This discussion was inspired by discussion on this post.
Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren’t going to tell me what to do.
The reason this comes up is that masculinity is largely based around externally conferred social status. You have to constantly be doing something to maintain an image of masculinity. Often this means some sort of social or physical violence in the right time or place (beat up the mugger to defend your partner, call out your boss when you’re being treated unfairly, put rival men in their place). Just as frequently, however, it is the expectation of a certain amount of self sacrifice (paying for meals, military service).
What they don’t understand is how anyone can expect them to maintain their social status when they are avoiding this role that they have been explicitly shown that there will be consequences if they fail to meet. The answer is simple: once you’re out of the masculinity rat race, you’re out. By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.
The only problem is that all of these pressures are external in the first place and this whole dynamic creates strong social gender boundaries. It is very easy for a lot of men to look at their social circles and see exclusively people who punish them for a failure to live up to a masculine ideal.
You mention some examples, like defending your partner from a mugger, calling out your boss when treated unfairly, paying for meals, etc.
Let’s say a man stopped doing those things, what do you think the immediate and short term consequences would be?
What about: give the mugger what he wants instead of starting to fight him. This would keep your partner and you out of harms way. There is also no need to call out your boss when he treats you unfairly. Just keep a paper trail and let his/her boss deal with the situation as it is their job. There is no good reason that men are by default paying for meals.
I agree that those are sane approaches. I do think that there can be immediate unintended consequences. If someone didn’t pay for a meal, there’s propably less chance of a second date. Etc.
I imagine women went through similar consequences while entering traditionally masculine jobs and behavior.
What I’m getting at is that I think that we often think that this pressure is all in our minds, and to some extent that’s true, but there are many stories of men opening up and being vulnerable and then their partners lose attraction. That’s a hard sell to young men. “Yes, you will be alone forever, but it’s necessary because in a couple of generations from now things might be better.”
I don’t want to be together with a partner that only cares for my “facade of manliness”.
Be upfront about stuff, communicate who you are and look out for people that do not care how “manly” you are.
But you are right, it may not pretty hard to be the first one in your social circle to start this change.
That mode of thinking only works if you assume all potential partners are the same. There are women who don’t want, nor expect, the guy to pay for everything. There’s stories of relationships getting better when men open up and women really appreciating that. Saying you’ll be alone forever is not only a hard sell but also a lie.
Well it’s entirely dependent on their social circle, right? They’re the ones who would or would not enforce these norms.
Yes, that’s a good point. And maybe sort of the reason I’m interested in these topics, is trying to figure out how to influence the social circles around me.