Being a Man, Plus ça Change

It is not manly to whinge, for whinging comes too close to self-pity which is a corrosive habit.

I say this as someone who has done a great deal of what might be called whinging (in writing), albeit on behalf of male humans in general, not myself.

The modern whinge is victimhood. I would be mortified if my oeuvre on male disadvantages were misinterpreted as a play in the victimhood Olympics. It is by no means a bad thing that men are disqualified from entry into those regrettable games.

Being a man is not easy nowadays, people say. A man never knows what is expected of him anymore, apparently.

Really? Are you sure? And when was it ever easy?

Admittedly, when it is the nature of masculinity itself which is the unscrupulous means of attack, one may be forgiven for being wrong-footed, initially.

“…one must admit that this attack [on traditional masculinity] is to be preferred to being shot at.”

Whatever the broader implications of the attempt to undermine traditional masculinity, as far as the immediate impact upon an individual is concerned one must admit that this attack is to be preferred to being shot at. More significantly, it is to be preferred to working 12-plus hour days, six days per week, at labour so hard that most modern men would wilt after a hour or two of it. We are no longer digging 4,000 miles of canals and 20,000 miles of railroads by hand with picks and shovels. Our engineering feats are just as impressive, but it is machines which do the heavy lifting now. Let us have some perspective. It was never easy being a man.  

The rational counter to the false narrative about masculinity is important and must continue. The benefit of the empirical approach is not that it provides a means of convincing the sceptic (lamentably) but rather that it provides objective justification for the moral probity of a position taken in defence of the truths thus established.

The empirical approach readily uncovers the all-pervading disadvantages men suffer – many of them of ancient lineage. More recently these disadvantages have been seriously exacerbated by partisan actions. The implacable undermining of fatherhood and the eradication of respect for men are perhaps the two most egregious. These things, and many more, have been imposed upon men from without – by society and the State. They do not result from inherent flaws in masculinity, but rather masculinity is made the scapegoat: denigration was ever the handmaiden of discrimination.

“…an attack upon masculinity is an attack upon one’s sense of self, of identity. …What, then, is the right psychological defence against such an attack?”

What, then, to do about it? Undoubtedly there are myriad matters practical and political to be addressed, but these difficult problems are not our concern here. Our concern is with matters psychological. This is more than usually important because an attack upon masculinity is an attack upon one’s sense of self, of identity. It is systemic psychic aggression.

What, then, is the right psychological defence against such an attack? Empirical truths, crucial in establishing moral validity and rational understanding, are nevertheless powerless to effect a remedy against this psychological aggression. What, then, is the remedy?

If the problem is the destruction of a stable identity, then the cure is to re-establish a stable identity.

This cannot be done by inventing an arbitrary persona and attempting to force your self into an unnatural shape. Mental health involves being comfortable within your own skin, and your skin knows its own mind, so to speak. The malleability of a product of millennia of evolution is limited. A stable identity is best constructed around its natural, traditional core.

Respect for men has been badly eroded, and this is, perhaps, the most serious of the problems. To reverse the trend, demanding respect will not work. Respect must be inspired by behaviour.

Do we truly not know what is expected of us anymore?

Everyone knows what it is to be a man. “Be a man” is an exhortation which is understood - QED.

If this is not sufficient, then simply equate “man” with “gentleman”. You know what that means without explanation. (Victorian associations with men of independent financial means can be jettisoned now – as can any implications regarding class). Here are some clues if that is not enough: the primacy of integrity, being undemonstrative, modest, mannerly – even courteous – and striving to be virtuous. You may opine that these should equally apply to women. I would agree. But there are different obligations upon men and women. For women there is the little matter of having the monopoly of the means by which the human race can perpetuate, which is a weighty obligation indeed and may not be a welcome one for some. On the other hand, men are expected to perform in order to be men. Women are human beings, men are human doings. Men cannot rest upon their laurels but need constantly to renew their claim to manhood, or it will lapse with their last failure.

The asymmetry between the sexes is stark in the matter of parenthood. A woman’s status as mother is assured by biology. But it takes society, culture and legislature to make fatherhood.    

You may demur on the grounds that this is palpably unfair. Yes, it is. Get used to it. Getting used to it is part of being a man – and a woman. And in so doing you will necessarily accept that the genders are different.

Another objection is that this advice hardly helps with genuine, and serious, disadvantages imposed upon a man – such as being sundered from his children without due cause, or being locked up in prison for something he did not do. Quite true, “being a man” does not assist with such practical problems, which are within the realm of lobbying and politics. You can be the greatest paragon and still be treated abominably by a system and culture which has become seriously discriminatory. There are, however, things that younger men can do to reduce the likelihood of ending up in such a position. Part of being a man is, after all, to exercise judgment and prudence. Here’s one example:

You are not obliged to associate socially with those whose company will be degrading.

There is nothing aggressive about this, and it is best to avoid explicit explanation as far as possible. The message lies in the action. 

Your aims should be integrity, self-respect and the respect of others, plus a conscious commitment to the personal virtues. My thesis is that these are the cornerstones of mental health.

The temptation is to react to the male disadvantages – especially those amplified by the State and by individuals for personal advantage – with anger. It is known in some quarters as “red-pill rage”. As a temporary condition it may be unavoidable. But it is necessary to move beyond it, because it is a destructive condition. The temptation to adopt a disparaging attitude to life in general takes you further away from your goal of being a man, and actually plays into the hands of the critics of men and masculinity. Maintaining a courteous attitude towards women, for example, elevates you rather than belittles you. And it does not (necessarily) imply any desire for intimacy.

Whether young men might wish to engage in marriage, cohabitation or fathering children is a practical matter upon which they deserve to be informed as regards the quantifiable risks involved – and then to decide for themselves. But “being a man” is their first and higher duty, to themselves and to others.

Scroll down to join the discussion


Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.


Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.



Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.


.

Rick Bradford

Rick Bradford is a semi-retired engineer and theoretical physicist. He is the author of the book The Empathy Gap under the pen name William Collins. He has been married since the dawn of time and has two sons in their mid-30s who show encouraging signs of being men.

Previous
Previous

Men Bereaved by Abortion

Next
Next

Male rape in the media: The forgotten victims.