I am the father of two wonderful boys. There is nothing in the world that comes close to the joy and fulfilment I feel by being their father, and the opportunity I have to be an integral and essential part of their development, both as people and men, is something I regard as both a privilege and a duty. I feel this despite the fact that, in general, society regards fatherhood as somewhat optional. I fully acknowledge that the reality of this situation is the result of many fathers having chosen to be absent, either through feckless disregard towards their responsibility, or the ‘societal nihilism of fatherhood’. But still there it is. The positive regard that society holds me in as a man has very little to do with how good a father I am. I feel lucky then that I do not give a fig about society’s evaluation criteria in general, either towards men or women.
What I do care about, very deeply and passionately, is not allowing my sons to grow up thinking that their gender (or indeed their ethnicity, religious belief, sexual preference or sexual identity), is a problem. The world has benefited enormously from men and masculinity, as indeed it has women and femininity. Nature saw fit to evolve us in this way and our success as a species is the result of what we each bring. For sure there is toxic masculinity; this is a topic I explored in antidote through the ‘Here Among the Flowers’ project, an attempt to show that masculinity is no more inherently toxic than femininity. Men and women are subject to negative emotion and those negative emotions manifest in different ways. In men it tends towards aggression (low agreeability), whereas in women it manifests as over wrought anxiety (trait neuroticism). Both are problematic both for the individual and collectively at a societal level, but only at the extremes. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics (which ironically will be a vanishingly small percentage of the population) can understand that the problems associated with the extremes of a distribution will only manifest in a tiny percentage of the population. By the time it becomes problematic, you’re a good two or even three standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that the sample you are basing any judgement on is so under representative of the population distribution as a whole, that making those judgements is unequivocally the very definition of bigotry. Correlation is not causation so even if the value of r is say 0.9 between being guilty of a violent crime and being male, that correlation provides zero insight into how likely any man might be to represent a risk (of violence) to you, male or female (although you are still three times more likely to be subject to a violent act as a man than a woman).