"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.