Joy Reid: "Trump leads a movement of men who are indifferent to suffering, averse to health guidance and overly agitated. And it's putting America's men in danger." I see no evidence, however, that Reid actually cares about men in danger. I suspect (given her many other statements about men) that she cares only about women in danger from men. But Reid herself is no authority. The American Psychology Association is supposed to have scientific authority. Its "division 51" (which specializes in explicitly feminist approaches to the psychology of boys and men) made this much clear in an early version of its new (and first) guide to the clinical treatment of boys and men. The final version, after many complaints, toned down that message with evasions and euphemisms. But because most psychologists are not simply women but feminist women, I'd warn any man, and the parents of any boy, not to seek counseling from anyone who belongs to the APA (which is the body in charge of accrediting departments of psychology and therefore of their graduates).
I'm glad, Sean, that you challenge the prevailing assumption that male public figures, who present either healthy or (more often) unhealthy "role models," are the central or only factors in the formation of masculine identity. I suspect that fathers are still much more important figures for their sons--unless, of course, they're banished from the family for reasons that have nothing to do with abuse. In traditional communities, religious leaders and teachers participate in the task of turning boys into men. In secular communities, though, many boys must look to those who "perform masculinity" for either financial or political gain: rock stars, sports heroes, gang leaders, "influencers" and even terrorists for socially approved causes). But a president or any other politician? How many of those, since Abraham Lincoln, have demonstrated real wisdom instead of political savvy? This is a profoundly cynical age. It's true that many men could find legitimate reasons to vote for Trump instead of Biden (or Harris), but few of them would claim that his personality is admirable, let alone that his masculinity is healthy. My point is that even children are skeptical.
But the UNDERLYING problem here is not the lack of masculine "role models" (although that lack is not a good thing). Rather, the problem is that society presents boys and men with obstacles that prevent them from establishing ANY healthy identity as boys or men. In other words, they quickly realize at some level of consciousness that society has no need for them and no room for them specifically as men. The state, as you show so convincingly, has abandoned them. Women have married the state, for all purposes except emotional or sexual gratification, and therefore rely on the state for everything else. Boys learn quickly enough that society does not value them (unless they can be more like girls or even become girls). In short, masculinity no longer has any FUNCTION that is reliably (a) distinctive; (b) necessary; and (c) publicly valued. (Fatherhood is the one function that remains a source of masculine identity, but even that is increasingly trivialized or disputed.) If anyone wonders why so many men drop out of school, drop out of the work force, drop out of the family and drop out of life itself, THIS is why.
Joy Reid: "Trump leads a movement of men who are indifferent to suffering, averse to health guidance and overly agitated. And it's putting America's men in danger." I see no evidence, however, that Reid actually cares about men in danger. I suspect (given her many other statements about men) that she cares only about women in danger from men. But Reid herself is no authority. The American Psychology Association is supposed to have scientific authority. Its "division 51" (which specializes in explicitly feminist approaches to the psychology of boys and men) made this much clear in an early version of its new (and first) guide to the clinical treatment of boys and men. The final version, after many complaints, toned down that message with evasions and euphemisms. But because most psychologists are not simply women but feminist women, I'd warn any man, and the parents of any boy, not to seek counseling from anyone who belongs to the APA (which is the body in charge of accrediting departments of psychology and therefore of their graduates).
I'm glad, Sean, that you challenge the prevailing assumption that male public figures, who present either healthy or (more often) unhealthy "role models," are the central or only factors in the formation of masculine identity. I suspect that fathers are still much more important figures for their sons--unless, of course, they're banished from the family for reasons that have nothing to do with abuse. In traditional communities, religious leaders and teachers participate in the task of turning boys into men. In secular communities, though, many boys must look to those who "perform masculinity" for either financial or political gain: rock stars, sports heroes, gang leaders, "influencers" and even terrorists for socially approved causes). But a president or any other politician? How many of those, since Abraham Lincoln, have demonstrated real wisdom instead of political savvy? This is a profoundly cynical age. It's true that many men could find legitimate reasons to vote for Trump instead of Biden (or Harris), but few of them would claim that his personality is admirable, let alone that his masculinity is healthy. My point is that even children are skeptical.
But the UNDERLYING problem here is not the lack of masculine "role models" (although that lack is not a good thing). Rather, the problem is that society presents boys and men with obstacles that prevent them from establishing ANY healthy identity as boys or men. In other words, they quickly realize at some level of consciousness that society has no need for them and no room for them specifically as men. The state, as you show so convincingly, has abandoned them. Women have married the state, for all purposes except emotional or sexual gratification, and therefore rely on the state for everything else. Boys learn quickly enough that society does not value them (unless they can be more like girls or even become girls). In short, masculinity no longer has any FUNCTION that is reliably (a) distinctive; (b) necessary; and (c) publicly valued. (Fatherhood is the one function that remains a source of masculine identity, but even that is increasingly trivialized or disputed.) If anyone wonders why so many men drop out of school, drop out of the work force, drop out of the family and drop out of life itself, THIS is why.