There is No War on Men

There is a war on douchebaggery, though

I get a lot of leeway in life because I have pale skin and a penis.

I look back at the history of our species, and sigh. It’s not a contented sigh. More an exasperated one, because I fear we’ve not learned many lessons. True matriarchies have almost never existed. It’s men who have run the world, and we’ve frequently fucked things up. Another common theme in history is that as society slowly improves, many men get their knickers in a twist over the threat to the status quo.

I mentioned my penis. It is true that I’m more likely to die young because of that penis. This does not mean there is a war on men. Rather, I’m part of a gender more prone to violence, high-risk behavior, and a lack of self-care. This is not the fault of women. What’s more, women asking the men who engage in brutish behavior to please stop is the opposite of a war on men. It’s about trying to help men.

I would say there is a war on douchebaggery. It’s a war that’s been fought since the dawn of civilization. That’s what “civilization” is: being not a bag of douche. You know, things like banning slavery, expanding the vote beyond those with the pale penis, laws against discrimination, expanding of civil rights …

When a man says there is a war on men, what he’s really saying is he’s upset that the world is making it harder to get away with being a doucheknuckle. Hell, the southern states were willing to fight an actual war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, to maintain their right to keep slaves.

One thing I will say is that there is tremendous profit to be had in proclaiming this war on men, regardless of how ridiculous the claim. It’s made Incel Kermit aka Jordan Peterson a lot of money, and it bought Rapey Caillou aka Andrew Tate a Bugatti.

I don’t want a Bugatti. I just want you to …

Anthony Synnott, a professor of sociology and psychology at Concordia University, wrote about this alleged war for Psychology Today. He proclaims to not be against feminism, but makes a big deal about how misandrist society supposedly is and how men are continually “victimized.” In so doing, he brings out the usual men’s rights activist (MRA) talking points.

For example:

·       It’s mostly men dying in war. Yeah, well, look at gender representation in politics. Who is starting these wars? Who is running the military industrial complex that makes continual war so ingrained in the economy that it is just part of doing business? Who is pushing men to think that war is some grand adventure?

·       The high rate of male suicide. It is a problem. Women attempt suicide more often, but men are much more likely to succeed, because we’re much better at killing, and this includes killing ourselves. It is the whole perpetuation of the macho stereotype that contributes to suicide. This toxic idea that we have to “man up” and have a big dick and be able to fight and be rich and drive fancy cars and bang lots of hot chicks … That’s some serious bullshit; few men can live up to this “ideal.” And when we fall short, we’re made to feel like failures. And forget asking for help. Don’t be a wimp! It’s not women perpetuating this, it’s other men.

·       He talks about homicide and how men are both mostly the victims and the perpetrators. Okay. What’s your point then? Men kill each other. Great. How do we fix this? The whole “war on men” message you perpetuate implies it is women who are the enemy in this war. This author once wrote that feminist writers such as Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan created “Female Supremacism.” The fuck?  

·       Workplace accidents. Also true. And also the fault of the macho culture that tells these guys to man up and not complain about unsafe work environments or fear taking risks on the job. Most MRAs and Jordan Peterson fans vote conservative, and loathe the idea of unions that would fight for safer work environments, dismissing it as some Marxist bullshit.

It goes on from there, and the author contradicts the shit out of himself with his closing. After providing myriad examples of how men suffer, and showing that it is men creating this reality, he writes, “Some of my friends blame men for the wars against men, and blame the victim: ‘It's their own fault!’ and in classic double standards, they also tend to blame men for the wars against women. It is time to re-think these things.”

Uh, wait. You just made the case that men do this to themselves with your examples, and now you want us to “rethink” how we “blame men”? So, if we don’t blame men, who does that leave to shoulder this responsibility other than women? Also, it’s definitely men committing the vast majority of violence against women too. No need to “re-think” that one, fuckface. I can bury you in statistics.

The American Psychological Association proclaimed, based on 40 years of research, that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.” The primary issues are with the promoting of “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression.”

Those first two aren’t necessarily bad in all circumstances. But the problem with stoicism is that it can lead to a lack of self-care because we’re taught to suck it up. And competitiveness can be done in a healthy manner because it can lead to accomplishment and mental wellbeing via the joy of testing oneself. But it can also take one down a rabbit hole of despair by feeling like a failure for somehow not measuring up.

From the summary:

“Because of the way many men have been brought up—to be self-sufficient and able to take care of themselves—any sense that things aren’t OK needs to be kept secret,” Rabinowitz says. “Part of what happens is men who keep things to themselves look outward and see that no one else is sharing any of the conflicts that they feel inside. That makes them feel isolated. They think they’re alone. They think they’re weak. They think they’re not OK. They don’t realize that other men are also harboring private thoughts and private emotions and private conflicts.”

I was born in 1968. I was raised like this. I FEEL this.

But it’s not just my generation. As Tim Winton wrote in The Guardian, “I see boys having the tenderness shamed out of them.” He sees them being told to “smother their consciences” and “submit to something low and mean.”

And just like it’s not all men, I need to be clear that it’s not all women.

Margaret Wente (Ugh) wrote in the Globe and Mail of the masculinity study that “The APA [American Psychological Association] would basically like us to treat boys as if they were defective girls.”

Oh, Jesus Christ. Way to miss the point, Margaret.

She then goes on to write, “don’t let some psychologist tell you the problem with your son is that he’s too masculine. His problem may be that he needs to man up.” Yeah, no. Constantly being told to man up is what has helped create these problems.

Those who proclaim there is a war on men aren’t afraid of losing their masculinity or its associated expressions, they’re afraid of losing the power over others they believe their masculinity gives them. When you’re at the top of the hierarchy, you’ll fight to maintain it, because equality will seem like oppression. This desire to maintain the status quo has been a prevalent and injurious theme throughout the history of our species.

Again: It’s not a war on men. It’s a war on douchebaggery. It’s a fight to continue the civilizing mission of all humanity, to drag us forward out of the muck, to suck less.

If you look at the fight for equality as a personal attack on your masculinity, as a war on men, it says a lot about what you value as masculine. And that type of toxicity isn’t beneficial to men, it’s a burden.

Let go the burden. Humanity will be better for it.

Get my sweary history book On This Day in History Sh!t Went Down.

You can also become a Paying Subscriber: