Toxic Masculinity: Stoicism, part 2

More of my almost-inane drivel arguing against the post-modern narrative of "toxic" masculinity.

The first argument against Stoicism that I'll address is that it is a means of surrendering to "fate", that all things are pre-determined, and thus unavoidable. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, more commonly known simply as Seneca, provided many texts regarding Stoicism.

His approach is described as "passive", as accepting of fate and perceiving that the individual has no impact on events. I have to agree with Steven Gambardella, the author of that linked article, that being passively accepting of some predetermined fate is unhealthy. I absolutely do NOT like the idea that my life is preordained. I have no idea if my actions are of any significance, even marginal on the macro-scale, but I find it necessary to believe that I make my own decisions, even while recognizing socio-cultural influences on my viewpoint.

Perhaps my approach is a "cheat" to some extent, but I often take a stance similar to what Mr. Gambardella articulates as "taking the colloquial meaning of “stoic”, an attitude to life, to stand for “Stoicism”, a school of philosophy that attempts to explain life." I do this with many things. I like to look for fundamental principles which I perceive as being applicable in broader circumstances. I like to strip-away anything I view as superstitious in nature, because they induce significant variation from the functional base and are too easy to misinterpret and misuse, and find the underlying principles that are shared throughout all interpretations and applications.

I'm certainly not well-read on Stoicism. I can't (yet) quote Marcus Aurelius's Meditations; I've not read more than a brief review of Cicero's attack on Stoicism when defending Lucius Murena (referenced below). That said, I've not seen the passiveness Mr. Gambardella describes. Certainly our current circumstances are the result of past decisions and actions. Of course we can't always predict what effects our decisions will have. I don't see that as meaning that we have no influence on our "fate". I found myself here as a result of a multitude of factors, but I'm now in a position to influence the outcome of THIS situation. I want to make the best decision I can right now, taking into account past mistakes, successes, and consideration not only for my own welfare, but that of everyone and everything possible. I can't do that if I've acted impulsively from knee-jerk emotions, or if I deliberately maintain an excessively-emotional response which clouds my judgement. I have to recognize the pleasure or pain which initially motivated me, and integrate that with my intellectual capacity to find the most constructive outcome I'm able to create. 

Another argument against Stoicism, actually a set of arguments, was used in a political corruption trial. In 62 BCE, a trial against Lucius Licinius Murena saw Marcus Tullius Cicero, defense, facing off against Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder), as prosecution. Cicero's successful argument was not actually regarding Murena's actions or character, but rather he chose to simply attack the prosecutor's Stoic philosophy.

Cicero led the jury to see Cato as intellectualizing the case. Cicero appears to claim that Stoics are incapable of compassion; have a harsh view of punishing indiscretions; and are "absolutist", not lending legitimacy to relative values, disregarding opposing viewpoints.

When stoics refer to being "indifferent" to others, that is not intended to imply that they strive to not care about anything at all, to achieve some disconnection from our universe, seeing it all as unworthy of consideration. The intended meaning is that the external influence could be good, could be bad, or could be neither good nor bad. As explained by Diogenes "The Stoics say that some things that exist are good, some are bad, and some are neither good nor bad. The good things, then, include the virtues...The bad things include their opposites...neither good nor bad are all those things which neither benefit nor harm" (Tad Brennan, The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate, Oxford: Clarendon, 2006, p, 119). A stoic is, therefore, not lacking in compassion, but rather sees that many experiences, many influences, most actions, are not necessarily bad or good, but simply are. Nothing more.

While this might not be a directly-successful argument in favor of Stoic compassion, it should illustrate that Stoics are not unsympathetic. A lack of sympathy would have Stoics disregarding many human characteristics, many people, as unworthy of existing. If you can't be good, you must be bad, therefore you are not worth regard. That extreme is a foundation for the actual nihilism we find in the writings of the Columbine shooters, and those kids were most definitely NOT stoic in any sense. (as part of a project for work, I've found a website containing the writings of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. I almost linked them here, but though better of it. Those kids most certainly fell in the furthest standard deviation of some of the worst behavioral characteristics humanity is capable of, and I firmly believe they were simply a symptom of post-modernism and its innate, selfish disregard for the value of others, and its celebration of impulsivity and the empowerment of excess emotionality, but that's another discussion entirely). Contrary to Cicero's argument, Stoics recognize that few humans have the capacity to achieve the ideal position of Sage, similar to a Buddha. As such, our imperfections must be accounted for. Cicero attempts to claim that Stoics view "All sins are equal, so that every misdemeanor is a serious crime..." This is a disingenuous argument, which is easily countered with the Stoic acknowledgement that every individual is capable of making progress towards a higher state, what Buddhists would call Enlightenment. Stoic philosophy does see somewhat of a binary solution set in that they believe that all sins originate from a singular, fundamental aspect of humanity, "a vicious state of soul". However, this does not mean all destructive actions are equal in a practical sense. Proper Stoics recognize a scale of application, do perceive the use of deadly force against an existential criminal threat as different from murder. Shoplifting bubblegum is not the same as a Ponzi scheme.

I understand how a "telephone game" version, a misinterpretation, of Stoicism would develop over time, leading to a "toxic" version of it. Men HAVE been exposed to the idea that they shouldn't ever express any emotion, which is unreasonable and unhealthy. Taking a Vulcan approach of "pure logic" is impossible and undermines the health of our limbic system, which would introduce some severe dissonance. I also believe that this view of Masculinity and Soicism have developed over time, slowly warping the original intent, creating a distorted view that certainly has had a destructive effect on society. However, I believe that this distortion is NOT the reality of the original, moderate, intent.

I fully admit that I take a slightly more Zen-style approach. I'm not Buddhist, but the Buddhist approach, as I described in part 1, simply resonates well with me. I see many similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism, and I'm not the only one to view them as analogous. I think the description here in Daily Stoic is outstanding: They both advocate seeking happiness from an internal source, so that the ups and downs of life will not be your masters. As philosopher and author Nassim Taleb once wrote on the similarities between the two: “A Stoic is a Buddhist with attitude.”

I perceive one of the most important aspects of both philosophies is the essentially INTERNAL basis of emotional health. Looking to an outside party to provide for your happiness will only lead to disappointment. We must be secure within ourselves, with who we are, in order to be capable of happiness. We must recognize and manage our emotional state on our own. That doesn't mean you don't experience good emotions as a result of being around certain people, from engaging in certain activities, but rather that those provide pleasure, not happiness itself. The Dali Lama is quoted as saying:

          Now sometimes people confuse happiness with pleasure. For example, not long ago I was speaking to an Indian audience at Rajpur. I mentioned that the purpose of life was happiness, so one member of the audience said that Rajneesh teaches that our happiest moment comes during sexual activity, so through sex one can become the happiest. He wanted to know what I thought of that idea. I answered that from my point of view, the highest happiness is when one reaches the stage of Liberation, at which there is no more suffering. That’s genuine, lasting happiness. True happiness relates more to the mind and heart. Happiness that depends mainly on physical pleasure is unstable; one day it’s there, the next day it may not be.

This doesn't mean that we should disregard pleasing experiences, but rather that we shouldn't expect them to be the foundation of our happiness. Instead, finding some form of enlightenment, striving for the Stoic ideal of the wise Sage, cleansing our Karma (our conscience, the Jungian perception of Karma as a subconscious force rather than a religious concept) provides for happiness. This, in-turn, allows for a more substantial appreciation of pleasures, and helps avoid pursuing them in an unhealthy manner.

Back to the claim that a stoic approach is unhealthy: I was never taught that emotional expressions are utterly inappropriate for men. What I learned was that emotions are a critical aspect of our humanity, but that there are times when it is in everyone's best interest that we censor outward expressions. As previously provided, impulse management is a vital skill for adults to engage in. Just because we feel something in the moment doesn't mean we should express it outwardly. Feel it. Recognize that you are feeling it. Allow yourself to feel it. Determine if the situation is appropriate for expressing it. No, expressing emotional clouds (good, bad, indifferent) passing over the moon of your being is NOT always constructive. Despite the juvenile desire to be "spontaneous", to not have to make the effort of self-awareness, avoiding the effort of introspective analysis, letting "the words fall out" can sometimes be destructive, and adults make allowance for that in their personal development. It isn't hiding, it isn't being disingenuous, it is not "two-faced". It is being respectful.

A man will experience the same spectrum of emotions as a woman (or non-binary, if you believe in that). Each individual will experience their emotions with slight variations in comparison to others. However, an adult Man (capital M) will teach himself, through Buddhist mindfulness, Stoicism, or some other approach, to allow the emotions to pass while determining if expression is going to be constructive, neutral, or destructive. Often Men are placed in occupational or social situations which require they wait to express themselves. Perhaps the physical task at-hand is arduous and emotion must be disregarded for the moment in order to achieve a vital goal. That doesn't mean the man isn't feeling the emotions, he is just waiting until an appropriate time to allow them to bubble to the surface. I do not believe this is unhealthy. I do, however, believe that it can easily be taken to unhealthy extremes. As can ANY human behavior.

Intellectualization can be enacted as a defense mechanism by someone who was never taught how to deal with their own emotions. This is common, as the entire concept of self-awareness is antithetical to most people's perceptions of happiness. I've even been told that the approach is selfish, that expecting other people to make you happy is reasonable and to look within yourself is a rejection of our membership in the human collective. No. No. No. Looking within yourself makes you responsible for yourself in ways that allow for a deeper freedom and more substantial relationships. In not expecting someone else to make me happy, I'm able to see them for who they are, not who my insecurities need them to be.

Introspection is difficult, and can be painful. Certainly, it takes practice, and our delusions will get in the way. Many people want to believe that self-awareness is not objectively achievable, that individuals are incapable of truly knowing themselves. I will agree that we have barriers to true, deep self-awareness, but I will disagree that it is impossible. Maintain some skepticism, even with your own self-perception. Recognize how you might lie to yourself about motivations, and be willing to look at your own painful weaknesses. To do otherwise is to live in a delusion that leads to extensive cognitive dissonance, insecurity, and soiling one's karma in ways that deprives us of wonderful opportunities.

Summing this up (to some marginal extent): Stoic qualities taken to an extreme will be unhealthy, but the fundamental approach is exceptionally healthy. Somewhere along the line, over the last couple of generations, Americans (perhaps all Westerners) came to believe the extremes rather than a healthy middle-ground. That is, in itself, a human trait. In recognizing that, and accounting for it, we can move forward in a more productive manner.

Maybe.

Someday.

In conclusion, to summarize, getting on with it, finally:

As with ANY behavioral trait, when applied CORRECTLY, with a well-balanced, mindful approach, Stoicism is NOT toxic. Rather, it is a phenomenally healthy means of boys learning to grow-up. It helps teach them respect for others, a consideration of consequences, impulse-management, and provides an exceptional tool for following "happy thoughts" more than the sad ones, leading to greater happiness. How do I know? It's what I did in my mid teens. I deliberately chose to not engage in the angsty behavior I saw in my peers. I CHOSE to be happy and pursue a positive outlook. Am I perfect at it? H#ck no! I'm no Sage or Buddha. My enlightenment is marginal, at best, and even that slight improvement requires constant practice. I recognize many (hopefully most?) of my downfalls, but I also recognize the constructive long-term benefits of an approach similar to Stoicism, or Zen Buddhist Mindfulness.

When applied properly, a stoic approach gives Men (proper, grown-up, mature, adults) a harness for our innate physicality, providing us with a tool that permits the achievement of goals otherwise unreachable. Rather than destructive impulsivity, lashing out when angry or confused, deviating from or quitting a challenging task in frustration or boredom, or undeservedly taking by force what is instinctively desired, that physicality can be aimed, focused, honed to allow a Man (yes, "or woman", but y'all aren't the focus of this) to disregard physical discomfort in a cramped space capsule, to concentrate on the difficult machining of small parts necessary for lifesaving functions rather than becoming frustrated with how long it takes to file a small gear that a machine doesn't yet exist to create, to push-through the lactate burn of an endurance race, or to push-aside the pain of a gunshot wound to keep a criminal threat isolated until backup can arrive, saving innocent lives.

Just as a small puppy has to be trained to submit to a leash, so do our atavistic impulses have to be trained to submit to our recognition of consequence and responsibility, directed towards the challenge of worthwhile goals. Use emotional reactions as the impetus, the kindling, to spark motivation, but temper that fire with stoic, Zen-like mindfulness, or that emotional blaze becomes destructive. This is achieved through self-discipline. Disciplining oneself, being properly in control of one's actions and reactions, allows for immense freedom.

Similarly, ANY behavior, ANY philosophy, can be "toxic" when taken to extremes. A little bit of red wine (yuck) is good for you, a little bit of beer (double-yuck!!) can be beneficial. Are humans prone to moderation? H#ck no! We, as a collective entity, tend to see binary solution sets (It's THIS or THAT, and THAT is BAD, so I'm going with THIS!) rather than spectra of potentialities (Hmmm, some of this is good, too much or too little is bad. And, to complicate things, the amount that's right for ME is different than the amount which is right for someone else. Damn, being human isn't easy!).

Perhaps, one day, when we aren't a culture of spoiled children trying desperately to hold onto a juvenile utopia, we, as a collective, will again recognize the benefits of properly-balanced Stoicism, mindfulness, in our boys. We will recognize that boys aren't girls, and so they need a different mix, different proportions of psychological nutrients in order to transition into manhood. For that matter, we might recognize the benefits of being adults again (don't go there now, Rick, you're supposed to be wrapping this up!). Until then, we will continue to experience criminal violence from those who could have been more constructive members of society. We will continue to see increasing depression and suicides among our male population as a result of confusion regarding their place and value in The Universe. For a few generations now, we have seen increasingly-vocal recognition of the value of women's contributions. Unfortunately that has been at the expense of men. Humanity, at least as currently existing, doesn't seem to be able to rid itself of the false binary of "It's US or THEM, there can be only one!". Maybe we will move beyond that some day, though it doesn't seem likely soon. Until then, all we can do is our individual best.  We can ALL learn to focus on what is within our actual sphere of influence, and revel in our accomplishments instead of trying to create false feelings of empowerment at the expense of others.

Someday. 

I had wanted to go further with this, but I realized that the two parts total over 6500 words. I'm not trying to challenge Atlas Shrugged for length, and most people stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs anyway.  Not many know this blog exists, and few actually read it (and I'm ok with it. It's more a mechanism for me to work on ideas than it is a means of expressing myself publicly), and few of those will make it more than a few paragraphs.

So I realized I needed to stop. Perhaps the rest will come up someday, but this will need to be all for now.

Bon nuit, mes amis. 

"Traditional" (Toxic) Masculinity Part 1

Is the problem with "Traditional" masculinity, or with the contemporary interpretation of it?

Yah, I'm getting into this one. As soon as the news started talking about the APA's pronouncement of "traditional masculinity" being toxic (in certain circumstances, which is often overlooked), I wanted to know more. 

Since the initial press release from the APA, and the resulting backlash, many outlets have softened their tone by specifying that not all masculinity is to be deemed "Toxic". That, actually, makes more sense. Any cultural or behaviorally-similar group will have some outliers who's actions are non-constructive. Unfortunately that isn't being recognized here. Many Post-Modern pundits have decided that ALL masculinity is "toxic", and that men have to behave more like women. 

This is not a new suggestion by far. Male behavior has been criticized for generations. "Why can't boys just act like girls?". Ummm, because they're BOYS?! 

No, I don't see gender/sex/whatever as being a social construct. Some aspects of behavior are absolutely going to be influenced by society, but MANY characteristics are determined by those pesky XY chromosomes.  

So, the APA says that certain expressions of "Traditional" masculinity are toxic. I can't argue with that. What I'm going to address is the broader application of the APA's statements in media, especially the misandryst sources.

I want to start with my own view that everything about humanity falls on various spectra. Not even linear spectra of "zero is this, 10 is that, there are some things in between", but more like multi-dimensional spectra that are dependent on a plethora of factors. 

It means "a shit ton", "a lot", "many", "a buttload"

I believe that every factor with even marginal affect on the characteristic adds another dimension to the spectrum on which that characteristic is being considered. So when we look at any characteristic being labeled as "toxic", we need to consider the extent to which it is being expressed. ANY characteristic can become toxic. Too much maternal coddling is toxic, too much roughhousing is bad, too much oxygen or water can kill you. I have only seen a single OpEd on this subject that addressed the subject of finding balance (if I don't get around to referencing it later, please follow the link. LtCdr. Willink's articulation is absolutely on-point). This is something that most of our cultural peers avoid as though it is some kind of plague. Finding balance is "boring". It's more fun to be "EXTREME". We're inundated with advertisements and social media posts advocating for EXTREME behavior. It is glorified in ways I feel are unhealthy. We should all be seeking balance in our selves and in our lives, but that isn't fun, it doesn't get us attention.

The subject of Balance is going to come up again, likely more than once. Balancing our emotions and intellect, our actions and reactions, our own views against those of the people around us, is vital to being healthy. Not too much or too little of anything. This applies to perceptions of gender roles and applicable behavior. 

As already stated, I don't believe that a binary solution set is appropriate. Everything falls on various spectra, and should be recognized as such. Some heterosexual men display some stereotypically-feminine behavior. Some gay men are intimidatingly overwhelming with their expressions of stereotypical masculinity. In the end, so long as they aren't an existential threat to me or the rest of society, I really don't care. Seriously. Why should I? Oh, because we're supposed to care about EVERYTHING. Well...tough! I believe that part of our cultural problems stem from this idea that we're supposed to care about every damn thing around us. If people stopped caring about so damn much, they'd have more energy to actually care about things of material consequence. I believe that all of humanity displays certain behavioral characteristics, with each individual expressing each of those characteristics to different extents. We all have some of the behaviors found in a clinically-diagnosed psychopath, but not sufficient as to be deemed hazardous, whereas a psychopath has those same characteristics to a dangerous extreme. I share all of the same fundamental human behavioral characteristics experienced with every other human being, simply at different points on the various spectra pertaining to the characteristics. 

My next thought on this is "What constitutes Traditional Masculinity?"

I'm actually curious about this. The post-modern definitions are NOT what I was brought up with, so where did they come from? Apparently John Wayne's persona had an effect. Stories about cowboys, movies about heroic figures. Ok, but those are STORIES and MOVIES. They're fiction. They're over-dramatized in order to achieve an effect (mostly to get people to buy tickets or pay $2.99 to rent them on Vudu). Yes, John Wayne stood for some awesome principles, and he normally played a pretty "Traditional" Man's Man, but things like slapping a woman to calm her down (I don't remember which movies that was in, but it was common for Bogart also) is NOT something a Man would do. Again, Drama! Fiction!

But drama has an effect on people. When we use those stories to provide a foundation for how a boy believes he should behave, especially without an actual adult male (not simply some adult-aged male in a semi-paternal position) there to discuss them, it leads to misunderstanding. Those misunderstandings, misinterpretations, are carried forward and become the new norm. Cultural values are transmitted exactly like The Telephone Game, and that causes problems further down the line, as we're seeing now. Looking at what is being deemed "Traditional Masculinity", I believe that a distorted message has been passed-down. 

I don't know how well I'm presenting this, but the path I'm trying to lay-out is the probability of "Traditions" having become distorted, overlayed with the human tendency to disregard healthy balance in favor of more exciting extremes, post-modernism's dislike of any masculinity, and many other factors too numerous for me to bother exploring right now, have all come together to cause problems. Horrible problems.

I have many intentions with this post, and any subsequent ones which are related. I want to explore my own concept of what constitutes "Masculine", how I interpret the traditions that were passed on to me, where I think some things have gone wrong in contemporary society, blah, blah, blah. Since only a couple of people are going to read this, and most will skim it anyway (I do the same thing), I'll try to get to one of my points.

Now that I've laid some groundwork for my feelings on the broader concept, I'd like to address one of the characteristics the APA has listed as being unhealthy for men:

Stoicism 

Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus)

I only included his picture because of his historical significance. I don't reference him here, today. He is, simply, as a historical figure and significant contributor to literature on this subject, unrivaled. 

Stoicism has garnered a heck of a bad reputation. When listed in the APA's paper as a potentially toxic trait, many people jumped on-board and lambasted Stoicism with gusto. 

"It prevents men from expressing their emotions"

"Stoicism leads to men internalizing stress in unhealthy ways"

The arguments I see as criticizing Stoicism seem to be based on a poor understanding of the philosophy. The writers seem to have only a "Telephone Game" version in mind. Maybe they skimmed an article on it in high school and decided it wasn't exciting enough. Stoicism is NOT about suppressing emotions. It is NOT about denying what you feel. It is about recognizing the constructive and destructive potentials, prioritizing things, and finding a balance that allows you to continue in a healthy manner.

"(Freud) is partly responsible for the 'folk theory' that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good..."

"...emotional restraint is not the same as emotional repression, a distinction that seems lost in the emergence of “toxic masculinity” as a prominent theme in the culture wars of the 21st century..."

"...I view the passions as a distraction from the rational quest for equanimity in the face of life’s adversities. In my experience, I feel worse after crying. The same hardships remain. Crying amounts to little more than a stormy emotional interlude that delays resolution of a conflict...However, I also think it’s possible that crying can be as traumatic for some as it may be cathartic for others. Telling one man it’s okay to cry may make him feel better, but telling another may make him feel worse" I'll add that while many people and cultures insist that managing one's reactions to the emotions they feel is destructive, and that everyone should allow their emotions to dictate their immediate behaviors, multiple studies have also recorded higher incidence of domestic violence in those "passionate" cultures, and many experience higher incidence of criminal violence. No, expressing everything you feel is NOT constructive. Any adult should recognize that, let alone a real Man.
A stoic approach (little "s") allows a man to endure difficult circumstances without deviating from a chosen task. What has a more constructive outcome: allowing distractions and difficulties to derail one from a well-thought-out, constructive, beneficial goal, or having the fortitude to endure those distractions and difficulties in the knowledge that the goal is worthwhile? There are legitimate reasons why men outnumber women in certain occupations (and the reciprocal is true also). Note: I did not say that men are somehow BETTER, in an absolute sense, than women at these jobs. There will be women who excel, and men who don't. I'm deliberately articulating generalities, averages. We don't have to like statistics for them to be factually correct.

Amusingly, when I looked for that statistical information, I ran across this article: The Top Jobs Where Women Are Outnumbered by Men Named John. Wut?! I can't even...

Those caterwauling about "Toxic Masculinity" insist that men should express their feelings the way women do, and that stoicism is simply a means of suppressing emotional reactions. ACTUAL patriarchal influence on boys (not the post-modern interpretation of The Patriarchy) taught them to recognize their emotions, experience them internally, and determine if they should be acted on or not, based on the constructiveness of the emotion and its expression. The emotion is still there, is not repressed, but it doesn't NEED to be acted on. To act on emotion blindly is a lack of impulse control. This impulsiveness has been encouraged by society, and I believe it is the root of many social ailments. I strongly believe concepts like the "rape culture" are a result of boys being told to "follow your heart" and "do what feels right", rather than being taught to consider consequences. Add the socialization of repercussions, with little substantial punishment for destructive behavior, renouncing of individualized repercussions as "too harsh", and we have a couple of generations of boys, now men, who have been taught to be "spontaneous" and "express your feelings however you think you need to". Rather than teaching boys self-restraint from an early age, we simply medicate them because they aren't behaving like girls.

Stoicism, as properly practiced, provides a means for people to accomplish difficult tasks, achieve difficult goals, and persevere through conditions which would break the non-Stoic. This manifests in many ways. Some people see themselves as "leaning on God", thus externalizing the burden. Others learn meditation and can focus on the task at hand rather than being overwhelmed by the overall situation. It all has the same end effect: allowing the practitioner to move through difficulty without allowing their emotions to push them off course. It also imparts, as is a major focus of this piece, impulse-management skills. With the VITALLY necessary ability to reign-in impulsive behavior, a boy/man is able to be properly respectful of others, not get into unnecessary fights, maintain healthy relationships, remain employed. Shall I continue with the positive effects?

An illustration of this which I love, because of my preference for the Zen Buddhist approach, is provided on a tapestry I purchased years ago. I can't find the same one on the website anymore, and the one I have is packed away in anticipation of moving, so I'll use a random picture from the interwebs to help me illustrate the point:

Picture your fundamental self as being the moon, and your emotions as being the clouds. As the clouds pass over the moon, they will distort your view of the moon. The moon, your fundamental self, may seem darker, obscured, seem to disappear completely. This is temporary, as are emotions. The clouds will pass, leaving behind the same fundamental self, just as we have the ability to allow emotions to pass without acting on them. Once we take action, we myelinate, "cement" in our neural pathways, that behavior, giving it permission to change us. Each time we don't take action, we strengthen the myelination related to impulse control. We don't deny the clouds' existence. We can even recognize the occasional beauty to be found in a cloud-covered moon. If the moon seems to disappear, we know that it is still here, and we move on to something else until we can see it again, but we don't become unnerved by the clouds. Instead of permitting all emotions to elicit a reaction, we can CHOOSE which ones we react to, choosing a more positive outcome for ourselves. I'm feeling anxious about something. I recognize it, find the source, and try to deal with it to alleviate the anxiety. I'm feeling ecstatic about something. I recognize it, find the source, and (here's a difficult part) decide if continuing the feeling will be constructive or if I should avoid that source despite the short-term pleasure. Emotion motivates, intellect allows for constructive analysis, and we integrate the two in order to achieve a positive outcome. But, I have to DECIDE to do this, and PRACTICE it, improving my ability over time. Further, everyone's ability will be different depending on neurology. Nature AND Nurture, combined. Everyone can do it, but to different extents.

Boys/Men tend to be more physical than Girls/Women. I'm not putting that as a false binary; everything is on a spectrum, remember? Some girls will be more physically expressive and active than some boys, and vice versa. I'm saying that ON AVERAGE, boys and men TEND to express themselves with physical acts, while women tend to verbalize their feeling more. In our post-modern world, that is seen as detrimental for men. We are seen as "bottling up" our emotions when we don't express them the way a woman does. We are "out of touch with (our) own feelings" when we don't engage the way women do. Again, Men are not Women. I covered some of that when discussing how men are shamed into not having friends because we don't engage in friendship the way women do. One of the problems we, as males, are running into is being told that we are supposed to express ourselves the way women do. Unfortunately(?), we aren't women.

When a boy is inundated with calls to "follow your heart" and to "do what feels right", it contributes to him not exercising impulse-management. Many other cultural factors are contributing also, but I'm only going to use this one for this illustration. Impulse-control simply is not commonly taught, and its opposite is even lauded as somehow being a good thing. The song "Brave", sung by Sara Bareilles, encourages the listener to "say what you want to say". Don't censor yourself, just let your atavistic impulses take over and say whatever you're feeling in the moment. I've always hated that song. It is beautiful, as a musical piece, but that message is destructive. "If you're really my friend, I can say whatever comes to mind whenever I want to". Ummm, NO. I will absolutely NOT put up with disrespectful statements. If you are really MY friend, you will censor yourself out of respect, just as I do out of respect for you. Our entire "instant-gratification" culture encourages everyone to be angry when their package doesn't show up on time. "I want it now!!". Well, it isn't going to happen right this second, so be patient. Unfortunately, our culture doesn't teach patience, and this is having horrible effects on men and on society as a whole.

As the boy grows up, his innate impulses are to physically act. He gets confused, has never been taught how to manage himself, and he strikes out, hitting another child. He becomes sexually frustrated and has never been told to respect the person he is with as a legitimate human being, so he TAKES what he wants. "Rape Culture" has been taught through a neglect for the need for boys to be taught some version of stoicism. Zen. Impulse-control. Whatever. These skills are VITAL for a boy. Without them, his future isn't very hopeful.

And before you jump on me with cries of Intellectualization, and it being bad, I'm going to say that's not what I'm talking about. Intellectualization could stem from a multitude of sources. Disregarding autism-spectrum disorders, I'll say it's a coping mechanism. Yes, it is often employed by men, especially those of a more academic persuasion, as a means of avoiding uncomfortable emotions. THAT is not healthy, and THAT is NOT what I'm talking about.

Emotion has its place. I won't deny that. Emotion is an important motivator. Frontal lobotomies essentially disconnected the limbic part of the brain from the rest, removing the patient's ability to feel emotion. After the procedure, the patient had to be guided through the rest of their life. You and I feel discomfort if we defecate in our trousers (I hope you do, but it isn't my concern). A lobotomized patient doesn't experience that discomfort, and has to be told to go to the bathroom.

"Uhh, Rick? Where are you going with this?"

Emotion. Stoicism. Impulse control.

Emotions motivate us to get up off our derrieres and do something. Without emotion, humanity wouldn't accomplish anything. I don't like the cakes at the grocery store, so I learn to make better cakes at home. I like a soup I had on a cruise, so I learn to make it myself. I don't like how the brakes in my truck feel, so I take it to a mechanic.

One of the many problems we're encountering now, as I see the situation, is that emotion isn't being balanced with intellect. There's that word again: "Balance". Yes, emotion FEELS good. It's exciting. It gives us a (normally false) sense of empowerment. "Do what feels right" leads to decisions being made solely from emotion. Note "solely". Emotion will always have an effect, but it must be (here's that word again) balanced.

One facet has already been mentioned: boys acting impulsively, and being angry when told they can't do whatever it was they did. Of course they're angry, you just spent their entire life telling them to "do what feels right" and that everyone "deserves (insert item/concept here)". Now you're telling them they shouldn't do what they've been told to do. Confusing much?

Another facet of this is deliberately maintaining the emotional "high". Knowing that the emotion is temporary, many people (men and women both) will engage in acts to maintain the empowering emotional state. They are addicted to the feeling of excitement. In doing this, they tend to take ever more destructive paths to maintain that high.

Zen, Stoicism, impulse-control. We recognize that we are experiencing an emotional reaction to something. We absolutely do NOT suppress it or ignore it. We recognize that we are feeling something, and we allow it. That doesn't mean we allow it to control us; we simply allow the emotion to run its course. There is no need to act on the impulse. Now that we recognize that we are uncomfortable with something, or that we really enjoy something, we can balance the emotional reaction with an intellectual analysis of consequences. Each has its place, emotion and intellect, and they overlap each other. Memories of a long-term consequence are uncomfortable, so we make decisions to avoid that again, and so on. Also, just like the OODA Loop, the process is continuous and ongoing.

When correctly understood and properly exercised, Stoicism allows a man to recognize consequences, to prioritize his attention, and to not engage in impulsive behavior which violates the sovereignty of others or will be of long-term detrimental consequence.

What about the arguments AGAINST stoicism? There are a few, and I (obviously) disagree with them to a large extent, though not entirely. Since my initial attempt at this ended up being around 5300 words, and was described as "fatiguing" to read, I've cut it in half and will start addressing a couple of arguments against Stoicism with part 2.