I’ve been adding to a notebook about sex and its expressions in human society (sex as in male/female) for weeks now and I need to leave soon so I don’t want to sink too deeply into my internal maze of impressions and beliefs.
Nevertheless, I have one observation that I just read in the words of another writer (Conor Fitzgerald,
). It’s a belief I’ve had for some time: women tend to be fairly empathetic but I think they’re stronger in affective empathy (understanding the feelings of others) than cognitive empathy (understanding their thoughts or point of view).
I also think the facility for empathy breaks down almost completely when it comes to men. Women seem to assume that mean are like them, just (1) more guarded and emotionally closed, (2) a lot more comfortable with casual sex, (3) fascinated by a number of incomprehensible (or distasteful) areas, like sports and cars and action films.
Listen to psychologists or educators or academics discuss men and you’ll begin to step away with a sense that masculinity is a misshapen and error-prone kind of femininity. This is an attitude that originates among women I think.
I have seen women start from the assumption that the men they’re dealing with, or talking to, or texting, are fundamentally like them: not liable to ruin a perfectly good friendship with sex or deeply interested in the personalities and ambitions of the opposite sex. Men care about women’s personalities, but only some women and only part of their personalities. Men simply don’t care about the ambition or organization or courage or competence of their mates. These are qualities that women will often feel rightfully proud of. They should. They should also try to remember that it was probably an altogether different set of traits which attracted their men.
Women also seem to regard their tendencies and habits as the default setting, or the ‘right’ way to be. Women are (slightly) statistically more loyal in relationships (although this is data that can’t really be verified) and they’re more collaborative and they’re more invested in the lifestyle and personalities and interests of their mates. These are all useful attributes, certainly, but men incline towards different directions and behaviors not because we haven’t learned how to conduct ourselves; we’re operating according to a very different mix of hormones and biological incentives.
This disconnect seems to be most frequently visible in the conversation about men ‘opening up’. It is sometimes paired with the introduction of the confusing and basically meaningless piece of jargon de jour: ‘toxic masculinity’. The idea seems to be that men are more open and vulnerable and sentiment-oriented than we allow ourselves to see (or perhaps that we could be these things, in a more enlightened culture?) but have been damaged or warped by our social expectations. Let me say that the unrelenting stoicism and celebration of toughness and disdain for therapy and crying and ‘feelings talk’ which was a masculine ideal until about 30-50 years ago was developed in response to a challenging and dangerous world. Let me also say that we should all be happy to relax and reform the archetype.
HOWEVER… (I am deep in the realm of personal speculation here with no fact or study within reach and what I say may be surprising to women) we have mostly left the masculine ideal of the 1950’s patriarch behind. Men aren’t less talkative or emotive or interested in talking and emoting than women because we’ve been repressing our urges or because we’ve been conditioned by living in a patriarchal system (another barely cogent term in this context). Men’s relationships and expressions might have a fairly flat and simple affective range because that’s how men are, naturally.
Similarly, you can recognize the reluctance of many men to dive into therapy and conclude that this must be another harmful expression of toxic masculinity OR you can realize that the entire idea and purpose and format of therapy is essentially feminine in its largest features and the male discomfort in this space is no more repressed or pathological than women’s discomfort in a serious bout of physical competition, or in a bonding session where everyone present is being mocked and derided.
Ladies, you certainly do possess an easy manner in areas which are bewildering or risky for us. But WE have our own ways to bond and communicate and care.
Take my word for it: you don’t want a half-male society where adolescents and adult men are subject to the rules and sensibilities of womanhood. We (men) already feel like our world has begun to slide down that slope and deepening these tendencies is not going to benefit anyone.
We’re different. Let us be different.
“Women relate face to face; men relate shoulder to shoulder.”
“It's the worst thing ever when you open a script and read the words 'strong female lead.” - Emily Blunt This will be a short one. In my recent analysis of Fight Club (1999) I wrote: If I’m right there are deep biological drives within men and humans generally which require routes of expression. They cannot be erased, only channeled. The innate drives of men are being denied, suppressed, and stigmatized, and a new ideal for the adult male has been cobbled together. It’s too ridiculous and distasteful to be portrayed fully and honestly but it finds its way into films and stories and advertisements and it is the model after which many people deeply hope men will form themselves: shopping, chatting, soft creatures; emotional and agreeable and self-deprecating allies and friends without any hint of strength or aggression or inner character or stoicism; ‘men’ who do not assert, do not dominate, do not threaten, do not fight, and do not grow.
Thanks for the shoutout James
Brilliant observations!