MASCULINITY ~ a case for courage

kohaku_no_mori · 2025-07-13T06:44:08+00:00

I appreciate your point on how empathy is one of the reasons that young men were drawn to people such as Peterson. Empathy for young men, is, unfortunately, sorely lacking in many communities.

I hold some issue with the focus on “masculinity” and not on broader social issues, as it frames men as being problems to be fixed rather than having problems to be fixed. If you want to explore male issues more, I would recommend checking out TheTinMen, who produces great, evidence based content. As you’re familiar with Richard Reeves, I would recommend this podcast specifically.

cjworkingman · 2025-07-13T12:44:57+00:00

You claim that "it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game" but... it kind of does. First, government funding isn't unlimited, and money spent helping men has to come from somewhere else. Feminists know this, and zealously attack any government programs aimed at helping men, particularly if those programs draw on funds that might otherwise be directed to women. For instance, eleven years ago, when Obama unveiled the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative for men of color, thousands of feminists signed a petition criticizing the initiative and demanding that it be expanded to include women of color as well. This, despite the fact that black men in America have worse outcomes than black women by almost any measure.

Second, affirmative action is inherently zero sum. Women receive massive amounts of affirmative action in all of the STEM fields, which means they're being chosen for prestigious and high-paying jobs over (in many cases) hundreds of more qualified men. There's no way of avoiding this dilemma -- hiring more women requires discriminating against male applicants.

Third, and most importantly, being perceived as disadvantaged or oppressed is zero sum. If society came to believe that women have easier lives on the whole than men, support for most feminist causes would evaporate overnight. Feminists recognize this, and so will do everything they can to amplify and exaggerate the hardships women face, while ignoring and denying the disadvantages society imposes on men. The feminist movement's power comes from women being seen as victims, so they have to maintain the illusion that women are not just disadvantaged, but uniquely disadvantaged, at all costs.

---

A couple more comments:

It is ultimately the responsibility of men to solve this issue, to be better, to change—

This is profoundly misandrist thinking. The underlying attitude here is: "When women have a problem, all of society has an obligation to help them. When men have a problem, well, that's 100% their issue, and they need to solve it entirely on their own."

In reality, human beings are individuals, not defined by their group membership, so all people everywhere have an equal obligation to rectify injustices that negatively affect men, and all people everywhere have an equal obligation to rectify injustices that negatively affect women. What you owe to other people doesn't depend on your gender.

The commenter on your blog is right that you're thinking in terms of collective guilt and collective responsibility. Free yourself of these bigoted superstitions.

There can be an issue with these traits though. Many have a dark side; strength can be misapplied as aggression, leadership as dominance, and self-mastery as narcissism.

But there is one characteristic that is safeguarded against this dark side. The key characteristic that encapsulates positive pro-social masculinity is courage—let me explain.

These actions give some of us a taste of risk-taking, but these risks are empty, they're not courage—courage is risk-taking for what is right.

Courage might be saying "I'm sorry", or perhaps letting go of your self-consciousness long enough to really hear someone else. It could be calling out racism, sexism or homophobia, or it might be stepping in to mediate when an argument gets heated

Virtually all traits can be negative when present in excess. This includes stereotypically feminine traits like compassion and agreeableness, too. Excessive compassion leads to being a doormat; excessive agreeableness leads to conformism (probably the single biggest problem in left-wing spaces these days). This is not new information, it was recognized millennia ago by Aristotle, who taught that most virtues share the same structure: they're located at the mean between two extremes. Aristotle identified an excess of courage as the vice of recklessness (and it's possible to be reckless even if you're acting in service of what's right).

You also fail to mention one of the most important forms of courage, namely, standing up against bigotry and abuse even when it's popular and socially sanctioned. Calling out racism or sexism in a progressive environment doesn't require much courage, these days -- you get socially rewarded for it. You should really be teaching your daughter to stand up against misandry and anti-semitism, since her social circles are likely to be full of misandrists and anti-semites. That's what real courage looks like.

I appreciate what you're doing here, and I think your post is, on the whole, a positive thing. But your mind has been shaped by decades of pervasive anti-male bigotry, and you will need to uproot and challenge many of the assumptions you're making if you want to reach a position where you can treat men and women with equal respect and dignity.

Logos89 · 2025-07-13T15:50:16+00:00

Anytime someone talks about things not being zero sum, they lose me. We aren't in a post scarcity society, so every resource A gets could have been spent on B instead.

AcolyteOfCynicism · 2025-07-13T15:29:10+00:00

Socially, culturally and morally its not or shouldn't be a zero sum game but like the other comments highlight, economically it can be a zero sum game. Which is in largely the fault of the cult of capitalism pushing anti government sentiment for decades. Any push to help men is often framed as taking money away from women as a diversion tactic and not just allocated tax money to provide services for those in need from the greater tax pool, its mixing a strawman argument with poisoning the well.

Also Joe Rogan is not liberal but in fairness he use to be. Joe frankly is kind of an idiot that nods along with who ever he's speaking too and he's pretty much only talked to conservatives for awhile now, he endorsed Trump and coddles both Trump's and Elon's nutsacks. Peterson, where do I even start, that dude needs to just retire. He was not meant for fame, his brain can't handle it. My guess is he's closeted, his obsession with trans people is fucking creepy. Also he's always working back from his conclusion that is his religious views. Which puts it at odds with his academic training.

To me the goal shouldn't be about creating some new healthier standard for masculinity. It should be about extending empathy to individuals who are male as humans in need of and deserving of help. Aswell as pushing a message of just being a good human being. That gender roles and expectations are something for the individuals to decide for themselves, they're as optional as you want them to be. Its not about being trad or non-trad, cherry pick whatever from them as you see fit in a way that prioritizes you being authentic to yourself.

Present_League9106 · 2025-07-14T00:25:25+00:00

So after first reading your comments and then reading your post, I have a couple thoughts:

You put an emphasis on empathy. Part of that comes from listening to people and trying to grapple with their perspective. That's something that most of society doesn't afford men and, I'm sorry to say, you don't seem to be doing much yourself.

Also, Scott Galloway is a serious indictment on academia. He's not intelligent enough to have gotten as far as he has. I'm less familiar with Emba, though I've enjoyed her perspective in what I have seen and Reeves is good, but hardly groundbreaking.

The key, I do think, is empathy and people are so far off that mark that they don't even know what it would look like. Men being open and sincere is considered victim Olympics simply because the other person refuses to see them as a person - they tend to see them as a problem that needs to justify their existence. If you were born in a world where you needed to justify your birth (and you were whether you realize it or not) you'd be pretty fucked up. Maybe you had an easier go of it if you can't see that.

sunyata150 · 2025-07-14T03:42:40+00:00

"It is ultimately the responsibility of men to solve this issue, to be better, to change—not by turning away from masculinity but by embracing a more pro-social masculinity, which can be found in courage."

- While I would agree woman don't have the responsibility to fix it they do have responsibility to at the very least not get in the way and call each other out when they are doing something that hinders or hurts men. Such as reinforcing harmful gender roles.

- Being pro social is independent of masculinity. You can be pro social with or without it.

"New voices like Reeves, Galloway and Emba are proposing a non-zero-sum perspective that draws attention to and encourages the positive aspects of masculinity. In doing this, they are exhibiting the very courage we need—to speak up in a difficult conversation and push it in a positive direction."

- I don't think very highly of Richard Reeves and Scott Gallaway. They rightfully point out a number of issues that men face but there solutions seem to be a refurbished version of masculinity based on a hybrid of what modern woman largely expect and men's traditional duties and obligations. I have yet to hear them talk about a refurbished version of femininity based on a hybrid of what modern men largely expect and woman's traditional duties and obligations. Gives me the impression men are expected to be the best of both a modern and traditional man while woman are given the choice and freedom to be and do what they want. Either woman are expected to be the best of a modern and traditional woman or men are given the same choice and freedom to be and do what they want like woman. If this is the message they are communicating (not sure about Emba never heard of them before) at the end of the day it sounds very much zero sum and is not a society I am interested in belonging too.

"Opportunities to exhibit courage may be different today, but I think courage is a positive attribute that all men can agree is important to their sense of masculinity. It is also somewhat protected from the extremes because it is, by definition, something we exercise in the interests of others and is therefore pro-social. Courage is non-zero-sum."

- Courage is..... problematic. Even in modern times it is a very gendered term. I only ever really see it being used in reference to men upholding traditional male gender roles at there own expense for the sake of others in a society that could care less about them. Heroes get themselves killed, cowards run to live another day. For that reason embracing the label coward at times can be liberating if it frees me from being taken advantage of. I will be courageous as long as its something that is voluntary, something I firmly believe in or care about and is not taken advantage of by others. Otherwise being a total coward is something I am quite comfortable with embracing.

- I did notice though you said courage is something you want for your daughter not just of other men and yourself. I applaud you for being more inclusive. I don't see that very often.

- As a man I never really had a sense of masculinity and its not important to me. I never really felt like I fit into masculinity or femininity very well at all. When society tries pushing or expecting masculinity from me it can really grind my gears. I just want to be me regardless of whether it can be considered feminine or masculine. If a characteristic of me is feminine or masculine its because it works for me for some reason or another.

Yikes this turned into quite the diatribe. I ended up writing much more than I originally expected. I guess I felt more strongly about the topic than I thought lmao.

Local-Willingness784 · 2025-07-14T16:15:31+00:00

i dont even know why i bothered to put my comment about my experiences and other men experiences that show how much worse men have had it thru history and how out problems are far more systemic and hard to solve compared to the "put yourself out there, clean up your act and pull yourself out by your bootstraps, you are bothering women with your whining" kind of deal that you people always peddle, you know where you would be better received? with the conservatives, because thats exactly where you male feminists and conservatives intersect perfectly, men are a problem to be solved not people to be helped, men have to be usefull for society while women get to be individuals and are cattered and taken care of, and i just dont know how you can pretend to even care about men when if push comes to shove you are (or at least you come across as) someone fixing a broken tool instead of a population with hopes, dreams and maybe a purpose outside of out fucked up social paradigm.

IntentionPitiful8235 · 2025-07-14T03:01:24+00:00

Ah....another "we should help men because not doing so causes problems for people who matter". Instead of "we should help men because they're people too".

And then there's:

"Men's issues can be approached in the same way. Men might not need preferential quotas or scholarships for university, or abortion rights, or greater representation in government.

Men are unrepresented at university, they are heavily underrepresented in many industries. Wondering where you were going with this and then...

"But they might need more exposure to male teachers in primary school, access to apprenticeships or prison reform.""

Right. Send the idiots off to bash bits of wood together and make prison nicer for them when their caveman brain eventually lands them in prison.

Comments