This guy thinks otherwise...

The APA defines traditional masculinity as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

It amazes me that they don't even include the actually directly harmful aspect of traditional masculinity:

That a man is expected to absorb to himself cost/harm/stress/damage/death or risk of same, and thus shelter women, children, and society (in that order).

Seriously. This is the DEFINING quality of traditional masculinity to function as an ablative shield. All of the other aspects of masculinity... they are just WAYS in which men accept cost/harm/stress/damage/death and thus shield women, children and society:

  1. Men are traditionally expected to provide a living for their families. But what does that amount to: Labor for the comfort and safety of a Wife, Children, and insofar as it is a useful job they are performing the rest of society. Labor IS harm/stress/damage/death or at least the risk of it... always.

  2. Men are traditionally expected to be strong and capable. That's so that they can withstand the stresses and requirements of useful work... see number 1. A man who can not do useful work is worse than dead in traditional expectations: he's not just useless and thus valueless, he still consumes resources making him of negative value... is it any wonder why men who have been conditioned to think this way might commit suicide if they find themselves disabled, or rejected socially/romantically/professionally? This also explains why men commit suicide with lethal methods while women choose much less effective methods. The point of female suicide is to cry for help. The point of male suicide is to stop wasting resources helping the male who needs help.

  3. Men are traditionally expected to NOT be weak, or needy. That's so that the support and protection provided by other men will not be wasted to protect someone who is NOT a woman, or child. Of course related to that is a man being anti-feminine in his own behavior or that of other men... as feminine behaviors are markers the purpose of which is to differentiate those who need to be sheltered from not those who do the sheltering. A traditional man despises a feminine man as a free-loader on the protections afforded by the sacrifices of other men.

  4. Men are traditionally expected to be adventurous because their own lives are not seen as intrinsically valuable (They get value by shielding others). Adventure is, in investment terms, an example of high-risk-high-reward behavior. It will likely fail spectacularly, but if it pays off it will pay off massively. This makes sense if the investor is risking something of only marginal worth. Meanwhile, shielding others is a role that is only conditionally valuable at times of high intrinsic risk... say during war time. Similarly, men are traditionally expected to embrace risk either synthetic risk from adventure in times of low intrinsic risk, or naturally occurring risks as part of their nominal role, shielding others, when that has a better risk-reward ratio than adventure.

  5. Men are traditionally expected to be able to shield others from violence. As a function of elementary tactics, the most effective way to do this is to employ violence one's self.

See how ALL of masculinity comes back to the man sacrificing his own health/life/safety/wealth/happiness for the sake of the women, children, and society that touch his life. It is literally what masculinity is FOR. Therefore the idea that this APA study is moving towards... a less harmful masculinity is sort of a contradiction in terms... masculinity that is not harmful to men, wouldn't shield others, and thus wouldn't be masculinity. Personally, I think the solution to this is not to try and re-design masculinity, but to recognize how it works, why it is important that it work (self sacrifice to shield others is a noble and sometimes necessary thing after all), and to create a soft landing for men who find that they either temporarily or permanently can no longer fit in that role.