Is Remote Work Redefining Masculinity?

The concern that traditional masculinity, as understood over numerous decades, is facing an assault is valid, even though those raising this issue may be misdirected. However, they aren’t entirely mistaken. The primary cause isn’t folks adding personal pronouns to their email signatures or individuals insisting on being respected according to how they define themselves. After careful consideration, the most significant factor, which has remained largely unnoticed until now, turns out to be telecommuting.

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 temporary change in power dynamics that favored employees during and right after the pandemic was met with discomfort from those who typically maintain control and make all decisions.

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.

Furthermore, none of these businesses managed to get out of or modify their costly office rental agreements; thus, they decided that since they still had to pay for the spaces, they would make sure employees utilized them. Practicality and real worth aside, then, readers shouldn’t view anything written here as endorsement of such flawed corporate strategies.

It’s clear that technological progress now allows many of us to do our jobs just as efficiently from home offices as we could in traditional office settings, which required formal attire and daily commutes. However, since American adults dedicate significant portions of their lives to work, these activities extend beyond mere functionality; they reflect aspects of human existence. For those who developed their professional identities before this new phase of acceptance regarding remote work, there is indeed a tangible sense of loss—specifically, the connection formed through bodily expressions observed by colleagues. Physical presence remains fundamental to personal identity, whether positively or negatively perceived. In remote work scenarios, however, this essential aspect of self-expression ceases to be relevant.

Canceling out a man's physical presence diminishes two key aspects of his worth: his charm and his assertiveness. These factors are highly subjective yet undeniably significant. In the era before remote work became prevalent, I didn’t have to factor them in much for building my career. However, they played crucial roles in shaping who I was professionally, which inevitably influenced how I viewed myself personally. It seems unlikely that I’m the only person with such experiences. While men like me shouldn't anticipate empathy from others without similar contexts, gaining deeper insights into those surrounding us remains beneficial. Let this conversation serve that purpose.

I. The magnetic aspect will be much simpler to handle initially, so we'll tackle that part first. Should a gentleman dedicate several years to refining his professional image, this dedication would yield significant benefits for him. The purpose behind selecting trousers and blazers that accentuate his physique perfectly, choosing timepieces that complement his wrist tastefully without appearing overdone, and mastering an appealing fragrance with just the right intensity and scent throw—all these efforts were made following guidance from someone who taught him about charm tactics. This approach stems from principles famously endorsed by NFL icon Deion Sanders.

If you look sharp, you feel great; If you feel great, you perform well; And if you perform well, then you get paid well.

If the women in his workplace consistently have positive feelings about him due to various factors, and the men align with them as they often do, this significantly enhances his appeal. While he still needs to excel in his responsibilities, he gains the advantage of benefiting from presumptions of competence. Being seen as a successful individual reinforces this perception, making it a cycle that perpetuates itself. However, all of this vanishes when working remotely.

In the digital realm, the distinguished professional and the disheveled slob are considered equals. This equality likely poses issues for societal norms overall. Certainly, those untidy individuals who douse themselves in cologne instead of bathing frequently and treat dental hygiene casually should also have job opportunities. Yet, positioning such an individual alongside others at work suggests a decline in standards. It’s unsurprising then that younger women often find themselves drawn to older partners more so than they would typically prefer. The traditional dynamics between genders within social settings become skewed due to increased telecommuting. Much of how we form connections with members of the opposite sex occurs through our daily interactions at work. However, when your sole companion each day is your loyal Lab-Pit mix—who shows unwavering approval regardless of what attire you wear—it disrupts this natural progression entirely.

II. A man’s assertiveness holds just as much weight as his charm, even though their effects vary significantly. Assertiveness stems from a negative undertone; instead of fostering allure, it incites wariness. Yet, this quality can also prove immensely beneficial.

Given the stark disparity in power between employees and their employers, can anyone question whether it’s preferable to be recognized for assertive vigor rather than submissive passivity?

So, how might a big guy with a commanding voice show aggressiveness in a virtual workspace? Just like a 98-pound teenager would do: by firing off an email or an instant message. Or perhaps by leaving a voicemail. Isn’t that just pathetic?

Therefore, a person who honed the abilities necessary for safeguarding his domain and advancing his objectives within a cutthroat setting before remote work became prevalent discovers that these competencies are nearly useless nowadays. In this new landscape, others do not regard him with the same wariness as before. Complaining via email seems meek and devoid of confrontation compared to physically entering someone’s office, shutting the door, and directly confronting them face-to-face to express your concerns.

Inherent dangers come with such bold and straightforward actions, yet embracing these hazards has been a crucial aspect of masculinity in the workplace.

The truth is that aggression in the workplace has often been viewed negatively over time. This sentiment is understandable for sensible individuals. As acts of aggression started leading to fatal incidents during the 1980s, it was logical for societal standards to adapt to reduce these dangers. However, all new norms have not addressed access to the weaponry involved in such lethal outbursts at work, though this topic warrants discussion elsewhere.

When talking about this topic, we're focusing on non-lethal aggression and its significant part in professional environments. Discussing human aggression without touching upon gender issues is almost unthinkable. This might reflect my narrow perspective, yet I'm ready to engage in such dialogue should there be an opportunity.

Aggression among males is an inherent part of human nature. Settings that stifle this aggression can also endanger the expression of masculinity itself.

I do not believe this situation stems from a conspiracy or malicious intentions. Instead, it represents the unintended consequences of socioeconomic progress and rapid technological change. Suppressing fundamental aspects of masculinity can be just as detrimental as suppressing any other natural human trait. For instance, male assertiveness—characterized by potential confrontational behavior—is crucial for maintaining equilibrium in various settings, including workplaces. Therefore, although we must manage these risks effectively, they should never be completely eradicated.

No one heads to work anticipating being hit in the face, which is fortunate. However, should we consider it positive that you can’t be physically confronted for wrongdoing since you rarely encounter colleagues or coworkers who you’ve deliberately harmed? If the physical consequence—such as a swift punch to the mouth—is removed from scenarios involving deceit or carelessness, could this alter how you behave? It’s quite plausible.

Perhaps the purpose of advancing technology has been to assist humanity in transcending the limitations and vulnerabilities of our physical forms. We use these bodies as mere vessels during our journey through life, so why should anyone be hindered by their vessel when their minds have the potential to soar? I genuinely cannot say for sure.

However, one thing I'm certain of: it's incredibly difficult to put the car into storage when it still has so many wonderful miles left to go.

This post originally appeared on Medium It has been revised and republished with the author’s approval. Explore more of David Saint Vincent's writings. on Medium .