I wanted to double-check my understanding of the origins of calling therapists and psychiatrists “shrinks” or “head shrinkers.” Quora says it refers to the tribal custom, which required opening up the heads and scooping out the insides for shrinking.
I like the premise of this article but it raises so many questions about the nature of the disability. It feels intuitively correct. I think there’s probably all kinds of data out in the world about some interventions and what can be done. I know there’s just reams of data on bullying buried in different silos at schools that could spread some light on this. I don’t have it in front of me but my recollection is that physical bullying has declined a lot but there’s a lot of inclusion work. Just anecdotally I see some evidence of pretty significant shifts in norms that stuff seems possible.
Like DeBoer’s piece I feel like it’s got a two type problem where there’s a pretty serious version of the problem and a problem that affects people in their relative standing amongst the reasonably well off. These probably should be split into two separate problems.
I'd say going to deep into masculinity is definitely bad. I'd also say here is where we need to consider the difference between "masculinity" and "manliness". They aren't the same thing. There's a lot of overlap but they are different. Manliness is a virtue drawn from masculinity but isn't limited to it. Take Aragorn from LOTR. He'll decapitate orcs and sing an Elven song to falling rose petals. There's really no debate he's manly, but he's not so masculine he can't express his feelings.
I'd say that is healthy. Raw masculinity untempered on the other hand is not.
I'll read the book, but before I do- I really challenge the assertion that masculinity wrecks connection. It only seems that way online, or maybe in media. In fact a huge part of masculinity has *always* been deep connection, and it's found in the most masculine of activities, in the most masculine of cultures. In fact, connection being a core piece of masculinity is especially strong outside of affluent subgroups.
Australian men are some of the most manly on earth. And one of the very top cultural values for the country is the concept of mateship. There is no connection like that of your mates; it's frequently described as a marriage. It's loving, deep, and so intense, that when I first moved there it almost seemed borderline homoerotic and the irony of that is they have zero insecurity of being thought of in that way because mateship is far, far more important than any homophobic insecurities. Australia is the least homophobic country I've ever spent time in.
I'm from a working class Californian background, and this aspect of Australian culture was extremely easy for me to settle in with. My male connections were everything to me at the time (I was 27 when I moved there). To this day, they're my most important people in my life after my family. We need, and depend on, the emotional connections and vulnerability these connections bring.
3/4 of the value of sports teams are the deep, raw connections, and the more masculine, the more intense this is; football is the most so, baseball celebrates sitting in the dugout talking shit. Basketball elevates understanding your teammates on a non-verbal level. Soldiers always say that the comraderie is the most important part of the military.
I do not immediately know what to think of this argument, which is rare.
Your brain continues to be weird in the good ways. :)
Hell ya. Thank you!
I like the premise of this article but it raises so many questions about the nature of the disability. It feels intuitively correct. I think there’s probably all kinds of data out in the world about some interventions and what can be done. I know there’s just reams of data on bullying buried in different silos at schools that could spread some light on this. I don’t have it in front of me but my recollection is that physical bullying has declined a lot but there’s a lot of inclusion work. Just anecdotally I see some evidence of pretty significant shifts in norms that stuff seems possible.
Like DeBoer’s piece I feel like it’s got a two type problem where there’s a pretty serious version of the problem and a problem that affects people in their relative standing amongst the reasonably well off. These probably should be split into two separate problems.
Not that all your articles aren't great, but this raises the bar on your brilliance.
Why thank you!
thanks so much for this thoughtful and fascinating discussion of Boymom- so much to think about here!
Fuck yes. This is exactly correct.
I'd say going to deep into masculinity is definitely bad. I'd also say here is where we need to consider the difference between "masculinity" and "manliness". They aren't the same thing. There's a lot of overlap but they are different. Manliness is a virtue drawn from masculinity but isn't limited to it. Take Aragorn from LOTR. He'll decapitate orcs and sing an Elven song to falling rose petals. There's really no debate he's manly, but he's not so masculine he can't express his feelings.
I'd say that is healthy. Raw masculinity untempered on the other hand is not.
This post really only makes sense with my definition of masculinity as articulated here and here
https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-is-lowkey-anti
https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/abolishing-gender-is-not-transphobic
I'll read the book, but before I do- I really challenge the assertion that masculinity wrecks connection. It only seems that way online, or maybe in media. In fact a huge part of masculinity has *always* been deep connection, and it's found in the most masculine of activities, in the most masculine of cultures. In fact, connection being a core piece of masculinity is especially strong outside of affluent subgroups.
Australian men are some of the most manly on earth. And one of the very top cultural values for the country is the concept of mateship. There is no connection like that of your mates; it's frequently described as a marriage. It's loving, deep, and so intense, that when I first moved there it almost seemed borderline homoerotic and the irony of that is they have zero insecurity of being thought of in that way because mateship is far, far more important than any homophobic insecurities. Australia is the least homophobic country I've ever spent time in.
I'm from a working class Californian background, and this aspect of Australian culture was extremely easy for me to settle in with. My male connections were everything to me at the time (I was 27 when I moved there). To this day, they're my most important people in my life after my family. We need, and depend on, the emotional connections and vulnerability these connections bring.
3/4 of the value of sports teams are the deep, raw connections, and the more masculine, the more intense this is; football is the most so, baseball celebrates sitting in the dugout talking shit. Basketball elevates understanding your teammates on a non-verbal level. Soldiers always say that the comraderie is the most important part of the military.