Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let’s Celebrate Masculinity!
I couldn’t help grinning as I watched Donald Trump enter the arena in New York for the UFC competition last night. The crowd roaring at his entrance and his retinue of Donald Trump, Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk and others was fascinating. You could smell the power and masculinity, and Trump grinned and waved to everyone. It was great fun to watch the joy and enthusiasm as he entered the room.
But after watching this wave of masculinity, I made the mistake of looking into the Left’s insistence on the dominance of toxic masculinity. I was enraged, especially at how they blame Trump for exacerbating the problem. I hadn’t investigated toxic masculinity in the past, and now that I have, I am heartbroken at how we have denigrated both men and boys in our times.
Quite frankly, my research claimed that if you are a man, you must suffer from toxic masculinity:
Toxic masculinity is the result of a set of strict rules that prescribe what being a man should be. These toxic “man rules” include:
- A man should suffer physical and emotional pain in silence.
- A man shouldn’t seek warmth, comfort, or tenderness.
- A man should only have the emotions of bravery and anger. Any other emotions are weaknesses. Weakness is unacceptable.
- A man shouldn’t depend on anyone. Asking for help is also weak.
- A man should always want to win, whether in sports, work, relationships, or sex.
We don’t have to look far to see traces of toxic masculinity in many men. [Italics are mine]
Did you notice the description of “strict rules” and “what being a man should be”? In other words, we see these men everywhere in our own lives—and Donald Trump is the ultimate example:
The president-elect represents a particular type of masculinity: he is seen as brash and straight-talking, and can appear domineering or patronising around women – for example when he famously lurked behind Hillary Clinton during a debate in 2016. For some women who voted for him, this might be a familiar personality that they’ve seen in their fathers and husbands.
This statement makes me want to gag. Who thinks Trump is patronizing toward women, particularly his own wife, Melania? How often has he spoken about women with admiration? And did anyone see him “lurking” behind Hillary Clinton?
But Trump’s point about protecting women really drove some women over the edge:
This kind of ‘protective masculinity,’ and the idea that women need to be protected by men has had a resurgence in US society over the past few decades. This was identified by political scientist Iris Marion Young in the early eighties.
‘The stance of the male protector … is one of loving self-sacrifice, with those in the feminine position as the objects of love and guardianship,’ she wrote in a paper on the subject. ‘Chivalrous forms of masculinism express and enact concern for the wellbeing of women, but they do so within a structure of superiority and subordination.’
She almost got it right. Most women I know love the idea that men want to protect them; this motive suggests a special and intimate caring. But the admiration of women has nothing to do with the men being superior, except usually having superior strength. Nor do the men subordinate women when they take on this role. For some of us, chivalry has not died.
It’s outrageous that we live in a time when all men are subject to intense societal criticism and negative judgment. That those who opine think they have the right to conflate healthy masculinity with toxic masculinity demonstrates that we continue to develop hatred and condescension of the opposite sex:
For men, Trump represents ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ the exalted position of men at the top. In this view, aggression, control and dominance are all admirable traits and highly socially valued.
To make this general statement about men is absurd and demeaning.
I look at the men selected by Trump to be in his administration, and I admire so many of them. Most of them speak with admiration about their wives; most of these women are accomplished in their own right.
We must find a way to reverse this general condemnation of manhood, hold bad actors accountable, and celebrate men and their relationships in the coming years.
Published in Culture
Dare I say it? Yes, I will.
Women don’t want wusses for husbands. Well, except maybe for fourth-wave feminists.
Maybe the fourth-wave feminists are the problem, not men.
Some people limit masculinity and femininity to merely physical strength or lack thereof, or aggressiveness or passivity. But it is a cluster of characteristics that are designed to build and protect stable societies. As Jordan Peterson has said (IIRC) civilized society is dependent upon the controlled capacity for violence by men. If the potential is not there, neither is the capacity for the defense of self or others. “Feminized” men are mere cannon fodder for the State.
Ya think?! Let’s hope there are no more waves of feminists, Seawriter!
Indeed they are. And I fortunately am not acquainted with any of them!
Hey!
Well, figuratively speaking!
I’m rewatching the Mad Men series as I do my daily hour on the dreadmill. It isn’t kind to men: we’re portrayed as overbearing, dismissive, thoughtless, and unfaithful. It’s had me thinking about male/female relationships, an always-interesting topic.
I’m glad I’m a man. I’m sympathetic to the challenge women face in a male-dominated world. The feminist movement was, I believe, a necessary response to what I think was an unjust imbalance of power, legal standing, and respect. It quickly became something else, something self-defeating, when it concluded that the path forward for women was to emulate men. It has never stopped: today at its heart is a denial that the sexes are different, a factually ridiculous position leading to contradictions that can only be resolved by casting men as evil.
The reality is that men and women are different, and that a decent society will both acknowledge those differences and create guiderails to keep the stronger and more aggressive sex in check. A big part of that, perhaps the biggest part of that, is the chivalry you mentioned, a romanticized chauvinism that translates superior masculine strength and aggression into a protective sense of duty.
People misunderstand the role of chivalrous gestures, of men opening doors, walking on the street side of the sidewalk, refraining from vulgarity in mixed company, following up the stairs and preceding down, taking out the trash. The point isn’t to emphasize the weakness of women. Rather, it’s to remind all the other men out there that we acknowledge the unequal playing field of the sexes and, with that, accept our duty to respect boundaries put in place by custom and tradition to keep women secure.
The more noble masculine drives provide tools for managing the more ignoble ones: our sense of duty and honor and the pride we feel when we’re seen as heroic (even in small ways) can and should be harnessed to keep our natural aggression, particularly our sexual aggression, in check. Demonizing masculinity by conflating every innate difference between men and women as pathology is exactly the wrong way to bring out the best in men.
Gosh, your comment is better than my post, Hank! Or at least it’s a very special addition. I hate how we’ve denigrated men, and that his behavior continues. Enough already!
One of the episodes that intrigued me most as our son grew into the man who would go on to serve twelve years in the United States Air Force was when I learned that in high school he had stood up on a school bus against several boys to defend the honor of a Muslim girl who was being ridiculed because of her conservative attire. This was a boy who understood that one of his roles was to defend the girls and women who are important to our well-being. He had already commented in many other ways acknowledging the enormous power and influence women – and particularly his mother (my wife) – had. So it was clearly not a matter of “superiority” and “inferiority.” It was a matter of different roles.
In what became a running joke as my now-son-in-law pursued our daughter, he was determined to demonstrate to me that he was capable of taking care of her (despite him and my daughter being somewhat leftist in outlook). When I asked our daughter why she was initially attracted to him, she noted “his chivalry.”
You might find Wikipedia’s entry on Toxic Masculinity to be amusing in a faux-academic way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
Well, at least she’s not completely indoctrinated!
This is precisely why I didn’t go to Wikipedia. The other articles I reviewed were horrible enough. This stuff depresses me.
Code of Chivalry in The Song of Roland
Something tells me the author has never considered even one of those rules.
I’m sure he didn’t. And I’m grateful for the Code he created and we’ve found our own way to honor it.
”I’m sympathetic to the challenge women face in a male-dominated world.”
It’s strange that I remember this. But one day I went with my mother to the savings and loan where she had an account. She told me how proud she was to have her own bank account in her name. She told me how as a young woman, she wasn’t allowed to have her own bank account. Women were not allowed to have their own accounts. This was almost 70 years ago, and I was a little boy. But I was shocked even then! Absolutely, changes in societal behavior were needed. And, no doubt, future societies will need more changes. But we must be careful. Societal changes need to happen slowly and cautiously. Without prudence we end up with child mutilation and 1 million abortions a year.
Alas, yes.
About 8 years ago, a college friend of mine published a novel satirizing the state of our campuses. Here’s an excerpt from his interview with the College Fix (bolding mine):
“The College Fix: Why write the book?
Scott Johnston: Because no one else had.
I’ll tell you how it came about. I had never been a novelist, but about three years ago I went to a free-speech conference at Yale – mind you, it wasn’t sponsored by Yale, they wouldn’t sponsor such a thing – but it was held there, sponsored by the William F. Buckley society. And 200 protesters, students, showed up and tried to physically shut the conference down, having skipped irony class that day probably to show up and protest.
I was stunned. There was security there that kept them out, but when the thing was over, I and everyone else walked out through this phalanx of shouting students, and that’s when I began to wonder – college is getting so crazy, why hasn’t anybody sort of given this the Tom Wolfe treatment? The satirical wit treatment? Because it’s pretty ripe for it.
So I just started knocking it around in my head. But I wasn’t a fiction writer.
Then fast forward to my college reunion, also at Yale, and I was holding a door open for a girl who I think was an undergraduate who was working the reunions, and she stopped dead in her tracks and she looked at me and said, “patriarchy!” She accused me of patriarchy and wouldn’t go through the door. And we had this standoff for about a minute.
Literally at that moment, I said, “alright, I’ll figure out how to write the goddamn thing.” So I just started writing, and had no idea how to find a publisher or anything, but it all worked out well. …”
Link: https://www.thecollegefix.com/new-comedic-novel-campusland-skewers-progressive-university-politics/
The men of America have an opportunity to step and remake this country. Let’s go!
Jordan Peterson sometimes notes that he found a way to avoid those kinds of protests, he has his events in the morning, before those types are out of bed.
Bill Burr, “although only a comedian,” has noted that women depend on men even for “feminism.”
And we women will cheer you on!
“Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty.” – Joseph Goebbels
I razz Susan a lot about missing the obvious Goebbels tactic.
In this case, the Toxic Woke are accusing masculine men of…
And I finally got it!
Wait, that’s a real thing? I’ve never even heard of that custom before.
Catch them if they happen to stumble. Especially when wearing high heels.
Sure, it makes sense, I just don’t recall ever hearing about it, nor noting it in practice.
These sorts of traditions are easily lost if not handed down. One generation might consciously reject them to make a point, but later generations never learned the rules so we’re not even aware that we’re violating them.
Chivalry is never more than one generation away from extinction, as it were.
Leaving aside the question of how ‘strict’ a trace of a strict rule can be, I am trying to imagine anyone wanting a weak, whiny, dependent anti-competitive man.
Come to think of it, those aren’t attractive traits in women either
The very helpful comment (#7) by @henryracette also caused me to think on the opening doors for women detail, “Well, who has doors opened for them? Important people do.”
That people open doors for the President of the United States or for a dignitary or for a customer is not a sign that the person opening the door considers himself superior to the person for whom the door is being opened. It is in fact a sign of respect and dignity by the door opener toward the person for whom the door is being opened.
Women are very important people.
And at least as I encounter them, women coming through doors are often already doing their own important tasks like herding or carrying children.
Well, thank you, FST. That’s a lovely comment to make. I love the gesture, so if we ever are together, feel free to open the door for me!
I’ve seen the phrase “toxic feminity” or “toxic feminism” enter the discussion . . .