politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I know this goes a bit off from the article (I skimmed). But I think a lot of this toxic masculinity comes from decades of media on what a American man should be.
They need to be strong, independent, smart (sometimes), ingenious, a natural leader, angry at the "system", can shoot any gun with perfection, solve most all problems with a gun or a fist fight, never show any type of remorse or trauma from their violent "solutions", muscular, always get the girl, only drink brown liquors or beer, never bend, never negotiate, always win, and can walk away from an explosion without flinching.
This shit has been around since the 1940's and it still in use today. It used to be the Lone Ranger, Superman, batman. Then it was the strong independent cowboy taking on the "savages", The 70's it was Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood taking on the Gangs of the inner cities. The 80's and 90's were Rambo and terminator, the 2000's with Mission Impossible, Jason Borne, John Wick. And James Bond all through out. Just to name a few
Not to take away from the entertainment of these movies and characters but I see lot's of men that take these fictional characters and try to make it their personality. But reality doesn't work that way. They can't go shoot your problems away. Hot women just don't fall leg spread for these guys (which makes them angrier). AND some men don't want to be this unrealistic version of an American man. Which for some reason pisses off those men that do want it....
Agreed. However, something has to be said for the fact that a lot of American society and economy has shifted value away from "dangerous" or otherwise physically demanding labor (e.g. coal mining, farm field work before automation) towards jobs that don't depend on how much muscle mass you have or other expressions of sex hormones. That value system was encoded into cultural norms and media, which, without the corresponding environment, just became a caricature.
The problem of focusing too much on the culture is that we miss what shaped it in the first place: a need to feel valued. If men aren't valued for their physique (or, to be frank, their biological expendability), then what's their value? The Left was too afraid of ruining their Feminist credibility to offer any serious solutions. Meanwhile, the Right leaned in to that caricature, and offered a solution full of misogyny and arrogance. When presented a choice between an awful solution and no solution, it's no wonder so many men fell prey to toxicity.
We need more non-toxic masculinity.
I don't get this idea of having to have the state or society fulfill the need to be valued at all. Can you please explain further what you mean by that?
Didn't mention the state, but it's also relevant...
A group of people (e.g. organization, community, society, corporation, government, etc.) is capable of collectively attributing value. People need to feel valued. Therefore a group of people is capable of fulfilling people's need to feel valued.
I'm not proposing a mandate, just a practical accounting.
But what do you mean in practicality? Something like equal rights or how much people are paid?
I think for example in certain jobs it's mostly the pay that makes people feel not valued enough. When you have less money you can't participate the same way as your neighbours or friends and then you feel left behind.
There's more to how people express or feel value. For example, these are some virtues people seem to value: honor, respect, trust, accomplishment, pride, duty, loyalty.
Money is just one way an employer can convey value to their employees or a customer coveys value to a business. It may come as a shock, but outside of those relationships, money isn't actually all that valuable.
Imagine someone being your friend just because you give them money... That's what I mean.
Things like loyalty, honor, trust, accomplishment, etc. are happening in people themselves or in the personal relationships of individuals. How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don't mean equal rights?
The one example I can think of are orders of merit. But these are obviously not things people need to thrive or experience feeling valued.
Because the point of the post is mental health, not the merits of egalitarianism. I just wanted to point out that, for the gross majority of human history, men's muscles and reproductive expendability were uniquely valuable traits. With automation and intellectual pursuits, those traits aren't quite so necessary.
Or am I misunderstanding?
No, I've just read it a view times now ("society / people need to value men more") and I don't understand how that's supposed to look like in concrete action.
Agreed; that's the challenge. I don't have a full answer, but I do know that it involves having something to work towards, not just something to fight against.
There is toxic people, of both genders, there is nothing inherently toxic to being a man, or a woman