Republican men seem massively troubled about their masculinity — and that’s literally causing death and suffering

  • ExFed@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • ExFed@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • ExFed@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • ExFed@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?

                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?

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • ExFed@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is toxic people, of both genders, there is nothing inherently toxic to being a man, or a woman