Hacker News Reader

Comment by taneq | Hacker News Reader

> No commensurate movement has emerged to help them navigate toward a full expression of their gender. It’s no longer enough to “be a man” — we no longer even know what that means.

Worse, it's no longer OK to "be a man". You can posture all you want about "toxic masculinity" but physical aggression and ambition are intrinsic parts of the masculine psyche. We need to stop pretending that a man is just a woman with a penis and some cultural influences, and find healthy ways to express these traits.

View on HN

I agree. I think this article is just another attack on masculinity, introducing uncertainty and doubt about masculinity itself by acting like being a man is confusing.

I don't support these men who turn on their own biology, tearing down the buttresses of the masculine identity under the pretense that "it's too hard/confusing/challenging/whatever to be a man."

Nah. Sack up, get your life straight, take your licks, stand tall, and keep moving. Master your emotions and be aware of the interpersonal dynamics that impact you. Strengthen yourself in every sense of the word, minimize your use of porn and video games, and build a useful set of skills. Stay humble and let your work talk for you. I could write a list a mile long, and I think most guys can do the same. We have history books full of great men to study and emulate.

Some men are being co-opted to do the insidious dirty work of the anti-masculine feminism of our modern era, falling prey to doublespeak ("feminism" means "equality"), sexual manipulation, and the empty claim that something is wrong with being a man.

> toxic masculinity

There's nothing toxic about masculinity. Full stop.

> There's nothing toxic about masculinity. Full stop.

I agree. the problem is how young boys direct those masculin traits. while former generations had a male rolemodel and ways to channel their masculin traits, i see those channeling effects fade. single parents, adhd and drugged kids, helicopter parents. Its like there is no easy way for a young child to explore and focus their personal traits. I see Men's sheds [0] as a reemergence of those channeling effects, and that is definitly a good thing. Their slogan is "Men don't talk face to face, they talk shoulder to shoulder", what i see as a direct opposite of the (what you call) anti-masculine feminist way of "talk about your feelings"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_shed

Heh, it seems you feel that every man has to match your idea of a man. Sorry to disappoint, but there are more kinds of men, and it's not up to you to tell them what to be or how to live their lives. I think the OP's point is that everyone should have a healthy way to realize themselves, irrespective of whether they match our expectations or not.

> every man has to match your idea of a man.

On the contrary, those like the author who argue that some kinds of masculinity are "toxic" are the ones attempting to impose such restraints upon men.

> There’s nothing toxic about masculinity.

No, but there’s a whole lot toxic about toxic masculinity. There’s also nothing intrinsic about it: you can have an abundance of testosterone without having to be violent, emotionless, or sexually agressive. The issue is a social one, and the roided-out warrior/womanizer archetype is long overdue for retirement.

By the way, I am specifically responding to the argument concerning toxic masculinity. There’s nothing wrong with “being a man”, with providing for your family, with being responsible and reliable and strong. But that’s a separate current of masculinity, and one which would in fact be strengthened by the elimination of its toxic counterpart. (And even then, it’s not a kind of masculinity that every man is capable of acting out.)

> toxic masculinity

Until you define this seemingly insidious term, there cannot be a substantive conversation about it.

uhhh... You literally made the point of the article. Specifically claiming aggression is part of the "masculine psyche". Seriously, w. t. f.

I'm a man, and I know many other people who are men (I have male friends even), and yet I've never decided my identity is tied up in aggression or violence. Nor have I felt I am owed women (or I guess men assuming equivalent personality issues in gay men).

> claiming aggression is part of the "masculine psyche".

Aggression is highly linked to testosterone. Saying aggression is part of the masculine psyche is not some spurious claim, it is basic fact. And of course you left out "ambition".

> Seriously, w. t. f.

> my identity is [not] tied up in aggression

Huh. Maybe a bit of self-reflection might be called for?

(If it's not clear, your reactions sounds quite aggressive to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

Anyway, aggression is not a bad thing per-se. In fact, most of what we call modern society was built upon channeling and harnessing that energy as ambition and in competitive endeavors.

> Nor have I felt I am owed women

Huh? Where did that come from?

I felt this was well covered in the OP.

> Many feel that the very qualities that used to define them — their strength, aggression and competitiveness — are no longer wanted or needed…

Makes the point but is subtle enough to avoid using hyperbole.

It's not the same point.

I didn't say that "many feel that" those qualities are no longer wanted or needed, I said that in modern 'western' civilisation they are explicitly disparaged.

And I wasn't saying that those qualities "used to define [males]", I was saying that they are inherent qualities of a male human, and that trying to redefine the social interpretation of masculinity is not going to change that.

Why not explicitly define strength, aggression and competitiveness as measurable quantities and provide reproduced studies proving males would be stronger in these qualities even without socialization in childhood, rather than leave people guessing?

I think the reason that I feel that the authors points is the same as yours but better made is that the author's doesn't lean so heavily on hyperbole.

> I said that in modern 'western' civilisation they are explicitly disparaged.

In parts, sure. In other parts. Not at all.

Anyone who feels that disparagement of traditionally (or genetically) masculine qualities is a universal in the west spends too much time in the wrong filter bubbles. Go watch some sports ball.

Please understand that I don't think it's a bad point either. I'm not disagreeing with the point. I'm saying your can have you point and make it more charitably, carefully and accurately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com