Those sounding the alarm that manhood as we have known it for many generations is under attack are not wrong. They are certainly misguided, but not wrong. The main culprit is not people including pronouns in their own signature lines, nor is it individuals demanding the respect of self-definition. The biggest culprit I have identified has flown under the radar for years and that culprit is remote work.
Before I lay out the case that remote work is bad for traditional manhood, I need to make my political position clear: I reflexively distrust any company that is a part of the movement to force remote workers back to the office. Whatever reasons they offer publicly, and I’ve heard them all, are bullshit. They really just want to be able to oversee their workers in the old-school, plantation-style of management; and by extension impose maximum control and burden on them.
The shifting power dynamic in favor of workers that occurred briefly during and immediately following the pandemic did not sit well with those who are accustomed to holding all the cards and calling all the shots.
As a consequence, the managerial class is desperate to reassert its power over the production class in every manner available, and forcing employees from the comfort and convenience of home back to the office fits the bill perfectly.
Moreover, all of these companies failed in their efforts to escape or renegotiate their expensive office leases so they figure if they have to keep paying for the space they are going to force the staff to use it. Actual value and practical considerations be damned. Accordingly, nothing that is set forth below should be taken as support for this jive ass corporate agenda.
We are all well aware that technology has advanced to the point that many of us can perform the tasks for which we are paid just as effectively from our home offices as we can in the shared offices we spent years dressing up for and driving across town to five days a week. But because we Americans spend so much of our time working, the experience is about much more than functional utility. Our work becomes an expression of our humanity. And for men who matured professionally prior to this current era of enlightenment, there is some loss involved that is real and measurable. That loss is our animal kinship, as demonstrated to our peers in our physicality. Our physicality, for better or worse, is a core part of our identity. And in a remote work context, that core part of our identity has been rendered a nullity.
Nullifying a man’s physicality neutralizes two powerful elements of his value proposition: his magnetism and his aggression. This is about as subjective a measure as one can imagine, but that does not make it any less real. I never had to consider it in the pre-remote work world, but I leaned heavily on both of these elements to build my professional life. And as stated previously, that professional life fed directly into my personal sense of self. I doubt very seriously that I am alone in this experience. Not that any man in my position should expect sympathy from those to which these observations do not apply, but better understanding the people around you is always valuable. May this discussion be taken in that vein.
I. The magnetism side will go down a lot easier so we’ll take it first. If a man spends years learning how to perfect his office presence, that process of perfection paid dividends for him. That was the point of learning what style of slacks and sport coats hung best on his frame; and what watches popped on his wrist without looking garish; and how to smell fantastic but only in the proper potency and at close proximity. A man masters all of these things because somebody put him up on game and he bought in fully to the theory popularized by NFL legend Deion Sanders:
If you look good, you feel good; If you feel good, you play good; And if you play good, they pay good.
So if the women in his office always feel good about him being around for all of these reasons, and the men follow their lead as men tend to do, that boosts a man’s value proposition considerably. Yes, he must perform impressively in his duties, but the benefit of the doubt is his to enjoy and deploy at will. His presence and essence is that of a successful man and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And every bit of this evaporates into thin air in a remote environment.
In cyberspace, that polished professional man and the goofy malodorous slob stand as equals. That cannot be a good thing for society in general. Of course goofy slobs who fog themselves in body spray in leu of showering regularly and who brush their teeth like it is a recommendation rather than a requirement have a right to make a living too. But that man standing on equal footing in the workplace represents a regression of the species. No wonder young women are socially frustrated and prone to date older than they might otherwise be inclined to. The entire social framework between men and women is disrupted by the emergence of remote work. So much of the ebb and flow of relationships with the opposite sex is developed in our professional lives. But not if the only other living thing you see every day is your faithful lab-pit mix who always approves of you, whether you are wearing a suit fresh from the cleaners or a dank bath robe.
II. A man’s aggression is every bit as important as his magnetism, although the functionality is quite different. Aggression motivates from a negative subtext; rather than inspiring attraction, it inspires caution. And that can be exceedingly valuable as well.
Considering the grotesque power imbalance between workers and the companies they work for, is there any doubt that it is far better to be known for an aggressive energy as opposed to a passive energy?
And how exactly does a man who may be of imposing stature and forceful in speech signal aggression in a remote work environment? The same way a 98 pound teenage girl does: by sending an email or an instant message. Or by leaving a voicemail. How bitch-made is that?
So a man who has developed the skills required to protect his territory and advance his interests in a competitive and intense pre-remote workplace finds those skills virtually obsolete. He now operates in an environment where nobody is cautious of him; at least not the way they used to be. Sending an e-mail to air grievances is sissified and non-confrontational in comparison to walking into a guy’s office, closing the door behind you and looking him dead in the eye to say what you have to say.
There are inherent risks involved in such assertive and direct action, but taking those risks are, or were, an essential part of being a man in a professional environment.
The reality is that aggression in the workplace has gotten a bad rap over the years. And reasonable people can certainly understand why. When expressions of aggression began to manifest in deadly violence in the Eighties it makes perfect sense that society would shift its norms to mitigate those risks. Every norm except those relating to accessing the weapons used to perpetrate deadly workplace violence, but that is the subject of another piece.
For these purposes, we are discussing non-lethal aggression and the valuable role that it used to play in the workplace. It is nearly impossible to have a discussion about human aggression decoupled from a discussion about gender. Perhaps that is a confession of my own limited worldview, but if there is a way to have that conversation, I am open to having it.
Male aggression is a natural element of our humanity. Environments that suppress and suffocate that aggression also threaten to suppress and suffocate maleness itself.
I am not of the mind that this is a conspiracy or the by-product of nefarious intent. This is a case of socioeconomic and technological evolution gone awry. Because it is just as harmful to suppress the essential nature of maleness as it is to suppress any other naturally occurring expression of humanity. To wit, male aggression (i.e., aggression that is underpinned by the specter of violent confrontation) is an essential element in balancing human environments. And that includes the workplace. Accordingly, that risk should always be mitigated, but it should never be eliminated.
Nobody goes to work expecting to get punched in the face and that is a good thing. But is it a good thing to know that you CAN’T get punched in the face because you never have to come face to face with a colleague or coworker you have wronged maliciously? If you know that the human cost of conniving or recklessness will never be that sharp and sudden pain to your mouth, might that be reflected in your conduct? That is certainly possible.
Maybe that was the point of technological development; to help human beings escape the confines of our bodies and the risks that come along with them. Our bodies are just the vehicles that we are riding through this life in, so should anybody be slowed down by that vehicle if their mind can actually fly? I honestly do not know.
But I do know this: it’s really tough putting the car away when it has so many great miles left to ride.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of David Saint Vincent's work on Medium.