Boys Will Be Boys
Have you seen the Gillette ad? Everyone’s seen the Gillette ad. And after my last post on masculinity, everyone’s been asking me what I think of the Gillette ad.
Well, I used to shave with Gillette and I’ve dumped them… back in 2014 when I realized that Dollar Shave Club sells basically the same razors for $1 each.
And the ad? Eh, it’s fine.
Gillette is a division of a consumer products company selling bathroom items. No one is forced to watch their ads or use their razors. Clay Routledge put it brilliantly: we are living in an era of woke capitalism in which companies pretend to care about social justice to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism. Woke capitalism is silly but it gives Gillette customers what they want, which all you can expect of a corporation.
In contrast, APA is a professional organization of health care providers, writing guidelines for practicing therapists who deal with vulnerable men who come to them for help. The standards are quite different.
The content is quite different also.
Here is a list of things APA considers “harmful”, under the umbrella term of “traditional masculinity”:
- Adventure and risk.
- Providing for loved ones (if you’re a black man).
Here’s a list of things the Gillette ad is against:
- A mob chasing a teenager.
- Texting someone “FREAK!!!”
- Old TV shows.
- Catcalling and butt-grabbing.
- Patronizing your employees.
- Six-year-olds fighting.
- Chanting “boys will be boys” in unison.
- Sexual assault and sexual harassment.
What do the two lists have in common? Violence, which is never the answer, is the only answer. Find the traditional man closest to you and ask them how many things on Gillette’s list they approve of; it’s not going to be many. “Traditional” men tend to complain they it’s no longer OK to hold doors open for women or take their kids hunting, not that in good ol’ days you could bully people over text or grope ladies on the street.
Here are the things Gillette is in favor of:
- Terry Crews.
- Demonstratively protecting women from other men.
- Using your superior strength to break up fights between smaller males.
- Teaching all of the above to your son.
Those are remarkably traditional male traits and behaviors, in the sense that they are present and praised among men in almost every modern and pre-modern society. With the exception of Mr. Crews, all of those predate the human species.
Gillette’s ad is in no way against traditional masculinity. The list of behaviors they come out against is referred to as toxic masculinity, including by Gillette themselves.
Those who hate men or who gain status from pretending to do so will continue to conflate masculinity with the terrible (and not particularly masculine) behaviors portrayed in the first half of the ad. Toxic/traditional is a perfect setup for motte-and-bailey: “I like extreme sports. – Ah, a traditional male. I bet you grope women on the subway.” But it’s equally toxic to conflate Gillette with APA’s attack on traditional manhood.
Gillette’s Best Man
If I had to pick a role model of masculinity I would name Roger Federer. Federer is the best tennis player ever among men, the best gentleman among tennis players, philanthropist, father of four and husband to one.
Federer is also the best exemplar of the not-so-subtle distinction between toxic masculinity and traditional masculinity. Roger has been Gillette spokesperson for more than a decade, and he also makes an absolute mockery of the APA list.
Stoicism? Federer won tournaments playing through injury, on sweltering Melbourne days and chilly London nights. While the best female tennis player in history garnered a reputation for furious outbursts at umpires and fans, Federer is legendary for never losing his cool.
Violence? Ok, even Roger has broken a racket or two in his career (so have I).
Competitiveness? Among the multitude of tennis records held by Federer are the 10 times he came back from two sets down to win a match. I was in the stands for #9 in New York when Federer outlasted Gael Monfils playing one of the best matches of his life. Even after Roger lost the first two sets while hitting 26 unforced errors and being outworked by the athletic Frenchman, not a single person in the crowd doubted Federer’s ability to raise his game and ultimately triumph.
Providing for loved ones? Yes, even for black boys.
Aggression and dominance? When I was young and Federer always won, I used to root against him (because he always won). The same pattern would play out in dozens of Federer matches: the game would proceed evenly until something minor would happen that would shake the confidence of Federer’s opponent a tiny bit. Perhaps the opponent would lose a break point opportunity, or miss an easy shot. And then Roger would transform into Darth Federer: a ruthless predator who would pounce on an opponent’s single moment of weakness, breaking his serve and destroying his will to compete in the space of 5 or 10 minutes.
And yet, the other players on tour would revere Roger, much more than they did the equally talented Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic. The only tennis award voted on by the players themselves is the ATP sportsmanship award, Federer has won it 13 times.
What is it that Federer does so well and masculinity-haters resent? Climbing Hierarchies. When Federer was #1, he wasn’t just first per the arcane schema of ATP ranking points. He was the best tennis players in the eyes of fans, journalists, sponsors, and, importantly, his opponents. #1 takes tennis skill, but it also takes stoicism, competitiveness, aggression, and dominance.
And I suspect that it’s hierarchies that those who take issue with the above-listed traits are really against.
Who Hates Hierarchies?
There’s a lot of bitching online about “the war on men”, most of it tedious. Group X thinks that men should have lower status, some guy says ‘no, fuck you!’, more at 10. Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt often get lumped in with that, but they are saying something entirely distinct. Peterson and Haidt are saying that there is a war on certain traits which are commonly coded as masculine: self-reliance, resilience, self-improvement through facing adversity, competence. They describe how parents, schools, and society as a whole discourage those traits, particularly in young people, particularly in young boys.
When I first encountered their writings, I found it too alarmist. But after reading the APA guidelines I remembered that Peterson and Haidt are both psychologists, the former practicing clinical psychology for twenty years. They saw this coming before everyone else.
What does a “war on competence” look like? Think of someone trying to get better at their work to get promoted, working on their writing to build an audience for their blog, or practicing a sport to rise in the rankings. Building competence doesn’t happen by itself. It requires focusing on a goal, taking on challenges, dealing with discomfort, risking failure, and overcoming problems on your own. Building competence (and getting recognized for it) is a crucial component of well being for all humans.
Of course, APA doesn’t mention this. All they have to say on the behaviors that build competence is:
Research suggests that socialization practices that teach boys from an early age to be self-reliant, strong, and to minimize and manage their problems on their own (Pollack, 1995) yield adult men who are less willing to seek mental health treatment.
If society values a particular skill or achievement (like work, blogging, or tennis) a competence hierarchy will form around it. That’s what it means for society to value a skill: those who display it get social rewards and status. But of course, not every hierarchy is a competence hierarchy. Those who got the rewards have a strong interest in removing the competence aspect, making sure that the goodies keep coming to them and not to more competent challengers.
This is why, according to Jordan Peterson, societies need both conservatives and progressives:
There’s space and necessity for a constant dialogue between the left and right. […]
You have to move forward towards valued things, so you have to have a value hierarchy. There has to be hierarchy because one thing has to be more important than another, or you can’t do anything. […]
No matter what you’re acting out, some people are way better at it than others. Doesn’t matter if it’s basketball or hockey or plumbing or law, as soon as there’s something valuable and you’re doing it collectively there’s a hierarchy.
So then what happens is the hierarchy can get corrupt and rigid and then it stops rewarding competence and it starts rewarding criminality and power. The right-wingers say that we really need to abide by the hierarchies and the left-wingers say: wait a second, your hierarchy can get corrupt and also puts a lot of dispossessed people at the bottom. And that’s not only bad for the dispossessed people, it actually threatens the whole hierarchy.
The progressive project is often about disrupting corrupt hierarchies, and it has done so successfully many times. But times change, and so do the requirements for identifying which hierarchies are broken.
In 1942, the New York Times staff was composed entirely of goofy white dudes. It’s clear that being a goofy white dude is not commensurate with journalistic merit, and the composition of the staff changed. Today, the New York Times staff is a multi-ethnic and gender-diverse group of graduates from a small handful of elite colleges who share a political ideology and worldview. Is this a corrupt hierarchy of journalism or a meritorious one? This is a much harder question to answer.
Instead of dealing with hard questions, it’s easier to reuse the tricks that worked in the past like saying that any majority-male hierarchy is nefarious and privileged. The APA was quick to point out that 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men. So are 80% of Google engineers and 80% of top-grossing actors. Also 99% of HVAC mechanics, but only 2% of dental hygienists. Are those examples of privilege or of competence?
The answers to all of the above are “almost certainly both, it’s complicated”. But this answer doesn’t help you climb the hierarchy of progressive politics. To maintain that those are all examples of pure male privilege, one has to completely deny the role of competence. As people on the left compete to demonstrate their commitment to dismantling privilege, the entire concept of competence gets wholly ignored and the pursuit of it is seen as pathological. I think that this impulse is at the root of the “war on competence”.
(The opposite happens to conservatives, who call every blatant example of privilege a meritocracy. Consider the belief that multimillion-heir Donald Trump is a self-made man.)
The traditionally masculine  traits are those required to climb hierarchies of competence: competitiveness, physical and emotional resilience, adventurous risk-taking, perseverance, the drive to achieve and overcome. Like all traits, they become vices when pushed too far. The most competitive basketball player of all time was a notorious jerk. People “kill themselves” in demanding careers or literally kill themselves running triathlons while ignoring signs of pain and danger. Entrepreneurs bet big on themselves and lose, or sacrifice what they can’t afford to in order to win.
But ascending hierarchies of competence is vital even for the 99% of us who will not become elite athletes, CEOs, or superstars. Improving at a valuable skill is meaningful, and rising through the ranks provides validation of that meaning. It brings self-confidence and fulfillment. It demonstrates your worth to others and to yourself. When developed well, the masculine traits are virtues independent of any competition. They enable people to simply live better in the world, enjoying success as a well-deserved reward rather than a fleeting stroke of luck, and seeing setbacks as challenges rather than tragedies.
How do young people learn to develop masculine traits into masculine virtues? Schools and media are two of the institutions that are tasked with teaching young people, but those two institutions are among the most deeply entrenched in the progressive ideology that rejects competence and sees masculine traits as negative. You can turn to parents or friends, but not everyone has good role models around them. You can listen to a Jordan Peterson lecture, but he’s liable to ramble about Jesus for hours on end.
Or, you can turn on the TV and watch some sports, and then sign up for a local rec league.
What Sports Taught Me
I hold a lot of opinions that are hugely controversial outside the rationalist community but are well subscribed within it. That self-improving AI is an existential threat, that status seeking drives most of social behavior, that you should correct for multiple hypothesis testing. I hold one opinion that is hugely controversial among rationalists and is unremarkable everywhere else: that the three hours I spent watching soccer last Saturday were time well spent.
I want to write one day about the beauty of sports as a deep and complex art form and on the link between watching professional athletes and one’s own physical development. But sports are not just entertainment, they’re a human activity built on the values of sportsmanship, and those values are worth paying attention to.
1. Protecting the game is more important than winning
There’s a big difference between fans of competing political parties and of competing NBA teams. The former see only conflict in everything they care about. But the latter have something in common: their love of basketball. For this reason, almost all fans want their team to win fairly, and not by sabotaging opponents or bribing referees. Winning an NBA game is pointless if you destroy the NBA by cheating.
Sports fans recognize that the rules of the game are paramount. Not all the rules are written, of course, and there’s room to push the boundary. But ultimately the participants in the game establish collectively what is cheating and what is fair play, and they’re quick to punish cheaters.
Contrast this with journalists cannibalizing their own industry by replacing objective reporting with clickbait and scandal. Companies like Gawker Media took pride in destroying journalism norms for page views. And for a while, Gawker “won” the competition for eyeballs and attention. Now Gawker is gone, and the entire industry is in a death spiral.
2. Opponents are not enemies
A corollary to #1: the goal of sports is to outperform your opponent, not to destroy them. Even MMA fighters (for the most part) look to outfight their opponent in the cage, not to harm or humiliate them. At the end of the match, they are colleagues again.
The opposite is true in culture war and politics. People spend all their effort sticking it to the outgroup: getting someone silenced, banished, fired, ridiculed. Whether this actually helps your own cause or the groups you claim to fight for is an afterthought. The 35-day government shutdown harmed both Republican and Democrat voters, while both Trump and the House Democrats seemed to care more about making sure the other loses than helping their constituents.
Sports fandom is a channel for tribal impulses, but largely a benign one at that. Few fans and even fewer athletes forget the humanity of the person they compete against and the respect they’re owed. Outside of sports, few seem to remember that.
3. It matters how good you are today, not what you did yesterday
Many people react to accolades and achievements by lowering their own standards. Think of an academic wasting their tenure on prestige squabbles instead of exploring bold ideas, or anyone on Twitter with a blue check next to their name.
In sports, the opposite is true. Winning a title grants you accolades, but it makes the road tougher in the future. Opponents will learn your strengths and weaknesses, fans will expect more of you. Roger Federer’s past success doesn’t earn him a pass, it just guarantees that every young opponent tries to play the game of their life against him.
An achievement can be a temptation to rest on your laurels or an opportunity to raise your game further. Our instincts push us toward the former, sports teach us the latter.
4. You will get hurt. That’s OK
In a lifetime of playing soccer, I suffered bruised shins, twisted ankles, balls to the face, balls to the balls, elbows to the ribs, and a torn calf muscle. I also learned that none of the above is a big deal, certainly nothing worth sacrificing something as enjoyable as playing soccer over. If you watch sports you see athletes get hurt and recover all the time, but you almost never hear them wish they hadn’t started in the sport in the first place.
There are many fun things we can do with our bodies. The most fun involve some risk of pain and harm: snowboarding, getting tattoos, climbing trees, having kids, lifting, BDSM, soccer, cliff jumping, punch bug. Sports provides exposure to physical risks, letting you decide which activities are worth the bruises.
It’s possible to live life bruise-free, but I’m not sure you can call that “living”.
5. You will lose a lot. That’s OK
I noticed a strange thing recently: almost all my rationalist friends who are into sports also play competitive card games like Magic: The Gathering, Hearthstone, and Artifact. After much cajoling, I decided to jump in. And then it took me a while to get used to all the losing.
Most single-player video games, which are what I played before, are balanced to let the player “win” 80-90% of the time. Dark Souls aside, when a single-player game presents you with a challenge you can confidently expect to deal with it. Movies, adventure books, and single-player games often rely on the trope of “succeeding against all odds”, and yet the odds are very much stacked in the protagonist’s favor.
But in competitive games, you get pwned. A lot . In fact, in games like Hearthstone, you will win exactly 45-50% of your games no matter how good you are. If you work hard at it, you will win 55% of your games for a short while before going back down to 45%, but with a higher rank number next to your name.
In sports, the odds are even tougher. Each year 32 NFL teams compete for a single trophy, which means that fans of 97% of football teams will not celebrate at the end of the year. Sometimes, a team’s season ends through no fault of its own: a bounce of the ball, a coin flip, a blown call.
But that’s how life is. Achieving anything meaningful is hard and entails a lot of failure on the way. As for NFL fans, as for everyone, it is important to take joy and pride in small achievements and marginal improvements along the way. And as for losses:
I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either. And when you lose, as you will from time to time, I hope every now and then, your opponent will gloat over your failure. It is a way for you to understand the importance of sportsmanship.
– Justice John Roberts (h/t Slarphen for the quote attribution)
6. In the end, it’s all up to you
Chance, bad calls and all the rest play an important role in deciding the outcomes of sports events, but sports fans ultimately have little patience for those who shift blame and responsibility. No one wants to litigate old grievances once the name is engraved on the trophy and a new season starts.
While sports teaches us that luck plays a role in outcomes, it also trains us to behave as if that is not the case. The team that benefitted from a lucky bounce was good enough to be in the position of a single bounce from victory, the team that lost weren’t good enough to ensure a margin for victory. Winners rarely apologize for luck, and losers are mocked if they complain about it.
Many institutions send the opposite message. They say: if you failed, it’s not your fault. It was done to you, taken from you. The system will make it right and fix the injustice, all you must do is to surrender your life to the system.
Assigning responsibility for outcomes to your own actions is called “internal locus of control” in psychology. It is associated with a need for achievement, and also with a lower incidence of depression. The latter result is from a study published by APA in 1988 before it was trying to cure men of manliness.
The lessons of sports are useful and important, but it’s not enough to read about them. Like all virtues, they require time to internalize by observing them in role models and practicing them in your own life. Sports are full of role models, both men and women, who have honed those traits to virtues. They are also full of cautionary examples of athletes who took them too far.
When one side of the culture war spectrum rejects all masculine traits and the other side uncritically glorifies them, watching Federer play a tennis match is the balanced meal that your soul needs.
 I am basically using “masculine traits” to mean “traits for climbing competitive hierarchies”.
This is not an arbitrary definition. Males of many species have a much higher tendency than women to measure themselves against other man and arrange themselves in a hierarchy. The root cause of this is that the reproductive prospects of females are more equal, while those of males are highly varied – men need to prove their worth in a hierarchy to get to mate.
If you don’t buy the evolutionary argument, it’s not important to the main point I’m making. Consider my use of “masculine traits” a simple shorthand for “hierarchy-climbing traits”.
 Artifact is particularly brutal for starting players. It’s hugely complex with barely a tutorial, the feedback loops are long which makes it harder to learn quickly, and the matchmaking will pit you against 14-year-olds from Slovakia who will drink your blood.
It does become very rewarding after you spend the time learning the game. There’s nothing quite like edging the opponent by one lane with a brilliant combination of cards and being cursed at in Slovak. You can improve via phantom drafts, or by finding me on Steam for a casual match; my username is “Putanumonit”.
29 thoughts on “Masculine Virtues”
I really don’t know how I feel about you covering things like masculinity. On one hand, it’s well written, informative, and I believe correct. But on the other hand, it is subjective and this is the path to partisanship.
You should play more fully cooperative board games. They are effectively single player games (and often can be played with one character or one player controlling multiple characters; whichever you prefer), Hanabi being a noteworthy exception. I highly recommend Spirit Island and Hanabi. Both are challenging on the base difficulty and downright brutal on higher difficulties.
Anyone who says millennials don’t have the character to handle adversity never tried playing Dark Souls. :)
Seconding the Hanabi recommendation. Pandemic is also fun, though it falls into the “actually a one player game” category.
I’m so happy you could articulate why I love sports and see it as basically a microcosm of how society should operate (in terms of conflict and tribalism etc).
Definitely a great piece to share with my peers who don’t ‘get’ why I spend hours every week playing tennis to get better and compete in adult/amateur tournaments despite having 0 chance of ever being a pro.
I wonder if the new generation (and their parents) will be able to see the same values exemplified in e-sports.
Tennis player as well. It boggles my mind how beneficial tennis is to my well-being. The inner game of Tennis was an amazing book.
It’s practicing meditation with immediate feedback loops.
Miss-hit the ball?
Well, your eyes were wandering. Head wasn’t still (another high-status trait); not giving 100% effort; Improper response to failure, Defeatist perspective, and even caring too much about winning and losing etc.
It’s a training ground for all other positive traits in life; with real-world feedback.
Spring can’t come soon enough.
Announcing the Putanumonit tennis thread! I’m 4.0 on a good day, based in Manhattan.
You know dollar shave club is actually selling the same razors as another company (dorco) but marked up, yeah?
I didn’t know that. Now that I checked, it seems that they’re selling Dorco blades at a discount. A 4-blade cartridge of their high-end blades costs $9.65 from Dorco, or $9.00 from DSC.
Your description of a “war on competenance” feels like at best a weak-man. It’s hard to tell though without a citation.
My suspicion is that you may be misreading progressive claims about privilege and that views on what counts as competent or successful can be gendered* as denying that competence is a thing or relevant.
*That is, that gender is endogenous to what we consider as competent, which may arise in part because competence can be hard to evaluate in some cases and so people may unknowingly use gender (or any other such trait) as a heuristic to determine who is competent.
Side note: I believe the block quote you attributed to Lukainoff/Haidt is them quoting Chief Justice Roberts.
I updated the quote attribution, thanks.
As for gendered competence, I don’t disagree that progressives have a point about how competence is judged. This was the NY Times example, or when orchestras switched to blind auditions and found out that women play the cello as well as men. My claim is that some of them make the jump to denying competence outright (c.f. leftist discussion of wealth or IQ), and then some make the further jump to saying that behaviors that build/demonstrate competence are bad (APA).
There’s a difference between telling men “if you got promoted at work over a woman, consider that gender bias may have helped you” and telling men “if you work hard and take on stressful projects to get promoted that’s harmful traditional masculinity and we’ll cure you of it”.
Definitely a major difference between those two. But I don’t think the latter statement is an accurate or charitable reading of the APA’s guidelines.
I think the key is the “that’s” in your paraphrase. I read them as saying “that can be.”* And that seems accurate.
Say you: (i) believe you have to take on stressful projects to get promoted because it’s what a real man would do, it’s the only way others (in particular, romantic partners) will accept you, or because you’ll feel shame if you don’t; and (ii) that belief is causing you significant stress, depression, harm, etc.
Now maybe on balance that belief is accurate and helpful. But it isn’t necessarily so. If someone is being hurt by their belief that they have to do X but are failing to do so (or succeeding but at a price that’s too high) and it’s ingrained enough that they aren’t even considering that not-X is an option, then maybe calling that harmful toxic masculinity fits.
*APA press release linked in your last post, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx?utm_content=1546300435:
It’s also important to encourage pro-social aspects of masculinity, says McDermott. In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial, he says. But the same tough demeanor that might save a soldier’s life in a war zone can destroy it at home with a romantic partner or child.
“There are times when you need to be able to power through,” McDermott says. “But if you only do that, and you believe that if you don’t do that then you’re somehow less worthy as a person, that’s where you have a problem.”
They def say “toxic masculinity” at the beginning. Listen closely 3 seconds in. The word “masculinity” is louder, but “toxic” is there in front of it.
I had to listen to that part 3 times to catch the “toxic”. Thanks for the tip, I edited that paragraph.
One of the reasons for why I think the Gillette ad gathered so much controversy is because there were parts of it that struggled to draw a clear discinction between toxic masculine behavior and permissible masculine behavior. Take the kids fighting during the barbecue as an example. It was probably Gillette’s intent to illustrate that it’s virtuous to use your strength to break up fights between people over whom you have authority. But it wasn’t clear whether or not the fight was serious. Little boys fight all the time: most of it is rough and tumble play for the sake of enjoyment, and this type of play is something that a lot of fathers rightly find completely permissible — hence, “boys will be boys.” So to people who are naturally guarded towards anti-toxic masculinity messages, they’re going to look at it and think that Gillette is saying that little boys should not be allowed to play fight. This is probably because of the limitations of the medium more than it is because of any malicious intent: it’s hard to make the distinction between play fight and real fight in such a short time frame, and you don’t want the child actors hurting each other. But when the APA is already spouting anti-masculine messages and those messages are starting to become mainstream, I can’t blame anyone for being critical of the optics here.
That’s actually the one thing in the ad that struck me when I watched it. I also have the intuition that little kids should be allowed to punch each other quite a bit before an adult uses their superior physical strength to intervene. Getting in fights as a six-year-old teaches a lot of the same lessons sports do.
(1) ‘Here is a list of things APA considers “harmful”, under the umbrella term of “traditional masculinity”:
Adventure and risk.
Providing for loved ones (if you’re a black man).’
This, I would say, is a misrepresentation. The article summarising the report says, ‘Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors…men with the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate masculine beliefs to get preventive health care…the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves… men who bought into traditional notions of masculinity were more negative about seeking mental health services than those with more flexible gender attitudes’ (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx, the section The Needs of Men, 3rd paragraph).
From this, it seems that the problem is not that men exhibit traditionally-masculine traits; it is that there are worse health outcomes for (a) men who strongly believe that stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression are masculine traits and (b) men who are overly-concerned about conforming to these masculine traits. Based on this, and the rest of the article, the problem isn’t that men are stoical etc., the problem is that they are forcing themselves to act stoical when that’s not how they naturally would act, because they feel like if they don’t, they’re not living up to their masculinity; and both the strain of trying to perform a personality trait they don’t have, and feeling anxiety that they’re not being a ‘real man’ or living up to the world’s expectations of them, is bad for their mental health.
(2) ‘Consider my use of “masculine traits” a simple shorthand for “hierarchy-climbing traits”.’ – but what are the advantages of using that language, when most people are attached to their gender identities and find it distressing when people attribute the opposite one to them? If you said to the average man ‘you’re looking very feminine today’, he probably wouldn’t like it. Similarly, when I (a woman) exhibit grit, competence, competitiveness, dominance, emotional stoicism.. am I to be called “masculine”? I mean…ok… but when I strive for these virtues, I don’t feel masculine in the same way that I would if, e.g., I was wearing a tuxedo or a fake beard or something. I just feel like a person trying to do good. This is important because that, in a sense, is what the APA guidelines are about: they are about how gendering virtues leads to unnecessary distress, as men have to deal both with (e.g.) not being able to be as dominant as perhaps their workplace or social sphere demands, and feeling that this compromises their gender in some way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When someone is referred to as “masculine” or “feminine” it usually means things like having a broad jaw or a narrow waist, not so much their approach to competitive hierarchies. The reason I wrote “masculine traits” instead of “sports traits” is because APA called them “traditional masculinity” and said that they’re harmful to men.
I do get the sense that women are very much encouraged to develop those traits: strong female protagonists in media, “Lean In”, Ronda Rousey… I think that’s great, it’s one of the goals of this very post! There’s a reason I chose figure skaters, who combine feminine looks with hardcore toughness and competitiveness, as the header image.
But telling women to do more of something doesn’t mean men have to do less of it. We should all be more like figure skaters.
I would say not so much “misrepresentation” as “blatant bullshit”. I am generally a Jacob fan and generally on board with criticism of over-the-top performative wokeness, but after seeing Jacob claim, completely falsely, that the APA considers achievement harmful (top tip: no, they don’t say anything even slightly like that) I am simply no longer going to take seriously anything else he says on this topic. Jacob, if your goal is to arouse greater enthusiasm among people who were already enthusiastically of the same opinion as you, then this sort of thing is probably effective, but if you’re aiming either (1) to get closer to the truth or (2) to persuade people who are doubtful, then I think it’s exactly the wrong thing to do.
Man, this was a good post. Thanks for wading through all that mess on my behalf.
Another point about sports which might be underappreciated: In domains where there are no consequences for being ‘wrong’, like sports or esthetics, it makes perfect sense to indulge in some harmless tribalism. Hardly anyone cares which team is ‘better’ deep down – it’s just a handy Schelling point for bonding with your fellow apes, and satiating that impulse to conform to the hivemind in an innocuous way (like dancing, singing in unison, fashion, watching Game of Thrones, etc). You get some watercooler chat, you feel more of a connection with regular folks, you build social capital, and it’s fun. Go Wildcats!
It’s inherently unfair to compare sports to politics. Sports is consensual. Politics is nonconsensual. Sure, you can choose to ignore it, but its effects on your life will still be mandatory for you. (The same is technically true for the externalities of sports, but their reach is far less extreme than the reach of politics.)
Yes. Put another way, sports is a sandbox, politics not so much.
I found this post too down on human instincts in some places. Sometimes it felt like you believed people are basically inherently foolish and negative-sum about political discourse. I’ll respond to a specific related example.
[quote]2. Opponents are not enemies
A corollary to #1: the goal of sports is to outperform your opponent, not to destroy them. Even MMA fighters (for the most part) look to outfight their opponent in the cage, not to harm or humiliate them. At the end of the match, they are colleagues again.
The opposite is true in culture war and politics. [b]People spend all their effort sticking it to the outgroup: getting someone silenced, banished, fired, ridiculed.[/b] Whether this actually helps your own cause or the groups you claim to fight for is an afterthought. The 35-day government shutdown harmed both Republican and Democrat voters, while both Trump and the House Democrats seemed to care more about making sure the other loses than helping their constituents.”[/quote]
People with differing political views do engage in honest discussion with one another! I think everyone has somewhat different views. If so, then our ability to get along, and even flourish, as a society, requires such people to forge good relationships. For me, engaging with opposing views has caused positive personal changes. I expect a lot of people have or have had good friends with opposite views, though if filter bubbles have in fact been increasing, you’d expect that these sorts of friendships are less prevalent now.
Largely, I’m writing this response as venting: recently, friends and family have made many claims like yours which I quoted above. I’m reluctant to say this, but maybe sometimes political fighting [i]is[/i] important — non-empty threats probably need to exist. That being said, having an eye for win-wins is crucial. A belief that politics is mostly about fighting may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, I’m not sure what way you are using the word “politics”. That word can be really general, potentially referring to all human interactions, or it can refer to more narrow things, like American party politics.
I just want to add to the point about about competitive games, because I think they’re a great way to practice some virtues. I played Melee competitively for two years, and got a lot out of it (and became relatively good in my region!). I think this will eventually be a longer blogpost, but in the meantime, I’ll mention two relevant virtues:
To become good, you have to not only accept constant defeat, but nonetheless strive to do better. Losses have to be converted to fuel, or they weigh you down. Too much pressure on yourself will botch your performance with nerves and burn-out, and too little won’t take you anywhere. Winning any single game or tournament has to be somewhat of a “preferred indifferent.”
Perhaps this isn’t the word for it, but here’s what I mean: It’s the attitude that asks “Why did I lose?” and answers “Because I messed up. I made mistakes that I shouldn’t have.” If I want to improve, I can’t blame my cold hands, my bad sleep, or my opponent’s character, even if they’re all factors. Only I’m responsible for winning. Why did my opponent win? Because he outplayed me.
These still inform my everyday mindset even though I don’t compete seriously anymore, and I think they’re extremely helpful for dealing with adversity and failure. I think culturally we have a very uncomfortable relationship with failure, and it’s easy to go too long without learning how to fail properly.
LikeLiked by 1 person