Of Course There Is Toxic Masculinity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0

This recent commercial by Gillette has created some stir among men.

I have been teaching and lecturing as a therapist and pastor for more than 25 years on the topic of masculinity and have published multiple articles here and elsewhere on the topic.

Consider articles about manhood rites, archetypes of masculinity, how husbands can love wiveswell, men’s connection to heroes, and many more.

You better believe that I will take any excuse to clarify issues of masculinity whenever I can.  It is a topic near to my heart.

So, it was no surprise when a woman staff leader in my church asked me to watch it and give my initial thoughts.  She said she liked it but wondered if that was because she is a woman.

After a single viewing, here were my first thoughts:

“People have been asking my opinion on this. There are things that I would have said differently. There are things I would have emphasized more or emphasized less. However, overall, it is right to challenge Men to a higher responsibility. I did not interpret this as whining or shaming or scolding or even blaming. I do not know who created it, but it feels like some men created something that was a message to other men… sort of an internal conversation. It is right that men stand up to bullying against anyone weaker (less able to create or resist movement) This didn’t feel like a call to create more Gandhi’s but more Galahads (to paraphrase Brad Miner*). Overall, the final message of realizing that a fundamental responsibility of men is to model nobility to boys, is pure gold.”

(* Brad Miner, The Compleat Gentleman)

In all seriousness, I suspect that the controversy isn’t actually about this video.  My thoughts were based on the content of the video itself and nothing more.  In a vacuum, this video might have been lauded by most men.

However, there isn’t a vacuum right now in regard to the topic of masculinity.

The last 12-18 months have seen the rise of the “#me too” movement which had some excellent, overdue and necessary aspects and some other consequences that have possibly been largely unintended.  Men’s fear of false allegations and feeling of walking in a mine-field in regard to relationships with women are examples.

These last few months have also seen a constant barrage of virtue signalingof every breed of politician, corporations, and entertainment industries.  Too often, the same person or industry is discovered to be an offender a few seconds later.

Many men are rightfully dubious.  Further, many men are understandably concerned.

More immediately, this last week saw the introduction of new Guidelines from the American Psychological Association making the claim that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

Let’s talk a little more about this last one for a second.

APA Guidelines

The APA noted that men needed to be studied and understood as men.  Understand that for years, studies of men and/or women were assumed to be applicable to the other sex.  In 2007, the APA realized that this was a mistake for women and came out with guidelines then.

11 years later, they are admitting that men need to be understood as men psychologically just as women need to be understood as women.  And that there are differences.

The APA article starts with recognizing that there is more that the psychological world needs to be doing to help men.

“But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.” 

Agreed that these are signs of a problem.  What are the sources of these issues?  The APA has decided that it is what they call “traditional masculinity.”

Here is where the problems begin, in my opinion:

Traditional masculinity is determined to be masculinity that is “marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression.”

Further, a sign of why this is a problem is that “the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves.”

Rightfully, many men bristled at this… or, like me, rolled their eyes.  God forbid that I engage in risky behavior like “avoiding vegetables”.  Is this the APA or Mom?  Admittedly, sometimes it is hard to tell.

Further concepts listed as problematic for men from a more “traditional” understanding of masculinity:

To be self-sufficient and able to take care of themselves.

The requirement to remain stoic and provide for loved ones.

Stoicism and a reluctance to admit vulnerability.

Quickly after these paragraphs, the article wanders off into a lengthy section as to the impact of bullying and misunderstanding in the lives of those in the LGBT movement.  It began to feel to me like the issue really being engaged with here ISN’T how to offer better therapeutic help to men, but how to protect people in the LGBT world from men.  I think there are real and needed issues in regards to the dignity and treatment of people in the LGBT world, but this began to make this article feel like a red herring to me.

Fortunately, it gets back on track for the last and best section of the article

The best section of the article is the final one after the wanderings, entitled “Supporting the Positive”.

The most insightful quote comes from McDermott “In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial, he says. But the same tough demeanor that might save a soldier’s life in a war zone can destroy it at home with a romantic partner or child.”

He goes on, “There are times when you need to be able to power through,” McDermott says.“But if you only do that, and you believe that if you don’t do that then you’re somehow less worthy as a person, that’s where you have a problem.”

That section also continues and really calls into question many of the (what are obviously) assumptions about masculinity in the APA article.

The first error, in so many ways, is in defining “traditional” masculinity with a very few traits…

The second error is in determining that those traits are bad or always bad (maybe they are bad for the APA**).  Is competitiveness even mostly bad?  Is aggression predictably bad?  Are even stoicism and dominance always bad?

No, as their own article says, these traits are needed at times and not at other times.

This doesn’t call for abolition or demonization; it calls for wisdom.

More about this issue very soon – maybe tomorrow.

** One of the issues, incidentally was that the APA noted that men with “strong beliefs about masculinity” (I have no idea what that means, BTW.  Men who strong opinions as to what it means to be a man?  Or do they mean that their strong beliefs match with what the APA is calling “traditional masculinity”?  No idea.) are HALF as likely to get preventive health care – you know, things like… therapy?  And are “more negative about seeking mental health services”.   It could be that the APA has a vested interest that they are not self aware enough to notice – trying to train men out of a version of masculinity that makes them less likely to visit a psychologist or psychiatrist.