"Masculinity is Killing Men"

I've got a good piece for yall: Masculinity is Killing Men

tl;dr: Article accurately acknowledges how early on society leaves men to fend for themselves. Instead of accurately showing how this is a piece of how society at large devalues men, the article takes a feminist approach and claims masculinity and "being a man" is to fault

Overall, some of it reigns true while the rest of it reinforces some MGTOW/Red Pill principles. Here are some quotes:

Both ideas are poisonous and potentially destructive, but statistically speaking, the number of addicted and afflicted men and their comparatively shorter lifespans proves masculinity is actually the more effective killer, getting the job done faster and in greater numbers. Masculinity’s death tolls are attributed to its more specific manifestations: alcoholism, workaholism and violence. Even when it does not literally kill, it causes a sort of spiritual death, leaving many men traumatized, dissociated and often unknowingly depressed. (These issues are heightened by race, class, sexuality and other marginalizing factors, but here let’s focus on early childhood and adolescent socialization overall.) To quote poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “tis not in death that men die most.” And for many men, the process begins long before manhood.

We start off with this funky claim that our current perceptions of Masculinity link into how all men are murders, alcoholics, etc. What we see here is that strain of feminism that goes out of its way to take away agency from men. If you start from the perception that men are inherently damaged it makes it easier to discard and discount them as society often enjoys doing. We are simply helpless victims! And we somehow don't realize it!

The emotionally damaging “masculinization” of boys starts even before boyhood, in infancy. Psychologist Terry Real, in his 1998 book I Don’t Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression, highlights numerous studies which find that parents often unconsciously begin projecting a kind of innate “manliness”—and thus, a diminished need for comfort, protection and affection—onto baby boys as young as newborns. This, despite the fact that gendered behaviors are absent in babies; male infants actually behave in ways our society defines as “feminine.” As Real explains, “[l]ittle boys and little girls start off… equally emotional, expressive, and dependent, equally desirous of physical affection. At the youngest ages, both boys and girls are more like a stereotypical girl. If any differences exist, little boys are, in fact, slightly more sensitive and expressive than little girls. They cry more easily, seem more easily frustrated, appear more upset when a caregiver leaves the room.” Yet both mothers and fathers imagine inherent sex-related differences between baby girls and boys. Even when researchers controlled for babies’ “weight, length, alertness, and strength,” parents overwhelmingly reported that baby girls were more delicate and “softer” than baby boys; they imagined baby boys to be bigger and generally “stronger.” When a group of 204 adults was shown video of the same baby crying and given differing information about the baby’s sex, they judged the “female” baby to be scared, while the “male” baby was described as “angry.”

Here is where we see the crux of what we find in MGTOW/Red Pill. And this is what the article does right. At a very early age, little girls are coddled and protected leading them to becoming adults who depend upon this want of "protection" they want from men (and this also creates their victim complex because they are treated as a more vulnerable sex even as babies). On the other hand, society already begins to discard men.

It is like a lesser version of Spartan society. We are thrown off of the cliff in order to be taught how to climb back up on our own. This very well shapes us to conform to a society where men are responsible for doing the creating while at the same time getting no credit for it because "it is what a man does". If a woman invents something or helps construct society in some way, we pat them on the back for doing something seen as "masculine". If a man does it...well it was his responsibility in the first place. This is important for my argument against their later conclusion.

It’s a pattern that continues throughout childhood and into adolescence. Real cites a study that found both mothers and fathers emphasized “achievement and competition in their sons,” and taught them to “control their emotions”—another way of saying boys are tacitly instructed to ignore or downplay their emotional needs and wants. Similarly, parents of both sexes are more punitive toward their sons, presumably working under the assumption that boys “can take it.” Beverly I. Fagot, the late researcher and author of The Influence of Sex of Child on Parental Reactions to Toddler Children, found that parents gave positive reinforcement to all children when they exhibited “same-sex preferred” behaviors (as opposed to “cross-sex preferred”). Parents who said they “accepted sex equity” nonetheless offered more positive responses to little boys when they played with blocks, and offered negative feedback to girls when they engaged in sporty behavior. And while independent play—away from parents—and “independent accomplishments” were encouraged in boys, girls received more positive feedback when they asked for help. As a rule, these parents were unaware of the active role they played in socializing their children in accordance with gender norms. Fagot notes that all stated they treated sons and daughters the same, without regard to sex, a claim sharply contradicted by study findings. Undeniably, these kinds of lessons impart deeply damaging messages to both girls and boys, and have lifelong and observable consequences. But whereas, as Terry Real says, “girls are allowed to maintain emotional expressiveness and cultivate connection,” boys are not only told they should suppress their emotions, but that their manliness essentially depends on them doing so. Despite its logic-empty premise, our society has fully bought into the notion that the relationship between maleness and masculinity is somehow incidental and precarious, and embraced the myth that “boys must be turned into men…that boys, unlike girls, must achieve masculinity.” Little boys internalize this concept early; when I spoke to Real, he indicated that research suggests they begin to hide their feelings from as young as 3 to 5 years old. “It doesn’t mean that they have fewer emotions. But they’re already learning the game—that it’s not a good idea to express them,” Real says. Boys, conventional wisdom holds, are made men not by merely aging into manhood, but through the crushing socialization just described. But Real points out what should be obvious about cisgender boys: “[they] do not need to be turned into males. They are males. Boys do not need to develop their masculinity.

Here is where the article starts getting really problematic. It tries to argue that "controlling your emotions" is somehow inherently self-damaging that is universal among men. While going to far with this is true, being taught to "control your emotions" is a part of becoming an adult. If a boss gives you a bunch of shitty work to do when you are already overworked, you don't start crying or throwing a fit because it is disruptive and unproductive.

The problem with arguments like this is twofold: 1. It justifies the emotional craziness of many women. As this article is saying, women are merely "emotionally connected" with themselves. So when they let their emotions get the better of them they can simply justify it by saying they aren't trying to suppress emotions. This is an easy way for them to avoid responsibility and, as you can see, society and feminism support and reinforce this ridiculous notion. 2. This is simply another way to shame men. Funny enough, the article mentions how from around age 3 men are smart enough to know that expressing emotions doesn't help them at all. That is because this is very true. Any man who shows enough emotion to a woman will automatically be discarded as something "not manly". Women hate it when men express emotions. It is the quickest way to ensuring you don't get laid. If you keep telling men to do an action that society consistently forces you not to do, why do it? Being an "emotionally expressive" man will get you nowhere. People will call you immature. Your female partners will leave you for Chad because you aren't man enough for her. You get nothing in the end for being "emotionally expressive" as they say. This sort of thing is why feminism doesn't serve men's best interests. It tries to drive us into a hole that would do nothing but hurt us even more.

That trauma makes itself plain in the ways men attempt to sublimate feelings of emotional need and vulnerability. While women tend to internalize pain, men instead act it out, against themselves and others. As Real told me, women “blame themselves, they feel bad, they know they feel bad, they’d like to get out of it. Boys and men tend to externalize stress. We act it out and often don’t see our part in it. It’s the opposite of self-blame; it’s more like feeling like an angry victim.” The National Alliance on Mental Illness states that across race and ethnicity, women are twice as likely to experience depression as men. But Real believes men’s acting-out behaviors primarily serve to mask their depression, which goes largely unrecognized and undiagnosed. Examples of these destructive behaviors range from the societally approved, such as workaholism, to the criminally punishable, such as drug addiction and violence. Men are twice as likely as women to suffer from rage disorders. According to the Centers for Disease Control, men are more likely to drink to excess than women, leading to “higher rates of alcohol-related deaths and hospitalizations.” (Possibly because men under the influence are also more likely to engage in other risky behaviors, such as “driv[ing] fast or without a safety belt.”) Boys are more likely to have used drugs by the age of 12 than girls, which leads to a higher likelihood of drug abuse in men than in women later in life. American men are more likely to kill (committing 90.5 percent of all murders) and be killed (comprising 76.8 percent of murder victims). This extends to themselves, according to studies: “males take their own lives at nearly four times the rate of females and comprise approximately 80 percent of all suicides.” (Interestingly, suicide attempts among women are estimated to be three to four times higher than that of their male counterparts.) And according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, men make up more than 93 percent of prisoners.

Here is the argument that is perhaps most problematic. So the article concludes that the reason why all men are violent rapists, thugs, murders, what have you is because they weren't cared for as children. This just reeks of subtle misandry. Could you imagine if a dude in this day and age claimed all women are gold diggers because parents treated girls as "little princesses" at an early age? If any many in the scientific field made such a claim he would be crucified, ironically, by feminists who like to make this similar argument but specifically for men. To feminists, men can stereotyped and seen as socially constructed individuals rather than individuals who can form their own personalities independent of social pressures. The double standard is clear here.

Now the real argument that should have been made is that men, by being discarded and not properly nurtured at an early age, will likely act out because society continues to reinforce this notion that we are so replaceable. Really any human being who is valued in the least bit is going to go crazy and act out. Who wouldn't? Yet society still ignores and punishes us for no reason.

For example, with the "rape culture" debate in colleges you clearly see men being accused of sexually assaulting women because both parties were drunk and had sex with each other. For the woman, she is excused and couldn't give consent because she was drunk. Again, this stemming from the stuff earlier about baby girls needing protection. While the man, who was also drunk, isn't free to use this excuse and instead is accused of sexual assault. This is because the man should have known to handle the situation better. This relates back to the fact that baby boys are left to fend for themselves moreso than baby girls, so if society can throw us away as babies why not keep doing it as we are older?

There are more examples of how society disvalues us. Divorce law, bias prosecutions in the criminal justice system, and so on are all further examples of society bombarding us with the reality that we are not valuable or worth protecting. And it is THESE things that are making men kill themselves or lash out. This constant crushing reality that tells us we aren't to be valued.

The article has a few paragraphs left discussing how masculinity is somehow the root cause of all of this. Which is a joke. See how feminism, instead of concluding that society doesn't value men, concludes that men and masculinity are at fault? This goes to show that even when feminism have the right facts on their side their conclusions are going to biased towards fulfill their agenda rather than actually combating the gender inequalities that wouldn't immediately benefit women. This is why MGTOW and Red Pill exist. We see the inequalities and respond to it because somebody has to.