- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
This ain’t no place for no hero
This ain’t no place for no better man…
— Short Change Hero, The Heavy
*
I remember the moment well. I was walking across the great meadow at the center of the University of California, Santa Cruz, campus, one of the beautiful natural features of the university that was a primary reason I was there, when a student handed me a flyer from a sheaf he as carrying. The flyer explained that “traditional male values” were responsible for rape and therefore men needed to be “fixed.”
I was, to say the least, taken aback by this assertion. It seemed insane. The “traditional male values” I was raised on and surrounded myself with held that a man who would force himself on a woman was no kind of man at all. “Consent” wasn’t a thing; the standard, though it never seemed to need to be defined, was enthusiastic participation.
Weird — but then Santa Cruz was notoriously weird. I didn’t know it then, but I had just had my first exposure to the concept of “Toxic Masculinity.”
*
About a year later, I was at a Halloween party in Berkeley, where my then-girlfriend went to school. A young feller dressed up like a bumblebee (I know) took a swipe at the brim of my hat. And giggled. I told him not to do that. He did it again. I told him if he did that once more, I’d punch him in the face. He did and I did (no harder than necessary). He staggered back, wiping blood off his eye and wailed, “You hit me!”
“I told you I’d hit you, you fucking dipshit,” was my reply.
A crowd of young women gathered and berated me for being such a macho asshole. Somebody muttered something about John Wayne. I left.
I didn’t know it then, but my response to someone laying unwanted hands on my person after being warned — twice — not to do it was an example of Toxic Masculinity.
*
Santa Cruz and Berkeley were early adopters of pernicious nonsense that has now reached the mainstream.
The American Psychological Association (APA) has determined that “traditional masculinity” is actually harmful to men.
According to the APA:
“…traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression* — is, on the whole, harmful” and “traditional masculinity ideology” (which extolls) “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence” (must) “limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict.”
All of that is unhealthy and must be corrected. For our own good.
*
When trying to spin its way out of the backlash its guidelines drew, the APA issued a statement:
“When we report that some aspects of ‘traditional masculinity’ are potentially harmful, we are referring to a belief system held by a few that associates masculinity with extreme behaviors that harm self and others. It is the extreme stereotypical behaviors — not simply being male or a ‘traditional male’ — that may result in negative outcomes.”
Well, no shit. Too bad they didn’t make that distinction up front. Instead, APA played into the weaponized political conflation of traditional masculinity with “toxic ”
I will stipulate that masculine characteristics and behaviors can manifest themselves in negative ways. Every positive trait or set of traits have a shadow side. “Traditional” societies understand this, without the benefit of “guidelines.” I will go so far as to concede that the term “Toxic Masculinity” could have some utility, if it was used precisely and not conflated with “traditional masculinity.”
Blackfeet Storyteller. Art by Howard Terpning.
That’s why boys must be taught and trained to act like grown men. From where I stand, that calls for more traditional masculinity, not less. It requires coaches, mentors, teachers, and above all fathers who walk the walk, who instruct and guide and mold those characteristics of adventurousness and risk-taking, of aggressiveness and a will to power to virtuous instead of destructive and self-destructive ends.
If that’s what the APA is really after, then we have no beef. I have my doubts.
Teach your children well…
There are a number of motives and agendas driving a broad cultural assault on traditional masculinity (aka “masculinity”). Some of it is driven by misandry. But I really don’t think that’s the most significant factor (though the political mantra “the future is female” makes you wonder). In my experience, the majority of women who consider themselves feminists are not hostile to men and do not consciously seek to neuter them.
The driver for this, I believe, is the broad cultural valorization of weakness and victimhood.
Because “manning up” is hard. As David French so cogently puts it:
It’s quite safe to say that millions of young boys desire to become a grown man — a person who is physically and mentally tough, a person who can rise to a physical challenge and show leadership under stress. In fact, that’s not just an intellectual goal, it’s a deeply felt need. It’s a response to their essential nature.
But becoming a true “grown man” — while a felt need — isn’t an easy process.
No, it’s not. Standing up and stepping up is hard. Setting aside and (gasp!) suppressing discomfort — physical, psychological, emotional — in order to do what must be done is hard. Keeping your word and living up to promises and expectations is hard. Being strong takes work. Constant, diligent, disciplined work. And it takes a toll sometimes.
So, we’re doing what we have been doing in this culture since the cultural revolution of the 1960s: When the standard is too difficult to achieve, we lower the standard.
I get that not every male aspires to be a “manly man.” Don’t care. Not a problem. The problem only comes when, since he can’t or doesn’t want to meet the standard, he denigrates and devalues the standard and those who aspire to it. And if you push back against the denigration, well… you’re part of the “toxic” problem, aren’t you?
That’s what’s going on here, and it’s pernicious and it won’t end well. Because men are struggling, by many socio-economic measures and, more importantly, by any real standard of manhood. Men do need to be better. Put down the video games and read Beowulf. Go climb mountain. Learn a martial art and a musical instrument. Delete the porn and find a real deal flesh-and-blood woman to love (or man if that’s your thing). Go camping. Learn a new skill. Challenge yourself.
Practice the Barbarian Virtues.
Be a man. Because a man is a good thing to be.
*
If
By Rudyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
* Anybody who thinks that women don’t engage in “competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” hasn’t worked in a female-dominated environment. It manifests itself differently — the “aggression” is usually passive-aggressive and the competitiveness is masked — but it’s very real. I have witnessed “Toxic Femininity” in action and it ain’t pretty. Extreme manipulativeness, undermining colleagues, sexual politics…
Of course, that should never be conflated with “traditional femininity.” And it’s hard to imagine a professional association doing so.
RLT says
Had to step outside a party that I was at last month because a guy was talking loudly about how he’d broken women’s noses in a mosh pit before. It was clear he tells that story a lot and saw nothing wrong with it. My wife saw the look on my face and said “Go bum a cigarette off of someone.”
Unfortunately, this guy is someone I’m now going to be seeing on a regular basis. Which probably means I’ll have to tell him to stop telling that story.
There are so, so many dudes out there who a) are clearly misogynists and b) rag on traditionally masculine guys. Sort of brilliant in its pusillanimity, really. You get to hate (amd apparently hit) women, you don’t have to man up, when someone tells you to man up you get to be the victim, and when they finaly haul off and pop you the sympathies are all yours.
That’s it in a nutshell. What that guy needs is a thorough, vigorous adjustment in outlook, which can only effectively be delivered in a “traditional” masculine manner. Denigrate traditional masculinity, you’ll get more of this guy, not less.
RLT says
There will always be shitheads who want to meet the standard–any standard–but can’t. The resulting feeling of inadequacy rears its head in ugly ways. Sometimes you can show them the toxicity of their behavior. But when that doesn’t work, the “traditional” approach will at least keep them in line. Which is unfortunately the best you can hope for.
Matthew says
This seems to go with something I’ve observed. The most sexist men I have known have also been the wimpiest. I mentioned before I knew a kid in junior high who would mock girls playing sports, but was the first to wimp out on anything difficult.
Yep.
Saddle Tramp says
The strongest lift up not push down. My contention as one who seems to assume the outlier role is that who decides who is in the club. Do we install a grip tester at the door based on some subjective and arbitrary guideline. Chest pounding? I say this confidently as one who was fully immersed in traditional maleness. I still am, but with broadened viewpoints. I still have boundaries as well regarding my personal tastes. I can equally hold up a photo of Albert Einstein with his tongue stuck out as a male role model as I can Steve McQueen. What if you are neither? What are you. Mental leverage is equally important as say sex appeal or athletic ability or other typical references. I know some real badass males. As bad as they come. I have known women of the same inclinations. I will decide for myself whom I think is what or what. I think the point of the APA to the degree I interpret it is that some idealized male traits are forced on boys. That would go equal for girls as well. No parent can possibly expose their children to every possible outcome with sexual identity or religion or anything else. Parent(s) have a reasonable right to influence and nurture as they see best. If harmful (yes an opinion) methods are being employed guidance and awareness might be well considered. Bringing the courts into it is always a last resort. I get concerned when someone speaks as if they have unlimited and unrestrained rights. I draw the line right there. Is discernment an easy task? Hell no! I have said this before and this blade cuts both ways. We are at extreme risk when someone wants to create a homogenous super race of sorts based on someone’s idealized version of something. That’s playing [G] and anyone who does so is not that understanding of who [G]od might really be. Einstein discovered E=MC2 all in his head and wrote it down only lifting a pen. We can all play armchair and recreational Frontiersman but let’s be real men here and admit most could not cut it today. I went out into the wilderness to try it. It turned out not to be for me, but everyone else is free to try.
My measure as to if anyone (male or female or in between) is that good is good and bad is bad. How that applies across the board is anyone’s guess. The toxity issue either A/C or D/C is just more stuff lost in the translation and you can smell the bullshit from a country mile away…
“I think the point of the APA to the degree I interpret it is that some idealized male traits are forced on boys.” That is certainly their point, but who is the APA to decide that? Are they the arbiters of what is acceptable male behavior now? The problem with the APA making these calls is that this sort of stuff can be forced on other people through the schools and the courts. It will eventually show up as evidence in criminal trials– probably as a means to excuse criminal behavior (Johnny was raised in a toxically male environment, which is why he killed Ted) — and most certainly it will become a factor in civil cases such as divorce or child custody disputes. If an APA trained shrink decides dad is toxically masculine, and testifies or reports to the court that way, dad may very well lose custodial rights to his children. The rest is just gobbledygook, but where interpretations of the APA guidelines begin to impact actual human beings it is extremely problematic.
lane batot says
Saddle Tramp–I think there is great validity to all you said there(and Craig’s response, too), but I must beg to differ on these male traits being “forced” on boys–though there is certainly some truth that we are all products, to some degree, of whatever culture we grow up in. As someone with a life-long interest and study in Anthropology–a science that constantly tries to discover the nurture vs. nature of humankind–and in watching very young children(from a safe distance!), and closely related primates of all kinds, I can assure you that male(and female!) traits are largely bred-in-the-bone! Not that we shouldn’t have outlets and acceptance for all manner of degrees and variances of our definitions of masculinity or femininity, but–uncomfortable and animal-like though it may make humans appear(well, if the shoe fits!)–we are STILL very much subject to millions of years worth of evolved, deep-seated instincts. You CANNOT just wish those sorts of characteristics away–the trick is to supply some sort of OUTLET for them, that melds with modern society. SPORTS of all sorts certainly fills the bill in that respect! I never fit in THAT concept of maleness as a kid or an adult; most sports bore me to tears. But I grew up a woods runner(still am!), and no doubt that has served as an outlet for those instincts in me. I hear and laugh at yer comments on “armchair frontiersmen”–certainly very true to an extent! But maintaining that contact with the concept of “wilderness” is VERY IMPORTANT, I think, To keep knowledge and skills alive regarding such(I DO believe one day they WILL be necessary again, even if we are not alive to see them), as well as to maintain a respect and desire to preserve wilderness, which will save our planet, and ourselves in the end. It’s like releasing animals kept and bred in captivity for generations(that went extinct in the wild)–you often have to do it veeerrryyy gradually, and it can be a generation or two before they can actually support themselves competently in the “wild” again. Virtually all of us are captive bred now, but many of us still have a yearning for the “wild”.…Anyway–the point I’m trying to make is–“masculinity” is as much NATURE as it is NUTURE.…..
Breaker Morant says
Jim, fitting with the topic actually. I wrote my essay on The Lighthorsemen and true masculinity. How do I submit it for possible publication/editing ideas etc on RIR?
Outstanding!
Send it to editor@nuggetnews.com and I’ll share with Craig and we’ll go from there.
John Cornelius says
“…traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression”…
Funny that these are the very traits that, on an evolutionary basis, enabled our species to survive and then dominate. Now that we have reached the point where survival of the fittest, sadly, no longer factors into our species’ equation, those traits are felt by some to be expendable (read “toxic”). Before the Spanish invasion of North America, followed by the general European invasion, the Native American, or Indigenous Peoples, or maybe even Indian tribes survived quite well with distinct division of labor along gender lines, and had all of the afore mentioned masculine traits in abundance. However, I could do without the Sun Dance initiation ritual. Does anyone remember A Man Called Horse? Some tribes were even (heaven forbid) matriarchal, but with the same division of labor and gender roles.
Now that evolutionary Darwinism has stalled out, social Darwinism is taking hold, and trying to cull out traits according to some ignorant, brainless standards. Once the anarchy pendulum swings, as RIR readers know it will, watch all of those traits being denigrated now become valued male currency. In the meantime, I plan on holding to my masculine values, reading Beowulf, and waiting for this tide of misdirected imposition to retreat.
We have much to discuss my brother…
John Cornelius says
Always.
lane batot says
Hell yeah I remember(got it on DVD! Also “Return of a Man-Called-Horse”, which is just okay, but don’t waste yer time with the third in the trilogy, “Triumphs of a Man Called Horse”, which IS one of the WORST movies I’ve ever seen, and Richard Harris had the good sense to get himself killed at the beginning of it!)–what a CLASSIC! Like a living George Catlin painting on film! Sure, it is a hodge-podge of various tribal customs(mostly Mandan and Plains Sioux), but an earnest effort for the time(1970?), and CERTAINLY captures the spirit of that wild free life(though still bound by human customs, of course–but not nearly as restrictive as modern societies!), and the harshness and beauty of living close to Nature. They overdid it a bit with the old women abandonment–such virtually never happened as a FORCED condition, although older, decrepit people(men AND women) would often go off to die on their own, so as not to be a burden, and to end their own suffering. But that would be THEIR choice, and their bravery and self-sacrifice was highly admired. Also the Sun Dance bit–although they portrayed it quite realistically, they got the motivation skewed somewhat, which really rankles those tribes that still do the Sun Dance to this day, regarding this film. Although in the premise of the movie, Horse(“Shunka Wakan”) WAS doing it to impress and bond with his tribe for his own ulterior motives, a warrior USUALLY did it as a sacrifice of himself TO his tribe for the good of the people, often from a vow he made to the Creator when in a tight spot–let me survive THIS, and I will sacrifice myself at the next Sun Dance in thankfullness–kind of deal. Despite such Anthropological nit-picking, it REALLY IS a classic, and NO DOUBT had an ENORMOUS influence on my fascination and life-long study and appreciation of Native American cultures, when I saw it AT THE THEATRE as a young kid. I remember it being controversial for us “underage” kids to see at the time, but somehow I slipped in with my older brother, who really didn’t want me tagging along! Laughable, now, that such a movie would be thought of as inappropriate for children! I was already something of a little savage, and that movie just drove it deeper! Needless to say, I certainly did not grow up worrying much about “toxic masculinity”„ and I’m far too old to be retrained now! Thank goodness!
excerpt from Lady Gregory’s ‘Gods and Fighting Men’
Then Finn gave him an advice, and it is what he said: “If you have a mind to be a good champion, be quiet in a great man’s house; be surly in the narrow pass. Do not beat your hound without a cause; do not bring a charge against your wife without having knowledge of her guilt; do not hurt a fool in fighting, for he is without his wits. Do not find fault with high-up persons; do not stand up to take part in a quarrel; have no dealings with a bad man or a foolish man. Let two-thirds of your gentleness be showed to women and to little children that are creeping on the floor, and to men of learning that make the poems, and do not be rough with the common people. Do not give your reverence to all; do not be ready to have one bed with your companions. Do not threaten or speak big words, for it is a shameful thing to speak stiffly unless you can carry it out afterwards. Do not forsake your lord so long as you live; do not give up any man that puts himself under your protection for all the treasures of the world. Do not speak against others to their lord, that is not work for a good man. Do not be a bearer of lying stories, or a tale-bearer that is always chattering. Do not be talking too much; do not find fault hastily; however brave you may be, do not raise factions against you. Do not be going to drinking-houses, or finding fault with old men; do not meddle with low people; this is right conduct I am telling you. Do not refuse to share your meat; do not have a niggard for your friend; do not force yourself on a great man or give him occasion to speak against you. Hold fast to your arms till the hard fight is well ended. Do not give up your opportunity, but with that follow after gentleness.”
This. Every bit of it.
I posted without comment but I guess I’d say .. this proves the delineation between “traditional masculinity” and “toxic masculinity” has long been understood.
I will grant that in our current society, with our newscasts about bad thugs and protecting Hollywood moguls, etc makes it seem this message is long lost. And it *does* need brighter light.
But tossing out the baby with the bath water never works, either.
lane batot says
YEAH. Just EXCELLENT.…True laws and good customs have never changed, from before Neanderthals till now. Very foolish for a society to discard milleniums-worth of testing what works in a society. Just as the 10 Commandments, and the Golden Rule apply every bit as well today as they did for nomadic pastoralists two thousand or more years ago.…Telling a wolf it cannot hunt will do nothing but frustrate the wolf, and those instincts will manifest themselves in far more destructive ways. There MUST be an accepted outlet for such things–a wolf’s gonna hunt!
Song title.
lane batot says
Really? Or just should be eventually?
Needs to be written.
Saddle Tramp says
Wolves with God on their side (they say) :
https://aeon.co/videos/rebels-with-a-nationalist-cause-the-russian-bikers-fighting-for-a-new-motherland
And this is a nice summation of lessons to be found in BEOWULF.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/lessons-in-manliness-from-beowulf/
Excellent! Will read this afternoon.
On the heels of Rober E. Howard’s birthday, it comes across very Howardian. Then again, Howard was of the ‘Northern Thing’ and the heroic tradition. But reading through I not only thought, “Beowulf”, I also thought, “Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane, Bran Mak Morn.”
John Cornelius says
Good take on Beowulf. I have the Seamus Heaney translation (thank you, Mr. Rullman), and peruse it frequently. When reading the article, I flashed on the defenders at The Alamo. They could not control the outcome, only their actions, and they did so in heroic fashion. I am sure that there are many other examples of this type of masculine courage (by both genders, if that isn’t too confusing to the topic).
That’s why boys must be taught and trained to act like grown men. From where I stand, that calls for more traditional masculinity, not less. It requires coaches, mentors, teachers, and above all fathers who walk the walk, who instruct and guide and mold those characteristics of adventurousness and risk-taking, of aggressiveness and a will to power to virtuous instead of destructive and self-destructive ends.
I’ll jump to the relevant part, but if you’ve not watched this entire show before, it’s worth the time.
https://youtu.be/hLSKMFb88dw?t=452
Erin Bordonaro says
Jim, as with most (if not all) of your writings you are spot on! For the 5% of the snowflakes out there who see men who are comfortable in their own skin as the enemy…well the rest of us are very glad to have real men still on the planet. Unfortunately, the smaller group are the loudest and get the most attention, thus affecting our sons and our society in a terrible way. Thank you for laying it down in the way only you can Jim! This subject is near and dear to my heart.
Thank you my friend. As the mother of a son who is becoming a man, I know this strikes close to home.
Saddle Tramp says
Jack just showed up in my inbox today:
https://www.adventure-journal.com/2019/01/jack-dalton-the-most-famous-pathfinder-in-alaska/
Damn, this is fantastic!
when Dalton was nearing 75, he looked 55, and, if attacked, responded like the 25-year-old firebrand he’d once been
Sounds like a certain king of Aquilonia. 😀
Right?
Thom Eley says
Good article, Jim. Not much to add but I think folks are on a long, steep, slippery road that I just can’t agree with implications are devastating. I think that I am finding myself in the dried up water hole in the background of the RIR.
When Cherie and I mapped UC Santa Cruz, we ran into a bunch of weird folks with weirder handouts—some approaching pornographic. I once thought about going to Santa Cruz for my Ph.D., but decided on UC Berkeley instead. Talking about being a toxic ranger, there I was one—Marine, Vietnam Veteran (only 5 years after the War), former State Trooper and Game Warden, a no-Bullshit sort of guy, and a guy with a sense-of-humor—not everything is so freaking important and expending a bunch of energy over. I just wouldn’t go out and protest police brutality because the Berkeley Mayor got busted for shop-lifting lipstick and fingernail polish—dat true.
I was in my grad office one day and a female, Marxist student colleague was in there as well. She was doing her best to not talk to me. I asked her if she was headed to lunch, and she said, “No, I’m going to the Women Geographers Society meeting.” Me, always ready to stir up a discussion suggested, “Maybe I should come too. I need to learn more about women’s issues.” The young lady’s face turned beet red, and she yelled, “No, you can’t. The meeting is only for women!”
Me, a little pissed at the tone opined, “Maybe I should start a Men’s Only group. We could sit around drinking beer, smoke cigars, and talk about men’s issues, whatever they are.”
“NO, NO,” she yelled with her face turning a devilish red like I’ve never seen before. “Men Only groups are prohibited by University Policy. You can’t bar women.”
I had a couple of good retorts, but having been in arguments like this before, I decided that nothing was the best reply. Then, I let go with one last volley as she packed up her gear to leave, “MB (her initials), we’re going to start a Men’s Only Group, but I will invite you to join. Our first topic is on the stupidity of Marxism.” She gave me an evil look and stormed out saying “Men.”
She married her major professor, who she regularly had relations with in his office with all of us hearing the moans and groans. She ended up teaching social sciences at Santa Cruz. I don’t think that she was one of your professors, Jim, or you’d remember it well. She was a piece of work.
Well, that’s just about perfect. Covers all the ground in one story — flagrant double standards, a perverse understanding of “inclusiveness” and “equity” and utter self-serious humorlessness.
I can’t add to this wisdom, and I’m fighting a sinus infection that won’t die, so I’ll just say the APA and anyone who thinks like them can take a long walk off a short pier.
Crom, Keith! 2019 started off rough for you.
True. But I’m rougher. 🙂
That’s the spirit!
TJ says
Solid article Mr.
I heard it described as, “Boys are like super-cars that if not steered, will crash into a barrier at 200 mph.”
As an imperfect dad of four super-cars, Dad’s need to continue to step up their games. It’s not always easy, comfortable, gets physical and includes calling bullshit on this ridiculous narrative.
To be clear I would endeavor not to raise victim daughters if I was blessed to have them.
Talked with my my oldest last night after a day at his USCG Surf Rescue Station. Helped coach him in wrestling, he was two belts from a Black Belt in Karate at 18 and unusually functionally strong. Also a sweetheart of a kid.
We laughed as he described our year of loathing around year 17 and two shall we say, spirited grappling matches between us during negotiations.…. May have broke some furniture, I was pretty gassed and don’t remember.
Lessons handed down from the men before me, with end goal to improve as a father. He’s already years ahead of where I was at 19 and I couldn’t be more proud and simultaneously humbled by the grace, discipline and time poured into me by other imperfect men (dad, coach, cops, mentors).
This is a winnable challenge
Amen to that. Victimology is anathema to my daughter who is smart, strong and capable and has found herself a smart, strong, capable young man. They ain’t scared of each other, or angry.
Also, I spent about a year-and-a-half being a Grade A asshole when I was 16/17. Guess it goes with the territory. My brother was 11–1/2 years older than me and he helped me see clearly, you might say. A winnable challenge indeed.
TJ says
Cheers on a job well done! None more significant. My 6–5, 260 pound, eighteen-year retired central valley deputy buddy, used to hear, “Why are you so tough on your girls Scott?” He would always reply, “Im not raising victims.…” Both daughters grew into stunning, powerful women and married equally strong men of character. It still happens.
Watching my boys grow up has to be as close to having a wolf pack in your house as it gets; snarling over meat at dinner include. Fascinating to watch, be a part of and they have taught me much about myself both good and bad.
Today’s kids in general I think suffer from a lack of connection with their creator, creation (aka unfiltered nature); an understanding of their own physicality; emotions, rewards of hard work, other humans and cause and consequence.
There is a visible moral and corporate agenda directed at our kids because the financial reward is significant. The struggle just to quiet the noise in their young heads, is very real. Constructive utilization of amazing technology without falling into one of the traps can be tricky. Even for us old guys.
I have a family member who is a professor up north. Although we disagree on many subjects, we both struggle with what the “system” has done to our professions and the struggle just to teach and police. He is a former CIF level wrestler and like many of us in law enforcement and education, doesn’t know when to stop fighting sometimes. He told me a couple years ago, “We are lying to these young men and women; the jobs aren’t there and many will be buried in a debt when they graduate.” That is a TOUGH start.
We all get a different standard equipment / options list and environmental challenges from the start, but I have yet to see getting back to basics and a slower more conscious approach to life in general, hurt anyone. Seems like a lot of things a hundred plus years ago sucked, but some truths are everlasting and eternally valuable regardless of human failings.
Great subject as always Gents
lane batot says
Well, TJ, I’m going to differ just a teenie bit, on yer statement that raising yer boys was as close to having a wolf pack in yer house as it gets! I did get a BIT closer(perhaps only slightly!), having a pack of 5 wolf hybrids(as well as several other dog-types) all living together in and out of my house! We were OUT, mostly–the house was just for sleeping(sometimes) and storing the dogfood. And I was the “Alpha”–because I HAD to be! “Alpha” is a word that is becoming taboo amongst dog trainers and new age wolf behaviorists, just as the term “dominance” has become politically incorrect–all a part of this modern denial of basic social animal(including human) behavior–changing the term does NOT change the reality. Wolves(and dogs!) CERTAINLY pay ZERO attention to such affectations! ALL my wolf-hybrids “tested“me at one point or another-usually upon reaching sexual maturity. Sound familiar? A lot like teen-agers, what?.This is DEEPLY instinctive behavior, so no one should feel too guilty about yer own obstinacy at puberty! That is when you(as the leader/parent/teacher) MUST emphatically insist on yer dominance, more than ever, whatever means it takes. And you do it because you LOVE your whelps!!! NOT to be a domineering bully–“domineering” and “dominance” are TWO different things entirely! But I think modern wimps have confused the two. One reason most people make bad pack leaders for tame wolves, wolf-hybrids, and independent, less subserviant dog-types, AND for spirited human children, is that they just WON’T reinforce the rules(which should be fair and sensible, firstly), and the underlings then lose ALL RESPECT for their leaders, and chaos of a sorts(or a truly more dominant leader steps up!) ensues. This is INSTINCT in virtually all social animals(humans included), and CAN’T be wished away by wishy-washy idealogy. My wolf dogs were always SO HAPPY after I had to get rough with some miscreant, because it showed them they had a pack leader that was strong enough to actually LEAD, which relieved stress and eliminated insecurity brought about by disruption of any kind. And I well remember as a kid, having NO respect for any adult supposedley in charge, that wouldn’t back up what they preached–in fact I still don’t think much of such folks! And NONE of this has to do with just “masculinity” or “femininity”.….
J.F. Bell says
Years ago, when I was somewhat younger and marginally dumber, I belonged to a writing group. Most of us were within a couple of years of each other (meaning low twenties and the high end of the teenage years) and therefore without a whole lot of experience in dealing with the real world, meaning we spent a fair bit of time flinging half-baked projects at each other and hoping something stuck. In hindsight, this is probably the artistic equivalent of fishing with dynamite. Sooner or later you have to hit SOMETHING.
One standout exception was a friend I’ve invited over from one of the shooting boards. He was our token Old Guy – the one who’d circled the world and done most of the dumb things, the fun ones twice, and probably the closest we had to a functioning bullshit meter. Having himself been young and stupid he showed considerable patience with those of us certain we were on the edge of enduring fame with our reams of derivative crap.
He also gave me what’s probably been the best piece of advice I’ve ever gotten, regardless of context.
Stated plainly: Never take advice for anybody who knows less about it than you.
Don’t get me wrong. I love women. I love their smiles and their eyes and the way they look in cotton dresses on warm summer days. I love their instinct to comfort the hurting and their ability to make unremarkable spaces into homes. They can be terrifically, devilishly funny and the embodiment of class, and the sharp ones can do both at once. A man with a good woman behind him can be the twice the man he might be otherwise.
But no matter her qualities, a woman knows jack shit about being a man.
She may recognize manhood – but she can’t set the definitions. Nor can the kind of eunuchs that occur with distressing regularity in high places these days. A call from either to ‘man up’ is an order without meaning, on par with ordering dogs to fly and horses to sing. An animal – the human animal included – can only follow its nature. No amount of committees, ad campaigns, or nagging will change the fact.
There’s a funny detail hidden way down in the fine print of this social legalese, though. As a general rule the idea of taking up pack and rifle and disappearing into the wilderness doesn’t scare the average guy on the street. Hell, if you were alive in the ‘80s and watched Red Dawn enough you probably dreamed about it (invading communist forces optional). This is why patriarchal nations expand at the rate explorers and military units can travel while the borders of matriarchal societies expand with population growth. Frankly, the urge to go to the edge of the map and pee on things and carve your initials into trees is hardwired into the healthy male mind.
At some level, a man is at home in the wilderness. Whether hunting the headwaters of an unmapped river or moving the borders of empire or pushing out to the stars. In civilized society this causes problems. It means boys are loathe to sit still in class or follow orders or show much interest in the fruits of standardized testing. Fifteenth-century French poetry is small potatoes next to climbing that tree to check out that weird nest. Or seeing where the drain pipes by the city park lead. Or building a fort for the upcoming BB gun fight.
If a group forms, this means there’s some initial turmoil while the social order is established. Once the hierarchy is in place the work can begin in earnest. If the boys in question benefit from a solid upbringing, this gets you a miniature society of order and improvement. If not, this yields a gang of juvenile barbarians. A strong society will field more of the former than the latter. No matter — sooner or later the builders and the barbarians are going to fight.
The funny detail is that our present society has luxuriated so long from the toil of the builders that we’ve lost all concept of how fast barbarians can cut the legs out from under the modern world. Brigands and highwaymen in the distant mountains are one thing. Finding them at the post office and the coffee shop is something else altogether. Being as opinion columnists and fashion consultants aren’t much use at that point, it’s in the best interest of all concerned that there’s some masculine quality left to keep your civilization together.
If not…probably there’s some guys out in the woods working on a replacement.
lane batot says
Sounds like YOU are now the “token old guy” J. F. Bell! I’ll buy yer book on this subject when it gits published! You had me at “Red Dawn”!
J.F. Bell says
Heh. Always wanted to be a token-something. Doubt I’d qualify as worldly enough for the Old Man spot, but I like to think I make up for it with a certain irreverence and the occasional piece of grounded thought. Blind squirrels and acorns and stopped clocks and all that.
Woooooooooolveriiiiiiiiiiines!
lane batot says
WOOOOLLLLVVVVEEERRRIIIINNNNEEEESSSS!!!!!!!
Saddle Tramp says
Sorry! Misplaced comment on other unrelated post.
Lane…
Yes, I think we can all agree that it is very complicated especially when it comes to implementation. Agree some disagree some. That should be the basis of a plural society. The “Don’t Tread On Me” outlook is also problematic. What are the acceptable norms? It appears to my dismay as well that much is being shattered irresponsibly. Someone mentioned not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That has always been a guiding principle for me. Of course whose “baby” and whose “dirty water” is the battleground. You can only water down whiskey so much. I am well aware of that.
By the way Lane, I did make it to The Bowers Musuem for the discussion of SAVAGE HARVEST. It took place adjacent to a Asmat Tribe Bisj Pole. The Asmat Tribe is a male dominated tribe. The top of the Bisj Pole has a male with a very exaggerated phallus. This is part of the HEADHUNTERS AND SPIRITS exhibit. Both fascinating and eerily unsettling. Dr. Keller president of the museum made an impromptu visit and joined in and thankfully so, or it would have been much less worthwhile without his elucidation. The question regarded whether or not Michael Rockefeller (son of Nelson) was a victim cannibalism. It remains a controversy still, but it seems very compelling that he was. There is no smoking gun. Dr. Peter Keller who is himself no stranger to controversy over acquisition practices which he survived had several theories. By the way he did receive an Explorers Club Award and spent his honeymoon going up the river among the Asmat Tribe years ago and has been back several times. He mentioned that homosexuality was prevalent among the Asmat Tribe. Where does all of this originate? This tribe was still isolated from the world 15 years after the atom bombs were dropped in Japan. My point regarding all of this is it is a very strange world with many anomalies. The truth is irreducible. Everyone to their own tastes if you will as long as you are not throwing me in your pot. The most compelling theory is that Michael Rockefeller did make it to shore and was captured and eaten as a revenge killing for the five tribe members shot and killed by the Dutch. The Bisj Pole is part of that ritual and after revenge is complete they discard the Bisj Pole in the forest to rot. My lingering question is do we always want to emulate the past or should we remain in flux and open to new viewpoints. Some like only ketchup and some like mustard. As long as it is not a condiment used on me go with your own tastes.
Some say the only law is there is none. Others (like the Robber Barons) said anything that ain’t nailed down is mine, and if I can pry it loose, it ain’t nailed down!! Civilization or cannibalism?
Bon appetit…
lane batot says
You are what you eat!
Saddle Tramp says
And that just might be pickin’ shit with the chickens as the old saying goes…
One thing for certain when it comes to birds. I refuse to be “pigeonholed”. Everything is fair game so to speak. Hunted or played. Either way…
Saddle Tramp says
THE CHAOS OF AMERICAN MANHOOD IN “TRUE WEST” :
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/04/the-chaos-of-american-manhood-in-true-west
J.F. Bell says
These past days I’ve been going over a particularly gristly offshoot of this. This being one of those things I doubt can ever be fully mapped out to the satisfaction of all, there’s a couple of things that came to mind I haven’t much seen in this breed of discussion I’d like to throw out for the consideration in our mutual filibustering against the batshit insanity of the modern world.
Somebody says utters the dread phrase. Traditional Masculinity™. It has been spoken. The genie is loose and it’s all downhill until another outrage comes along to distract the belligerents. So far so good. Half the internet is over here assailing brawny strawmen in the forms of Arnie/Sly and smarmy fratbros. The other half is firing counter-battery on a Lovecraftian mishmash of naked protestors Title IX, and parents who allow children not yet out of elementary school to redefine their own biology.
Thing is, everybody has their shortcuts. Somebody throws out a key term – Trump supporter, strong woman, artist, protestor, and so on – and the reader instantly has a mental image. Usually this is a series of traits. Mode of dress, public behavior, skin color all figure in regardless whether or not this is any kind of accurate. Pigeonholing is easy because it lets us save time and devote our mental power elsewhere. Over time this becomes standardized by the brain. X=X, always.
You’re driving and you see a red octagon on a stick, you stop even if the sign doesn’t spell it out. Red indicators on the instrument panel are bad. Green is good. No passing on the double yellow. Flashing lights of any hue are trouble. Your party is either red or blue or nationally insignificant. None of these habits appears naturally. We have to be trained to see the world this way.
Back on point. Traditional Masculinity.
We can’t discuss Traditional Masculinity with any accuracy because there’s no one definition. We can get the principles, but in fitting the world to ourselves we lose the point. A good illustration, borrowed from a recent documentary binge. The subject was the Nixon-era handover of tactical and strategic responsibility to the government of South Viet Nam. Among the many logistical and cultural hangups was the simple fact that their society was not sufficiently technically advanced to operate certain pieces of equipment left them. The main gun computer on the M48 Patton tank, for instance, could be most closely translated as ‘adding machine’.
So goes our debate. The Wretched Name of Male Oppression is invoked, and this shorthand supposedly clears the field of the musclebrains and the sneaking rapists of the Ivy League. Fire from the other side knocks out the hipsters and the artists and men who have their nails done. The remainder of the debate we can safely ignore, as it’s mostly the primal screaming of monkeys and flinging of shit. Clapback over truth. Welcome to the soundbyte debate stage.
Traditional masculinity. What is it? Maybe some popular culture from our wayback machine can tell us.
Are we talking Sean Connery as James Bond? Cool and suave. Always comfortably on top of things, never taken aback and always ready with the quip. Traditionally manly? Bet your slick ass. There’s a reason the man had an acting career that had nothing to do with his appeal to 18–35 male viewership.
How about Steve McQueen? Jake Holman in The Sand Pebbles. Doesn’t care what the rest of the world does. Confident, sure, does alright with the girls, but watching him talk to missionaries you’d get the impression he’d as soon be down in the machine spaces, talking to his iron.
Costner as Ness in The Untouchables. Given his actor Ness comes across with all the color and starch of a dishrag at first. But he’s determined. He knows what he wants, he understands the righteous nature of his cause, and he’s willing to walk through fire to get it.
Val Kilmer’s Colonel Patterson in Ghost and the Darkness. He’s hardly an incompetent, but when you tally the first three-quarters of movie you get a list of missteps and catastrophe. Yeah, he prevails – but his story is of a man overmatched by forces superhuman.
Jimmy Stewart. Honestly, Jimmy Stewart in his offscreen life stands head and shoulder above most. But for this instance, Franks Towns in Flight of the Phoenix. He’s pushing obsolete hardware across the ass-end of nowhere with a drunk flying right seat and a hold full of oilfield trash. He’s dubious, withdrawn and surly throughout. Still there in the clutch, though.
John Wayne as Rockwell Torrey. In Harm’s Way. John Wayne doing his least John Wayne military role ever. Tough, confident, but not overbearing for the fact. Instead of the rah-rah we usually get, here we have a senior officer on the eve of a major naval engagement telling his bridge crew that battles are fought by scared men who’d rather be somewhere else. Extra points on this one because it’s one of the few movies where a female lead can hold her own in a John Wayne movie.
So…that’s six offhand. Six different men from all points of the compass, demonstrating six different kinds of what might be considered traditionally masculine traits. They all have the underpinnings that readers here will recognize. So who’s being forced into what role when these qualities are encouraged in the adolescent male? He needs to humble like Bond? A quaking coward like Patterson? A muscle-bound idiot like Towns? Mechanically incompetent like Holman? What?
But if we switch on the television we find nothing of use. Men are simple – they want sex, they like barbecue, they laugh at jokes that’d shame college barbarians. They fold readily in the presence of women and precocious children. Slackers, oxygen thieves, and pushovers. The wary man will recognize parody. Lately, I’m not sure who else does.
Somewhere, somehow, the idea gets beaten in that men can’t be complex. The Real Man ™ is an all-or-nothing proposition. Which leaves a huge number of impressionable teenage boys looking one way and other. First at the guy roaring out of the desert on a Harley, clad in a football jersey sewn from the skins of his defeated foes with a naked slave girl thrown over one shoulder and a machine gun on the other, ready to burn the world down. Then at the sensitive male in the pastel shirt and khakis, holding his wife’s purse while they peruse vegan options at the fair-trade market.
And they think…”Jeez, I’m nothing like these assholes.”
But what are they left? The entertainment industry isn’t about to give them anything like a role model. Dad doesn’t know much about it because nobody told him. Mom’s advice is altogether useless, because if there’s anything remote from mature womanhood (are rare enough species in its own right these days) it’s the mind of the adolescent male. They want a girlfriend, but nothing so lowly as a teenage boy is worthy of a girl’s attention, at least according to the talking heads on daytime TV. If they have friends, they spend their quality time mowing down digital enemies – or each other.
Scouting used to be an alright option. It was never exactly cool, but it was kind of like a mini-frat where the young heathens could learn about cutting things and setting fires with a purpose. And first aid, which was important when the aforementioned didn’t go quite as expected. Only they let the bratty sisters and the weirdos in, and if there’s anything that kills the development of masculine qualities it’s forcing boys to play their games by feminine rules. The scoutmaster’s a dude, but he might as well not be.
If they make it through a twelve-year stint in public education without burning themselves out or getting medicated to incoherence they can look forward to college and learning that by virtue of the Y chromosome they’re guilty for all the world’s ills, retroactive into known history and forward into future crimes they don’t even know they’re going to commit. They can fight this and be made an outcast by their school administration, their church, and the national media – or they can neuter themselves and become something less than a woman but not so toxic as a man.
Survive that…then the real world hits. The culmination of two decades’ worth of neglect, harassment, and the unpardonable sin of having been born male. They can make a go of it – keep their heads down, minimize their risk, maybe not get hit as bad as some. Or they can flip the world the finger, pop another cold one, and fire up the Xbox. It’s no kind of life…but it beats what’s out there. They’ll never amount to anything. They know this because it comes at them from every angle – family, friends, entertainment, syndicated columnists, the back of the cereal box – but it’s cool.
They aren’t going anywhere. Maybe they never were. Faced with the choice of being a eunuch or an outlaw, they pick neither.
And here we are.
Much to chew on here. This jumped out at me.
For me, the Man In Full ideal of the Renaissance Man allows for — demands, even — complexity. And you’re right; that’s seldom depicted in popular art and culture. Why not? Is it too confusing for a short-attention span culture that relies too heavily on the mental shortcuts you identify?
Matthew says
Sitcoms seem particularly bad at portraying me in my experience. Weirdly, back in the fifties they were the worse in portraying women. I think they get a lot of lazy writing and thus can be a barometer of cultural ills.
Oddly, I can think of one traditional male hero in modern pop culture: Batman. I know my geekiness is showing but bear with me. Batman is stoic, tough, and dominate. He is aggressive in his fight against crime. He is a Renaissance Man with a multitude of skills. How complex he is depends on the writer of the particular comic/movie/whatever, but some of the better renditions are fairly complex.
One good thing about those old John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart movies is that they are still around. You can still watch them on cable television. The good stuff lasts.