Masculinity is Killing Men

http://www.alternet.org/gender/masculinity-killing-men-roots-men-and-trauma?sc=fb

“The three most destructive words that every man receives when he’s a boy is when he’s told to 'be a man,'” —Joe Ehrmann, coach and former NFL player

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, the modern notion of "masculinity" can be highly toxic. I have witnessed this firsthand on numerous occasions. It's really, really hard being a man because of this.

On the other, it's not masculinity itself that's the problem. It's the modern interpretation of what masculinity is or should be that's the issue. If we revert to an earlier save, so to speak, we'll find a much more wholesome form of masculinity we can grasp without tearing ourselves apart. Or, alternately, we can find our own interpretation of masculinity, and ignore everyone who's interpretation would harm us.

That's what I do.

I knit in a kilt. I cross-stitch. I like flower arranging and ballroom dancing and ice cream and chick flicks and cartoons.

And I'm manly as hell.

Great article. I've been watching trends in 'macho' behavior all my life from the outside - as someone who's male, but was never raised with many of the social norms my peers were subjected to (and yet still suffered later in life - mainly my teens - due to media portrayals of what it meant to be "a man"), I've been interested in this discussion for a long time. I think that's why feminism appealed to me so much as a got older (and realized that it had nothing to do, on the whole, with hating anyone, but rather challenging societal norms that would otherwise have gone unrecognized or discussed).

I think this is a very real issue in western culture - and elsewhere as well to be certain, but I'm more familiar with the western historical and cultural context. It feels good to see it becoming a wider subject of study and popular interest however - maybe we'll see some improvement in the years ahead. A shift away from singular gender identity, and towards a holistic understanding of what it means to be human.

steam, which historical society were you thinking of as being a good example?

Men have been expected to be things or do things since time began. It all boils down to the built-in desire to reproduce and the inability to do so without compromise due to "market forces". Give technology another 100 years.

I'm not sure looking at dangerous jobs or a low consumption of medical resources is a good way of supporting the argument that "masculinity kills". I think in the end that's what will make men the dominant specie when sexual reproduction becomes redundant.

Similarly, I find it hard to believe anyone on this site would support the notion that teaching boys to control their emotions is somewhat toxic. If only they taught that to girls too.

Context is key. There are certainly aspects of this that I agree with. But I also think that teaching a child about healthy competition is important. I would personally be devastated if I lived in a culture where children, boys or girls, were taught to surrender at the first sign of disadvantage, and where perseverance is not stressed as an important part of life. The fact is that men and women will encounter situations where they will fail at many things in life. Teaching them as children to not give up and to be strong is just as important as teaching them to try in the first place. Coddling children, teaching them that they are something incredibly special and that they can never lose, that they automatically deserve a prize whether or not the job is well done, is repulsive in my eyes. So when I was told as a child to "be a man", it meant to recognize failure and grow from it, as far as I can understand. Of course when you take anything to an extreme it has the potential to be destructive, but to claim "masculinity is killing men" is a true statement in a black and white sense seems to me to miss the point. I don't mean to say that I support snuffing out all emotion in people from a young age like the article seems to suggest, and perhaps it is the case that our society frowns too much on men expressing emotion, but things which may seem traditionally masculine -- competition and perseverance, for example, as I have stated before -- teach people how to not let their emotions control them.

I don't think it's necessary to talk about extremes, but I have experienced many situations with people who were not given these lessons about "being a man", some of them men, some of them women, and even having discussion with some of them is difficult because it seems like you have to jump through hoops in order to avoid accidentally causing them to have an emotional outburst. I think we need the masculine values taught to boys and girls alike in order to avoid situations like that and encourage healthy competition and strength of character.

Akkarin wrote: steam, which historical society were you thinking of as being a good example?

I don't think it's necessarily a single society, taken as a whole, but rather bits and pieces of different times and places and cultures, taken together.

For example, when stripped of (often underlying) misogyny, my grandfather's generation, in general, had a pretty good handle on respecting women. To this day, I'm convinced he'd rise up out of his grave and Night-of-the-Living-Dead my punk butt if I didn't treat a woman with the utmost respect available, regardless of her actions or personality.

Meanwhile, the modern mind looks at the closeness of male friendship in the 19th and early 20th centuries and almost invariably thinks one of two things (both potentially problematic/offensive):

This can be seen rather clearly in popular opinions of examples in fiction, like Holmes and Watson or Samwise and Frodo (or, more contemporarily, Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, despite both being nonfictional). In both of these example cases, the two camps are pretty evenly split.

It's obvious enough why the latter is a problem; it's clearly homophobic, reinforced by the typical "macho" trait of thinking that heterosexuality is inherently more manly than any other orientation (which, mathematically is incorrect, since statistically speaking, male homosexual relationships typically have 100% more men than hetero ones...), and therefore to insult one's sexuality (read: worthiness of masculinity) is to insult one's masculinity (read: worth as a man). Which is pretty dumb.

The former, though, is equally problematic for many of the same reasons. Typically, this view is espoused by people who either think that men are incapable of emotional attachment outside the confines of a romantic or paternal relationship, or by people who fetishize homosexual men and their relationships for their own purposes. Examples of these are my mother watching LOTR the first time ("Are they queer? They seem queer. They're all mushy and stuff with each other; are you sure they aren't boyfriends?") and the overwhelming nonsense that is the Sherlock fandom on almost any day that ends in 'y' ("I love John and Sherlock's relationship, it's so progressive and adorable.")

In reality, each of the examples I've given are just dudes being friends. Regardless of orientation, they're just close pals. Men have kind of been robbed of those sorts of emotionally close friendships because we're told they're undesirable, or call their sexuality into question (or motives, if one or more of them is homosexual). It adds to that island of masculinity that each man seems to be individually stranded on.

Things like that, a bit here and a bit there, and we can start to uncover some of what true masculinity is, because the modern conception is consistently rooted in fear and shame instead of power and confidence like it ought to be.

Well I had a longer, very edited post typed up and then I somehow lost all of it. Oh well, better to be breif anyway.

I loved it, but I took issue with one thing: the idea of using "female" behaviour as the baseline for "normal human" behaviour.

As Terry Real said when I spoke to him, this process of disconnecting boys from their “feminine” —or more accurately, “human”—emotional selves is deeply harmful. “Every step...is injurious,” says Real. “It's traumatic. It's traumatic to be forced to abdicate half of your own humanity.”

Why is it that the behaviour of one side should dictate what "should be normal" for the other? Especially when the "more human" side is actually the outnumbered side thus making it's behaviour statistically less "human."

steamboat28 wrote: Meanwhile, the modern mind looks at the closeness of male friendship in the 19th and early 20th centuries and almost invariably thinks one of two things (both potentially problematic/offensive):

Discussion of Homophobia

"They're gay. It's totally obvious."
"LOL. That's 'gay'. Dudes shouldn't be that close, bro."

This can be seen rather clearly in popular opinions of examples in fiction, like Holmes and Watson or Samwise and Frodo (or, more contemporarily, Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, despite both being nonfictional). In both of these example cases, the two camps are pretty evenly split.

My favorite example is Turk and J.D. from Scrubs. I even use "Guy Love," the song they sing in the musical episode, as the ringtone for my best friend.

I think it needs to be pointed out that respecting women isn't about holding the door open for them, or defending their honor - simply because they're women. Respect would be relating to them as if they were fully capable human beings - fancy that. There's nothing inherently wrong with be courteous or standing up for someone, but if you feel compelled to do it because society compels you to see an entire gender as somehow "weak" is not okay - certainly not Jedi, if you want to bring local beliefs into the discussion.

I definitely agree about the inability for men to have close friendships due to social norms. Saying things to your best friend like "I love you man," or showing any form of real affection isn't considered masculine by today's culture - and that's what we're talking about here: today's culture (not some supposed future where we're all grown in jars, thankyouverymuch). But this issue - of men not being allowed to be intimate in a non-sexual way with other men (emotionally intimate) is just another part of the inherent inequality in our society. We're not allowed to access the feminine aspects of our personalities while still being considered men - and that, I find to be highly damaging. The point here is that the type of masculinity that says that men can't be intimate, emotionally connected friend, is the same masculinity that's harmful.

Now I don't think that we can draw the line along the point of competition either, for competition isn't something only men possess - though we do tend to consider it a masculine trait rather than a feminine one. However competition is another issue all to itself that is grossly misunderstood and misapplied in our culture, held up as some sort of ideal state of progress when it can really be quite damaging. The discussion on that topic is certainly not as simplistic as "if kids aren't being taught to be competitive then they're being spoiled - that's just...wrong. I definitely think competition can have positive outcomes - and I think the word perseverance fits even better, because that is something truly valuable in many ways. Cooperation however is the greatest weak point in the way kids are traditionally raised - not being taught that working together, finding common ground, and searching for the underlying causes of differing opinions are acceptable. This is, as I see it, a missing aspect of the so-called feminine identity in our culture, with an extreme emphasis on the so-called masculine.

Now granted there are other factors to life span than social conditioning - genetics and the like. However the conditioning that boys and men receive throughout their lives is certainly responsible for a wide variety of damaging behaviors, both directed at the self and towards other people.

I think this is where the discussion of self-reflection needs to come into play. The issues of gender inequality are so deeply entrenched in our society that they are going to be very difficult to recognize, especially within ourselves. I'd say that it would be a good idea to take a look inwards first and honestly try to pick apart what pieces of our personalities have been shaped and conditioned to believe social norms - then we can try to correct it. It starts with - if only for the sake of experimentation - being willing to assume that what you believe is a false construct, and then exploring the ideas from there.

As for controlling emotions - it's not quite as simple as either the article or the other posters here seem to be making it out to be. Learning to understand, accept, and express your emotions is actually learning to control them. Learning to suppress emotions, especially for the sake of social expectations, is not healthy. It's an argument of definition perhaps, but in that definition is a whole world of difference.

In my time talking to people - or rather listening to people talk - about this subject, I've come to notice a strange knee-jerk reaction on the part of men when gender issues in society are raised, almost as if men feel that someone is trying to take something away from them - when in reality the broader discussion is about opening up the possibilities of experience for men - of giving them more, not less. Men don't have to laser-remove their beard hair and refuse to learn how to play sports, that's not what any part of this discussion is about. The fact of the matter is that this is such an immensely complicated issue that talking about it at this level seems to rarely do much good - arguments are made (often very shabby ones), personal experiences are brought into play, and at the end of the day the discussion has devolved along partisan lines, rather than actively attempting to seek the truth of the matter. And there is a truth in here: there is a rising tide against gender norms, especially in the western world, and that tide didn't just appear out of nowhere - it must have basis, and it must be considered as a serious matter of discussion.

Goken wrote:
Why is it that the behaviour of one side should dictate what "should be normal" for the other? Especially when the "more human" side is actually the outnumbered side thus making it's behaviour statistically less "human."

Well there aren't actually two sides in play here. Masculine and Feminine aren't weird distinct animals vying for control over a host body - they're just two sides of a single coin. The issue I think that was being brought into question was that men are being taught to disconnect from their emotions - and emotions are fundamentally human. Also sex ratio worldwide is nearly identical - there's really not a huge difference, but again this isn't actually a discussion relating to placement of sexual organs. It's about the innate aspects of the human psyche opposed to the conditioned norms provided by society.