It seems like the author cannot reconcile that positive masculinity cannot simultaneously mean to be a good person who has a satisfying, meaningful life.

There is no rule set down in stone for what men have to be like and what women have to be like. I do think there are rules for what people generally ought to be like, and I admire those who display what I consider to be the universal virtues. It’s true that many young men lead lives of quiet desperation. But I don’t see how masculinity has anything to do with the solution to that.

I get the general point that gender roles should be overcome etc, but we’re definitely not gonna be able to change anything by ignoring the fact that they exist and influence us on a daily basis.

this was a really funny article to me because the author really doesn’t seem that attached to being a man. i want to be clear, that’s fine and valid. but it seems weird to then speak to the want of men in general to have more positive role models of masculinity, and say, well you should just want positive role models

like? yeah, you can have role models of any gender, but isn’t it nice to have role models who look like you? isn’t that the entire point that people make when saying representation is important? that doesn’t stop being true just because we’re talking about men now

he’s missing such a basic and fundamental argument that the entire thing just becomes, at least for me, an externalized argument about how he feels about his own gender, which appears to be disconnected and largely not good

also he picked like, apparently the worst examples of masculinity he could find and said, yeah this is why we don’t need positive masculinity?? like c’mon

i like being a man, it’s cool. there’s a lot (A LOT) of shit i have to reconcile with being a man. but imo that’s part of the duty that comes with it. so yeah, author, it would be pretty cool to see men who had done that, who expressed their masculinity in unique and authentic ways that sometimes conform and sometimes don’t

you know. like people

(i want to take a moment to say that i have several women role models and also people whose gender identities aren’t so easily captured by the binary. but those people, generally speaking, don’t need to reconcile with the long history of people of their gender doing harm to those around them, nor with the present day scars from that harm. it’s a LOT to come to grips with understanding that you scare a lot of people just by existing, and frankly, that’s just an experience that a man is more commonly going to have to experience. exclusively? of course not. obviously, there’s a racial bias here as well. but due to the commonality, having readily available examples of how to handle it well, and even gracefully, would be nice)

This guy is so close but got stuck jerking off his own intellectualism half way.

As a rule masculinity and femininity are both a collection of traits. Usually defined something like this:

Masculinity is assertiveness, confidence and maybe something like independence.

Femininity is Emotional intelligence, Empathy and maybe something like team-coordination.

Now I view these groups like the hormones testosterone and estrogen. You need both to function. But the ratio between them defines whether you appear masculine or feminine.

You need to be capable of displaying both groups.

However, currently one side demonizes masculine traits, while the other side calls feminine traits gay.

The Author is close to the truth, in the sense that the traits he describes as good masculine traits shouldn’t be exclusive to men. But he looses the plot by tying the traits directly and exclusively to the genders. This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.

Because of this he concludes, that everyone should have all traits regardless of group. This is correct but looses the significance of these groups, both in terms of role models and sexuality.

He accurately points out the issues and ridiculousness of current masculinity gurus but misses why they are appealing. The need for guidance amongst young men is evident.

But let’s leave aside all discussion of what makes someone a real “man” and just aspire to become decent human beings. 

This quote betrays a general misunderstanding of what the issue is. Becoming a decent human is not a problem. The issue is becoming a (good) man. Society has gone far in expanding women’s possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don’t fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.

Now Tate and company offer some form of help. Its terrible, but it speaks to the problem, while Mr. Robinson pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and just tells young man to become good humans.

Its often interesting to view gender issues through the trans lens. In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man very differently.

In my opinion this article is part of the problem driving more men to become Tate-stans and misogynists.

TL;DR: Everyone should display all traits, but the ratio is significant to determine overall appearance.

The existence of stereotypes like tomboy show that there is a link between traits and gender, but on an individual basis the ratio of traits can swap. And that’s also cool.

Also the author is an ideolog ignoring the problem he writes about.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “good masculinity” in the same way there isn’t any “good femininity”. Gender roles don’t need to be redefined, they should be overcome.

Sounds like the author thinks we need to change our culture’s definition of “masculine.” I agree.