Yes to this. But our sexually mixed-up 21st century West needs another poetic invocation, one that ends with....."and you'll be a woman, my daughter".
That 'poem' would need to untangle itself from feminism and be capacious enough to encompass both the reality that SOME women can make great leaders and chief executives but equally that MOST women are more comfortable with a more 'traditional', semi-patriarchal relationship between the sexes.
Agreed, but the poem is an aspiration for a 'type', irrespective of gender. Both men and women can aspire to the type. My daughter, who is a structural engineer, views the poem as applying to her as well.
The divorce councelor I talked to at the end of my first marriage thought the poem inhuman and cruel. I disagreed. A viewpoint difference. I think the gestalt of the culture is closer to the counselor than to Kipling or me. From my point of view, rather unfortunate.
My point was that if we are to retrieve a better understanding of men and women we need to push back a bit on the drearily asexual "irrespective of gender" mantra that has so distorted late 20th century thinking.
1. The aspirational model has been quite helpful to me. I've found through literature figures who guide my thinking as to what I should be as a man, specifically, Sir Gawain (wh I believe explicitly functioned this way in the high middle ages) and Phineas Finn. Granted, it's hard to get anyone to read books, especially worthwhile ones, these days. My guess is a decent father helps young men to an extreme degree.
2. You will probably never get a good answer to "what is a man?" from the progressive left because the question implies one about the political body, "what place do men have in society?," which they won't want to answer because any talk of social order seems to suggest hierarchy, at least to them. You see this in "Barbie", which raises the latter question but imo ignores answering it for the most part, as the movie leaves Barbieland in a political status that hardly seems stable.
Bonus thought. It's pretty asinine in my opinion that we keep acting like masculinity and femininity are complete opposites. I don't see why there would be any reason (from nature or common experience) to think this. Therefore, I agree with your friend that both genders ought to simply pursue virtue with the caveat that virtue is almost surely to manifest itself differently in a man than in a woman.
“both genders ought to simply pursue virtue with the caveat that virtue is almost surely to manifest itself differently in a man than in a woman.”-- perfectly stated
Phineas Finn is a hilarious choice but I based on that think I’d love to meet you at a party. Or perhaps youre too stoic and timely to be sidetracked at a party like that. Either way, great book.
I agree that the more we attempt to reach beyond biological reality the more we realise how fundamental it is. Most women will have children. If they breastfeed (which is recommended by health bodies the world over), that entails being with your baby 24/7. If you breastfeed optimally for your own health as a woman (substantially reducing future cancer risk) and the babies health this entails being with your baby 24/7 for at least 12 months. If you have two children we are looking at a period of up to 3-4 years when a woman is caring and nurturing round the clock. In that time she will be economically dependant. This is where the male role stems from- to be a provider and protector. Feminism does have to answer for the fact that this reality is not disclosed to young women for fear that this circumscribes what women want for their lives. In our atomised individualised state we’ve lost connection with this reality and are forced to learn it anew in every generation.
You're overstating this somewhat. My child wasn't fully weaned until he was three, and we never used a bottle, but I was nevertheless able to return to full time work after eight months. This is because (a) children start eating solids in addition to breast milk after 6 months or so, and (b) my husband was taking care of my child for the latter half of the first year, and we lived close enough to my work that he could simply bring our baby in for me to breastfeed sometimes.
The reality of caring for an infant as a mother should certainly be taken into account, when considering differences in life trajectories between the sexes. In particular, pregnancy and childbirth are personality-changing experiences to some extent. But it's important not to go too far in the other direction, either. I appreciate acknowledgment of what motherhood is like, but I'm wary of overly categorical statements about it.
Yes agreed. Also even if biological/procreative demands do shape male and female roles it doesn’t mean they should be predominant when we try to define men and women. But I am aware that our attempts to give women equality of opportunity should not erase the reality that women rather than men choose to return to work part time rather than full time after birth. It is startling how gendered this is- the world over esp Scandinavia. Finally pandemic lockdowns revealed just how patriarchal most domestic arrangements are. In UK women undertook the vast portion of childcare and housework even where male/female income was equal.
It should also be pointed out that getting married, and having kids, are two of those big life events where everyone else seems entitled to show up with their opinions, baggage, and bullshit, in an attempt to ‘help.’
Threading the needle of ‘doing the best you can,’ in a variety of areas of life,’ very rarely seems to line up with paying ‘due respect,’ to the ‘wisdom’ on offer.
But if society truly valued the non-motherhood contributions of mothers, there would be no reason why a woman couldn't return to work with appropriate breastfeeding accommodations. We could even do a 32-hour work week, which would be healthier and saner for everyone.
And what you describe as the "male role" would actually be more traditionally done by extended kin and community members of both sexes. Humans evolved to be cooperative and interdependent - literally everyone in a band would be in some sort of "provider and protector" role.
I think feminism does have an answer, one that is loudly promulgated and that is increasingly popular amongst young women:
Children are bad, dont have children. Thats the only premise under which feminism (anti-patriarchy) works so its only logical (and observably abundantly true) that anti-natalist attitudes are being preached.
I don't think it's fair to say that feminism as a whole preaches anti-natalist attitudes or that children are bad, although there are some more extremists in the movement who might.
The feminist movement as a whole suggests that women should know and be able to talk openly about the *work* that goes into childbirth and rearing, acknowledge downsides as well as the upsides, and be able to make the choice of whether to have children for themselves. What effect this knowledge has is dependent on the individual woman...
Aug 5, 2023·edited Aug 6, 2023Liked by Christine Emba
I think there are two different questions here. One is about the future we long for: what might gender look like in a post patriarchal world? and the other is about the bridge from here to there: if we accept the premise that men are struggling, what supports might they (we!) need in the present as we move toward a new relationship with gender?
I'm very much in the camp of focusing on reimagining masculinity is barking up the wrong tree. And: I very much agree that we have to meet people where they are at. I do think we urgently need new aspirational identities, that can move us toward the post-supremacist, post-patriarchal world we long for; some thoughts on what that might look like here for others who hold this inquiry: https://citizenstout.substack.com/p/belonging-and-the-identity-trap
What do you mean by post-supremacist here? Isn't part of the problem that we associate masculinity to male supremacy, which leads us to thinking of the word "toxic" whenever we also hear the word masculinity?
I'm afraid that this attitude on the part of progressives makes them seem like Martians to many non-progressives. The average person is quite happy to think that being a "good man" or a "good woman" is something that can be defined and described. Furthermore, attempting to eliminate "harm" is sheer utopian folly. It's astonishing that nominal adults actually think this way.
Yes, some of this is so self-evident that it begins to seem like progressives, rather than conservatives, are the evidence-free, reality avoidant group. We talk about this in more detail in the upcoming pod with Christine, so stay tuned for that.
“Well, you can't never let anything happen to him. Then nothing would ever happen to him. Not much fun for little Harpo.”
BUT, *trying* not to hurt people, (in the absence of defending self or others against naked aggression) is still a pretty good aim. Trying to ‘eliminate’ anything is just another extreme viewpoint.
Part of that will require at least *some* self-awareness, as well as understanding that you can’t always predict how someone else will react.
Putting politically correct language to one side, “Just don’t be a f***ing douchebag,” should work for anyone, whether man, woman, or anything else on that spectrum.
Might doesn’t make right, white doesn’t make right, going to church doesn’t necessarily make you a good person.
Christine, your essay in the Washington Post and now this follow up piece have cost me many hours of contemplation on a subject that had not been on my radar. I stewed on the Post piece for damn near a week, I sent it to the parents of a young man who I know to be suffering explicitly from this lack of direction for men, and I find myself constantly drifting off into trains of thought about what, if anything, could be done to correct course.
Incredible work. And thank you for writing these pieces.
With that said, I’ve struggled to imagine what a good standard/direction for men would be because I get stuck on your well put point #3 about boxing in.
I’m curious, what have been the most convincing suggestions you’ve come across from the feedback you’ve received since writing the initial essay?
Thanks for reading and sharing both! There was a call-out box in the original essay asking readers to write in and describe their ideal of masculinity. It got over 350 responses, almost all of them multi-paragraph and very thoughtful. A lot of themes repeated. I'm compiling some of those into a piece that will run in the Post next week!
Otherwise -- yes, it's tough. I think one of the most important suggestions was that there be a multiplicity of models, not just one. Not everyone has to be John Wayne; Fred Rogers was a good man, too. There are, however, a number of themes that do seem to recur: character (standing by your word, ambition to better yourself and the world), protection (defending others and especially those weaker than you), service (to your family and community), mastery (of your self, and of a skill, ideally)...
Another article on the way? Gee thanks, now I'm in that awkward position of deciding whether to subscribe to the whole Washington Post just to read your work...
I grew up with a lot of confusing and contradictory messaging, and have had to confront a lot of the things you described, while also trying to navigate messaging around the virtues of the feminine, respect for feminism... and being raised by some very problematic women. So... questionable guidance from questionable sources.
I would have joined the other 350 entries in the call out box, had I found it.
But I did want to thank you for this article. It’s helped me open up the conversations at home. I’m trying to help raise two emotionally literate boys, and the current state of affairs mean that, hard as it is for me to figure out things for myself, finding positive messaging for them is even harder.
After reading this and the WaPo article, I’m tempted to go back and re-read Wild at Heart by John Eldridge. The references to and grounding in Christianity would probably be pretty cringe to a lot of readers, but I remember his vision of positive masculinity being formative for me when I read it 20 years ago.
I remember hearing about this book in youth group back in the day! I didn't read it, (for obvious reasons) but it seemed to have a positive impact on those who did.
What we see today is young men turning towards a “post-christian rightwing” orientation, notable examples are Andrew Tate and BAP, and most redpill content. Aaron Renn is a great evangelical writer on this subject. Christianity empowers men but constrains them to upstanding behavior (aside from the fact that billions consider it the literal truth of the universe, as do I). Nick Freitas is a Virginia state delegate that also discusses this issue a lot. If you think the christian right is bad, wait until you see the post-christian right. Hint hint, nazis.
Aug 6, 2023·edited Aug 6, 2023Liked by Christine Emba
My problem with the Christian right is that it’s *not* all upstanding behavior. Sexual predation is still a thing. Parents turning out their children if they turn out to be gay, trans, etc, is not remotely upstanding, it’s abuse, pure and simple. Intolerance of other religions, intolerance of science, intolerance of other viewpoints, leads to a sharp anti-intellectualism, and to things like White Christian Nationalism. And, yes, that will ultimately lead to fascism and worse.
The point that there are plenty of ignorant herd animals on the left is valid, too. But in most of the houses that I’ve visited in life, “well, he started it…” is not a valid excuse.
We all live somewhere on a continuum of male/female stereotypical attributes. I was an Army sergeant but not a Marine sergeant. Happiness depends upon our acceptance of that fact and learning to live with it. So many in today’s world simply fail to understand that simple fact.
A really interesting piece. Although, I'm not sure I buy the premise so much. I think progressives really do think social norms are good, that's why they don't try to obliterate them but entirely rewire and redirect them. I think the war on 'toxic masculinity' that's been waged is an attempt to reshape and remould how men think of themselves which in turn addresses how they act. The fight, from my perspective, seems to be what kind of social norms are useful and should be acceptable in society.
Because women don't serve, protect, or provide for others? What about female first responders? What even is motherhood or other caretaking roles but serving, protecting, and providing for others?
If you think morals cease to be morals if they're presented as gender-neutral, if human ideals of good behavior cease to have relevance because they're not assigned genitalia, then you don't have morals - you have an issue with men no longer being portrayed as superior to women.
Christine Embra....yours is such a crucial framing, of how the dehumanzing, colonizing, priorities of patriarchy has harmed men, too. SO much originates via biology! Considering while women over centuries were at home, bleeding,conceiving, birthing, breast-feeding, men's roles as protector /provider had them out in the world creating language and laws and religion and hierarchies thus culturally and societally we're conditioned by the more linear reductionist male brain and so we don't see beyond it! And now....the harm it could be said that feminism (and I've been a fierce one) has taken over, what woman needs a man these days?! We drive our own trucks, thank you! So no wonder men have a huge and painful identity crisis. For all their brilliance and bravery patriarchal dominance has lead us to today's over-development for power and profit which is destroying this Planet Earth, this Mother Nature, which is, by the way, our life source! Boys and men need the understanding of we women, they need our empathy and gratitude and our acknowledgement of the context we all live within today. Including how much we have to thank them for...so please let's recognize and work and love and forgive and honor each other--- together -- none of us can do it alone.
I can't say it as well as Kipling.
IF
Rudyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting;
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating;
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings- nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Yes to this. But our sexually mixed-up 21st century West needs another poetic invocation, one that ends with....."and you'll be a woman, my daughter".
That 'poem' would need to untangle itself from feminism and be capacious enough to encompass both the reality that SOME women can make great leaders and chief executives but equally that MOST women are more comfortable with a more 'traditional', semi-patriarchal relationship between the sexes.
Agreed, but the poem is an aspiration for a 'type', irrespective of gender. Both men and women can aspire to the type. My daughter, who is a structural engineer, views the poem as applying to her as well.
The divorce councelor I talked to at the end of my first marriage thought the poem inhuman and cruel. I disagreed. A viewpoint difference. I think the gestalt of the culture is closer to the counselor than to Kipling or me. From my point of view, rather unfortunate.
My point was that if we are to retrieve a better understanding of men and women we need to push back a bit on the drearily asexual "irrespective of gender" mantra that has so distorted late 20th century thinking.
I have a couple thoughts:
1. The aspirational model has been quite helpful to me. I've found through literature figures who guide my thinking as to what I should be as a man, specifically, Sir Gawain (wh I believe explicitly functioned this way in the high middle ages) and Phineas Finn. Granted, it's hard to get anyone to read books, especially worthwhile ones, these days. My guess is a decent father helps young men to an extreme degree.
2. You will probably never get a good answer to "what is a man?" from the progressive left because the question implies one about the political body, "what place do men have in society?," which they won't want to answer because any talk of social order seems to suggest hierarchy, at least to them. You see this in "Barbie", which raises the latter question but imo ignores answering it for the most part, as the movie leaves Barbieland in a political status that hardly seems stable.
Bonus thought. It's pretty asinine in my opinion that we keep acting like masculinity and femininity are complete opposites. I don't see why there would be any reason (from nature or common experience) to think this. Therefore, I agree with your friend that both genders ought to simply pursue virtue with the caveat that virtue is almost surely to manifest itself differently in a man than in a woman.
“both genders ought to simply pursue virtue with the caveat that virtue is almost surely to manifest itself differently in a man than in a woman.”-- perfectly stated
Thank you. I'm honored for you to say that.
Why is virtue almost surely to manifest itself differently in a man than in a woman? Truly - why?
Phineas Finn is a hilarious choice but I based on that think I’d love to meet you at a party. Or perhaps youre too stoic and timely to be sidetracked at a party like that. Either way, great book.
I agree that the more we attempt to reach beyond biological reality the more we realise how fundamental it is. Most women will have children. If they breastfeed (which is recommended by health bodies the world over), that entails being with your baby 24/7. If you breastfeed optimally for your own health as a woman (substantially reducing future cancer risk) and the babies health this entails being with your baby 24/7 for at least 12 months. If you have two children we are looking at a period of up to 3-4 years when a woman is caring and nurturing round the clock. In that time she will be economically dependant. This is where the male role stems from- to be a provider and protector. Feminism does have to answer for the fact that this reality is not disclosed to young women for fear that this circumscribes what women want for their lives. In our atomised individualised state we’ve lost connection with this reality and are forced to learn it anew in every generation.
You're overstating this somewhat. My child wasn't fully weaned until he was three, and we never used a bottle, but I was nevertheless able to return to full time work after eight months. This is because (a) children start eating solids in addition to breast milk after 6 months or so, and (b) my husband was taking care of my child for the latter half of the first year, and we lived close enough to my work that he could simply bring our baby in for me to breastfeed sometimes.
The reality of caring for an infant as a mother should certainly be taken into account, when considering differences in life trajectories between the sexes. In particular, pregnancy and childbirth are personality-changing experiences to some extent. But it's important not to go too far in the other direction, either. I appreciate acknowledgment of what motherhood is like, but I'm wary of overly categorical statements about it.
Yes agreed. Also even if biological/procreative demands do shape male and female roles it doesn’t mean they should be predominant when we try to define men and women. But I am aware that our attempts to give women equality of opportunity should not erase the reality that women rather than men choose to return to work part time rather than full time after birth. It is startling how gendered this is- the world over esp Scandinavia. Finally pandemic lockdowns revealed just how patriarchal most domestic arrangements are. In UK women undertook the vast portion of childcare and housework even where male/female income was equal.
It should also be pointed out that getting married, and having kids, are two of those big life events where everyone else seems entitled to show up with their opinions, baggage, and bullshit, in an attempt to ‘help.’
Threading the needle of ‘doing the best you can,’ in a variety of areas of life,’ very rarely seems to line up with paying ‘due respect,’ to the ‘wisdom’ on offer.
But if society truly valued the non-motherhood contributions of mothers, there would be no reason why a woman couldn't return to work with appropriate breastfeeding accommodations. We could even do a 32-hour work week, which would be healthier and saner for everyone.
And what you describe as the "male role" would actually be more traditionally done by extended kin and community members of both sexes. Humans evolved to be cooperative and interdependent - literally everyone in a band would be in some sort of "provider and protector" role.
I think feminism does have an answer, one that is loudly promulgated and that is increasingly popular amongst young women:
Children are bad, dont have children. Thats the only premise under which feminism (anti-patriarchy) works so its only logical (and observably abundantly true) that anti-natalist attitudes are being preached.
I don't think it's fair to say that feminism as a whole preaches anti-natalist attitudes or that children are bad, although there are some more extremists in the movement who might.
The feminist movement as a whole suggests that women should know and be able to talk openly about the *work* that goes into childbirth and rearing, acknowledge downsides as well as the upsides, and be able to make the choice of whether to have children for themselves. What effect this knowledge has is dependent on the individual woman...
True! Even ‘political lesbianism’ wasn’t anti-natalist.
I think there are two different questions here. One is about the future we long for: what might gender look like in a post patriarchal world? and the other is about the bridge from here to there: if we accept the premise that men are struggling, what supports might they (we!) need in the present as we move toward a new relationship with gender?
I'm very much in the camp of focusing on reimagining masculinity is barking up the wrong tree. And: I very much agree that we have to meet people where they are at. I do think we urgently need new aspirational identities, that can move us toward the post-supremacist, post-patriarchal world we long for; some thoughts on what that might look like here for others who hold this inquiry: https://citizenstout.substack.com/p/belonging-and-the-identity-trap
What do you mean by post-supremacist here? Isn't part of the problem that we associate masculinity to male supremacy, which leads us to thinking of the word "toxic" whenever we also hear the word masculinity?
I mean post any system of supremacy (patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy)... any domination system. which is not about gender (patriarchy has no gender)... tried to unpack more here if of interest: https://citizenstout.substack.com/p/why-does-patriarchy-persist-part
I'm afraid that this attitude on the part of progressives makes them seem like Martians to many non-progressives. The average person is quite happy to think that being a "good man" or a "good woman" is something that can be defined and described. Furthermore, attempting to eliminate "harm" is sheer utopian folly. It's astonishing that nominal adults actually think this way.
Yes, some of this is so self-evident that it begins to seem like progressives, rather than conservatives, are the evidence-free, reality avoidant group. We talk about this in more detail in the upcoming pod with Christine, so stay tuned for that.
Nice!
To quote Dory the fish:
“Well, you can't never let anything happen to him. Then nothing would ever happen to him. Not much fun for little Harpo.”
BUT, *trying* not to hurt people, (in the absence of defending self or others against naked aggression) is still a pretty good aim. Trying to ‘eliminate’ anything is just another extreme viewpoint.
Part of that will require at least *some* self-awareness, as well as understanding that you can’t always predict how someone else will react.
Putting politically correct language to one side, “Just don’t be a f***ing douchebag,” should work for anyone, whether man, woman, or anything else on that spectrum.
Might doesn’t make right, white doesn’t make right, going to church doesn’t necessarily make you a good person.
enjoying now; just had to pause and say thank you to the author
thanks for the read and the thoughtful comment christine
Great stuff as usual, thanks for writing.
Christine, your essay in the Washington Post and now this follow up piece have cost me many hours of contemplation on a subject that had not been on my radar. I stewed on the Post piece for damn near a week, I sent it to the parents of a young man who I know to be suffering explicitly from this lack of direction for men, and I find myself constantly drifting off into trains of thought about what, if anything, could be done to correct course.
Incredible work. And thank you for writing these pieces.
With that said, I’ve struggled to imagine what a good standard/direction for men would be because I get stuck on your well put point #3 about boxing in.
I’m curious, what have been the most convincing suggestions you’ve come across from the feedback you’ve received since writing the initial essay?
Thanks for reading and sharing both! There was a call-out box in the original essay asking readers to write in and describe their ideal of masculinity. It got over 350 responses, almost all of them multi-paragraph and very thoughtful. A lot of themes repeated. I'm compiling some of those into a piece that will run in the Post next week!
Otherwise -- yes, it's tough. I think one of the most important suggestions was that there be a multiplicity of models, not just one. Not everyone has to be John Wayne; Fred Rogers was a good man, too. There are, however, a number of themes that do seem to recur: character (standing by your word, ambition to better yourself and the world), protection (defending others and especially those weaker than you), service (to your family and community), mastery (of your self, and of a skill, ideally)...
Another article on the way? Gee thanks, now I'm in that awkward position of deciding whether to subscribe to the whole Washington Post just to read your work...
It’s a pretty good deal ;)
Hi Christine,
I found this Substack after reading the article.
I grew up with a lot of confusing and contradictory messaging, and have had to confront a lot of the things you described, while also trying to navigate messaging around the virtues of the feminine, respect for feminism... and being raised by some very problematic women. So... questionable guidance from questionable sources.
I would have joined the other 350 entries in the call out box, had I found it.
But I did want to thank you for this article. It’s helped me open up the conversations at home. I’m trying to help raise two emotionally literate boys, and the current state of affairs mean that, hard as it is for me to figure out things for myself, finding positive messaging for them is even harder.
After reading this and the WaPo article, I’m tempted to go back and re-read Wild at Heart by John Eldridge. The references to and grounding in Christianity would probably be pretty cringe to a lot of readers, but I remember his vision of positive masculinity being formative for me when I read it 20 years ago.
I remember hearing about this book in youth group back in the day! I didn't read it, (for obvious reasons) but it seemed to have a positive impact on those who did.
With respect, this notion that Christianity is the only virtuous path, is one of the things that makes it cringe.
What we see today is young men turning towards a “post-christian rightwing” orientation, notable examples are Andrew Tate and BAP, and most redpill content. Aaron Renn is a great evangelical writer on this subject. Christianity empowers men but constrains them to upstanding behavior (aside from the fact that billions consider it the literal truth of the universe, as do I). Nick Freitas is a Virginia state delegate that also discusses this issue a lot. If you think the christian right is bad, wait until you see the post-christian right. Hint hint, nazis.
My problem with the Christian right is that it’s *not* all upstanding behavior. Sexual predation is still a thing. Parents turning out their children if they turn out to be gay, trans, etc, is not remotely upstanding, it’s abuse, pure and simple. Intolerance of other religions, intolerance of science, intolerance of other viewpoints, leads to a sharp anti-intellectualism, and to things like White Christian Nationalism. And, yes, that will ultimately lead to fascism and worse.
The point that there are plenty of ignorant herd animals on the left is valid, too. But in most of the houses that I’ve visited in life, “well, he started it…” is not a valid excuse.
We all live somewhere on a continuum of male/female stereotypical attributes. I was an Army sergeant but not a Marine sergeant. Happiness depends upon our acceptance of that fact and learning to live with it. So many in today’s world simply fail to understand that simple fact.
A really interesting piece. Although, I'm not sure I buy the premise so much. I think progressives really do think social norms are good, that's why they don't try to obliterate them but entirely rewire and redirect them. I think the war on 'toxic masculinity' that's been waged is an attempt to reshape and remould how men think of themselves which in turn addresses how they act. The fight, from my perspective, seems to be what kind of social norms are useful and should be acceptable in society.
Because women don't serve, protect, or provide for others? What about female first responders? What even is motherhood or other caretaking roles but serving, protecting, and providing for others?
If you think morals cease to be morals if they're presented as gender-neutral, if human ideals of good behavior cease to have relevance because they're not assigned genitalia, then you don't have morals - you have an issue with men no longer being portrayed as superior to women.
Christine Embra....yours is such a crucial framing, of how the dehumanzing, colonizing, priorities of patriarchy has harmed men, too. SO much originates via biology! Considering while women over centuries were at home, bleeding,conceiving, birthing, breast-feeding, men's roles as protector /provider had them out in the world creating language and laws and religion and hierarchies thus culturally and societally we're conditioned by the more linear reductionist male brain and so we don't see beyond it! And now....the harm it could be said that feminism (and I've been a fierce one) has taken over, what woman needs a man these days?! We drive our own trucks, thank you! So no wonder men have a huge and painful identity crisis. For all their brilliance and bravery patriarchal dominance has lead us to today's over-development for power and profit which is destroying this Planet Earth, this Mother Nature, which is, by the way, our life source! Boys and men need the understanding of we women, they need our empathy and gratitude and our acknowledgement of the context we all live within today. Including how much we have to thank them for...so please let's recognize and work and love and forgive and honor each other--- together -- none of us can do it alone.
A good tomcat is pretty much the ideal male. A good queen is the ideal female.
If anything better were available, cats would have chosen that.