Men's Liberation

This just sounds like the author thinks masculinity is all negative things.

Anyone who thinks Trump is a representation of masculinity is not someone who’s opinion on the matter I care for.

It seems like the author cannot reconcile that positive masculinity cannot simultaneously mean to be a good person who has a satisfying, meaningful life.

There is no rule set down in stone for what men have to be like and what women have to be like. I do think there are rules for what people generally ought to be like, and I admire those who display what I consider to be the universal virtues. It’s true that many young men lead lives of quiet desperation. But I don’t see how masculinity has anything to do with the solution to that.

I get the general point that gender roles should be overcome etc, but we're definitely not gonna be able to change anything by ignoring the fact that they exist and influence us on a daily basis.

That makes as much sense as saying trans, non-binary people only need to have a satisfying, meaningful life without a vision of masculinity, femininity, or gender Identity.

This guy is so close but got stuck jerking off his own intellectualism half way.

As a rule masculinity and femininity are both a collection of traits. Usually defined something like this:

Masculinity is assertiveness, confidence and maybe something like independence.

Femininity is Emotional intelligence, Empathy and maybe something like team-coordination.

Now I view these groups like the hormones testosterone and estrogen. You need both to function. But the ratio between them defines whether you appear masculine or feminine.

You need to be capable of displaying both groups.

However, currently one side demonizes masculine traits, while the other side calls feminine traits gay.

The Author is close to the truth, in the sense that the traits he describes as good masculine traits shouldn't be exclusive to men. But he looses the plot by tying the traits directly and exclusively to the genders. This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.

Because of this he concludes, that everyone should have all traits regardless of group. This is correct but looses the significance of these groups, both in terms of role models and sexuality.

He accurately points out the issues and ridiculousness of current masculinity gurus but misses why they are appealing. The need for guidance amongst young men is evident.

But let’s leave aside all discussion of what makes someone a real “man” and just aspire to become decent human beings. 

This quote betrays a general misunderstanding of what the issue is. Becoming a decent human is not a problem. The issue is becoming a (good) man. Society has gone far in expanding women's possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don't fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.

Now Tate and company offer some form of help. Its terrible, but it speaks to the problem, while Mr. Robinson pretends like the problem doesn't exist and just tells young man to become good humans.

Its often interesting to view gender issues through the trans lens. In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man very differently.

In my opinion this article is part of the problem driving more men to become Tate-stans and misogynists.

TL;DR: Everyone should display all traits, but the ratio is significant to determine overall appearance.

The existence of stereotypes like tomboy show that there is a link between traits and gender, but on an individual basis the ratio of traits can swap. And that's also cool.

Also the author is an ideolog ignoring the problem he writes about.

Sounds like the author thinks we need to change our culture's definition of "masculine." I agree.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't believe there is such a thing as a "good masculinity" in the same way there isn't any "good femininity". Gender roles don't need to be redefined, they should be overcome.

I’m not a very “masculine” man, I guess. I like flowers, and I wear purple. I sip lattes and my hair is longer than average. I have a trace of a British accent, which makes me sound prissy. I do lift weights at the gym most days, but it certainly hasn’t turned me into the Hulk. When I’m sad, I cry, and when I am delighted, I laugh. I am tender toward animals. Does it add up to being “unmanly”?

If you substitute for black coffee, I fulfill just about all of this criteria.

Based on my limited understanding of what masculinity is supposed to be, he beats me at it.

So he admits to not understanding masculinity, not engaging with it, then stating that it is pointless. Methinks he is threatened by masculinity and thus he tries to claim it is unnecessary or automatically and necessarily harmful on its face. The "essence" of the sexes — masculinity and feminity — have been commercialized, commodified, pulled out by the roots and dipped in a disinfectant solution. I can see this in how every reference to his understanding is hinged on pop stars and movie figures.

What is masculinity? It's a hard term to define because the basic sense of it is so general. How do you describe sight? How do you describe feeling confident? It's not exactly easy to define the sweeping, largest-scale aspects of our lives. I think that masculinity is not set in stone but there are some general, atavistic elements of it that are mostly universal to all men who have those traits, borne necessarily of living in a dangerous world and needing to protect kith and kin:

• Disagreeableness (sometimes decisions must be made without a discussion, life or death, etc)
• Lowered inhibition (willingness to go out and take risks for higher gain)
• Ability to withstand troublesome situations/pain (one only needs to look to the conditions that construction and other trades workers endure, traditionally masculine jobs)

Women historically often encapsulated the reversal or mirror of many of these traits:

• Agreeableness (physically smaller and weaker women tend to be safer in numbers and when working together)
• Higher inhibition (risk taking = higher chance of death = less chance children survive or are born)
• More apt to improving on a rough environment instead of just dealing with it (healthier, happier home, etc)

It isn't to say that I don't believe that these traits cross over between the sexes, of course they do, and someone can embody many of these traits and be masculine or feminine.

But people have an essence about them. The reader himself states that he considers himself to be more feminine. I think that it is healthy and normal to recognize one's essence in this manner, and to strive to live in comport with their basic feeling of self. I lived a very feminized life for years and was unhappy with myself. Upon taking on some more masculine traits, I found strength and austerity that I lacked before.