Masculinity as Prison or Escape

By Madeleine Kearns

Thursday, June 08, 2023

 

‘The main work of life,” wrote C. S. Lewis, “is to come out of ourselves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in.” If there is a crisis of masculinity, it is in large part because, disconnected from their biological purpose, young men are trapped in an interior prison, grasping at whatever gratification they can. The result is embitterment and frustration.

 

A healthy masculinity acknowledges three things. First, men are distinct from women. Second, men have something essential to contribute, both to females and to society at large. And third, men can make this contribution effectively only through the cultivation of character. Unfortunately, modern culture undermines all three. As a result, there has been a rise in the popularity of a reactionary or “macho” masculinity, which fills the vacuum of hollowed-out masculinity with something harmful.

 

Each sex has a distinct reproductive function: Males produce small gametes (sperm) and beget children while women produce larger gametes (eggs) and bear them. The best social outcomes occur when, in the distinct roles of father and mother, parents rear their children together. In part because of testosterone, men are on average much more aggressive than women. Societies that harness male restlessness toward something constructive flourish, while those that don’t do not.

 

Today, there is much confusion even about these basic biological differences between the sexes. Modern gender theory suggests that sex is “assigned” rather than observed; that men can be mothers; that women can be fathers. When Matt Walsh pressed Michelle Forcier, a medical doctor at Brown University, for a definition of sex in an interview for his documentary What Is a Woman?, she told him: “Your sperm don’t make you male.” As for what does: “It’s a constellation.”

 

Men have been deemed not only indistinct from women but inessential to them. Gloria Steinem quipped that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Over the past 50 years, the marriage rate in the United States has declined significantly, which helps explain why nearly 40 percent of babies are now born out of wedlock. Nearly 70 percent of divorces are initiated by women. Roughly 80 percent of single-parent households are fatherless.

 

Absent fathers mean absent male role models: a deficiency that is not made up for by popular culture. In the classic bildungsroman, the boy becomes a man through a character-building adventure. For instance, in Charles Dickens’s Nicholas Nickleby (1838), the protagonist earns his masculinity by protecting others. After his father dies, Nickleby assumes responsibility for his mother and sister. He rescues an invalid boy from abuse, defends his sister’s honor, and saves his future wife from her cruel father.

 

Compare that with what Bishop Robert Barron describes as the “Homer Simpson effect,” the representation of men in popular culture as stupid, irresponsible, and immoral, in contrast with virtuous and intelligent women. Barron acknowledges that a “correction was called for” by the previous presentation of women as fragile damsels, but he adds that true virtue does not come at the expense of another’s: Why can’t both sexes be well represented?

 

Movies and TV shows frequently feature male characters who are shallow, immature, and unable (or unwilling) to commit to women. The sexual revolution normalized these vices and dressed them up as inevitable if not “cute.” But we have gone even further since, to the point of pathologizing virtue. In January 2019, the American Psychological Association (APA) warned against “traditional masculinity” on its website, saying that, “marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression,” it is, “on the whole, harmful.”

 

Conflating traditional masculinity and “toxic” masculinity can reinforce the latter. Lacking role models in their lives and exposed to popular culture, young men are increasingly pulled into the orbit of the “manosphere,” the communities centered on influencers such as Andrew Tate, a British-American kickboxer, and his younger brother, Tristan. The brothers are currently in Romania under house arrest, on suspicion of organized crime and sex-trafficking.

 

Andrew first attracted notoriety in 2016 when a video circulated of him hitting a woman with a belt, which the woman in question later clarified was consensual. He has exploded on social media in recent years, styling himself as a self-help guru who can help young men attain their fitness goals, become wealthy, and get women into bed. His TikTok videos have been viewed 11.6 billion times.

 

In some ways, Tate’s brand of masculinity resembles the pre–Me Too “lad culture” of the early 2000s. Tristan, on his website, styles himself as a “real-life James Bond,” smoking cigars and driving fast cars, and he boasts of meeting his sexual needs through a “main chick, side chick, and hoes,” the last being “collective property, almost.”

 

The masculinity of the “manosphere” is hierarchical. The Tate brothers refer to themselves as “top tier” men, worthy of imitation. Whereas liberal cads emphasize female consent (anything goes so long as she agrees), right-wing cads focus on female submission. In October 2022, when Piers Morgan, on his show Piers Morgan Uncensored, pressed Andrew to clarify whether he regrets saying that, after marriage, a woman is her husband’s “property,” Andrew doubled down. In his view, a woman is “given” to a man in marriage by her father and therefore “belongs” to him.

 

Manosphere influencers appropriate the ideals of traditional masculinity, such as gentlemanliness, for manipulative purposes. For instance, in a video (with 1.1 million views) with fellow manosphere influencer Justin Waller, Tristan tells followers about the “gentleman game.” He agrees with Waller that it’s good practice on dates to open doors for a woman, buy her flowers, and pick up the check and adds, “Believe me, I get more value at the end of the night than she gets from me. Because I get her naked in my bed.”

 

Waller, who has similar views, appeared on an episode of Dating Talk, a popular podcast — commonly called the Whatever podcast — in which guests of differing opinions are invited to discuss modern dating, relationships, and hookup culture. Lila Rose, a pro-life advocate, wife, and mother of two, pointed out that Waller applies discipline and self-control in fitness and business, so why not in romance, too? “I think you’re annoying in this goody-two-shoes type of way,” Waller replied. “I’m going to live my life on my terms, unapologetically.”

 

Commenting on the interaction, the Catholic podcaster and host of Pints with Aquinas Matt Fradd said that “this is what effeminate men look like.” He added that “when Aquinas uses the word ‘effeminacy,’ he uses it to mean men who do not persevere in what they are called to because it is difficult.” He is right, of course. But it’s not enough to call the sort of behavior Waller exhibits effeminate. We need alternative role models.

 

In 2016, the Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson shot to internet fame after refusing to comply with his country’s speech codes on transgender pronouns. Over the following months, his lecture series on YouTube gained millions of views, attracting largely male audiences. His book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, published in 2018, has sold over 5 million copies.

 

Recently, Peterson warned that “the rising attractiveness of figures like Andrew Tate speaks to the dangers of demoralizing young men,” which can “make charismatic bad men much more attractive” and popularize “a narcissistic route to self-aggrandizement and attainment.” This trend is fundamentally reactionary, he believes: “If men are pushed too hard to feminize, they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology.” Peterson told the BBC that he has had “thousands of letters from people who were tempted by the blandishments of the radical right who’ve moved towards the reasonable center as a consequence of watching my videos.”

 

Many leftists see no significant difference between Peterson and Tate except perhaps that Peterson is more intellectually serious. But the two are worlds apart. Peterson wants boys to escape the prison of themselves. Tate wants them to make the prison into a palace.

 

Peterson emphasizes that “the willingness to make sacrifices is the hallmark of maturity.” He is motivating men to embrace their own power and use it for good. He encourages men to be productive so that they can be generous to their wives, children, parents, siblings, and communities. He rejects the “spirit of manipulation” promoted by figures such as the Tate brothers. Peterson excels in repackaging religious ideals for an irreligious age. Masculinity is a moral project. It is a fight of evil versus good, or, as Peterson puts it, it’s akin to “slaying dragons.”

 

The mainstream culture, following the APA, promotes virtue without strength — which is not real virtue — while the “manosphere” influencers promote strength without virtue — which is not real strength. As for the masculinity crisis, the solution is as straightforward as it is demanding. Good men must lead by example.