spaduf

NOTE: This is not a strictly positive take on stoicism and spends a lot of time on how stoicism has shaped men's cultural identities throughout history and what that means for today

Reposting since there are now significantly more subscribers and I can provide full text instead of some sketchy link.

Full Text: ON MALE LIBERATION Jack Sawyer

Male liberation calls for men to free themselves of the sex role stereotypes that limit their ability to be human. Sex role stereotypes say that men should be dominant; achieving and enacting a dominant role in relations with others is often taken as an indicator of success. ‘Success,’ for a man, often involves influence over the lives of other persons. But success in achieving positions of dominance and influence is necessarily not open to every man, as dominance is relative and hence scarce by definition. Most men in fact fail to achieve the positions of dominance that sex role stereotypes ideally call for. Stereotypes tend to identify such men as greater or lesser failures, and in extreme cases, men who fail to be dominant are the object of jokes, scorn, and sympathy from wives, peers, and society generally.

One avenue of dominance is potentially open to any man, however—dominance over a woman. As society generally teaches men they should dominate, it teaches women they should be submissive, and so men have the opportunity to dominate women. More and more, women, however, are reacting against the ill effects of being dominated. But the battle of women to be free need not be a battle against men as oppressors. The choice about whether men are the enemy is up to men themselves.

Male liberation seeks to aid in destroying the sex role stereotypes that regard ‘being a man’ and ‘being a woman’ as statuses that must be achieved through proper behavior. People need not take on restrictive roles to establish their sexual identity.

A major male sex role restriction occurs through the acceptance of a stereotypical view of men’s sexual relation to women. Whether or not men consciously admire the Playboy image, they are still influenced by the implicit sex role demands to be thoroughly competent and self-assured—in short, to be ‘manly.’ But since self-assurance is part of the stereotype, men who believe they fall short don’t admit it, and each can think he is the only one. Stereotypes limit men’s perception of women as well as of themselves. Men learn to be highly aware of a woman’s body, face, clothes—and this interferes with their ability to relate to her as a whole person. Advertising and consumer orientations are among the societal forces that both reflect and encourage these sex stereotypes. Women spend to make themselves more ‘feminine,’ and men are exhorted to buy cigarettes, clothes, and cars to show their manliness.

The popular image of a successful man combines dominance both over women, in social relations, and over other men, in the occupational world. But being a master has its burdens. It is not really possible for two persons to have a free relation when one holds the balance of power over the other. The more powerful person can never be sure of full candor from the other, though he may receive the kind of respect that comes from dependence. Moreover, people who have been dependent are coming to recognize more clearly the potentialities of freedom, and it is becoming harder for those who have enjoyed dominance to maintain this position. Persons bent on maintaining dominance are inhibited from developing themselves. Part of the price most men pay for being dominant in one situation is subscribing to a system in which they themselves are subordinated in another situation. The alternative is a system where men share, among themselves, and with women, rather than strive for a dominant role.

In addition to the dehumanization of being (or trying to be) a master, there is another severe, if less noticed, restriction from conventional male sex roles in the area of affect, play, and expressivity. Essentially, men are forbidden to play and show affect. This restriction is often not even recognized as a limitation, because affective behavior is so far outside the usual range of male activity.

Men are breadwinners, and are defined first and foremost by their performance in this area. This is a serious business and results in an end product—bringing home the bacon. The process area of life—activities that are enjoyed for the immediate satisfaction they bring—are not part of the central definition of men’s role. Yet the failure of men to be aware of this potential part of their lives leads them to be alienated from themselves and from others. Because men are not permitted to play freely, or show affect, they are prevented from really coming in touch with their own emotions.

If men cannot play freely, neither can they freely cry, be gentle, nor show weakness—because these are ‘feminine,’ not ‘masculine.’ But a fuller concept of humanity recognizes that all men and women are potentially both strong and weak, both active and passive, and that these and other human characteristics are not the province of one sex.

The acceptance of sex role stereotypes not only limits the individual but has bad effects on society generally. The apparent attractions of a male sex role are strong, and many males are necessarily caught up with this image. Education from early years calls upon boys to be brave, not to cry, and to fight for what is theirs. The day when these were virtues, if it ever existed, is long past. The main effect now is to help sustain a system in which private ‘virtues’ become public vices. Competitiveness helps promote exploitation of people all over the world, as men strive to achieve ‘success.’ If success requires competitive achievement, then an unlimited drive to acquire money, possessions, power, and prestige, is only seeking to be successful.

The affairs of the world have always been run nearly exclusively by men, at all levels. It is not accidental that the ways that elements of society have related to each other has been disastrously competitive, to the point of oppressing large segments of the world’s population. Most societies operate on authoritarian bases—in government, industry, education, religion, the family, and other institutions. It has been generally assumed that these are the only bases on which to operate, because those who have run the world have been reared to know no other. But women, being deprived of power, have also been more free of the role of dominator and oppressor; women have been denied the opportunity to become as competitive and ruthless as men.

In the increasing recognition of the right of women to participate equally in the affairs of the world, then, there is both a danger and a promise. The danger is that women could try simply to get their share of the action in the competitive, dehumanizing, exploitative system that men have created. The promise is that women and men might work together to create a system that provides equality to all and dominates no one. The women’s liberation movement has stressed that women are looking for a better model for human behavior than has so far been created. Women are trying to become human, and men can do the same. This implies that sex should not be limited by role stereotypes that define ‘appropriate’ behavior. The present models of neither men nor women furnish adequate opportunities for human development. That one half of the human race should be dominant and the other half submissive is incompatible with a notion of freedom. Freedom requires that there not be dominance and submission, but that all individuals be free to determine their own lives as equals.

Autumn 1970

Stolen entirely from an old /r/menslib post:

When we ask "what is a good new model for masculinity?" The conversation tends to devolve quickly. I think this is due to a miscategorization of what we actually are talking about. It's asked as an identity question, and it's answered as an identity question.

Men are not asking what a good model for masculinity is because they are interested in constructing a personalized identity for themselves. They are not trying to construct an aesthetic. It is not a self-generated identity which is being hunted for.

What is desired so very strongly by these men is a rubric.

Much criticism of toxic masculinity is not a condemnation of a previously-assumed-to-be neutral quality of the masculine gender role. It is the fundamental rejection of a system of valuation, and most notably what is considered it's ideal and/or reward structure. The expectations placed on men by toxic masculinity are, even if unfair, unrealistic, and unhealthy, the model by which men are evaluated. It is how men figure out how they are doing, and how they are likely to be treated by others. It's how they figure out what they can expect in reward for performing their role in society well.

What I cannot underline hard enough is that the worth referred to here is not self-worth. We are not talking about self esteem, although a high valuation of one's own self can, for obvious reasons, be fed by the praise of others. Instead, many behaviors, attitudes, and models now seen as toxic were what young men would look to and imitate in efforts to be worthy of the recognition and the praise of others in society. It is the "witness me" desperation of the War Boys from Fury Road, at its rawest and most extreme, but stripped to its components it's the most basic human instincts to fit in, aspire, imitate, and be loved. Those instincts are human and natural. What information those boys are fed, about what is desirable, what makes someone attractive, successful, enviable, or by contrast pitiful, pathetic, and unlovable...those are where toxic patterns can take root.

When people ask "what is a nontoxic model for masculinity?" What they are asking is "I grew up being told that if I did specific things, I would be loved and respected and valued. Now I am told that if I do them, I won't be loved or respected or valued, I will be bad. I will be rejected..."

"...Okay, what specifically do I do instead? I want to be a good man. What does it look like to do that? I need to know."

The answer cannot be "whatever you want."

It can't.

That's a perfectly alright answer to a completely different question. It's the answer to the question "I don't want to be held to those rules. I don't care what people think of me. Who can I be?"

Billions of men are out there. They are not going to all just do like, you know. Whatever they feel like. Because some are doing to be more successful than others. Some are going to gain social status, affection, respect...things all people want. And other people who want that same praise and status will obviously try and imitate what those men are doing. And largely, because we aren't inventing a whole world from scratch year zero with no preexisting expectations, the people who succeed in that way will be the ones doing the old things. The ones people are already trained to like. If everyone just does what is already valued, they'll do the toxic stuff. Even if it kills them.

Our side is not bargaining from a position of power, folks. We do not have the luxury of having no counter offer to the claim "it's problematic but girls all want this more anyway" or "if you work yourself to the bone you'll have cash and people will think you're valuable." Even if those claims are wrong, lies defeat silence every time. Merely saying "that won't actually get you social status" helps noone if you have no alternative route for people to gain the praise of others. We need some sort of obvious model for behavior that people can aspire to and play out with the rational expectation that it will be met with praise.

That's not a popular position in this sub. There is an obvious draw to the idea that no rules is best. Any system to provide value will, even just by rewarding some, deprive others. Any trait that could be regarded as virtuous will have some people incapable of having or obtaining it due to no fault of their own.

Taking that to the conclusion that gender expectations should therefore be destroyed entirely is as much of an overcorrection as saying that because some people have food allergies, nobody should have food. There can be different dishes, with different flavours. We can make more gender roles. We can make dozens. Hundreds. And "none for me, thanks," can always be an option.

But many, maybe even most people are the sort to walk into a restaurant and ask the waiter "what's good?" They arent looking to obsess over details, they aren't super into customization, they just want to do what works, and they're asking "if this old thing doesn't work, what does?"

Stop saying "whatever you want."

TLDR: Men do not want role models, they want paths to praise and positivity