Richard, thanks for this article and your continued work in this space. I do want to address one portion of your piece with some data. As you mention, "many boys and men are in fact struggling, and most of all in working class and Black families." More accurately, White, Black, and Hispanic males from the lowest economic quartiles are suffering equally in educational attainment. An analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data (https://gibm.substack.com/p/education-in-black-and-white) on educational attainment and income from 2012 to 2020 disaggregated by race, sex, and four income quartiles reveals that black males and white males (followed by Hispanic males) from the lowest economic quartile are the least likely to participate in college by nearly the same margins. I know it's unpopular, but talking about White males is necessary at a time when they too are taking it on the chin. It's also important to look at out-of-wedlock births and the critical role it plays across all racial lines when it comes to boys and measurable outcomes. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Richard, thank you for drawing attention to these issues. I agree with all of your substantive points, but your off-hand dismissal of the term "toxic masculinity" seems wrong-headed to me. There are many forms of masculinity and some are toxic, so we should call those forms toxic masculinity to distinguish them from others. In fact, doing so helps to emphasize the very diversity of masculinity. To suggest retreating from that term because some people say it implies that all masculinity is toxic (it doesn't, because that's not how adjectives work) seems analytically and rhetorically muddled. It's also bad political strategy, as it cedes the terms of debate to the regressive forces pushing back on gender equality. Anyways, I wrote more here: https://dalgoso.medium.com/saying-toxic-masculinity-doesnt-imply-all-masculinity-is-toxic-because-adjectives-are-a-thing-2df1c065f5c
This is a misandrist term that is simplistic and vague.. Its usually used as a cudgel by feminist to demean men. It's very destructive because the term masculinity represents the essence of what it is to be a man. Masculinity is not toxic anymore than femininity is toxic. There are men who exhibit antisocial behavior, but that does not represent masculinity.
What a great article, Dave! Totally agree. Toxic masculinity exists. And it's not helpful to anyone. Can't help change something if we don't recognize and identify it first. Thank you! Plenty of other aspects of masculinity are wonderful and worth celebrating!!
Adjectives only have power if they are used to quantify or differentiate the descriptor. The issue with “toxic masculinity” is that it is used ubiquitously. Toxic masculinity is used the same way the phrase the big blue ocean is… all oceans are big and blue. The adjectives aren’t used to differentiate different types of ocean, they are used to emphasize the most noticeable aspects of the ocean.
The phrase toxic masculinity is used the same way. You rarely if ever hear anyone talking about positive masculinity. And I if there are attempts, it’s more than likely to start talking about feminine traits.
As just one example, look at any discussion of feelings. It’s assumed that the masculine tendency to not express feelings as verbally as women is toxic. Without going into this topic in depth, the discussion baffles me (and many men). However I digress.
Trying to argue that toxic is just an adjective to describe one type of masculinity is a form of gas lighting. It’s clearly not understood that way among the general public, the media or even experts.
When the left abandons any discussion of the positive traits of masculinity, they effectively drive men (and especially young men) towards toxic writers on the right (note my use of toxic as a real description because there are obviously some non-toxic writers).
David - but what if adjectives aren't really a thing and that people hear "masculinity is toxic" when they hear the term? I think that might be what's happening. More importantly, I'm concerned that the term is used loosely and lacks clarity in definition. It can be abused and misused - although who's to say what is proper v. improper use? I'm coming to think it's better to criticize behaviors rather than modes of being (or personalities, or whatever "toxic masculinity" is). Some of these behaviors are wrapped up in social and psychological packages. But, the fact that someone loves watching football on Sundays says nothing (I think) about whether they are physically abusive, for example. Or if they lift weights, does that make them more likely to be misogynist? We risk alienating too many men by trying to lump stuff together into a "toxic masculinity" package. I think being a jerk, violent, abusive, etc is bad and should be called out - but I'm not yet convinced that "tm" helps us, analytically or to promote change.
When you compensate me for the likely $2mm lost in earnings and wealth appreciation over my almost 30 years of working on Wall Street and in tech because I was underpaid relative to them (literally had a recent boss say the quiet part out loud that he promoted someone over me even though I outworked that person bc they had a family and were the single bread winner), then maybe I'll be a bit more open minded to your argument.
Right now, it doesn't resonate bc women have always had to figure it out and always have to pander to men's egos to make them feel special. Do you want to even know how many times I have been mansplained? Probably not.
Please spare me the rising up together narrative. When women are promoted at a rate equal to men and are paid the same (and oh, have civil rights), then we can talk. Otherwise, go get a clue about ppl like me who are sick and tired of being told that they have to make room for men and boys because they are helpless in figuring out how to handle adversity.
Actually, women had to finally unite on their own... over this stuff beginning ages ago... and got little to no support (anti-support) from many men. Similar to racism or classism... where usually white, middle or upper class men dominated. Women's progress has always been about SELF-improvement.
Unfortunately, Jill's description is very much still how things work in many areas of biz life. While i'm no longer angry at 'men' the way i was decades ago (Maneater... was my theme song!!) ... i can certainly empathize with her current situation.
While i see that men kinda got left behind in many ways... as women made progress and created their own support systems and sisterhood... i noticed that men chose not to do anything similar. Or they complained... and much worse.
No one was trying to put men down. Just trying to raise themselves up. Very different. Not a competition, even though competition is so baked into American culture. Cooperation, not competition is the foundation.
Even i eventually started noticing that my own husband, son, brothers, nephews, grandsons, sons-in-law and dear friends ... sadly don't have the advantages of a supportive network for women and girls so common today. However, men didn't seem too motivated to create any kind of self-growth and development for themselves.
That's how it happened for women. We grew ourselves and worked together. Not by or for any political entities. Blaming politics now because women finally built some support and self-development for themselves, as if that's somehow harmful to men ... doesn't help. It's taken decades for social acceptance of any progress toward 'equality' for women. We're not there yet. Women making strides toward improving their own lives doesn't harm men.
Now... men are just getting started... so YAY!! Let's all support them... everyone benefits when everyone supports personal and group growth. Cooperation builds. Let's all learn and grow as humans. It's NOT a competition!!!
Agreed on many of this. Men never had to create support networks. They were just always invited out with the higher ups (golf outings, strip clubs - yes, very much so, etc.) but that didn't involve upskilling of any kind, which is what many of my friends and I continue to do. We also share leads on different opportunities.
When I started out and it still is somewhat a thing although not as much, women were pitted against each other because firms could only "afford one spot" to a non-straight white guy for promos, etc.
Richard - With all due respect, you are in denial about how things work for women on Wall Street and in tech (and I am sure in lower paying industries). One case of gender discrimination against Goldman is finally going to trial... AFTER 17 YEARS! NDAs, arbitration, etc. are all tools used against women by men when we speak up about unfair treatment.
Well, men DO need support networks... for their own personal growth... which is what they're finally discovering and beginning to do. Being invited out with the 'boys' might get them 'promoted' at work, etc... however, it's pretty superficial and shallow as far as authentic personal development goes.
And therein lies the big difference that they've missed out on. When it's all just a big 'show' of machismo and there's no real inner strength and genuine power there... it soon falls flat.
Especially when they're finding themselves working with others (often women) who've done all that inner work and continue to progress and support each other to be the best they can be... and it eventually shows on the outside in their accomplishments. It can be intimidating and even frustrating for those who've relied on the old ways.
And then, they (often men) can get angry and envious and mean (feeling threatened) and eventually depressed... which doesn't serve them or any of us.
Our culture is so authoritarian and outwardly-directed. When you have people with no real self-knowledge or honest inner strength, they FEEL like they look weak when they encounter self-directed people who rely on their inner knowing. And looking 'weak' is what men fear most. So one thing that happens is resorting to all kinds of 'unfair' treatment of others. When you hold all the official power, you can abuse it. Usually how it works.
Sexism, racism and classism... all the 'isms' are symptoms of our need to evolve and grow to become GENUINELY self-confident and the best versions of ourselves. That usually results in more generosity and support for others. Takes a long time. Big shifts don't happen overnight... or even in a generation or two.
It's NOT weakness to be open and vulnerable to learning new ways to grow! And that's what i believe Richard and many men are honestly exploring and addressing now. They're just getting started and they need to be supported.
Great article. Left leaning parties need to realise that this is an important issue if they are to regain power. The Labour Party in the UK was more heavily rejected by men than by women at the last election and if it is to have any chance of being elected it needs to improve its standing with men. There is more to this than keeping Jess Phillips in the background come election time. There is also a need for specific man and more importantly boy friendly policies.
Hello Richard across the mists of time! I wrote a pamphlet on the gender debate around twenty years ago you were kind enough to be kind about. I was at - or about to join - The Future Foundation, as was. Great to know you are still thinking, writing, acting.
On this piece, I agree. Entirely. As a long time feminist activist (Tho fwiw, feminism to me never was a zero sum game….).
What I observe is the social and political discourse moving to a clear and compelling focus on women and girls (great!) but without a balancing recognition of what this means - positively - for men and boys. I have a pigeon pair sample of a son and a daughter and see this in their lives, and that of their friends (all in South London comps).
Class cuts through all, of course. As does our unhealthy, academic target driven ‘education’ system.
That said, the structural inequalities remain for women, and the cultural norms around roles seem to have deepened through Covid. Is there something here about difference between discourse and practice? I know in my son’s school, really only boys being disciplined and excluded. Of the latter, almost all of colour.
So, complex as ever but an important question to ask and debate to raise. Keep going!
I do believe that viewing this issue exclusively through a contentious political lens is unlikely to get us where we want and need to go. It's both more basic and much bigger than that. So it misses the mark if the goal is to actually help enlighten people and bring change.
Keep up the important work, Richard! This is a challenging time for your message to gain traction but it's crucial to the wellbeing of the USA. Thank you for having the courage to speak out.
Actually, i believe it's a perfect time for this work to gain some much needed attention. It is and it will continue. Everything is in realignment... everything and everyone on this planet... and the more you see it, the more you recognize it's happening everywhere. Richard's work seems to be part of a naturally evolving process whose time has definitely come! YAY!!
The biology of male fragility is interesting in itself. One hypothesis is that the only biologically useful male apes are the high status ones, as the rest don’t procreate. That is consistent with the fall in male/female births when pregnant women are severely stressed (eg after 9/11) and thus a rise in the ratio when women are content, ie. 'high status'. (In England and Wales the highest male/female birth ratios ever recorded were at the end of each of the world wars, and in 1976.)
I think the left has lost this one. You can't spend years fanning the flames of misandry and then expect men to pay attention. When the left abandoned rationality and caved in to the radicals, (the third wave feminists, the intersectionalists, the Neo-Marxists, and the woke ideology cultists), it rejected the needs of most of the population - especially the men. I say let the left keep digging itself in deeper. With so much radicalism and pettiness on both sides of the isle, perhaps there is finally enough distance between left and right for a strong center party to emerge and break the two party stalemate we've been locked in.
And one reason most of the population has been left behind economically, socially, politically ... has nothing to do with left and right. As you allude to, James... left and right are becoming obsolete and something new is emerging.
Our current issues are not left and right - they're (as my super smart hubs says) UP and DOWN.
It serves the current power structure (male & female - left & right) to keep us focused on those divisions of the 99% so we won't notice that it's the 1% benefiting from keeping us divided.
important message. The old rules of masculine success generally backfire today, yet neither older men nor anyone else has anything constructive to offer. Young men continue to receive mixed messages that confuse. The research on white working class men indicates a pile of problems that have to be taken seriously, because, together, they support a 'victim' identity that easily leads to worship of authoritarian leaders. Modernizing masculinity is a social project, not an individual one. Yet, most believe men should quietly fix themselves as lone individuals. My blog will be publishing soon on fresh research about how entrenched this individualist solution bias still is.
Oh boy is this needed!!! Thank you, James!!! You have really hit on it in an authentic way. Will check out your substack for sure!! Just made my morning. :D
The rules of success may have changed, but men haven't. I wish there was a clear message to young men about who they are and what society expects from them. In this I believe old norms still hold: men are leaders, men are protectors, and men are heros. Society needs men like this. Men are desperate for guidance in finding and cultivating these elements in themselves. Where can I find your blog when it's published?
I can identify with that, and also echo the comment by Kennedy N. I’m not sure I can find anything uniquely positive to say on the subject of men either.
Also, re. the reframing of masculinity as pathology: Orwell made the point pithily, though in a different context. The argument still holds, I think:
“If you want to make an enemy of a man, tell him his ills are incurable.” (Orwell, G.: “The road to Wigan pier”, p.168 in my Macmillan Collector’s Library edition.)
At a time when social cohesion seems ever more essential, we seem less and less able to achieve it. Sadly, of course, nobody wins.
Thank you for raising this and for this Substack generally (I’m finding it enriching).
Absolutely invaluable piece, Dr. Kraemer!! Deepest appreciation to you for sharing it here. Things we kind of 'know' on some levels... confirmed and so much more.
Blaming, shaming, judging and that overblown obsession we Americans have with 'individualism' to the point of self-destruction... are also pieces we need to recognize while we start shifting gears to more productive and constructive approaches.
Richard, thanks for this article and your continued work in this space. I do want to address one portion of your piece with some data. As you mention, "many boys and men are in fact struggling, and most of all in working class and Black families." More accurately, White, Black, and Hispanic males from the lowest economic quartiles are suffering equally in educational attainment. An analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data (https://gibm.substack.com/p/education-in-black-and-white) on educational attainment and income from 2012 to 2020 disaggregated by race, sex, and four income quartiles reveals that black males and white males (followed by Hispanic males) from the lowest economic quartile are the least likely to participate in college by nearly the same margins. I know it's unpopular, but talking about White males is necessary at a time when they too are taking it on the chin. It's also important to look at out-of-wedlock births and the critical role it plays across all racial lines when it comes to boys and measurable outcomes. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Richard, thank you for drawing attention to these issues. I agree with all of your substantive points, but your off-hand dismissal of the term "toxic masculinity" seems wrong-headed to me. There are many forms of masculinity and some are toxic, so we should call those forms toxic masculinity to distinguish them from others. In fact, doing so helps to emphasize the very diversity of masculinity. To suggest retreating from that term because some people say it implies that all masculinity is toxic (it doesn't, because that's not how adjectives work) seems analytically and rhetorically muddled. It's also bad political strategy, as it cedes the terms of debate to the regressive forces pushing back on gender equality. Anyways, I wrote more here: https://dalgoso.medium.com/saying-toxic-masculinity-doesnt-imply-all-masculinity-is-toxic-because-adjectives-are-a-thing-2df1c065f5c
This is a misandrist term that is simplistic and vague.. Its usually used as a cudgel by feminist to demean men. It's very destructive because the term masculinity represents the essence of what it is to be a man. Masculinity is not toxic anymore than femininity is toxic. There are men who exhibit antisocial behavior, but that does not represent masculinity.
What a great article, Dave! Totally agree. Toxic masculinity exists. And it's not helpful to anyone. Can't help change something if we don't recognize and identify it first. Thank you! Plenty of other aspects of masculinity are wonderful and worth celebrating!!
Suz-an, Could you please list three items of "toxic masculinity" and three items of "positive masculinity."
Adjectives only have power if they are used to quantify or differentiate the descriptor. The issue with “toxic masculinity” is that it is used ubiquitously. Toxic masculinity is used the same way the phrase the big blue ocean is… all oceans are big and blue. The adjectives aren’t used to differentiate different types of ocean, they are used to emphasize the most noticeable aspects of the ocean.
The phrase toxic masculinity is used the same way. You rarely if ever hear anyone talking about positive masculinity. And I if there are attempts, it’s more than likely to start talking about feminine traits.
As just one example, look at any discussion of feelings. It’s assumed that the masculine tendency to not express feelings as verbally as women is toxic. Without going into this topic in depth, the discussion baffles me (and many men). However I digress.
Trying to argue that toxic is just an adjective to describe one type of masculinity is a form of gas lighting. It’s clearly not understood that way among the general public, the media or even experts.
When the left abandons any discussion of the positive traits of masculinity, they effectively drive men (and especially young men) towards toxic writers on the right (note my use of toxic as a real description because there are obviously some non-toxic writers).
David - but what if adjectives aren't really a thing and that people hear "masculinity is toxic" when they hear the term? I think that might be what's happening. More importantly, I'm concerned that the term is used loosely and lacks clarity in definition. It can be abused and misused - although who's to say what is proper v. improper use? I'm coming to think it's better to criticize behaviors rather than modes of being (or personalities, or whatever "toxic masculinity" is). Some of these behaviors are wrapped up in social and psychological packages. But, the fact that someone loves watching football on Sundays says nothing (I think) about whether they are physically abusive, for example. Or if they lift weights, does that make them more likely to be misogynist? We risk alienating too many men by trying to lump stuff together into a "toxic masculinity" package. I think being a jerk, violent, abusive, etc is bad and should be called out - but I'm not yet convinced that "tm" helps us, analytically or to promote change.
I just saw a picture of the incoming National Honor Society class at my local high school and it was about a 2:1 ratio of girls:boys. 😕
When you compensate me for the likely $2mm lost in earnings and wealth appreciation over my almost 30 years of working on Wall Street and in tech because I was underpaid relative to them (literally had a recent boss say the quiet part out loud that he promoted someone over me even though I outworked that person bc they had a family and were the single bread winner), then maybe I'll be a bit more open minded to your argument.
Right now, it doesn't resonate bc women have always had to figure it out and always have to pander to men's egos to make them feel special. Do you want to even know how many times I have been mansplained? Probably not.
Please spare me the rising up together narrative. When women are promoted at a rate equal to men and are paid the same (and oh, have civil rights), then we can talk. Otherwise, go get a clue about ppl like me who are sick and tired of being told that they have to make room for men and boys because they are helpless in figuring out how to handle adversity.
Actually, women had to finally unite on their own... over this stuff beginning ages ago... and got little to no support (anti-support) from many men. Similar to racism or classism... where usually white, middle or upper class men dominated. Women's progress has always been about SELF-improvement.
Unfortunately, Jill's description is very much still how things work in many areas of biz life. While i'm no longer angry at 'men' the way i was decades ago (Maneater... was my theme song!!) ... i can certainly empathize with her current situation.
While i see that men kinda got left behind in many ways... as women made progress and created their own support systems and sisterhood... i noticed that men chose not to do anything similar. Or they complained... and much worse.
No one was trying to put men down. Just trying to raise themselves up. Very different. Not a competition, even though competition is so baked into American culture. Cooperation, not competition is the foundation.
Even i eventually started noticing that my own husband, son, brothers, nephews, grandsons, sons-in-law and dear friends ... sadly don't have the advantages of a supportive network for women and girls so common today. However, men didn't seem too motivated to create any kind of self-growth and development for themselves.
That's how it happened for women. We grew ourselves and worked together. Not by or for any political entities. Blaming politics now because women finally built some support and self-development for themselves, as if that's somehow harmful to men ... doesn't help. It's taken decades for social acceptance of any progress toward 'equality' for women. We're not there yet. Women making strides toward improving their own lives doesn't harm men.
Now... men are just getting started... so YAY!! Let's all support them... everyone benefits when everyone supports personal and group growth. Cooperation builds. Let's all learn and grow as humans. It's NOT a competition!!!
Agreed on many of this. Men never had to create support networks. They were just always invited out with the higher ups (golf outings, strip clubs - yes, very much so, etc.) but that didn't involve upskilling of any kind, which is what many of my friends and I continue to do. We also share leads on different opportunities.
When I started out and it still is somewhat a thing although not as much, women were pitted against each other because firms could only "afford one spot" to a non-straight white guy for promos, etc.
Richard - With all due respect, you are in denial about how things work for women on Wall Street and in tech (and I am sure in lower paying industries). One case of gender discrimination against Goldman is finally going to trial... AFTER 17 YEARS! NDAs, arbitration, etc. are all tools used against women by men when we speak up about unfair treatment.
Well, men DO need support networks... for their own personal growth... which is what they're finally discovering and beginning to do. Being invited out with the 'boys' might get them 'promoted' at work, etc... however, it's pretty superficial and shallow as far as authentic personal development goes.
And therein lies the big difference that they've missed out on. When it's all just a big 'show' of machismo and there's no real inner strength and genuine power there... it soon falls flat.
Especially when they're finding themselves working with others (often women) who've done all that inner work and continue to progress and support each other to be the best they can be... and it eventually shows on the outside in their accomplishments. It can be intimidating and even frustrating for those who've relied on the old ways.
And then, they (often men) can get angry and envious and mean (feeling threatened) and eventually depressed... which doesn't serve them or any of us.
Our culture is so authoritarian and outwardly-directed. When you have people with no real self-knowledge or honest inner strength, they FEEL like they look weak when they encounter self-directed people who rely on their inner knowing. And looking 'weak' is what men fear most. So one thing that happens is resorting to all kinds of 'unfair' treatment of others. When you hold all the official power, you can abuse it. Usually how it works.
Sexism, racism and classism... all the 'isms' are symptoms of our need to evolve and grow to become GENUINELY self-confident and the best versions of ourselves. That usually results in more generosity and support for others. Takes a long time. Big shifts don't happen overnight... or even in a generation or two.
It's NOT weakness to be open and vulnerable to learning new ways to grow! And that's what i believe Richard and many men are honestly exploring and addressing now. They're just getting started and they need to be supported.
Great article. Left leaning parties need to realise that this is an important issue if they are to regain power. The Labour Party in the UK was more heavily rejected by men than by women at the last election and if it is to have any chance of being elected it needs to improve its standing with men. There is more to this than keeping Jess Phillips in the background come election time. There is also a need for specific man and more importantly boy friendly policies.
Hello Richard across the mists of time! I wrote a pamphlet on the gender debate around twenty years ago you were kind enough to be kind about. I was at - or about to join - The Future Foundation, as was. Great to know you are still thinking, writing, acting.
On this piece, I agree. Entirely. As a long time feminist activist (Tho fwiw, feminism to me never was a zero sum game….).
What I observe is the social and political discourse moving to a clear and compelling focus on women and girls (great!) but without a balancing recognition of what this means - positively - for men and boys. I have a pigeon pair sample of a son and a daughter and see this in their lives, and that of their friends (all in South London comps).
Class cuts through all, of course. As does our unhealthy, academic target driven ‘education’ system.
That said, the structural inequalities remain for women, and the cultural norms around roles seem to have deepened through Covid. Is there something here about difference between discourse and practice? I know in my son’s school, really only boys being disciplined and excluded. Of the latter, almost all of colour.
So, complex as ever but an important question to ask and debate to raise. Keep going!
I do believe that viewing this issue exclusively through a contentious political lens is unlikely to get us where we want and need to go. It's both more basic and much bigger than that. So it misses the mark if the goal is to actually help enlighten people and bring change.
It's a huge issue you're tackling, Richard. In some ways, it appears to me that 'men's liberation' is where 'women's lib' was half a century ago. In that vein... check out these dudes making some excellent progress: https://www.thesecuredad.com/post/conflict-resolution-at-home-with-jason-kreidman-of-dad-university
Thanks! That's a great reference. R
Keep up the important work, Richard! This is a challenging time for your message to gain traction but it's crucial to the wellbeing of the USA. Thank you for having the courage to speak out.
Actually, i believe it's a perfect time for this work to gain some much needed attention. It is and it will continue. Everything is in realignment... everything and everyone on this planet... and the more you see it, the more you recognize it's happening everywhere. Richard's work seems to be part of a naturally evolving process whose time has definitely come! YAY!!
The biology of male fragility is interesting in itself. One hypothesis is that the only biologically useful male apes are the high status ones, as the rest don’t procreate. That is consistent with the fall in male/female births when pregnant women are severely stressed (eg after 9/11) and thus a rise in the ratio when women are content, ie. 'high status'. (In England and Wales the highest male/female birth ratios ever recorded were at the end of each of the world wars, and in 1976.)
I think the left has lost this one. You can't spend years fanning the flames of misandry and then expect men to pay attention. When the left abandoned rationality and caved in to the radicals, (the third wave feminists, the intersectionalists, the Neo-Marxists, and the woke ideology cultists), it rejected the needs of most of the population - especially the men. I say let the left keep digging itself in deeper. With so much radicalism and pettiness on both sides of the isle, perhaps there is finally enough distance between left and right for a strong center party to emerge and break the two party stalemate we've been locked in.
And one reason most of the population has been left behind economically, socially, politically ... has nothing to do with left and right. As you allude to, James... left and right are becoming obsolete and something new is emerging.
Our current issues are not left and right - they're (as my super smart hubs says) UP and DOWN.
It serves the current power structure (male & female - left & right) to keep us focused on those divisions of the 99% so we won't notice that it's the 1% benefiting from keeping us divided.
important message. The old rules of masculine success generally backfire today, yet neither older men nor anyone else has anything constructive to offer. Young men continue to receive mixed messages that confuse. The research on white working class men indicates a pile of problems that have to be taken seriously, because, together, they support a 'victim' identity that easily leads to worship of authoritarian leaders. Modernizing masculinity is a social project, not an individual one. Yet, most believe men should quietly fix themselves as lone individuals. My blog will be publishing soon on fresh research about how entrenched this individualist solution bias still is.
Oh boy is this needed!!! Thank you, James!!! You have really hit on it in an authentic way. Will check out your substack for sure!! Just made my morning. :D
The rules of success may have changed, but men haven't. I wish there was a clear message to young men about who they are and what society expects from them. In this I believe old norms still hold: men are leaders, men are protectors, and men are heros. Society needs men like this. Men are desperate for guidance in finding and cultivating these elements in themselves. Where can I find your blog when it's published?
jamesrichardson.Substack.com
I frequently ask my male patients to name some good things about men and they can almost never name a single one.
I can identify with that, and also echo the comment by Kennedy N. I’m not sure I can find anything uniquely positive to say on the subject of men either.
Also, re. the reframing of masculinity as pathology: Orwell made the point pithily, though in a different context. The argument still holds, I think:
“If you want to make an enemy of a man, tell him his ills are incurable.” (Orwell, G.: “The road to Wigan pier”, p.168 in my Macmillan Collector’s Library edition.)
At a time when social cohesion seems ever more essential, we seem less and less able to achieve it. Sadly, of course, nobody wins.
Thank you for raising this and for this Substack generally (I’m finding it enriching).
I just gave it some thought and I struggled to come up with a coherent answer.
Exactly. And even if you can come up with a trait, someone else will object: "Are you saying that women AREN'T X?"
That was Peggy Orenstein's experience too...
Thank you for your leadership.
thank you Richard
the problem is not simply a cultural one. The male fetus is more vulnerable than the female in very many ways. If he survives, because he is full of testosterone he looks stronger than a girl, but is weaker in almost every other way as detailed in this BMJ paper http://www.sebastiankraemer.com/docs/Kraemer%20the%20fragile%20male.pdf and in a follow up note http://www.sebastiankraemer.com/docs/Kraemer%20notes%20on%20the%20fragile%20male%202017.pdf
Sebastian Kraemer (Dr)
www.sebastiankraemer.com
Absolutely invaluable piece, Dr. Kraemer!! Deepest appreciation to you for sharing it here. Things we kind of 'know' on some levels... confirmed and so much more.
Thanks Sebastian, your work on this is hugely important because it replaces blame with biology!
Blaming, shaming, judging and that overblown obsession we Americans have with 'individualism' to the point of self-destruction... are also pieces we need to recognize while we start shifting gears to more productive and constructive approaches.