“What’s the matter with men?” This question and the
attendant notion of “toxic masculinity” have been swirling around like a
Category 5 cultural maelstrom, especially since the #MeToo movement began, with
a new gust whirling in with the sickeningly sordid case of Jeffrey Epstein. To
many feminist and progressive women and men, it all comes down to culture: Males
have learned a set of beliefs and behaviors predicated on toughness, control,
dominance, violence, and sexual prowess, and these are harmful to men and women.
to the rescue are many small, generally well-intentioned men’s groups. They
preach the virtues of “healthy” or “progressive” masculinity and offer “training”
workshops to wash away the evils of traditional masculinity. John Wayne will dismount
and start singing “Kumbaya.”
and sexual harassment and assault obviously are horribly wrong, yet the underlying
problems for millions of working class, poor, and struggling middle class American
men do not stem whether they act more like the Terminator than Mr. Rogers. The
real front-burner issues are declining wages and underemployment, poor physical
and mental health, dwindling educational success, relative loss of status, fathers
being able to connect with their children, mass incarceration, and
powerlessness. Young men are less likely to hold
jobs and more likely to be poor than before the Great
Recession. Suicide is three and a half times more common among men than
women, and men are twice as likely to die from opioid overdoses. About one-third of men between ages 15 and 64 live alone.
To be told that their big problem is
“toxic masculinity” only provokes anger. In fact, considerable research has
shown that decent work and wages, stable families, and civic engagement tend to
reinforce more prosocial behavior among men. Presumably, just what progressives
than their holier-than-thou haranguing—much like those who simplistically
advocate for “family values”—what a huge number of men need are good jobs,
economic security, better health, good schools and training, and hope. These would
help men—and women and children—in very concrete ways. But they also would enable
men to feel less need to prove their manhood in destructive ways and a greater ability
to become involved fathers, as well as join a cultural milieu where the
precepts of “healthy masculinity” can be the norm.
their over-emphasis on culture, many progressives sound more like Edmund Burke
than social democrats. Don’t get me wrong: Culture is important, but culture is
a complex web of multiple, interacting factors, including economic conditions,
that influence beliefs and behavior. For example, low incomes and lack of hope batter
countless men who grew up believing they would be “providers,” as the toxicity
police rightly tell us. So, is the “traditional” masculine belief that men
should be breadwinners or the fact that so many men live precariously, failing
to win enough bread, the bigger problem?
I hear the rejoinders coming in like fast-approaching missiles.
Number 1: There are “toxic” well-to-do men. Yes, but the most visible are from
worlds where power and money are the coin of the realm. Think Wall Street,
Washington, Hollywood. A notch below are sexist accountants and leering
personal-injury lawyers, but this minority of men should be the first target for
those trying to teach “healthy masculinity.”
Number 2: Look at all those men pushing strollers and staying home to care for
their kids, so the times must be a changin’. Yes, from the vantage point of many
Washington think tanks or top universities where restaurants serve bottles of
Dom Perignon for $1,000, it sure looks that way. Some data seem to back this
up, as the ranks of at-home fathers have grown. Yet, less than one-fourth of
at-home dads (or less than 1 million out 70-75 million fathers of minor children) are
home to take care of their children.
is a lot of inside-the-bubble classism to these rejoinders. Kind of like the classism (and racism) that many saw in the Women’s Marches. I am
tempted to say: Go out and see the rest of America!
progressive new-masculinity groups are hardly alone in making the socioeconomic
plight of working-class and poor men a low priority. There has generally been a
deafening silence among those on the right when it comes to advocating for genuine
economic and educational opportunities and good health care for men (or anyone
else) who needs help. Their big little lies are also founded on ideas that
culture, not economics or power structures, are to blame: Their answer to
“toxic masculinity” is “coastal elites.” (Exactly, where do most conservative
intellectuals and commentators live—but that’s another story!)
those on the left—who too often pay little attention to culture in their
analyses and policies—railing against “toxic masculinity” is unlikely to win many
friends or carry much influence among most American men. If attitudinal and behavioral change is the
goal, tackling all manner of social and economic ills and improving men’s
everyday lives has a better chance of changing men’s attitudes and behavior in
the long run than preaching to them.
L. Yarrow, a former New York Times
reporter and historian of post-World War II America, addresses these and
related issues in his recent book, Man Out: Men on the Sidelines of American Life.