In Defense of Male Stoicism

I came in after reading this prepared to make a statement about how fatigued I was at yet another oversimplified conflation of Stoicism with detached and compartmentalized emotional states.

Male stoicism has been characterized as an enabler of mental illness and a contributor to suicide. Endless articles and innumerable campaigns have been devoted to helping men cry, ending the phrase “man up” and, above all, getting men to talk. This is valuable, at least in theory.

First sentence, valid. Second sentence, valid and moving. Third sentence, valid and in my opinion accurate. Here's the thing, I can't see anything beyond a loose connection to what it means to be a stoic with anything else offered-if, that is-one is to suspend for a moment the point of how we're using the phrase, and how we're defining the outward facing manifestations of someone who practices stoic thinking.

That's why I was so thankful to come across this comment. Why, you ask? Because it doesn't appear the author really goes very far to unpack why 'male stoicism' has this characterization, the roots of it, or even how the author himself is defining the issue.

Ultimately I think I'm in agreement with the theme the writer here is trying to get across, but I think a better framing of the issue-'male stoicism'*-and exploration into what exists behind it for men is warranted, and a lot of really interesting explorations were left on the table for reasons I suppose are left up to the columnist here and his editor.

/r/FeMRADebates Thread Link - quillette.com