Pathologizing Masculinity

[RDKirk]

The last few years I've seen some movies that defy that. Mel Gibson, who is infamous for his blood operas, did a film (Hacksaw Ridge) about a combat medic and conscientious objector who doesn't even carry a gun... and he ends up getting the girl.

Desmond T. Doss, however, absolutely displays masculine traits throughout that movie.

 

[FireDragon76]

Desmond T. Doss, however, absolutely displays masculine traits throughout that movie.

I don't think there's one kind of masculinity, its constructed differently depending on the subculture you inhabit.

 

[fhansen]

A new report on boys and men from the American Psychological Association reminded me, again, why worldview is so important. The report is the first of its kind from the APA, which has previously issued guidelines for girls and women, as well as for so-called “sexual minorities.”

For years now, the APA has been at the forefront of legitimizing progressive gender and sexual ideologies, and this report is in that same vein. To put it mildly, their conclusions are less clinical recommendations than they are naked worldview assertions.

Of course, the report isn’t all false ideologies. It opens, in fact, by recognizing a true and painful reality: Men and boys in America are not doing well. They’re diagnosed with ADHD at twice the rate of girls, they perform worse on standardized tests, they’re suspended and expelled from school at a disproportionate rate. As they get older, men use drugs and alcohol more often. They don’t seek help for mental health issues like depression as frequently as women do. They commit 90 percent of homicides, and make up 77 percent of homicide victims. They account for 93 percent of federal prison inmates and are 3.5 times more likely than women to commit suicide. In fact, male suicides are up more than fifty percent in the U. S. since 1980. We’ve talked of these so-called “deaths by despair” a few times on BreakPoint.

Faced with all of these troubling realities, the APA identifies the problem with men as being “traditional masculinity,” which they define as “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

That’s not how I define traditional masculinity. Anti-femininity? Violence? That sounds like being a jerk. Reading between the APA’s straw-men and caricatures, it becomes clear what assumptions are really behind the report.

Traditional masculinity, the authors go on to argue, is socially constructed. Real gender is “non-binary,” the report says. In fact, even identifying male sex with masculine gender betrays “heteronormative assumptions.” In other words, masculinity does not objectively exist. It is whatever we make it. The report actually says, “Psychologists should help boys and men create their own concepts of what it means to be male.”

LGBT ideology is taken by the authors of the report as gospel. “It’s no longer just (a) male-female binary,” says one. The report criticizes “individuals with religious affiliations and conservative social and political views, who may equate masculinity with heterosexuality.” These folks, hints the APA, need to be cured of their errant views.

The game here is painfully obvious. This isn’t science, it’s a worldview that sees masculinity as anyone would have defined it just a generation ago as a problem needing to be solved. But as David French writes at the National Review, the APA has it all backward. The real plight of boys and men today coincides with our culture’s rejection of traditional masculinity, not the embrace of it! To say that the answer is to further deconstruct what it means to be a man is ludicrous.

Our society has no fixed categories of what it means to be a man, much less any resources for catechizing the next generation of men.

Rest of the story at link: BreakPoint: Pathologizing Masculinity - Break Point

Wow, weird stuff. The APA has certainly compromised it's integrity over the years. This statement, , “Psychologists should help boys and men create their own concepts of what it means to be male.” should be telling. Why should they want anyone to "create their own concepts of what it means to be male” when they should be objecting to consigning any concepts to masculinity if they're to be intellectually honest and consistent? In fact, they should view that as the problem from their perspective.

The truth, of course, is that while we can override our natures, preferring and over-emphasizing some characteristics over others, while we can subvert our natures IOW, due to free will and the effects of Original Sin as I see it, and while men and women certainly share many characteristics, there is such a thing as a distinct male nature. In that sense there's no reason that our psyches shouldn't be just as binary as our bodies.

 

[dms1972]

I'm sorry, OWG, but I actually laughed at this. We have no way of knowing if it's the last days or not, but what I can look back on is 2,000-odd years of Christians, some of whom in every generation were convinced it was the last days. We might well have another 2,000 - or more - to get through yet. And if we aren't going to find it all ending tomorrow, I'd like to do the best I can for the time we have left, you know?

When Peter spoke on the day of Pentecost, he said this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel : "In the last days, God says I will pour out my Spirit on all people...." (Acts 2:17). So was Peter not indicating the last days had already arrived? For early christians Jesus return was always imminent, and didn't Jesus himself say he "was coming soon"?

NIV Study Bible, note on Isaiah 2:2

the last days. Can refer to the future generally (see Gen 49:1), but usually it seems to have in view the Messianic era. In a real sense the last days began with the first coming of Christ (see Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2) and will be fulfilled at his second coming.

 

[Not David]

Times change, and our society changes. We no longer live in an industrial society, much less a patriarchal agrarian society of the Bible. I think we need men now with more nurturing qualities . More Mr. Rogers, less John Wayne.

Who says men couldn't have nurturing qualities? Even the 50's common family seems to have that.

 

[SolomonVII]

I think - from what I can see and hear from other women, as well as my own experience - women have a problem with the status quo, but would articulate it in different terms.

You look to a past where the father was "the core" of the family unit; that past had significant problems for women as a whole, and we've sought to correct some of those. That was not, however, an invitation for men to absolve themselves of responsibility; it was an invitation to partnership. The dismay of contemporary women seems to me, to be that too many men, offered a choice between partnering equally with a spouse, or acting like an additional child in the family, will opt for the latter. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard wives and mothers complain that their husbands act as if everything is the mental and emotional responsibility of their wives.

It seems terribly petty. "Oh, you're going to take on an equal role with me in life? Fine then. If I can't be in charge, I'm not interested." And a retreat to the pleasure and irresponsibility you describe so eloquently.

And then these men wake up one day to find they've been divorced because their wives have discerned - quite accurately - that they are better off without someone who doesn't pull his weight, and think that this is somehow all the women's fault. But how do you make someone who doesn't want to, take on responsibility?

The only way that you can make someone do something that he doesn't want to do is to make it desirable and a thing of value for him. The probability of divorce makes marriage hardly desirable at all to anyone anymore, except the social activitists who are fine with marriage, as long as it is completely changed into something else than has existed before throughout Western history. Many young people, especially those who are children of divorce, opt out.

My body, my choice absolves men of the responsibility that reality once opposed on them. It is the get-out-of-marriage-for-free card. The field of sexual pleasure remains wide, wide open, there on the outside.
It is the principle of vice-versa. Women absolve themselves of the responsibility of family by their choice to exercise the option of killing their baby too. Vice versa. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It is all about the fun now, and men have vase resources of fun available to them, where the option of fun without responsibility is a real option. There is no downside to too much fun in the nanny state. Men are dying from too much fun at higher rates than women, because men's physiology statistically trends to the extremes. What could be a more powerful experience that a drug exponentially stronger than heroin. Only those who experience fun on the extremes can understand.

Yes all authority is oppressive. The patriarchy oppresses, like any system of authority does. Fatherhood is but one potential path among virtually infiinite other paths to go. It takes effort to makes the path of lesser fun to be recognized as the more desirable one. It takes socialization with the goal of fatherhood being the expected option to take, the manly option even. Entire religions and moral codes have been written in order to make patriarchy understood to be the desirable than the fun choices are.
But parameters that guide us into accepting norms, such as fatherhood, are oppressive-to everyone who is expected to submit to them regardless of identity group!

And so, this is what freedom without parameters looks like. Women have been liberated from oppressive patriarchy. Patriarchy has been abandoned as undesirable behavior. Men are exactly as they have been socially engineered to be. This is what God tossing a wrench into the plans of the social engineers, who imagined a world without the world of fathers oppressing their families in marriage. This is what that world looks like.

By freeing women from the patriarchy, men are freed from the patriarchy too. Vice versa is like a law of social physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Vice versa.

But there is no social engineering plan that is so dumb that people will not double down on it in response to its failure.

 

[dms1972]

Our culture is falling apart. No amount of 'self-criticism' will change it. It's the last days, we're circling the drain...doomed!

Technically (biblically) the 'last days' began with the advent. Of course the 'end time' is the period including the tribulation (Jacob's Trouble).

I kind of agree that self-criticism will not be sufficient. But if the last days began with the Advent and includes Pentecost and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations - why is it all doom and gloom then?

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think there's one kind of masculinity, its constructed differently depending on the subculture you inhabit.

You're only looking at stereotypical traits rather than how males organize thoughts and then corresponding actions, which is common across cultures.

 

[RDKirk]

Who says men couldn't have nurturing qualities? Even the 50's common family seems to have that.

Boy Scouters do a heck of a lot of nurturing.

When my grandfather and I finished breakfast on a Saturday morning, he'd say, "Come, boy, come with me," as he began his Saturday business of going out to pay bills, make purchases, et cetera, for his masonry business. That kind of thing had to be done store-to-store, person-to-person back in those days.

I'd say, "But granddaddy, I wanna watch cartoons!"

"Come boy, come with me."

I realized much, much later what he was doing. He was nurturing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If the last days began with the Advent and includes Pentecost and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations - why is it all doom and gloom then?

Now is the time Jesus spoke of: "When this gospel has been preached to all nations...then will the end come."

The gospel has been preached. By many accounts we're now in the then that he, and the prophets, spoke of.

 

[Resha Caner]

The negative bias is evident in your post. If masculinity is what is more robust or tough, women by implication are less robust or tough.

What I observe is that some of our cultural constructions of what it means to be a man are harmful to the men themselves to whom they are applied, to those with whom they are in relationships, and to our society as a whole. (This is also true of some of our cultural constructions of what it means to be a woman, btw). So why not be willing to engage in constructive critique of our own culture?

Because such attempts often come from a feminine perspective that doesn't understand men. There does appear to be a crisis of sorts among American boys, and to say it's unfair to women to investigate that crisis seems to me to miss the point.

With that said, the point may not always be expressed well, so let me give it a go.

The trend in education has been, for a long time, that women dominate teaching. There are multiple studies that show the result is to create classroom environments where girls thrive and boys don't. One such study from many years back is Christina Hoff Somers' The War Against Boys. Since there is also a strong correlation that those who succeed in school succeed after school, that is troubling. IIRC there are also studies showing declining rates of boys going on to college, graduating, placing in the professional work force, etc.

I recall one particular situation where boys who were caught fighting in school were forced to sit in chairs, face each other, hold hands, and share their feelings. The result was an increase in violence, not a decrease. Guys (and often mothers of boys) seem to get why that is an obvious outcome.

So, back to the "tough" thing. Tough is a pretty ambiguous word, but there is good data to indicate things like the average male is stronger and faster than the average female. That's simply the way it is. I do, however, understand your concern with such things. Too often the statistics are misunderstood. Further, they are often interpreted as a value judgement (which was your reaction). Those statistics are taken as: All men are stronger than me and better than me.

That's not what the statistics say. I use tennis as an example. The top female tennis player in the world could beat me without breaking a sweat. That's because neither of us are average. She's an above average tennis player and I'm below average. Statistics do not apply to individuals.

Second, whether strong men are good or bad is a value judgement. It's a cultural thing. I happen to think physical strength is a good thing. But that doesn't lead me to conclude men are better than women. It is true, though, that in some cultures that is the unfortunate result.

Finally, there are areas where women test higher than men. That's the way it is. It doesn't make me feel inferior. Nor do I think it's a good idea to judge individuals based on the averages. In fact, it's improper math. If I'm applying for a job, a scholarship, whatever, the individual needs to be judged on his or her individual capabilities.

So, bottom line, in many areas that people think of as "tough" men test higher. Not all areas, but many. That's the way it is. It would be nice, though, if we could get past being offended by that and move to helping boys who are failing.

 

[DanishLutheran]

This is like totally discriminatory against us pangenderfluidtranshelicopterdragonkitties! Where's our representation! EQUAL RIGHTS!!

 

[RDKirk]

Because such attempts often come from a feminine perspective that doesn't understand men. There does appear to be a crisis of sorts among American boys, and to say it's unfair to women to investigate that crisis seems to me to miss the point.

With that said, the point may not always be expressed well, so let me give it a go.

The trend in education has been, for a long time, that women dominate teaching. There are multiple studies that show the result is to create classroom environments where girls thrive and boys don't. One such study from many years back is Christina Hoff Somers' The War Against Boys. Since there is also a strong correlation that those who succeed in school succeed after school, that is troubling. IIRC there are also studies showing declining rates of boys going on to college, graduating, placing in the professional work force, etc.

I recall one particular situation where boys who were caught fighting in school were forced to sit in chairs, face each other, hold hands, and share their feelings. The result was an increase in violence, not a decrease. Guys (and often mothers of boys) seem to get why that is an obvious outcome.

So, back to the "tough" thing. Tough is a pretty ambiguous word, but there is good data to indicate things like the average male is stronger and faster than the average female. That's simply the way it is. I do, however, understand your concern with such things. Too often the statistics are misunderstood. Further, they are often interpreted as a value judgement (which was your reaction). Those statistics are taken as: All men are stronger than me and better than me.

That's not what the statistics say. I use tennis as an example. The top female tennis player in the world could beat me without breaking a sweat. That's because neither of us are average. She's an above average tennis player and I'm below average. Statistics do not apply to individuals.

Second, whether strong men are good or bad is a value judgement. It's a cultural thing. I happen to think physical strength is a good thing. But that doesn't lead me to conclude men are better than women. It is true, though, that in some cultures that is the unfortunate result.

Finally, there are areas where women test higher than men. That's the way it is. It doesn't make me feel inferior. Nor do I think it's a good idea to judge individuals based on the averages. In fact, it's improper math. If I'm applying for a job, a scholarship, whatever, the individual needs to be judged on his or her individual capabilities.

So, bottom line, in many areas that people think of as "tough" men test higher. Not all areas, but many. That's the way it is. It would be nice, though, if we could get past being offended by that and move to helping boys who are failing.

Here is another application:

The best example of professional boxing is the heavyweight class. Probably the most masculine of sports is the sport in which two males of the greatest physical caliber physically struggle until one is defeated.

We won't see a woman consistently win in that kind of match at the top level against an equally well-trained man. We may not see see a woman win even once at the top level against an equally well trained male champion in that kind of event.

However, in a different kind of sport--indoor volleyball--the very best example I've ever seen was the USC women's team in the mid-70s. Although a college team, they were billed as the "junior American Olympic team" and regularly defeated national teams around the world. They were so good and so incredibly better than any other college team that USC voluntarily removed them from college competition...it was just too unfair.

It was almost eerie to watch them. At the time, I was photographing women's volleyball a lot, and I was right on the court hearing them not even talking as they played--just performing with absolute precision, play after play after play. They were perfect, all the time, every time--but their opponents could not be. You could see the fear building in the eyes of the other team as they realized how outmatched they were. The USC girls just ground their competition into the floor.

Those girls functioned like an old-school Rolex, the most consistently perfect example of a team I've ever seen in any sport, then or since.

Those are two ends of a spectrum: One sport is a contest of sheer one-on-one physical combat. The other is all about teamwork with zero physical contact at all.

 

[Spiritlight]

Coming from a guy writing this. Firstly, boys are taught early in life to hide their feminine side and that any feminine traits will see them bullied. This reinforces the notion femininity (women) is a weakness and a step down from masculinity. Men feel compelled then to teach these behaviours or fear persecution from other men while internally wishing they could enjoy some of the freedom’s women have, such as to express emotion freely and be around children without being thought of as a potential sex predator. Many men fear what other men think and won’t stand up to them and be who they really are and display it publicly. A strong man will wear a pink shirt and not care what anyone thinks and is ready to defend it if someone ridicules it.

Boys need to be taught to be men and a man stands up for the values he believe in, lives by it and fights for it. Those values should NOT be objectifying women or degrading femininity as trait a man should not be proud himself to possess himself. When a man/boy can feel comfortable to be himself in public he will turn to alternatives less to escape the inner turmoil of acting out a toxic masculinity role he really isn't to appease public perceptions of what he should be.

Guys, if you start being really honest...

 

[RDKirk]

A number of years ago, I was in a barbershop getting a haircut. I don't go to new-fangled unisex "style salons."...I go to barber shops.

Now, African-American barber shops often do women's hair, because a lot of African-American women wear natural styles that are gender-common.

But generally, it's a man's venue.

So I'm sitting in the chair getting my hair cut one Saturday morning. The other men in the barbershop--all adults--are talking about different stuff, mostly sports. Then two teen-aged boys came in and sat down to wait for their haircuts.

I noticed that the discourse of the adult men in the room changed. It was almost as though by an unspoken agreement, the conversation of the adults changed from sports to finishing school, going to college, and getting jobs.

 

[RDKirk]

Coming from a guy writing this. Firstly, boys are taught early in life to hide their feminine side and that any feminine traits will see them bullied. This reinforces the notion femininity (women) is a weakness and a step down from masculinity. Men feel compelled then to teach these behaviours or fear persecution from other men while internally wishing they could enjoy some of the freedom’s women have, such as to express emotion freely and be around children without being thought of as a potential sex predator. Many men fear what other men think and won’t stand up to them and be who they really are and display it publicly. A strong man will wear a pink shirt and not care what anyone thinks and is ready to defend it if someone ridicules it..

Nope. I'm sure that happens somewhere, but it's not universal. And it wasn't even universal 50 years ago.

 

[dms1972]

Now is the time Jesus spoke of: "When this gospel has been preached to all nations...then will the end come."

The gospel has been preached. By many accounts we're now in the then that he, and the prophets, spoke of.

You make it sound like we are all doomed (like Frazer out of Dad's army ;-)
[/url]

But should all nations not get the same exposure to the Gospel, and time for it to permeate, why do some get to hear the Gospel for centuries, and others only for a few years? What constitutes preaching the Gospel? If someone went to a nation where the Gospel had not been yet heard, and there were no Christians and if he stood up and preached in the street for an hour, would that mean that the Gospel had now been preached to that nation?

 

[parousia70]

Now is the time Jesus spoke of: "When this gospel has been preached to all nations...then will the end come."

The gospel has been preached. By many accounts we're now in the then that he, and the prophets, spoke of.

According to Paul, (and therefore the Holy Spirit) this reality came to pass before the end of His earthly ministry:
Colossians 1:5-6 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;

Colossians 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith;

Now I realize many Christians don't hold Paul as authoritative or inspired and therefore assert he is fallible and prone to error, but I'm not one of them.

I Believe Paul was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit, who knew very well exactly what He was doing when He infallibly inspired Paul to declare the fulfillment of this In Paul's Day.

But that's just me.
I'm sure many folks here dismiss the above passages as incorrect and untrustworthy.

 

[redleghunter]

I think the issue is that the "traditional masculinity" they are talking about is not biblical masculinity. Meaning, they are now starting to realize that THEIR redefined "jerk" form of masculinity has come back to bite them in the butt so now once again they must redefine masculinity.

Yes there is the secular worldly masculinity which encouraged mulitiple female sex partners, drinking heavily and violence.

It seems there have been a few TV, cable and Netflix series set in the 20th century showing these traits and putting them as widespread and “acceptable” at the time.

We saw some of it come to life in the Kavanaugh hearings of young teens drinking heavily and having sex.

Contrasted with what would be a Biblical worldview as you mentioned. Where the man is the head of household and is to love his wife as Christ loves him. And the same for the woman. That the woman has ownership over the husband’s body and he the body of his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good to abstain from sexual relations.2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.

5Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

[parousia70]

The problem is that boys have absolutely no clue as to what a man actually is. Most don't have a fatherly figure in their lives to show them.

That seems like a spurious claim to me.

What statistics can you cite that bear this notion out, that MOST Boys today do not have a fatherly figure in their lives?

Every stat I can find bears out the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Most Boys indeed do have a fatherly figure in their lives.
Only 23% don't

On a related note, it is a fact that MOST redheads prefer Jazz Music to Classical.
This assertion is unchallengeable, so don't try to conflate the issue with stats and facts.