
The 'masculine mystique' – why men can't ditch the baggage of being a bloke - lentil_soup
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/21/the-masculine-mystique-why-men-cant-ditch-the-baggage-of-being-a-bloke
======
quantumofmalice
I hate to ruin a good Guardian anecdotal narrative, but male happiness has
been trending upward for the last 40 years. Females are the ones becoming less
happy, for reasons I will leave to the reader to speculate on:

[http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/HAP23...](http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/HAP23.jpg)

As far as why men can't ditch "the baggage" of striving to win in dominance &
competence hierarchies, it is because it was necessary for hundreds of
thousands of years for a male to achieve reproductive success. And, all else
equal, it still is.

~~~
imh
That's subjective happiness, aka "Taking all things together, how would you
say things are these days — would you say you’re very happy, fairly happy, or
not too happy these days?”

In the discussion section of the paper [0] that freakonomics post [1] is
about, they talk about limitations and less straightforward interpretations of
that measure and that trend. This isn't to say the guardian post is right and
you're wrong, but that it isn't impossible both are correct and interesting
and worthy of discussion. I don't want your post to shut down or dismiss
discussion of OP.

[0] [http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969](http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969)

[1] [http://freakonomics.com/2008/08/05/happiness-
inequality-2-di...](http://freakonomics.com/2008/08/05/happiness-
inequality-2-differences-between-groups/)

------
owebmaster
What is the problem with strong, dominant and successful men? Or boys aiming
to become one and live an oustanding life?

All my friends since childhood wanted to rule the world if they could, but too
much television turned them into spending-machines (and readers of bad
articles).

~~~
ajurna
Nothing wrong with being strong, successful and dominant, right up until you
cant take the pressure. Then you are too strong, dominant and successful to
ask for help.

what does it mean to be strong? is it without weakness? or the strength to
acknowledge that weakness. If you're so strong you never cry is that really
strength?

being dominant sounds like a good idea but once you think about it, it seems a
bit absurd. everything humans do well we do as a team. being dominant only
means you can be in charge of a team and not a supporting part.

and lastly success. What is success? is it just money? that's hardly a good
measure. is it to be happy? and if that comes at the expense of not being
"strong and dominant" then what have you left?

You're describing a fantasy, an archetype and it does you and men in general
no favours by striving to be something so ephemeral. In the end you will
always fail and then where are you?

~~~
an_d_rew
Well said!

~~~
an_d_rew
Oops - my bad - forgot about "comment reodering"...

My "Well said!" comment was in reply and approving of the following
observation by 'ajurna':

> Nothing wrong with being strong, successful and dominant, right up until you
> cant take the pressure. Then you are too strong, dominant and successful to
> ask for help.

I was not responding to 'owebmaster'.

Sorry for the confusion, for anyone who knows me!

