There is no way in hell men’s intimacy and personal/individual valuable company will be understood, accepted or even allowed unless we fight men’s macho/thug disposition and violent identity, sometimes used to define manhood, but continually suppressed, sacrificing an essential quality of life to which men have a right, an equal right, to experience. The two male identities, one in which a male is to take abuse ‘like a man’ and the other consisting of the quality of life attributed to a person equal in status to a woman, as to not take abuse, can not co-exist. A man-shaming standard will prevail pitting men against each other. And combined this equates to a lesser status to women. No man will share anything or compare notes with other men (or women), often fearful of being seen as weak, a sissy, or homosexual. Nor will a man’s value as a person reach the same level or status attributed to a woman. He will continue to be conveniently rendered disposable–a mere pawn, masochist, and beast of burden held to coerced expectations to ‘Man-up’ and ‘Take it like a man’. This is indeed a toxic form of masculinity as opposed to a man being defined in his own right rather than a woman’s.
Thus what holds men to this servitude/pawn identity to be defined as something outside of themselves? Women? If a man defined in his own right is not a woman’s idea of a man, she needs to assess her failure to develop as a complete woman. A man should not, as some sex-discriminatory standard per his defined valuable company, have to compensate for a woman’s inadequacies.
A man’s destiny of self-abuse is predetermined at birth as a boy. As for one’s personal valuable company, sculpted in his own right, only if he is a homosexual is a male given a better option.
No heterosexual man can open up and talk about his intimacy or feelings without fear of being deemed weak and vulnerable, embarrassed, and ashamed. (Humans must rise above such a primitive level.) And this disclosure is necessary for men to have an equal quality of life to women, but only if a proper and safe environment exists, certainly not a traditional masculine one or a feminist-influenced one (predominant in the mental health professions due to their feminist-dictated educational background). If we grant men an equally valuable company to women, we will find that status opposes conditions existing long before feminism, going back centuries under the practice of chivalry via its Anglo origin. Males have yet to be attributed to a standing of worth in their own right to women.
Males are groomed from boyhood by their mothers and other men, including their fathers who have been similarly indoctrinated, to serve women. For lack of a better reference, but to make a point at the moment, one could say that ‘three egos’ exist in males besides the child, the adult, and the parent per psychology’s transactional analysis: the self, the masculine self, and the superimposed male ego-self which is the reason why their valuable company is not understood.
Who one is as a person comes first (and this needs to be more developed in men), which is quickly combined, merging with the sex-identity self which develops in coordination with the first–very short-lived, with its lifespan depending on the individual family environment. (Some of us may recall as boys, a discrepancy between how we were treated with less regard than our female siblings when a stark realization as to our devaluation as human beings first occurs.) This is when outside influences project themselves upon a boy as to conform to society’s, and/or the traditional family’s, prescribed male identity. Any self-concept is suppressed within prescribed maleness (masculine identity) being dictated rather than occurring (developing) as a natural process which is the reason why their valuable company is not understood.
[A valuable company as to who we are must be re-examined reaching back to a time in our childhood development when we were kept from completely being our true selves. But the person who we are now may even deny it–“That’s a part of growing up,” is one cliche’ applying to the effect. But that is a poor excuse and completely discounts a valuable part of ourselves and a very important quality of life to be experienced.]
This is not to say that males are to play with dolls but given a choice as to all play toys, with his personal definition not determined so black and white, in an either/or conclusion (e.g. “Damn kid is either a ‘normal’ boy or a homosexual!”) to understand their valuable company. For example, some men are better in the same occupations in which women are employed (e.g. teacher, office worker, waiter/waitress, cook, etc.), but this doesn’t mean they are any less masculine or worthy than other men. No man-shaming forced male behaviour identity should ever be allowed (a form of bullying, due to sex bigotry) just as no type of ownership should ever apply to any person. People (this includes men) should be free to be who they want to be. Otherwise, they hold no meaning to life other than as slaves and disposable pawns.
Toxic masculinity is something feminists have referenced, but in their own self-serving ways, as to how men treat women, rather than to acknowledge and allow men an identity in their own right. This includes an acceptance of the male’s sexuality and other exclusive male characteristics such as non-threatening male characteristics to either sex (men included). Men need to be considered equal to each other before they can be considered equal to women.
But toxic masculinity does exist (often instilled into boys by women) which poisons the pot for other men. What many consider ‘manhood’ comes at the expense of other men (e.g. intimidation and bullying). For example, it’s often conveyed that ‘real men’ resolve their differences by getting violent (often pitted against each other for and by women). But the opposite is true. A lack of intellect and civility does not suffice for manhood. Only a positive male character rendering good men, rather than idiotic boys who will never grow up, can resolve their differences without getting violent.
As for men fighting for their rights, this same small-minded mentality applies to that too–e.g. It’s been said: “Real men aren’t victims.” So, in other words, denial makes a male a ‘real man’? Men are increasingly abused and violated more now than ever before. How does the ‘Take it like a man’ motto (mentality) suffice in regard to this? It further enables the injustices to continue and increase toward men. Who, what man in his right mind, wants to be ‘a man’ if it means willingly being abused and experiencing injustice? What kind of ‘a man’ is this?
If a man can’t ‘take it’ (as if he should), he’s ridiculed as to not be a man–held in the middle between a rock and a hard place. Let’s for once consider a man as a real person, equal in status and personal valuable company to a woman. This will provide us a footing as to real equality between men and women.
Alan Millard’s most recent book, A Flaw From Within: How Women’s Higher Status Defies Equal Justice, Violates Men and Destroys Society, is available through Amazon.