I have a lot of thoughts on this and I'm interested to see what you say next week.
It's interesting, after a lifetime of struggle I finally gave up and went to therapy six, seven months ago. And while there are moments that hurt, or are uncomfortable, it's not... like... hard. I wanted solutions as a man to the shit in my life that was endemic and therapy is helping me build a tool kit that lets me deal with what's going on in my life. The stigma of doing that kept me away for a long time. I'm supposed to be stoic. I'm supposed to take it. Grunt through it. And let's face it, I had shit insurance that didn't cover therapy so I couldn't afford it even if I admitted I needed it. All these masculinity gurus offer a *free* entry gate that might give some short term ego boosts but ultimately are there to squeeze you for money, for attention, for loyalty. For a man desperate enough to ask for help but broke enough and angry enough to not look for good help, these outlets offer hope. Or at least comfort and commiseration.
I was thinking about similar subjects today. I may be older than the target demographic but for years I realize that I am a *prime* candidate for those masculinity grifts and for the alt-right further down that path. Single aging male, not in great shape, introverted, alone, rarely in a relationship, stuck in job after job that pigeon holes me and never gives me a chance to move up or to achieve. There's a certain primal seductiveness to being told "it's not your fault". Hell even my therapist has me push back on some of my thought processes, although instead of "it's not my fault" it's "Shame isn't completely fair- you did what you could with the tools you had to survive." Still, being told that your pain is justified? That's liberating. In therapy it can be a complex reason why. For Jordan Peterson, it's simple.
I'm not sure why I didn't go down that path. Maybe part of it was seeing the hypocrisy in so many of the points of view offered. Maybe I hadn't given up on people, maybe I just didn't like the idea of who I'd be if I red/blackpilled.
I'm kind of drifting but I learned the other day that my grandfather, that I always saw as a very stoic, very self-controlled, very quiet but firm man was an opium addict for like... 50 years. My dad said when cleaning his stuff out of his parents' house he found prescription pad after prescription pad and realized the percocet and darvocet prescriptions that were omni-present (he had *hundreds* of empty pill bottles in the garage to store everything from pennies to bits and bobs) probably weren't actually prescribed to him- he was a good artist and probably could forge a signature really well.
I'm not sure why he got on those to begin with. I know why he stayed on them though. That knowledge kind of changes how I saw him. He wasn't stoic, he was kind of loaded. I still love him and miss him and in some ways admire him but... fuck man that kind of masculinity where whatever is wrong with you you just become a 50 year opiate junkie quietly and go through life until your brain explodes from a series of strokes is not any kind of man I want to be. It's like, the answer to masculinity and suffering was to either medicate or blow your heart/brain out as young as you can.
Always good when an article makes me actually consider people in my own life.
Years ago, a friend had a "save the males" bumper sticker. All of the toxic stew you describe was twisted up in this guy and constantly at war with his basic nature: at his core, he was one of the kindest people I've ever met. He was raised hyper-Christian and politically libertarian/right. His father was a fairly classic male archetype, who worked in heavy industry at a management level (having worked his way from the bottom of course) and had facial hair that Tsar Nicholas would have approved. My friend on the other hand was a gifted artist and musician, not really interested in any of the classic things that "men" are supposed to be interested in, and to top it off, I'm pretty sure he couldn't have grown a decent beard.
Honestly, this guy is practically an avatar for all the contradictions you mention here, up to and including repeated attempts at suicide. He died a few years ago in a single car accident that his (Christian conservative) family adamantly swear was not a suicide. Whatever gives them peace, I guess. For my part, I just hope my friend finally found some peace, whether intentionally or not.
In response to your question in the comments: If men don't tell men how to be men, who else is going to do it? Is there any group more appropriate? If we would conclude that no group should instruct men, we could justify that only by saying masculinity has no basis outside of a constructivism, lest we become contrary to instruction in general.
I enjoyed the article because it was sober in acknowledging the crisis of identity in modern masculinity while rightly pointing out some of the more overly rigid standards of Witcoff.
I do feel compelled to come to the defense of the Christian virtue in pointing out that the piece failed to effectively dismiss the merit of Christian masculinity's ability to address the identity crisis of men today. It distills the Christian substance to a kind of authoritarianism which is central to the composition of masculinity.
You wrote: "The concept of masculinity centers the ideal of individual power, control over one’s destiny. Ambition. Aggression. Competence."
I'm not sure where you got this definition, but it's far from the definition Witcoff presents. This seemingly secular definition you present can intuitively give rise to authoritarianism, but has clear values in tension with qualities such as "obedience", "humility" (not in witcoff but very Christian), and self-dominance (as opposed to dominance of environment).
You rightly identify that an ideal Authoritarianism requires a perfect authority (God at the top), but then you surprise me by saying: "But even if it worked as advertised, authoritarianism would still suck.", as if a perfect ruler would not wish us to have agency? Perhaps we consider the possible presentations of Authoritarianism differently (it seems you might derive yours from a historical reference, and mine from a philosophical cohesion, but both are valid), but your 'ideal authoritarianism' seems to just be a mischaracterization of heaven.
Ultimately, the substance of Witcoff's argument is that human masculinity is redeemed in Christ. This, he does not make explicit because he is writing to a Christian audience, making commentary about the secular world's effects on masculinity. While I don't agree with all of Witcoff's points, I witness to the fact the the Christian claim of masculinity is more than just a constructivist expression of sexuality, it is a theological definition which informs us about God's relationship with Creation. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body
The strength of Witcoff's points is rooted in the revelation of Jesus Christ, and so an effective dismissal requires tackling the merits of believing Christian revelation, which your piece was obviously not focused on.
That being said, given that the American political right has incredibly deep roots in Western Christianity, I'm surprised I have not found a piece written by you which addresses this phenomenon. It is worth the attention, and I think it quickly appears that an appeal to psychological appeasement of masculinity is a lackluster response. I'd love to read about what substance you have on this matter.
My therapist is a woman. Am I to disregard her observations and suggestions on my masculinity because she isn't male? Isn't 10 years of medical school and study and internship enough to give her a valid opinion? Is a wife or a girlfriend or a sister or a mother allowed to tell a man that his behavior or his ideals are harmful? Isn't being witness to someone's life enough merit to qualify someone to make observations on a man's masculinity? Or does a random man selling a message outrank those people simply because of genetics?
First, I can't comment on the qualifications of your therapist, since I don't know what kind of advice she provides. Any opinion is worthy to be taken into consideration based on it's merits, but to say the indenturing of standardized education in your therapist makes her qualified to inform you on what masculinity is makes an argument from authority. This reasoning is ineffective because (presumably) we accept different authorities. I would personally say that if your therapist doesn't have a basic understanding of why were were created male and female and how those definitions come to manifest perfectly in Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, she isn't qualified to educate you on masculinity. She is possibly qualified to educate you on charity, empathy, compassion and such, but these would more appropriately be looked at from a humanistic lens rather than a gendered one.
Any woman can tell any man her opinion on the merits or faults of his behavior. That doesn't make them necessarily correct. Advice should be looked at on its principles, not the one who it comes from (unless it's an argument from authority).
Being witness to someone's life doesn't qualify making an observation, having a tongue and something to say does. And simply because one person knows another well, it doesn't mean they will give good advice. "If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." -Matthew 15:14
Concerning Witcoff, he has no authority to tell anyone how to be a male. People listen to him because they see him as speaking truth, and they ignore what they deem to be untruthful. Being male doesn't qualify to give advice, but we can reasonably see how he could put the effort into having a substantive view on it given his relevance to being male.
I have a lot of thoughts on this and I'm interested to see what you say next week.
It's interesting, after a lifetime of struggle I finally gave up and went to therapy six, seven months ago. And while there are moments that hurt, or are uncomfortable, it's not... like... hard. I wanted solutions as a man to the shit in my life that was endemic and therapy is helping me build a tool kit that lets me deal with what's going on in my life. The stigma of doing that kept me away for a long time. I'm supposed to be stoic. I'm supposed to take it. Grunt through it. And let's face it, I had shit insurance that didn't cover therapy so I couldn't afford it even if I admitted I needed it. All these masculinity gurus offer a *free* entry gate that might give some short term ego boosts but ultimately are there to squeeze you for money, for attention, for loyalty. For a man desperate enough to ask for help but broke enough and angry enough to not look for good help, these outlets offer hope. Or at least comfort and commiseration.
I was thinking about similar subjects today. I may be older than the target demographic but for years I realize that I am a *prime* candidate for those masculinity grifts and for the alt-right further down that path. Single aging male, not in great shape, introverted, alone, rarely in a relationship, stuck in job after job that pigeon holes me and never gives me a chance to move up or to achieve. There's a certain primal seductiveness to being told "it's not your fault". Hell even my therapist has me push back on some of my thought processes, although instead of "it's not my fault" it's "Shame isn't completely fair- you did what you could with the tools you had to survive." Still, being told that your pain is justified? That's liberating. In therapy it can be a complex reason why. For Jordan Peterson, it's simple.
I'm not sure why I didn't go down that path. Maybe part of it was seeing the hypocrisy in so many of the points of view offered. Maybe I hadn't given up on people, maybe I just didn't like the idea of who I'd be if I red/blackpilled.
I'm kind of drifting but I learned the other day that my grandfather, that I always saw as a very stoic, very self-controlled, very quiet but firm man was an opium addict for like... 50 years. My dad said when cleaning his stuff out of his parents' house he found prescription pad after prescription pad and realized the percocet and darvocet prescriptions that were omni-present (he had *hundreds* of empty pill bottles in the garage to store everything from pennies to bits and bobs) probably weren't actually prescribed to him- he was a good artist and probably could forge a signature really well.
I'm not sure why he got on those to begin with. I know why he stayed on them though. That knowledge kind of changes how I saw him. He wasn't stoic, he was kind of loaded. I still love him and miss him and in some ways admire him but... fuck man that kind of masculinity where whatever is wrong with you you just become a 50 year opiate junkie quietly and go through life until your brain explodes from a series of strokes is not any kind of man I want to be. It's like, the answer to masculinity and suffering was to either medicate or blow your heart/brain out as young as you can.
Always good when an article makes me actually consider people in my own life.
Years ago, a friend had a "save the males" bumper sticker. All of the toxic stew you describe was twisted up in this guy and constantly at war with his basic nature: at his core, he was one of the kindest people I've ever met. He was raised hyper-Christian and politically libertarian/right. His father was a fairly classic male archetype, who worked in heavy industry at a management level (having worked his way from the bottom of course) and had facial hair that Tsar Nicholas would have approved. My friend on the other hand was a gifted artist and musician, not really interested in any of the classic things that "men" are supposed to be interested in, and to top it off, I'm pretty sure he couldn't have grown a decent beard.
Honestly, this guy is practically an avatar for all the contradictions you mention here, up to and including repeated attempts at suicide. He died a few years ago in a single car accident that his (Christian conservative) family adamantly swear was not a suicide. Whatever gives them peace, I guess. For my part, I just hope my friend finally found some peace, whether intentionally or not.
Anyway, sorry for the melancholy ramblings.
Christ, that's awful. Not surprising, but awful. Masculinity is a straitjacket, and these gurus are just tightening the straps
Nice cliff-hanger ending! Looking forward to the chaser for this shot....
In response to your question in the comments: If men don't tell men how to be men, who else is going to do it? Is there any group more appropriate? If we would conclude that no group should instruct men, we could justify that only by saying masculinity has no basis outside of a constructivism, lest we become contrary to instruction in general.
I enjoyed the article because it was sober in acknowledging the crisis of identity in modern masculinity while rightly pointing out some of the more overly rigid standards of Witcoff.
I do feel compelled to come to the defense of the Christian virtue in pointing out that the piece failed to effectively dismiss the merit of Christian masculinity's ability to address the identity crisis of men today. It distills the Christian substance to a kind of authoritarianism which is central to the composition of masculinity.
You wrote: "The concept of masculinity centers the ideal of individual power, control over one’s destiny. Ambition. Aggression. Competence."
I'm not sure where you got this definition, but it's far from the definition Witcoff presents. This seemingly secular definition you present can intuitively give rise to authoritarianism, but has clear values in tension with qualities such as "obedience", "humility" (not in witcoff but very Christian), and self-dominance (as opposed to dominance of environment).
You rightly identify that an ideal Authoritarianism requires a perfect authority (God at the top), but then you surprise me by saying: "But even if it worked as advertised, authoritarianism would still suck.", as if a perfect ruler would not wish us to have agency? Perhaps we consider the possible presentations of Authoritarianism differently (it seems you might derive yours from a historical reference, and mine from a philosophical cohesion, but both are valid), but your 'ideal authoritarianism' seems to just be a mischaracterization of heaven.
Ultimately, the substance of Witcoff's argument is that human masculinity is redeemed in Christ. This, he does not make explicit because he is writing to a Christian audience, making commentary about the secular world's effects on masculinity. While I don't agree with all of Witcoff's points, I witness to the fact the the Christian claim of masculinity is more than just a constructivist expression of sexuality, it is a theological definition which informs us about God's relationship with Creation. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body
The strength of Witcoff's points is rooted in the revelation of Jesus Christ, and so an effective dismissal requires tackling the merits of believing Christian revelation, which your piece was obviously not focused on.
That being said, given that the American political right has incredibly deep roots in Western Christianity, I'm surprised I have not found a piece written by you which addresses this phenomenon. It is worth the attention, and I think it quickly appears that an appeal to psychological appeasement of masculinity is a lackluster response. I'd love to read about what substance you have on this matter.
Keep writing! Your work is worth reading.
My therapist is a woman. Am I to disregard her observations and suggestions on my masculinity because she isn't male? Isn't 10 years of medical school and study and internship enough to give her a valid opinion? Is a wife or a girlfriend or a sister or a mother allowed to tell a man that his behavior or his ideals are harmful? Isn't being witness to someone's life enough merit to qualify someone to make observations on a man's masculinity? Or does a random man selling a message outrank those people simply because of genetics?
First, I can't comment on the qualifications of your therapist, since I don't know what kind of advice she provides. Any opinion is worthy to be taken into consideration based on it's merits, but to say the indenturing of standardized education in your therapist makes her qualified to inform you on what masculinity is makes an argument from authority. This reasoning is ineffective because (presumably) we accept different authorities. I would personally say that if your therapist doesn't have a basic understanding of why were were created male and female and how those definitions come to manifest perfectly in Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, she isn't qualified to educate you on masculinity. She is possibly qualified to educate you on charity, empathy, compassion and such, but these would more appropriately be looked at from a humanistic lens rather than a gendered one.
Any woman can tell any man her opinion on the merits or faults of his behavior. That doesn't make them necessarily correct. Advice should be looked at on its principles, not the one who it comes from (unless it's an argument from authority).
Being witness to someone's life doesn't qualify making an observation, having a tongue and something to say does. And simply because one person knows another well, it doesn't mean they will give good advice. "If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." -Matthew 15:14
Concerning Witcoff, he has no authority to tell anyone how to be a male. People listen to him because they see him as speaking truth, and they ignore what they deem to be untruthful. Being male doesn't qualify to give advice, but we can reasonably see how he could put the effort into having a substantive view on it given his relevance to being male.