Actually, I'm not the one making the claim. I'm reporting the claim of hundreds of male researchers reporting on what they determined while studying thousands of male subjects. What you are really failing to grasp here is that "manliness" isn't the issue. It's the performative elements of what a dominance-based hierarchy demands of men that is so destructive - the absence of which would prima facie be better for society.
"If the Man Box was simply about performing its constrained version of masculinity it would not be so problematic. But one very specific requirement of the Man Box is its highly aggressive critique of those who do not perform gender according to its rules. This policing of difference monitors the behavior of those both internal and external to the Man Box. It relies on a wide range of criteria to do so. Criteria which typically includes the overarching biases of homophobia, racism, sexism and religious bigotry. But these overarching criteria are only a fraction of the full range of policing triggers. Policing is also applied on randomly subjective levels; being triggered by differences as minute as the color of a person’s shirt or how they might carry a book. In the Man Box, deviation from what is deemed normative, no matter how minute the deviation, is tracked and policed.
Is the Man Box’s ultimate goal to create a completely uniform culture? Actually, no. Insuring universal conformity is not the purpose of the Man Box, it is the need to police that defines the Man Box. The Man Box exists to accrue power upward in its internal hierarchy and it does so by isolating men emotionally and then channeling their resulting anger into the repetitious and addictive act of policing and punishing others. Policing ranges from dismissal, sarcasm and contempt, to economic violence, physical brutality and murder.
The level of conformity needed in order to be fully accepted within the Man Box is not, in fact, possible to achieve. The more that men and women are herded toward conformity, the more slight the differences that are needed to trigger comment, harassment or attack. This is because the purpose of the Man Box is not to achieve social conformity. The purpose of the man box is to target difference and grant permission for acting out aggression. This self-perpetuating closed loop of emotional suppression, reactivity and policing is constantly taking place even among groups of men who reside entirely within the Man Box.
Accordingly, the Man Box is both emotionally and relationally isolating. It does not encourage community through empathy or emotional connectivity. Men in the Man Box are “stoic” and “self reliant”. They do not reveal their deeper fears or insecurities. Accordingly, their hidden emotional landscape and the issues that arise from it are rarely addressed or resolved. Men who suffer from a lack of emotional connection typically struggle with higher levels of stress, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, failed relationships and shorter lifespans."
These ideas come from men who have studied and written about this topic for decades so don't try to tell me its feminist ideology. It's complex psychological and sociological analysis coming from people who have lived within this experience. Read the rest of the article for further examples of how the performative aspects of masculinity work, and why a man can never "arrive" and so has to constantly be proving his masculinity.
As for examples that moving away from a patriarchal dominance-based hierarchy works, I've already talked about Denmark, where empathy is taught in schools and children are encouraged to compete with themselves and not with others, but closer to home we see this as the latest trend in business. Central authority based in old school patriarchal hierarchies are not as agile as more egalitarian working groups. Special Forces teams use these types of working groups as well for the same reason.
You do what you are told to by the people above you, or you suffer the consequences. But hierarchies of domination aren’t the only kind of hierarchies or the only kind of leadership. Nor are they the only way to be in relationship with others. The establishment of some kind of pecking order is not necessary in order for society to function.
'In slower moving and less complex business environments the old hierarchical model that depended mostly on only a few people at the top for leadership simply doesn’t work anymore. In today’s more volatile, uncertain and ambiguous business battlefield, decentralized controls and leadership through networks of people at all levels is imperative for success.' Forbes
One of the reasons for her immense popularity is that Brene Brown brings us concrete ideas and strategies for living in a kinder, more cooperative, and better functioning world and she does it in an engaging, funny, no BS style. Dr. Brown has worked extensively with the US military, Silicon Valley business leaders, and law enforcement agencies to teach tools of leadership based in partnership systems rather than dominance-based ones.
She does not specifically use those terms, but Brown’s ideas about daring to lead with a whole heart are right in line with them. One of the most destructive elements of patriarchal style stratification and dominance-based relationships is that they create social isolation. How can you have real closeness or camaraderie with anyone when you feel you are in constant competition with them, always ascertaining who has a higher rank in the social or power hierarchy? How can you have a real culture of excellence and self-responsibility when everyone, including the leaders, are afraid to admit that they are anything less than perfect because this is what a dominance hierarchy demands of them?"
At the bottom of that story there is a list of books which further discuss how moving towards a more partnerhsip-oriented society would benefit us all. One of the most fundamental aspects of patriarchy is that it is a dominance hierarchy. Moving towards hierarchies of actualization is not only more efficient but it creates a more cooperative and empathetic atmosphere.
Demands for subordination and obedience are replaced with mutual respect and collaboration. Stratification based on arbitrary elements like gender, race, or class are unnecessary and serve no purpose. Achievement based solely on merit is fully possible. Quality-of-life, human development, and environmental sustainability become more important than the interests of a few elites.
Patriarchy is about a pecking order of traditional power where one performs their worthiness for position in large part by stepping on and marginalizing other people. The Man Box rules of masculinity are intrinsicially tied up with these dominance hierarchy elements. Again, that's not me saying that - it's well established sociological theory and Mark Greene's article that I quoted from at the top of this comment explains the correlation particularly well. If you have any interest in actually trying to understand rather than just reflexively rejecting something out of hand, you might want to read it.
