Often we hear from feminists "men are taught to [something bad with regards to masculinity]". This is taken as a given truth within their circles. This may or may not be true, but to state that people are taught to do something just because we observe it happening as stupid as saying children are taught to fail tests because some do fail.

The truth is there is some "pinnacle" to be reached with regards to aspects of masculinity. Whether it's being attractive to women, being strong, being a leader, being a risk taker, whatever behaviour you want to list that men tend towards. It is an abstract ideal that we are aiming for. None of these things listed are inherently bad, they only have the potential to manifest in good or bad ways.

The menslib approach is focus in almost exclusively on all the negative manifestations. Going through the above traits, this would be something like:

  • Being attractive to women: a man who harasses and is aggressive to women

  • Being strong: A man with body dysmorphia pumping himself with steroids and putting down people weaker than him

  • Being a leader: A man who dominates others and is insecure about receiving help

  • Risk taker: A man who does frankly stupid things putting himself and perhaps others in danger

Again, these are merely negative manifestations of an ideal which in itself is not negative.

Feminists now conclude that because the ideal can so easily manifest in harmful ways, it's not an ideal that we should hold. Which sounds simple and innocent enough.

However, the problem with this line of thinking is it leaves you unable to ever any ideals at all. There are no ideals which do not have both postitive and negative manifestations. This is why whenever you look at menslib trying to define positive masculinity, they are unable to do it. All they can ever say is such vague, useless platitudes such as "It's different for every person", "It's just being a good person". They cannot cling to any solid ideals because they know that someone will be able to identify a negative manifestation of it. And to them, if an ideal can have a negative manifestation it isn't an ideal worth having. Menslib are lost in a sea of nihilism, unable to ever grasp at anything solid.

Back to the main point, just because we observe something happening, it does not mean people are taught to be that way. In fact, if you look at the most common perpetrators of "toxic masculinity", people who may commit all the acts listed in the bullet points above, they are young men (teens/20s), often from single parent/broken households, often in gangs, with very few if any positive male role models in their life. In other words, it is just as Camille Paglia said: "It's not that these men have been socialized to..... It's the opposite - a failure of socialization."

The solution to under socialized men is not to remove the ideal that they were aiming for. The solution is to give boys the environment to be properly socialized and to be given a chance to actually progress down the path towards the ideal. Boys need guidance and nurturing with strong, positive male role models. Right now, what we're doing it's like dropping some boys into a stormy ocean, seeing them drown, then concluding that the solution is we shouldn't have boys go in water.

Finally, as the title in the posts suggest, we have the opposite problem to under socialization: over socialization. This is commonly seen menslib-esque spaces: Men who have been so socialized not to behave in under-socialized ways, that they become meek, scared, useless people, unable to do anything with themselves. It seems this may be a product of stern, overbearing parents. Going back to the traits above, this may be:

  • Being attractive to women: a man who is so scared of ever being the kind of guy that makes women feel uncomfortable, that he simply never approaches or even talks to them, especially in a flirtatious manner.

  • Being strong: A man who lets his body wither away, telling himself that in 2020 being physically strong is superfluous.

  • Being a leader: A man who is terrified of ever stepping on people's toes, so that he himself becomes a doormat and let's people walk all over him.

  • Risk taker: A man who can only ever think of the worst possible outcomes of doing things, and is terrified of being in the position of being responsible for something bad happening, so that he simply doesn't do anything at all.

It is over socialization that results in poor fellows like this: https://puu.sh/GGSAQ/f8c45cb571.png

Ted Kaczynski also had some sharp things to say about over socialization which can be read here: https://genius.com/Unabomber-oversocialization-annotated

This post came out a lot longer than I expected but here we are. I am so tired of menslib and feminists focusing exclusively on negative manifestations of male ideals as a front for removing the ideals altogether.