Stoicism and Toxic-Masculinity: Does Stoicism Deserve to be Lumped in with Toxic Masculinity? (Make up essay 4/16)

             In today's polarized and hyper-vigilant political environment people find it difficult to discuss subjects of race, gender, and sexuality for fear of their ideas causing offense or at worst their being ostracized from a group or movement. As a male, any discussion of notions like toxic masculinity makes me uncomfortable. I'm afraid people – my friends or coworkers – will see me as insufficiently feminist, a defender of abusers, alt-right, or conservative. I fear any questioning of the concept will cause others to see me with suspicion and this leads me to not bring up points which may be valuable and unoffensive. I know I am not the only person who feels held back by this fear, which silences many productive analyses of our concepts. I see the modern political environment, which has its contributions from both sides of the aisle, as one which requires us to toe-the-line, to conform, and be constrained by dogma. Any thought or action which runs contrary to dogma can be met with verbal abuse or more often now, violence. This is evidenced by what has been deemed “call-out culture” or the antics of the “left-wing” antifa and the “alt-right” proud boys.

            This being said, I would like to discuss what was briefly mentioned at the beginning of the semester, the American Psychological Association's categorization of toxic-masculinity. My discussion of the guidelines certainly won't be controversial, but I believe it is worth noting how difficult it has become to talk openly about ideas.

            After the release of the APA's guidelines, there was a minor uproar of sorts, especially from right-wing defenders of masculinity. As a student of philosophy though, what made me take notice was the inclusion of stoicism in articles which discussed the guidelines. I was surprised to read the APA had apparently lumped stoicism in with the qualities of toxic masculinity. The guidelines themselves make mention of stoicism only twice in the 36 page document. Once on page 11,

Psychologists can discuss with boys and men the messages they have received about  withholding affection from other males to help them understand how components of traditional masculinity such as emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance, and competitiveness might deter them from forming close relationships with male peers (Brooks, 1998; Smiler, 2016). ("APA Guideline for Psychological Practice with Boys or Men")

And again on page 18,

Psychologists also strive to reduce mental health stigma for men by acknowledging and challenging socialized messages related to men’s mental health stigma (e.g., male stoicism, self- reliance). ("APA Guideline for Psychological Practice with Boys or Men")

In truth, I was expecting a lot more considering the hoopla surrounding the release of the guidelines. What I have read here seems like pretty tame stuff, but through the lens of the media everything is magnified.

         One thing we can ask ourselves though is, is what the APA calls stoicism, stoicism at all? What is male stoicism or emotional stoicism? Male stoicism is the stereotype of the cool and silent type, think John Wayne (Psych Today). I think we can safely assume the same is meant of emotional stoicism.

         Watch these videos from philosopher Alain de Botton to have a better understanding of stoicism – the philosophy.

         What the APA means by male stoicism/emotional stoicism is a problem. Men should feel free to: discuss and express their feelings or to negotiate with them, to show affection, to be vulnerable. It is my belief the philosophy of stoicism instructs us to accept our vulnerability. Not to repress our emotions, but not to be controlled by them either. The philosopher Zeno compares humanity to a dog being dragged by a cart. The dog has no choice but to move along with the cart, to pull against it, would strangle it. This represents an openness to destiny, but can be applied to emotional vulnerability as well. Stoicism teaches us to be vulnerable and open to fate. The philosophy itself though does not deserve to be associated with such a negative concept as toxic masculinity. It is my opinion to use the term stoicism in this way is a mis-characterization or oversimplification. The stereotype of stoicism has little to do with the philosophy itself.

APA Guidelines are here.