By Othman Mekhloufi | United States
Many individuals on the left, or those who advocate for renown social justice, believe in a concept known as “Toxic Masculinity”. Not only is this an arbitrary made up term to discredit the importance of men and their masculinity, but it is inadvertently causing such things like crime to soar.
“Toxic Masculinity” is a term used to define the stereotypical masculine roles men take up in our society, and label them as inherently negative. This includes the apparent restriction of emotional display men place on other men, as well as other social expectations such as sexual dominance, or the general want to be an alpha male as perceived by the social justice core.
Although subjectively the individual may have a distaste for any sort of masculinity, we must as a logical and practical society inherently support masculinity in its most powerful form: fatherhood, a means to deterring crime and reducing poverty.
Considering poverty, fathership is a great deterrent to it. Raising children is a very difficult task. It requires time and money to house, cloth, feed, educate, teach, raise, and take care of an entirely separate individual. Usually, raising a child is a major expense. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to raise a child on a single-person basis of income without falling into poverty. This is the case for many single mothers across the United States who are swept into the depths of poverty due to having to raise a child on a single-person basis of income. Just in 2016, 35.6% of single-mother families were in poverty.
However, if the family were to be intact, and two individuals would be making income, the family would then enter a financially stable position in which they can raise a child without falling into poverty. This can be understood with a simple comparison of incomes between single and two-parent families. The median income for single mother homes as of 2016 was $35,400 a year. Contrast this with two-parent families, where the median household income was $85,300 a year. While analyzing these two income levels, we can see that two-parent homes make significantly more money than single-parent homes. It is clearly seen that two parents would inherently make enough money together to be able to raise a child without falling into poverty.
Many may ask the question, why would this pertain to masculinity and men? Why can’t mothers and their femininity be the solution to poverty for single fathers? The case for this is simple. Of the 11,667,000 single parent families within the United States, 81.4% of them were headed by mothers. In all simplicity, women make up the vast majority of the heads of single families, not men. Because of this, men are the ones who are indeed preventing the family from falling into poverty.
Now, with the understanding that two-parent families prevent poverty, along with the fact that a vast majority of single-parent families are headed by mothers, we can fully determine that the presence of fathers in the family would indeed deter poverty.
Any sort of crime, as egregious as it may be, is always the definite factor of the individual’s choice. The individual’s choice, however, is always influenced in the home. This is due to the individual’s parents always being the top contenders of role modeling, or being the teachers of morals, and values. The most powerful influences that could ever be put onto a young susceptible child, an adolescent, or any individual really, are his parents; but specifically, the father. The most powerful form of deterring crime is fathers in the home. If we go a little bit more in-depth, it is the father’s masculinity which inherently does this. This is exactly why, in fact, masculinity is so important to a well structured, crime-less society.
The evidence suggests such- a fatherless home only fuels crime. Young boys which are born without fathers are three times more likely to go to jail compared to young boys with intact families. Furthermore, young boys whose fathers do not leave the family until they are 10-14 years old are two times more likely to go to jail relative to peers from intact families. However, adolescents who have had a positive relationship with their father are less likely to be arrested, belong to a gang, damage property, steal, or run away relative to their peers with intact families. Even so, comparing these two contentions, it’s very understandable to see that the amount of masculinity that comes with the fathership of raising a child does indeed affect their choices later on in life regarding crime.
A perfect example of this is the African-American community today. In such communities, crime is rampant. 52.6% of murders are committed by African-American individuals. Furthermore, the African-American population also commits a vast majority of crimes. In 2016, 55.3 African-American individuals per capita of 1000 were arrested in various crimes. However, the Caucasian race, making up a vast majority of the American population at 72%, only had 26.2 individuals per capita of 1000 arrested. But the most relevant statistic to this point is that the African-American population only makes up 12.7% of America. Yet, they still commit a majority of murders, and make up a distinctly large amount of arrested individuals.
In addition to this, 77.3% of African American children are born out of wedlock to single mothers. Seeing that well over three-quarters of African-American individuals are born to single-mothers, we can also determine that there is an attributed absence of masculinity when it comes to raising the child. This is due to the evident notion of the absence of a father-figure present in the home; when there is no father figure, no masculinity can be put forth into raising a child. Due to this absence of father figures in the home, and absence of masculinity attributed to the raising of the child, fatherless individuals are more likely to commit crime. Hence, the rampant fatherlessness in the African-American community; the large amounts of crime within the African-American community; and the fact that African-American individuals commit a majority of violent crimes despite being a very small amount of the population.
Now that we can understand that father-hood imposes masculinity to the raising of a child, and that this masculinity does indeed deter crime, we are able to come to the consensus that masculinity is a very important contribution to a successful society, rather than toxic.
However, this is not to say that femininity does not play a role in raising children as well. Although masculinity is a very important trait in raising a successful member of society, femininity is also of importance. Positive traits of femininity applied to raising children include nurturing, love, compassion, attachment, development of emotions, and many other behaviors we would typically associate with women. The early experience of maternal affection is the foreground for the development of moral compassion for others. If a child’s relationship to their mother is damaged, there is potential for permanent harm to take effect on the child’s capacity for emotional attachment. In addition to this, for the rest of their life, the child will be less prone to trust others, and will remain more emotionally distant from other individuals.
However, this is also not to say that femininity is as important of a factor to raising a successful member of society as masculinity is. Masculinity, rather than femininity, accomplishes this goal. As a logical and practical society, we value things such as the deterring of crime in much higher regard compared to the emotional well being of individuals which feminine traits would bring forth. Masculine traits, when applied to raise children, do inherently result in the most effective deterrent of crime. The emotional well-being of individuals is relatively trivial compared to the lowering of crime that any successful society would hold true to itself.
In all reality, masculinity is not toxic. It is the cornerstone to a successful society. If masculinity and its missionaries, men, were truly outed of this world, crime rates would soar, we’d see a spike in poverty, and in all senses, our society would be astronomically weakened. We must still come to ask ourselves if there is a definite deterrent to crime and poverty. To that, I point you to read my previous article on the true factors of poverty here.
Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!