A few years ago, I analyzed emergent themes from men’s movement organizations that are active online. Many of these groups allowed for a high degree of interaction from the readers, allowing them to identify with and contribute to the content of the sites.
If you have ever visited comment sections of a sports board, you know the risks of allowing people to fire away with comments.
Lucky for me the comments provided by readers, and in turn contributors, to these sites became very insightful and constructive. As I mulled through the seemingly endless sample of articles and comments, one theme dominated the discourse, disposability.
The theme of disposability was so prominent that it could have served as the topic of my analysis alone. Disposability in the context of these sites refers to the number of ways in which men are exploited, ignored, or deemed of little value in Western societies. Some of the topics that disposability emerged from include war, military conscription, education, medicine, relationships/marriage, and workplace conditions/deaths.
It is important to note that when these topics are discussed, many of the contributors alluded to the conditions brought about by faults in capitalist systems allowing for men to be viewed as disposable.
Oh, and in case you are wondering, these sites are not anti-capitalism, they just pointed out imperfections in a system they deemed best. Additionally, none of the contributors resembled the “Men’s Rights Activist” character Dave Bautista portrayed in Glass Onion by way of actions or appearance.
Many of the comments and articles are critical of the role men play in the creation of their own problems. It is common for some to essentially say “If you don’t like it, then do something about it.”
Viewed from the outside and without careful analysis, these men’s groups come across as being whiny and just act as a backlash to feminism. The dismissiveness of these movements as a whole by men who believe they are “whiny” and the frustration from within the movement organizations with inactive men has brought me to my final pillar of masculinity, stoicism.
Stoicism
We all know the guy, the one who has not been to the doctor in over a decade and refuses treatment for that gash from the lawnmower blade he was changing. Regardless of how sick or hurt some men become, seeking professional medical treatment is simply out of the question. Why is this?
Lack of medical insurance?
Is it performative?
Do they just not care for their wellness?
For each, the answer can very well be yes. In my estimation, there is something more to it that we see in other aspects of male behavior.
There is an age-old question that is played out over and over and acts as a standard go-to plot line in television shows and movies, and that is “who has it tougher, men or women?” Of course, we should all be able to see that it is not an either/or, but rather a both/and scenario. What is strange is that when men talk about this, there is a noticeable difference in how some see the social conditions.
Now, I am going to do something I hate here, which is refer to a taxonomy of men. This is only done to drive a point home. In no way do I endorse the reference to “alpha,” “beta,” or “gamma,” but oh well, here it goes:
“Beta” men will suggest that men have it harder either as a way to fit in with peers or to take part in banter. The feeling is women are protected from many of the dangers and pressures faced by men. There is also a large segment that is reasonable in understanding where women have things more difficult and men benefit (usually this is based on biological differences).
“Alpha” men, or as some claim to be, say women have it more difficult. Men in this realm embrace a position of power and may look at themselves as protectors and are overly “chivalrous,” possibly in an attempt to lure women. Doing this requires a concession that women are “weak” and cannot successfully maneuver the barriers society has placed before them without the help of men.
“Gamma” men will also say women have it harder. Men here want to change society for what they understand to be for the better, oh and to lure women as well. Typically found in coffee shops and on university campuses, these are the guys who want to get in the good graces of female colleagues by following the extreme narratives that attack their nature. This is not to say these men do not genuinely support social change, but there is a healthy degree of pandering.
Of course, this is an oversimplification, but it should suffice in showing how different men, “alphas” and “gammas” in this case, would be dismissive of issues that should be of greater concern to them much to their peril. It is like a banker holding the door open for the robbers carrying in their guns and money sacks.
So why not go to the doctor? To uphold the tough guy patriarch image.
Why not express displeasure with dangerous working conditions? That is whining.
Still alright with selective service? Sure, because that is a duty and reinforces the role of a male protector.
My intention is not to ridicule the stoic nature of some people nor to reject to desire of many who choose to take such an approach. It is noble to care for the conditions of others over your own. Giving, sharing, and sacrificing are characteristics of being a good person. Such expected behaviors are ingrained into masculinity and have been overlooked. Stoicism lends itself to identifying a power-preserving behavior many men display and support.
