Moody Monday: masculinity

[mellowtigger]

Today's controversial post for Moody Monday is masculinity, ranging from toxic to nurturing.

Rather than comment, though, I encourage everyone to read this opinion piece, "Men are lost. Here’s a map out of the wilderness." (free archive copy) in the Washington Post. It'll take a while to read, because it's very long. It's also very useful, from first paragraph to last.

Comments

[nancylebov]

Long discussion: https://www.metafilter.com/199916/WaPo-Opinion-Men-are-lost-Heres-a-map-out-of-the-wilderness#8424708

[mellowtigger]

We had excellent diversity training at my last employer that focused on "power up/power down" dynamics, rather than just traditional groupings to learn about. In one of the follow up discussions I had with 2 other employees, I commented that every single time I've ever heard someone tell a story about something stupid they did when younger that should have made them dead, it was a male. If women had such tales, maybe they were just withholding those stories. I agree that many traits have potential benefits (including risk taking), although maybe they just present differently by gender.

[mallorys_camera]

I skimmed the piece, so I probably missed a lot of points.

But it seems to me (and as the mother of two sons, I am definitely biased) that men are getting a bad rap right now because I can assure you, there are just as many female assholes around right now as there are male assholes.

I don't honestly see anything wrong with the traditional male role—so long as it can coexist peacefully with non-traditional male roles. Which I think it can do. They're all various flavors, you know? And which one you prefer is a matter of personal taste.

I think, in general, both men and women are finding it harder and harder to partner—and that this has a lot to do with the isolation engendered by the Internet, which gives users the illusion they are communicating with other people when, in fact, they are typing on a keyboard.

This phenomenon is going to get a lot worse with the rise of AI.

my badly organized thoughts

[mellowtigger]

I think "coexist peacefully" is the key phrase that rules out what's being sold as conservative masculinity. (And, it's being sold. Somebody is selling something, even if it's just outrage for view/clicks.) I wonder if we can tell whether a mindset is useful long-term or not by how it deals with other competing or otherwise non-consenting mindsets. I'm sure the paradox of intolerance comes into play here too.

I think any species needs a range of motivations available. I have no doubt that risk taking can be quite valuable, whether performed by a man or a woman. (See: "The Whole Story" episode 1 that I keep promoting.) I still, though, find bonobos quite appealing as a more cooperative version of humanity. I think we have the power to choose what we become. I don't know about the partnering, though. I gave that up in 1997.

Re: my badly organized thoughts

[wispywillow]

Agreed, mellowtigger. "traditional male role" does not automatically equal "toxic masculinity," and to think otherwise isn't fair to the men. A man can be traditional and toxic, and a man can be non-traditional and toxic. Same for both's ability to be non-toxic.

I think people coming up with their own definitions creates a lot of non-starters in conversation. People hear "toxic masculinity" and think that all men are being attacked. People hear "feminist," and think "man-hater." It's really quite frustrating.

It's important to distinguish actual toxic masculinity without more traditional males getting triggered and thinking they are automatically included in this.

Re: my badly organized thoughts

[mellowtigger]

I wonder if part of the gender sensitivity is that we find it easy to find examples of motivations in both genders, meaning that they are simply universal traits. That leaves the only non-universal trait being the ability to gestate new life forms within one's own body, and whatever motivations that involves. So if "generic human" is [A], then the human who can gestate has [A] + [B] traits/motivations to rely on. And that, in comparison, means that men are just sub-standard versions of women, in a sense. Genetically speaking, that's sort of right. Humans are a combination of genes from parents PLUS mitochondrial genetic code that ONLY comes from the egg. The human with eggs is a more influential contributor to the continuation of the species.

And complicating it even more is the troublesome "extreme male" male theory of autism. Which lends influence to the stereotype of males as egotistical, self-centered jerks. :D

And complicating it even more is the idea of "progression" toward a peak of fitness, which is absolutely not an evolutionary thing that happens. Environmental demands will change, and species capable of adapting will survive and change, while species incapable of adapting will die out. That's not progress, that's just change over time. We can choose to become a more violent species or a less violent species by our mating practices. (Evolution gave us possum, armadillo, and porcupines, so there are lots of effective solutions to a violent world.) Again, that's not progress, just adaption to changing needs. As humans with foresight, we can choose what traits/behaviors we think will be beneficial into the future. It's hard to see how aggression would be a trait needing more expression in a world with increasing population density. ("Swinging a stick" angrily in an empty meadow versus a busy sidewalk, for example.)

So... I have lots of thoughts on this topic. All of them badly organized. :)

Re: my badly organized thoughts

[wispywillow]

I'd known about the misunderstanding that autistic people don't have empathy, but I hadn't heard of the "extreme male" part of it. Yikes!

LOL I hear ya on the badly organized! I'm slowly writing up a post about insecure attachment, parenting styles, how two supposed opposite things can be true at the same time, etc. It's all over the place ^_^