The Left Must Reforge Masculinity
An essay on the left’s need to address contemporary masculinity
by E. Day
‘The Fallen Angel’ by Alexandre Cabanel (1847)
Masculinity is never a finished product—men construct masculinities in specific social situations and in doing so reproduce social structures.
Karl Thompson, Masculinities and Crime: James W. Messerschmidt
Introduction
The 20th century brought unprecedented progress worldwide in the struggle for women’s liberation; no leap had been so great in human history. While still a far cry from true “equality” in both form and essence, those “who held up half the sky” (in Mao’s famous words) declared that they would no longer tolerate their prescribed social position as inferiors to men; as periphery both praised and slandered, as cattle both gawked at and mocked, as objects both idealized and demonized. Their humanity would be recognized, or it would be reclaimed by force.
For the United States in particular, numerous multigenerational movements for women's economic rights and social demands had finally started to be recognized. Specifically, World War II and its woman-led wartime manufacturing shattered gender norms and raised crucial criticisms about the role they were conditioned into within American society—why were women not seen as being owed the same dignity and human rights as men, who were only ever expected to perform one gender role? Why couldn’t they vote until so recently in history? Why couldn’t they have financial sovereignty? Why couldn’t they have bodily autonomy? Many resisted this line of questioning, men and women alike. But each subsequent decade built upon the last, seeking justice and closure for these criticisms, inch by inch. And even so, it wasn’t until well into the 21st century that something as dire yet ubiquitous as sexual assault began to have serious repercussions within American culture after the #MeToo movement.
In tandem, the struggle for women’s liberation in America has had a reverberating impact. Until recently, men’s place at the head of this iteration of familial patriarchy remained unquestioned—yet both the expectations placed on him, and therefore those he holds, have remained largely untouched. The fulfillment of traditional masculine ideals–to provide stable income, act as stone-cold suppressors of internal and external emotion, strive as pillars of the community, and seek a wife who will give them children to continue this process—has become noticeably less achievable, but, more importantly, also less exclusive. Women have become fully capable of earning their own income, or even surpassing their partners' income, and are arguably more involved in communal spaces. The social pressure to step into the role of homemaker who births and raises children has shrunk compared to years prior.
Meanwhile, in the greater context of capitalism, average purchasing power has steadily declined across the board, physical/social infrastructures have been neglected in the wake of finance capital/real estate owner class monopolies, and romance in the modern landscape is an unmitigated disaster for all. It can be stated that when men’s capability to fulfill the social expectations burdened upon them by patriarchal norms is hindered, they are met with an immense psychological affliction. For example, while unemployment impacts the entirety of the working class, due to the fact that men are still socialized into identifying with the role of the “breadwinner,” it is arguable that the disproportionate fourfold increase in male suicide rates during the Great Recession strongly correlates to the inherently gendered perception of the inability to provide, especially concerning potential partners or entire families. Globally, this gendered phenomenon crosses class boundaries; for example, while there is almost certainly a disparity of precise figure reporting due to classification errors, male farmers in India commit suicide due to socioeconomic stressors also at a significantly disproportionate rate.
In the political scene, with the data of the 2024 Election available, we can infer that nearly every demographic of men is being slowly attrited into the GOP political machine. While it is painfully obvious that the right-wing forces of the ruling class are largely the cause behind the rise of this latest historical reaction, what is obscured from our view is the purpose that they are preparing men for; they are grooming them today to become the forces of tomorrow.
Many will find this topic challenging, awkward, or grossly uncomfortable. But if the left is to achieve a democratic revolution, to change the course of our story, to grasp humanity’s fate in its own hands—if it wants to win—it must ruthlessly throw off the shackles imposed upon it by the right-wing monopoly on manhood. It must risk exposure to flame. It must temper its understanding of the history it has encountered by circumstance and reforge a new masculinity.
As communists, it is impossible to predict what the gender spectrum of the far future will be like, or how humans will interact with gender under a communist world—if at all. In truth, it is almost pointless to conjecture. But what we do know is that we, as living beings, now have all the means necessary to begin reshaping masculinity for the next day. It starts with acknowledging the problem, recognizing systematized trauma under intergenerational/orthodox gender dynamics, and charting the first steps toward reformation of the sociopolitical structure which affirms masculinity today.
The Consequences of Masculine Displacement
Within the context of the dialectic between Man and Woman, the winds of history have begun to weather the cisheteronormative monolith of masculinity. In material terms, this has started to “even the playing field” for Woman – and in addition, pulled the rug out from underneath Man in the same move. As such, it stands to reason that the majority of men feel their assigned masculinity at birth has been betrayed, almost “punished” by society. Though difficult to articulate clearly (and, for many, respectfully!), one can only sense that masculinity has become displaced. A brief example would be in the upbringing of the modern man and thereafter, where they have been given conflicting instructions from the clashing ideological dripfeeds of society (a contradictory dynamic that, sadly, women are all too familiar with):
“It is right that women have the same earning potential as men.”
“Make sure to bring home the bacon, or your wife will lose respect for you as a man!”
“Men need to learn how to express their emotions in their relationships!”
“A real man doesn’t cry or act weak – suck it up.”
“Men should be respectful and mindful of other people’s autonomy at all times.”
“If you can’t lead or take initiative as a man, you won’t be seen as one.”
Furthermore, these society-wide structural changes have come to impact men to varying degrees in recent history. Building upon our earlier examples, some recent statistics for men include but are far from limited to: a four times higher rate of suicide, a widening gap in college enrollment/high school graduation rates, a 70% share of the homelessness rate nationwide, a sharp increase in cosmetic procedures and body dysmorphia related issues, a shrinking size of social circles with even fewer preexisting support networks, a shocking 45% rate of 18-25 year old men having never asked somebody out on a date, and the committing of 97% of all mass shootings since 2006. While none of these issues are necessarily exclusive to men, it is no stretch to conclude that the recent disparities in these categories have led to increasingly damaging outcomes across the country, which all suffer from, directly or indirectly, and are, as such, conceivably linked. In the modern sociological context, these alienating waves of change now compel men to take up new, at times radical paths in life to make their own imprint upon the world, suffering from a perpetual yearning due to a prescribed medication whose dose is no longer cutting it.
At its core, however, the crisis of masculinity is a crisis of an identity in conflict with the real world, a crisis of purpose. Historically, it is at a crossroads. What makes a man? What defines a successful life as one? How should men exist in relation to women and other men? What does it mean to be a man if societal structures simultaneously reward and admonish those who do or do not meet their respective standards – i.e., the competing oppositional dichotomies of masculine gender performance? These are the latent questions that ruminate within the minds of men under the waters of the subconscious.
One need only look at the freshly spawned radicalisms which have overtaken various sections of male society in the last few decades to further comprehend the political consequences of masculine displacement. Pick-up artistry, GamerGate, QAnon, Inceldom, MGTOW, ‘Looksmaxxing’, and more have dominated some of the most heated political undercurrents in the last few decades, coalescing in the crown jewel of MAGA. The speed of this development is arguably unprecedented. In the span of just 3 election seasons, the political discourse in the United States progressed from Trump provoking shock and awe after announcing his disdain for ‘political correctness’ on the debate stage, to the White House tweeting right-wing imageboard memes and Peter Thiel expressing his lazily disguised political interest in Clavicular.
These factions give wayward boys and lost men a collective masculine identity–a defining purpose in an age where the old ways once inherited are now dying. They enable the sublation of an individual character fully realized through that collective; people they finally belong to in a world where the doors are open, but whose inhabitants have long forgotten them. Those who cannot fathom the gravity of the situation are simply not paying attention to the ideas spreading rapidly. They cannot foresee the endgame of the present and the continued dominant ideological forces blasting on social media at hyperspeed for 6 hours a day.
The spread of these ideas carries with it the newly abstracted and articulated definitions of masculinity. Whatever it is defined as is, of course, largely predisposed to the then-dominant ideas of the ruling class. And as the epoch of that ruling class begins to wane, so too does its monopoly on social definitions. In Origins of the Family, Marx and Engels elaborate:
As regards the legal equality of husband and wife in marriage, the position is no better. The legal inequality of the two partners, bequeathed to us from earlier social conditions [my emphasis], is not the cause but the effect of the economic oppression of the woman...With the patriarchal family, and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production. Not until the coming of modern large-scale industry was the road to social production opened to her again – and then only to the proletarian wife…The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.
In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy [my emphasis], without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat.
Now, another change has come. The average woman has been mostly granted the same legal rights and socioeconomic opportunities as the average man. Yet, the social conditions of the past are bequeathed to us today in the same manner that those of yesteryear were bequeathed to us yesterday, and time’s arrow marches onward.
Male supremacy has long ruled the superstructure upon a material basis of supremacy. The more this material base eroded, the more women fought for their own liberation, the less ideological legitimacy this supremacy had to stand on over the decades. But, as we know, the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. It takes time, technology, and struggle for the phantoms of the mind to truly subside in subsequent generations. While waiting for that to subside, we find ourselves once again in an age of reaction. Men have inherited male supremacy with hardly any supremacy to stand on. But that supremacy has not been completely eroded. It is, in fact, fighting for the old world as the new one struggles to be born.
The current trajectory of societal masculinity forecasts catastrophes of magnitude, which are in many ways already here. Masculine identity occupies a peculiar contradiction; it is a core (perhaps the core) driving force of sublation, of desire, in those who know nothing but how to occupy such an identity. Man sublates the transformed ideas he conceives into the material world after being informed of their initial basis by that same world; their reshaping influenced by the interdependence between his thoughts about himself and the unique conditions of the present day. This is almost ubiquitously expressed in material properties that have defined manhood for centuries, i.e., wealth, power, and arguably the most important, women, and their objectification as status trophies.
In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.
–Tony Montana, Scarface (1983)
When the next saga arrives at the door, the conditions of history are such that men will choose the path they believe is the likeliest to materialize their desired sublation. The victor will be that which men take up en masse – whichever view both becomes sufficient in quantitative exposure in order to take on a societal character and affirms the transitional burdens of this identity with a path forward. Currently, rather than moving towards progress for men, it advocates for backlash and reaction, with women as its scapegoat. The epoch of the Civil Rights movement has begun to wane. Now begins the waxing of its antithesis, a “counter” Civil Rights movement. They have successfully capitalized upon the opportunity of men who feel broke, powerless, and unable to attract a woman to share their lives with. They speak to a broken half of the political spectrum and give it a voice, subtly promising a return to a day when men’s ability to obtain these material properties would be enshrined in socioeconomic supremacy once again. In Trump’s own words:
In 2016 I declared, ‘I am your voice’. Today, I add: I am your warrior.
I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged ad betrayed, I am your retribution.
Lest we forget, his sense of manhood was wronged in 2020 as well! Indeed, the motif of the last decade appears straightforward: men’s vengeance. The retribution of pain. The leader of global reaction spoke to it as broadly as possible. When the center-left could only offer more of the same, in hindsight, was it truly any surprise all that arrived was but a deflated echo of history? To our fellow men, does it genuinely bring any shock that the overwhelming majority of the aforementioned issues (and then some) going unaddressed in ideological real estate led to most of us falling prey to the cannibalism of the right-wing? The result of the last few decades is the perfect demographic for fascist politics – one that cares not for progress, legitimacy, equity, and the restoration of humanity, even at some cost of its own interests – one who is hurt, does not understand their wounds, yet demands that someone must pay. Not only does the quantity of right-wing media articulation dwarf that of the left, but the quality as well. This is the true skeleton key of the right-wing.
Even more tragically, admitting this requires the left to come to terms with the same conception of masculinity it inherits. We have yet to contend with this contradiction, for it remains a vacuum in our body of politics. Initially unbeknownst to the unconscious Man – as he was raised to believe nothing but the conditions which shaped his world – his castigations become a self-fulfilling prophecy, a sublation of his impressions. When the underclass won the beginnings of its own liberation, this new history informed us that Man enters the world privileged, born into a role of fortune, ease, and systemic preference because he does not belong to the strata of Woman.
Despite this, our conception of masculinity remains an oppositional side on the same patriarchal coin as a faux, hollow morality disguised as progress. The center-left hegemonic view posits that Man is defined not by what he ought to do, but by what he ought not to do. Man is privileged; he should not feel oppressed. Man is institutional; he should not be considered a victim of the system. Man is violent; he should not act on it. Man is predatory; he should not prey or be preyed upon. Man is fortunate; he should not be poor. If Man is sad, he does not express his feelings enough. If Man struggles to romance, he does not give enough effort.
What we find being reinforced is just another pillar of orthodox (or “toxic”) masculinity: Man does not complain. An ideal which encourages its own self-suppression is not an ideal at all, but rather an antithesis that does not make for appealing political communications. We cannot repackage a traditional gender role with ‘woke’ wrapping – it is not difficult to understand that the directness of a reactionary message feels more sympathetic to the identity of the average man than one that is duplicitous and backhanded.
Therefore, we must choose to viciously throw the old conception into the dustbin of history, without delay. All change brought about by humankind begins with naming the words which describe its desire. It begins with (and requires!) understanding, reflection, and critique alongside allies. A new masculinity starts with voicing our criticisms of today’s world to restore our stolen humanity as men and women alike. Overpowering the Right in quantity and quality of ideas that carry our criticality is the victory condition. It is only this that will decide whether we can successfully accomplish a democratic revolution, not wishful thinking.
“Left-wing” Men’s Advocacy
A new masculinity will require developing and integrating a new script into the world. It must be brought into existence with the intention to negate its proto-hegemonic opponents (i.e., the “Manosphere”/”The Redpill”/”Podcast Techbros”) in the form of a “Left-wing Men’s Advocacy”. Exploring what left-wing men’s advocacy would look like requires critical examination:
What ideas and neoliberal conventions must the left leave behind?
How do we reconcile a healthy conception of masculine identity with women’s liberation and inherited masculine gender expression?
What ideological spaces must the left take back from reaction? What practical measures must be taken to achieve this?
All of these subjects and more warrant unique articles; for brevity’s sake, we will briefly address each.
Leaving behind the neoliberal framework
In contrast to its reactionary oppositional view, the neoliberal feminist position is the current dominant view in U.S. politics (though, as stated, this was never fully finished, and is rapidly reversing). Achieving many reforms in the political struggle of the last century, its ideological products occupy central places in our institutions in legislation, education, and business. Naturally, its byproducts are also observable. Reform for women’s rights advocated for the negation of institutionalized male supremacy and its sociological position as head of the bourgeois family. It demanded enshrined legal rights to fill the gap where women were structurally disempowered by coverture. The critical aspect of this historical process is that collective politics, which took form in the context of a bourgeois society, will be limited to a bourgeois ideological context unless it conceptualizes and integrates the qualities of the subordinate class as an interdependent whole.
Admittedly, it was unlikely anyone could foresee the secondary consequences we’ve described thus far. What we’ve ended up with today is a sort of “girlboss” feminism that dances around core contradictions, leading to an instability that merely intensifies intersexual and intrasexual competition among the contending classes. Many have posited similar center-left critiques toward this complex and multifaceted phenomenon, but far fewer are looking at the other half. For the left, turning a blind eye to this phenomenon is the neoliberal framework. If one acknowledges only a single thing from the arguments made until now, let it be that this is an issue that we cannot afford to ignore any longer. Discovering the correct incentives required to construct a political majority begins with investigating the current struggles and limitations of its base. Neglecting this is arguably one of the worst forms of idealism one can take – not to simply propose a different idea in place of the contesting, but rather to argue that the phenomenon doesn’t exist at all! Do we really need to give more ammunition to the accusations of gaslighting?
Many will find it difficult to balance these two positions. It is far easier to let our brains fill in the blanks and assume that, solely because somebody enjoys pancakes, they must dislike waffles. There will never be interpersonal resolution to this if we do not strive to see the nuance that resides in the grey and have these dialogics openly and cooperatively.
The fundamental core of the contradiction is that the orthodox conception of masculine-feminine relations inherited by the English bourgeois revolution was defined by men existing above women in a social hierarchy of an owner class and their objective properties respectively, mirroring the authoritarian dialectic of a divine God who spoke through a typically male figurehead toward his subjects. Maintaining so many detrimental and burdening ideals from a conception that began well over 260 years ago has gone on far, far too long.
So how do we redefine man in relation to woman in a way that neither abets reaction nor perpetuates stagnation? In his book Of Boys and Men, Richard Reeves writes:
Fathers really came into their own about half a million years ago, when human brains had a growth spurt. The need for food, especially meat, to nourish new mothers and their babies increased dramatically. From this point on, as anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy points out, it took about 13 million calories to rear a human from birth to nutritional independence. ‘This is far more than a woman could provide by herself,’ she says. If fathers wanted their children to survive, they had to stick around and provide for them. So they did. Fatherhood is a product of evolutionary selection. As such, writes Anna Machin, anthropologist and author of The Life of Dad, ‘Fathers are not mere adjuncts to mothers, occasional babysitters or bag-carriers. They are the consequence of half a million years of evolution and they remain a vital part of the human story.’
Reeves goes on to argue that early man could be defined, anthropologically, as someone who produces a surplus, acting in a steward role by providing more than they take. To his credit, he does not necessarily set out to define a new masculinity for today based on this. Instead, he makes a strong case for the role of fathers in the context of a newly formed model of masculinity that we are yet to fully define, but one that places heavy emphasis on fatherhood as an independent relationship with children, decoupled from marriage or cohabitation.
While a good start, there are problems when taking this angle exclusively to its logical conclusion. Obviously, women can also produce surplus and, especially under modern economic conditions, are already capable of providing subsistence for children. Additionally, this is far too reductive a structure when current trends and crises within masculinity are occurring precisely because of the long, complex historical context it has inherited. Achieving Reeves’ conception is a solution that for now remains out of our immediate reach, as is par for the course within the idealist-neoliberal framework.
The burdens of masculinity that have to be dealt with are here and now. As such, it is necessary to analyze the problem within the lens of modern conditions, which give rise to new ones. We reject both fascist opining for the patriarchy of old and neoliberal neglect; yet, in essence, masculinity can only produce its own negation out of that which currently exists. In the current stage of political struggle, masculinity must be reshaped for center-left/progressive and communist causes – this remains absolute. But the stage we are in is also one of negotiation; a series of sequential material compromises that tactically lead to a greater positional advantage. This political imperative mandates isolation of the productive and unifying elements of masculinity as we currently understand them for use towards our own ends.
Therefore, our discourse continues with a patch of common ground – if we are to win a political majority among them and avoid being outflanked by the most milquetoast of social democrats, men’s issues cannot be ignored, dismissed, or downplayed. History is a ruthless dealer; we can only choose to play the cards handed to us, or fold.
Reconciling Masculinity with Women’s Liberation
It is well known that escalating conflict within masculine-feminine relations to a societal level, a.k.a. “the culture wars”, has always been a wildly successful frontline for political agitation, yet remains insufficiently utilized on this side of the aisle. To the left-wing, the “incel” (i.e., the trending pejorative used to describe a radically or otherwise egregiously misogynistic man who blames society’s problems on women. This distinction is necessary to highlight; first, because most self-described incels lean center-left despite labeling feminists at-large as the primary cause of their problems, and second, because it is fallaciously sexist, perhaps even ignorant to racial/class bias, to imply that misogyny is the sole cause of an involuntarily celibate status when in fact misogyny is strongly correlated to abusive behavior in heterosexual relationships) and the “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist” (“TERF”) should be understood as two sides of the same reactionary coin. Both have been hurt by the structural consequences of a society which has no active method of effective resolution to the unique problems they both face as men and women, turning to radical paths which often advocate for views that beget new wounds upon those who belong to the group which once hurt them, continuing a vicious cycle; they occupy these roles as historical actors due to the fact that lashing out at something or someone soothes the ache of feeling dehumanized a hell of a lot better than not being able to comprehend a path that truly works towards healing and a political resolution. It is this empirically verifiable phenomenon of an empathy gap, the underestimated strength of the right-wing monopolization of masculinity, and the simultaneous fear of being perceived as a hostile belligerent in these culture wars that has prevented the proposal of a reformed masculinity from taking serious space in discourse until this point in time.
A viable alternative vision of masculinity does not have to define itself based on misogyny, male supremacy, or any implication thereof. Specifically with regard to women’s liberation, a significant aspect of a reconciled masculinity must be defined as inherently oppositional to the trending right-wing version. In its reactionary fervor, it advocates for the whittling down of what women have fought for and won up to now; therefore, the left-wing model must do the opposite. It must embody a conception that explicitly defies the attempt to subjugate women based on the political agitation of men’s wounds. It is the only logical next step when such agitation remains the primary Trojan horse of choice for more extreme right-wing ideas; so too can a new conception of masculinity act as a rallying point for progressive politics.
Role models and themes of sincerity, kindness, self-improvement/self-worth, chivalry, community, righteous justice, providing for the downtrodden/marginalized, liberation of expression, broad-mindedness, appreciation for the feminine, and healing from traumatic wounds given to men by capitalism – all with a “manly” flair – are just a short list of a myriad we could be applying right now (especially in the context of political theater/radical electioneering!) to actively strengthen our position against the right-wing. In turn, this contributes to the subconscious construction of a new political majority that identifies with a progressive masculinity, one which asks them to become neither androgynous automatons nor beasts of burden, but rather comrades striving together for a more human world.
Therefore, masculinity has no other progressive option but to evolve. On one hand, it is impossible to do away with it entirely, and on the other, reproducing too many of the same genes provokes cancerous mutations and malformations. Masculinity requires an infusion of restoratively healing yet still gender-affirming ideas, enabling adaptation to a changing world. Its metamorphosis will involve the daunting challenge of fighting to change the inhabited rhetorical framing within contemporary culture and electoral arenas. In that struggle, men must rewrite their own image from its current reactionary baseline to the masculine embodiment of humanity’s will to progress and persevere.
‘The Metamorphosis of a Chrysalis’ by Roxana Gabriela (2016)
Ideological Spaces and Practical Measures
The right-wing has made it obvious where the ideological struggle is being fought – online. In a time where answers to society’s problems are being desperately sought out from the most immediately accessible sources, anyone who posits that where the primary battlefield for masculinity takes place is something exclusively akin to handing out pamphlets in a public park simply cannot fathom a basic logistical problem: how many people will be reached in-person with a few afternoons of unscripted exchanges versus a recording which stays perpetually online in algorithmic distribution, accessible from virtually anywhere in the country? In the same vein, how many of those people vote or will be able to vote soon?
Is it seriously any coincidence that the world received high-definition footage of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, where he was, per usual, recording his rhetorical predation on students fresh out of high school to be later uploaded as a million variants of short-form video content watched 6 hours per day by the average person? Social media technology has rapidly changed the game theory of political operation at an unprecedented pace, and the billionaire class laughs in our face for not yet realizing it.
We live in a post-truth society. It does not matter what is said if it is not heard broadly, nor does it matter how loud it is if it does not resonate with the people. The truth being on the side of progress does not retain an advantage; only populist politics does. If this isn’t true, why is Hasan Piker creating such an uproar with Democratic Party leaders? It’s merely online populist babble, which isn’t real according to so many, so why can’t it just be ignored? The truth is that the Democratic political leadership only pays attention to Hasan because Hasan reaches hundreds of thousands of average people daily. He is recognized in public for his daily work: broadcasting news, livestreaming commentary, participating in podcasts, and allowing his content to be freely redistributed without conditions. The question is not “how do we get people to join the DSA/CPUSA/PSL?”; the question we should be asking is “how do we get the tens of thousands already inside the DSA/CPUSA/PSL to become their own Hasan Pikers?”
The implications of this cannot stop at the shallow degree of hopping on camera and espousing marginal leftist subculture prattle. Whichever medium is targeted, what matters most is how many people we reach and how to progressively increase that number. SecondThought summarized it well at the 2022 CPUSA International Conference. The message is simple – while a party of the American left has yet to truly take hold, the path to one will invariably involve a large influx of podcasters, videographers, streamers, comedians, and more, flooding the digital highway. The billionaire class’ media scheme today relies on a labor power they must purchase, but what we as the masses have is that same labor power, though yet to sufficiently coalesce. It becomes a critical task to tip the scales in our favor, and the name of the game is volume. The political message of the left must be one which recognizes the conditions of the situation we are in – that is, we must build a base which can reliably and effectively counter fascist and neoliberal rhetoric with our own direction toward left-hegemony, in all facets of American life. It must reach both a logistical legitimacy and a relevant articulation of the latent feelings within the average political subject. Paired with a collectively uptaken new masculinity, we can provide a model to the disoriented torrents of men who will otherwise likely be absorbed into the vacuum of the right-wing.
Therefore, the left must seek to produce as many channels of communication as possible and advocate for a new masculinity, seeking sufficient quantity as its own quality in order to outmatch the buying power of the ruling class. This must be performed at all levels and factions of organization with appropriate amounts of capital, labor-power, and production value at scale. This will begin the process of securing a political base away from the right-wing, which can be drawn upon in the fight for a democratic revolution.
Conclusion
Any opposing dismissals on the grounds of castigating the issues at hand as merely emotional problems of men should be thrown into the dustbin of history as sexist, nihilistic filth which denies humanity outright. The socioeconomic consequences of capitalist society for men are nowhere near as pervasively oppressive as they have almost always been for women; yet dehumanization remains a problem we must contend with, or allow the right-wing to dominate that inevitable conversation.
Denying men’s humanity is rooted, ironically, in neoliberal idealism and reaction. It endorses men’s right to feel and express emotion in word yet revokes it in practice when push comes to shove. Should we allow men to continue devolving into foot soldiers of fascism because their emotions are “irrational”? How is that any different from how women’s liberation was condescendingly handwaved away as hysteria? Human emotions are inherently subjective and therefore seemingly irrational, regardless of gender/sex. But that does not make the rationality of the real world and its material consequences nonsensical.
The displacement of masculine identity has real world material consequences of dehumanization for half of the population. As Marxists, we know that the real world is rational, and what is rational is real to the subjective mind. Men may or may not be systematically oppressed in similar quantities and qualities to women. Regardless of one's opinions on such a notion, none of it changes the fact that men still involuntarily inherit a gender identity whose self-conception is almost entirely built upon fulfilling the barbaric conventions of a progressively eroding social structure; though they played absolutely zero role in its original construction, collectively, humankind has all the means necessary to reshape what masculinity can and must be in the world in order to work towards a better one.
In conclusion, the essence of the arguments made here is best characterized by Paulo Freire in his magnum opus, Pedagogy of the Oppressed:
Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity, become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.
