While I appreciate this line of thought, the article doesn’t read to me that way. You’re identifying the problem as young boys being taught toxic masculinity, and progressives who are trying to fix the problem not doing as good a job as they could. The article reads more like progressives are abandoning young men, leaving them adrift in uncertainty, and no wonder they are attracted to the Andrew Tates of the world.
I think it’s kind of both and neither at the same time.
I read the article as saying that the Left/progressives are in essence decrying toxic masculinity in young men and making them feel like targets and the enemy, and then not actually following up with an alternative that these young men understand. So in that sense the article’s right, in that they probably are looking for an alternative paradigm for masculinity, and many are finding bad ones with the Tates of the world.
What I’m saying is that if the progressives are going to in essence, take something away, they need to offer something else in return. The analogy that comes to mind is when you have a dog. If you don’t want that dog to growl at you when you take stuff, you have to give them something in exchange for what it is that you’re taking.
It’s kind of the same thing- if you want these guys to NOT be toxically masculine, you can’t decry and shit all over the paradigm they were raised in, without offering them something else in exchange that makes sense to them. With a dog, you give them something they value- a treat, a toy, etc… With these men, they need to be given this alternative in a format they’ll understand. Don’t tell them they’re victims, don’t screech at them for being wrong and sexist, but rather present it from within the framework they already know.
It’s folly to in essence tell someone they’re wrong, demand they change, and then get upset when they do change in some unexpected and negative way, if you didn’t provide guidance on how to change and where their end goal is.
I think there is a tendency on the left/progressives to want to treat men and women as if there is no difference between them or to treat men as “defective women”. The reality is that men and women tend to have different needs and behaviors.
Growing up as a man, the general positive traits I learned was a man should be physically strong (or at least somewhat in shape), smart, capable, and ultimately be able to provide for himself and his family. Signs of being a “good man” include having a good relationship with his family, girlfriend/wife, stable job, close-knit group of friends, not a jerk but also not a pussy.
These traits aren’t exclusive to men. But I think for many of these traits, society can be hard on men who fail to live up to them.
And from what I’ve read, it can be challenging for men to meet these demands:
- A lot of men are NOT in good physical shape.
- Large segments of the economy are struggling with finances and careers
- Many men struggle with dating and relationships, much of which happens online (as I understand it)
- Talking with my business peers, a lot of young people these days seem to lack general independence and social skills
- Much of the world these days does seem absurd and incomprehensible to more traditionally-minded men.
So what happens? Without clear purpose, men end up with too much time on their hands and spend it entertaining themselves with streaming services, videogames, drugs, etc. They get angry and turn positive masculine traits into toxic ones (strength→ bullying, aggression→ violence, etc). it becomes a vicious cycle as those men become even less desirable for employment or dating.
And this is where society desperately needs to modify some of those “demands” or expectations into a less rigid framework, so as not to pressure men into destructive behavior in order to achieve them.
- A man should not have to be notably big or strong. Of course it’s good for men, and anybody else, to be physically fit enough for healthiness. And if some men want to make superior strength a personal vanity project, with bodybuilding etc., no problem, knock yourselves out. But we should be encouraging and supporting a lot more different types of physical activity for men, not just scolding them to be “in shape”.
- A man, like anybody else, should aspire to earn his living and to be able to support or co-support any dependents he may have. But except among rather extreme traditionalists, supporting a family is going to be a collaboration with one or more adult partners, not a solo enterprise. We need to make it easier for men to learn how to be co-heads of families, rather than just dumping an expectation on them that they must be the head of the family.
- A man should not have to have a girlfriend or wife (or, among gay men, boyfriend or husband) in order to be considered manly. That kind of thinking pressures men in the direction of predatory and exploitative behavior, because they learn to think of sex and relationships as “a thing that they’re supposed to be able to get”, instead of “a collaborative activity with an enthusiastic partner”.
We used to have more recognized social roles for unpartnered men: the “carefree bachelor”, the “ascetic type”, the man “married to his vocation”, the “unworldly scholar”, etc. At some point, burgeoning societal homophobia smushed all these different archetypes into the suspect figure of the “Confirmed Bachelor”, and we all know what we’re supposed to think about him. 
We need to bring back this sort of recognition of positive ways for men (both straight and gay) to be (temporarily or permanently) unpartnered, as opposed to the current trend of assuming that an unpartnered man by default falls into the “incel loser” category.
- “Stable job”: Well as I said, men and everybody else need to be able to handle career aspirations and the responsibilities of earning a living. But, again, we should also encourage recognition of worth in life pursuits that are less attached to financial success. The struggling artist, the passionate revolutionary in his garret, the contented unambitious hired hand with a love of nature, etc.: even the wandering cowboy and the outright bum/hobo used to be recognized as valid ways to be a man, although admittedly with certain practical disadvantages of the lifestyle.
I’m not saying that we should romanticize male irresponsibility per se, but I think the current habit of directly linking masculinity to conventional financial success kinda sucks.
We should also not omit to push back against the role that toxic femininity plays in this expectation. The widespread convention among mate-seeking women that a man by default is supposed to be “financially secure”, in the sense of “able to support me”, is just archaic and bad.
Okay, if you have a specific life goal of motherhood as a homemaker and caregiver, and you need to find a like-minded partner who will supply the financial wherewithal to support that, fine, that’s up to the two of you. But just defaulting to the expectation that a man’s natural duty is to “provide for you” financially, or else he’s not properly “manly”? Nope, sister, you’re part of the problem here.
And the “absent-minded professor,” as lamented by the late Howard Nemerov:
This lonely figure of not much fun
Strayed out of folklore fifteen years ago
Forever. Now on an autumn afternoon,
While the leaves drift past the office window,His bright replacement, present-minded, stays
At the desk correcting papers, nor ever grieves
For the silly scholar of the bad old days,
Who’d burn the papers and correct the leaves.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this, but I think much if it might be backward. I believe a lot, if not most men actually aspire to have a stable job/career, find a partner, and raise a family. But I think society makes this difficult, if not impossible for many men.
Another thing…
Independent of profession or income or whether or not a man has a girlfriend, I think there is a sense that manhood is something that is “earned” through overcoming challenges and adversity. And the way he does this is by embodying character traits that serve to help him achieve these things. Traits like honor, strength, integrity, responsibility.
I think it’s hard to achieve this as a “carefree bachelor” or a “bum”. Like what purpose does such a “man” have other than to exist and pursue hedonistic desires.
No-one, man or women or other, should need a “purpose” to justify their existence.
And personally, I find any shout-outs to honour as an essential masculine trait deeply disturbing. Honour cultures are terrible places to live.
Honor is a wonderful thing embody within yourself.
Honor is a terrible thing to demand of others.
The thing is, it should not be seen as a failure or making you less of a man, if you don’t tick all the boxes or don’t tick them the “right” way.
Thinking of it - in Ye Olde Days, the extended family/community would help you find a place or impose one on you if need be for the collective’s good, and you either settled for that or struck out for something more/different. Now you have to figure it all yourself. And it feels like a failure if you flail.
Specifically, demanding that THEY validate YOUR honor, i.e. the above-referenced “honor cultures” which are really “know-your-place” cultures and have only little to do with respect for everyone’s dignity.
Honour the way it is usually used isn’t purely internal, though - it’s very much a social context. One based around pride and shame.
Exactly this. Of course men, and everybody else, are allowed to have personal life goals about career and love and family. Where this becomes toxic is when society is pushing men to believe that these are “achievements” that they need to “get” or else they have failed at manhood.
A couple thoughts on this:
For women of a certain income, they don’t really have a choice if they want to have children to be dependent financially on a man. Childcare is exorbitantly expensive and it doesn’t make since to work a minimum wage job when childcare costs more than you earn.
Second, the wage gap persists. As long as the structural inequalities and social pressures persist, so too will women who (reasonably, I think) are looking for breadwinners.
After a certain income threshold, I think this makes less sense. But I could also see “financially secure” as a proxy for just generally having his shit together. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want a man who is steadily employed.
I don’t deny the existence of women who just want a man who makes money regardless of their own economic capacity. Such women certainly exist. But I think it’s important to understand the nuance involved.
What should it be seen as?
Well, like I said in that same post:
Yeah, that’s kind of what I’m objecting to. Just generally having one’s shit together is indeed an excellent life achievement, and I don’t blame women or anybody else for consciously seeking out that quality in a partner. But I think it would be a bit toxic for society to equate that directly with money-making capacity, and treating “financially secure” as a proxy for “being a stable person” is unintentionally encouraging such toxicity.
Once again: I have no problem with any person of any gender deciding they want to seek out a consenting partner, of whatever gender, who is richer and/or higher-earning than they are, in order to help fund their other life goals. And I have no problem with any couple making whatever mutually fulfilling division of breadwinning and/or homemaking and/or childcaring responsibilities they choose.
I just think it’s long past time to throw out the traditional expectation that all or most of the breadwinning should automatically be undertaken by men, simply because they’re the men. And especially the expectation that a man has to be able and willing to take that on, if he wants to be considered adequately “manly”.
? What should what “be seen as”?
Edit: Oh, I see, you seem to be asking @JRDelirious to elaborate on his remark that “it should not be seen as a failure or making you less of a man, if you don’t tick all the boxes or don’t tick them the ‘right’ way.” I mistakenly thought you were replying to me.
Edit again: Oh wait, maybe you were replying to me because I agreed with @JRDelirious’s remark. (Whew, got there in the end! Slow reader, sorry.)
I think that any non-harmful life choices that make a man happy and fulfilled should be seen as simply one of the many valid ways to be a man. If that doesn’t include, say, earning an income sufficient to independently support a spouse and 2.4 children etc., that is not automatically any kind of “failure to achieve manhood”.
I’ve never really considered any trait necessary to make a “real man,” though I know masculinity when I see it. I think sometimes I feel a dissonance between my instinct and my knowledge. I’m instinctively drawn to masculinity yet I know it’s just a social construct. I think a lot of the furor over “gender ideology” is a lot of people have that instinct but they think it invalidates the social construct part.
I’m willing to bet a lot of people on this board have experiences feeling limited by or not fitting in with traditional gender roles. I certainly have. I’m not sure we’re a representational sample of everyone else in our experiences and thoughts on this subject. It’s interesting to think about, though.
Someone who doesn’t tick the various boxes of career, family, etc. It’s a tricky question as does society evaluate the results? The attempt and effort? The manner of which he pursues these things?
Well I’m not sure how you would define financially secure, but I would personally not relate it to wealth per se. For me it’s more about good money management. I would say someone who lives below their means, saves for retirement, can afford basic living expenses, doesn’t gamble or rack up debt, is financially secure. There’s a presumption there of some kind of income above subsistence level, but I could see someone solidly middle class as meeting that expectation.
But I don’t know what other women mean when they say that. I’m trying to think of a single woman I know who doesn’t have her own hustle and I’m coming up empty. Even the “SAHMs” are working from home or doing something on the side or just taking a career break.
How the fuck is it society’s business to “evaluate” somebody’s manhood based on his life choices? (Yes, I know that that kind of normative judgementalism is in fact very traditional, but that’s what I’m complaining about!)
Is a man attempting something in his life that he thinks is a worthwhile goal, and whose pursuit makes him happy and fulfilled?
Is a man refraining from harming others, and building into his life ways to help others, either as a major career ambition or in other sorts of practices?
Is a man in some way, somehow contributing to positive developments in the world?
Is a man coping with his own life disappointments with grace and resilience? Is he extending sympathy and support to help those around him cope with their life disappointments?
Is he looking after his health, caring for those he’s committed to care for, and having fun?
Then he’s man enough for anyone or anything. End of discussion. However a good man is being is a good way to be a man.
And I would ask exactly the same questions, and make exactly the same statements, about how a woman is being. We need to get past the societal stage of having rigid one-size-fits-all (or rather, two-sizes-fit-all, since there’s supposed to be one way for men and another way for women) standardized lifeways that everybody by default is expected to conform to. Lives are individual, and nobody has the authority to judge whether yours is a “success” or a “failure” based on arbitrary standardized criteria.