When Does Masculinity Become Toxic
What is a man, and what ought he be in terms of authority and presence. The latest Assaults on 'toxic' masculinity have me wondering, how do we figure out what is too much or too little masculinity.
I'm happy with my level of masculinity. But I remember seeing an ad that critisized masculinity, and now I see that criticism popping up all over social media.
I think the family unit, as well as societies military are governing factors of masculinity. Perhaps also religion. Without enough masculitiny these social structures fall apart, as well as society. Unless they rely on another society that has these structures well established.
Defining functional family seems difficult. So let's start with the traditional nuclear family of Mother, Father, and children. Altering this core unit, makes this discussion incredibly diverse and difficult. If your definition of a man relies on altering the core unit, then please say so.
In any company, Government, team or any institute made up of multiple individuals, there must be one person who has ultimate responsibility. Whether its the boss, owner, president or team leader. One person at the top is responsible for the success or failure of the institute.
In the family, the person responsible is usually the man. In a dangerous situation, its usually the man who has to step forward and put his life on the line. Whether its taking a bullet, or even just checking a noise in the back yard at night.
It's easy to make a case for the need of masculitiny, but the question remains, how much is too much or not enough...is the even a such thing as not enough.
I treat my wife like a Queen. She makes all the important decisions, and even if I don't agree, I humbly stand by her and enforce her decisions. But when there's times that we can't agree, I will exercise my authority, and expect my decision be supported. I present myself as a humble King, with the grace of God to guide me.
The kids sometimes try to argue with mother, and I'll let them sort it out. But they know that what I say goes, which is why I'm casual in exercising my authority. But I need consistency, otherwise authority falls apart.
There's a point where masculinity becomes toxic, but where is that point?
I'm happy with my level of masculinity. But I remember seeing an ad that critisized masculinity, and now I see that criticism popping up all over social media.
I think the family unit, as well as societies military are governing factors of masculinity. Perhaps also religion. Without enough masculitiny these social structures fall apart, as well as society. Unless they rely on another society that has these structures well established.
Defining functional family seems difficult. So let's start with the traditional nuclear family of Mother, Father, and children. Altering this core unit, makes this discussion incredibly diverse and difficult. If your definition of a man relies on altering the core unit, then please say so.
In any company, Government, team or any institute made up of multiple individuals, there must be one person who has ultimate responsibility. Whether its the boss, owner, president or team leader. One person at the top is responsible for the success or failure of the institute.
In the family, the person responsible is usually the man. In a dangerous situation, its usually the man who has to step forward and put his life on the line. Whether its taking a bullet, or even just checking a noise in the back yard at night.
It's easy to make a case for the need of masculitiny, but the question remains, how much is too much or not enough...is the even a such thing as not enough.
I treat my wife like a Queen. She makes all the important decisions, and even if I don't agree, I humbly stand by her and enforce her decisions. But when there's times that we can't agree, I will exercise my authority, and expect my decision be supported. I present myself as a humble King, with the grace of God to guide me.
The kids sometimes try to argue with mother, and I'll let them sort it out. But they know that what I say goes, which is why I'm casual in exercising my authority. But I need consistency, otherwise authority falls apart.
There's a point where masculinity becomes toxic, but where is that point?
Comments (73)
Toxic masculinity isn't about "too much" masculinity, but about a faulty construal of what constitutes masculinity. In other words, it's when men are socially pressured to do and think and feel things that are bad, both for others and for themselves, on pain of being considered "not a real man" and therefore deficient in some way.
Nobody's against men being as masculine as they want, so long as it's a healthy positive conception of "masculinity" that they're going after.
:100: Well put!
When you start to suffer and make others around you suffer because you try too hard to conform to masculinity standards.
That's a good one.
My guess is it's something to do with not washing your under-carriage!
But aside from the ameliorating effect of marriage, which is already noted in the OP, there’s something else that could be said. Masculinity, as a manifestation of testosterone, has an inherent drive. Male H. Sapiens are naturally primed by the four f’s of evolutionary biology - you know, feeding, fighting, fleeing or (again, never mind). That Darwinian heritage has to be de-fanged by civilisation - which is the subject of one of Freud’s great essays, Civilisation and its Discontents. He believed it was contained, albeit never perfectly, through the process of sublimation, which is to redirect those primal urges to a socially useful purpose. And that’s what politics is about. But the kind of culture we're in, pays no mind to that - in fact, it will milk frustrated masculinity for every red cent - think arms sales, and the porn industry, to mention only two.
Of course, males have to be wise to this, and hopefully most are. But our current culture and media-political environment will encourage and exploit toxic masculinity, and you see it boiling over all the time.
See edition of Commentary :rofl:
Masculinity has, as I see it two main areas in which to exist: The family and the world.
In the family people like those brought up in something like a republican conservative family might look back on 1958 and seeing that as the wunderland, when dad worked, mommy made food and kids were grounded if smoking.
Having a dominant father, a rather humble mother and being from something as unusual as a Scandinavias actively Christian family I had my fair share of that. My Mother died just before the Covid and my 80+ yo father had to learn stuff like washing clothes and so. That my mother did all of until the day she passed away.
This was NOT very good, especially when we were kids (way back in another millenia), and my mother just couldn´t cope with two strong-willed sons. But the kids and the home was her resposibility, dad brought the cash.
Myself being married to a woman of equal education and salary as me, we have like shared everything. I wash the dishes and have forced her to be able to fix stuff that breaks down in the house, taking care of the economy and so. That works splendidly.
Even so more, because I have a very Male view on how children should be treated and she has a very feminine one. She is kind "want to do whats best for the kids" ask them "what they want to do with their lives", while I, being from a poorer background than my wife do not tolerate any traces in my kids of being spoiled or omnipotent. My daughter and son has got a little of each, and although they do have some more sense of pressure to produce results, they seem to do good in University, and will not be drones but people that really contribute to mean human lifetime and human comfortability.
Because the other area is the world. And the world is a place which, for humans have become a tremendously much better place than in the 18th century. And it continues to be better and better. Fewer and fewer people are poor. Fewer and fewer wars are fought. For sure there are problems with ecosystems and so, but the solutions to that will be in the same area as fixed mean lifetime.
And that is where Masculinity comes in. Face it - what big contribution to human welfare has a woman´s name? What really big scientific discovery? For sure, women have not had the same chances to education and such in earlier times, but they do have those chances now. Guys do invent stuff. That testosterone, Darwin published Origin Of Species earlier than he had intended, to make sure he got the honor, other guys were on the track too.
Women do great good too, but that is more in terms of making a case for humanity. I do not doubt that the reduction in warfare can be traced back to womenly influence including suffrage.
So guys push forward and girls moderate. We see a very interesting fight on this subject among caucasians in my Scandinavian home country. Among people of education, the people that will be politically influential - The question of refugees from middle east and Africa. We have admiitted a tremendous lot of immigrants to come to our country. Something that on a humanitarian point of view seem like a good idea, but at the same time, a very large crowd of people from a totally other culture has seen a tremendous lot of problems, murder, rape, beatings of "whities" and a very large unemployment. And through that, a Racism that did not exist before. Generally, a lot of guys goes to the half nazi party that used to be like 4% and now is like 20% in our elections, while women of academy tend to vote for the red-green party that hails Greta Thunberg and want to admit an unlimited number of refugees to our country.
There, some Yin and Yang for you... The solution? Governments that can take a Yin and Yang look at stuff. In my country the feminine view has been a little too dominant for a couple of decades, while the Middle East countries would fare well with a little more, probably.
To listen is not to be a man.
Quoting Pfhorrest
In other words, you can be as masculine as you want as long as your version of masculinity conforms to someone elses version if masculinity. :roll:
Should we also consider extreme feminism as a problem? What about when opposing extreme feminism is deemed extreme masculinity? This is what is happening: opposing extremism is now considered extremist.
The relationship between toxic masculinity is an interesting area. Because we could ask to whom is the masculinity toxic? In some senses it can be toxic to the man if it involves being confined to traditional interests, such as football and male orientated jobs.
On the other hand, it can be toxic on the level of toxicity which is about keeping women in their place, such as the view that women should be at home, in the kitchen, as housewives. I remember being at school and one of my teachers telling me that a lot of heated discussion took place between the teachers in the staff room, along this line.
Most people don't think any longer that men should be the breadwinners and women as housewives. However, there are some who think that way, mainly those from a generation who were taught this value. But, of course there are still some chauvinistic attitudes which are subject to scrutiny. I know one man who actually calls himself a feminist. We could ask if it makes sense to identify as a 'feminist man', or is it a contradiction in terms?
Tbf that's true of all things. Basically: do what you want, just don't be a dick. You found God, great! Just don't be a dick about it. You like a drink, great! Just don't be a dick about it. You want to be the manliest man you can be, go for it! Just don't be a dick about it.
Toxic men reserve the right to be a dick about it.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Toxic women too.
Don't get me started on toxic prepubescence. Little dicks.
I wouldn’t consider that a contradiction, since feminism is characterized by a desire for equality of the sexes. Is desiring equality a contradiction to what it means to be a man? If so, that would probably be quite a toxic thing.
As for the question posited by the OP, “toxic masculinity” to me seems to me when the expectations of masculinity limit or degrade positive social functioning. For example, when expectations of being a man prevent men from expressing emotions in a healthy way. Some refer to this as “emotional castration” that is inflicted on little boys who grow to find themselves in a world where they cannot express emotions effectively, leading to outbursts of anger or aggression. That is toxic for them, and for their communities.
Dividing traits and characteristics between masculinity and femininity can serve to create a false dichotomy that limits how people move through the world. An interesting example that avoids toxicity is some indigenous treatments of gender whereby the masculine and feminine are seen to be two parts that live within each person in balance. The warrior inside represents a person’s masculine energies, while the creative and intuitive nature is drawn from their feminine energy. There is more to be said on this, but I’d have to dig up a book I’ve already packed for moving house. This treatment of masculine/feminine leaves space for the individual to exist on a spectrum of dichotomous ideas without limiting a person based on genitalia.
Masculinity really becomes toxic when it puts men in boxes that don’t actually fit who they are beyond their sexual identity. The same for femininity. I suppose the toxicity has a good deal to do with how masculinity and femininity limit people’s world and case them to interact with others in ways that are not pro-social or have negative consequences to the culture.
Yes, I think that the less we put people into little boxes the better. I don't want to become 'Jack in the Box'. We are becoming used to having to tick more and more boxes, on more and more forms, increasingly.
The word "authority" pops out at me here, along with the fact that "Assault" starts with a capital A as if it's an enshrined religious rite.
So this is like one of Hitler's speeches about how German men need to stop being a bunch of pussies and get their Viking on. Grab your horn hat and storm something.
Real men don't need to broadcast their beastliness, tho.
And not to just someone, but a specific vocal and dominant group that defines what is good or 'toxic' in the World we live today (among other things).
Any reference to anything with "Toxic x" has this special narrative and a distinct ideology behind it. I think it is far better to dissect "toxicity" in this case to something more accurately defined: are you specifically talking about sexual harassment, sexism, misogynism, male chauvinism, homophobia, male priviledge or simply bullying. Those terms open up far more better for people who don't know the toxic masculinity narrative. Besides, referring to toxic masculinity makes one think that the person is referring to that masculinity is toxic.
Like always, the dose makes the toxicity. You have to allow for a little masculine assertiveness once in a while. The women who castrate their men don't have a good time in bed. Masculinity, like feminity, they spice up life.
:100: :up:
Quoting Hanover
Sure thing. The phrase "toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "masculinity, which is toxic", but "a form of masculinity that is toxic". There can be a form of pretty much anything that is toxic. The "toxic" in "toxic masculinity" is specifically to differentiate it from other, perfectly okay kinds of masculinity.
Not sure that it does differ from general assertiveness.
According to Wiki, the idea dates from the renaissance, and from a physician:
"The dose makes the poison" is an adage intended to indicate a basic principle of toxicology. It is credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."
The French were initially baffled by #metoo because we invested quite a lot culturally onto the idea of romantic heterosexual love. Not that every single French national is romantic of course (or heterosexual for that matter) but it's a strong trope in the culture, which I think made us less able to see the harm done by men onto women in the name of "love".
Things are changing, I believe for the better, but still I doubt my nation will ever fully embrace the idea that men should wear lingerie, for instance. A less extreme perhaps example is that of the skirt for men and boys: there are men (and couture dons) who tried wearing the skirt but it's not gelling in the culture.
I actually wore a sort of skirt for a few weeks, and enjoyed it quite a lot. But I was in Somalia then, where men do wear sorts of skirts (a scarf wrapped around the waist) so I was just conforming to the local gender roles. It's great for hot weather... The breeze keeping your thing ventilated, that's priceless! So we're missing something. I guess the downside is a bone is harder to hide.
That need to be discussed heavily. Women having suffrage has not only influenced society in positive ways. Spoiling of kids have become institutional and has lead to the development of hailing of low effort and results. The typical academic woman will go to extreme measures to perform well herself (at work, at home, with friends) but will spoil her own kids severely, making them "snowflakes" if the husband do not put some sense in the kids. She will further push for "weaker people", not requiring any personal responsibility from poorer people, refugees, people in minorities or whatever.
Being from a background way more disprivileged than any group in current scandinavia, the poorer people still held a high sense of responsibility and industry. As did scandinavian people that emigrated to the USA.
A male view, like that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King is that Opportunity indeed should be equal, but people should also, regardless of situation do their best.
I do also doubt that, If female had suffrage from say 1750, that the mean lifetime and comfort would have been the same as the one we have now. Scientific discovery and industry are heroic activities, apart from also being team efforts.
As always, I do not say that all men are all masculine, and that all females are feminine. I love romance novels. But femininity as such is nothing that is all good.
Quoting Wayfarer
What is inherent, what is evolved, what is natural, is called 'maleness', and 'masculinity' refers to social roles. The manifestations of testosterone include all things female: men have relatively elevated testosterone levels, and that is part of maleness.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
There is much to recommend this. Except that it applies to every male from the age they become aware of their sex and learn to insist on a blue toothbrush not a pink one. Some of us are quite happy to say that gender roles and identities arealways toxic from the beginning, along with racial, and other socially imposed identities.
Thus I am a man, and therefore whatever I am is part of maleness and whatever I do is part of maleness, and there is nothing to conform to and nothing to perform. On this view, there is no achievement, no winning of the woman, or finding a place in the dominance hierarchy - I haven't had a fight for 58 years, but ain't I a man? A gay man is a complete man and a straight man is also a complete man, and a transvestite is a complete man. A celibate monk and a gigolo are both complete men.
But masculinity confines, restricts, imposes, on all men a single image to which one must conform or face penalties - sometimes the death penalty.
But one must remember the source of this language is the political talk of women. And in practice, the emphasis will be exactly what is being presented by some here as the essence of masculinity - domination, aggression and violence, domestic abuse, and at the extreme, rape.
So if any woman chooses to be a housewife, then that can only be because she was brought up in a such a way to be ignorant if anything else? The same could be said of any person. We are all products of our genes and upbringing. A woman that works away from home and chooses to never marry or have kids is as much a product of her genes and upbringing as a housewife. Who gets to tell either of these women what is best for them?
In asserting that someone that shares some quality with you, like skin color or sex parts, must then act like you and approve of the things that you approve of, is the essence of bigotry. A woman choosing to be a housewife isnt a threat to some other woman's liberty, just as a man choosing to wear a dress isnt a threat to every man's masculinity.
I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all.
It would be weird if that wasn't true, since it's one species. What would you say stands out as particularly masculine (regardless of where your aesthetic comes from, culture, family history, movies, religion, etc.)?
Well, one can be aware of something without worrying about it. Men worry about their masculinity when they're anxious or concerned about it, e.g. when they are concerned they're lacking in it or anxious because others may be insufficiently impressed by it.
Would it be fair to say that masculinity becomes toxic when men are insecure about their masculinity? Insecurity implies that it is precisely when their masculinity is altering their perception of themselves and their place in the world and in relation to others. Worry indicates self-consciousness or self-awareness, which perhaps is not always toxic. One could worry about their masculinity in that they worry they are behaving negatively (not helping around the house, for example) and that worry would cause a behavior that is not toxic but pro-social.
Do you think there is a man who isn't concerned about his masculinity?
Right. So how do you determine whether or not some behavior is the result of a social norm or the individuals own choice? If a large group of women decide to be house-wives how do you know that is the result of social norm and not just an inclination many women have? In other words, how can you determine if some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?
I would say that it is not possible to determine whether someone's behaviour is derived from norms or not, but the best we can hope for is to give every person the best opportunities and free choice.
how do you do that if you cant determine whether or not some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?
Are birds nests and bird mating rituals the result of the birds genes or upbringing?
Strangely enough, a bird has to learn from other birds how to be a bird.
If it doesn't do that in a narrow window in childhood, it will never learn.
Mammals are different. They can learn throughout their lives.
If you have followed any of my posts on this forum, you know that I assume the position others are making and then integrate it with the rest of what we know. When it doesn't fit with the rest of what we know, I ask a question to try and reconcile the discrepancy. If you find it difficult to answer the question then maybe we should re-think what was said. Some people simply assert things without integrating the assertion with the rest of what they know.
Quoting frank
Yes, that is very strange to consider. You seem to be forgeting about instincts.
So if a woodpecker was raised by a penguin, then the woodpecker would waddle around and dive into the water and swim like penguins? :chin:
It’s becoming obvious that we are dealing with a false dichotomy.
In any case, the OP has asked a question and hasn’t engaged with a single person answering it. Now Harry is responding to every person and showing his bum a bit.
What false dichotomy is that? Nature/nurture? I certainly agree that that is a false dichotomy, which can be demonstrated by simply removing either one and seeing that there is nothing left.
Instinct is why my female dog enjoys humping my leg.
I think that the whole idea of nature and nurture is a topic which can be explored by sociology but It is not simple when we try to look at individuals, but of course we can ask them. We can think about our own socialisation. I certainly hated gender stereotypes.
I remember giving a birthday card to a girl at her party and getting told off because her mother said it was a boys' one. I just said I chose it because I thought it was the best picture. I am surprised why so many girls are going for pink these days.
In these days of identity confusion and dysphoria, we could ask has the idea of androgyny been thrown aside into the scrapheap?
Yeah, probably, but I'd also figure masculinity looks different everywhere you look. Disabled people also need to square masculinity with their condition; very few men fit the traditional norm. Thankfully there various models of masculinity in the culture or the media that can be emulated, but we could always use more who have their own take on it.
I picked that word because you seem to identify masculinty with it but, in my experience, women too covet authority; I'm sure the female section of the multitude of prisons that dot the landscape of many countries can vouch for me.
I suppose we can dispense with the assumption masculine = authority then and ask the question that lies at the heart of all our problems, "when is it too much and when is it too little?" The question of course presumes that a compromise between two sides, a golden mean between two extremes is the right way to think, speak, act, and live. Is it? It reminds me of the story of the two monkeys who were bickering over how they should share a watermelon. A third monkey came along and volunteered to help...by eating the part of the watermelon that was causing the disagreement. The story ends with the third monkey's belly full and the quarreling duo with nothing to eat. Is there a moral to this story? Maybe, maybe not.
Yep. Never given a crap. Which apparently is quite masculine, so...
Quoting Edy
Well, Thoreau speaks of the father tongue (active/writing) and the mother tongue (speech/passive). For there to be form to the world, in order to have speech at all, there must be the active violence of making a difference between this and that, but the passive allows attention for the criteria of what is essential to come forward; that the will is something to be followed, powerless. But without the mother, the father imagines it creates what is essential out of itself; the ego narssasistically creating the criteria of the world for certainty, universality, predictability, with only one solution and without any view of what draws us--in trying to save the world, it kills it.
No. I think men who are unconcerned with it have either not had it challenged or haven't realised when it was challenged.
Some women are offended only when you slap them... some are offended when you open the door for them.
Masculinity has a beautiful side and an ugly side. Call the ugly side toxic, evil, destructive, vile, pathetic, etc. That won't make it go away. It won't make any sinners feel more guilty than they would otherwise.
This ‘political talk of women’ is aimed at drawing attention to the limitations of cultural definitions of ‘masculinity’. The aim of highlighting domination, aggression and violence, rape, etc should not be to present it as the essence of masculinity, but rather to offer a critical perspective of certain male behaviour considered ‘acceptable’ or even ‘valuable’ within cultural structures that fail to consider the perspective of women.
I think that masculinity becomes ‘toxic’ once it is defined - particularly by ignoring, isolating or excluding aspects of experience.
Cunt:
My guess would be that there are times when every man is unconcerned by it, e.g. if he's busy enough, or tired enough. There are times when what's immediately a matter of focus or desire (sleep, hunger, thirst) will distract even those most insecure or obsessed in their masculinity from their fixation with it, if only until those needs are sated. I would think that would be the case for any person regardless of what gender they have or identity they profess (this isn't mean to be offensive, I just haven't kept up).
But I think it is possible to be unconcerned by it more often than that--or perhaps indifferent is a better word, for those of a Stoic bent. And I think it's less of a concern to those who, like me, are growing old or just old. I believe that those who are concerned about their masculinity are too concerned about what other people think of them, and the older I get, the more I just don't give a damn what most people think of me.
.
I think insecurity can result in toxicity, but also mere aggressiveness.
This is why I noted in the OP that I think of my wife as a Queen. She has the 'authority' of a Queen. But in any institution, there is always a top authority. President and vice president, team captain etc. If you try to introduce two leaders with equal authority, these institutes fall apart.
That makes me the King, in terms of authority. Team captain, President, what ever you want to call it. In a nuclear family, there has to be an established and consistent authority.
When my eldest eached 16, she is an adult, her own person, and I think of her as an adult from another family who is staying with us. She has the authority to reason, and be herself.
There also has to be an authority that can be argued with, to allow a child develop reasoning skills and grow mentally. This is usually the mother's role, because woman usually think more with feelings. If the Queen doesn't want to argue, she's free to exercise her authority at any time. And if it fails, that when she turns to the ultimate authority for support.
At least, that's how I've come to understand the working in my household over the last 3 years. Before that, it was chaos trying to raise 7 children with wishy washy parenting tactics. Trying to be fair and equal etc, never worked out.
I understand your point females in prison, or others points about gays or reverse roles etc. These I have no experience in whatsoever, and it's hard to put a definition to masculinity when you start introducing these types of relationships. Masculinity becomes undefinable. I'm trying to fidure out of masculinity and authority are synonymous in a nuclear family.
I can understand that your household politics seems to operate most efficiently (from your perspective, I might add) with you as the ultimate arbiter. But I think it’s presumptuous to assume this structure would work best with every nuclear family, or even most.
Your Queen is only free to exercise her authority under your authority, not at any time. If it conflicts with your feelings (yes, you do think with your feelings, too - you probably don’t acknowledge them as your feelings, though), then any authority she thought she had means nothing.
I have said previously that masculinity becomes toxic when it is defined, particularly by ignoring, isolating and excluding aspects of experience - like dissent, or feelings. There is no such thing as a consistent, unquestionable authority. What passes for ‘top authority’ is only every a fluid and limited perception of potentiality. I’m fascinated that you describe your 16 year old daughter as excluded from your family. Is this so you can continue to perceive your own authority as ‘unquestionable’ within your nuclear family? I worry for the plight of your Queen once all your children become adults...
I don’t think parenting is about being fair and equal, but I do think it’s most effective as a partnership in negotiation. It’s also about recognising that the authority you think you have by right has been attributed to you in temporary ignorance of alternatives. Part of growing up is realising that your parents’ authority is as fallible as any other - including your own. Teaching a child that some authority simply cannot be questioned is perhaps a dangerous thing. Teaching your daughter that this type of authority is synonymous with masculinity may be considered irresponsible.
Essentially, it's what males often wish to avoid seeing in their female counterparts. Being lax with hygiene, and insisting on what they want to do in a rough, assertive, adamant manner, outside of the bedroom, in life and the course of a relationship ie. being the "dominant" one in the situation, relationship, or room.
It's about being assertive. It's also about being content with situations no matter how unfavorable, or at least not whining about or internalizing it and so acting adversely because of it. Which unfortunately too many men who rely on their size often default to while believing they're doing the opposite. Essentially, there's no way you can be "toxically accepting" as that's more about non-action or non-response to situations you're in. So I'd say for purposes of this argument it's about assertiveness. There's no such thing as "toxic femininity" .. is there? :grin:
I was raised to treat everyone as an equal unless they give you or otherwise present a clear reason not to. So. Let's drop the gender stereotypes for a moment and think. In a sentence, probably to the point where your being rude, abrasive, abusive, or in a word just downright sh*tty. Probably best sums it up.
9 times out of 10, my Queens authority does over ride mine. There's plenty of decisions we don't agree on. There's two aspects to exercising authority in a relationship. 1 is the level of importance of the topic and 2 is the relationship building, or how it affects the relationship.
If it's a mundane topic that we disagree on, then I usually don't care and just go with what my Queen decides to do. But important life changing subjects, the person with the most responsibility needs to have authority.
Who has most responsibility might change in different house holds. But in mine, sometimes my wife will break down and think with emotion, not really looking for a solution. She personally forfeits responsibility and only desires to vent, which is fine, but in some cases I need to take responsibility. This is when I step up, consider the situation, and take action that perues a resolution.
The other aspect, relationship building is also very important. If we disagree, we discuss and if I see it being at least somewhat effective then I usually agree to disagree, but then help her to do things her way. This allows her to have a high degree of authority, which also leads to a stronger relationship.
I don't demand she bow to me, but she happily forfeits her panic for my competence. She likes that sje can rely on me to do anything that she can not.
Quoting Possibility
This is why it's portant to have a flexible authority, like a Queen. One who is willing to reason in any given situation. Ie you can question the law and seek to change it.
The importance of understanding that there is an ultimate authority is very necessary, and I believe its dangerous to teach them otherwise. Ie if you break the law, you will be punished.
When you don’t care, she’s ‘allowed’ to have authority. When she panics or it affects her, she is expected (and relieved) to defer to you, but when you feel more responsible - ie. when you panic or it affects you - then she is still expected to defer to you.
Here’s the difference: your Queen recognises when she is affected, and tempers the subjectivity of her thinking with an alternate perspective. This enables her to develop a more objective approach to the situation, understanding that neither perspective is more rational or objective, but that collaborative interaction between them increases rationality and objectivity.
Your interpretation, on the other hand, is to attribute ALL the affect to your wife, and imagine yourself as THE purely rational and objective position. When your panic or affect is undeniable, you portray it as ‘responsibility’ or level of importance to YOU.
Go back through what you’ve written, and see where you’ve juxtaposed your ‘competence’ ‘responsibility’ or objective ‘need’ with her ‘panic’, reliance, ‘forfeit’ and ‘desire’.
Quoting Edy
Which is why the false concept of ‘ultimate authority’ is a dangerous one.
Quoting Edy
I disagree. ‘If you break the law, you will be punished’ is not about the importance of ‘ultimate authority’ - it’s about the consequences of our actions. There is a reason why speeding is against the law, and the punishment is to deter actions that can have more serious consequences. There is more affect in this relationship between law and punishment than we’re often willing to admit.
My children are raised not just to obey the law, but to be aware that their actions can have consequences and affect others in ways they won’t necessarily understand - but there should always be opportunity for them to develop this understanding. When they exclaim ‘that’s not fair!’ I expect them to come up with a reasonable argument against the ruling, and be willing to hear us out.
But affect is an important aspect of this, and both parents must be willing to acknowledge fears and worries that motivate decisions - not just to each other, but to children as they mature enough to understand and share responsibility.
As a teen, I knew two of the toughest, testosterone-laden and, like myself, straight guys around (whom I always tried to emulate), who also cherished their pet cats, though privately. Given the tough-guy environment of that place and time, however, no male would have dared openly express his cat enthusiasm to his large peer group, lest he seriously risk having his reputation permanently besmirched as ‘a wuss’. Even today, three and a half decades later, that ‘real man’ masculinity mentality may not have diminished much. Perhaps revelatory is the June 24, 2020, Toronto Now article headlined “Keep Cats Out of Your Dating Profile, Ridiculous Study Suggests” and sub-headlined “Men were deemed less masculine and less attractive when they held up cats in their dating pics, according to researchers”. A bit too sensitive for the ladies?
The author of The Highly Sensitive Man writes in Chapter 1 [2019, Tom Falkenstein, pgs.11-13]: [i][b]“You only have to open a magazine or newspaper, turn on your TV, or open your browser to discover an ever-growing interest in stories about being a father, being a man, or how to balance a career with a family. Many of these articles have started talking about an apparent ‘crisis of masculinity.’
The headlines for these articles attempt to address male identity, but often fall into the trap of sounding ironic and sometimes even sarcastic and critical: ‘Men in Crisis: Time to Pull Yourselves Together,’ ‘The Weaker Sex,’ ‘Crisis in Masculinity: Who is the Stronger Sex?’ and ‘Search for Identity: Super-Dads or Vain Peacocks’ are just a few examples. They all seem to agree to some extent that there is a crisis. But reading these articles one gets the impression that no one really knows how to even start dealing with the problem, let alone what a solution to it might look like. One also gets the impression from these articles that we need to keep any genuine sympathy for these ‘poor men’ in check: the patriarchy is still just too dominant to allow ourselves that luxury …
At the same time, academics are telling us that ‘we know far less about the psychological and physical health of men than of women.’ Why is this? Michael Addis, a professor of psychology and a leading researcher into male identity and psychological health, has highlighted a deficit in our knowledge about men suffering from depression and argues that this has cultural, social, and historical roots. If we look at whether gender affects how people experience depression, how they express it, and how it's treated, it quickly becomes clear that gender has for a long time referred to women and not to men. According to Addis, this is because, socially and historically, men have been seen as the dominant group and thus representative of normal psychological health. Women have thus been understood as the nondominant group, which deviated from the norm, and they have been examined and understood from this perspective. One of the countless problems of this approach is that the experiences and specific challenges of the ‘dominant group,’ in this case men, have remained hidden.”[/b][/i]