Thursday 22 June 2023

The Crisis of Masculinity and Pen and Paper RPGs

Pay careful attention to social trends and you will soon become aware that there is a crisis of masculinity afoot. Men are doing badly in school, badly at university, badly in the jobs market, and are turning to suicide at a genuinely alarming rate. At the same time, young men are increasingly told that their very maleness is 'toxic' and that, irrespective of their own personal struggles and background, they benefit from an inescapable 'privilege' that renders their failures deserved and their successes moot. Quite naturally, this embitters them and leads many of them to turn to conmen like Andrew Tate and internet dead-ends like inceldom, pick-up artistry and 4chan.

This is not an issue of 'men's rights', nor just a 'manosphere' talking point; it is a problem that affects everybody. The relationship between men and women is not zero-sum (it is one of the great absurdities of our age that so many people seem to have convinced themselves that there is actually a battle between the sexes), and the worse men do, the fewer good ones there are for women to pair up with, the more genuinely toxic ones there are to do society harm, and the more sons, brothers, fathers, friends etc. there are who will end up on the scrap heap. This suits nobody, men or women, and as a father with young daughters, I take the issue seriously on their behalf. I don't want them growing up in a world populated entirely by half-baked adolescent man-boys consumed with resentment and ill-will. I want them growing up in a world of fully-formed, decent men.

In her recent, excellent book Feminism Against Progress, the cultural critic Mary Harrington (who styles herself a 'reactionary feminist' - a position neatly summarised here) makes the case that a big part of the problem facing young men in particular is that society has gradually winnowed down the opportunities for older men to act as role models for boys in single-sex groups. As she rightly recognises, boys need to have civilised adult male behaviour modelled for them in order to grow up into proper men themselves. And there is a kind of alchemy that takes place in a single-sex environment that fosters this kind of interaction, and which I think particularly benefits young men - who, in the company of young women, often find it almost impossible to avoid either acting the goat or retreating into their shells. As Harrington herself put it in an interview somewhere (I forget where, annoyingly), there is a certain amount of 'chimp-like' behaviour that needs to take place amongst men, whereby the older, sensible ones discipline the young ones and show them what's what - often, in fact almost always, unconsciously - and it is very difficult for this to happen in mixed company.

The issue is that as soon as you start acknowledging this obvious truth (how could it be otherwise?) you immediately open yourself up to the familiar litany of accusations about being exclusionary, non-inclusive, etc., etc. I have nothing to say to those accusations except that only an idiot would suggest that the sexes cannot or should not mix in almost any activity you care to name, and likewise only an idiot would deny that single mothers (for example) often perform absolutely heroic feats in bringing up boys without fathers around, but that does not mean there is something wrong with - and nothing at all beneficial about - male-only and female-only groupings taking place here and there and from time to time as we make our way through childhood and adolescence.

These issues are illustrated very beautifully and poignantly in Gene Wolfe's The Wizard Knight, whose plot can be understood as a meditation on the theme of male role-modelling. The main character, Able, fatherless and apparently being haphazardly raised by his brother, stumbles from the real world into one of fantasy - wherein he resolves to become a knight after a chance encounter with a man called Sir Ravd. Sir Ravd - who instills in Able the notion that being a knight means to 'live honourably and die honourably', and to always tell the truth - provides the model for Able's subsequent adventures, and through the book we see Able transform from a boy into a man. Initially (having been granted great strength and size by an Aelf woman) he is little better than a fractious bully throwing his weight around, but through constantly keeping his vision of perfect knighthood in mind, he gradually attains discipline, self-control, and above all wisdom. In the end, his greatest achievement of all - his apotheosis, in fact - is not to kill, but to heal - and in achieving this he becomes worthy of manhood, and marriage, and all the rest that follows. 

This is not a complicated metaphor for the process of growing from a boy into a man - achieving sudden and surprising strength and power as a teenager, as well as plenty of rage, aggression, and good old obnoxiousness - and learning to tame and shape those impulses and eventually hammer them into a usable shape, so they are not deployed for harming others but for doing work that is of value. And achieving that status is, as Wolfe reminds us, the key to the door to so much more: marriage, family life, the contentment of adulthood as one who has made peace with oneself and one's position as somebody who contributes to the society in which one finds oneself a part. The critical point is that it is so much harder to do this alone than it is with role models - Sir Ravds, if you will - to teach and guide us through example, and it is therefore profoundly important that opportunities for such role-modelling are available to the young. Some will call this a conservative or old fashioned or even bigoted position, but it is a whole lot more useful and positive than any alternative vision I know of, and has the benefit of according much more closely with my own experience and with providing us with a plausible account of what we see going wrong all around us.

Which brings us to D&D. Let me say straight away that my earlier comments hold true: only an idiot would suggest that there is anything undesirable about mixed-sex gaming groups, and only an idiot would suggest that deliberately (or for that matter unconsciously) excluding people from any hobby is a good idea. But these things can remain true, even while we acknowledge the other truth, which is that lots of people who pay pen and paper RPGs are men, and that the hobby can itself therefore be a vehicle for the kind of male role-modelling that I am talking about (and indeed, probably has fulfilled this function to a certain degree ever since the 1970s). There is, in short, nothing so terribly dreadful about male bonding and probably quite a lot that is good about mixed-age but single-sex gaming groups from time to time and when nobody is being deliberately left-out. It might even in its own small way provide part of the picture by which the masculinity crisis can begin to be unwound. Should we not at least consider whether it could do?

An anecdote to conclude. I have practiced karate for a long time, off and on. At my club there is a young lad, we'll call him B, who is being raised by a single mother after his father went to live on the other side of the globe. A very good-hearted, sincere kid, he absolutely exudes the air of a lost soul - somebody adrift in life, at the position of having quit school after his GCSEs (the British equivalent, I suppose, of dropping out of high school before graduation), with no idea what to live for other than his natural athleticism and love of sport. His problem in karate was for a long time his tendency to seize up - to want to succeed so much and to perform so perfectly that he would literally sometimes freeze, incapable of moving, for minutes at a time. This problem persisted until one evening, after class, B, a few of the other old men at the club, and our instructor were doing a little extra practice and B (much younger than the rest of us) was afflicted by seizure again. Stuck in the middle of the gymnasium floor, shivering with exertion, dripping with sweat, and just unable to make his arms or legs move, it was painful for the rest of us to witness. But then our instructor simply walked over to him, slapped him quite hard on the back, and said, 'Don't worry about it, B. The worse thing that could happen is that you could die.' 

B instantly cracked a huge grin, we all laughed, and it was like the weight of a thousand planets was suddenly lifted off his shoulders. And he never had that kind of issue again. He was like a different person after that point - much more relaxed, much more willing to smile - and all it had taken was a brusque, probably instinctive comment that, crucially, I don't think a woman would have made in that context. It took a man's instinct for what a younger man needed to hear. And sometimes life is like that for human beings. It is crazy that we have become squeamish about the fact, to the real and lasting detriment of so many of the young.

73 comments:

  1. I hear things like this a lot, but I don't think it's true. Sober living and recovery programs often separate men by age but not women- because a 50 year old woman will have a maternal instinct to nurture a 20 year old woman, but a bunch of 20 year old men are so stupid that they will enrage the 50 year old men, who simply have no patience for or intrinsic desire to help the younger men.

    Boys and young men need fathers in their life, but (although I have a daughter and not a son) I would have no desire to send my hypothetical son off to some old man's house to get molested playing D&D.

    Maybe this is part of the "crisis" but there is simply no hope for young men without fathers. Hopefully they have good mothers. I am not saying this out of a particular desire to be inflammatory- but it is inarguably true- every male-only, mixed-age civic group is child molestation factory. Religious groups, boy scouts, Penn State athletics, etc.

    This really has nothing to do with D&D or other tabletop games, but kids should play D&D with their friends. I certainly understand why males age 9 to 29 would like to play without sisters or girlfriends or whatnot butting in. It's a perfectly normal instinct that doesn't need to be vilified. On the other hand, the father-substitute thing is just not going to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I resent a little the description of "play without sisters or girlfriends", but in context of noism's post I'll assume you meant that in the best possible way.

      The idea that your hypothetical son would be sent to be molested is the issue. Men, in general, aren't molesters. it doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful, or even forbid interactions you deem dangerous, but assuming every older man is a potential molester will do you no favors.

      Delete
    2. You are focusing on bad apples. I went to beavers, cubs and scouts all through my childhood and had nothing but good experiences. It's a total exaggeration to say that these things are 'child molestation factories'. By that logic you shouldn't send your child to school because child molestation can happen in that environment too.

      Of course there is no substitute for fathers. But that response: a) writes off a generation of boys who don't live with their fathers and b) assumes that all that is needed are fathers, which patently isn't true.

      Delete
    3. > Anon watches too much television

      Delete
    4. Also spend many years in scouting. There were rumours about things going on in one other troop - that could have been just juvenile taunting; I checked on the BSA's "pervert files" website years later but there were no discovered cases nearby me.

      Being automatically suspect of molestation is another way, I guess, men are discouraged from positive contact with kids, if we are going to continue along the crisis narrative.

      Delete
    5. Yes - it's become seen as vaguely sketchy for men to even want to e.g. become scout leaders, which is so unfair to the 99% of people who are perfectly good and community-oriented. This is a huge issue, and to be frank men have themselves to blame, here. We should be better individually and collectively about weeding out the truly bad actors.

      Delete
    6. End Patriarchy27 June 2023 at 23:11

      You know that it's women who are learning not to care about men. Men have shown that they don't care about women for thousands of years. Men only care about what women can offer them. Men have used women for a long time. Men have denied rights to women. Men have treated women very badly. Now you are getting what you deserve. No, actually you are not even getting 1% of what you deserve. But you are complaining and crying that "women want to destroy men". Men are weak. And if you think it's bad now I almost feel sorry for your sons and grandsons.

      Delete
    7. I don't really know what you are commenting on - the contents of your own head?

      Delete
  2. Thank you for this excellent post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If we can guarantee all these young men end up with Sir Ravds and not the opposite, then it's ideal, of course. That's pretty much a crapshoot, at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree. Unless you think the population is divided 50/50 into decent vs bad men, which I don't think can be sustained as an argument.

      Delete
  4. L. M. Montgomery's 1908 novel, Anne of Green Gables, is my touchstone for the great variety of things described as "feminist". If dear Anne would approve, then it is good. If Anne would recoil, then it is bad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think another interesting side of this issue is men who grew up never getting in touch with aggression or rage (not even in a healthy way), to the point where their only response to bad luck in love leads to self-hate and not embitterment - somehow outwardly projecting a facade of professional and personal success despite years of suicidal ideation. At least the pick-up artists have some kind of hope, however misguided the particulars of their approach are.

    (Definitely not speaking from personal experience here... 😅)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that pick-up artists at least have a better impulse than, say, incels, because the drive towards self-improvement is fundamentally a good thing. And actually Strauss's 'The Game' (which is a great read, by the way, regardless of whether you like the content or not) makes a lot of this aspect of pick-up artistry. The problem is that fundamentally the exercise is skewed towards looking at other people (women) purely in instrumental terms - although Strauss himself would insist otherwise - and is therefore deeply dehumanising.

      Delete
    2. It's a product of the dehumanization of males -- the idea that a man in incomplete unless he "earns" a woman through provision and labour, tied to the artificial idea that only a woman/sexual partner can give him this inherent human need for belonging and companionship. This is the whole point behind the destruction of healthy masculine relationships. And of course those men who have accepted this lifelong conditioning but can't "earn" a woman will become bitter and angry and desperate, and seek to either "cheat" or demand a woman. The answer is to examine how society dehumanised its sons, but as ever, society only complains when the negative effects start to hit women and/or governments/leaders. Always its the lower status males that are "the problem", because all responsibility is projected onto them and away from the society that conditions them.

      Delete
    3. "as ever, society only complains when the negative effects start to hit women"

      This is laughable.

      Delete
    4. Deranged Nasat23 June 2023 at 18:22

      Not at all. The only reason this entire issue is now being half-heartedly addressed is because the toll on women is becoming evident. Just as opposition to trans extremism only became recently mainstream with alarmist references to women being harmed by it; just as men and boys dying as conscripts in war is bemoaned in terms of their female relatives being distressed by their deaths. Historically, restrictions on women are lifted before obligations imposed on men, because "sexual and gender equality" is usually no such thing, but merely the traditional protectionism toward women in slightly altered form. Indeed, studies have suggested that men who treat women the same as they treat men are perceived by both men and women as "having a problem with women". Lack of benevolent secism is read as malevolent sexism, because most people don't actually want sexual and gender egalitarianism and hate it when they see it -- because it violates the protectionist paradigm. After decades of traditionalist and feminist dogma, aggressively attacking any and all efforts to address serious problems with how society relates to its sons, now the consequences can finally no longer be ignored, and so we see hand-wringing and careful probing -- not in a way that would ever overturn the boat or actually challenge conventional dogmas, but at least mainstream conversation is starting to happen. It won't lead anywhere productive, though, because people are careful to only question so far, lest they undermine the comfort to which their society is accustomed.

      Delete
  6. I'll try not to make this *too* long, and I appreciate that you're discussing this.

    The "crisis" in masculinity is due to society's lengthy (hundreds of years, kicked into overdrive over the last 70 or so) assault on healthy, natural masculinity -- the "brotherhood of man" -- in favour of exploitation of male labour for resource-acquisition, lending itself to unhealthy tournament-model sexual dynamics rather than healthy pair-bonding. It's about the long-term segregation of men -- physically and conceptually -- from "domestic" society and the family, as though they are an accessory to it, rather than integral; defining masculine worth around provision rather than inherent presence; "Women and children" (with no apparent interest in the effect on aging boys who will soon be unceremoniously transitioned into the "men" category but are now desexed, with no care for their development *as males*). This is an issue of what is called "traditionalism" and of the feminist variant (and variant it is, nothing progressive but merely further codifying and tweaking of the inherent assumptions).

    All of Terran society for the last few thousand years -- since resource surplus became a thing -- has centred around acquisition and control of those resources. Civilization is built on surplus resources. Key to all this is that, to keep the supply of excess resources coming, you socialise your sons from birth with the understanding that if they want validation, a claim to social worth, belonging and support, yet alone a family and children, they must provide resources. They must labour, or work -- or steal and raid if that’s the better option. You broke masculinity thousands of years ago so that your sons would be inclined to value resource acquisition as a means to gain security of the psyche, which you otherwise deny them. Capitalists, socialists, feminists, patriarchs, empires, republics – all variations on this same theme: how do we distribute/control the excess resources? All dependent on the continuing warped socialization of your sons, which isn’t good for them and isn’t good for anyone when it “goes wrong”, and those young men serve their own interests or someone else’s, rather than yours, “as they should”.

    And you’re all afraid to stop, because if you don’t fight for the resources someone else will take them. So you keep raising your sons as your tools to get them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To explain: The entirety of our culture and academia is built upon the feminine sexual imperative (the supposed conflict between “patriarchal” custom and “feminist” critique is merely a spat over which exact form, male-biased or female-biased, is predominant); the exclusion/stratification ranking of males based on resource potential.

    Even those who speak vaguely sympathetically about this issue are still operating within its assumptions -- always focused on *what their sons can be moulded into for the benefit of society* rather than *what society can do for its sons*. Only raising concern when the boys they've neglected start causing trouble for the people and institutional systems that they actually care about.

    What makes human males distinct from any other social mammal is the bonding and tolerance (tolerance that often goes far beyond cooperation into friendship and love) between unrelated males. The two pillars of human masculinity -- and to be blunt, humanity itself (along with, arguably, the female agrarian communal foraging that underpinned our embrace of agriculture) -- are male-male mutual regard and father-child investment. Male investment in females is hardly unique to humans or definitive of human manliness. Indeed, the most strikingly "manly" attitude to females would be to abandon the possessive investment tied to tournament sexual models and tribal competition (both of which are endemic to the chimpanzee, our closest surviving relative) and accept that women and territory are not really that important. Of course, in practice pair-bonding requires a form of possessiveness, and without that pair-bonding the tournament model will assert itself automatically. So we make do, but that involves being acutely aware of how masculine humanity is expressed, and for centuries it has been warped and ill-used by the powerful.

    Our societies are astonishingly hostile to the natural human-masculine, relegating it to small corners and promoting instead the chimpanzee-masculine. There are many misconceptions about healthy socialization as a result. Competition is not only good but necessary -- but only when it serves the communal benefit and the individual realization of potential. Healthy male societies thrive on this kind of meritocratic, mutually cooperative competition (healthy female societies tend more toward cooperative consensus, generalizing here of course). A healthy competitiveness is intrinsic to well-socialised, human male-oriented pair-bonding communities. However, few male humans are well socialised, because large-scale civilizational paradigms, be they feudalism, its capitalist mutation, or its various controlled-opposition subsidiaries, seek to prevent the formation of healthy male communities by forcing males into conflict rather than competition -- where the underlying purpose is stratification and exclusion. Which serve the ever-symbiotic female and “apex male” sexual imperatives, at the cost of most males and of both social cohesion and long-term function. The capitalist system lies: it pleads opportunity for fruitful cooperative competition and individual self-realization where in fact it suffocates and neuters them. Further, it crafts a controlled opposition, a nightmare of communism, identity politics, and socially-verified “activism” to convince the average male human -- already starved for realization and the means to express himself naturally *as* a male human -- that the system alone is his avenue for such, rather than the source of his frustration. It’s very Ministry of Plenty, and a classic abuse tactic (I'll get back to this in a moment). But then you just have to look at feudalism, capitalism, war, and organized religion to understand that they are all nothing but a labour farm, a means of harnessing the masses to the ends of the powerful (increasingly the male masses specifically, as industry, war, etc., unlike agriculture, were generally male pursuits).

    ReplyDelete
  8. It’s been shown that parents are generally less responsive to male infants than to female (e.g. taking longer to respond to their tears), and that adults of both sexes are more violent toward male infants. Other studies have shown that while a female infant will be characterised as “upset” or “scared”, a male infant demonstrating the same behaviour is more likely to be described as “angry”. From birth, then, we see that male humans are conditioned to accept harsher treatment and to be less assured of social support. This is no surprise when we consider the cultural desire to have male resource-acquisition a goal, and it is always a payment of companionship and attainment of human worth through others -- which he should be receiving from his fellow males for free, and would be in a correctly masculine society -- that is dangled in front of him to make him work. Right up to "I will happily die in a trench for my country", because without service he has no sense of his own worth. No wonder masculine companionship is denied; and the stereotype of the wife cutting her husband off from his male friendship circles makes considerable sense as an unconscious self-serving social control mechanism -- similar to the monopolising of manly comradeship in military settings. The state "owns" masculinity, you see, and only permits it in controlled, mutated forms that serve its ends.

    The goal of a healthily socialised male human is to increase the communal strength of his fellow male humans (their female partners will form part of this) and create a mutually supportive environment for his sons and daughters. Pair-bonding models permit this. The challenge here is that while the lower-status male sexual imperative is served by such organization, the apex male and female imperatives are not, although these people will also benefit. Tournament model leads to disenfranchisement of the majority of males, power imbalance within the sexually active community that affects the status of females, who become disposable and must compete for apex male attention by exaggerating their complementary feminine appeal, often to their detriment -- and even the apex male rulers don’t fully enjoy security, since they’ll face attempts by coalitions of ambitious lesser males to unseat them. Everyone benefits from the stability of pair-bonding sexuality, but this requires the curtailment of female and successful male sexual imperatives -- a tall order, and one that must be embraced voluntarily and cannot be forced on people.

    Your sons have inherent worth as contributors to the healthy expression of male humanity *by their existence*. Their worth is not based on how they can earn a place through providing resources. Removing the older males who socialise younger males into being men is indeed a disaster, but so long as it only takes note when the boys it's failed wind up causing problems -- rather than caring about what it's doing to them -- society will get nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Decent post. That said: We should absolutely exclude people from the hobby, but this exclusion should not be done based on immutable physical characteristics but on personality traits, interest in the hobby and generally malicious behavior.

    Something something five geek social fallacies something. The common conception is that if there is no gatekeeping then the place will be open to everyone and all will benefit. The reality is that if the custodians of a social group will not filter its membership based on fitness for the purpose of that social group then sooner or later malicious members will organize to filter through a configuration that benefits themselves, often in the guise of benefitting the general openness of the group.

    You can see this in the OSR. A subculture gains popularity to the point that it attracts people that have little to no interest in that subculture, but will attach themselves to it and try to change its fundamental characteristics to be more amendable to them. This is undesirable behavior from the perspective of the people inhabiting the subculture, and thus creates friction.

    I'm sure that if we survive, a guideline for accepted methods of conflict can be established in time to mediate relatively normal internal friction, but groups that can have participants that are detrimental to the functioning of those groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point but I don't think that 'we' have the power to collectively exclude or include anybody because the OSR is really just a scene rather than a true community as such. The most anybody can do is exclude people they personally know to be bad eggs from their own personal gaming groups.

      Delete
    2. I think Prince meant we should exclude undesirables from tables and social media groups, not an entire RPG scene or design philosophy.

      Delete
    3. Thankfully the OSR is dead.

      Delete
    4. The fracture is ongoing. The shards will have to be organized accordingly.

      Delete
  10. "only an idiot would suggest that the sexes cannot or should not mix in almost any activity you care to name, "
    As you wish, baby. But I stated some 40 years ago that I'm absolutely against women having to do heavy physical labor such as being roadworkers, dockers, etc. And I remain on this position, especially as with my education I now know just how detrimental it can be on their health. Of course, someone may say that modern world doesn't have such works remaining - but this is a fantasy of higher degree than any D&D book. %)
    As for mixed company in gaming - we almost always played as such. I think there is some difference - but it significantly depends on cultural codes such as "no swearing, etc. in female company"...
    And I don't think the reasons for "crisis of masculinity" are as stated in this post - it's most probably just another symptom of the general civilization (and economy) crisis which we are lucky ;) to watch in real time.
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  11. I saw a wag on another website recently say 'in future generations, children will ask their dads, "Daddy, were all the men of the 21st century castrated, or did they just act that way?"' Part of it is nothing other than that generation of men who said there is no level to which we won't sink as long as we can, well, you know, where women are concerned.' Now we're seeing that little contract play out. And because of the heavy degree of group identity defining our age, I know women who make a Baptist tent revival preacher seem liberal by comparison, who will nonetheless circle the feminine wagons the minute you say 'but isn't there at least some problems with our modern approach to feminism and men's roles in society?'.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for the thoughts! Having been raised by an emotionally distant father, it's been quite a ride for me to reflect on my own emotional landscape as a man and develop healthy ways of expressing vital male behaviors, such as properly tempered aggression. Intergenerational all-male groups would have been tremendously helpful in my adolescence, as I've observed their benefits in others.

    I distinctly recall the PU boom making an impression on my thinking a decade or so ago. It shook some of my long-held views on family life by asking very, very awkward questions. I didn't like their answers, but asking was enough. In hindsight, I find many of the guys in that scene absolutely pathetic. Roosh V turned out more interesting than the others, jumping into the deep end of Eastern Orthodox religion a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really know enough about the PUA thing - I literally just have read The Game, which I think is a tour de force of gonzo journalism.

      I'm not sure emotional distance is always all that terrible - there needs to be a good balance between emotional distance and emotional incontinence. It's my firm belief, for instance, that a lot of boys suffer from being told they should be more in touch with their emotions. For me it's much more important, and a source of pride and dignity, to be able to ignore my emotions in many circumstances - and I think probably young men could do with hearing that a bit more.

      Delete
    2. I don't disagree about the need for temperance when it comes to male emotions. The endless litany of "it's OK to cry" is particularly deleterious for boys and young men. While crying is a perfectly appropriate response to severe losses, wallowing in sorrow tends to be a masturbatory sort of emotionally. In the case of my father, I simply meant that he didn't seem to care about anything, and lacked direction in his life, except for the context of work. I inherited that lack of direction, and have had to work on "connecting to my emotions" in the sense that I actually feel the good things in life to be actually worth pursuing. It's less about the mushy stuff and more about channeling dissatisfaction into motivation.

      Delete
  13. While I grok the premise here (that boys need mature men to learn how to be men), the fact is that older men can also instill poor lessons in the boys who idolize/lionize them as well...even well-meaning adult men who happen to be ignorant in some way, shape, or form.

    This is a damn complex issue (duh), and not one so easily solved as saying we need more male bonding groups. There ARE socio-economic reasons behind the "crisis of masculinity," but from my POV the crisis is mainly an issue of resistance to change BACK from a model that's been out of balance for the last hundred years or so. Our society has been patriarchal for longer than that, of course, but division of labor (and thus self-value/sense of worth) was much more evenly distributed before that. A peasant woman in preindustrial society did as much work as men in addition to caring for children...we forget, in our age of department stores, how time consuming and labor intense is the manufacture (by hand) of textiles.

    Our ability to use technology to create convenience for ourselves...and then more convenience and then MORE convenience... led to the prior imbalance. Women being "good for nothing" but cooking, cleaning, and raising children. Men being the most important sex as "the bread winners" through the sweat of their brow. Clothes and food purchased with earnings for work. Women competing for men who were good earners. Men objectifying women.

    And, of course, modern marketing (television advertising) reinforcing this, telling men they were "kings of their castles" and showing women ways to be the better housemaker for their men.

    The feminist movement has, in fits and spurts (for decades), attempted to rectify this imbalance. The sexes are different, but are of equal value. Greater equality in education and increased automation has been the thing to finally get the job done (more-or-less): now instead of both men and women being equally miserable, they are equally 'convenienced' (or miserable in different ways).

    But this change has been difficult for men who for GENERATIONS have been told "Oh, the world is this way." Who have learned and been taught by older men, in addition to the media.

    That there is widespread addiction (to booze, opioids, pornography, video games, internet hate groups, etc.) or higher rates of suicide among men is understandable: for many, it is far easier to "escape" than to adapt or shift a world view that has been ingrained into men since before their grandfathers' time. And the commodification of their disillusionment (the opportunists using their crisis for financial and political gain) only makes things worse.

    I was raised in a two parent home till the age of 17. My father was absent A LOT because he was "busy working" while my mother was a homemaker. I did Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts (and my father was Scoutmaster and active participant). I participated on numerous sports teams (poorly) with all male teammates and mostly male coaches. I was an altar server at my (Catholic) church at a time when they only had male altar servers, and we'd get the occasional picnic with the priest as a reward for our service. I've had lots of "male mentoring" over the years.

    I'd say that NONE of it prepared me for the paradigm flip of being the stay-at-home father (after being a "working man" for 25 years). Only time and self-reflection has helped me come a place where I can value myself and my role. And it's STILL challenging.

    There's no easy fix to this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary Harrington, who I mentioned, writes a lot about the issues you raise and it would be worth tracking down her book.

      Where I would quibble with you is the idea that the change to greater equality has been 'difficult for men' because they have been told for 'generations' that 'the world is this way'. That might still affect old farts like you or I but it isn't by any means true of the young men I encounter as a university academic. If you're 18 in 2023 you've basically been raised on a cultural diet that tells you pretty much the diametric opposite narrative of the one you're telling. The problem for young men today is *not* disappointment at having been told they are the most important sex and then discovering that they are not. The problem for young men today is having been told since they were small that, directly or indirectly, they are A Problem.

      Delete
    2. "The problem for young men today is having been told since they were small that, directly or indirectly, they are A Problem."

      Huh. That's interesting. Because I live in "progressive Seattle" and that's not the messaging to the boys here (although I've only been involved in the school system for the last eight years or so). The boys I've seen with low self-esteem seem to have it for the usual reasons, not a sense of displacement or belief that they are "A Problem."

      [certainly as a coach of youth (boys) sports that is NOT the messaging, nor the messaging of the governing leagues (baseball, soccer, basketball) who hand down methods of coaching and conduct emphasizing respect, fair play, sportsmanship, and competitive spirit]

      SO...is it a growing issue? Or is it a single generation of men of a certain age demographic (18-25) who bore the brunt of a whiplash effect?

      RE this:

      "The problem for young men today is *not* disappointment at having been told they are the most important sex and then discovering that they are not."

      Yeah, I was referring to the disgruntled individuals in their (late) 30s to 50s that I encounter on occasion, i.e. the men of "prime working age" referenced in the New Yorker article you linked.

      Delete
    3. I agree for those men it could be an issue but honestly I don't think for most of even men in that age bracket it is. I think mostly the unhappy men in that age bracket are unhappy for the usual reasons people are unhappy - crap or no job, crap or no relationships, crap health. It's just that there are lots more men in that category now than there were 50 years ago.

      Delete
  14. Food for thought, and some thoughtful comments too.

    @noisms, do you think that a "mental" pursuit like D&D can provide the same benefit as a physical pursuit, e.g. karate? I read somewhere recently (can't find it now) about a study that suggested that mental health/support groups for men were more effective when coupled with physical activity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tough to say and depends on the person, I think, but I can buy it.

      I want to make clear though that I have a bit of an allergy to men's mental health/support groups that bill themselves as such. Much more suitable is men getting together to do activities for their own sake, which usually has an unconscious mental health benefit.

      Delete
    2. "Much more suitable is men getting together to do activities for their own sake" Yes - men relate through doing, and through talking about doing (even if they're eg football fans talking about other people doing), not through talking about feelings & relationships & such in isolation.

      Delete
    3. I think I agree, but I wonder whether D&D is closer to "doing" or to "talking about feelings & relationships".

      Delete
    4. I suppose tabletop gaming's a way of simulating physical activity and group problem-solving, that may have some drawbacks compared to actual exertion, but has the potential to draw together people who don't have the physical fitness needed and may have been bullied out of any attempt to improve physically. And it does have the advantage of taking place in real space, especially if you ban phones from the table (as I'm a hair's breadth away from doing in my ongoing game).

      Delete
    5. Yes. Also - banning phones is something I am increasingly in favour of *in general*, let alone just at the RPG table!

      Delete
  15. "from time to time and when nobody is being deliberately left-out"

    What do you think about having - from time to time, not exclusively - a deliberately single sex game that does exclude female players? I always preferred mixed-sex groups and I still enjoy them a lot, but I do think there is something of value in an all-male RPG group. Perhaps particularly for my son. It wouldn't occur to me to object to a female-only gamer group, but I think we've been inculcated to think of male-only spaces as wrong, 'toxic'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the inculcation that there is something illegitimate about male-only spaces is daft, but I also don't really like the idea of excluding any individual person except on the grounds of dickishness.

      Delete
  16. There is a pressing need for face to face social activities in society. Its not easy to get anymore for anybody, and tabletop rpgs are one of the things that can help.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Read Caliban and the Witch. You're way too ignorant to be speaking on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whereas you, who have read a piece of Marxian cultural critique written 20 years ago, KNOW ALL.

      Delete
  18. Lots of insight here. I would like to add a lot but I'd end up with a brick of similar size. I'd just like to point that this is the first time in history in which positive models are being activelly destroyed.

    Also one thing that is worthy or highlighting is that there are no laws or situations that benefit one gender towards the other or viceversa; while the same is true for races or other divisive traits.

    A just law or situation is beneficial to everyone, while an unjust law or situation is beneficial to noone, though sometimes some sick people thinks so because it benefits their perceived interests that are not even beneficial to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if it is the first time in history in which positive role models are being actively destroyed - but I agree with you that it is happening, and that it is very disheartening.

      Delete
  19. Good post.
    But you guys in the first world are much affraid to say the simple trues. How much excuses and relativism and soy diet.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As a guy in the "disaffected" range (23), some loose thoughts.

    Firstly I'm not totally behind your priors. I don't think that society at large is telling men my age that they are inherently evil. It is saying that some traditional male behaviours are no longer acceptable due to the harm they do to others and ourselves (toxic), and asking us to recognize that our society has historically favored men and still does though to a much lesser extent than the past (we have privledge). Neither of these are an inherent problem with the individual due to being male. It might seem like a silly distinction but I think it's very important as it doesn't damn one simply for being male.

    That said, I do think these messages are hard to distinguish from one another, and I had difficulty separating them when I was younger. 4chan was a negative influence at that time, largely claiming that society was making the inherent evil argument as a way to rile up impressionable idiots such as myself.

    Feminism in my eyes is unabashedly a good thing for women and society at large; as you say it's not a zero sum game. But it's unconcerned with men except as an obstacle. Men who adopt feminism as a philosophy in good faith are in my experience very stunted individuals. (Those who adopt it in bad faith are simply hypocritical pickup artists who ought to be reviled) There is no equivalent movement for men, the men's rights movement has undercurrents of addressing men's issues but is hampered by deep misogyny.

    Feminism has successfully destroyed the traditional role of men in society. This does leave men without a clear blueprint in the absence of role models. It is interesting though that it has also done the same for women, yet there is no accompanying crisis of femininity. I view the breakup of these roles as a good thing; it allows individuals to choose the best path for themselves.

    I agree wholeheartedly that young men and young people in general need good role models. I'm more suspicious about monogendered activities, but having gone through Scouts I do get what you mean. That said I do also think I would be a much poorer person if about half of my friends growing up hadn't been women. I think both types of groups are necessary. In my experience with mixed groups, either gender is pretty good about splitting off once in awhile anyways. I've also noticed around younger cousins and family friends that young women are increasingly boyish, which is interesting as their male counterparts don't strike me as any more girlish. Who knows how that impacts the gender dynamic.

    I will also say that as someone who has been in the sausagefest of engineering school for the last half decade, I don't think underexposed to men is my current personal problem :)

    A lot of people in the comments seem to blame videogames. Point blank, without them I'd probably be dead by suicide by now. I've been able to build a strong online community through video gaming. Its not a replacement for face to face interaction but a baseline to keep me sane when I can't get it. It helped me survive the pandemic. And yeah it's entirely a group of men. Were there for each other, full stop. I do think that social media causes brainrot, though. Our society has reorganized itself around the internet rather than in-person interaction, which isn't good for anyone.

    With regards to porn, by my understanding women my age have had just as much exposure to it as men, for better or worse. (Though they do tend towards different forms).

    I have personally benefited from male role models and exclusively male activities, both from my father (the primary homemaker in my household, fwiw) and from Boy Scouts. I did well in school. If your hypothesis is correct this may mean my experiences aren't good indicators of what the men in apparently in crisis are going through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deranged Nasat24 June 2023 at 03:37

      Telling boys that they're privileged when they aren't, and normalising a feminist view of history -- which is warped and selective in focus at best and based largely in mistruth -- is inherently abusive. Taking a social system that already obsessed over female protectionism with an active male bias and switching to an inherent female bias merely removes what half-functional balances were in place to begin with. You even acknowledge that there has been no equivalent female crisis. Of course not, they remain the centre as they always have been, with society as hypersensitive to perceived threat to them as ever, only without restrictions and with little reciprocal obligations, while the position of obligation and responsibility held by males has barely shifted, and the long-term trend of their distancing from the domestic heart has only accelerated. Without even touching on the long history of feminist misrepresentation -- their hijacking of the domestic violence movement and devastating recasting of a complex issue as gendered being one of the "highlights" -- the fact is that almost all legitimate issues faced by women stem from society's female protectionism paradigm, a paradigm that is not only aggressively reinforced by almost all forms of feminism, but is inherent to the ideology's political and social success. It tells society what it has always been ready and willing to hear. Feminism will not and cannot drop female protectionism and you yourself note its inherent female bias on the paradigm, in contrast to the "traditionalis" male bias. The button of social hypersensitivity to the female is pressed again and again, even as doing so leads to ever further dysfunction for everyone, women included. In some ways, in fact, particularly for women. And since I don't share the protectionist paradigm, you can be sure that this isn't a kneejerk concern about women but one to take seriously.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 year old - thanks for the nuanced and thoughtful comment.

      I am not a men's rights activitist and I think that movement is a very foolish one, generally based around embitterment and grievances that are not well (or at all) justified. I've also done okay in life from a very unprivileged start, so I don't feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.

      My concern is your own observation that the message being sent to young men seems to be: 'saying that some traditional male behaviours are no longer acceptable due to the harm they do to others and ourselves (toxic), and asking us to recognize that our society has historically favored men and still does though to a much lesser extent than the past (we have privledge)'

      I think if I was a young man hearing that (especially a young working class or underclass man growing up in a poor area with no prospects) my reaction would be: a) how is what happened before I was born my fault?; and b) how does society currently favour men, given that girls seem to be doing better in school, better in the jobs market, and are also depicted universally more favourably than boys in films, books, TV, etc.? This would then lead me to pretty resentful and disaffected places. Especially if I don't have any good male role models in my own life to look up to.

      I'm interested in what to do about that problem, and I don't think the solution can just be saying to young boys from deprived backgrounds 'get over your privilege'. All that's going to do is make them more resentful and disaffected rather than less.

      Delete
  21. Try this, gamer geeks, for a way you can help with the alleged "crisis in masculinity." (1) beget or adopt a son; loving co-parent very helpful but not required. (2) be involved with and raise your son to contribute to this world, hopefully continuing after your death. While you're at it, you might (3) learn more about the varieties of human life outside of your own relatively tiny and temporary society and (4) stop making absurd echo-chamber generalizations about "our culture," "all of academia," "the first time in civilization," "the crisis of [whatever you happen to be thinking of]," and such remarks.

    Also, RPGs are fun. Males can play it with just other males if they want, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can also play it with non-males. Why bother paying attention to anybody who says otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this well-informed and helpful comment.

      Delete
    2. Deranged Nasat24 June 2023 at 05:51

      One does not raise children in a vacuum, is the point. A son or daughter will have to integrate into a society, with larger shared narratives and cultural trends, to say nothing of entrenched traditions and assumptions, that they will have to navigate and come to terms with, and often at least partially assimilate. They will be shaped by, and shape, the culture they live in, and all cultures and societies are not only increasingly interlinked but the product of millennia of development, exchange and migration that built on commonalities stemming from shared human instinct and environmental pressures. There is no such thing -- outside of a few outleiers -- as a person, family, culture or society that stands alone; a single industrialised empire, to give just one example, has stamped over half of the world the outlooks developed through its own history of continuous colonisation, conquests, and mixing. Of course the most useful thing is to live your life and raise your children, but you won't be able to do that in a bubble even if you wanted to. The world and its history are big and multifaceted, that's why people concern themselves with things like this to begin with.

      Delete
  22. A few things on this: It has been proven that same sex groups, especially in the adolescent age, allows for a far wider social development in that group than in mixed groups. In groups there is a need for certain amount of roles, and in the mixed ones those roles will mostly gravitate to the "traditional" gender roles. In same sex groups those roles will also be filled, but by necessity these will have to be filled by just the sex present. Therefore leader roles, and nurturing roles are not able to default to the traditional" gender roles. So same-sex groups for women is also a good thing for their social development.
    The other thing is about mixed sex and\or gender player groups. As a GM I always like to have those. In my experience the different playing styles give extra depth, and challenges to adventures and GM's. As I always say: PC at top of the stairs in a throne room, and guards coming up those stairs: Male players: I jump to the chandelier, and either escape that way, or attack them from the side. Female player: I ask the GM if there is a carpet on the stairs. If yes, I yank it loose, and thereby all the guards loose their footing. Different ways of looking at things, and solving problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment. I am sure that your first paragraph is right - it's certainly the case that in mixed-sex groups boys (and grown men for that matter) often tend to feel the need to be boisterous and show off, while the shy ones tend to get very introverted - and that's probably not good for the social development of either sex if they never have an opportunity to experience anything different. (Again, nobody is saying that single-sex spaces should be the norm - just a part of life.)

      Delete
    2. Deranged Nasat24 June 2023 at 06:05

      Reading the comments, I must admit to finding it a little baffling how many people seem to find either mixed-sex groups or single-sexed groups to present some form of social difficulty. To me, it's like a lot of people are stuck on relating to others by their sex (I should add that indifference to someone's sex doesn't mean you're saying the two sexes don't have differences in distribution curves and averages, or are interchangeable. It just means you don't distinguish, unless you sense that a sex-specific socialization is taking place, in which you give the other sex some temporary space). I've always moved from mixed groups to all male to being the only male, ever since I was an infant. I was always welcome I all and at home in all. The only situation where I wouldn't be is in a female sex-specific scene, which I'm not going to try to enter -- why would I be so rude as to do that?

      Delete
  23. Don't know if I should write or not. I don't know if I fall into the age bracket of disaffected age range, I'm 26 and my behavior has been consistent with schizotypal personality disorder, it is basically schizophrenia-lite, where you don't experience any vivid hallucinations, but still have odd beliefs and thoughts.
    Speaking from personal experience, I agree with you that male role models are good, not just to boys but to girls as well and I practice martial arts and have a few experiences at the gym that you described, with instructors helping me when I flip out. I am grateful and find them praiseworthy. However, the point where I disagree with you is that I think perhaps a older woman instructor could have done the same thing to help me. In fact, I can think of times when that did happen at school.
    What I don't like hearing is this conception that feminism and the left
    (and for that matter LGBTQ+) are somehow the bad people and are the problem. I think that most are either focusing on different problems or actually trying to help (some exceptions of course) (and you can disagree with how they think the help should be done), yet they are blamed for the problem, its blaming the one trying to help and support. Not only that, I think we live in a culture, Western culture, that also blames the victim, men and males, saying to them that if they are not rolling in money and girls that they are somehow not worthy and defective.
    The only other thing to say is that I think you are misreading toxic masculinity, I think the original intention was to say that patriarchy holds up this fractured, distorted version of masculinity. I think it was poorly named because I would use the word twisted masculinity rather than toxic. Though sometimes there are people and environments that will not change and it is better just to leave them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I understand that last paragraph - the trouble is that the people who came up with this critique have absolutely nothing to offer as a positive alternative.

      If patriarchy is a 'fractured, distorted version of masculinity' then what's a non-fractured, non-distorted one?

      Delete
    2. Well, I said that patriarchy hold up this 'fractured, distorted version of masculinity' not that it is just a 'fractured, distorted version of masculinity'. Patriarchy is more than that, it is also systems as well as a bunch of other things that I likely don't know or can get into.
      For an answer of a non-fractured, non-distorted one, I'm a little put on the spot, though I think definitely there are examples in media. I could say Matt Hooper from Jaws comes to mind.
      The problem with answering your question is that anyone can come in with "Well, what about this part of the character or movie? Doesn't that aspect discredit your statement saying that this is an example of a non-toxic masculine character?"
      Same with subcultures or whatever, there are good actors and bad actors in everything, and nothing's and no one's perfect.
      I would say, for lack of a better term, my view on masculinity is that it is a totemic. It is not biological, yet it isn't simple a social construction. It is almost a quasi-religious thing, like how people try to imitate religious figures. (They're are many people who would disagree with me on that and that's fine.)
      Perhaps the best examples of masculinity are the experiences we are describing at martial arts gyms, and I count myself as grateful to be at a gym with a good community.

      Delete
    3. WrongOnTheInternet9 July 2023 at 07:18

      "Religion" kind of hits the nail on the head for me in terms of descriptiveness. Like any religion, it has its good points, its great works, its horrible excesses, its holy wars, its schisms. We shouldn't be too surprised then, when the "Toxic Masculinity" draws all the attention in the same way "Westboro Baptist Church" does (or did), and both the practice of and the inordinate amount of attention to this hateful sect infuriates more sensible and humane practitioners of the masculinity religion.

      Delete
  24. I used to worry about this until I realised how much brainwashing comes from TV FILM MSM NEWS and in whose hands these lie since WWII (US and I won't say further), and it took me a very long time to realise that Europe was, and remains, occupied by the US after WWII.

    I stopped worrying about brainwashing when I realised it is unsustainable. In the absence, at the death, of you-name-it propaganda, within one generation people will revert to their genetic norm, and the world will start to resemble the late victorian era again.

    There is no doubt a war between propagandising oligarchs and normal people but I don't believe they can sustain their propaganda, so I see masculinity returning naturally every time they slip.
    ----
    Kadot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the current mores are artificially enforced by US occupation after WWII, but the late Victorian mores are natural and genetic?

      Such bullshit.

      Delete
  25. The phrase “toxic masculinity” does not mean that masculinity is toxic, rather it is a specific form of masculinity that was originally coined by the men’s movement to describe behavior adopted by boys trying to act masculine but deprived of positive male role models.

    To say otherwise is a, imo baffling, misunderstanding of how adjectives work. Its like claiming that the phrase “its unsafe to eat rotten meat” somehow implies that all meat is rotten and one should adopt a vegan lifestyle.

    IMO trying to link boys being told they are toxic to increased suicide rates is a lot like blaming the doctor’s diagnosis for causing the disease. Toxic masculinity includes being unwilling to seek help or support for problems, both physical and emotional, and is likely a cause of a great deal of the mental health crises that end in violence toward self or others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm perfectly aware what 'toxic masculinity' is supposed to mean.

      The point is that without a positive alternative of what masculinity means, 'toxicity' quickly becomes the only thing anybody talks about, and it's very easy to slide from there into general man-bashing. You'd have to be deliberately obtuse not to notice this tendency in the culture.

      You or I might have a sensible understanding of all of this, but I suspect a lot of 11 year old boys hear 'toxic masculinity' and in their brains this gets turned into 'boys = bad'.

      Delete
  26. To a bunch of you anons... do a bit of research huh? "Being unwilling to seek help" is a wise choice these days.

    https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

    ReplyDelete