Along with “white privilege” and “mansplaining,” another recently disgorged concept designed to stigmatize an out-of-favor group (i.e., men) is “toxic masculinity.” And, rest assured, if you’re a traditionalist man, the shrunken-head head-shrinkers will diagnose you as having it. But fear not, there are classes for it now. As the Cut reports:
For some time, Stephen Hicks had felt like something was off. “My relationship ended, then a lot of things started collapsing in front of me,” Hicks says. He began attending therapy, which made him realize that he needed to make a bigger change: “I wasn’t doing really terrible things, but I also wasn’t being the most ideal Stephen I could be,” he says. “The bar is really lowered for cisgender guys.”
So earlier this year, Hicks signed up for the pilot Rethink Masculinity class, a partnership between the Washington, D.C., Rape Crisis Center, Collective Action for Safe Spaces, and ReThink, an organization that works to prevent sexual assault.
Something’s off alright, but it’s more that we live in a society where some people actually take notions such as toxic masculinity seriously. As for Hicks, whether he’s possessed of any kind of masculinity is an open question (commenters under the Cut article noted this). But his real problem is toxic leftism, as evidenced by his using the term “cisgender,” which toxic social engineers define as “noting or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with that person’s biological sex assigned at birth” (otherwise known as a “normal person”).
As to “Rethink Masculinity,” the Cut continues:
The program bills itself as a class where men “learn how social constructs of masculinity harm them and the people around them, and work to construct healthier masculinities.” Or, as Hicks puts it, “It was eight weeks of guys discussing how they can address their actions with better self-awareness and less toxicity.”
“We spoke of emotional labor, consent, violence, communication, empathy, and vulnerability,” he adds, noting that the last subject, in particular, was a struggle for him: “[I was] trained and conditioned to be tough growing up.”
The Cut mentions that the problems these classes address have been made painfully clear by the recent Harvey Weinstein scandal. Of course, though, no one would cite Weinstein as a true example of masculinity; real men protect women, not prey upon them.
In fairness, these social engineers wouldn’t claim to be demonizing all masculinity; they state there’s a “healthier” version of it, after all. As for the “toxic” variety, Portland State University psychology professor Eric Mankowski says it has “four main components: suppression of anything stereotypically feminine; suppression of emotions related to vulnerability, like fear, sadness, or helplessness; male domination over women and other men; and aggression,” writes the Cut.
While most would agree that the above components can be negative, the problem is that “toxic masculinity” no doubt stigmatizes legitimate masculinity as well — especially since the implied prescriptions for remedying it are somewhat ambiguous. For example, there are occasions when men should suppress fear or sadness, when stoicism may be in order. And is aggression, at the right times and properly directed, always a bad thing?
The shame here is that we don’t need new and questionable concepts and novel rehabilitative programs to improve man’s character. For we have an age-old, comprehensive and quite specific yardstick for goodness.
It’s called “virtue” — or good moral habits.
The virtues were defined long ago. They are: faith, hope, honesty, charity, fortitude, courage, justice, temperance, prudence, chastity, diligence, patience, kindness, forgiveness, humility, and love. These are the qualities to instill in children. And this is the guide to use when seeking personal improvement. We look at the list, honestly examine ourselves and ask, “Where am I lacking? Where do I need (the most) work?” There’s no ambiguity.
And there’s no need for “toxic masculinity” or “deconstructing whiteness” classes. The virtues are universal and eternal, applicable to everyone in every time.
So why do we wallow in nonsense? Philosopher G.K. Chesterton put it well, noting, “Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”
In reality, they’re afraid to look up at the Truth. Besides, you don’t “make your mark” (even if it’s a skid mark) — and you may not even get published — with what’s tried and true. So, instead, every generation is treated to a new sub-species of psychobabble.
