what it looks like in my rural Conservative community.
Grown men using these names: Obummer, Libtard, Demorats, Hildebeast, Governor Grandmole, Pocahontas, Madcow, Moochelle or Little Commie Girl. They bark like a trained seals at the mere mention of Nancy Pelosi. Men who can't control giving their opinions on women’s issues like “Keep your knees shut, I’m not paying for your abortion, you can buy birth control at Walgreens for five dollars, quit having babies you can’t afford and why do I have to pay for maternity insurance?” They can’t speak about accomplished women without mentioning Botox, lipstick, kitchens or what position her legs are in. They reduce women to the sum of their physical attributes. If they can’t defend their position to any female online their default response is “You’re fat, you’re ugly, it’s that time of the month or you’re on welfare.”
Call it toxic masculinity or arrested development. While the majority of us matured physically and emotionally, there is a large group of American men who are emotionally stuck in pubescence and are still displaying the phony machismo of twelve year old boys trying to emulate what they think it means to be a man. It's not surprising- yet thoroughly disgusting that they found their mirror image avatar in Donald Trump.
558
Non-toxic manhood: Barrack Obama
26
I found the novel "Deliverance," by James Dickey, to be a very informative book about the psychology of men. It does not deal directly with the relationship of men to women. Instead it centers on the relationship of men to nature: not only Nature in general, but male human nature. An extremely interesting book. (The famous 1971 film captures some of the insights of the novel - but not nearly as well as the novel itself. Among other things, Dickey discusses the impact of suburban life on the male mind.)
1
Boy did I choose my family well. I was brought up by strong, independent, intelligent women and the men who loved them. It was my mother who taught us Yankee stoicism, and there was, and remains, nothing toxic about it, largely because it allays the vicissitudes of life without precluding emotion. Perhaps it's more a Greek stoicism than one created by the American Western mythologies.
How common is this "toxic masculinity" anyway? Growing up, we certainly had bullies who displayed such traits, but they were far from the norm. Am I to believe that this is now normal in American males? Or is it just the latest thing to go out and find to present as normal because of he who shall not be named? But he doesn't display toxic masculinity; quite the opposite, he displays virulent infantile syndrome.
As for our primate brain: there is a good deal to learn about this, and war, by admitting we're not as evolved as we like to think we are, and working to alter our behavior.
5
Well, this columnist just made the case for why we need the arts and humanities in a civilized society. I agree with the commenter who said that we have gone too far when school districts and colleges insist that education is nothing but STEM-based job training. By stripping the arts and humanities from our core studies, we strip our culture of its ability to analyze all aspects of complex human psychology and history.
17
A huge mistake in understanding gender has been to attribute masculinity solely to men and the feminine to woman, whereas both masculine and feminine aspects of human nature work to define what it means to be human. No one can be fully human until both aspects are discovered and assimilated into our understanding of self and others. Unless and until both are acknowledged within each of us, we will look outward to find what we think is lacking in us, and this will lead to exploiting others. These efforts at understanding is beyond what politics can accomplish, and yet we are trying to use politics to solve it, using politics alone when in itself, politics is insufficient.
5
Intellect vs. Biology.
We are biological creatures with the prime directive to procreate. None of us would be here if our potential parents felt differently.
We are awash with testosterone and estrogen and act on their influence from sometime after conception until our various glands and organs stop producing these chemicals.
Add in generational teachings from our parents and others, and we are individually at least 20 years behind the current theories of behavior.
The forces that cause men to be aggressive ane women to be protective are exhibited in evey species that rears its young.
With our intellects we have created communities that try to even the differences between men and women. Someday, we'll figure it out. For now, we can continue respect and recognize each other whatever our differences may be.
4
Summary of this opinion piece and many other contemporary writings on this topic: life will be better as soon as all men learn to act and think exactly like liberal educated women. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it’s a tough angle to sell.
3
This is the best editorial Mr. douthat has written. Thank you sir for another stimulating read.
I love interacting with men who express their femininity and explore different identity forms, and I also love men like my uncles out here in the West, who can shed a tear at a funeral once every decade, but never anywhere else. These men, and not to imply feminine men can't be stoic (intersectionality), are rock solid foundations for their loved ones in time of need, as well as formidable protectors of their lives and liberties. I know my aunts (all of them here in the West), would agree.
I also know that our society, many would argue, has benefitted from military men who project the same strengths as my Uncles - who tote rifles on multi-day hunts to deliver meat created by God's hand - which is a much better life and death than chickens or beef raised in the Treblinka like slaughter houses created by capitalists (sorry for the digression).
Moreover, these traditional forms of male identity, as Ross doesn't mention, are traits naturally selected for and passed on by both nature and nurture. They are, and always will be, traits that enable survival. Again, this does not mean that men cannot explore and enjoy the feminine side of the spectrum and not retain these survival traits, but I think it's fair to say they are carried forward in time more by culture (nurture), than genetics, which exposes one negative aspect of the so called "progressive" man Ross describes.
3
@PJ The best? Really? I stopped reading when the author used works of fiction to make his points. This is similar to religious zealots who use the Bible as an authority.
2
In reading the first dozen or so comments, I've been surprised that no one has mentioned an important factor in analyzing toxic male behavior towards women--which is is our close relationship to primates. Humans share with primates many characteristics, including the fact that generally, men are larger and more muscular than women, and many young men have high levels of testosterone--which can contribute to violence towards women.
An article in Scientific American, written by Eric Johnson in 2011 cites one example from the recent edited volume Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans by Martin Muller and Richard Wrangham. As they wrote in their introduction: “Males in a number of primate species appear to use force, or the threat of force, to coerce unwilling females to mate with them....Although the utility of this distinction has been disputed, there is no doubt that sexual coercion is a potentially important mechanism of mating bias within the broad framework of sexual conflict theory”
So we can theorize to our heart’s content about the why’s and how’s of assumed male toxicity, but unless we accept that we need to educate both young men and young women about appropriate behavior between the sexes, we will continue to suffer from unacceptable rates of abuse and rape.
9
@Elizabeth Bennett
“Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans”.
Humans ARE primates.
I can assure you based on my own experiences, observations, and reading that large numbers of both women and men in 20th Century America enforced notions of traditional masculinity when encouraging or discouraging various behaviors. They did it for good or for ill; unthinkingly or for a reason; simply to enforce cultural norms or for their own benefit; and sometimes with an explanation but much more often through shaming and manipulation.
Please note that there’s a big difference between saying, on the one hand, that traditional or (to use an even more loaded term) toxic masculinity leads men to forego medical care until it’s too late and saying, on the other hand, that socializing men to perform their functions even when sick or injured works out in ways that are to the detriment, sometimes unnecessarily, of those men.
And wonder whether it has become a defining characteristic of progressive thought and feeling to fight hard against applying loaded sexist terms to women while fighting hard to apply loaded sexist terms to men.
5
This is why so many of us are working toward a world where gender - masculine or feminine - isn't a defining characteristic. The question shouldn't be whether masculinity in itself is "toxic", it should be why masculinity - or femininity - is even important. We are each complicated individuals with a wide range of personality traits and characteristics. We all deserve to be treated for who we are, not boxed into gender categories. I look forward to the day when gender is as relevant to a person's personality as the color of their eyes or the shape of their earlobes.
23
@Michelle
Me too.
But, there's always a but; the chemical interaction of testosterone and estrogen on the human body give us urges, drives, wishes and proclivities that no kind of enlightened upbringing or teaching can easily thwart.
The catholics tried to deny sexuality and all they got for it was acting out and repressed feelings of guilt.
We are sexual creatures, born to procreate. We developed over the millenia according to our biological design.
Hopefully we mature out of our sex for sale culture into something more healthy.
@Michelle
Gender is not a concept that can be ignored. Any move to suppress recognition of gender is inhumane.
@Michelle Unfortunately - maybe fortunately for many - that day will never come.
I am a man, and all my life have been subjected to the notion that...somehow....if I could just be less male I would be better. Now, in my 70's I wish I had just been accepted; not as an inferior being, but as someone "different" than a girl, a woman. Not better or worse, just different; with different needs, abilities, desires, abilities. For instance it is abundantly clear that little boys growing up need a different level of physical activity than girls; they learn differently than girls; they mature differently; and yet our educational system attempts to jamb them all into the same feminist based space, with hardly a male arold model in the education system....and then wonders why it doesn't work; and now the wonder is why men in our modern world are having a hard time being successful. Let them alone, let them grow up as boys and men with encouragement instead of trying to change them for the "better."
17
It is not “clear” that boys need anything different from girls. All people need different levels of activity, have different learning methods, and have different fears and confidences, and they thrive under different circumstances with different skills. None of those differences, beyond the psychology of a psychopath preclude kindness, blending intellect and emotion, or the avoidance of cruelty and abusive behavior. None of those are either male or female.
19
@Bill Clayton Men in the older days also had women school teachers growing up. They also sat in chairs and learned their lessons. If anything it was girls historically who didn't get as much chance to learn. The systems worked fine for boys in those older days. They thrived. They were the winners. So what has happened? They have to share the pie more now. Boys are less inclined to share. If they can't have it all maybe they don't want to do it...period. Maybe there is nothing worse than having to compare yourself to girls if you're a certain kind of boy.
6
@Bill Clayton Boys don't need a different level of physical activity or learn differently than girls.
3
With a straight face Douthat declares that modern progressivism assumes “that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past.” In other words, he accuses progressives of routinely rewriting history.
This of course - to use Douthat’s words - is “rubbish.”
Douthat and other conservative commentators, like David Brooks, routinely gloss over the past with an idealistic, agenda-dovetailing history in which society benevolently moved along held together by the comforting bonds of religion, respect for institutions, warm sentiments, tradition and patriotism. According to the conservative version of history, racism, class struggle, labor riots, and Native American genocide never happened.
The “forgetting of human experience“ is a conservative staple, a primary strategy in its never-ending battle against change.
It was the patriarchs of American conservatism, the Puritans, who introduced a revisionist-history-on-steroids called “typology.” Under this scheme they rationalized their experiences by declaring them to be further manifestations of Old Testament “types.” So, for example, Puritans thought they were the reincarnation of the Chosen People and America was the Promised Land.
So Douthat turns the tables here in an attempt to demonstrate that progressives have overcompensated for sexism by producing “soft boys.” Of course he offers no evidence for this other than anecdotes.
And, in the absence of any real solution, he trivializes a serious problem.
27
@Michael
The progressives believed in the science of eugenics, derived from the "science" that proved the IQs of the superior northern Europeans were regressing to lower levels because of interbreeding with the lesser races. They used this logic to decide that the lesser races should be discouraged from reproducing and that a benevolent government should care for the unfortunates, provide for education and help them to meet their limited potential.
Progressive philosophy hasn't changed much in the ensuing decades.
They have expanded it to demonize men who are strong, silent, willing to protect women and children.
1
Two nits with this piece.
The "progressive vanguard" doesn't claim to have discovered the "evil" of toxic masculinity. It was mostly only "invisible" or inconsequential to men. The difference now is that more men are hearing about it. Actually hearing? That's another matter. (I could make a similar argument about racism or homophobia, say, but I won't.)
Secondly, the APA isn't saying that men are proscribed from being stoic, self-reliant or competitive, merely that they oughtn't be forced to be so. Basically, men, and everyone else, should be able to be who they are. This dude isn't threatened by that.
23
As a woman who has escaped, very damaged, from a relationship with a man who presents himself as a fine, upstanding Liberal man, with Democratic ideals, and Feminist underpinnings, and was nevertheless, highly exploitive, in our private life, exceptionally narcissistic and abusive in absolutely every manner imaginable--but where everyone who knows us simply "doesn't believe" it because he puts on such a GREAT show... I'm all for doing away with BOTH the BAD OLD way AND the BAD NEW way.
He lived a double life. He lied to everyone including me. He maintained double standards which shock the conscience. He was a monster to me and kind to others. He was cruel to animals. He tells other people I'm a liar while lying constantly to everyone (and I don't lie). He alienated our children while crying the victim, "She did it to me! POOR ME!" after a lifetime of ignoring our children in favor of his own pleasure. He is a narcissist, anti-social, and a psychopath. I am exhausted, ill, and drained of all that is good.
The problem isn't as much bad SOCIETY as bad MEN.
13
@Dejah First, your story is one story, and this does not prove anything. I would ned to hear his sidecas well. Secondly, society as a whole does enable toxc masculinity, since both genders encourage this behavior when boys are young and women are the primary teachers. Third, I think you have the record for the longest run-on sentence ever with your first paragraph, which was eight lines!
2
@Dejah: You're projecting your bad experience onto the entirety of American society. I'm sure the APA has a name for that...
Men don't have an exclusive on lying, manipulation, narcissism, or other behaviors you describe.
1
Males have been alienated from their species being. Young males sit in classrooms and in front of screens. Uunstructured adventure or rough play is discouraged. They don't even have wrestling in gym class anymore. Soccer instead of football, etc.
Most workplaces are devoid of physicality. Some men go the gym and ride bikes or lift weights. Some overcompensate by doing or watching extreme, violent sports. None of this arises organically from everyday life.
Many pregnancies are effected via sperm sales and other lab-driven reprotech like IVF.
Modern manhood does no fit within with the post-industrial world.
Nor does modern womanhood, for related reasons...
5
@brock Industrialized civilization does indeed rob humans of physicality and many other natural interactions. Computerized civilization even more so. BUT, you clearly have no reality based view, of futbol, aka soccer, as it is played on the world stage.
I retired as an academic psychologist. I would doubt that any of the APA members who wrote this report on male masculinity ever worked on a road crew, replaced roofs, were police officers, or were Army Rangers.
22
@Dan What does that have to do with it? Most psychologists have never been doctors, lawyers, or accountants either.
2
@Dan
What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a murderer to rate a murder mystery.
You are a psychologist, I am not. However, I suspect I have more common sense knowledge of how people work than you do. Another saying goes, those who can do, those who can't teach. There are many psychologists who can and can while replacing roofs or in the Army Reserve.
The APA statement is a guideline, not a cure-all. It seems you need some guidance yourself since you seem to see their statement as questioning your own masculinity.
1
As I read this, I find myself wondering: "However does Ross find the time to write, when he must spend so much of his time each day constructing so many statues made of straw?"
19
One of the reasons that #metoo and the critique of male aggression have so much social, civic and cyberspace traction is drawn from an underlying assumption: men are inherently evil (most of them) and, taken in their all and all, are not really needed any more. These assumptions can be seen as tied to economic realities as well as the arrival in the 1960s of The Pill and, since then, of readily available abortion. Men are superfluous, so why do we have to put up with their dark side? Or, taken another way, they are evil so why not make them superfluous?
To some degree, these views depend on a feminized view of sexuality. The male perspective on sex, an unwritten coda would state, simply shouldn't count, unless a female wishes to call on that suppressed passion. Otherwise, buzz off.
Don't mistake what I am saying. There are a thousand reasons to look with disgust on the many ways male sexuality and aggression are demonstrated and millions of victims, no doubt, here and around the world. What should untangled, however, is the coupling (excuse the word) of the worst of maleness from a general indictment.
We will never successfully resolve all the conflicts and wrongs done because, at puberty, what can be seen as an alien force comes to occupy the human body and because we haven't, socially, decided what should be condoned. We need to tackle these problems head on and that involves education, balanced expectations and a lot of work by fathers and sons to build a better man.
5
What, exactly, is a male view of sex? How is it statistically arrived at? Does one use mean, median, range?
What is a “feminist” view of sex? That women should agree, and also enjoy?
If the “male” view of sex does not include these, are you saying that the male view is coercion and disregard?
An impulse to take what we want without regard for others can exist in all human toddlers, but so does the capacity to share, and not steal. We decide what we bring to the front. Gender is irrelevant in this, except where we encourage and excuse the worst in males, as if they aren’t strong enough to hold their own horses.
1
@Doug Terry How about men and women each going their own ways and never interacting with one another? The Amazons had it right. Women don't need men for anything.
@Doug Terry
For every "toxic male" who exploits his power and position, along with his physical strength over women, there are two "toxic females" who exploit their "femininity" to gain advantage.
When feminism was perverted during the sexual revolution, money and economic power were made the sole determinant of value. The newly available oral contraceptives meant that women could have sex without losing the economic disadvantage of childbearing, so it was core that a right to abortion be added. Women who were stay at home moms, and not being paid a salary, were derided by the Hillarys of the world who said things like, "I could have stayed home and baked cookies," and derided Laura Bush because she never worked outside of the home, ignoring her time as a librarian.
Hillary got promoted to law partner in exchange for influence when her husband became governor, in addition to the $100,000 gift "trading futures. Her husband bought her a Senate seat in a state in which she had never resided and two unsuccessful runs at the presidency. She was appointed Secretary of State in exchange for silencing her buddy, Blumenthal, from advancing the birther conspiracy, along with her anointment to the Democrat presidential nominee.
No one better illustrates the toxic female who uses her influence over her toxic male husband to advance her personal power. Feminism at its worst, even worse than the sex worker, unsatisfied with her $130,000 paycheck, abrogated her NDA.
1
'Toxic' has now become too irritating to use anymore. Which is what happens to words when the PC / social "justice" types take hold of them. 'Problematic' is like fingernails on a chalkboard now. That's what happened to 'offensive' back in the day, when "that's offensive" was their battle cry.
Masculinity can go wrong. Everyone knows that. It's barely worth mentioning. Old egalitarian feminism wanted us to stop exaggerating our differences, stop exaggerating the weaknesses and flaws of women, and work together for equality. Contemporary feminism has become hopelessly entangled with irrationalist French literary theory masquerading as philosophy. Like much of the rest of the contemporary left, it's rejected respect for reason and truth, replacing them with gibberish and vindictiveness.
I stuck with the left for a long time; but they've become mirror-images of bad old things they once opposed. Now intellectually indefensible "theory" has merged with overtly anti-male sexism and anti-white racism. Its having come to that, I'm now on another side by necessity as well as choice.
There's a better alternative to this nonsense--an obvious one. We can be honest about the average strengths and weaknesses of men--and of women--without falling into incoherent pseudo-intellectualism, without the obfuscating jargon, and without making derision for either sex the barely-concealed point of the whole thing.
Fortunately, people seem to be wising up and abandoning this bizarre new left.
11
@0.00
Men can go wrong, as can women. Being strong and silent, or romantic and sweet, or the center of attention or a shy guy are all elements of the male persona. Many men have all of the above and more. There is nothing toxic about masculinity. There are men who are violent and criminal, and it is more likely for men to be violent than women, just as it is more likely for a man to be a genius or a moron than a woman is.
Men and women are different. They tend to have qualities that are distributed differently. However, if you take a man and woman from the middle 90% of the population distribution, they are likely to be equally qualified for a particular job, so discrimination is inappropriate.
2
Well-put and far more logical than the panicky left-wing or right-wing crowds.
1
@Mike Livingston
To what panicky right ring rhetoric are you referring?
What if - if - "toxic masculinity" is simply a rhetorical label for the normative male human character? Two standard deviations to the left and you're a "house-husband", as I was in my early parenting years. Two standard deviations to the right, you're R. Kelly. (1 SD and you're Louis C.K.)
Unfortunately, we are more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to bonobos. If we had a closer genetic relationship to the latter species, we might be arguing about docile masculinity.
3
@Tony Dietrich
Tony, as it turns out, we share the same total amount of DNA with both groups, about 98.7%, but a small subset of that (1.6%) is different for each group.
I had thought the bonobos were genetically closer, but your comment made me look up the most recent research. They are working on what that 1.6% does.
Perhaps we are capable of acting either way, as I suggested in an earlier comment?
So who is the correct, best male role model? Moses, Jesus, or Buddha? Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle? St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Pope John Paul XXIII? Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Billy Graham? George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or FDR?
My personal favorite is Benedict de Spinoza (1632-77), sometimes called the "god-intoxicated atheist." Rejecting all religions and thus risking his life in seventeenth-century Europe, he spent his life seeking truth and communicating it to his friends and in his books, which were banned and considered anathema for centuries.
His "Ethics," written in geometrical form, is notoriously difficult, almost impenetrable except to dedicated philosophers. Even Bertrand, who called Spinoza "the most lovable of the philosophers," never deigned to peruse or criticize it.
Spinoza said that noble things are as difficult as they are rare, so humans en masse will never beat a path to his philosophy, which is way too demanding for most. Nonetheless, to provide a taste, let me quote him briefly.
“All things follow from the necessity of divine nature, and come to pass according to the eternal laws of nature.*
"Therefore, find nothing worthy of hatred, derision, or contempt, nor pity anything, but endeavor to understand, do well, and rejoice.”
*(God is Nature or Substance or, better, Existence Itself.)
[For anyone interested in Spinozism, I recommend Dagobert Runes' "The Road to Inner Freedom: The Ethics of Benedict Spinoza." Amazon carries it.]
4
@Jim Muncy
(Make that Bertrand Russell. Oops.)
Is Douthat aware that Wickham and Vronsky are fictional characters, i.e. they are not real?? Cooper, Wayne and Stewart are actors, for God's sake. They played characters who are not real. Why not talk about real men, instead of fictional men or actors who played roles? Oh yeah, I forgot. Russ lives in a fictional world of his own creation with no basis in the real world.
18
The roots of understanding human behavior can be found in that irritating capitalist distraction, literature, just as it has been found for millennia in myth.
1
@Horace
Fictional, yes. But wide spread on screens for young
minds to witness, as is Jesus depicted by preachers. Iconic figures are in our culture because they mime apparent human traits, say, the right to take justice into one's own hands. And ride off alone. Women often die by association, or get deserted in the name of some violent quest, i.e. Bronson in his four incredibly violent vigilante movies. Boys acquire traits from male adults who admire such "heroes." Men, sulking on the couch, riding off alone, away from domesticity. True
Grit.
For a interesting pop culture model of nontoxic stoic masculinity, check out Emily Blunt as Sergeant Rita Vrataski in the ScFi flick Edge of Tomorrow. She never complains and just gets on with it. We could use a little more of that these days.
1
Here we go again, straight-jacketting masculinity! That is actually creating a problem where none exists. Once we realize we are all different and our masculinity is also different with each aspect of it lying on a spectrum for each of us, and exactly the same for women and femininity, we will be in a much better place. Once we realize some women prefer gentle men or soft men and some men prefer aggressive women, where is this need to define masculinity in 280 characters, fitting the entire world?
At the end of the day all of us are looking to satisfy our needs along Maslow's hierarchy, but even when we are near actualization it is not as if we don't need to meet basic needs any more. You got to eat, got to have sex, play! You can either go back to a simpler time of predefined roles and behaviors with a dominant sex or you can teach everyone to understand their needs, not shaming them or their preferences so we all can be different, the way we want to be and tada! Happy!
4
Authentically, unapologetically. masculine men made our country the greatest on earth. We should be proud of the. genuine masculinity. exhibited by Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, MLK, RFK, LBJ, Carter and Obama. They were great MEN. And masculine role
models for boys and men alike.
6
@Nirrin
Wow! You are the point that proves the argument.
Reading history written mostly by men, you would get mostly their perspective, no? More recently, it has been unearthed, interestingly also mostly by men, that there were woman behind the success of all the men you mention. I am a man and proud of my support of and admiration for successful women. Did you know that it was a woman who invented the computer? There are a lot more examples of that including that in ancient, and not so ancient, times some of the most successful, and often brutal Lords of the Realm were women. I think you need to broaden (pardon the pun) the content of your library.
1
Sure some men are bad, but not all. Reading these articles lately you’d think that there is an all out Masculinity crisis. As always the liberal response is the high road that will save the country with instructions on how everyone should live. I prefer a world of balance, what’s wrong with classic ideas of Masculinity? As long as a man does not hurt a women, or others unnecessarily I see nothing wrong with them. I’m for one tired of the far left’s moves to install these new social constructs. Who are they anyway? Mostly educated, upper middle class whites. I see this as “ Liberal White Supremacy”
4
Douthat's usual black and white alternatives with no spectrum in between. There is nothing here about all the research on gender blending, androgyny, the combination of "male" and "female" traits in every individual human being. I know he's just a journalist not a philosopher or psychologist, but could we please have a little more complexity and shading?
8
"One of the frustrating tics of our society’s progressive vanguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past, that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty."
Liberals don't assume this at all. We recognize that racism, poverty, violence, sexism, and inequality were not invisible in the past. Liberals have recognized it as evil for a very long time. It's true that conservatives haven't recognized this evil in the past, and many still don't. Many conservative white folks think now that they are the objects of racism. A large part of the country thinks that a racist, sexist, lying, hateful President, without empathy, is good for the country.
11
Ever notice how Mr. Douthat is filled with all sorts of nuances when attempting to critique liberalism/progressivism, but not so much when describing liberal/progressivie ways. As the Church Lady from SNL would say, "how convenient!"
9
I decided to click on the link Douthat provided about how liberal women were decrying “soft” men and was led to an article written by Rebecca Traister for Salon in 2005! As if nothing has changed since then or that Ms. Traister hasn’t changed. Since her latest book is about why women are angry, perhaps her views have evolved; however the fact that Me. Douthat had to go back 15 years to find an article to support his view of complaining liberal women says something in itself.
12
Men are irreversibly passé and irrelevant. If they are wearing MAGA hats and their gut hangs out from their tee shirt, nothing will ever matter. Romance in a Ford Truck rarely rings any bells or weakens any knees. Stoicism hardly gives rise to healthy romps or happily ever after moments. Men are without a model of behavior or Hollywood stereotype after the image demise of Mel Gibson and Woody Allen. Women now have hero worship of female role models both asexually and romantically. Men of the world might as well march out to sea without a plan or rubber dingy.
1
It is ironic that as Mr. Douthat admonishes the American Psychological Association for acting as though all men are alike, he once again indulges in the same sort of framing himself. He describes the Association's view as being what "progressives" think, and he frames the overreaction of some in the White House as what "conservatives" think; apparently failing to recognize that "progressives" and "conservatives," just like men, are not all alike. And further failing to recognize that it is not "progressive" to conclude that there is a single way to characterize men (please define "progressive" as you've used the word over the past five years, Mr. Douthat), nor is the stupid overreaction of the White House people "conservative" (please also define "conservative" as you so casually have used it).
Mr. Douthat, your persistent references to "progressives" and "conservatives" as though they are monolithic, and as though those words have some sort of true meaning, is a lazy tic that undermines the value of what you say. This article would be worthwhile if it only challenged the APA criteria, WITHOUT also attempting to link the criteria to some mythical (but oft-referenced) group of people.
Mr. Douthat, your lazy (and, I suggest, empty) stereotyping contributes to your readers (and the society you say you want to improve) falling into the same trap. You purport to be a critical thinker. How can you be content to so persistently use that false framing in lieu of serious analysis?
8
The link you provide in this article doesn’t go to the APA guidelines you sight, but rather to an APA article titled “Harmful masculinity and violence.” I have provided a link to the APA guidelines below. The guidelines state “Psychologists can discuss with boys and men the messages they have received about withholding affection from other males to help them understand how components of traditional masculinity such as emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance, and competitiveness might deter them from forming close relationships with male peers.” It doesn’t say that men are prisoners to "traditional masculinity." It's not even implied.
Further, it says “Many boys and men have been socialized to use aggression and violence as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict.” It doesn’t say that this tempts men towards rape, drug abuse, and suicide. In fact, rape and drug abuse aren’t even mentioned in the text.
This article is just a straight-up attack on masculinity. Manhood is not toxic. It's articles like this that are.
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
5
If you want to turn to the writers of yesterday to plumb the question of masculinity, may I suggest Kipling instead? His poem "If" was and remains the gold standard. There's a wide gulf between simply being male and being a man. If (pardon the pun) you can follow Kipling's advice, you'll achieve the latter, and you and the world around you will be better for it.
No doubt someone will want to demonize Kipling by ascribing various isms to him. Let me forestall you - I don't care. None of that abrogates the truth of the words he wrote.
6
There are too many people on the victim /outrage bus! Women create life men make sure we don’t starve or freeze in the dark. Articles like this are beneath good writers trying to jump on the Gillette bandwagon.
2
Thank you for this column. Basically, there has never been one type of man or woman. Sometimes social scientists and others forget that men (and women and churches and nations, etc. etc.( didn't come into existence just now, but are the products of varied and complicated histories. They will change some more, regardless of the APA.
1
What I think is lacking in our society is an appreciation for the importance of self-control and with it the qualities of modesty, honesty strength and respect.
Maybe it should be required for adolescent
males to watch some of those old westerns where the hero is the guy who comes to the aid of widows and orphans and never, never takes advantage of their vulnerability.
2
@Brooklyncowgirl
"never, never takes advantage of their vulnerability" so long as they maintain their proper place in the kitchen, leave all real decisions to men and take good care of the young un's.
1
Boys are encouraged to collect sexual experiences often at the expense of those being collected by older men and peers. Women are punished for their sexual impulses and curiosity. Women bear the brunt of out of wedlock childhood and men are excused through an entrapment defense. Women have for all of time been seen as property and in many cultures can't keep their children. Women are perceived as breeders and servants. Many husband do not permit their wives to work causing dependance. What is the role of men...exactly?
8
The reality of course is that "the market" will decide, and none of this handwringing from the APA will change fundamental realities. The competition drive is what causes men to work harder and longer and hence to get promotions and pay increases which lead to fancier cars, bigger houses, and better vacations. Similarly women still want to date confident, assertive men who will ask them out, pick up the check, and be the one to go for the first kiss.
Even in a liberal city like NYC, women still hold gendered ideas about romantic interactions. They want professionally successful, physically imposing men, who will make the first move. And frankly sex is a more powerful motivator than some APA definition. Women simply aren't choosing androgynous men who work at coffee shops.
That said many indefensible things are done in the name of masculinity. However, homophobia isn't masculine. It's a lack of confidence in one's own sexuality. Sexual harassment and assault aren't an expression of sexual vigor. They're the weakness and insecurity of men who can't accept a world in which women have sexual agency. Being out of touch with your feelings isn't strong or stoic. It's an expression of fear that you won't like what you find if you get in touch with your emotions.
The problem isn't masculinity. The problem is bravado and machismo that cover a host of weaknesses, fears, and insecurities that men need help resolving. That's what the APA should be focused on helping men work through.
4
As a psychotherapist for the last twenty years I have primarily anecdotal evidence, but lots of it. Mr. Douthat suggests that the dominant models of masculinity were forged in countries and times "more sexist and patriarchal than our own." Yet it is difficult to question that these models, in grotesque and metastasized forms, are implicated in the form of anti-social violence that is uniquely our own. Mr. Douthat says we shouldn't blame the models, shouldn't throw out the bros with the bathwater. He would have to convince me that there is some healthy and acceptable way to use that kind of energy that is equally easy to teach and transmit, that every man can be a Gary Cooper if he just . . .
I think the tension and the danger comes from our telling people that they have to be strong and stoic and traditionally masculine to succeed, followed by the discovery that those characteristics don't in fact bring any success in most cases. Look at incels, or at the ugly explosion of masculine self-caricature that is daily displayed by supporters of our current President.
6
I find this discussion and the entire hysteria over masculinity baffling. Women have more opportunity and have excelled in the last decades in amazing ways. They are a higher percentage of college graduates and all fields are open to them. My daughter has an MD. Not that women were not able to doctors but almost all her friends are doctors, lawyers, bankers, scientists. The world is open to women and they are doing well. Male sexual assertiveness is not bad, it is natural, when it moves into aggression and violence that is a perversion of a positive trait. It would seem the liberal elite have had an epiphany with men they held in high esteem prior, like Weinstein and Clinton, who’s behavior was aggressive, abusive and involved rape. Trump may be boorish, but his liaisons appear to for the most part be consensual, not rape. There is a difference. Most guys are pretty simple, they want to meet a women, build a family, provide for them and live a decent life where their children have opportunity. That is the core masculine trait, not aggression, rape and bullying. Sure there is a small percentage of men who are out of control, but by and large they are known and rejected. We should stop demonizing all men and masculinity based on the behavior of a few. Should we judge all women who manipulate and abuse men, use men for financial gain, play the victim card and are terminally vain? There is a toxic femininity as well, not all women are nurturing and empathetic.
168
Allegations of rape against Clinton are unfounded. Trump may not have raped anyone but grabbing
a woman in her genital area or breasts or rear end is sexual assault. Spying on women in a dressing room may be less than assault but is beyond crass.
84
@Mark V I agree, we should not demonize anyone. Stereotypes are unhelpful too. But please remember that there is nothing consensual about "grabbing them by the p____y." That is assault.
49
@Mark V
So your daughter has an MD, how lovely. But does she also practice medicine? That is the question when you follow up with your assertion that:
"Most guys are pretty simple, they want to meet a women, build a family, provide for them and live a decent life where their children have opportunity".
As to Trump's "boorish" behaviour, sexual harassment of dozens of un-willing women who did not fall for his self declared best-ever-sex great charm is of no consequences.
26
Well, while we are indulging in object lessons from 19th century British fiction, I would have added the great creation of the last of the great British Victorian novelists, Ford Maddox Ford’s protagonist Christopher Tietjens.
1
When physical strength is no longer the most necessary trait for survival, but societies still “do” life within that paradigm, then all of the problems that come with it are perpetuated.
Until we adopt - and evolve with - a new social contract (see Gillette ad, Lennon’s “Imagine”, etc.)...well...
"... the older models, and all their wisdom....." Ross, I have reread your article to figure out just what "older models" or "wisdom" you are suggesting we hold on to.
Sorta sounds like "make America great again."
5
I consider myself a feminist sympathetic man, have mostly grown out of the toxic gay fearing prejudices of my era (I'm a baby boomer) and have always been comfortable with and interested in other racial and ethnic groups.
Yes people are people but ...
Gary Cooper was cool! John Wayne a McCarthy minion and self righteous establishment man was not...
2
Personally, since childhood (before puberty and hormones kicking in) I have believed that masculine qualities are founded on society’s need to be ready for war. I also think this is why military culture dissuades homosexuality. The idea of a sexually passive man is psychologically difficult for people to consider consistent with fighting in the infantry. Through most of our history our nation has been focused on war. Only recently have we moved from hand to hand combat to fighting wars like they are video games with drones and joysticks.
If we were to believe the APA, all aspects of gender differences in personality are caused by traditional gender role socialization except if it happens to be a feminine male or masculine female. Of course, then it is biologically based and such people are born that way.
We need to question who is actually crazy and dysfunctional here. The masculine male or the APA with its spread of toxic untruths.
3
"One of the frustrating tics of our society’s progressive vanguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past, that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty."
Really?!! There is no eye-glass prescription to remedy this kind of blindspot. There is no assumption that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty. Indeed, what is genuinely frustrating is that each generation has to continue the fight because the generation prior fell down on the job.
1
The “sexual revolution” of the Sixties threw out the double standard and other oppressive mores concerning women’s sexuality and power, but in the vacuum that ensued, the upshot was often that everyone was free to be a Wickham. The expectation of respect often seemed to be confused with prudishness.
Hoping #metoo will lead to a new, compassionate and respectful set of mores.
4
"Dark, dangerous, toxic", just to cite a few of the characteristics of the male that Mr. Douthat asserts as unquestionably universal. The Times has become an abbey for a faith whose adherents seem to have lost all sense of reality.
6
I assumed based on the title of the oped that Douthat would be addressing the despicable behavior of male Catholic high school students from Kentucky who abused and harassed native elder Nathan Philips at the pro life rally in Washington on Friday.
Wearing MAGA hats students of the church Douthat constantly lectures us on and whose leader Pope Francis is insufficiently orthodox for him due to his calls for compassion these young men chanted" build the wall" at Native Americans.
Toxic masculinity was on display. Elder Phillips was marching in an indigenous peoples march and the Catholic boys had been brought from Kentucky to march against women's right to choose. Marching to affirm the inferiority of women to them and apparently they added toxic male white supremacy.
My 2 cents.
18
Men were reckless when they traveled to the moon or perhaps when they were slaughtered by the millions in wars. The average American male is not a toxic creep plotting to take sexual advantage of women. Yes, some men in powerful positions took advantage of women and women were sexually harassed. But that a small minority of men. The vast majority are not violent. No matter how much they wish it was, psychology is not a hard science. And just how is the world going to better if men are transformed, psychologically, into women? Queen Elizabeth I, England's greatest monarch, had all of the qualities of today's toxic male. The differences between the sexes is, well, sexy.
My blue state, liberal Democratic wife and daughters want men who are strong, capable, caring, patient, smart, funny and stolid, who are compassionate and also act as protectors. They do not want mushy, overly emotional metro-sexual men. That may not be politically correct. It is simply true.
As for me, any guy who helps me bring in groceries or gear without being asked is off to a good start at being a man.
7
Old-school manhood was typified by men like Walter Cronkite, men who calmly told it like it was and rarely blinked. To my generation, they were rocks in an ever-shifting world. New-school manhood, at least the kind idealized by many feminists, seems to be embodied by the likes of Anderson Cooper, who has been known to giggle on the air. I think I'll go with Walter on this one.
1
Many of us are not ashamed of our masculinity and will not be changing. Manhood and masculinity are NOT bad words.
Men cannot should not act like women and painting all men with this broad stoke of toxic masculinity is wrong.
We are men.
We (most of us) are masculine and we are NOT going away.
Deal......
2
All societies have been built in part to tame toxic masculinity. After all, what does a society need first? Order. What is the source of disorder? Young men. What do dress codes, behavior codes, and mating rituals seek to protect? Young women. From whom? Young men. After protecting themselves from invading hordes of young male outsiders, the second priority of every society was to tame the hordes of young male insiders. So yes, toxic masculinity is not in any way a new issue.
Here's the problem: No society has ever tamed toxic masculinity without restricting the freedoms of both young men and young women. The baby boomers worked very hard to throw off the shackles of a patriarchal society that was designed, in part, to tame toxic masculinity, like every society before it. So now we have freedom, and we certainly don't want to go back to the patriarchy, what with all of its unequal treatment of women. But the need to tame toxic masculinity never went away.
We can try to change humanity, creating more perfect humans, teaching men to be less toxic. We can put more men in jail for hurting women. We can try to make bosses less powerful in workplaces. It's worth trying, but education doesn't change testosterone levels, doesn't change biochemistry. If we want less male toxicity without loss of freedom for young people and women, we probably need to just stop having male children, or perhaps some genetic engineering. It's that, or less freedom, or status quo.
I blame women. If women were attracted to sensitive, soft men rather than the brutish pirates and rogues they swoon for in women's fiction, men would shape up very, very quick.
2
When men are aggressive bullies, violent, dominating, uncaring, etc. it's a sign that something is wrong with them. Those traits aren't about masculinity. They are trying to compensate for feelings of inadequacy and fear. This is true for females too. Being "strong" and "masculine" can mean being a protector of those who are weaker in some way. The men we admire and respect are not those who try to harm others.
3
So, there's this book written by a 2,500-year-old dead white European named Aristotle which is called Nicomachean Ethics. It is a book on character virtue, intellectual virtue, happiness, and friendship. Nicomachus was the name of Aristotle's father AND his son. Now, if we could overcome what is for our present moment the Herculean labor of putting aside the fact that Aristotle had some pretty stupid, nasty things to say about women within the context of Politics, I would venture to suggest that Aristotle has already offered us a presentation of what non-toxic masculinity looks like. He has given us a picture precisely of what masculine virtue is.
Here's a "frustrating tic:" NYT's conservative columnist assumes that all progrssive women think and act the same way. Most women know too well that "every evil" discovered today existed in the past, and they also know "that this generation" is NOT "the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty." They know that women of the past were raped but had very little recourse to anything resembling justice. Many, many rapes, such as those committed during war-time and those committed by men who had power over women (which, until relatively recently, was virtually EVERY man) went unreported. Servants, the poor, women and girls in his own family? Men had the power to do as they liked and most men would be believed before a woman. Women of certain classes were not able to go out and get jobs; they needed their families for food and shelter, even if a family member was abusing them. Poor women depended on men for employment; if they complained of abuse, they would be fired. In fact, this still happens. Women don't think "every evil" started with us, Mr. Douthat. We're familiar enough with women's history, however, to know that we're in a new moment when women might have a better chance of being believed, of being helped, and of being removed from the possibility of future harm or retaliation.
You write a column that starts with a fallacy of generalization about "progressive women" and then cherry-pick examples from old books and movies to prove your point? Sad.
9
I hate to disagree with the APA, but both males and females are much more complex than they suggest.
Females can also be described as stoic, self-reliant, homophobic, aggressive, vulnerable, competitive and violent.
So to describe just men in this way is too simple.
I guess it would be the same argument between nature and nurture.
For sure the differences can be chalked up to hormones, just as they can be chalked up to experiences.
These differences have been studied for centuries but there still are no clear answers.
70
Some perhaps more perceptive takes on the Victorian idea of a gentleman. Trollope's high Victorian novels (Can you forgive her, Phineas Finn, Barchester Towers) are full of gender issues.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1983/02/03/how-should-a-gent-behave/
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/trollope/gentleman.html
1
it's really pretty darned easy. your character and worth don't rest in your gender.
being a solid caring person who happens to be male is a path to a strong masculinity
6
Witness young men from an all male Jesuit school taunting, surrounding and intimidating an older man demonstrating in Washington. Toxic masculinity in training. And not one adult restrained them. Good luck to the young women who marry them!
16
@Maryellen Simcoe,
Having watched, in horror, a generation of men put up with modern feminism, marry spoiled brats only to be divorced, I was relieved to be one of those "toxic" bachelors. I was lucky to find a woman who manages to balance feminism with traditional beliefs. She expects stoicism, honesty and is grateful.
With that said, I understand that there men who abuse their relationships with women. These are not traditionalist. They are, what they always have been: they are bullies. They treat other males the same way --- sometimes at their own risk.
@Maryellen Simcoe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQyBHTTqb38
You've chosen a poor example. That incident was erroneously reported.
@Maryellen Simcoe - There is, unfortunately, no shortage of young women from the same culture, who have been taught that this is how "real men" behave, and will be happy to marry them.
I’m 47. I’ve watched, dumbfounded, as ridiculous notions of masculinity have cycled and recycled many times. It’s culture. It can change. Are we, men, going to free ourselves from it or are we going to remained trapped inside someone else’s idea of what it means to be a man?
The stoicism Ross mentions isn’t Stoicism; it’s emotional repression. Read Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations: it’s about gratitude and clearly delineating what you can and cannot control, as well as your doing your duty to your fellow citizens... I think we all could use a lot more of these ideas today!
192
@K
From the first chapter of Meditations, as Emporere Aurelius notes while on a campaign qualities for which he is grateful from specific mentors:
"... to behave in a conciliatory way when people who have angered or annoued us want to make up."
"To show intuitive sympathy for friends, tolerance to amateurs and sloppy thinkers."
"To recognize the malice, cunning, and hypocrisy that powere produces, and the peculiar ruthlessness often shown by people from 'good families.'"
"Not to shrug off a friend's resentment—even unjustified resentment—but try to put things right."
33
@K
The APA misused the idea of stoicism, not Douthat. They have made the broad generalizations and mischaracterizations and passed it off as science. The APA is way out of its lane.
8
As a term “toxic masculinity” — like “white male privilege” before it — is basically useless. In enclaves of educated liberals, and especially in women’s studies programs, it will be taken as gospel truth when, as Ross Douthat points out, a “traditional” masculinity doesn’t actually exist.
The academic Murray Strauss dedicated his life to understanding and finding ways to reduce domestic violence. Drawing from data all over the world, he demonstrated that in situations of domestic violence, women strike the first blow almost as often as men. Women almost always come off worse, for obvious reasons. Feminists did not welcome these findings. But would this indicate some kind of “toxic femininity?” I doubt it.
If men can steer a course through questionable psychology and the onslaught of faulty concepts from womens’ studies programs, it is still possible to enjoy being a man in the 21st century. If anything, we need to dial up what makes us men in the first place. Physicality can be ritualized and transform our historic urges to attack and defend. The art of the male insult — when women think we’re being mean to each other — is a powerful and endlessly entertaining means of showing affection. I could go on. Drawing from the best of the various males traditions, men who feel comfortable their own male skins will not tolerate the likes of Harvey Weinstein, who in so many ways is not even worthy of the descriptor “man.”
73
@Gerald I agree that the terms "toxic masculinity" and "white male privilege" are overused to the point of being trite. They still have relevance, though, in my opinion.
I've never been harassed by the police. I've never been followed by security guards. I've never been sexually harassed or abused. I've never had difficulty obtaining housing or employment. I've never gone hungry or been denied good health care. People don't clutch their handbags or cross the street when I walk toward them.
How many people of color and women can say all of the same?
It must have something to do with the extraordinary luck of being born a white, middle-class, American male.
65
As a traditionalist I am skeptical of analysis of the male psychology, especially by women. Most traditionalists could care less what women think of us. We tolerate their scorn, believe strongly in stoicism, dedication to a moral code, and treat women as a gentleman. We don't really care if it's welcome.
2
Let me see if I've got this straight:
According to Douthat, "the female of the species" is chained to "the vulnerability that pregnancy entails," whereas "in the actual history of the human race 'traditional masculinity' as a single coherent category simply does not exist."
Something tells me that a debate over whether Douthat finds his examples in literature or real life is beside the point. At the heart of toxic masculinity is an inability to see and celebrate the reality that "traditional femininity" as a single coherent category simply does not exist either.
7
We have entered an era where male traits are denounced unless females display them - in which case, they are to be celebrated. An assertive man is condemned for exercising his privileges, but an assertive woman is celebrated for scoring one for equality.
Fair-minded men should be expected to treat women as their equals, but they shouldn't have to accept a systemic handicap. We can't resolve systemic injustice by creating a new set of double standards.
8
Tom Edsall's recent column covered the same ground. The APA's singularly unscientific explanation of why men are given to sexual harassment and their proclivity to vote for jerks like Donald Trump. Dowd's article today talks of the unleashing of the Furies by women in congress. Of course old war horses like Pelosi and Feinstein stumble over things like neo con affiliation and unthought out political circuses like the Kavanaugh hearings. The glass ceiling has been shattered save for Hillary Clinton's lazy, lousy, fly over campaign that merely registered the massive repulsion for Trump. But Trump still won the electoral college. As it turns out Clinton wasn't a progressive but a corporatist Democrat dogged by her own shady activities. So how could a world class scoundrel like Trump win. It was the Russians.
2
It's your fourth paragraph where you go wrong in the way that has allowed male toxicity to become deeply embedded in what it means to be male in the modern world. Not all men are bigger, stronger and more volatile than all women; in fact there are a LOT of men who are smaller, weaker, and meeker than a LOT of the women around them. But the statistical average is converted unthinkingly into a categorical definition, and that definition is in turn placed back on all individual boys and men, such that "manning up" is supposed to mean something. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may be, those expectations simply won't go away, whether it's inside your head, your male freinds' heads, your female friends heads, and practically every bit over literature you can find. Even all that variety of responses you cite. echoing down to every man portrayed in every movie as a believable human being, is working within that network of categorical, defining expectations. The individual human male is not inherently any of the things you say (leaving aside the question of pregnancy).
Toxicity happens when those expectations pressure, twist, and turn men into behaviors that feed their own selfish desires, their fears, their inner knowledge that they fundamentally do not meet some expectation that they have internalized. We think about it as "men who are toxic to others" but that doesn't happen without some poisoning of their souls first. And I have no idea how we undo the damage.
6
In order to have a happy relationship with anyone, you first have to be a built out, complete and self assured person. A healthy relationship builds on top of two complete people to make something new. Relationships where one partner has to grout the incomplete foundation of the other aren't going to be satisfying or hold up, because people who are incomplete turn to manipulation to get what they need. Whether an incomplete male presents as a lumberjack or as Joe-sensitive, if he's incomplete, he'll manipulate and wear out his partner.
1
@George Campbell non-sequitur vis-a-vis the topic of make identity post #metoo. And, your point about a balanced relationship only matters in a society where that's a goal and an option, which is to say, it's meaningless in most societies
"So every model has limits — but it’s folly to blame any or all of them for the pathologies they aspire to tame. (Stoicism, especially, doesn’t exactly seem oversupplied in America these days.) Yet that’s what contemporary progressivism is constantly inclined to do: Because the male archetypes were forged in more sexist eras, that sexism is regarded as a reason to reject the archetypes tout court, in the hopes of building some sort of New Progressive Man instead."
I'd challenge Mr. Douthat to please apply the above and then explain for all of us, who he believes is to blame for the horrific Lord of the Flies episode in which a band of unruly, apparently unchaparoned, teenage boys from a Kentucky privileged, all-white, private Catholic "preparatory" high school felt it was perfectly fine to go on live film, and verbally taunt and harass a retired Native American Vietnam veteran,but perhaps worse, to do it with such an ugly and smug sense of total impunity as if wearing the MAGA hat was their instant get out of jail free calling card.
Cultural stoicism, my rear. Institutional indoctrination of boys at early ages that teaches, and then ritualistically reinforces the pathological male supremacy mindset, and this is the result. Notice also how we have yet to hear a full denunciation of this incredibly amoral behavior, either from DJT himself, but far worse, the Pope.
Mr. Douthat??? Care to extrapolate?
43
@RLC yeah, falls on these deaf ears, because that certainly wasn't my experience in school as a punching bag and victim of racial gang violence, e.g. being one of these males supposedly inculcated in supremacy (white cisser here). I think the point he's trying to make (douthat) is that aggression and male-ness aren't going to disappear anytime soon, so we need ways to accommodate these facts without just resorting to stigmatization and charges of mental illness (which ironically is trying to itself become further destigmatized).
To discuss this topic as Ross Douthat has by "plucking only Western examples" and concentrating on Victorian attitudes is a weak rejoinder to Progressives' indictment of toxic masculinity in the US today. Implicit in many comments on this article and supported by Douthat's examples is that this is a debate of the behavior of Christian white male archetypes.
But white males constitute only 60 percent of the non-Hispanic male population in the US today and Christian white males, of course, even less.
The important point is that nearly 50% of the male population in the US today includes some cultures and religions that account for a disproportionate percentage of the abusive treatment of women. All commentary that generalizes about all men is counterproductive to the debate.
5
Isn't this (also) kind of a nature versus nature deal? Testosterone is just a hormone and bigger bodies are just, well, bigger bodies. Toxicity is a two-way street, and I would say that until men are once again valued rather than looked upon as innately villainous nuisances, their only alternative will be to embrace toxicity, whether it be infantile man caves, Trumpian infatuation, or more dangerously, worship of MMA and guns. Plus, for the younger generation of males and females who may have missed it, Robert Bly's old book, Iron John, is still a good read.
2
@raviolis1 Saying "Testosterone is just a hormone" is denying the powerful impact that hormonal systems do to the human brain and culture. While I believe that woman and men should be treated equally under the law, the politically correct view that there are no differences in men and woman is profoundly wrong.
Anyone who deals with children and adolescents know they have differences that can not be explained by "cultural upbringing" alone.
2
I am reading this, right after reading about the Catholic boys taunting an American Indian elder. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic grade school.
I am not a catholic now, and I left because of its attitude towards women. I never hated it though. And sometimes would defend it.
I am feeling a pattern of connection between this article, the Gorsuch hearings (catholic prep school boys gone wild), the taunting of the native American elder, and the terrible hidden history of sexual assault by priests. I want to call it something. What is it? It has to do with masculinity, and it has to do with power. Whatever it is, the church doesn't seem to want to let it go. The church doesn't seem to even know it has a problem. I don't think I'm going to defend the Catholic Church anymore.
35
Let me file this piece in the "can't see the forest for the trees" folder. The solution to toxic masculinity is not to allow it in the first place. Kids learn from their parents and in their schools. And that would include Covington Catholic. A school that sent out kids wearing partisan political MAGA hats to a pro life rally. The boys mocking the Native Americans looked pretty toxic to me. Instead Douthat preaches that we allow boys to be aggressive but channel it into what he calls romantic behavior like artistic or religious behavior. Absurd.
And Douthat suggests we change male behavior as part of his delusion of a culture war. Of course the culture will always be the result of what the people decide it to be. It cannot be established with laws or court rulings. What society can do however is punish those who break the laws and norms to set examples of what males must not be allowed to do, e.g., abuse women. Of course Douthat can't resist taking a cheap shot at what he calls progressivism, and what he thinks is its tendency to promote stoicism.
It is up to the schools and the parents to raise their boys to respect others and the law. And the best way to do that is not in a parochial religious school but in a public school where children learn that all people are the same regardless of color, religion or race, and as such worthy of equal treatment.
14
The behavior in Washington was inexcusably rude and the school, acting in loco parentis, must act. But “toxic?” Ironically, in 1978, aboard the E train on the way home from high school , I (15 and white) was surrounded by a group of more than a dozen young black men who acted virtually identically to these white males. Should I be able to draw any conclusions from their attempt to intimidate me, then or now? Of course not. Life is full of similar episodes every day. Let’s not turn every less than optimum contact into an issue. Btw, I was head butted, had my legs pulled out from under me and as a laid face down on the floor of the car, had my wallet taken by one of the kids who spat on me as he left. My point is that things happen.
Really Douthat? You're gonna rely on the 19th century novelists portrayals of males? Never read 'em, never will. And I think I'm in a large population of similar middle-aged males. I feel confident many of us are are not mulling over these characters nuances as we move thru our days.
The issue with the masculinity in question, is the traditional version we American males are taught and exhibit. The APA might have failed to isolate out various forms, especially traditional American male masculinity, but I think we can surmise there is a debilitating US version.
Reality; American masculinity is not inspired by stoicism as its laid out by the Greeks, but rather the American tendency towards belligerence. Greek stoicism is nuanced and demands thinking and seeking harmony, indifference to the waxing and waning of success/loss, pleasure/pain. American males are not that!
American male's toxic masculinity is not about harmony, and it derides introspection. Main goal; winning at all costs. Where aggressiveness is mostly equated with violence. And becomes THE only tool in the box. Losing is not a means to learn - as the Stoics would teach - but a disgrace, that should trigger vengeance.
American male masculinity is heavily reliant on American Christianity's sexism, racism, and derision of all things demanding self-analysis, aka; deep introspection. True Stoicism teaches that virtue is reached thru knowledge. Learned and experiential. Hardly the current American male model.
37
@Boregard: Please be careful. When you say "American male toxicity", you include all of us, including those of us consciously grappling with ourselves, our relations with women (who are clearly upset about how it is going), and a society who's leaders will often use us up and throw us out like single-use plastics if we let them.
The fact that many of us are here trying to figure out something better is evidence that not all American males deserve to be placed in the category that you accurately describe. What you describe is a subset, not the entire set of American male energy.
3
If you deny yourself the pleasure of reading Anthony Trollope, you're really missing out. Shame. Because Victorian literature in fact gives us exemplary portraylas of characters trying to act according to character virtue. So, these novels you vow never to read have a lot to teach us about both eudaemonism and, I venture to say, Stoicism put in action.
I don't often share Mr Douthat's opinions, but they are always worth reading and considering. As one who is unapologetically addicted to 19th century British literature, my antennae quivered happily over this piece. I have often ruminated on Austen in particular, and how far we have fallen to be calling strip joints "gentlemen's clubs." Jane would shudder, if she could even imagine such a thing. But his point is well-taken: definitions of what constitutes manliness, masculinity, maleness, machismo, etc. have evolved and changed across time and societies. Pink even used to be the color for boys. And those authors did acknowledge the problem and the conflicts. Admittedly, his is a small, Eurocentric example... but it was fun to read. But I remain adamant that Heathcliff was one sick, scary puppy...
2
Whoa! Big mistake reading Douthat after swearing off for a while. Thanks, though, for reminding me that literary and pop-culture allusions hold about as much weight as personal anecdotes. At least he didn’t wax poetic on the value of Middle Age monasteries. That’s where the incels belong. Not everyone can be a feudal lord or cannon fodder. The latter being what our MIC considers the proper occupation for the disenfranchised of all persuasions. The former being the carrot dangled in front of the perpetual motion fraud foisted on an ignorant population. Bad news folks, in a closed system, rigged as they say, entropy will always prevail. Get ready for some major disorganization until new energy is pumped into the box.
4
@Thomas: Whoa there, that's an interesting twist on the discussion. One thumb up.
1
The confusion some men seem to have about women and their periodic outbursts for better treatment seems to serve mainly as diversion. Sure, to some men, total power over another seems to be what they think they deserve. All that says is they're so afraid of everything that only abusing others, in small and large ways, is all their identity can manage. Most men, I believe, understand they are part of the human chain, some men, some women, some white, some other, some rich, some poor, some smart, some not. Within that is a huge range of little of this, little of that.
But what is clearly understandable is if you treat everyone decently you will not be accused of anything bad. We were taught the Golden Rule by Kindergarten, it's really not complicated. Some just refuse, by choice. Men who treat women, and others, badly are just jerks, Pretty simple.
13
What a spot-on analysis to this not so perplexing issue of the day. Men who are boorish, and act improperly and/or indecently, were always called jerks. Good MEN are masculine without being jerks.
Good WOMEN are feminine without being jerks. (Yes, there are other derisive terms for horrible women, but I am a gentleman.)
And, I'm sick and tired of "toxic" as an adjective in this regard. This too shall pass, and not soon enough.
Obviously, men are more violent and aggressive than women, in general. Do men uniquely possess balancing positive traits? If they don't, they are inferior. If they do, there's a whole other (theoretical) issue to consider.
1
Since the time of Cain and Abel there have been niches for the alphas and betas. And as the free market has long discovered, shaping identities of alpha and beta sells. Auto industry ads reveal that aggression is not confined to gender but extends to how we treat the earth itself and how we treat the "snowflakes" who defend it.
It is not "our society’s progressive vanguard" but merely Ross' "assumption that every evil...was entirely invisible in the past, that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty." Granted, it would be accurate to say, conservatives don't have a clue that this has ever been an issue, either in the past or in the present.
Progressives know well that mankind has wrestled with dominance and cruelty since pre-recorded history. The problem with the past efforts of mankind to find some resolution is that non-toxic male archetypes were always understood in a patriarchal-religious context. And that also explains why conservatives remain clueless.
From the earliest primordial myths to understand life, to the current myths of Christianity, Western man has seen man as dominant, woman as subservient. Uranus covered Gaia, Eve born of his rib, deceived Adam. All powerful Zeus ruled and impregnated at will. Only men can be Christian priests. Men were anointed by god to be king. Women were property. The Christian Church blessed kings and their rule. Women had no say in self-determination, much less government.
Then came a great awakening. Women as equal to men. Women educated. Women sufferance. Women leaders!
Still the struggle continues to find a non-toxic male archetype. But progressives have known all along that the answer is in a progressive society. Equality of the sexes. An evolution of men away from the toxic patriarchal religious Trumpian conservative.
11
Oh, let's all talk about men! because we hardly ever do that, do we?
The entire social dialogue in the US is, one way or another, a referendum about men and their power, foibles, desires, vacations, wives, airplanes...all the things they have, all the things they want.
I expect one day to turn on my car radio and just hear someone saying MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN .
It'll be a man.
11
@Sallyforth. that was funny and to the point. The Times should hire you.
1
Ross - all your examples are from "classic" US or British literature. If you plan to use literature as a way of speculating about the future of a social (not literary) category of US masculinity, I recommend you expand your textual horizons to other vibrant horizons of English language literature that includes more flexible models of masculinity.
3
Ross, I often disagree with you--but thank you for pointing out the obvious, but often ignored. Our ancestors understood "toxic masculinity," and for the most part treated the toxic male without checks, limits, balances, and higher ideals, as just what he is: a VILLAIN. The bad guy. The very traits a few misguided modern men and women are trying to protect and elevate are those our ancestors understood as dangerous, antisocial, and demeaning to both men and women.
"Masculinity" is not just raw nature, without socialization, control, or ideals and standards. It's time to stop idolizing male bad guys. Good guys are the ones who have mastered or even overcome their worst bullying, dominating instincts and put them to service--to their families, their communities, and their ideals, integrating assertion and leadership with tenderness and sensitive compassion. Anything less is not "manly," it's just brutish.
4
Men have been beaten up enough. If anything they need to be encouraged to develop their strengths as Dr. Jordan Peterson is attempting with his '12 Rules for Life– a self-help book from a culture warrior'.
If we are honest it is feministic women who are on the rampage, lashing out, playing the victim and seeking recompense against men often for actions they themselves encourage, who are toxic.
Most women's long term happiness is in being wives and mothers, not in competing with men in the workplace. Women should play the role for which they were made and rock the cradle that rules the world.
They definitely should not resort to underhanded tricks like orchestrating the new guidelines for treating male pathology from the American Psychological Association. Women have a powerful role to play in this world, they should get back to playing it.
1
@Michael Dowd
"Dr. Jordan Peterson is attempting with his '12 Rules for Life– "
A con man masquerading as a deep intellectual! Yes, about as deep as the DC Tidal Basin. When someone cites this guy, it tells me something very important about them.
1
An excellent reminder that past authors have dealt with these issues, often better than contemporary authors. The picture of Gary Cooper is a reminder of The Virginian, a book every young man (and woman) should read. And then there's Lancelot, who, far from being a bad gay joke, is a complex, tragic, beautiful character in Mallory who inspired generations of young men. It's long past time to go back and read those dead white males.
"...adapting the older archetypes to an era of greater equality between the sexes, is admittedly a difficult task."
Huh.
A better path might be to hold each person responsible for behaving like a person. You know, civilized, generous, compassionate, willing to share.
That last one that trips up many men you present here. Because they're not.
You chief among them. Unwilling to allow women to manage their own lives, you insist men know the only way for women to be acceptable.
You side with dark forces of malign religion to force them into whatever the you have in mind: docile, preoccupied with Binkies.
You invoke the oppressively male hierarchy of your church to bring the hammer. That or the plain oppressive lust for power of the Evangelical Church.
You waste time dealing with archetypes and stereotypes. As you say, there are cowboys and poets and no system accounts for both.
Even among cowboys you have romantic odd fellows Autrey and Rogers and their flashy/sparkly offspring in Arena Country Western World. There are harmless bad boys like Waylon, Willie and the Boys. And True Tough Guys - The Duke (for some reason).
Dump classifications. Deal with each man (or woman) on his own, and let them deal back as they will.
No system achieves what you're after. Leave people alone, support them liberally in their progress through life, teach them well, hold them responsible.
Ross, the idea of you lurking on Liberal Woman dating sites is oddly endearing. And creepy.
3
Just like the progressives and the #MeToo movement that is overly simplistic in it harsh judgements, Douthat offers a milksop's rebuttal that, like so much of his writing, is wholly based in the Western canon and, in this instance, mostly that of dead white men Victorian novelist.
To quote the Smiths riffing on "Middlemarch":
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular
The hierarchy of class has assigned married women as the property of their husbands and unmarried women as the property of their families. Women who are sexually independent are fair play. Women who have children out of wedlock are scandalized. In some countries around the world children belong to the fathers family. Everywhere women are sex objects and therefore fair game in the public area. I think enough.
Or you could look a bit further back than a couple of hundred years, and maybe look across a few more cultures?
1
Ross, as usual, blessed us with a stimulating and beautifully written essay.
There was a another interesting piece yesterday (1/17) by Edsall, "The Fight Over Men is Shaping Our Political Future". He quotes Steven Pinker about the long cultural "Civilizing Process" of moving men away from violence and reactive aggression into a less toxic ideal of provider and level-headed keeper of the peace. A "mensch", as we say in New York.
But it seems to me that these kinds of societal changes are never really complete; the hormonal and cultural push-back never really ends. So there are still some violent, heartless men. Just like there are still women who are shameless "gold-diggers."
Still, we've all come a long way and should be pleased to be leaving a better world to those who come after us.
As a man, now entering my fifties, I have spent my entire life preoccupied with navigating the ever-shifting concept of what it means to be a man. As a child I was disinterested or revulsed by the men around me, their abuses, excuses, inadequacies, violence, weakness, and limitations though enthralled with their power, omnipotence, charm, sexuality and intelligence. Coming online in the seventies I could see quite a bit of the celebration of being a man, the luck of it, and it appeared that the world was my oyster. But underneath all this dazzle and promise lay the dark truth that men were ultimately cads, completely unreliable, self-centered, devious, and not to be trusted. The women in my life were enthralled by them, tolerated them, even joked about them, but were inevitably hurt or devastated by them. My job, as I saw it, was to somehow create my own ideal of man, a hybrid that somehow took into account all the good/bad and synthesize it into a role I could be proud of. And I did just that. In short, I took responsibility for myself. I parsed out the cultural messages and influences around me, from the outside world and compared it to my inner convictions. Could I be a writer without being an alcoholic? Could I be a rockstar who isn't a womanizer? Could I be a husband that didn't lie? Could I be sexual without being abusive? Could I be straight but not afraid of gays? I hated the limitations imposed on me from without and created a revolution from within.
217
I will balance out your limited population sample with mine. Similar in age to you, I have always been surrounded by men who cared for their families, protected and provided, counseled rather than bullied, who served their country and returned to serve our peace. They stood for what is right, and taught me to respect women and taught my sister to demand respect. I emulated them and my fear was not that I would end up like them, but that I would not. Your list is a list of stereotypes and people who surrendered to them. No one has the character imposed on them. The men I know did not have anything imposed on them, but accepted responsibilities and put others ahead of themselves. I have seen cads, but never as the norm.
34
@Jason Sypher
"Could I be sexual without being abusive? Could I be straight but not afraid of gays? I hated the limitations imposed on me from without and created a revolution from within. "
I have a 33 year old son, he and his male friends fit this description of masculanity. They all came of age in Manhattan, perhaps that's the reason they're the way they are. This group of friends includes straight and gay, male and female, black, white, asian, all strong and oppionated, but all equal. I think the fact that they went to a high school in NYC that chose the students by what they were good at, so the playing field was flat to start.
Perhaps like so much else in our current political state, education is the answer.
47
With Spinoza and Sam Harris, I would argue that your behavior--and, in fact, everyone's--is 100% controlled by your DNA and your environment, both past and present. That is, you have no free will, which means that no one deserves credit or blame for what they do. Importantly, though, criminals still need to be punished and good citizens rewarded if we want a civil society.
5
To ignore the description offered by the APA is to gloss over a US cultural issue that is responsible for much that ails us. Yes, American machismo may be different from that in Mediterranean countries but it is also much more malignant. The Marlboro Man image, indeed strong and stoic, raising himself by his own bootstraps, self-reliant and the protector of his family, is reflected in uniquely American beliefs like the "demotivating" impact of Welfare and the love of guns. This Machismo is evident in the love of violent team sports like football and the misogyny inherent in "no means yes" on college campuses. It is the reason for American women needing to be more strident than those in other Western countries in their quest for equality and recognition. Ours is one of the most macho cultures amongst Developed countries and the APA profile recognizes it as such. Rejection of this truth does us a disservice.
2
Pretty shallow account of Vronsky. Right enough about Gabriel Oak.
Ross is right about the Victorians, and right about history. Where he goes wrong is attempting to reduce multitudinous contemporary "progressive" ideas about masculinity into a single caricature.
To rephrase Ross's thesis: "What actually exists in progressive thought, instead, are varying models that attempt to deal with masculinity’s dark side in different ways, by channeling, sublimating and containing male aggression." The APA did not poll progressives to make its guidelines; if it had, it wouldn't find anything near a consensus. This paper could run a twenty page insert with offerings solely from progressives and barely scratch the surface. In twenty years, it could run another with a different set of writers with little overlap between the latter and the former. (In twenty years, "conservative" views will be closer to progressive views today.)
That's what identifying, confronting and trying to solve problems entails, and it has been ever thus. Those who defend the status quo, or who don't want to be identified with the status quo, yet also fear change, will erect strawmen and argue with them.
4
Sure seems everybody fell for the Gillette zinger, Harry's thanks them in their misguided effort to be current. The Mexican cowboy movies are not going to change because of a razor blade ad.
3
I get that Ross finds “progressives” smug about their own enlightenment. Hard to argue with a criticism of being on a high horse. On the other hand, it does seem clear we are in the midst of massive social change in terms of role expectations and social structure re gender and ethnicity. There really is a way that oppression is invisible to those on top until pointed out and yes, it’s kind of new and kind of a shift when it happens. I am thinking of our productive discussions on for example who gets to speak up in a meeting and how gender influenced it. It is also true that men are not typically taught to be both strong and vulnerable, that inability to acknowledge feelings is a big driver of problematic masculinity and that yes, this is a relatively new cultural awRensss! Some examples of thoughtful literature from the past hardly changes the main point. I wish Ross could more vulnerably and directly say what “liberalism” or “progressiveness” means to him and why he is so disturbed by it.
5
Men and women are different. Start with reality and modify the culture, the law and values to more equitably survive. This effort seems to have taken a big stutter-step forward in the last twenty years without the help of psychology, religion or literature.
5
Bingo. Spot on.
"The alternative, adapting the older archetypes to an era of greater equality between the sexes, is admittedly a difficult task."......Of course it is difficult. There is a difference between estrogen and testosterone. The difference between men and women is real and thank goodness. Little boys like to run around and crash into each other on the playground because it is fun. Help provide a healthy outlet for their energy and exuberance and let boys be boys.
10
Bingo squared.
Seems that most examples here are of western cultures, and more recent cultures. Why not delve into some Anthropology studies if you really want to tackle this subject in a complete way? Pretty superficial here.
12
@Tricia
It was said at the beginning he was dealing with western culture. To do otherwise would require a book not a column.
I find it interesting that conservatives like Ross Douthat and Jordan Peterson turn to the concept of the "archetype" in these discussions.
It is a term that does the nice trick of indirectly acknowledging an obvious truth that they conservatives usually want to deny: that even though biology matters, cultural expectations and rewards still shape the way people live their masculinity or femininity.
But "archetype" also sounds vaguely mystical, eternal, or organic. So it helps conservatives still claim that there is no use trying to change cultural norms––so kindly pipe down, progressives.
19
@Nancy B Certainly it is in how one chooses to look at archetypes. Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s study of archetypes “King, Warrior, Magician, and Lover”, which can easily mirror female archetypes, help explain the choices we have in choosing the positive aspects of an archetype (a king/queen blessing those within his/her realm) versus the negative choices (kiss my ring!) as Ann example. While both authors agree we should never be the archetypes, we can access those god energies to help us be principled.
Look, guys, testosterone gives us upper body strength, and the ability to transcend inhibitions and be violent.
This is a "good thing" for a troop of chimps, and for groups of humans, when competing with other groups for resources-- aka warfare, genocide, and so on.
But otherwise, in terms of perpetuating the species, and making scientific and technological progress, most of us are redundant at this point. Someone mentioned Star Trek, which showed a different "paradigm" through the Vulcans, so how about this sci-fi proposal:
We change the birth ratio so that there is one man for every four women. (I'm guessing, but I think that would be more than enough to maintain genetic diversity.)
At that ratio, it would be more balanced in terms of individual interactions, as with our closer-than-chimps relatives the bonobos, where females can combine, and do, to beat up males acting badly.
And, unlike the current situation in many polygynous cultures, there would be few if any unwanted, unattached, and dissatisfied males; the power relationship would clearly tend to equality because of mutual self-interest rather than physical coercion.
Women could "share" men; there would be the "village" or extended family to raise children, and so on.
We don't even need warp drive to do it.
4
I’m reminded of a short story I read in the ‘80s in which a group of women and their children lived communally but kept the men corralled in the basement where they could watch tv, eat, argue with each other, be guys. The women made conjugal visits. All were happy ever after.
1
@arty The hubris you display in proposing this heavy handed interventionist birth rate control is simply frightening. It is people like you who I pray are never given one iota of public policy power.
2
Excellent article. Well said, and fair.
2
Perhaps instead of pondering the timeless struggle of manhood, Mr Douthat could direct his attention to the rather more pressing issue of the toxic masculinity exhibited by the Covington Catholic High School boys in DC this weekend? That is what the progressive vanguard is actually contesting. And this timely example in light of the recent kerfuffle over a Gillette ad calling for better men, couldn’t be more apt.
32
@Robert Grant
Why yes, of course. It’s all clear to me now the relationship between the catholic school thing and the Gillette thing. Being Things that involve males makes them conflatable.
Now I understand: some bad apples have spoiled the crop, therefore, males are apples. Advice to women: avoid apples.
Ross, this "frustrating tic of the progressive vanguard" has a name: narcissism. Their blinded self-righteous certainty has resulted in their failure to learn, or even acknowledge, the successes of the past, and will for their generation, lead to tragedy greater than we witnessed in the blood-soaked 20th century.
2
While making what is a valid point overall (there are in truth many different ways to be a good and decent man), Douthat once again lays blame with the progressives (whatever that means), while ignoring the fact that his own party embraces proud ignorance, bullying, sexism, racism, and deceit, all while claiming that their god gives them the right to do so. Perhaps Mr. Douthat might suggest a few good books for folks like Trump, Pence, Falwell, Hannity, and McConnell to read----not that they are likely to read (or in at least one case, able to read).
20
Mr. Douthat to put it simply doesn't undestand.
His claim that there are multiple models of masculinity is a shallow attempt to diversify-by-multiplying the subject.
It falls flat.
The new guidelines, in fact are about not the external model of machism, but the common characteristic ALL the models shares.
This is a troubling point, then, for mr. Douthat, especially when he came to defend the stoicism, correction, the lack of stoicism in modern society
I'd have bet he thinks so.
It's written in the nytimes political agenda to promote stoicism.
This particular (and possible the worst type of philosophy ever produced ) doctrine of stoicism, who has Seneca among its fellows, states that whatever you have to do, you do it as soon as possible, and to remove ANY obstacles in order to do it. In particular you can read in the "letters to Lucillus" that people who can't do what they think in order to live an honourable life should rather die, because in that way honor is preserved, and not tainted by the moral failure. In another page, there is a tale about an ancient rich roman who was scared of death and called for his friends to talk him out of hat thought,as the story ends the rich roman is writing his will and going to voluntarily die to defeat the fear of dying.
I think any person should take this kind of thinking very lightly and from an historical perspective and never as a rule of life, which is exactly the admonition the report presented.
2
The focus shouldn't be on style and the core of the issue is raising women to equal power as men. That means in the halls of congress and the corporate boardrooms.
Show me the money and I'll show you the power. As long as men dominate in both categories we have toxic masculinity.
6
“Power tends to corrupt — absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
— Lord Acton
It ought to be quite simple. Treating other people like dirt is a sign of weakness. Grace requires strength. Ergo, a real man behaves like a gentleman and there is absolutely nothing 'toxic' about "emotional stoicism, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance and competitiveness.”
14
Like other commentators, I;m a bit dumbfounded by the use of literature to demonstrate pyscho/social gender theory. Fiction is not truth, and it is often more dramatic than reality - or it would be boring. That said, Ross is trying to make the point that toxic masculinity is bad, and so are the progressives who want to change it. Good god, if this is what passes for intelligent debate in the OpEd pages of the NYT, then we're all in far worse shape than we thought. Ross, not EVERYTHING is the fault of progressives.
8
@SDTrueman
You are conflating "fiction" and "literature" (not always the same thing), but I would say that all great literature is indeed "true" at a deeper level. You think fiction or literature are more dramatic than reality? Really? Look around you at all the things going on right now. An accomplished writer would hesitate to construct a novel that mirrors these times, for fear it would not seem believable.
2
The presentism referred to is a symptom of the move to discredit traditional liberal arts and replacing them with programs whose titles end with the word "Studies". Nothing can be seen except through the framework of an aggrieved identity group, in these programs. Shame. Homer's Odyssey, long dismissed as the work of dead, white Europeans, is actually a bildungsroman in which we can see clear insight into the development of young men who had poor or missing male role models. Odysseus himself had to learn wisdom and self-control before he could teach it to Telemachus. This story goes back three thousand years, but few today can read it without imposing modern prejudices and standards. The point is not just that this is still worth studying, but to agree with Douthat. This idea that toxic masculinity is widespread, recently understood, and just now addressed with insight is ridiculous. I await the listing of female toxicity, too. Literature and history are filled with cruel and ambitious women who were not pure imagination or just mere imitators of men. Mean Girls was not a fantasy or a one-off telling.
3
".... is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past..."
Is there actually such an assumption? I think it is Douthat's assumption that progressives assume that. Straw man yet again.
9
I was reading the most recommended here and of course it skews to men are the root of all problems, everybody must become a feminist to save humanity and modern day man must atone for five million yrs. of existence.
Your article is a bit verbose and esoteric for me.
Nevertheless, what I think you are saying is that through out history there were the good, the bad and the ugly re both genders.
It started in the Garden of Eden and it persists to this day.
3
Whoa! - Was this an entire column devoted to laying excuses for the men in power of today (especially republicans), simply because they grew up in a time of ... ?
No one (not society or opinion columnists) have a lock on what masculinity is, nor femininity for that matter. (check one column over)
Society, however has matured (almost) to a point where people (anyone) can be as they wish. (so long as they are not hurting themselves or others) This is to be applauded, celebrated and supported.
The key to achieving nirvana of any sort (imho) will be when women attain critical mass over power structures, and then implement safeguards, laws and protections for the above. Discrimination will be of the past and people can then truly celebrate diversity, and frankly there will be no need for labels then.
- Toxic masculinity will no longer have room at that point.
6
I should have known from the opening sentence that this was another conservative deflection piece. Sure, let’s talk about ancient literature, but I’m guessing that maybe 5%, at most, of the US population has read “Anna Karenina”. On the other hand nearly everyone can quote Dirty Harry.
The NRA churns out material every day that says a man isn’t a man unless he owns many large guns to protect his family. It motivates them to vote. It’s this politicization of manhood that keeps the conservative movement viable. I see it in every Trump supporter I talk to.
8
Five percent? Try 0.005 percent.
1
Extrapolating male nature and culture from literature, or even from myth, has its problems. To the person who used Achilles as an avatar of male savagery, No. Achilles was not a 'man', he was a demi-god, answering the call of fate, inherited from eons of tribe mythology. The story of Achilles has little to do with macho 'bravery', but is about human pride, temptation, and male vulnerability, symbolized by his exposed heel. It's also about prophesy which is commanded, not by a man, but by female oracles and deities. Achilles was a tool of female imagination and intrigue, not male domination.
In addition, it's incorrect to deduce male savagery or even male chauvinism from literary types in the Western tradition. The Greeks and Romans mocked male pride in their art. It was the target of their comedy. The subject of Greek tragedy is not heroism, it's fatal flaws in character or about random chance. Finally, the last 300 years of male novel writing is not a glorification of machismo, but the opposite. Look at the French 19th century, perhaps, just to read Balzac's Eugenie Grandin, which itself is a re-make of plays by Moliere. Male critics, perfectly heterosexual, of male heterosexual life abound.
4
Ross once again shows off his knowledge of arcane matters by advocating that those who critique what's "wrong" with today's male may be right, but for the wring reasons. But he doesn't tell us what to do about it, other than to mention that Trump supporters may be forgiven for thinking that, in defending that cesspool of a man, they are defending masculinity itself.
Really? Is that what Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are thinking? Susan Collins, too?
Searching for a new model? How about following the golden rule as an expectation for everyone, males and females alike. I've always been fond of the school motto of Virginia Tech, where my son attended college: Ut Prosim, Latin for "That I May Serve." Sums it up quite nicely.
Following the credo of service before self would eliminate 95% of the world's ills. Of course, humans are as much an emotional lot as an intellectual one. And Western religion has cemented the "might makes right" state of nature into a pleasant fairy tale where men are, of course, in charge, and women do as they're told. Especially if God says "You're going to have my baby." Involuntary surrogate motherhood, as the highest and best use of the female being.
Crickets from Ross on that front.
5
I will admit, not certain what point Mr. Douthat was making, but, having worked in male dominated environments and more diverse environments with females in leadership roles, there is no doubt in my mind that the mix of male/female thinking and behaving is far superior to what I have experienced in male dominated organizations. Although the political landscape in the last two years has been pretty dark, the election of so many female representatives just feels like a breath of fresh air in rooms stuck in male ways of doing business.
12
@Amanda Jones
In my last job, I worked in a nearly all female workplace, and it was the worst working experience of my life. My female co-workers were also miserable with the female bosses (and often with each other). It was so bad for that I jumped out of that plane without a parachute, but fortunately landed in a place of men. There's very little gossip or petty jealousy, we happily work as a team, and I can be frank with my male bosses without fearing that they'll be plotting against me as soon as I leave the room.
Despite what women like to believe, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with men or intrinsically great about women. Every person and every environment is different and will be experienced differently by each person. And power carries with it the risk that it can turn good people bad, whatever the gender.
I agree that a mix is good, but the bigger factor is a culture of respect and support for everyone. Without that, it doesn't matter who's in charge.
6
Granted, we have a moderately traditional culture so many of the expectation will not go away any time soon, if ever, but the bad impulses can be tamed. We need to create a better variant, something that rejects traditional masculinity but is smart and educated, athletic and fit but not obsessed with strength, attractive to women, having a broad range of interests, etc. One can satisfy the demands of masculinity without engaging in what people typically think of as traditional masculine endeavors, nor does one have to suffer under the typical understanding of stoicism.
Successful male socialization requires that men learn to control their testosterone-driven aggression. In my world, the overwhelming majority does. Whether as stoics or romantics or however doesn’t matter to me.
5
For me the ideal man is Gus McCray in Lonesome Dove. He is capable of handling a crisis of any type and is absolutely reliable to come to the rescue, but he is funny, touching, and romantic when the opportunity arises.
3
As a professional psychotherapist, I often find that my colleagues (and others) are confused about our contemporary society for the simple reason that they have never studied history nor literature. This essay is an argument in favor of teaching the humanities.
11
There's a great exchange between Anne Heche and Harrison Ford in "Six Days and Seven Nights" where Ford opines that he always thought that women prefer their men to be sensitive and in touch with their feelings, but Heche says no -- if there are bad guys around they want their men to be tough -- and armed...
4
@Bart Who do you suppose wrote that screenplay?
Research in gender at least as far back as the 80's, where I remember reading about it, would have shown that men who were more mixed in their gender role outlook, having an even mix of feminine and masculine qualities were happier, more likely to be satisfied socially and sexually, and more attractive to women as compared to traditional men. Although the concept has gotten bad press, as when the press described Michael Jackson's non-sexual persona as androgynous, thereby smearing men with balanced sex roles, it is still a better option for men and for women. Little has changed since then, except that traditional male orientation has been found to be in many ways harmful.
4
The simple truth: most cultures devalue attachment longings and fears, even though they are fundamental to our beings, This devaluing of our need for love, connection, and sharing of emotion Impacts men more than women. The way out, for all of us, is to embrace rather than abase our inherent vulnerability and dependency: we need each other deeply.
9
Miriam
Wise and helpful, thank you!
The point that destructive embodiments of masculinity were understood before today is a good one. However, Mr. Douthat obviously did not read the report he used as his main reference - an oversight unacceptable in a middle-school classroom.
The APA acknowledges there are various ways to exhibit masculinity in our culture - that is the point. Their argument is that we need to make more helpful ones more available to men across the board, the same argument Douthat uses.
There are many innate problems with Western psychology, including dehumanizing and arrogant approaches to research and treatment (we can't ignore the clinical rape of Victorian women). This maligned report, however, seems to mostly upset insecure men.
18
@pastorkirk. The biggest problem with Western psychology, and which makes Western psychology almost entirely a useless fiction, is the refusal to recognize human biology.
1
@pastorkirk
The APA could not have been more sexist and prejudicial when they called their description of masculinity "traditional". You don't have to be a dog to hear that whistle.
I think this is a delightful column and a reasonable argument. Not to mention an excellent reading list for undergraduate English majors.
My only criticism is Douthat goes so far afield to find different types of males, The most expansive and, simultaneously succinct description of man was written by American poet Walt Whitman:
"I am large. I contain multitudes."
I think that just about says it all.
10
@Laurence Bachmann. "I am large. I contain multitudes." Why are we to interpret this as dominating self importan masculinity instead of greatness of soul, heir to many and concerned with many more? The lens of masculinity as toxic seems to be doing the saying here.
1
@Russ Payne
We're not to interpret it as referencing "dominating self-important masculinity". That is only one possibility of what man can be, and the point of my comment. Whitman allowed for more types of men than apparently the APA does. He did so more succinctly than both Douthat and APA.
I agree, WW saw the greatness of soul in mankind, not the meanness. Something to aspire to and teach every boy (and girl).
1
@Laurence Bachmann. Of course. Apologies for my misreading. A bit early in the morning for commenting. Now enjoying "Song of Myself" instead. Thanks for that.
Where are the current leaders for the changes we need?
Certainly not at the top of our administration.
7
Most comments to this article--and which traces to Ross Douthat's historical examples--make generalizations about men but which are being read to mean white men.
Some commentators point out that the behavior of the population of men forms a distribution and with variances in both direction from some (unsatisfactory) average.
But what is being lost is that any useful analysis of the behavior of men should disaggregate the population of men culturally and acknowledge that some cultures disproportionately treat women badly. So for example, statistics cited about the incidence of abuse of women would reveal a disproportionate representation by certain cultures and religions which we all know about. And there is some correlation with these groups with a lack of economic and educational success that, in turn, gives rise to abusive behavior.
The important point is that commentators who generalize and hyperventilate about all men create pushback and undermine useful discussion of a valid topic.
8
"the forgetting of human experience" truer words were never spoken. Everyone always thinks that they are the first generation to see injustice and fight it.
8
Thank you Mr. Doughat for bringing this up. Your arguments are appealing for the use of literature to back your thoughts.
However, one aspect that is missing is the role religion plays in forming attitudes about women and men and their places in the dominant culture.
If the god you worship is male, chances are the church you attend will be patriarchal and will favor men over women in some aspect. Many modern, progressive religions have begun to overcome the negative aspects of patriarchy by adapting and allowing female leadership and showing empathy toward minorities.
But the more fundamentalist, dominionist-leaning, bible-pounding, right-leaners are far more likely to perpetuate the old attitudes about women being possessions of men and "others" who are not of the flock being unworthy. In these environments, toxicity abounds and men continue to demonstrate their cruelty in the name of their tiny god.
The more patriarchal and hierarchical a church is, the less I trust it or its members. The more influence these toxic religions have on a culture through politics, the more toxic masculinity we see practiced and legislated. I think that is part of what is happening now. The rise of the religious right has been accompanied by the rise of legalized bigotry against minorities as justified by "god". (See Pence, et al)
I have to agree with the bumper sticker that says, "Dear God. Please protect me from your followers."
Want better men? Fix religion or leave it behind.
35
@LAllen My (many) problems with the Apostles Creed (which, I learned in college, was formed in committee of I'll bet just men) starts right at the top: I believe in God the Father Almighty . . .
So now it’s a religious problem too? Boys will become “better men” once women receive the same opportunities as men in religious circles? Call it what it is, you aren’t not a religious individual and most likely don’t believe in God...”tiny God” I think is what you said.
One has nothing to do with the other. Re-read the Ten Commandments and tell me if religion at its base of fundemants are the problem.
You use this as an opportunity to attack an organization that has nothing to do with how men are shaped.
Women dominate pre-school, elementary education. Maybe we need more string confident men to team these young men
@LAllen You obviously are not a Catholic! The reverence given to Mary in most flavours of Catholicism may be interpreted as idolatry by outsiders. The most common form of Catholic prayer, the Rosary, is mainly an appeal for the intercession of Mary (about 8 times as many Hail Marys than Our Fathers).
Oh dear me what a lot of garbled nonsense. To start with Austen wasn't a Victorian novelist. She died in 1817 some 20 years before Victoria became Queen and her novels are set in the Regency period when ideas of manhood were considerably different and more violent than those that developed in the Victorian era which in fact was when all the ideas of what constituted manhood (or good and bad) that have prevailed until recent times were essentially created. If you want some idea what these were read instead the Victorian novels of Anthony Trollope who laid out in fine detail what constituted a gentleman, or George Eliot (actually Mary Anne Evans) who has similar perceptions.
37
Ok, several problems here. First, the article uses characters from various fictional sources as illustrations of historical manhood. Characters...fictional...created by a writer to fulfill a literary or artistic purpose within the context of a made up story. This is NOT the same as understanding the social, emotional, psychological, and behavioral patterns that have been encouraged for men of different generations.
Second, the current generation's concerns about "toxic masculinity" are not only about how women can be treated by some. It's also about boys being raised to deny their own feelings. Just last week the NYT ran an article about how several cutting edge male musicians have been writing music to try and push back against this pressure. What motivated this? Suicides by male friends.
Women in this country have fought for freedom from male control, domination, and rule. As we have become more successful there has been another quiet revolution happening underneath. In many homes across the US, fathers are caring for babies. They are doing the whole caregiver thing and they value it tremendously. This was something that was largely denied to previous generations of men. This is where we can go to "search for non-toxic manhood." A new generation of men who are learning that they can embrace a loving and nurturing side of themselves and hold that as part of their "manhood." But not all young men are raised with societal permission to know and express their feelings.
46
@kathleen
"A new generation of men who are learning that they can embrace a loving and nurturing side of themselves and hold that as part of their 'manhood.', while their wives/partners are cheating with toxic men. Sorry, I sincerely wish it weren't true, but I don't know a single warm, loving, nurturing man who hasn't experienced this. Even in fantasy, I don't know a single warm, loving, nurturing man who hasn't heard out loud his girlfriend/wife/partner want to "park their boots under Johnny Depp's (as Captain Jack Black) bed", while that warm, nurturing man would never, ever, same something in kind to his partner. Add to that the fact that at any moment, a warm, loving, nurturing man might find his career over because he opened the door for a female colleague 10 years ago and she found it a "micro-aggression", and it is no wonder where the distant stoicism and suicides are coming from.
8
I appreciate this perspective and align with it.
1
@DK - I see you’re certainly comfortable displaying the traditional “feminine” tendency towards melodrama. Well done!
5
Simply the said agenda is change through awareness. Men being asked to be conscience that certain behaviors they we taught, no matter the source of that education, are acceptable, are in fact, perhaps, either minimally offensive to women or others and at worst border on assault or worse (e.g. no means yes). Some Native American culture is said to not have gender identity and in some groups, women were the leaders. So to draw on historical evidence through literature, western literature, is to ignore other examples where the authors examples do not hold true.
9
We must understand that the traits the APA identified get people of all genders in trouble. With the rise of angry young men who seek to blame women for all their problems, it is important to not give these ideas concepts cover by assuming that they have not existed for a long time. Many of the problems of American history are based upon the areas that the APA addresses. As the GOP seeks to take the US back to the Gilded Age, we need to remember that it was not a good era for much of society.
14
@Anthony
"the rise of angry young men who seek to blame women for all their problems"
That is very much a two-way street, and that friction is not doing anyone any good.
1
The deep seated toxicity of patriarchy that springs from the older cultures - we still see it across the Middle East, across India, across most parts of the world really - in which women began as chattel - is a fundamental scourge of civilization.
It creates backward nations; encourages violence; and keeps societies mired in economic turmoil in which religion and patriarchy are closely tied. Violence, like honor killings or tossing acid at teenagers, is part of the fabric.
The west escaped much of this as the cultures jettisoned the old ideas and moved forward, recognizing women as people who have full human rights. We aren't always good at implementation, but the expectation is there.
Trying to pigeonhole men into types, trying to label who is toxic and who is not, is fundamentally flawed. Is the individual sufficiently civilized that he can recognize and live with respect for others? Then he isn't toxic whether he is Gary Cooper, of heaven forbid, the eternally annoying Heathcliff.
Let's not worry about types and instead insist that our cultural norm be that every human regard other humans as worthy creatures of God's creation. Imagine how easy that would make things.
90
@Cathy "The deep seated toxicity of patriarchy that springs from the older cultures - we still see it across the Middle East, across India, across most parts of the world really - in which women began as chattel - is a fundamental scourge of civilization."
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Consider, too, that these primitive cultures were often shaped and led by rigid, patriarchal religions that mandated a woman's role as chattel. Until the gods changed, the culture remained harsh and unyeilding toward women.
That is part of what we are seeing here. As rigid, right-wing, patriarchal Mosaic-law type religions get a bigger grip on the culture and politics, we see more bigotry enabled and sometimes encouraged by our "leaders." (See Pence, Trump, et.al.)
Many people are leaving religion behind for just this reason. Good for them. May they prevail.
24
@Cathy
Other cultures? While some of your points are well taken, you are starting with the wrong premise. South Asia has had women prime ministers even though they have been republics for far fewer years. Let's not blame our problems on other cultures. Patriarchy is world phenomenon, not specific to other cultures. In fact there are south Asian matriarchies that give kids their Mother's family name, you see that culture does not believe in 'bastards.' Then some of our forefathers colonized them!
1
Understanding this subject requires a lot more than this superficial analysis. It begins with an understanding of two competing forces: societal norms of behavior which strongly reflect a paternalistic culture, and human psychological development. And paternalistic social pressures notwithstanding, there are still a great number of men who are sufficiently secure in their masculinity that their behavior and relationships with women are far from toxic. Yes, men and women are different and their differences are capable of complimenting one another in a society where men and women have equality of rights and opportunities. And since Ross introduced fiction to illustrate behavioral norms, why not take a look at how Star Trek approached this topic through the Vulcans, a race of people possessed of emotions and emotional impulses (especially when it comes to the male-female relationship) far stronger than those of humans and yet who chose the stoic pursuit of logic as a means for controlling those emotions lest they govern their behavior. Other than the fact that they breed only once every 7 years, we might learn something from that fictional example.
8
The problem with toxic vs healthy masculinity seems to be rooted in toxic vs healthy humanness overall. I think everything has gotten confused because identity (as defined as attributes like race, sexuality, etc.) as definition of who we are as people forces us to focus on ourselves in increasingly minute ways. Focusing on yourself, becoming self-ish encourages selfishness. Selfishness is toxic.
My grandfather and his military friends were on some level terrifying. They were big guys who had knocked around in foreign climes who got together and compared their experiences in gravelly voices while children lurked, fascinated. They grilled, they drank moderate amounts of beer. They gave lip-service to the self-sufficiency thing, while their lived reality was that of being part of a useful network that included men and women. They were not toxic. Stoic at times, but not toxic.
I don't know how we are going to get out of this place where toxicity is caused by the what is supposed to cure it. One word for you, Incels.
11
I appreciate the wonderful historical information, education and reminders.
GENDER EQUALITY for all genders is the stated ideal and what we psychologists and psychoanalysts - especially those of us who are promoting positive manhood - are working for and toward.
Any other inference is a distortion of what we care about . Though it highlights the issues and leads to often thoughtful progress.
Thank you, Ross Douthat, for intelligent attention to the importance of men and masculinities.
7
The relentless rantings of the radical reformers continue.
Really, I don't see what's so difficult about this. Society has long created ideal male and female role models in literature and drama, and these models have used their strength for whatever a society deems good.
The problem is that some elements of contemporary society have decided for ideological reasons that masculinity itself is bad, and have flattered themselves with the unscientific notion that masculine characteristics are purely a matter of acculturation when we have long known that masculine traits are modulated by testosterone (compare a bull and a steer). This has created a generation of young men who are insecure in their masculinity -- particularly a problem for fatherless boys who have grown up without a male role model.
Masculinity that gave us Winston Churchill and it gave us Elon Musk. Many of the qualities condemned in this unfortunate attempt to politicize psychology are beneficial to society.
The obvious solution to the problems of a Weinstein or a Trump is the traditional one -- create positive role models for men, and discourage negative behaviors such as bullying and violence.
What we should not do is criminalize the many among us who have lived decent, public-spirited lives because of the behavior of the occasional bad apple.
And we have to ask ourselves -- how are we going to control toxic masculinity when we elect the worst offenders, like Donald Trump?
18
Sorry, but while Trump may be a skirt chaser, and says things, joking or not, that are common in locker rooms, the general hysteria notwithstanding, there is zero evidence that he mistreats the women in his life. His business employed many women at high levels. Have any come forward with complaints? His daughter is his top advisor.
Maybe best to leave him out of this topic.
@KJ mcNichols
You're kidding, right? Trump bragged on tape about grabbing women by the crotch, at least 11 women have come forward to say that he harassed them, and he's a serial philanderer.
If this is our standard of acceptable male behavior, we're in trouble indeed.
5
@Josh Hill I too am appalled at the efforts to "criminalize the many among us who have lived decent, public-spirited lives." Please tell me which jurisdiction is doing this so I can commence my letter-writing campaign! I really don't want you guys to go to jail -- that's truly heartbreaking. Keep a stiff upper lip, chum!
1
Ross, this is a wonderful article! I love the references to all the literary characters of my youth, who I have not thought of in years. Your insights here strike me as so true. Good job!
11
I am tired of articles like this. Human nature comes in an infinity variety, modulated by genes, upbringing, culture (including its fads), and the accidents of fate that befall us all. There are no universal masculine traits. Even what people take to be averages for a culture are often suppositions or summations that erase all individual differences. Also missing in in articles like this is the fact of freedom. Our character is shaped by our choices. It itself becomes a self-reinforcing habit of choosing. But habits can be broken. We can never give up that ability to distance ourselves from ourselves and ask: what I am doing? Instead of speaking about "toxic" masculinity (or the female equivalent), it would be much more helpful to speak about good or bad character and the individual responsibility we all have for shaping this. Sociology, in fact, can never replace morality.
18
https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/11/most-women-killed-partners-or-family-global-homicide-report-says
WOMEN ARE VICTIMS. This needs to recognized. Until this fact is acknowledged, there will be no healing.
4
@Carolyn Egeli
It is MEN who come home from wars with their limbs blown off. And MEN who suffer permanent brain damage from those same wars. It is MEN Who get convicted and serve longer sentences for the same crimes as women. It is MEN who commit suicide four times the rate of women. It is our BOYS who lack the encouragement that girls receive in school and drop out at a higher rate than woman and end up addicted to drugs/in jail. Individuals can be victims. Claiming all in your group to be victims is blind and self-serving. MEN are just as much or more victims of the culture than woman are.
@AJ
And it is MEN who control the society that does all those things to men. Men are the primary victims of male culture, and they have the most to gain from changing it.
1
Why is it that when this topic gets raised, no one includes the hormone factor? While it is hard for people to recall or have perspective on how hormones made them crazy during puberty, and women get a chance to contemplate it every month and also get powerful examples during pregnancy, men don’t usually have the opportunity to learn how much their actions are influenced by the chemical cocktail in their bodies. I really think we need more science on this and more awareness on this topic. It will help everyone if we could start talking about it and if men could learn what their thoughts and emotions would be like without this steady forceful thrum. Otherwise, we continue to accept that men have these tendencies without a true understanding of the forces at work.
22
@The Lorax
The basic science has long existed and there is a lot of work on it still ongoing, e.g., on the manner in which testosterone levels vary according to circumstances (leadership positions increase it, having children decreases it, etc.)
It doesn't get mentioned because it isn't politically correct to do so -- some people would like to pretend that the differences between men and women are purely a matter of socialization.
30
@Josh Hill Not sure about that. Of course the endocrine system is huge and has big impact. But behavioral outcomes that advance civil interactions are important to discuss. The PC argument seems tired. ( And the opinion piece discussed here is so superficial as to not warrant much discussion.)
This piece appears to have generated the deepest tranche of serious, thoughtful comment I've seen for a Douthat article. Much of it seems to swirl around a couple of philosophic issues. First, Douthat has confused ideas with reality, a typical error of inexperienced thinkers. He has taken Plato's metaphysic and committed himself to the realm of types as normative and knowable, neither of which is true. Reminds one of Bishop Berkeley. Second, from a different era, he has stepped deeply into that wonderfully phrased error defined by AN Whitehead, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. He has taken a typologic extraction, those literary gentlemen, and assumed they are real, tangible individuals which also being models. Clearly these are simply different views on the same core fallacy of mistaking an idea for reality. The error is replicated in his sense that each time period of which he speak has independent reality, concrete and knowable, separate from our own, whereas we are all linked in the flow of time and human social behavior as it evolves through experiment and experience or as the psychologist who commented earlier says 'behavior matters' and is influenced by events and other behavior.
If people, men, behave badly that is the issue not the times in which they are behaving.
7
Except wouldn’t the time they live in have an impact on the definition of “badly”.
In some quarters largely the more progressive ones, it is easier, and frankly less messy, to critique a system, a culture, or an "ism" than an individual's thinking and actions which are explained away by context. In other quarters, largely the more conservative, the critique is directed toward individuals without regard for the larger dynamics in which people find themselves. What is lacking is serious reflection beyond critique to "now what?" The progressive and conservative approaches are fundamentally sterile and esoteric without engaging with the implications for the person seeking to make his/her way through a day to provide for their loved ones, live in community, and uncover real meaning and purpose. The way forward is uncovered here more than in the theories about society, culture and behavior.
3
Men and women are equal. Most men have a hard time accepting this gracefully. Women are abused because of this. The stats show this clearly. The jails are not full of women who have committed murder, unless in self defense. The jails are full of men who have murdered women. The abuse of women is a world wide problem. Jimmy Carter wrote a wonderful book "Call to Action" that addresses the need for me to step up and treat women as equals. Only men can do this, as they are the ones in charge. When men learn to be respectful of women, all of our lives will improve. Right now, we have a president who does not, never has, and never will, respect women. The misogynists of the world are loving it. They feel justified.
29
@Carolyn Egeli I understand your point but your statistics are all mixed up.
Jails are not full of "men who murdered women". In general, jails are full of minorities who were involved in the drug trade (sell, buy and/or use).
While about 90% of violent crimes are committed by men, 80% of this violence is committed on other men (source: UNODC).
In order to be equal, women have to stop being portrayed as victims.
18
@Equality Means Equal THis is simply inaccurate. The stats clearly show that men overwhelmingly murder women. https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/11/most-women-killed-partners-or-family-global-homicide-report-says
WOMEN ARE VICTIMS. Until you recognize this, no progress will be made in reversing it.
8
Men and women are NOT equal just as males & females in the rest of the animal kingdom are also distinctly different. Biologically the differences are substantial - there’s no need to delineate them, anyone with common sense knows what they are. The differences spill over into both the physical and emotional in both genders. I do agree that a civil society should treat both genders equally in every way within a society’s laws and standards.
1
The one trait that makes the difference between whether a person is strong or oppressive is EMPATHY.
Men (and women) with the ability to put themselves into the shoes of others and to consider viewpoints other than their own are much less likely to behave in toxic ways.
All too often, young boys are pushed to be tough by being told not to be empathetic and by being rewarded for stoicism where they repress both their own needs/feelings and those of others.
In general, I've found this kind of unempathetic toughness to be more pronounced among American men than among European men--and that implies that it is cultural rather than hormonal.
How about we raise our boys with more discussion about "how do you think so-and-so feels" and fewer commands to "toughen up" and "don't be a sissy"?
75
@Heather is it impossible to be both stoic and empathetic? I don’t think so. A stoic must ignore his own pain, not necessarily the pains of others. It’s true the traditional male upbringing doesn’t make that distinction. But we could salvage and improve the male virtues by making that distinction in the future
3
I like your emphasis on the importance of empathy, but suggest - as someone raised the way you suggest - that empathy can still have a hard edge. harder in fact. As the great philosopher said: "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." Or to put it less succinctly, sometimes what you understand is that another human is weak, cruel, venal, and utterly without possible redemption. Such a realisation doesn't make one fluffy.
2
@Teed Rockwell I've done a lot of personal work and have been told I'm VERY high on the empathy scale. I'm pretty confident in saying that if I can't notice and be ok with my own negative feelings of sadness, anger, fear, shame then I'm much less able to empathisize with others... That seems obvious to me. IMJ, reflexively suppressing all my negative emotions (as I was taught to do as a child) leads to much of what is referred to as "toxic" behavior... Check out mkp.org if you're interested in groups of men who fully own all parts of themselves and show up in the world full of power and heart.
1
Ross, you forgot to mention the "Object Maker," the rationalist man who makes things or theories, and who is the living embodiment of Kant's Transcendental Logic.
You mentioned the violent man of base instincts and the artist. There is also the prime mover, the man of wisdom who leads a family or a society and lays down the law - as e.g., Christ and Christianity. Or it could be an ordinary guy who leads a family in prayer or conversation at the dinner table.
We could use a "prime mover," a man of Lincoln's depth, right now. Instead we got something else.
You said, "there is no single 'traditional' model."
No, there is not. However, all of these archetypes reside in the mind. It depends on whether the ego brings them to consciousness. The ego can promote other a priori things besides the instinctive violent Id, such as the Transcendental Aesthetic of poets and musicians.
Obtaining an identity, being and becoming, constitute the natural way of life for a man. Essential participation in life is a good life. Fitness matters, the arts matter, the utilization of the rational matters, and spirituality matters. Eschew the incidental and the vicarious, and keep chopping wood or painting verdure.
Sincerely, a friend of Father Bill D
7
I mean toxicity is dose-related, right? Most drugs are toxic in high doses. Different situations require different amounts and shades of masculinity. Figuring out the right measure takes wide-ranging experience. No one gets it right immediately.
Is this even a big deal? Men are human beings and start as children. Every one learns something slightly different from his life. You can't solve humanity.
8
Thus the pendulum once again begins it's swing back the other way.
Constantly attempting equilibrium in the human form.
6
A different study of masculinity appears in A Voyage for Madmen, Peter Nichols’s account of the sailors competing in the 1968 race to be the first man to circumnavigate the globe single-handedly and without stopping.
It’s a work of non-fiction, but George Orwell once observed that anything worth picking up a second time ought to be counted as literature, and this is a book that I have now read three times (it was published in 2001).
I won’t speculate here about what drives men to take on such gigantic challenges, but in the interests of equality, surely it would be better to have more ambitious women than fewer ambitious men. If the price of this is “toxic” behavior from the standpoint of the less ambitious, maybe that’s the price we have to pay.
5
@Andrew M. That would be difficult, male aggression, which is channeled into such ambition, is the product of testosterone, something males naturally possess in higher amounts than females. That’s not to say ambitious females don’t exist or that their ambition shouldn’t be rewarded but it’s foolish to ignore biological differences between the sexes or their impact on behavior.
@Andrew M.
Ever hear of Amelia Earhart?
Noted women are not all femme fatales or matyrs or virgins. Loads of them have actual great achievements.
When we get to the point when there's an equal number of women as men in positions of power then perhaps we'll be at a point where women can stopped being held to a higher standard and stop being expected to home and family at the cost of sacrificing career. Also when men share equally in home and family responsibilities then we'll have a much better quality of life.
We're not there yet or Hillary would be president.
2
As a psychologist who has spent many years working with children and parents, I cannot support guidelines that try to change who people "are" instead of focusing on what people "do." Masculinity is a vague term to identify an arbitrarily identified set of behaviors. Psychological research for the past 100+ years clearly shows that if you want to improve outcomes, you focus on a person's actions. Focusing on traits has always been pointless. It just doesn't work. So instead let's not pretend to know how to address "toxic" or "traditional" masculinity but work to promote functional and respectful behavior. Let's help boys and men communicate more effectively, but not perhaps in the same way as women. Let's help men to be competitive without being destructive. Assertive without being aggressive. Independent without being callous. Self-reliant instead of selfish. Masculinity is just fine... traditional or not. What is wrong, very wrong is to treat anyone with contempt, disrespect, or dismissiveness. Focusing on masculinity won't help at all, not any more than analyzing dreams ever cured depression. Instead, focus on people's behaviors and you will see the world change.
220
Treat the symptoms as the causes have no cure.
@MSmith "functional and respectful behavior."
That's the core of it, isn't it? Think what you like. Develop whatever values you wish, but behave like a civilized human. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't clearly remember my parents teaching me any of this, but someone must have. Somehow, I know it's wrong to grab women by their private parts or use racial or sexist slurs.
It's not that hard.
7
Ross is onto something; I just came home after spending most of Shabbat in synagogue, where the main event was a Torah reading in which Moses and Pharoah (each a different model of male leadership with claims of power or authority over the Hebrews, one by imposing slavery, the other forging a community of worship focused on a body of law and ethical code) have it out, an epic battle of male wills.
Of course, this is but the latest episode of male rivalry going back to Joseph & his brothers (at the end of the book of Genesis, with of course the resentful, jealous brothers selling Joseph into slavery, Jacob vs. Essau in the previous generation, Isaac vs. Yishmael in the generation before that, and so-on going back to the original, primordial pair of male rival, Cain vs. Abel. Well, as G-d is presented as male, a sort of ultimate Father figure, G-d and Adam may be considered the first such male rivalry.
Now as to the Greek tradition, the Iliad famously begins: "Sing, O goddess, the destructive wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus, which brought countless woes upon the Greeks,and hurled many valiant souls of heroes down to Hades...from the time when Atrides, king of men, and noble Achilles, first contending, were disunited.
Each (probably every) tradition is saturated with violent male rivalry: Oedipal across generations (father-son), and lateral ones between brothers or peers.
The orthdox Torah tradition is a thousands-year-old argument among men over the laws' interpretation.
8
@Andrew A correction to your text. Achilles was not a 'man', he was a demi-god, answering the call of duty, inherited from eons of ethnic mythology. The story of Achilles has little to do with his macho 'bravery'; it's all about male vulnerability, symbolized by his exposed heel. It's also about prophesy which is commanded, not by a man, but by female oracles and deities. Achilles was a tool of female imagination and intrigue, not male domination.
@Andrew
So you're saying men have been the important leaders since the beginning of time? So it's men who are responsible for the world as we know it?
Well I'm glad to hear one of you admit it. LOL
1
Of course there are guidelines for men in our society; they are called "values" and "ideals" and involve culture-specific models. They are present in our American literature from The Pathfinder novels to To Kill a Mockingbird.
Each boy needs exposure to these values and ideals. Our quarrel with them is that, too often, the groups that teach them do not always live up to them.
Sub-cultures within America add their particular ideals of manhood to the mix. The problem is not that we don't have guidelines, but that our system has split both nuclear families and extended families, placed a work ethic above a family and community ethic, presumed that success in commercial terms is paramount, and has enforced mobility on a population. The problem has been the industrialization of society and, now, the dictates of a consumer economy.
Yes, each man and woman can choose how to live and what to do. Choice still exists. Of course, it may entail sacrifice of other alternatives. However, how you treat another person is always a choice. Our toxicity is within us.
15
@HLR
Thank you for this response! You highlight the bigger questions we need to be asking ourselves about the prices we are willing to pay for an ideal of "success" that has been foisted upon us (or we have foisted upon ourselves) for generations.
7
It's supposed to be complicated.
I mean, I'm thrilled that Christine Gillibrand is running for president, but she's already running into trouble for her role in convincing Al Franken to step down under pressure from a former model who was a broadcaster on a Fox affiliate.
I also think Cardie B. is a hoot. No doubt we share many political views. If we were to meet at a party we would just t-a-l-k . . .
I've never been to an event that involved Rhonda Rousey and, well, anyone doing anything to each other, let alone beating each other's brains out on pay-per-view.
But that doesn't mean I don't think a woman could coach a pro basketball team. If coach-as-father-figure works, just imagine how a mother figure could get a player's attention.
Years ago I chose a gender-related topic for my Academic Writing class. For research I joined a dating site for a month that, among other things, had a section for listing member's fantasies. Suffice to say the "soft boys" category was non-existent.
The current crop of congress members should tell you everything you need to know about how our socio-political landscape is shaking out. This column explains a bit about how/why with an understandably Anglo-centric (what else is there?) history.
Recommended reading: "Spreading Misandry" by Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson.
Not a word about toxic femininity. But they never heard of Rebecca Traister and her new book, "Good And Mad".
Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
8
@Skeexix - Should read "doesn't mean I don't think a woman couldn't coach a pro basketball team."
Ugh.
The past struggles between toxic and non-toxic manhood occurred in a context where men had the power and the last word. Their choice of toxicity might destroy their relationships but it would not destroy their social standing or economic position. The toxic men of the past would never experience what Harvey Weinstein is going through; it was their choice to clean up their act or not, and women could pressure them only within relationships where they had the advantage.
In many cases, women achieved domination over their men, but this domination was exercised within a public legal and social reality in which it could not openly exist. The Victorian novelists would have had to be science fiction writers rather than attentive observers of their society in order to give us real insight into manhood in an age of equality.
8
Before there was #metoo there was #yesallwomen
It took me a moment to realize that I too had suffered. Until men realize that it is every woman they know who has had to put up with stuff, and stops enabling it, there is room for improvement.
Just because there hasn't been an acknowledged rape doesn't mean that we don't have to be careful to pay attention to our surroundings, and that we don't put up with garbage from the entitled (not all of whom are men, I admit).
11
@Susan Anderson,
...thank you for the clarification in parentheses.
Agreed.
1
I agree with what David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., said in response to your colleague Thomas Egan's review of the APA guidelines:
"The greatest adverse shock to the psychosocial welfare of U.S. men has not stemmed from dysfunctional notions of masculinity (not that these are above reproach) nor from #MeToo (which was long overdue) but from deep secular labor market forces — both technological and trade-induced — that have over nearly four decades reduced the demand for skilled blue collar work."
Men's position (power) and value in the U.S. is eroding not just in the skilled blue collar area. Competition, which has been the male holy grail, is also damaging as the winner and loser concept becomes less viable. Seems to me, in most venues, cooperation works better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
17
@Ann-Autor continues:"The effects of these economic changes have been devastating:
These forces have dramatically eroded the earnings power, employment stability, social stature, and marriage market value of non-college men. The ensuing dysfunction touches not just in earnings and employment but also male idleness, dysfunctional and destructive behavior (e.g., drug and alcohol abuse), and the erosion of two-parent families, which, research suggests, facilitate children in becoming successful adults."
9
@Ann I like the book "Stiffed" that shows how the working male in the shipyards suffered from not being able to support their families.
2
Excellent observations. If you'll check the headlines, the problems have regularly gotten worse, as we abandoned Latin and ancient Greek as high school requirements. Read those essays and plays, if you'd like to know how toxic it was back then.
And it would be great to know if Gary Cooper intentionally portrayed a strong- and non-toxic male in 'Friendly Persuasion'. A good example, that.
5
In this cultural moment, there is the opportunity to explore the burdens and blessings of masculinity and perhaps create new norms that are advantageous to both men and women.
But, sadly, I suspect it will mostly turn into a prolonged male-bashing session that will traffic in broad stereotypes that turn all men into Weinsteins, Trumps and Moonves.
Besides the missed opportunity of increased understanding and harmony between the genders, it may create an opening for the most toxic American who has ever lived to get four more years to engage in graft, lying and treason.
8
@Sparky: Very well articulated Sparky. The incessant man bashing practiced by so many American women is sure to divide us and ensure another four years of the orange one.
Shakespeare 's "Taming of the Shrew" embodies masculine toxicity. But what modern readers don't know is that one of Shakespeare's contemporaries wrote a parody called "The Tamer Tamed" in which a widowed Petruccio marries a second wife who makes his life miserable. Shakespeare's contemporaries understood toxic masculinity, even if they didn't call it that.
14
Not meaning to quibble, but I see the concept in this article as primarily applying to a search for the non-toxic WHITE man, since no other type of manhood or "traditional masculinity" was represented in either Victorian or contemporary times -- And for all the historical reasons we know too well by now.
Just saying.
6
@N. Smith If you think finding a non-toxic WHITE man is a problem, try listening to some hip-hop.
Masculinity should never seek to be violent nor toxic. Masculinity should seek the ego ideal--refraining from rushing to judgment until all of the factors are weighed; refraining from exploitation of others; refraining from injuring others verbally &/or physically. Self-defense can & often should require a powerful verbal & sometimes a necessary physical response to an injuring party--but that falls under an entirely different domain in this discussion.
Masculinity should exhibit patience, kindness, thoughtfulness. Masculinity should strive to unite, not divide; inspire, not denigrate. Masculinity should never seek to injure as a means to seeking dominance, wealth, power & the objects of attraction.
Masculinity should be synonymous with being a gentleman, which is a gentle man: in other words, a mensch. Masculinity should never employ schoolyard bullying, verbal jokes at others' expense.
Masculinity should never spread gossip, slander or libel others, injure other people's reputation. Masculinity should never scapegoat the innocent. Gossip, slander, libel & scapegoating are despicable acts. Speaking ill of others & damaging their personal &/or professional reputation injures the target, as well as the receiver of such injurious messages; it also demeans the speaker & spreader of such libelous words. In Judaism, we refer to such an act as "lashon hara," or the "evil tongue." Readers may find the story of the Rabbi and the Pillow Filled with Feathers applicable.
6
@Chromatic Being nice is generally desirable, but there is also a place for confronting evil, up to and including using lethal force.
@John Evan
I concur. There are reasons why there exist so many differentiated shades of laws & regulations. While polar "black-and-white" situations do occur (starkly good v. evil), there also exist many shades of colors, hues, tints, & grey all in between, demanding our utmost wise, conscientious & judicious application of reasoned response. Hence, such is the reason why we have developed (in theory) an adversarial system of justice, with a prosecutor, defense attorney, & a neutral, detached magistrate in courts of law.
In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as well as in Talmud, there are laws & explications relating to human conduct with differing scenarios requiring dissimilar diagnoses, prescriptions, & treatments under the law. One size response does not fit all situations.
I concur that there must be limits to "being nice," but what I am submitting is the concept of "being kind" rather than "nice." I also agree there are limits to addressing others with kindness. Rather say that the goal is an overarching objective.
More pointedly, my endeavor is aimed at the acculturation of masculinity, as it is inculcated from the time of early boyhood onwards. Boys & young men grow up in a highly competitive & threatening culture & almost all feel forced to suppress impulses of showing kindness in the form of encouragement rather than disparagement. It does not take much to be supportive to others instead of showing contempt. Being kind as well as strong is not mutually exclusive.
@Chromatic Can we say the same about femininity? Because slander, gossip, scapegoating, libel and generally attempting to use one’s words to damage others or their reputations is hardly an exclusively male pursuit. In fact quite the contrary, women tend to be worse in that regard: one YouTuber I follow reported that three different women had attempted to accuse her of rape because they disagreed with something she’d said, another youtuber reported an incident at a local school where a male teacher had gotten fired because some of his female students accused him of rape as revenge for giving them bad grades on a test, yet another youtuber had to deal with a mailing campaign by women to get him fired for the high crime of disagreeing with someone they liked, and I’ve heard many stories of young girls using slander to ruin their classmates reputations.
"One of the frustrating tics of our society’s progressive vanguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past.....
This forgetting of human experience, this perpetual present-tenseness,"
Quite a good definition, Mr. Douthat that works of course not only for issues of manhood, although 19th century novelists are not good backdrops for everything.
Views and policies that ignore the past, i.e. history and not "personal narrative", and which are myopically rooted in the fleeting present, provide very little service for the future.
5
The youngest women, who are least experienced with biological needs and who we protect by law, naturally select for edgier males. By 25, which is closer to the marrying age now and closer to the age of best mothering, women prefer and select for men whose strength is modulated by a capacity to care for both women and children. Guys, just be nice and it will all work out. You will have happier families and happier lives.
11
@Mary O'Connell. What are you basing those statements on?
1
When I grew up, after World War II, American men had a certain status simply by being men. The reason was war--the one past, the one passing, and the one to come. In those 30 years, the United States fielded a traditional mass citizen army. Women could not be drafted; men could and were, even Elvis. Ergo, men were essential to the country's "defense" (i.e., its geopolitical ambitions, which were supported by a majority of citizens).
This period of male valorization came to an end in 1975, with the end of the draft and of the Vietnam War. Women's rapidly increasing employment, the growing need of families for two incomes, and growing feminist sentiment, all contributed to the leveling of the two sexes.
Perhaps now it seems that was the only right thing to happen. But a society devalues its males at its own peril. If men are not firmly embedded in social roles that make them contributors, they will very likely become social problems. This is either not true of women, or far less so.
So there is a social rationale for some gender differentiation in social status. Men who see a path to honor are likely to take it. And to be clear (at least to men, who on the whole are not terribly reflective about these things) such paths must be few, and obvious. Combat, competition, teamwork, the sense of victory and reward--a society that wants men who aren't social problems must furnish sturdy frameworks for these things.
Look at us now. We are wandering in the desert.
18
@Dan
No one is devaluing men. Rather we are now valuing women also. Something that the barefoot and pregnant crowd can't accept.
One can be a man like myself while valuing women as equal. I don't need to boast about my manhood or expect women to accept a submissive role.
28
@Dan There is some truth to what you say, how men are hardwired to effect physical accomplishment in the outer world marketplace. That's one reason boys are having trouble with having to sit still and quiet with long attention spans in school classrooms - an issue that must be addressed in scholastic administration.
But it is only one truth in all this. There is a constellation of truths - some in seeming conflict. Balance and understanding and wise, tolerance are needed, without victims and collateral damage. Woman good - man bad, man strong - woman weak dichotomies are not helpful except to the political cottage industries and pundits.
5
Well, Skip, neither do I. But I'm talking about broad social standards, not individual choices. American men are not flourishing. Trump's election alone is proof of that. I humbly suggest that the most fundamental reason is a secular shift decisively devaluing the roles males are still, despite all rhetoric about equality, powerfully attracted to. To give men (in all demographics, not just college-educated white males) a real incentive to seek constructive social roles, you must work with, not against, innate male traits. (They really do exist, gender positivism notwithstanding.)
12
Before I retired as a practicing licensed clinician, I frequently had to treat men whose past qualities of manhood had ceased helping, and had begun to do them harm. It ranged from recognizing a powerlessness over use of drugs or alcohol to giving up controlling behavior to save a marriage. A quality frequently included in the definition of feminism is: interdependence. Whether in a military unit, a hospital team or at a social service agency, I believe this quality is far too valuable to be devalued by men based on some stereotype we were taught to emulate. Too often, we as men were placed in prolonged situations demanding of us the very behavior that later began destroying our lives, making happiness impossible. Giving up the practice of such characteristics felt as if we were leaving ourselves wide open to destruction. Letting go of such myths, and embracing values which help, not harm, felt like a forced metamorphosis. We were taught to be hard on ourselves when what was needed now was something quite different. The first step was recognizing we could not do it alone.
7
@MidwesternReader How do we deal with the conundrum of female complexity and seeming contradiction? It was well expressed by Joni Mitchell, "I like a mean ol' daddy sometimes!" I've seen it in action too many times, seemingly liberated women getting off on having a macho male by their side. It's the old, "What do they want?" dilemma.
And I think they are more than myths about giving up defenses. In entering into interdependence men are leary of covert manipulation, a very real and often unconscious exercise of soft power modeled down through history. "Feminine wiles," and all that stuff. Emotional abuse is strong stuff, and a real bind for males who wrestle with being stoic and not reacting to being mistreated by females.
12
A recent example of 'toxic' behavior - not 'masculine', per se, just 'toxic' - was Brett Kavanaugh's embarrassing ranting during his employment interview for the Supreme Court. Sen Lindsey Graham was another good example. I can't believe anyone excused this. A person who aspires to a leadership position needs to demonstrate self control - in tone, body language and verbal responses.
In corporate America behaving like this at a job interview (for that is what this was), a performance review or a meeting of any kind would place the person on the short list for rejection or, if already employed there, layoff/'right' sizing.
148
@Cal They were preaching to their audience of one, and his base. They were each successful in their approach, and had a safe, effective bubble of privilege in which to act out.
That it was effective and protected speech in that forum just demonstrates how much the money and religion influences, the influences of brute power - often but not always heavily male in dominance - are the beast mode running this country. It was out in force again just this past week in the Judiciary Committee - who was squiring William Barr around in the room but once again none other than Leonard Leo, the uber-Catholic far-rightist and gladhander and bag handler for the big dark money of the Kochs et. al. and the Federalist Society.
5
@Cal
It was absolutely masculine because it was Kavanaugh "the man" not Ms Ford who ranted, insulted and cried hysterical tears. Then got away with it to become a SC justice.
8
Your essay speaks clearly to the need to support strong, well funded public schools. They are the best melting pot we have for teaching lessons of all sorts, including how to get along with others who might not like" look just like you". Unfortunately, not only has funding slipped, but teaching to the test, punishing teachers for not doing so, and the incursion of charter schools - which are able to cherry pick which students they admit as well as draining money away from public school budgets -have caused great strain and a seige mentality in many of our public schools.
So many of the lessons you cite in this article were learned there by my classmates and me - back in the 1950s.
21
@Ellen That running down of public schools is deliberate. They're "government schools," you know...
4
@Rocky
Good point, Rocky. Reagan started the sad fad of government as the enemy. He and Margaret Thatcher saw things in much the same way. Government was to be plundered, and goods and services we held in common were to be sold off to friends.
6
@Ellen Good point. Tx for comment.
4
My late father had lots of faults.
However, one thing he wouldn't stand for was men who hit women.
When he and my mother fought (which was often; they would eventually divorce), I thought my mother often went over the line verbally to provoke him.
But he never raised his hand to her. Not once.
I'm not sure where he got this attitude. He was raised on a small ranch in the rural state that has long voted Republican. So, I'm sure he would be disgusted for how Donald Trump has led the Republican Party to embrace Trump's hatred for, and derision against, MOST women.
I also note that beating up or assaulting a woman didn't even make it into God's list of 10 greatest sins, nor does religion place values on mothers (the exception being Mary). However, a man trying to sleep with his neighbor's wife did. That tells me all I need to know about who stands behind the face of "God."
37
In the 1970s, when I came out of the closet, psychology was used as a big club to keep gays in their place. But I also quickly learned that psychology was used as a big club to keep women in their place.
With women it was the whole smorgasboard of neurosis best captured by the word "castrating" (and yes, women in the late 70s could be diagnosed as being "castrating") and with gays, it was of course, "abnormal".
I almost immediately saw that one term was a displacement of the other, peas in a pod. And that homophobia is misogyny by other means. In my eyes it has forever tarnished the validity of psychology with its penchant for pathologizing.
Which brings us to psychology's latest pathologizing foray: the pathologizing of masculinity. And that is precisely what it is-any temporalizing is reaction to the sting of social media and fast communication.
And I wonder: Does this indicate progress or is it a mere inversion of hierarchies? A plus ca change, with merely another trait being clubbed.
22
Bravo, @schbrg!
As another gay guy, I'm attracted to masculinity -- and while these could be considered "feminine" feelings, I've also learned to respect my (male) body -- and thus, I've come to repudiate this entire "gender identity" business. The only identity that matters is being a mensch.
@schbrg "But it's our turn!"
Trying to fit someone's vision of how we should comport ourselves only leads to frustration and with frustration comes toxicity. We are a product of and reflection of the time we are living in. Like the Romantic Era in which Jane Austen wrote, emotional expression and individualism are valued right now amongst both males and females. As traditional roles in society are shifting and being challenged some males especially are fighting against those changes. Losing male privilege in this era of the #MeToo movement has shocked and angered many males. Losing power is never easy. There are bound to be repercussions as the power balance shifts.
Why can't we all, male and females just treat one another with the respect with which we would like to be treated, and to quote from "Bonfire of the Vanities" - "Go out and be decent to one another." If we did that one thing it would reduce a lot of the toxicity and anger out there.
A non-toxic male would be one who respected and treated a woman as an equal in every way, capable of making her own decisions. (Obviously Donald Trump is not the role model for the non-toxic male.) You can be strong like John Wayne, and non-toxic at the same time. It isn't an either or situation.
10
@Diana And a non-toxic female? They too exist, you know.
To me the underlaying message of Mr Douthat's article is not so much a warning of the perils Progressivism may present for pushing males toward a new Girlie Man paradigm of masculinity but, instead, succinctly highlights the confusion that males ( (both young and old) currently face in defining just what being a 'Man' entails.
And no, for myself having grown-up in the Post War Baby Boom with it's ,on the surface, liberation mentality towards political and sexual equality- but it's underlying hold of Depression Era White Privilege and female repression- I can only truly say that my own masculinity is a work in progress.
I do though think however that for the younger males growing up in this new era of the awareness of the power of femininity, and it's concurrent demands for true equality, that this is an exciting but challenging time. And that if the modern young male is aware enough to be willing to explore just what it means to be a Man, that it could liberate them from some very counter productive, stifling and self destructive tendencies (to say nothing of the amazing amount of positive female attention this change may help them with). And perhaps even more importantly, over the long run, help the young male in reliving them from the almost overwhelming burden of constantly thinking they must be the, "Strong One".
7
@Birddog real men know how to use the word its as differentiated from it's.
When I was about 40 I read this piece of wisdom - not remembering author but did remember what was written:
"If a woman is attractive to men only, she has sex appeal; it a women is attractive to woman only, she has style; but if a woman is attractive to both men and women then she has charm.
For the last 50 years that phrase has prompted me
to recognize that we men have missed a great opportunity over the centuries in not cultivating that third dimension of womanhood, namely, that women are great to be with regarding their understanding, conversation, as colleagues, as partners in projects, their organization skills and many, many other attributes.
If we men would work emulate some of the great attributes that women possess, there wouldn't be any need to concentrate their efforts on being stoic, because the big secret is that women like men who have some of the attributes that have made women great.
15
@Tom Osterman
I have recently begun a "Charm offensive."
A charm offensive from the Heckler. Is that rich?
"Your new hair color compliments your eyes"
"Nice claws!"
"Those pants fit you perfectly."
With men I am collegial and supportive, nothing overt.
Hey, It's cheap, easy and kind of fun...and people light up when they see me coming. It was not always thus.
Mr. Douthat rejects male stereotypes as simplistic and then goes on to regard liberal women in much the same manner, given that SOME of them MAY complain about "male-feminist cads" and "soft boys." Come on, Ross; there are as many kinds of women as there of men, and their individual personalities are informed by many things apart from their political convictions.
121
I challenge readers to offer classic male literary archetypes exhibiting positive traits that are consistent with today's "New Progressive Man."
I will provide a suggestion to start: Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey.
12
@Walter Reisner, yes, but only to an extent. "Six centuries of possessiveness, fastened under the yoke of urbanity." Sayers' recognition of that tension is (one small) part of the brilliance of her work.
2
@Walter Reisner
Yeah! Also Archie Goodwin.
@Walter Reisner
Atticus Finch.
Done.
We've reached an interesting point in our evolution as a society. In the context of a globally competitive economy, winning has become increasingly more difficult. We know that those with advanced skills can prosper, but what do we do with everyone else -- i.e., those failing to keep pace?
Politically, the answer seems clear. Convince the losers that the game has been rigged against them, and persuade them to join a mommy state progressive movement that shifts the blame for personal failure and requires the redistribution of wealth from winners to losers.
Let's acknowledge our history of discrimination in favor or white males, but as a going forward matter do we really want any of our citizens, male or female, to be deferential, passive and weak? That, unfortunately, is the answer for a certain self-marginalized portion of our society, which cannot live up to society's success norms and demands a society that normalizes weakness, failure and passivity.
Personally, I would be happy to live in a society in which the best and brightest emerge as our leaders and in which all of our citizens are encouraged to live their best lives, rather than one in which we spend out time apologizing for and accommodating those, male or female, who cannot compete and fail to measure up.
After all, we are supposed to be the land of "the free and the home of the brave."
8
@AR Clayboy "Personally, I would be happy to live in a society in which the best and brightest emerge as our leaders and in which all of our citizens are encouraged to live their best lives..." That sounds the meritocracy conservatives have lately been railing against.
"After all, we are supposed to be the land of 'the free and the home of the brave.'" That's the destination, not the starting point.
@AR Clayboy
Who exactly are these losers? A Federal employee who is living paycheck to paycheck? An adjunct professor at a university? A public school teacher? A senior citizen who depends on a social security check?
How exactly are the above failing to measure up?
I would go on, but frankly this is making me sick.
2
When I was growing up in the midwest stoicism was always implicitly accepted as a virtue. Do we really need men who whine often and loudly, especially now?
39
@gaaah-Like the one in the White House?
12
@gaaah-- So, the only two choices you see are the stoics and the whiners? No wonder men are in so much trouble.
2
Douthat doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between the literary and the real. While literature lasts for centuries and even millenia, reality is more elusive and so samples of the reality of earlier times, other than the recollections of ancients like me, are hard to come by. I can assure you that, since the early 50s, the behavior and motivations of real men in the northeastern U.S. have thoroughly justified the perceptions and politics of contemporary women.
8
@NRoad My father's parents were Italians from the poorest and most crime-ridden area of Calabria--other than Sicily, the origins of the cosa nostra. Yet my father was a gentle man his brothers and peers laughed at because he didn't like hunting and killing animals. He was in the military but was self-deprecating about his service. He told me he was an airplane mechanic, and not a very good one. He was never involved in organized crime, but worked his whole life making little money but being a pretty dedicated husband and father. I'm wondering how you would explain he didn't become Tony Soprana, and how you'd explain him.
26
@NRoad, I think he was trying to point to literature as reflection of accepted paradigms.
@Anne:
He was "explained" away by the use of cliches and "received wisdom" among the young.
I don't think human beings will ever be able to fully explain or understand ourselves. And catchy new phrases such as "toxic masculinity" strike someone of my nearly 60+ years as another wishful oversimplification. Aggression in a general sense, is not "wrong", and most often is not the result of psychological imbalance or illness. Aggression can be a good thing: not to be bullied, beaten, or killed — even just standing one's ground in a heated argument.
We should be thankful that our inner selves ("soul", "psyche", etc.) are so elusive and mysterious. It's what makes us interesting, rich, and varied beyond counting.
But, there's no denying that men have a more violent track record than women, correlated to testosterone, survival, evolutionary hard-wiring. We can't put ourselves in a box, slap a label on it, and think we have it figured out.
10
Mr Douthat,
While others talk about the content of your article, I just want to give a call out to your writing mentors and your own talent. The paragraph "Are men so tempted? Certainly. The human male is a dangerous figure — generally bigger, stronger and more violent than the female of the species, free from the vulnerability that pregnancy entails, and therefore often distinctively threatening, to women and other men alike." is just beautiful, entrancing English prose. Thank you for writing well.
27
@woman
By coincidence, in a comment focused on the content of this article, I cited the very same passage. I was, and am, far from entranced by the retrograde gender politics so painfully evident in how Douthat refers to the "human male," on the one hand, and "the female of the species," on the other--with the latter, of course (because this is the Catholic anti-abortion fanatic Douthat we are talking about), being presumptively pregnant, and therefore also presumptively vulnerable, in the way that women deprived of the right to reproductive self-determination do rather tend to be vulnerable.
Douthat frequently throws out ridiculously vapid turns of phrase ("the human male is a dangerous figure"!) because he pretty much never has carefully researched and reasoned arguments to offer.
Here I found the passage we both picked up on especially annoying because the broader context is Douthat claiming that there is no such thing as a single model of traditional masculinity. I'm not holding my breath for him to make the same argument about "the female of the species": there you have either the docile, vulnerable pregnant ones or the "liberal" complainers.
He divides us into the angel in the house or the madwoman in the attic, basically, though I seriously doubt Douthat has ever read Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar's famous work of feminist literary scholarship that uses the latter phrase as its title.
2
I would point Mr. Douthat to this video, taken today in Washington, DC. It shows male students of Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky showing off some of that "traditional" male behavior and it is shameful. Of course, these were young men in thrall to the supposedly politically correct but actually brutal and incomprehensible behavior of our President and they thought intimidating an older Native American Vietnam War veteran was amusing. I'd say that APA report was just about right, this is happening and it happening more and more lately and it is dangerous. Ross should think about what he might be defending with this article.
150
@lzolatrov-Just watched this disturbing video. Young, white entitled males. I hope they are pulled out of school and required to do public service.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/diocese-investigates-students-mock-native-american-190514102.html
18
@lzolatrov:
did you see the short interview with him afterward, in which he wiped away tears while stating he wished their young energy could be channeled better? Moving.
26
@lzolatrov-- I have also just seen the video you mention. Those boys should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they are. Who can doubt the validity of the concept of "toxic masculinity" after watching that?
10
So humans have been walking around for a few hundred thousand years and have been interior decorators for about forty thousand years. They live pretty much everywhere on the planet except in Antarctica. Nearly 8 billion, hoping to top out at 10 billion in 2100 CE, the humans are a threat to the ecosystems that support them. They only figured out agriculture 10,000 years ago, the First Law of Thermodynamics about 200 years ago and thermal radiation 100 years ago.
There is a race between the deluded who are upsetting the energy balance of the climate in the name of their twin gods: the so-called free market and their so-called culture. Real humans are burdened with the psycho-physical remnants of evolution and their creation myths that do not equip them to deal either with their urges or the First Law.
As regards survival, the Patriarch is not much use. With little regard for Fourier, Boltzmann, Planck or Einstein this nose-picking carnivore is aptly characterized in the movie Giant. Drilling oil wells and subjugating women is all that interest him. The female wiles of cooperation, collaboration, sharing and nurturing are needed to bring our so-called civilization to a safe landing with a stable population on a runway in a sustainable planet. The Male Conservative wants to strafe and bomb and has few traits of use in the upcoming effort.
Sen. Joni Ernst went to Washington to castrate people. Too little to late and mostly she is worried about the wrong ones. But the idea....
15
@James Wilson "Drilling oil wells and subjugating women is all that interest him." Of course. "He" has a lot more to worry about, and has to mind the "main chance" so to speak. Historically, only 40% of males reproduce, half the rate for females. He may not be consciously aware of this brutal evolutionary fact, but it both haunts and motivates him every moment of his existence.
1
According to Mr. Douthat "One of the frustrating tics of our society’s progressive vanguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely invisible in the past, that this generation is the first to wrestle with dominance and cruelty."
One of the frustrating themes of Mr. Douthat's writing is his telling us what other people think, rather than letting those people tell their own stories.
Another frustrating theme is his saying that other people make "assumptions" that they in fact do not make.
119
@Dan Styer It's the same conversational gambit as Trump's "Lots of people say..." or "Everybody's saying..." Part of the carny barker's con, it attempts (and often succeeds, obviously) in asserting popular veracity without offering any substance of truth (or personal responsibility for the steamer the speaker is about to fling). "I never said that, I said people are saying that!"
6
I agree with the main point here- males are inherently violent and aggressive and societies have worked since "societies" first evolved to find a method to contain and socialize them.
The violence and aggressiveness have evolutionary -social and biological roots of course. Testosterone is a potent behavioral modifier. In a simpler time aggression was necessary for the survival of the social order. Young men needed to overcome the instinct for self-preservation and sacrifice their lives for the sake of community, state and family. Today that is less necessary, but the behavior hasn't changed and is often directed internally at society in general in ways large and small and without the payoff from times past.
So the definition of "harmful masculinity" is a new effort to define the permitted boundaries of male transgressiveness and that seems appropriate to me. Men will need to socialize further and further sublimate their innate tendency to aggression in order to come into congruence with their milieu. Society evolves and so must its members. It will be hard work, and painful, but we have broad shoulders.
26
@greg And what is the task of women to change? I don't buy that it's a one-way street.
@Rocky
Women, as a generalization, aren't "perfect" certainly but that more involves issues of individual character and is a distinctly different problem than the generic tendency of men to engage in anti-social activity based on their biology.
Women have been the socializing force as long as people have banded together and that relates, I would guess (meaning it seems fairly obvious), to their biologic role as the guarantors of the safety of their offspring- in each of which they have a great deal invested and which requires as risk free an environment as possible. Men, in their biological essence, have much less invested in offspring and tend to thrive and enjoy higher risk environments.
These days (the last century and perhaps the next) may be an inflection point where the influence of women on social norms increases further and the influence of the "traditional male" diminishes. Men have much to offer but in sublimated aggressiveness- not in the manner described in the APA guidelines-those attitudes have become, or are becoming, anachronistic.
@Rocky -- Oh, lemme see, maybe women can continue to develop confidence in themselves, empower themselves, get more and more education so that they are people with authority in more and more activities outside their "traditional" assignment of caring for the home?
Point taken. But isn’t there a little positive feedback going on here? I’m reminded of the old deodorant ads that were aimed mainly at convincing everyone that they needed a deodorant.
3
Conservatives, including Ross Douthat, have often complained that "politically correct" professors in American universities have focused on what literature can tell us about race, class, and gender, rather than consider literature as a timeless art form. Suddenly, Douthat seems to have recognized what scholars have known for decades: gender roles are socially constructed, and literature can tell us a lot about them! Imagine! Douthat is surely right about one thing: present-day Americans are not the first to think about gender roles. Writers have done it for centuries, and scholars for several decades.
105
@Chris Rasmussen Brilliant takedown -- thanks for writing it.
My own much poorer version of what you've already done so well would be to rewrite Douthat's first two paragraphs. Something like this:
"One of the frustrating tics of our society’s conservative rearguard is the assumption that every evil it discovers was entirely absent in the past, that this generation is only wrestling with dominance and cruelty because it is different to the last generation.
This forgetting of human progress, this perpetual past-worship, pervades the latest imagined flashpoint in the ginned-up culture war over the sexes — the new guidelines for treating male pathology from the American Psychological Association."
17
@Chris Rasmussen
Testosterone and estrogen are not social constructions.
No amount of estrogen will enable a transgender to carry a child to term. And if we ever attempt to “right this injustice” through surgery, rational people would be correct in declaring the beginning of the “end times”.
1
@Stuart I agree that biology is a real thing, and that not every aspect of our gender roles is socially constructed. But even if we accept that biology is real, there remains a wide spectrum of ideas about masculinity and feminity in history and in different cultures.
7
It's simple, really. The APA is trying to increase the income of its members, which should come as no surprise. If stoicism and self-awareness prosper, there is less work for psychologists. If, on the other hand, we have a society that promotes the acceptance and normalisation of mental illness, then there is plenty of work for them.
18
@Steve Bingo!!!
This essay isn't about masculinity, toxic or non-toxic. It is about the importance of a liberal arts education. Our mania for STEM education linked to high-stakes testing has left us with an entire generation who have never heard of Mr. Darcy, or Gary Cooper, for that matter. As a result, we elected a demagogue in 2016. Perhaps if more of us had read Plato's "Republic" and fewer of us had learned to "Code" we could have avoided that ignominy.
257
@Walter Bruckner
There are far more people learning about Mr. Darcy today than there ever have been. A smaller fraction of university students study literature, but that is swamped by the huge number going to university. When nearly everyone in university studied Mr. Darcy, only a pampered elite attended. Now far more of the working public needs university training to sustain our economy and find high paying jobs. They need STEM training for those jobs. They don't need Mr. Darcy, although they all have a chance to read about him as an elective while gaining the skills they need to work.
Maybe if you'd had a few more STEM courses you would appreciate a little more of the demography of 21st century education.
5
@Tom
We all need Mr Darcy in some form. It's not either. STEM or"pampered" eggheads.
I took more than my share of STEM courses, btw, with a successful career.
We need hard skills for jobs. But for living, we need values, decency, morals core and humanity - and how to think, not just analyze
the STEM project in front of us.
No STEM class taught me to think deeply about society, to reflect on core beliefs, to volunteer, to teach my children good values.
It was family, mentors, reading and the arts
that gave that to me.
Perhaps if you took some literature or film classes, you would appreciate more points of view.
47
@Walter Bruckner
You raise a very interesting point. I think the structure of government, 'how a bill becomes a law', the importance of voting and so on ought to be taught in high school.
But I don't think that 'coders' or others in IT elected Trump.
14
The problem isn't men. It's patriarchy.
When men discovered genetics in the late Stone Age it had been primarily or even exclusively a female realm. Suddenly men, the hunters discovered they were fathers as well. This unleashed a firestorm of competing male claims and thousands of years of retribution against women for having hidden the knowledge of paternity to begin with.
All we can hope for is that men finally say enough. We have reacted to the shock of the father role, but now are ready to put it back into perspective, as an element in an essentially female biological world.
Wish us luck.
15
So much of this conflict is over semantics. Simplified labeling is really a problem in discussing complex issues. Simplified labeling induces knee-jerk reactions because without proper definition cannot convey nuance. "Toxic masculinity" as a label conveys the suggestion that all masculinity is toxic. What is the label for non-toxic masculinity? There appears to be no alternative.
All of men's characteristics cannot be described as bad. Some traits attributed to the masculine label and to the feminine label for that matter don't really belong there. Intermixed with them are traits that belong more properly on the axis of maturity-childishness, egoist vs. altruistic and so on.
I agree with Mr. Douthat's implication that more thoughtful discussion is better discussion. Mr. Edsall's article on this topic was excellent, bringing in a far broader perspective, though not particularly optimistic regarding the pain we will go through. But fuller discussion that gets past dogmatism from All directions, Mr. Douthat, is surely warranted.
12
@Trebor
I would suggest that both you actually read the APA document which is specifically talking about how these expectations cause more violence (a statistical fact) and how the belief in male stoicism (whether it is true stoicism blah,blah) translates into increased rates of depression and successful suicide (also facts not impressions). There is plenty of nuance to be had for both of you. And young Werther too.
8
@NSH
There are plenty of countries around the world where the gender roles and expectations are much more traditional and locked in than the U.S., but they don't all experience mass violence and suicide. Things are not so simple as some people are willing to believe when they're looking to blame.
9
@J.C. If you are talking about the Scandinavian countries, ok although they also have harassment issues.
You need to read up on violence against women and females suicide rates in more traditional countries. It is not always recognized, or illegal, or tracked.
There is more suicide in some traditional countries - by young women. There is mass violence against women in traditional countries. One example is India; the suicide rate of young women is high, but is decreasing as their rights and opportunities increase.
Another example is Nepal, traditionally forcing girls and women to live outdoors in shacks, in freezing cold, while menstruating.Also,honor killings, forced child marriage, etc.
4
For me World War III broke out in August when Saudi Arabia declared a de facto war against Canada and our ethics and values. It has been four years since our last federal election when the Liberal Party overtook our democratic socialists in the home stretch by promising a new social contract based on an adherence to ethics and values in all Canadian dealing.
The new Canadian government's first legislation was to put it in writing and draw the ire of China. We have been condemned by China, The Philippines, The USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
In August when our Foreign Affairs Depart objected to the Saudi's disregard for human rights Saudi Arabia expelled our Ambassador and recalled all its citizens resident in Canada. The headlines round the World read Canada stands alone.
Our Cabinet looks like the world and half its members are women which represents a little less than proportional representation.
Here in Quebec the number of women graduating into our most prestigious occupations will soon see our administration seem matriarchal even as our universities are completely meritocrat.
The time is gone when being bigger and stronger defeats superior ability and a better understanding of consequences.
That extra muscle between the ears will not erase the fact that we need the best talent to run the world and patriarchies like Saudi Arabia, the USA, China, Russia are destroying our future.
51
@Montreal Moe Wishing you and your fellow progressive Canadians all the best!
1
@Chris M
We are not immune to greed and intolerance. As I watched the debate this morning on whether to build new pipelines to Canadian ports I couldn't help but note that the two provinces most locked into the debate both have democratic socialist governments. We need a new economy that looks at long term sustainability.
CBC Newsworld weekend edition usually ends with some hopeful sign that there is reason to save this planet but today I am giving up hope.
Today the news closed with the March for Life in Washington DC. It closed with Kavanaugh's Boys intimidating and threatening a native elder who was in Washington for a native get together. The young privileged Catholic males could not resist their impulse to show their power and influence by disrupting the Elder's prayers to his creator.
Today I wondered if all the attempts to try to save this planet are justified. Maybe the USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are who we should follow into oblivion.
I remember Harper's initiation into fascism in Alberta. I remember Ted Byfield and Preston Manning the churches of Colorado Springs were very powerful and supported all the institutions that make us poorer like Apartheid in South Africa which even well into the Reagan devolution were fundamental conservative beliefs.
2
I am a literature prof, and every day I have the thought that both traditional and contemporary works give us a much more nuanced sense of the whole person: our dilemmas, our confusions, our promises and failures, our greatness and our venialities. Social science gives us a limited view of highly generalized types. I will take literature’s complexity and insight any day.
68
@Ann
Literature deals with superficial phenomena. Biology deals with ultimate causes. A short course on steroid endocrinology and another one on neurobehavior (pay attention to behavioral changes associated with strokes in certain areas of the cortex) would more understanding here than all the great works.
Social science is no good either. Psychology is mostly a pseudoscience, known to be one.
@vbering Just the other day I asked someone "where's the hard science?" But the problem with scientists like you and doctors like my husband is that you give no creedence to intuitiveness. It's like, how we know what you need as nurturers because we have discerned the differences in the sound of your cries when you were a baby either needing to be fed, having gas, or wanting to be held. Tell me where the science is in that one. And admit even Einstein acknowledged The Great Mystery.
10
@Anne
Intuition is a neurological phenomenon. The ability to tell what a baby's cry means is no great mystery. Other animals do it just as well as we do.
What you have is a genetic inheritance honed by hundreds of millions of years of natural selection combined with a specific environmental trigger that induces an adaptive behavior. Phenotype equals genotype plus environment. Ask your husband. He knows.
I live in a university town and have a lot of prof friends. I find it odd that profs in the humanities are often almost completely innocent of basics taught to every Biology 102 student (101 is macromolecules, cells, and genes) in this country.
Prof, you need to put down the lit books and read a little endocrinology and neurology. It will up your game.
4
What about focusing on basic human kindness instead of all this mumbo jumbo about archetypes?
So much is made of the war between the sexes but isn't it more realistic to realize that both men and women may want the same things, even though it remains hard to "read each other's mind."
I'm thinking of old-fashioned Golden Rule virtues, such as honesty, respect, consistency, patience, and tolerance.
At least, that's what I seek from my friends and partners, and I can't be that weird. Expecting anyone to know what I'm thinking when I don't say it generates resentment, and expecting good behavior from a partner when it's not returned in kind, is a recipe for disaster.
I think this stuff may be simpler than we think.
311
@ChristineMcM
Mumbo-jumbo are my thoughts exactly. Of all the political issues, in the past week, and Mr. Douthat decides to write about manhood. What in the world is he thinking?
5
Mr. Douthat, if you are going to take a literary view of searching for Non-Toxic Manhood, you omitted to include, 'Of Human Bondage' by Somerset Maugham. There are different kinds of violence and cruelty that are inflicted on people, regardless of gender, and on a note of levity, Leslie Howard is no match for Bette Davis when it comes to portraying these fatal encounters.
Off in search of East of Eden, and a revisit to Middlemarch, where Dorothea Brooke, a passionately idealistic woman traps herself into a loveless marriage, while Lydgate, an ambitious young doctor, is betrayed by his wife's egoism and his own inner weakness.
There is something to be said that it takes two to tango well.
12
I too think the mistake in the APA guidelines was in using the word "traditional".
The so-called "traditional" conception of masculinity is a fairly modern one, and has been suffused with an overlay of fairly recent economic disruptions in the role of labor. What the APA probably should have said is that the conception of masculinity in modern Western capitalist society is not doing anyone, male or female, any favors.
There is plenty of anthropologic evidence that what we may think of as natural gender behavior is not constant from culture to culture, or era to era (powdered wigs for men, anyone?). So definitions of toxic behavior are very much a product of historical and cultural moment.
We'd all be a lot better off if we recognized certain behaviors as maladaptive, and these may well not be gender specific. But I find it hard to argue with the idea that much of what is today considered desired "male" behavior in 21st century capitalist culture is maladaptive, and may lead us to the ruination of the planet for everyone and everything. So in that sense, I can get behind the APA arguing for less of it.
21
@Glenn Ribotsky, yes. I’d guess that what the APA means by “traditional” is what 90% of American conservatives would describe as admirable and true to “nature”. So my feeling is that the APA (of which I am not a fan) is simply using the word as most Americans (liberal and conservative, male and female) use it.
1
@Glenn Ribotsky It's worth noting that the very existence of the APA is itself a manifestation of "modern Western capitalist society" -- as are those who've cast their lots on critiquing modern Western capitalist society.
...and the beat goes on.
IMO we need to come back to the two, core critiques of the APA guidelines from Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychologist.
First, the guidelines totally disregard the influences of human biology, especially hormones, that typically vary between the sexes, and the influences of evolutionary biology. The notion that every child is born a "blank slate" is obviously false to anyone who has or has worked with children as well as ignorant of medical science and evolutionary science.
Second, the guidelines assume that it is better -- healthier -- to express every emotion that comes into one's consciousness than to exercise self-control, when many psychological studies and lots of philosophical, ethical and religious traditions have come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
For the APA to issue guidelines based on two near-religious dogmas that ignore contradictory science, and to expect that APA practitioners, who are 80% female, to use to them to guide their treatment of boys and men seeking help in often desperate circumstances, is unethical. It places dogma and political cant above the practical, effective, evidence-based care of patients.
65
@Frank
First of Pinker is dangerously off the mark when the talks about biology and men. Are we "blank slates" perhaps not but there is no such thing as male and female brains either. The science on all of this isn't.
Secondly, this idea that psychologists think a healthy approach is constantly talking about your problems is a Hollywood fiction. In fact they don't. Even in sessions.It's not all long-form freudian analysis. In fact almost never. Many forms of therapy are directed and short.
However, I'd bet all therapists and people of common sense believe that talking about your problems even in a whiny, malingering fashion is a lot healthier than picking up a gun and blowing your brains out. And that is what a lot of men do. At much higher rates than women.
It is also healthier than picking up a gun and blowing other people's brains out. Or beating them up. As something men do a lot that women don't do in significant numbers.
So if you are looking for 'practical, evidence based care', we know what we are doing now is absolutely the wrong thing. There is nothing, let me repeat nothing, in science that tells us that the APA guidelines would make the current situation worse. So rejecting it is just political cant.
30
@NSH
If there is no such thing as male and female brains, then people who identify with a gender other than what was assigned at birth, are identifying with a social construct? A fiction? And men aren't more violent than women? Just socialized to be? Of course there are innate, biological difference between male and female brains. Those who try to deny this in the name of equality do a disservice to science and equality. We all deserve equal rights, not because we are biologically equal, but because we are human.
13
@NSH "Or beating them up. As something men do a lot that women don't do in significant numbers."
Gong! FYI, there is near equal gender symmetry in physical domestic violence, and near 50% is bidirectional. The male violence tends to be much more effective, much more physically harmful, certainly because of greater physical strength and fighting skill but also perhaps because women's violence may be more frustration on the frustration-rage continuum whereas men's may be more rageful.
5
Douthat has made a career of criticizing his definition of progressive culture, but his remedies are unclear, I think intentionally because his political philosophy has no solutions to the gender power imbalance in our society.
But then, I'm not actually very interested in APA recommendations- is that something most progressives are assumed to be attuned to? Are they an official progressive organization?
The focus shouldn't be on style and the core of the issue is raising women to equal power as men. That means in the halls of congress and the corporate boardrooms.
Show me the money and I'll show you the power. As long as men dominate in both categories we have toxic masculinity.
58
@alan haigh Which came first?
@alan haigh - "Show me the money and I'll show you the power. As long as men dominate in both categories we have toxic masculinity."
Any questions? Take a peek at the pics of the (R)s' Congress Critters.
I'm a retired psychologist, not generally inclined to defend the APA that has tended to take faddish positions on issues over the years. Let me, however, say a word in defense of what may seem like a silly statement. The definition of "pathological" behavior favored by most psychologists is behavior you are willing to pay money to change. (Self serving? Sure.) The kind of masculinity the APA is trying to help its members deal with is not a stereotype, but toxic masculinity that has led someone to seek help. In such cases, looking at elements of our culture that would lead someone to maladaptive extremes may be appropriate. I don't think the APA is being so much political or ideological here as professional. They're trying to focus on things they might have some control over to help their clients. Guidelines intended to help therapists deal with pathological masculinity should probably not be taken as a general statement on the nature of masculinity.
156
@rawebb1
Point taken. But isn’t there a little positive feedback going on here? I’m reminded of the old deodorant ads that were aimed mainly at convincing everyone that they needed a deodorant.
8
@PL
The difference is we were fine smelling the way we smelled.
Men are not fine blowing their brains out, assaulting each other & women, ending up in jail and otherwise being isolated from society from clearly dangerous behavior.
20
@NSH We weren't all fine smelling the way we smelled -- not someone walking into a job interview in July reeking of BO.
The problem -- with the APA, as with P&G -- is the tendentious sales pitch: the implication that the problem is so widespread that we must all take notice and buy the snake oil, whether the diagnosis is appropriate or not.
3
There's nothing especially progressive about the new APA guidelines. If you read the article, the doctors are essentially saying male psychological behavior is influenced by expectations of masculinity. I don't see how this conclusion is progressive or even present-tense. The same thing could be said about females and perceived femininity.
I think what Ross is really trying to ask is the underlying question: How do humans develop gender expectations? There wouldn't be a psychological impact if we didn't have a cultural expectation in the first place. There's no expectation to frustrate. The entire gender experience would be biological rather than cultural.
I'm going to risk my reputation by suggesting popular culture is not the primary motivator behind gender expectations. I doubt many men have read "Pride and Prejudice" or "Wuthering Heights" even before the advent of film and television. I doubt those numbers increased much even after the new medium. Your typical adolescent boy is not taking his cues from Mr. Darcy. Then or now.
Actually, the modern novel as a writing style originated as a primarily female phenomenon. Wealthy Victorian women were excluded from work but also excluded from most domestic chores. They therefore had an abundance of time to both read and write. Hence, the novel was born. Male sensibilities had very little to do with it.
I'd like to get back to male influences but I'm out of space. Perhaps another time.
18
@Andy
When I was a teenager I was under the impression there weren't very many 19th or early 20th century women novelists. Sure, I knew about the Brontes, and I doubt there was a single young girl who didn't get a copy of Alcott's "Little Women" from somebody at some point, but mostly I read Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Steinbeck. I had a neighbor who kept giving me stuff to read and I didn't especially care what it was, I just read it. Now that I think about it, most of the Russian stuff was sort of heavy and depressing.
Now I'm thinking about required reading for high school English classes, and I'm coming up empty trying to remember a single novel written by a woman. I'm beginning to think I went to a really sexist high school. But, it was the sixties.
To this day, I haven't read a single thing by Jane Austen, although I've seen televised productions of most of her novels. Maybe I should give them a read.
I'm going to have to look into this idea you've put in my head that women are responsible for the modern novel. Never would have thought it.
6
@CF
There is also Marion Evans (AKA George Eliot). Jane Austen was inspired by an earlier novelist, Fanny Burney. And on the pop side, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. One of the masterpieces of French literature is Princess of Cleves, written by an 18th century woman. A more recent French authoress was George Sand. There were lots of female novelists in history.
5
@CF The first French novel, La Princesse de Cleves (1678) was written by Madame de la Fayette; also one of the earliest novels more generally.
4
We’ve got two examples of toxic masculinity on the news most nights. The president is about as toxic as they come, combining ignorance and power in a lethal mixture that may rain Armageddon down on us one day, as he plays with the Putins and the Kim Jong-uns of the world and others who know how to get the job done, and with extreme prejudice. His treatment of women is brazenly vulgar, using them mostly as ornaments, grope fodder or irritations who are subject to ridicule, if his comments about Warren and Clinton are any indication.
And then there’s Pence, fresh from the cornfield, spouting biblical platitudes and treating women like alien lifeforms, unable to be alone with them lest they…what? Tempt him? Feel his wrath? Reveal him to be the hollow sham and the authoritarian homophobic misogynist that he appears to be?
Humans like to emphasize their differences, even when none exist. We’re done with the conception of men being about power and control while women are caregivers who forego control over their own bodies at the bidding of men. We’re done with skin color. We’ve had it with homophobes.
We’ve got no room for Republicans who decry abortion and then make the women they’re cheating with get one.
The old models emphasized unfairness. They saddled men and women with stereotypes that might have worked in a world that was large and anonymous, but not in the tiny, shrunken ball we live on today. People are people. Get over it.
637
@gemli
You left out McConnell. While I'd agree he's barely human, he certainly is toxic.
146
@gemli
while reading this long comment of yours pontificating about Trump and Pence, i thought how bizarre to reject old stereotypes while using them, to your political ends.
But granted, old models were good for old times and new times require new models.
I noted therefore the lack of pointing out who makes these new models, and foremost if any model is needed (some people from the LGBT.. argue there is not, and we are "sexual fluid"),
And i was expecting any minute you'd cited justice Kavanaugh along with Trump and Pence. There is a good chunk of new Dems who think the presumption of innocence to be overrated.
Do we need also new kind of legal justice? Because i don't think people should defend themselves from any kind of accuse, notwithstanding how shallow or absurd it could be, in jacobin tribunals while menacing people are chanting out of the doors. Sounds like the Terror period in post-revolutionary France to me, when heads rolled on the floor, literally.
2
@Alex p I am very progressive and the one part of the #metoo movement that I struggle with is what to do when 1 person (woman or man) accuses another (woman or man) of harrassment or assault. It's basically he said/she said. And "believing all women" as some on the left preach is not acceptable. So I suspect we'd agree on this case. But what if 2 separate people accuse that person? What if 4 independent people do? Or like Trump 16 (most likely many more he's paid off)? Or Kavenaugh, who clearly was defensively hiding (and lying about) a very sordid history... There's no "right" answer here. And I'm not sure if there ever will be. But wouldn't you agree that powerful people (mainly men) have used this situation of he said/she said to skirt being held accountable? And wouldn't you agree it's time to try to find a more equitable balance? And to look at how the powerful person responds to the accusations in a nuanced way to maybe not convict and throw in jail but to say... there's way too much doubt here to elevate this person to SCOTUS (Kavenaugh), Senate (Roy Moore), or heaven help us and our pussies from being grabbed (Trump)? What say you?
24
As a cultural historian, I was interested to read your article, but then was dumfounded by your seemingly simplistic assumption that literature can serve as a major source for social history. Choosing how one acts within a gender role is a recent luxury. In recent agrarian history, women ruled the household, which often was a production center, while men ruled the farm. Men and women moved in more separate spheres than is true now. Literature was about a tiny slice of humanity in many cases, not about the vast majority of people. And, before agriculture, for more than 2 millions years, humans were hunters and gatherers and gender roles even more practically determined.
172
@Trent Batson
Historians don't value literature as a major source for social history, especially if you're talking about literate culture and literate peoples? I don't know what studies you've been reading lately, but I can't read something from any history journal without there being a substantial nod to literature--whether as belles lettres, essays, novels, poetry, etc.--as supporting evidence for arguments about social AND cultural history. The book as a product (Marx? The Frankfurt School?) with plots and characters that play out the social pressures supported by whatever state apparatus you want to examine is a mainstay of historical inquiry in literate cultures. The best biography on Charles Brockden Brown, the "father of the American novel," was written as a social history by Steve Watts, for example. As you say, this luxury of choosing how one acts within a gender role is recent, so wouldn't it make sense that the examples are recent as well from a culture that, relatively recently, found its greatest expressions of intelligence, beauty, and conduct in literature?
8
@Trent Batson Have you ever heard these quotes?
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein
Art speaks where words are unable to explain. Anonymous
We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. John F. Kennedy
2
@Trent Batson Well, Ross is nothing if not simplistic. Year in, year out, he appears to be incapable of learning.
3
It would be an interesting argument, if you weren't arguing so intently with a straw man. No one has said throw out all of all the old models of masculinity. Admittedly the psychologists made a bad choice of word with the word "traditional" since you are right that there are many traditions. And somewhat wrong in thinking the psychologists are pointing only at one of them rather than at common aspects of many. You're almost thoughtful here, but your desire to bash "progressives" overwhelms your insights. Maybe instead of claiming they are doing something wrong, start from what you think they are doing right and saying how you would build on it? Or is the partisan instinct just too strong for that.
383
@David They are very much attacking all forms of masculinity.
They don't single out any good aspects of masculinity. Same as with the Gillette commercial.
There isis no recognizedform of masculinity other than traditional masculinity.
At this point women are justjust bashing men.
@David
Douthat has such weak and corny, overused arguments that when he wrestles with a straw man, the straw man wins.
It isn't that hard for a guy to realize that to get along with women, and really, all kinds of other people, he just needs to "not be a jerk". Seriously.
16
@David
Nice catch, David. Partisanship is Douthat’s default, just is it Brett Stephens’. David Brooks better but only slightly.
They can’t help themselves. And it is just when their politics have no leg (or wall) to stand on, that they become amateur literary critics, armchair psychologists and pedants generally. But their type is nothing new. For a theatrical example, there’s Mr. Puff from Sheridan’s The Critic. For a fictional one, there’s Martinus Scriblerus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_Martinus_Scriblerus
We need a fictional pedant for these times.
1. Dr. Stephen D. Rossenheimer
2. Professor Brett Douthat (aka Captain Know It All)
3. The Honorable Brookingston Lib Bash IV
9
Ross Douthat gets one very big thing right in this essay: we would do well to pay more attention to history and literature. Contemporary Americans too often stumble upon a problem or issue, and mistakenly assume that no one has ever thought about it previously.
454
@Chris Rasmussen
Such grudging admiration that would set Progressives much more correct in the path they travel.
2
@Chris Rasmussen
Agree Chris.
It is humbling to find out just how well those before us understood the human world, and inspiring to read their accounts about the obstacles they overcame. So much wisdom to gain.
But which lessons do we learn? Historical accounts are often hindered by ethnocentrism and ideology.
Along with your good advice, we should also read broadly, and discuss from many contemporary cross-cultural perspectives.
10
@Chris Rasmussen
Perhaps even worse, modern Americans stumble onto the dregs of an issue mostly addressed by prior efforts, and think they have found a catastrophic world-threatening calamity.
7
What I find particularly annoying about this analysis is the seeming assumption that there is a progressive and a conservative take on this issue. The "takes" on toxic masculinity are simply not monolithic in either case.
76
@jdc
"The "takes" on toxic masculinity are simply not monolithic in either case."
But that's what the phrase "Traditional masculinity" seemed to be implying.
1
@jdc
The only take anyone should have about toxic masculinity is that it doesn't exist. It's junk science. There are toxic people in the world and they come in both the male and female form. One is not more "pathological" than the other. Anyone who has been alive in the world for more than 10 minutes knows this.
2
There is no place for violence upon another, whether the violent one is male or female, and whether the recipient is an adult or child. Full stop.
Men are not superior to women. White men are not superior to any women. Heterosexual men are not superior to gay men. Men and women are equal.
Until we raise our kids with equality in our own minds and inculcate them accordingly, we will continue to produce people who harbor notions of superiority and anger when they are confronted with someone who doesn't fit their ideal stereotype. We can blame religion for that in great part, but not 100%. It takes a high degree of conscious effort to push away ingrained behaviors we all learned practically from birth.
Traditional masculinity is a form of supremacy. In a world in which we say we aspire to equality, that supremacy just cannot survive. It's either or - not all of the above.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking [2019]
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
239
@Rima Regas--I have great hope for young folks in this regard. Just as they have a far more egalitarian outlook when it comes to race, their take on gender roles seems more thoughtful and reasoned. My kids and their friends give me a lot of hope.
76
@Rima Regas.....It is true that men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men. We are all equal but, apparently, men and women have different roles to play in life. In the history of the world men have , with rare exceptions, always been the heads of state, the explorers, the scientists, the great artists and architects, etc. Women took care of the home. That has changed somewhat in the last few decades but only slightly.
10
@Aaron Adams
Women took care of the home because that is all the patriarchy allowed for a very long time.
Being different doesn't mean being unequal to anyone else. It only means not being exactly the same.
Women taking care of the home has actually changed quite a bit since World War II. Attitudes towards roles has changed accordingly over the decades and, again, since the Great Recession, when more women kept their pre-recession jobs than the men who lost theirs. During the recovery, according to Pew Research and other organizations, men stayed home to take care of the children in large part because the salaries being offered were lower than that which their spouses earned.Back in the 50's similarly situated men would probably have chosen to go back to work for less money.
As for innovators in history, the men who wrote the books, for centuries, omitted female luminaries, with Cleopatra and Joan of Arc being among a few relative exceptions. Females who weren't well-known are now finally getting the fame and recognition they should have had all along:
Here's an article about Artemisia Gentileschi. who is finally getting the recognition she always deserved.
https://hyperallergic.com/451309/artemisia-gentileschi-national-gallery-london/
63