Reframing the "New" Masculinity

There has been much discussion about "toxic masculinity" and what it means to be masculine in an age of feminism and female empowerment. Globalism and subsequent postmodernist era has forced all people to confront behaviors, beliefs and previous processes to reassess its relevance or obsolescence. How we define masculinity and femininity is no exception.

What the current definition of toxic is what we would consider to be easily tempered and "unregulated" masculinity where decision-making and authority are hierarchal or vested via being rather than performance, i.e. daddy says, etc. Studies have demonstrated varying effects of higher levels of testosterone in men and I’m a firm believer of not blaming things that are natural like men’s biology/biochemistry so I won’t consider the argument of “high testosterone” anytime or anywhere. Now, with female breadwinners more prevalent than in the past, more women in the workplace - and as of the 2018 Congressional mid-term elections many more women in Congress – political, social and economic influence has created more nuance in how we define authority figures and leadership traits. This has led to conflict with previous structures where men were the primary breadwinner, leaders, and thus, dictated norms.

I posit a different definition of masculinity; one that does not discard or discredit the past, but rather, allows for a more abundant future.

What if masculinity is better defined as an increased bandwidth to engage in all activities in a meaningful way? For instance, going hunting one weekend while learning how to cook the next? To complete in a boxing tournament one week and volunteer at an elderly home the next? To be more empathetic as well as competitive, in your pursuits? The ability to be more well-rounded while also conducting those activities that maximize your testosterone (or health, generally). Aggression and empathy are not mutually exclusive.

The primary dialogue on masculinity is based on polarity and producing a cognitive dissonance, i.e. a disturbance that can show up as anxiety, anger or reactivity. The negative reaction then produces a “doubling down” on pre-existing beliefs and norms and a rejection of anything contrary. This negative framing, designed to instigate in my opinion, is hardly a framework to show what is possible; it is a framework designed to produce anger and polarization, which limits the ability to collaborate and communicate in effective ways.

Examples you ask? The Gillette ad included a shot of men of different ethnicities; all arms are crossed cooking on identical grills, one after the other in an endless line, as if all men are the same.

Clearly not true, but designed to create polarization. The boys who were fighting as one man says, “boys will be boys.” Later in the ad, (presumably) the father breaks up the kids stating that’s not how we treat other people. This is open to incredibly broad interpretation and very confusing. So boys wrestling or play fighting is now toxic? God forbid we play football, boxing or other sports. Even with the (presumably) dad dragging his kid through a crowd by pushing people aside with a careless regard, it’s a snapshot in time with no context leading us to believe the worst, i.e. that’s he’s a jerk (ironically, if it was a woman doing the same thing, would we have the same response? I know I would give her the benefit of the doubt as she’s demonstrating urgency for something.). I think it also serves as a metaphor of an old masculinity dragging younger generations along with their outdated beliefs (which is pretty brilliant).

The critical component to successfully bridging the gap in this discussion is the emotional intelligence and self-investigation that it requires. Inevitably, the cognitive dissonance that would occur with older generations - and those who may have been raised within more historical, patriarchal structures - who may be more set in their ways (not the rule, just my personal observation) requires more self-reflection and less impulsive reaction. The ability to have the emotional intelligence to know what you're feeling when it happens and to personally investigate your beliefs when it limits your possibilities or opportunities for contribution in society or in your social circles.

There is no magic formula (duh). The demands, and interpretations, of women are to be taken into consideration, but not the final word. Each and only each individual, in this case a man, knows the intent and manages the impulses within themselves. In the case of a man, building their aggressiveness, managing his competitive nature all while simultaneously building their ability to empathize and connect with others is his responsibility alone.

The future in a globalized era requires more of everyone (you guessed it, there will be a feminism article dropping too!). That includes the ability to have empathy, to recognize when their selfish tendencies negatively impact the social interest, when to be assertive and aggressive and how to manage the impulses that make us human, responsibly.

What behaviors do you exhibit that you may consider “toxic” and what examples do you have of them?

Where do you believe behavioral traits may impact you connecting with others in the workplace/dating/family?

For men, when does your competitive instinct work against you?

For men, do you feel connected to your aggressive instinct? What about your aggressive instinct do you love? How does it impact the social interest?

For men, what kind of man do you want to be remembered as?

For women, what kind of men do you remember?

What is wrong with being a man of developing his primal nature AND contributing in a healthy way to society?

What are we doing to facilitate the best of both worlds?

Illuminating Awareness. Facilitating Choice.