Yes, really. We have a society that belittles men for stepping outside hyper-masculine ideals and tends to reward those that use their masculinity in ways that encourage the degradation of women.

So, yes, let's talk about the fact that men can cry, can be sensitive, can be interested in show tunes and fashion without giving up their "man card".

Those are fine messages, but I think some of the messages that the article displays is taking it too far.

For instance:
So, some 0.0001% of men commit mass-murder, and we're going to go into the hyperbole of "be a man" being the three most destructive words a boy can hear, despite the vast majority of men being good people?

A lot of it is context. If you tell someone "be a man" because they're crying over a dropped hot pocket, that's one thing. If you tell someone to "be a man" because they won't engage in locker room talk with the other guys, then sure, that's an example of toxic masculinity, I suppose, but in that case it's more about the locker room talk than the simple phrase of "be a man."

One should not feel ashamed for choosing to be a body builder, or athletic. Statements like these unfairly demonizes any jock as a rapist or misogynist, which is ironic considering that same group typically wants to avoid stereotyping.

The problem with that phrase is what does it mean? When we say "be a man", what is the speaker trying to convey?

Well, first, it's that whatever behavior you're engaged in isn't masculine enough. Saying that there is a point where you're not masculine enough even if you identify as male is an issue.

Second, it brings a particular definition set into play. A man doesn't cry. Is physically strong. Is dominant. Takes a beating without complaint. Fights. Gets the girl.

Just because a lot of men are good men doesn’t mean that the phrase isn't incredibly loaded and harmful.

For example, my brother is an awesome guy. As a child, he was a sweetheart. Sensitive, kind of small (late growth spurt), but he stood up to bullies and always had a kind word for everybody. Played awesome clarinet.

Our dad, uncles, cousins; they all basically ignored him. He wasn't "one of the guys". He needed to "be a man" and "toughen up".

They'd go off and do things on family vacations as male bonding, leaving bro with us girls and our younger brothers.

All of that was why he turned to the Marines. We're a military family, so they'd have to acknowledge him then. And it worked.

But he gets so angry now. He's disillusioned. He's still an awesome guy, but he lost a lot in the quest to "be a man".

"Be a man" is a douchebag statement. Telling someone to be a man is akin to saying feelings aren't okay for the male sex. It's saying be a stereotype and if you don't be that stereotype, you are a lesser person.

As for hypermasculism in society causing mass shootings? Plenty of school shootings were done by guys who were picked on for not being a prototypical male. THAT'S what they are talking about. The Orlando shooting was done because he thought homosexuality is an abomination. That's a pretty typical hypermasculine thought pattern. Anything that deviates from straight is wrong?

I don't care what someone is crying over. Hot pocket or some dropped water. If you tell someone to be a man or man up, you are saying crying is never okay and that isn't okay itself.

And he's doing what people are doing in the female model industry. Creating a false image that people aspire to be and go through unhealthy extremes to achieve it.

If they were intentionally ostracizing him for it, I agree that's awful. Let me ask this, though: Were these family members going on vacations that consisted of stuff your brother simply didn't want to do, leading him to not want to partake in said activities? Or did they outright tell him something along the lines of, "you aren't invited because you aren't a man?"

People might not be saying "crying is never okay." If someone is being overdramatic over something, to the point he (or she, for that matter) is making a scene over it, they should be called out for it. Especially if said person is doing it just for attention.

Arnold and Sylvester are not unhealthy, though. And besides doing stupid stuff like taking steroids or overstressing oneself, there's nothing unhealthy about body building and adding muscle tone.

The crux of what I'm saying is, if you're not careful, you're going to end up causing an opposite effect where people are being criticized or shamed for doing things that are traditionally "macho man" activities like playing rough football or lifting weights, possibly even associating them with rape culture and violent murderers. That's also damaging.

I forget which "chain" gym it is, but one of the things they advertise for their clientele is "no lunks". They're actively marketing their gym as "We don't have the big, bulky guys who curl 400 pounds and grunt while they do it..."

I get that could be a "body image" thing, or could be "intimidating", but it kinda ties into what you're saying. Yeah, the "lunks" are annoying, but if they're not really "bothering" you (although some could say the grunts are bothersome) then there's no real reason to keep them from lifting there.

So quick family background: I'm the only female cousin on both sides of the family, and second oldest on my dad's side. My brother is fourth youngest.

After my Meme died (dad's mom), the uncles decided that they needed to get Papa out of the house. Big family vacation/reunion in one place. Split costs, spend a week, play games, visit, that sort of thing. It's become an annual event now.

Well, the uncles like playing golf. Dad plays, but not as much as they do, but he still goes out with them. This also becomes an annual thing.

The next year, the eldest cousin gets invited to join them. Makes sense; he and his brother both play with their dad. His brother gets to go the next year too.

Well, a couple years pass, and it's just the five of them going out. My brother's never played golf, Dad's never invited him to go golfing (Dad mainly golfs with the corporate guys as part of business and that's it), nothing's said of trying to learn to golf to join the guys.

Then the cousin just after my bro in age gets asked if he wants to go golfing. It was right after he'd joined the JROTC. And this cousin was always a bully, and large like the older cousins.

Brother asked if he could go to... and was told no since he didn't know how to golf. But neither did younger cousin all that much.

There was a pretty clear message there. And it was backed up a bit by Mom asking Dad why bro couldn't go, and Dad saying he should've insisted. But bro had asked and been answered. Why would he push?

Planet Fitness. And they don't care if you're a big, bulky, lifts 400 lb guy who's there to work out. They do care if you're a big, bulky, lifts 400 lb guy who's calling attention to himself by shouting and carrying on and throwing weights around.

They market to folks who want a gym experience without that type of gym culture. There's plenty of other gyms that don't care.

Then tell them to stop being dramatic. Don't shame a person for a normal reaction. People have a pushing point and it's basically saying you aren't allowed to have problems. How many people have burst into tears after a small incident like this after having a super emotionally exhausting day? Tons. Telling a guy who experiences such a day to "be a man" or "man up" means they aren't allowed to have emotional limits and that's not healthy.

As far as whether or not Arnold and Sylvester are natural, it doesn't matter. People who can't achieve a super muscular physique naturally will result to harmful steroids and over-lifting and will ruin their bodies. This can lead to roid rage. People with roid rage tend to be pretty violent.

And don't try to use the slippery slope argument as an excuse to not go after the problem. I'm sick of people arguing against perfectly reasonable precautions to problems by saying they will lead to extremes. They won't. They almost never do. It's not a valid argument.

Shaming Schwarzenegger and Stalone for being who they are because some ill-advised idiots went to extremes to achieve their image IS the slippery slope. You want to tell men it's okay to cry watching romantic movies? Fine. But I draw the line at turning the tables and saying it's not okay to partake in activities that are considered masculine, as the article states happened in the case of muscular celebrities... because you know the result is going to be people shaming anyone who tries to achieve those looks, even in a healthy and safe method.

Because men can't cry over things that don't go their way, just woman and children can? I think it's that kind of idea that pointing out the phrase 'be a man' is never appropriate is supposed to combat. If the listener is not being acceptable it can be explained in terms of acceptable social behavior for humans. There is not really any behavior that is acceptable for a woman that is not for a man. The shaming that men feel if they enjoy something that is not 'for a man' is what the attempt to eliminate that phrase as a go to is trying to point out.

I think part of the shame (if that is the right word) is because of the use of steroids and drugs used to achieve the physique, and because of the issue of men have with lack of resources for things like eating disorders and dismorphia, which they are experiencing in greater numbers every year, and which they have almost matched in numbers with females in the current teen population. Compared to the way young people are being taught about the unrealistic portrayal of women's bodies in the media it seems like a deliberate sabotage of men not to talk about the issue with men's bodies portrayals. Pointing out the issue hasn't made it shameful for women who try to achieve healthy bodies, any more than it will cause that problem for men.

If someone is creating an unnatural ideal that a lot of people will go to unsafe measures to achieve, they are doing something wrong. As a man, I'm sick of the ideals men are supposed to have. Bulging muscles. Six packs. Etc. The only way I can achieve that is to basically starve myself to get rid of fat covering up muscle. My body type doesn't allow for this to happen naturally. But to achieve these manly standards set by people like Arnold or Sylvester, I'd have to go to those extremes.

It's no different from models who starve themselves to look skinny.

Okay, if you want to discourage people from attempting to achieve the looks of celebrity body builders in an unhealthy manner, that's fine. But, you can't just point at the people who choose to build muscles and shame them for it. People come in all different shapes and sizes, and some have a natural propensity to have bigger muscles than others. There's nothing wrong with that.

The problem is the people in the article aren't really criticizing the ideals themselves as much as the people who are toning their muscles. In effect, they're saying Arnold and Sylvester's muscles shouldn't even exist. That's a form of body shaming, and it's no different from someone pointing to a skinny model and shaming her for being skinny.

Criticize the culture all you want, we shouldn't shame the people who choose to build muscles just because there might be some people who might be inspired to achieve that image.

An interesting article on the subject of masculinity and Trump.

Quote:

I am troubled by Mr. Trump. But I am worried about him precisely because I disagree with your premise — I don’t think he conforms to conventional masculinity. Trump is a reminder of what masculinity can be like outside of conventions. He exhibits what might be called amoral masculinity.

He lacks a moral compass. He ridicules, bullies, and threatens anyone who crosses him. He insults war heroes and disparages entire ethnic groups. He preys on women. All of this without any apparent remorse.

This is very different from the honorable style of manliness shown by say, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama. These were and are highly assertive men, and aggressive when circumstances warranted, but who were also decorous and honorable; in a word, gentlemen. History teaches us that masculinity constrained by morality is powerful and constructive, and that masculinity without ethics is dangerous.