IF MEN could just learn to show some affection, share emotions and hug each other more they could literally save themselves a lot of heartache, researchers say.
The tough, fearless and self-reliant self-image of Western men is holding them back from showing love, leaving them more vulnerable to addiction and disease such as heart problems, according to a study presented yesterday at the International Congress on Applied Psychology.
Dr Ryan McKelley from the University of Wisconsin said men needed to become more emotional, open up and not be afraid to be vulnerable with each other, and that they would reap the benefits in better health...
Closer male-to-male relationships could be the key to changing the manly image that stops men from feeling like they can reach out for help, the study showed.
But men's health expert Kerry Cronan said that most men in our culture are afraid of being emotionally close - or platonically intimate - with other men.
"In many cultures, touch does not signify the same taboo attitudes as it does in Western societies," Mr Cronan said. "Outside of the sporting field or a drunken night out, men in our culture are generally afraid of any form of affection or closeness with each other."
I'm sceptical of such advice. It seems to me that men need more than ever to be emotionally strong in order to succeed at work and at home.
So I decided to do a little internet digging on Dr Ryan McKelley and Kerry Cronan. Is there something about these men that might lead them to be biased against masculinity?
I decided to begin with Kerry Cronan. When someone tells you to overcome the taboo against touching other men, then it's right to have suspicions about their motivations. In short, I suspected that Kerry Cronan might be a gay activist of some sort.
What did I find? It turns out that Kerry Cronan is both a psychologist and a priest (though he doesn't seem to be attached to any parish). In 2002 he was investigated by the Health Practitioners Tribunal in Queensland for touching the genital area of one of his male patients:
in Queensland, a priest working as a registered psychologist is facing disciplinary action after massaging a patient - a fellow priest - behind his genitals. Kerry Richard Cronan applied the pressure point technique in the Maryborough presbytery as part of "body work" therapy on a priest who sought his professional help as a counsellor...
Fr Cronan provided the Health Practitioners Tribunal of Queensland with literature stating that massaging the perineum region was good for menstrual and genital conditions, constipation and insanity.
But the tribunal said there was no scientific data to support this - a fact Fr Cronan failed to tell the complainant.
The Age told its readers that Kerry Cronan was a "men's health expert". It didn't tell them that he had been investigated for the inappropriate touching of male patients. That would have cast a different light on Kerry Cronan's advice to men about getting touchy-feely with other men.
And what of Dr Ryan McKelley? His story is different. He seems to be a regular family guy who publishes his academic research in psychology journals. But I think there is a case for bias in his advice as well on four grounds.
a) Touting for business
What is one of Dr McKelley's key research areas? It's the thesis that traditional masculinity makes men less likely to engage the services of psychologists like himself.
Therefore, he has a possible motivation of self-interest in attacking traditional masculinity, as he anticipates that this would increase the number of clients for the psychology profession.
b) Academic influence
Psychology, just like other academic disciplines, is heavily influenced by the liberal orthodoxy on campus. When you browse through the kind of research being published, you get the usual liberal themes, including an assumption that masculinity is a restrictive social construct to be overcome.
Dr McKelley himself uses terms such as "traditional masculinity ideology" and "restrictive gender role norms" when referring to traditional masculinity.
If you assume that masculinity is "restrictive" (because it is not self-determined) and an "ideology" (because it is assumed to be a social construct) you're unlikely to write positively about it.
c) Defining masculinity
And how do researchers like Dr McKelley define masculinity? I discovered they use something called the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). But this is a crude measure of masculinity, one that makes being ultra macho the measure of masculinity.
The twelve norms of masculinity are taken to be: Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence, Dominance, Playboy, Self-Reliance, Primacy of Work, Power Over Women, Disdain for Homosexuals, Physical Toughness, and Pursuit of Status.
It's not that these aren't related to masculinity. But the way you get to be rated as "more masculine" is dubious. For instance, when it comes to violence you are considered the most traditionally masculine if you agree with the statement "I am always the first to start a fight". Similarly, you get rated as more masculine on the playboy scale if you agree with the statement that "Emotional involvement should be avoided when having sex."
And how did being a playboy get to be on the inventory of masculine norms? That in itself is an interesting story. The academic who established the inventory (James Mahalik) justified it on the grounds of research presented in one book. But when one sceptic checked out the book he discovered that its author had actually presented four roles that expressed masculine ways of loving: breadwinner, faithful husband, nurturer and playboy. Only 1% of men had described their dominant role as that of playboy. And yet it was the playboy role that made it onto the list of masculine norms.
The categories chosen were then refined by focus groups chosen by James Mahalik. But another odd thing happened with the focus groups. According to Mahalik the masculine norms dominating all men in the US were those of upper- and middle-class white men. But who was in the focus groups? Of nine participants only three were white males! The majority of participants were young female graduate students - and those who have been at uni will know that such women are the most heavily indoctrinated into feminist theories about men.
So it was not even the views of middle- and upper-class white men which were used to refine ideas about the gender norms of such men. It was mostly young graduate women.
So, again, the definition of masculinity being used by Dr McKelley isn't to be taken as the scientific last word on the subject.
Finally, if you read the most recent research of Dr McKelley the results are not as straightforward as presented in the Age article. Dr McKelley expected to find that those rated as most traditionally masculine would be less likely to seek help when confronted with a problem - but that wasn't borne out by his research. He did find partial support for the view that those rated as most traditionally masculine attached more stigma to going to counselling than other men.
In other words, even when using a crude measure of masculinity based on extreme A-type personality traits, Dr McKelley's research didn't find any strong differences between men rated as "traditionally masculine" and those rated as less traditionally masculine.
Furthermore McKelley stressed in his paper how new and uncertain the research is and how much it is still lacking in a conceptual framework.
And yet you'd think there were no doubts at all about the research when reading the article in The Age.
There's an increasing amount of academic research now on the topic of masculinity. A lot of it is going to present masculinity as something negative, restrictive and artificial that men must cast aside for the sake of themselves, women and society.
What men need to be aware of is the bias behind such research, especially the political bias. The research will be presented to the public in a straightforward way as the neutral scientific findings of experts. But it only takes a little research to discover just how sceptical we should be of such claims.
Sounds as if this huckster is largely rehashing the Freudian drivel ("get in touch with your feminine side" blah blah blah) peddled, during the 1970s and 1980s in particular, by the late therapist Ronald Conway. Even the tone of lubricious pseudo-spirituality is similar. Well, the ostensibly "conservative" Conway - as was widely rumoured during his lifetime and as has been confirmed since his death in 2009 - had his own issues (shall we say) with keeping his cotton-pickin' hands away from his male patients' private parts:ReplyDelete
No-one in Australia's, uh, "Catholic" episcopate has uttered a syllable of contrition for employing such a creep under Catholic auspices. Fortunately an article on the topic will soon be appearing in a magazine (The Remnant) based in Minnesota. And then we'll see if the local ecclesial camorra - oops, I meant to type "hierarchy" - can continue its three-wise-monkeys act. Thanks be to God for cyberspace.
When you browse through the kind of research being published, you get the usual liberal themes, including an assumption that masculinity is a restrictive social construct to be overcome.ReplyDelete
There's a reason psychology is looked upon with such disdain by other scientists-- because psychology derives most of its 'evidence' not from hard scientific proof but from surveys and questionnaires which a) cannot ever accurately reflect the views of a population as a whole, being that the data is captured from only a small percentage of people; and b) may not even accurately reflect the views of those undertaking the survey/questionnaire, as the answers provided are influenced by a multitude of different factors (peer pressure, mood on the day, laziness etc.)
Compared to all the actual scientific evidence published over the years that points to masculinity as being something that is biologically programmed-- let's take evolution as an example-- this stance is absolute drivel.
I forgot to add:ReplyDelete
But it only takes a little research to discover just how sceptical we should be of such claims.
And here is the whole problem. The general public never bother going deeper, even if it's only a little bit. They are all too happy to accept what they see right in front of them. This has been the key to the media's power for decades.
And the reason that the scribblers who reported this in the Aged did not do the simple research that you did is because they were largely educated in the same classrooms and by many of the same teachers as our future shrinks.ReplyDelete
But don't worry, the media has a "right wing" bias according to... well the same academics who teach those aspiring journalists and psychologists, imagine that.
there are hundreds of articles concerning men's health that suggest something about men's behaviors negatively affects the quality of our lives. it is usually associated with adherence to traditional male role norms and expectations about behaviors. these articles are a mix of medical journals and psychology journals. I work with college men so I will give some statistics from that population. men lead in every measurable category of alcohol and drug use, account for 6 out of every 7 suicides, 9 out of 10 driving while intoxicated charges, die at twice the rate from cancer and and engage to a higher degree in over 30 behaviors related to an increased rate of disease,injury and death. there are dozens of more examples. the article you discussed may be skewed, i haven't read it, but it doesn't mean the issue is irrelevant.ReplyDelete
This is based upon my real life experiences with men :).....ReplyDelete
McKelly has an Irish twinge to it :) The Irish as a group have always had attacking Anglo Saxon ideals and society as a pastime--which is why they love Liberalism. (I've found this to be almost universally true...except in America for the ones who came pre-1900 as they were the upperclass who didn't have weird grudges) The Irish also tend to be all spacy and idea-y/theorizing --a positive when it comes to fairytales and storytelling--but a negative when it comes to actually making good real life choices. I have lots to say on Irish men :) (u have to be careful of the curly haired ones and the ones whose parents are from upperclass neighbhorhoods of Dublin specifically those whose parents worked for the government---VERY crazy Liberal) U can validate my theory by looking at Dublin voting records :)
:) hehehe I love it when people google authors cuz then you find out what the true agenda is...Make sure to look up their grandparents if possible :) The US Congress is fun to see how many congressthings parents/grandparents were communists.
Interesting, and a bit sad, about Ronald Conway. Some of his work wasn't bad. He wrote a nice book about Australian society, with a rather daring cover (for its time). I forget the title. It was a sort of The Lucky Country like effort. He was actually fairly positive about masculinity in that book; although like a lot of "conservatives", he seemed to become more feminist as he aged and society changed.
He wrote some memorable things, although some of them I now regard as memorable nonsense. I think it was he who wrote that "no man can hope to win a personal struggle with a woman over the long term". Which, I have come to realise, is nonsense. He was a bit of a "mangina" avant la lettre, and if his own sexuality was deficient, that might explain it somewhat.
I have always wondered why the Catholic hierarchy, at least at the lower levels, are so easily influenced by feminists. I have come to realise that a lot of them are probably homosexuals, which would explain a lot. Rembert Weakland is the classic case, of course.
It's amazing how leftists never seem to consider the possibility that encouraging men to get in touch with their feelings and be more expressive, might make them act out their aggressive and violent tendencies.ReplyDelete
Note how murder, vandalism and animal torture have increased throughout the western world since liberalism started undermining traditional social values that emphasised emotional control.
There's also cultural and perhaps racial factors to take into account. Cultures where males don't like touching one another also tend to cultures with low violent crime rates, while more expressive cultures tend to have higher violent crime rates.
"In many cultures, touch does not signify the same taboo attitudes as it does in Western societies," Mr Cronan said. "Outside of the sporting field or a drunken night out, men in our culture are generally afraid of any form of affection or closeness with each other."
OK, but why? I can think of at least one very good reason: in those non-western touchy-feely societies, homosexuality is unmentionable (though in places like Afghanistan, nonetheless practiced). Here in the US and over there in Australia, homosexuality is OK.
Consider the effects:
If a woman from a nonwestern society sees two men, eh, "platonically intimate", what is she going to conclude? She might think they're homosexual, but probably not, since she knows this is beyond the pale. She's more likely to assume they're a.) brothers, b.) childhood friends c.) some other relative, etc.
But if a woman from a western society sees two guys feeling it up, what's she likely to conclude? She might think they're brothers/friends, but, given that she knows being "gay" is perfectly OK, she might well think they're lovers until they prove otherwise.
Now, if you're a guy looking for a woman, or even a married guy who doesn't want a cloud of rumors following him, why would it make sense to be publicly touchy-feely with another man?
The irony is that homosexuals like Cronan, by being openly touchy-feely with other men in a sexual way, strongly discourage heterosexual men from being openly touchy-feely with other men in a nonsexual way.
My last comment, by the way, does not mean I think that western men would be touchy-feely if it weren't for the Cronans of the world. That's just not our way. But five seconds thought on Cronan's part should show him that his own public actions with other men confirm to us regular guys the rightness of our way. I mean, who would want to be confused with that guy?ReplyDelete
Great spot Mark.ReplyDelete
Mike Courtman said,ReplyDelete
"It's amazing how leftists never seem to consider the possibility that encouraging men to get in touch with their feelings and be more expressive, might make them act out their aggressive and violent tendencies."
This is a frequently mentioned argument and I'd like to give it a proper answer at a latter time.
There is a connection between the experience of affection and mental/physical health.ReplyDelete
However, it surprises me that the propagandists of this piece don't suggest that it is women, not men, who have become less affectionate over their menfolk (as one would expect from being "liberated" from their femininity) and thus causing an affection deficiency in gender relations.
After all, the sexual revolution altered female culture, not male culture (note: the empowered woman and the aimless man). So if any deleterious impact has been felt, it has been caused by feminism’s impact on women, and the corresponding change in female relations with respect to their men.
Moreover, such articles are just offensive on another level: if men aren’t being told to “man up” over their problems (on those occasions when male problems are deemed worthy of note), then we’re told that the only way to fix those problems is to become women!
You just can’t win; therefore, just ignore these idiots.
Despite my Irish surname, I wasn’t born in Ireland and have no agenda against Anglo Saxons (of which I am also descended). Regarding my "touting for business", I am primarily a teaching professor interested in research, and the clinical work I provide is pro bono. I have suggested that MOST men do not need psychological help, and MANY get their support from friends, spouses, co-workers, etc.ReplyDelete
For the record, I wasn't presenting on my research as stated in The Age--I summarized research by anthropologists, sociologists, epidemiologists, etc. Four others presented solid research on men's body image, unhealthy alcohol use, men's unique experience of depression, and men who are victims of family violence. There isn't a great deal of research on men's vulnerability yet, but it is becoming an area of interest. A few ideas for thought:
(1) When I say men, I mean "some men." It may be "many men" in some cases and "only a few men" in others, but it never means "all men." For example, most physical violence is perpetrated by men, but most men are *not* violent. This is an important distinction to hold whilst thinking about men's issues.
(2) Masculinity itself is not a bad thing. Extreme adherence to SOME attitudes and behaviors, however, can be unhealthy (see Jerrod's post). Extreme emotional restriction has been linked to a long list of negative physical and psychological health outcomes. That's not a liberal agenda--it bears out in health outcome data. Loads of it. One example is socially isolated men are at increased risk for deaths from cardiovascular disease, accidents and suicides: http://jech.bmj.com/content/50/3/245.abstract
(3) Being vulnerable doesn't equal being feminine, weak, or gay. A man comfortable in his masculinity doesn't fear such things and can experience and express a broad range of human emotions. I see men in therapy make real improvements in their lives when they expand--not restrict--their range of attitudes and behaviors.
(4) I also cited research on different ways men and women approach intimacy in friendships. Would I argue men throw out how we interact by joking with each other? Never. Would I argue that men's friendships could benefit if they learned to be more honest with each other? Absolutely. Some men equate intimacy only with sexual intimacy, and it’s hard for some to get past that limited understanding.
To test your comfort with intimacy, ask yourself this: have you ever told your best mate how much he means to you? That you love him, or really value the time you spend together? Why not? Many women do it easily, as do men in some cultures and some periods in history. I'm willing to bet many have said it to girlfriends, spouses, male children, brothers, fathers, etc. Unless someone can show me evidence that deepening your emotional connections with important people in your life is bad for your health, I'll continue to encourage men to take small risks in their friendships.
I'll leave you with some interesting anthropological work done by Prescott on 400 cultures (1975; 1990). Societies in which infants/children were touched the least amount (e.g., hugged, cuddled) had the highest rates of violence. Winner of the lowest touch/highest violence society? The U.S. Other research shows male newborns are held/cuddled less than females, a difference that gets pronounced throughout development. We can't assume causation, but I can't help but wonder if there is something going on there.
All I ask is that we look seriously at knee-jerk reactions to challenging some masculine norms that are by nature fluid anyway. It doesn't require a liberal agenda to hug your boy a little more, or tell your best mate that you are grateful to have him in your life--it just takes some humanity, and for some, courage.
Mr. McKelly wrote,ReplyDelete
"Some men equate intimacy only with sexual intimacy, and it’s hard for some to get past that limited understanding."
I've already addressed this in my comment above. I'll repeat it here:
In the West, we (and, more importantly, women) observe that two men who are emotionally/physically intimate with each other could also be sexually intimate with each other.
It is hard for us to see, however, how two men who are NOT emotionally/physically intimate with each other could somehow still be sexually intimate with each other.
Therefore, if you are a man looking for a woman as a sexual partner, you have a strong disincentive to be publicly emotionally/physically intimate with another man, which signals to women that you might be homosexual. In a world where competition among males for mates is strong enough, why send a signal like that?
And the irony is that women suspect men who display feminine characteristics such as same-sex intimacy of being homosexual probably because homosexuality is conceivable and even acceptable in the first place.
You still haven't addressed this point, Mr. McKelly, and until you do, I can guarantee you your touchy-feely movement is going exactly nowhere among straight men (not that I think it'll go anywhere anyway, but that's a different discussion). With no obvious payoff, it's just a very stupid risk to take.
"Societies in which infants/children were touched the least amount (e.g., hugged, cuddled) had the highest rates of violence. Winner of the lowest touch/highest violence society?"
You know I'd expect that level of ignorance from a pedestrian. But you say you present yourself as a compiler of research from diverse fields...and you overlooked FBI Crime statistics? Are you really unaware of the racial dimensions to crime in my country? Your stats implying a link between high crime (black) and majority masculine culture (white) is absurd because the two behaviors are exhibited by distinct populations!
Well, anyway, you know what my countryman Mark Twain said about statisics...
"A man comfortable in his masculinity doesn't fear such things and can experience and express a broad range of human emotions."ReplyDelete
1 McKelly 6:1-5, eh?
I know and submit to the authority of the Bible. But who are you?
Excellent research insight. This is the kind of reverse engineering that exposes the extremity of feminist doctrine in the media. Not that it's all illegitimate or otherwise, but opening a few of these clams is useful to prove the Lie of feminism and the harm it's doing. Now an explanation of the editor and how they gave it the green light to be published, whilst not representing alternate, more scientific views, would be similarly intriguing, though harder to extract most likely.ReplyDelete
Ryan McKelley said,ReplyDelete
"To test your comfort with intimacy, ask yourself this: have you ever told your best mate how much he means to you? That you love him"
When a guy looks at a guy he wants to see strength. He doesn't want to see an emotional wreck who says I love you.
You say that this research is only designed to benefit some men but then say, "some masculine norms are by nature fluid anyway". Well how fluid? If masculinity is a concept to be continually rewritten this affects the entire culture and not just some men in difficulty. We've heard since the 80's and 90's that men should be more in touch with their sensitive side etc. What we've since often seen is not guys who are "too" masculine, but guys who are not masculine enough, or at all. Isn't this an issue?
You said guys who are secure in their masculinity won't have a problem with being “intimate” with their mates. However, young men by definition are not yet fully secure in their masculinity. Don't you think that this has the potential to totally send them down the wrong path? Shouldn't young men be encouraged to test and develop their strength and not endlessly look over their shoulder or be endlessly engaging in emotional activities? The best rolemodel for a young guy I would have thought is a strong man. Where will these strong men come from if emotions are what counts the most?
You've also mentioned tough masculine men in trouble, what about emasculated feminine men in trouble? How many of your patients are rocks who don't flinch until breaking point and how many are whimps who have no emotional or impulse control and who bounce all over the place? Additionally how many, as argued, are people who "have gotten in touch with their emotions" and then acted more violently or unacceptably? Isn't there a possibility that the kind of men who don't need psychological help, as you said the majority, are the kind of guys who pretty much ignore or aren't influenced by your message whilst the guys who need the most help are those who paid the most attention?
"Fluid" masculinity can and has been jumped on by those who argue that masculinity is the problem and so has to go, presumably to be replaced with femininity. Masculinity isn't just some "identity" or emotional issue for men though, it's also a functional issue for society. Is there not a prospect that your in touch reflective guys will be useless?
On the issue of high rates of alcoholism and other problems in masculine men. Yes this is an issue. But these masculine men might be guys who are letting themselves go a bit. A bit of pride and self dignity can help there rather than emotional flux. We've also seen sensation seeking pushed hard by society and this can also lead in part to a lot of this. You have to again ask yourself whether masculine men face higher levels of problems than others.
Yes in my opinion guys should be able to talk about important or emotional matters. What is argued here is that they should do this more with their mates, (I "appreciate" a mate every time I say "thanks mate" btw) rather than say with their wives and girlfriends. This kind of indicates that the relations between the sexes are in a bit of trouble.
Lastly I am getting a bit tired of hearing about “broken” men and the idea that manhood is essentially damaging. This is demoralizing, and is arguably deliberately so. It undermines the fact that men still make society work and take pride in doing so and men also compete and fight to be in high stress/demanding positions. It also implies that women are somehow better suited to men’s responsibilities then men are or that we should all chuck in our jobs for the supposed sake of our mental health and live on the beach somewhere.
[By the way good on you for braving the conservative den.]
On Jarrod's point I appreciate some of the health arguments. However, this is also all relative and we in the West have much higher life expectancy and health outcomes than in other parts of the world. Primarily this is because men have gotten to work and made this happen. Hard work is indeed stressful and can lead to health outcomes, but the absence of work, the absence of a clear role or purpose for men, can also be devastating. Men are most likely to drink or engage in destructive behavior after being laid off, after a divorce, when they start to have difficulties at work. Many of these are men in society issues and not merely issues for individual men.ReplyDelete
One of the things about women is that they gain credit for their looks, personality, childraising etc. In this circumstance women can stand alone a bit more and can perhaps be examined in isolation. Men on the other hand are far more ingrained into society (hence the traction of the feminist patriarchy whinge) and their worth is in part measured by productivity and achievement. In this circumstance the idea that you can separate men form society and just look at their emotions is not useful.ReplyDelete
Thank you for your remarks (18 July 2010 10:46:00 AM AEST), David. I've never denied that Conway had authorial talent, which was worthy of better use than he actually attempted. Unfortunately his lifelong belief (manifested through his articles as well as his books) in the Immaculate Conception of Psychotherapy sabotaged any possibilities of serious moral insight that he might've been able to reach otherwise. Ultimately, if you hitch your wagon (as he did) to criminal liars like Freud, there's nowhere to go except down.ReplyDelete
Regarding the profusion of obvious homos in the Catholic hierarchy, a lot of it, not least in Australia, has to do with the gigantic increase in the size of Catholic bureaucracies since the Second Vatican Council (or, as Scottish columnist Gerald Warner rightly calls it, "The Second Vatican Catastrophe"). Homos love bureaucracies. They do not flourish in an entrepreneurial environment. What they crave is an environment where they can (a) look after Number One ad infinitum, (b) stab enemies in the back (and deprive enemies of jobs) on purely personal grounds unrelated to actual work-related performance.
Before the Council, prelates such as Melbourne's Archbishop Mannix and Sydney's Cardinal Gilroy basically ran their episcopates on the smell of an oily rag, and personally knew everyone who drew a pay packet from them. Not now. Did you know that Melbourne's archiepiscopate has the following departments?
* Aboriginal Catholic Ministry
* Archdiocesan Office for Youth
* Australian Catholic University
* Caritas Australia
* Catholic Aids Ministry
* Catholic Church Insurances
* Catholic Communications
* Catholic Development Fund
* Catholic Education Office
* Catholic Fundraising
* Catholic Homes for the Elderly
* Catholic Mission
* Catholic Prison Ministry
* Catholic Social Services Victoria
* Catholic Superannuation Fund
* Catholic Theological College
* Catholic Vocations
* Central Catholic Bookshop
* Corpus Christi College Seminary
* Daniel Mannix Library
* Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission
* Family Resource Coordinator
* Human Resources Office
* International Movement of Catholic Students
* John Pierce Centre for Deaf Ministry
* Kairos Catholic Journal
* Life, Marriage and Family Office
* Mary of the Cross Centre
* Melbourne Catholic Lawyers Association
* Melbourne Catholic Migrant & Refugee Office
* Melbourne Diocesan Historical Commission
* Melbourne Overseas Missions
* Ministry to Priests
* Office for Justice & Peace
* Property Services
* Religious Education
* Strategic Working Group for Parishes
* Teams - A Married Couples Movement
* Tribunal of the Catholic Church
To think that Australian Catholicism managed to survive for almost two centuries without an Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission, a Strategic Working Group for Parishes, or a Centre for Deaf Ministry!
What I find to be absolutely infuriating about these hate-masculinity articles (perhaps this is not a particularly bad example, but it is definitely part of a trend) is that they only ever focus on the negatives of masculinity.ReplyDelete
It reminds me of a cartoon which Glenn Sacks complained about at his men's rights website. The cartoon showed a husband humiliated by his wife because of the "problems" caused by testosterone. What is profoundly, desperately irritating is that the little prawn that drew the cartoon was a man; that men invented the production of newspapers, such as that in which the cartoon was published; and men invented the Internet over which it was disseminated.
The gloves must come off. Men are far too tolerant of this nonsense, and don't want to hurt women's feelings, even those of feminists. But maybe it is time to harp continually, like feminists on men, on the serious negatives of women. A major negative is that they have produced no ideas, inventions or wealth worth noting. That being the case, at least they could be nice and grateful for what masculinity has produced. But no such luck.
Wow, Mark. Great article.ReplyDelete
I've always thought an "playboy" was an effect of immaturity and a lack of sexual continence, rather than something inherently masculine.
On the issue of high rates of alcoholism and other problems in masculine men
I think they're calling for more "bromance" because of the lack of "romance". Men's pathological behaviors are closely tied to their lack of family stability. Married men with children are the most mentally-stable, law-abiding, and docile. Single men without children are the least.
They fail to mention the fact that an ever-increasing number of men are living without regular, intimate female companionship (and touch). Or that they are increasingly growing up in day-orphanages, and without fathers in the home to model healthy masculine behavior.
It's amazing how leftists never seem to consider the possibility that encouraging men to get in touch with their feelings and be more expressive, might make them act out their aggressive and violent tendencies.
Women (and homosexuals) are very "expressive", and the act of expression actually drives them into hysterics sometimes. Expressing the feelings can feed the intensity of the feelings, and make the situation seem even worse than it already is. That expression would just turn men into loose canons.
Women would be better off with less expression of their feelings, and more self-control, I think. I always wonder why nobody makes that argument, as it is such a satisfyingly logical one. And then I re-enter Earth's orbit.
We've heard since the 80's and 90's that men should be more in touch with their sensitive side etc.
The problem with this is the inherent assumption that men are somehow estranged from their feelings, merely because they don't moan on about them. In other words, they aren't being told they need to discover their feelings, but that they should express those feelngs like a woman would. The fact that touchy-feely men are generally unnattractive to women, is completely ignored.
What is also ignored is that men's feelings often take on a different flavor than women's. Men are often consumed by the concept of justice, for instance. But would they really want for men to start expressing those feelings? That is the last thing that they would want, for sure. If men actually started worrying about justice, discussing injustice, and expressing anger at injustice, all hell would break loose.
Better to tell them to have a good cry and learn to talk about their "frustration" and "unhappiness".
Regarding the profusion of obvious homos in the Catholic hierarchy, a lot of it, not least in Australia, has to do with the gigantic increase in the size of Catholic bureaucracies since the Second Vatican Council (or, as Scottish columnist Gerald Warner rightly calls it, "The Second Vatican Catastrophe"). Homos love bureaucracies. They do not flourish in an entrepreneurial environment.
Excellent point, and I fully agree. Women and homosexuals (they are very similar in their nature) love bureaucracies, which is why any organisation that includes a lot of them will tend to grow exponentially. The same happens in public service (where women and homosexual men make up a disproportionately large group). Heterosexual men tend to find such organizations stifling, and prefer places where their efforts and talents have more impact.
If you look at the Catholic Church, it is increasingly run by homosexual priests and female lay persons. It is extremely odd, as it doesn't fit together with the idea of Catholicism being a patriarchal religion. How can you have a patriarchy without straight men?
" what about emasculated feminine men in trouble? How many of your patients are rocks who don't flinch until breaking point and how many are whimps who have no emotional or impulse control and who bounce all over the place?"
Excellent point. No one can honestly argue that an emotional man is a stoic man. They're contradictions in terms.