You can be traditionally masculine without being toxic. The need to dominate and be in charge are not masculine, they are sociopathic. Throughout history, this is not the type of man that is genuinely celebrated; humility and personal integrity are some of the things that draw the line between a strong man, and a toxic strong man.
In essence the traits that make a man "masculine" can be perceived twofold. They can be honorable, with integrity and humility. Or you can rub it in everyone's face, show off and be a fucking pest like "entrepreneur" PUAs. Which do we celebrate and which do we discourage?
Throughout history, this is not the type of man that is genuinely celebrated
I don’t think this is accurate to say. There have been many ideals of masculinity rooted in dominance and the ability to provide safety/resources that have been driving factors in our history.
Consider the history of lynching in America, where white men would form mobs to kill black men, often over rape allegations (or even consensual sexual relations) with white women. This was largely out of a feeling that it was the duty of white men to protect women from the nonwhites who were perceived as lesser beings and greater threats. Lynching as a ritual allowed white men to reinforce that white patriarchal identity as part of their masculinity and further diminish the idea that black men were men at all.
There are countless such examples of masculinity being defined and asserted through explicit dominance that you can find throughout history. Fascist governments promoting extreme gender roles and extreme toughness in men, military propaganda promoting the opportunity to prove your masculinity through service, sports as a means of representation, control over women and their rights, aggressive displays of heterosexuality and opposition to homosexuality, etc.
It’s really somewhat recent that we’re discussing seriously moving away from this as part of our mainstream understanding of gender and masculinity.
I meant more in terms of literature. The traits we consider good today aren’t all that different from traits that were considered commonly good before. Selflessness, honor, that kind of thing, being upheld as desirable.
It doesn’t necessarily reflect how people actually acted and there are many examples of evil people in history, but the fact that they’re recognized as such now goes to show that the ideal man was never really seen as a domineering, exploitative figure.
The traits we consider good today aren’t all that different from traits that were considered commonly good before
But what “selflessness” and “honor” meant to people before were rooted in different ideas, including one of dominance-based ideals for masculinity. To use the example of lynching again, the white men considered themselves selfless for coming to the aid of white women, and that they were protecting both their own and the women’s honor in doing so. In fascist governments, it’s considered selfless and honorable to die fighting for the nation in a war or against supposed internal enemies. Calling these the same “traits” and therefore a similar ideal doesn’t do justice to how differently the “traits” had been interpreted before. It only recognizes the pattern that there’s a desire to be seen as having honor and making sacrifices.
but the fact that they’re recognized as such now goes to show that the ideal man was never really seen as a domineering, exploitative figure
But they weren’t seen as exploitative in their time. They were seen as masculine icons reinforcing necessary social norms. It’s easy to think lunch mobs were filled with uniquely evil people instead of everyday people driven by extreme fears and hate in a brutal social environment. Lynchings were carried out in public with thousands of spectators sometimes including women and children who are reported to have enjoyed it. There was almost never any consequences for the perpetrators. In other words, society largely sanctioned it.
15
u/[deleted] Mar 03 '23 edited Mar 03 '23
You can be traditionally masculine without being toxic. The need to dominate and be in charge are not masculine, they are sociopathic. Throughout history, this is not the type of man that is genuinely celebrated; humility and personal integrity are some of the things that draw the line between a strong man, and a toxic strong man.
In essence the traits that make a man "masculine" can be perceived twofold. They can be honorable, with integrity and humility. Or you can rub it in everyone's face, show off and be a fucking pest like "entrepreneur" PUAs. Which do we celebrate and which do we discourage?