Courtney's recent article on masculinity makes me want to share some of my thoughts on the matter. Her thesis is that the 'new' masculinity is still defined negatively, that young feminist men know what they don't want to be, but haven't yet figured out what their manhood is going to look like. It is, indeed, a tough question.
Most men start with a list of things they don't want to be. Sometimes, it's just a single man we don't want to emulate. But either way, it's don't be weak, don't be scared, don't be mean, don't take any shit, don't start any trouble, etc., etc. Gradually, we start figuring out who we are in a more positive way. We're funny, we're short, we're tall, we like women who wear glasses, we think Batman is cooler than Superman (who doesn't, right?), we think Lost is overrated, and so on. I expect it's not that different for young women.
For feminist men, the trouble comes with attaching gender. When I say a man should be strong, does that mean I think women are weak? Or does it mean that I think that a man who is physically weak is less of a man that somebody who can bench 350? No on both counts. In the end, there is not a single characteristic that I can think of that I think men should have that I would not want my daughter to have as well. So where does that leave masculinity?
I think, given the physiological differences, that when you look at the population level there are masculine and feminine virtues. But there is so much overlap that the differences dissolve at the individual level. I also think that it's impossible to sort out culture from biology in most of those cases. But virtue is not a zero sum game, so to claim strength as a masculine virtue is not to deny it to women, or vice versa. Ditto for flexibility, intelligence, etc. Maybe the difference between masculine and feminine is about the recipe, more than the ingredients. Or maybe it's not something that happens on the individual level.
I love to cook. Is that manly? It is for me. If my daughter wants to play dress up, and puts me in a frilly hat, does that diminish my masculinity? Definitely not, because masculinity, for me, includes being man enough to not be afraid of a little girliness here and there. Besides, I own enough power tools to more than make up for the occasional pink hat. We make the models, not the other way around.
So men and women alike make their choices, and let those choices writ large define what it means to be a man or a woman, but in a descriptive way, not a prescriptive way.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Positive Definition of Masculinity.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17056
If my daughter wants to play dress up, and puts me in a frilly hat, does that diminish my masculinity? Definitely not, because masculinity, for me, includes being man enough to not be afraid of a little girliness here and there.
Most average, run of the mill guys, would consider the very activity quite masculine since being a good father is part of the masculine ideal and that involves being an active participant with ones children.
The problem I've always had with these type of events, and the problem many men encounter with feminist men is that they claim to have a more enlightened view of masculinity, yet in many ways they are stuck in the past and believe in a current state of it which doesn't exist. Instead they tend to focus on the aberrant extremes because it supports the vision of them 'saving men', but causes them to alienate most men.
I'm not sure that most men would consider playing dress up with your daughter as a masculine activity! They still might do it, but they'd probably consider it a fatherly type of activity. And they wouldn't want anyone to know about it. My husband doesn't want to hold my pink camera. And no one would ever question his masculinity. Men are funny.
Men have so many conflicting messages thrown at them all the time that I honestly don't know how most of them manage to figure out the right way to be and act and believe. There's more resources for females, I think, to help females be more assertive, sure of themselves, confident, to succeed in school, etc. But not so much for males. They're kind of left on their own.
I agree with you Jeana. I read Manhood101, which is the most disgusting, misogynist website I've ever read. The NFL recently redid its site in favor of breast cancer awareness, and the men on the forums called them "faggots" and "girls" and that the NFL was suddenly anti-man.
I think this way of thinking is venomous.
Plus, any men who are female-friendly or feminist-empathetic are called "manginas" and "useful idiots of feminists". You're not a real man if you publicly admit you think violence against women is a bad thing or rape is a problem or even if you promote the use of condoms. There is a beast-like mentality that a small segment of the population want to promote for men. It only winds up hurting men as well. I don't know why they do it.
can i ask if people would stop saying "men" you can't account for a population that accurately. Though i do agree with what you said and i have been seeing these kinds of changes for the worse. Personally i don't see why people have to be held down by masculinity and femininity.
Honestly, the messages aren't conflicting so much as often stupid. And guys commonly disregard the ones they don't like; in fact, a large part of that confidence so commonly expected in men involves not subscribing to one specific trope, but choosing one and sticking to it- which, of course, can have its own problems. But where your husband doesn't want to hold your camera, there are other men who will wear shirts or entire outfits comprised of pink, and neither is any more or less likely to have his masculinity questioned.
If you break it down, this may be the main difference between how men and women are expected to get along in American society. Men and women both have a lot of conflicting messages thrown at them, but where men can normally pick and choose the ones they want to subscribe to, women have to actively stand up for their right to do the same and not have everything be expected of them. This is much more destructive than the fact women get more such messages thrown at them on the whole.
That's one element of popular masculinity - you're independent, you don't need anyone's help, you can make it on your own.
There's a dark side to that as well, though. It's very, very hard for me to ask for help, even when I need it.
I think Marissa wasn't saying it doesn't have a dark side. It definitely does. Not least the number of men who die horribly and prematurely because they didn't go to the doctor when they should have.
No man is an island, and any who claims he is, is kidding himself. It's not right to try and push this mentality on anyone.
They still might do it, but they'd probably consider it a fatherly type of activity. And they wouldn't want anyone to know about it. My husband doesn't want to hold my pink camera.
You're conflating two different subjects, however. Your husband playing games with your daughter and spending time with her is by and large considered masculine, this overrides any objection that might be had to dressing up in a pink frilly dress ordinarily. While no guy would question a man for refusing to wear a pink frilly dress while going to the store to buy groceries, they wouldn't question a guy who dons an outfit to spend time with his kids.
By the same token a guy refusing to hold your pink camera is not comparable in that it is considered emasculating for him to be demoted to essentially your walking purse (not that this is necessarily the issue in your case, but it is an objection I've heard men raise) and while he might be fine with carrying a camera or carrying a backpack when you're dealing with things which are obviously and blatantly yours (purse/pink camera/etc) it brings up a different set of conflicts.
Men have so many conflicting messages thrown at them all the time that I honestly don't know how most of them manage to figure out the right way to be and act and believe.
I should add, I particularly liked this comment because I think its true, and much of the feminism suggestions of "positive masculinity" only further cloud the waters, not even with a relatively straightforward suggestion. Most feminists I know basically pick and choose want they do and do not expect from men according to their own preferences. They proceed to expect men to inherently know what is precisely the right thing to do for them with no prior knowledge.
"They proceed to expect men to inherently know what is precisely the right thing to do for them with no prior knowledge."
What? You don't have a crystal ball? Actually, I think that women in general expect men in general to know more about what we're thinking because we have a pretty easy time with other women understanding us and what we want and what we mean. I know I'm guilty of being angered by my husband when I think he should know just what I'm thinking even if I don't say it.
Your comment naturally raises the question - what do nonfeminist women do, then? Do they not pick and choose, as you describe, and expect men to know what they're thinking? (I've often heard that charge laid at the door of the more traditional woman, and for my own part, at least, as a feminist but more as a reasonable human being, have never expected anyone to read my mind). I'm just curious as to why you place this label on only feminist women, and how you would define the nonfeminist ones.
I didn't mean to imply that it is something only feminist women do, I meant it more along the lines of even women who identify as feminist will still do this, not that only they do it. Personally I haven't noticed a the self application of the 'feminist' changing much as far as behavior in this area.
I think those of us who give a damn - the progressively minded when it comes to gender issues - are responsible to define our own masculinity that complements our desire to for more social justice. That is where progressive, feminism-allied men are failing. Have a read at Courtney Martin's article that the author of this post linked and you'll see what that means.
I don't think feminists or feminism should define our new masculinity. That isn't their responsibility - it's ours. We should redefine, for ourselves, what it means to be a man under the auspices of the social justice we desire instead of saying "Hey man, I changed the way I look at things. Whaddo I do next." That's the lazy man's way out.
We have to take charge of ourselves in the name of justice.
This doesn't exist in a vacuum, when we're talking about social ideals all members of societies expectations and beliefs of that ideal feeds into it.
Yes, I have my safe made standards on masculinity, but my standards are separate from societies standards. Female feminists are every bit a part of societies standards as anyone else and they contribute to the conflicting ideals just like anyone else.
He actually does not mind ever holding my purse. Maybe because it is obviously mine (since most guys don't carry purses). But a pink camera might potentially be his, I guess. I don't know. I think the older you get, the less likely you are to care about those things anyway.
Everyone's different. Personally I don't mind holding a purse, but I'm not about to carry it down the street. If someones arms are full I'll help them carry whatever is preventing them from carrying the purse. I'm just saying an different rules tropes and guidelines can be invoked by different scenarios and it leads to incredibly complex understandings by the end of it.
I like your post.
I like you.
It is a struggle for men like us to redefine masculinity on OUR TERMS, but I think we can agree that it's one worth pursuing. I hope to see you write more.
A better "masculinity" might encompass a sense of protecting and caring for others, and taking responsibility. Though that could also simply fall into "acting like a grownup".
"True masculinity" might mean that men would use their greater-than-average strength to help and protect people. Again, of course, this doesn't have to be defined as "masculinity" when it's just "being a decent person". But sometimes when people are just starting to break out of certain cultural scripts they have to take baby steps.
Anything would be better than the current situation where people look up to asshole behavior as "masculine".
A better "masculinity" might encompass a sense of protecting and caring for others, and taking responsibility. Though that could also simply fall into "acting like a grownup".
I'm sorry, I cannot see how you miss this from the current, overriding cultural message of masculinity. People say that 'violence' is heavily ingrained in masculinity, but when it may be it is almost always in defense of something. The NRA relies on the message of being prepared to defend yourself, your family, and other people. The military is highly masculine and requires violence by its nature, yet it is in defense of country, under specific conditions, only with orders and according to the rules of engagement.
This has very real consequences for men, whether its causing men to try and be heroes and only to end up dead, causing men to purchase weapons which only end up causing tragedy in their home or in causing men anxiety if they were unable to do anything in a crisis.
But the idea that there isn't this underlying message is quite frankly, absurd.
"People say that 'violence' is heavily ingrained in masculinity, but when it may be it is almost always in defense of something."
No... this isn't true at all. Would you define gang violence as "in defense of something"? It might technically be- defense of one's neighborhood?- but no one is going to say that makes it ok. More broadly, guys are still very often pushed not to take shit from anybody, and that they better be ready to throw down if someone messes with them. Again, this might be a type of self-defense, but it's expected at a point where violence is still completely unnecessary. Yes, there are societal messages to walk away, but those often don't hold up in light of peer pressure at the moment when someone needs to do just that.
The NRA and military may rely on messages of self-defense, but instances continually spring up in the news where this idea falls by the wayside, and certainly there are many more such occasions that never see the light of day. The problem is often not in the messages, but that there are still a lot of cultural factors that push men towards aggressive violence.
Yeah, the underlying message is there. And yes, even playing by that rule has consequences- though everything has consequences, no matter what rules we want to play by. But the way violence is considered "almost always" defensive is only, maybe, in terms of what we get as a general surface message in society. When the time to act comes, we are still very often expected to be aggressive.
And if you're still not sure this is true, please allow me to submit Exhibit A: the Iraq war. I don't think there's a better example of someone who thinks his sworn duty to break shit preemptively. And, as I'm sure you'll recall, a lot of people agreed. We can't just talk about defending ourselves and others, and not using violence in any other way; we need to push for that concept to be taken much more seriously than it is now.
No... this isn't true at all. Would you define gang violence as "in defense of something"?
This may surprise you, but in fact most men are not part of gangs, further gangs do not represent the sum of the male experience. In fact many men will never have an interaction with a gang in their lifetime.
the Iraq war
Why do you think when Bush was selling the Iraq War to the populace it was sold in terms of defending freedom, defending from a threat to our nation...
They exaggerated the threat and painted a picture of success and roses thrown at our feet if we went in. That they had to do that does not support the idea that men are expected to be violent in general, but proves quite the opposite, that our society even when it acts in error requires the belief (however wrongfully held) in a just war before it will authorize it.
It was sold that way to maximize the number of people who were for it. But if you never met any of the ones who were gung-ho, "let's get those damn Iraqi terrorist" types, then I really envy you. There were a lot of them, and there was nothing defensive in their mindsets at all.
The problem is often not in the messages, but that there are still a lot of cultural factors that push men towards aggressive violence.
Aggressive violence isn't just male. The problem is that once you start viewing violence as a useful, sometimes necessary tool then it's a short step from defensive to preemptive or aggressive.
And if you're still not sure this is true, please allow me to submit Exhibit A: the Iraq war.
I don't think any war supports your point. Any war eventually boils down to 'men need to go fight and die in order to defend something.' In each war that something is different, but the message is always the same. There were many messages used to justify the Iraq war in particular. One was that we needed to protect 'the world' from the WMD threat of Iraq, and another was that we needed to protect the Iraqi people from their own government.
Uhh how is it simply being a "decent person" to use your strength to help others? That's going waaaaaaay out of your way, above and beyond and certainly over the realm of decent and into excellence. A decent person doesn't engage in hurting other people, a good person would call 911 an EXCELLENT person would use their weapon, self, car, whatever to help intervene and protect another person.
Any definition of masculinity that represents the man as a defender/protector, in any way, will not produce a good result. Men are defined by their ability to protect. At some level this boils down to physical ability and willingness to do violence. Beyond that, it inevitably leads to women as property to be 'protected.'
Ever seen a man try to impress a woman by picking a fight, coming to her 'defense' when it isn't necessary, etc? Isn't he trying to illustrate that he is more powerful / a better protector? "Look at how strong I am, how willing I am to do violence for you." Where do you think he got the idea that those qualities were attractive to women?
The problem with masculinity is that in our society it will always be defined in opposition to femininity. You can construct masculinity and femininity however you want, but it's the gender binary that is the problem, not masculinity per se. It's the binary that says if you're masculine you can't be feminine, that restricts one's ability to define one's self and creates a sense of other-ness with respect to the opposite gender.
THIS.
No matter how you define it, by attaching attributes unique to "masculinity" you are by definition excluding both women and the un-manly. If you are not manly, you are...womanly. Which, when defining "masculinity," is always a put-down. It's never positive. And you can't possibly argue that this is a good outcome for men or women.
Exactly. Masculinity isn't just some concept that men have to deal with on their own. There is always the opposite of being masculine. Opposites that are defined by each other. We don't need a new definition of masculinity, we need to break down the categories of masculinity and femininity.
I only agree to this up to a point. It's true that in a modern, coastal U.S. or otherwise urbane society, msculinity is given negative definitions instead of positive ones... but that's in part because the old positive definitions were eroded by feminism, for better or for wrose. Ideas like that a man supports a family, that a man HAS a family, that a man is a defender and a provider and that a man is physically strong and emotionally stoic, were the domain of masculinity in the popular western imagination until the late 20th century, and still dominate in many places and ways. When you take these away from being the domain of man-- by saying that strength and material providence and defense are the domains of women-- that masculinity can only be defined by a circumscribed idea of femininity that isn't enforced anymore.
That's not to say the erosion of male ownerhsip of those traits was wrong. But the MRAs aren't totally off-base when they say that feminism has undermined masculinity; it's undermined TRADITIONAL masculinity, and hasn't provided a good substitute or a new paradigm.
I really appreciate this post; it contains some really important insight. In my own life, as an adult, I've been able to do both activities society considers 'masculine' and activities society considers 'feminine' without any fuss. But my brother has never really been able to do activities society genders female without at least some backlash. It is sad. I always think about how the boyfriend is treated in Meet the Parents when he says he is a nurse- people deride him for being feminine. That sort of thing is hugely hurtful and prevents men from wanting to break down traditional notions of gender. I hope that more men will sit up and take note and help redefine gender. I am willing to help them, but I feel that the leadership needs to come from men. I would love to become an ally for men seeking to re-define masculinity.
Joan
As nice as it would be, human nature dictates that as long as women are considered in some degree second-class, any efforts to make it acceptable for men to pursue anything "feminine" will fall short. I don't necessarily believe, as Marissa above you said, that masculinity will always be defined in opposition, but the only way that's going to change is to raise women up to the level of men in both rights and in societal concept.
Basically, right now, dudes have to help bring the ladies up. Once y'all are there, men will naturally be free to pursue what we currently consider feminine; it will take no effort at all.
I think as long as we can only conceptualize gender as "masculine" or "feminine" there's going to be a problem. There needs to be space to reject such categories altogether.
That would be preferable. But it's going to take a lot longer. Call that the next step.
When I say a man should be strong, does that mean I think women are weak?...No...In the end, there is not a single characteristic that I can think of that I think men should have that I would not want my daughter to have as well.
Totally agreed, but I have to admit that I sense a qualitative difference between masculine strength and feminine strength. Both of my parents were strong, independent people, but my mother's strength somehow felt different than my father's. I can't quite explain the nature of that difference, but here's an example of what I mean:
When my brother was killed in a fire, my father put on a brave face for the world at large, made the funeral arrangements, and did his best to be a rock of stability for us all. He never cried publicly, but he had this tense energy the whole time, like a rubber band stretched to the breaking point. My mother, by contrast, was more openly emotional, but also more...I don't know...centered.
I remember walking into the living room at the end of one particularly awful day and seeing my mom holding his face in her hands, touching her forehead to his, and speaking quietly to him while he silently wept. That experience, and that moment in particular, have always embodied for me the idea of "strength" in its masculine and feminine forms.
But this is a perfect example of differing expectations, is it not?
What you saw in your mom and dad were essentially what our society expects out of men and women who are trying to be strong. If their actions were reversed, you at the time may have found nothing amiss, but many others would have considered it a little strange that your mother was the stoic one and your father the one showing emotion. Certainly they learned that growing up. And thus you got what you saw.
When we reach the point where a display of strength of any type- stoic, emotional, leadership, etc.- is considered simply good rather than masculine or feminine, we'll have gotten somewhere.
Thank you for this reductive generalization of parents that in no way resembles the way my parents are or were when I was growing up. Just because this is what you saw in your parents (which would explain some of your logic in these comments) doesn't mean it's what we all saw. My mother certainly wasn't the emotional one and my father was hardly stoic, and I don't know of anyone who thought something was amiss.
I agree with the second part of your comment.
I made the generalization because that's how people have tended to generalize men and women, not because I for some reason believe that's what everyone everywhere sees. I'm not talking about your parents specifically. I didn't say everyone else except him would have found anything other than what he saw odd. I said "many". And many would.
One of the problems I find with masculinity is not the attributes, but how those attributes are defined.
For example, guys should be "providers." Well, what the heck does that mean? One can "provide" a lot of things. Unfortunately, for men, that usually means money.
Now what if "provider" meant "cooking food"?
I'm pretty sure that providers means money today because it means to provide a living. Perhaps at one point it meant crops and livestock.
I really don't need to be the primary provider? I like being productive, but I'd rather not have a relationship with someone who can't provide for herself. If I'm with someone who makes vastly more money than me I don't see that as threatening at all. Being with someone who relies on me economically would be worrying to me.
I wouldn't want a guy to rely on me economically either.
I always thought the most positive images of masculinity was when a guy just likes what he likes without having to justify it as either because he's a manly man, or sensitive man. For me it boils down to just being comfortable in your own skin- I'm only suspect of a guy's "masculinity" when he obsesses about it, trying to follow some stupid arbitrary rule. I know, I know, no small task to _not_ be at least a little neurotic about it in this culture but I've always had the most admiration for the guys who aren't out to prove a point either way.
Those often are the most positive images of masculinity. But a lot of guys don't know how to get there. If you're not confident in yourself (this goes for everybody), that opens you up to listening to others on what will help you achieve that goal of being comfortable in your own skin. Too often, though, that ends up being them suggesting you lack something. That leads to people glomming onto whatever they think will make up the imaginary deficit... and thus, for example, the clinging to arbitrary rules come hell or high water.
Liking what you like without having to justify it to others is more a trait of mature adults of any gender.
Which is certainly the point. There is not one single virtue or flaw that is the exclusive property of a single gender. "Masculine" and "feminine" are false boxes used to trap people into toeing this ridiculous sexist party line we've had for far too long. Why can't both men and women strive to be smart, strong, decent, honest, educated, kind ... all those good things that you can be regardless of your genitalia or chromosomal structure?
Yeah, that was what I was going for in my point. Thing is, I don't know if I can entirely deny the existence of any kind of masculinity or femininity in the first place, though I look at it more as a kind of indescribable aura about someone, a "know it when I see it" kind of thing. It's utterly ridiculous to tie it in with silly rules about say what colors to wear, what products to buy, etc.
I agree we shouldn't shame those who are comfortable in their skin doing what they like, but I know what I'm attracted to and there is a certain kind of "flexible masculinity" that I find goddamned irresistible in guys.
I think masculinity and femininity are defined by the individuals who present/perform it. Regardless of whether or not those individuals are cis,queer or trans; men or women, young or old, children, teens or adults.
Exactly. Why don't we call it, oh ... humanity? And agree that it includes traits like strength, gentleness, intelligence, kindness, honesty ... traits that any gender can have without denigrating other genders. God knows we have enough trouble "defining" virtues and vices without the stupid idea that only men or only women can embody one or another of them.
Here here. This is what I was trying to say, only more pithy and coherent.
Great! Let's call it humanity.
And let's call feminism humanism, how does that sound?
On some basic level I have a problem with the very idea of masculinity and femininity, at least with the level of importance they are given now, including in this article. I don't think we should be asking how to be good men, I think we should be asking how to be good people. If the trouble comes with attaching gender, then stop trying to attach gender. That is what I do.
Of course I have to accept that because of my physical sex, my experiences of the world and of society are different, and this sometimes has an impact on how I act. But it does not have to impact the ideals in accordance with which I aim to act, or my values and what is important to me, or anything else like that. Or even the "recipe" by which these "ingredients" combine to make me (although I don't entirely understand this point).
So if you accept that the virtues of masculinity and the virtues of femininity are the same, then why even maintain them as separate concepts? What is the point? To me personally, masculinity and femininity have grown to mean simply some aspects of my aesthetic preferences, and some aspects of the roles I prefer playing in a romantic relationship, and that's pretty much it. Trying to reconcile them with virtues and the like, while still being feminist, seems to me like trying to connect two things that just don't (and shouldn't) have much to do with each other.
I also do not understand "given the physiological differences, when you look at the population level there are masculine and feminine virtues." How so?
How can you possibly deny that this is a zero-sum game? Speaking in terms of gender, what is an attribute if it is not masculine? It's feminine. That's because [traditionally-defined] gender is dichotomous, and by definition both "masculine" and "feminine" are exclusive terms. As long as masculinity is something men should possess, men will fear femininity, a brand that amounts to castration.
The key word in the OP is claim--as in
to claim strength as a masculine virtue is not to deny it to women.
We have another word for that: appropriation. When men acquire a feminine trait, we continue to divide it by gender. Since you brought up cooking, consider celebrities who cook. Men on food shows are "chefs," and travel the world trying the new, the different, the disgusting. Women on food shows are "cooks," and stay in the kitchen. Even though men have claimed cooking as their own, this doesn't make it equal--we're still able to stratify said action. Same thing with strength. There's both a manly and an un-manly way to cope with strength, as a commenter suggested. That's the only way we can reconcile doing something feminine with our masculinity--by separating manly cooking from womanly cooking, or manly weeping from womanly weeping, and putting ourselves on top.
You say that
there is not a single characteristic that I can think of that I think men should have that I would not want my daughter to have as well.
If this is the case, why bother with gender at all? Instead of focusing on what traits make a good man, or a good woman, wouldn't we all be better served by focusing on the traits that make a good person?
I bother with gender because dividing things into classes is an inherently human activity, and the tendency to divide by gender is a hard one to get around. Since I have to navigate within society and am teaching my daughter to do the same, I'm working on non-toxic ways to think about these issues so that I can pass them on to the next generation.
And as for M/F being a zero-sum game, if it's a game, the rules are set by society, so we can change them. Whether it's a good game, a useful game, or a fun game are separate questions.
I adore this post. I love that you have articulated what many wonderful men in my life (who do not consider themselves feminists, but definitely advocate feminism) struggle with. I think many men are frustrated with images of masculinity portraying them as cavemen without emotions and most men ARE more nuanced than we as a culture (and often as individuals) give them credit for. I personally am sick of seeing media portrayals of men as emotionless shadowy figures bringing home the bacon. We as humans do not fit these broad stereotypes and yet they still exist. It's time we address why they still exist if we know they aren't true.
I personally don't find positive masculinity to be much of a struggle. I think that so many assholes have wrapped their actions in positive masculine features and distracted us from the fact that these can be good features. I feel that for me, strength is a good guide to masculinity.
So many negative things associated with men are weakness and insecurity wrapped in a veneer of machismo. Homophobia is really someone lashing out due to insecurity in one's sexuality. Hitting a woman, even if she hit you first, is still the manly equivalent to crushing a paper cup. The fact that you have to prove that you can do it is weakness. Needing to treat women as less than you is really a classic human trait of liking to have someone worse off to make you feel better about yourself, also weak. The whole bravado of treating women badly in a show to your friends is again compromising yourself to prove something about your own manliness. If you have to prove something, all you're proving is that you're insecure.
Masculine strength and machismo are fine and fun things. Being able to shrug off pain and injury are great. I wouldn't be able to have such a quick wit with women if I minded being hit. I think it's even more important that I have the strength of ego not to be provoked for the wrong reasons. For the most part, guys are saddled with more physical strength than women, and I think that maybe masculinity needs to incorporate some recognition of that. Being to tough to care about slights or injuries can basically mean being too tough to lash out. I'm a bit physical dude with a love of battle and conflict, but I'd feel that it was a grave personal deficit if any woman that I was with felt any of that as threatening.
As for all the messages regarding how one should act to be masculine, my machismo doesn't like being told what to do. In the name of my masculinity I reserve the right to laugh when I'm scraped up and bleeding and get all teary eyed during Pixar movies.
Really, I don't define myself my masculinity in opposition to femininity. I have dated women with more machismo and bravado then many men that I know and I like that. Many traits that I like about myself I look for in others, men or women. I'm not looking for someone to provide for, I'm looking for someone to challenge me. The only part of my masculinity that I wouldn't wish on any woman are my bodily characteristics. I do not look good in a dress.
It's a work in progress, but it works for the the body that I got with my gender. I don't think that my thoughts are so much progressive as more primal with a vast rejection of the bullshit that society tries to tell us we need to be.
Lots of awesome stuff, but: "For the most part, guys are saddled with more physical strength than women, and I think that maybe masculinity needs to incorporate some recognition of that." I think that would then exclude those guys who are not particularly strong physically, and also would imply that physically strong women are outside the norm. On average, sure, men are stronger, but building a set of cultural rules around it seems to me like it would pretty much unavoidably lead to essentialism, and propping up the gender binary. Should a physically strong man have different values from a physically strong woman? Should he treat physically weaker individuals differently depending on their sex?
While not all men are stronger than all women it's enough of a constant that I think that as a rule men should be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint. I do think that given stronger women and weaker men people do naturally adapt. I don't get hit for witticisms because someone is so pissed off that she's trying to injure me. When a woman hits a guy in jest and "really" hurts him, the general reaction is surprise and remorse. There aren't hard and fast rules for gender because we are people and we do adapt to situations.
Some of my feelings on physical strength were recently reinforced by an article on Male Rights Activists, when I previously had no clue what an MRA is. There was a stance that some of them are pushing that domestic violence is 50/50, and that often the man is "hitting back." My gut reaction to that was fairly immediate and negative. I couldn't help but judge that to be a pretty unmanly stance. For those of you who are treating masculine and feminine as polar opposites, I did not find it to be feminine.
Except that creates serious problems. You have men who are victims of serious domestic violence (stabbings, scaldings etc), who can't defend themselves because then they'd be the criminal and they would be arrested, but if they report it won't be viewed as victims because 'they can defend themselves'.
Anything taken to an extreme tends to be bad. I'm thinking that many who cried hitting back were using that as an excuse. Common sense is that when someone comes at you with a weapon you do what you can to restrain that person until they stop with the dangerousness. I've known guys who've had to deal with abusive situations. I know a woman who spent a night in jail because her boyfriend made a domestic violence call after she hurt him in a bleeding kind of way. He had to be three times her size, and could defend himself, but the police clearly took him seriously despite that. So I don't think that men are in any way victimized for being stronger. If he had responded though by getting angry and lashing out, he could have hurt her badly.
I'm sure that this is much more my upbringing speaking than any feminist ideology, but I think that the responsibility of restraint does fall on the more physically powerful party in a relationship. I'm not going to refuse to defend myself based on someone's gender, but I'm not going to use significant other's assault on me as an excuse to hurt them. Heck, I'd like to think that I'm discerning enough not to have to fend off assaults.
I will stick with this. My brand of masculinity works for me. It's really a small subset of the traits that I value in myself. Of course it's going to be different than what works for others. Overall though, I think that the important thing is that I'm secure in who I am without needing to push any other gender identity underneath me to prop up my ego. There's not going to be one ideal template that everyone will fit into, but mine works for me, and everyone else needs to find what works for them. I think all that matters is that you can be happy with yourself without taking away from others.
Common sense is that when someone comes at you with a weapon you do what you can to restrain that person until they stop with the dangerousness.
And that is a surefire way to end up dead. It doesn't matter how much stronger you are if someone has a weapon, they can still stab, maim, or shoot you just as easily. Expecting men to put themselves at increased risk merely because their attacker is a woman is ridiculous. A person has the right to self defense. Sometimes they have the clear upper hand and that is only the problem of the aggressor.
I've known guys who've had to deal with abusive situations. I know a woman who spent a night in jail because her boyfriend made a domestic violence call after she hurt him in a bleeding kind of way.
A single night? That is entirely appropriate for aggravated assault. Look when police come to houses female aggressors are less likely to be arrested, and less likely to be prosecuted. There are a few good police precincts which take domestic violence seriously regardless of the perpetrator, but they only achieved that through extensive training and remain few and far in between
If he had responded though by getting angry and lashing out, he could have hurt her badly.
So its better in your opinion for men to just be punching bags for women
"oh sure honey you just stabbed me in the gut but if I defended myself you could have been hurt"
Erm, well I personally disagree with that. I don't know too much about this issue at all, but I'd wonder how often "hitting back" is just a mere excuse. In cases where someone is genuinely defending themselves from a physical attack, I'm not even sure how helpful "hitting back" would be versus just trying to get away as quickly as possible. But if self-defence did become absolutely necessary in the situation, and the man in question was genuinely being physically attacked by a woman, couldn't get away, and absolutely needed to hit back just to protect himself, I wouldn't say that is wrong just because the attacker was a woman. I'd question how often that situation comes up, since as I recall mostly the kind of "domestic violence" women initiate is verbal, rather than physical, or pretty light, to the point where hitting back simply wouldn't make sense as self-defence.
But if you're saying that just because the average man is stronger than the average woman, it should be unacceptable for men to hit women even in genuine self-defence situations, while it should be acceptable for women to hit men, then I very much disagree.
If my son were being attacked by a female, I would want him to defend himself. Not pummel a person unnecessarily, but not stand there and try to ward off blows. Sometimes women use weapons too. Men shouldn't be expected to be defenseless.
Eh I don't agree with a woman being compared to a paper cup. I am a woman who could whoop ass and would hardly shy away from defending myself because I'm no fucking paper cup. I'm a human being with two fists, two feet, and a few weapons to defend myself with.
Most women I know are much more formidable than your average paper cup. I'm sure that you are too. I think that you misunderstood the analogy. Kicking your ass would prove my manliness just about as much as making a big deal out of crushing a paper cup. It would be sad and pathetic. Anyone watching would think less of me for it. I would look weak for feeling that I had to prove myself in such a way by victimizing someone else.
Of course if you're challenging me, I would not deny you a battle because you're a woman. That is so long as you're not angry and everything is in good fun. Wrestling only, no hitting, and no folding chairs. Or you can just send me a video of you breaking a 40 with your forehead and I'll concede that you're all around tougher than me. The 40 has to be standing up, not sideways.
...Okay, I somewhat misread what you were saying in your post... I'm gonna have to withdraw my "lots of awesome stuff" comment earlier.
When I was in school, long ago (when the sabre tooth tigers and mammoths roamed) some sociologists wrote of ending the "masculine vs feminine" dichotomy, of looking at Hi/Lo masculinity and Hi/Lo femininity for each person. This was helped along by some research that showed that various people listed as highly regarded were seen as both Hi masculine and Hi feminine. Has this idea faded away?
Was this an assertion that feminine/masculine, like gender, is more like a SPECTRUM rather than a BINARY?
I guess this is an opportunity to bloviate "Back when I was in school..." -- but, no. It's hard to remember back 35 years, any way.
One researcher was Sandra Bem, who asserted (according to Wikipedia, which I've used to help my memory)
that masculine and feminine dimensions could be divided into two spheres, rather than one.It is based on a high-low continuum, i.e., a person with high masculine and low feminine identification would be categorized as 'masculine.' A person with high feminine identification and low masculine identification, would be categorized as 'feminine.' A person who had high identification with both characteristics would be categorized as 'androgynous.' A person who has low identification with both dimensions would be considered 'undifferentiated.
Dr. Bem is at Cornell University, so she may be writing from a "spectrum" vs "polarity" point of view these days (I haven't kept up with my studies), but in the beginning she seemed to be working on un-doing a single "polarity" POV.
Huh. I looked up the Bem Sex-Role Inventory after reading this comment and scored below average on masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral traits. So far below average that I don't even qualify as 'androgynous,' according to Bem's criteria. I guess I don't have much of a personality, then? ;)
I found the BS-RI online at
http://faculty.sunydutchess.edu/andrews/bem_sex.htm
Maybe Dr. Bem would look at your score and find your personality quite intriguing - even if she might, in her terminology, call it (re the BS-RI) "undifferentiated" (which seems to me to be something like "flexible" or "not stuck").
First off, I would like to agree with Courtney that there is a problem of defining feminist masculinity in the negative, as 'anti-rape,' 'anti-sexist,' 'anti-patriarchy,' etc. Yet, I would like to point out that while these names are constitutive of a problem, this is mostly a problem of foregrounding that is a problem of feminism on the whole and not just feminist masculinity. When we are saying that we are 'anti-rape' and that 'no means no' we are not saying that we are 'pro-sex,' we are not creating a culture of enthusiastic consent and 'yes means yes.' The problem here is not that we don't have this positive identity--it's there, I just quoted it--it is a problem of fully conscientizing the liberating aspect of feminism. When I, as a male, and the men in those organizations start believing what is liberating about feminism and acting in integrity with it, then we have the processes that we need to always be becoming the feminist male. In short, we already have feminist masculinity, it is a matter of practicing it and foregrounding feminism's liberating qualities.
Also, let's not confuse feminist masculinity which is constituted in a loving practice with what is normalized in our culture or, more importantly, confuse the lack of normalization with the confusion of whether or not it exists. We already have men who believe and practice 'yes means yes' and enthusiastic consent. The fact that it isn't ingrained in the system as the 'real' man that is Bill O'Reilly shouldn't surprise us. We shouldn't be surprised either that we don't have a man practicing feminist masculinity who has the same status as a Bill O'Reilly, it should rather, encourage us to try harder, to not only combat patriarchal masculinity, but to transform it.
Also, when defining feminist masculinity, let us embrace the constructed nature of gender and not gender essentialism. Feminist masculinity needs to destabilize what it is to be a 'real' man just as feminism destabilized what it is to be a 'real' women. We are much more liberated when we say that feminist masculinity enables me to wear a pink frilly hat out of the sheer desire of wearing a pink frilly hat, then we say, as litcrittero does, "I own enough power tools to more than make up for the occasional pink hat." We need to get the point where wearing a pink frilly hat doesn't need to be defended based on the grounds of whether or not we correspond to a patriarchal version of masculinity. Such a move, only further reinscribes it and the problem then isn't that we don't have a positive version of feminist masculinity but that we haven't fully moved beyond a patriarchal understanding of it.
My husband says he thinks a lot of helpful positive masculinity, for him, came from the courtly love epics and learning about chivalry. That means, not patronizing women as it is often misused, but doing as the ideal Arthurian knight, always being gentle and gallant - say, slaying the bandits who are ravaging a village, or nowadays, getting things off a high shelf when you see a short person (male or female) struggling, giving up your seat for an old, infirm or pregnant person. But also always respecting that this does not confer on the people you help an obligation to be lesser than you, or to serve you.
The 'good' men in these tales always respect female agency (the evil men are the ones who carry women off against their will), eg "Gawain and the Loathly Lady" is all about men learning that what women most desire is 'sovereynte' or self-mastery. Gawain, the man who privately and publicly supports his wife's right to own her own fate, is rewarded with a happy marriage (almost the only one in Arthurian legend). In courtly love the lady always has the right to reject the knight even if he fulfils the quest she set for him to earn her regard. And feminine does not equate to weak, as there is a variety of women; healers, wise women, sorceresses, queens, ladies of the manor (with no lord, ie they don't just get manors by marrying them). Female authority is not a problem for the courtly love hero. Lack of authority in a woman is also not an excuse to abuse her.
Obviously this is not the whole of my husband's model for masculinity. He doesn't go in for slaying dragons (say, starting fights with street thugs) just to impress me - we are a partnership, not a series of hoops for him to jump through. And of course there's an issue with saying 'I will do for you that which I'd have done for me anyway', because slaying a dragon makes the man look good (the same issue with the 'provider' model, those men wouldn't care any less about their promotions if they didn't have a wife or kids, and indeed the wife and kids add to their status). Plus other problems (mainly, too many distressed damsels vs powerful ones).
But on the whole it is perhaps a good thing to imbue in boys because if you offer them something totally divorced from what their friends and the media are saying, they may just reject it out of hand. Whereas if you offer them a model that they can accept, and emphasize the above positives, then you have a base on which to build a more rounded, satisfying and healthy masculinity as they grow more sophisticated and nuanced.
Just one option to consider anyway.
For me, it was John Wayne movies, a very geeky teacher who talked about "using your powers for good", and a mother who told me she'd kick my ass if I ever hit a woman. And I still have never hit a woman (outside the dojo), even though I recognize there's an element of chauvinism in my chivalry.
I don't necessarily agree not feeling that 'grrr' toward women constitutes chauvinism in your chivalry. My husband is black belt level in several martial arts. He's one of many men I know who has been in some fights in his life (though he says since he was 13 he never started one). They all agree, as powerful as the urge is to fight when a man is a dick to them, they just do not get that same urge when they are mad at a woman. They may want to tell her how they feel, but they have absolutely no urge to hit her. I don't think it's chauvinist or that they don't see women as equal, they just aren't programmed to respond to women with violence.
I liked that bit in 'Stagecoach' where John Wayne is playing Ringo and he proposes to a woman he's only known for a day, not because she is beautiful but because he has seen that she is strong and good in a crisis, and the kind of partner a man like him needs on the frontier where life is harsh. He wants a kindred spirit he can depend on. I don't like the whole of the John Wayne model but that part I am totally cool with.
I hate having this conversation because it always devolves into people picking and choosing the attributes they personally find attractive and proclaiming that to be THE NEW IDEAL MASCULINITY/FEMININITY. The concept of gender roles itself is destructive and should be challenged and subverted, not "redefined" as whatever wishy-washy qualities you look for in a friend/partner/etc. Telling a beer swilling lumberjack type that he needs to be open to "a little girliness" because that is how YOU define masculinity is almost as bad as the high school jocks who called me a "faggot" because I liked to read and wore glasses.
It's okay for a man to be emotionally distant. It's okay for a woman to be over-emotional. The problem isn't "traditional" gender roles, it's the idea of gender roles itself, and it would be much more productive to focus on removing all forms of gender constructs instead of creating new "positive" ones.
I guess it depends on how you approach the subject. As far as defining "gender roles", I'm with you- I don't think they're any good, no matter what they are. But when I consider the topic, I do it in the sense of, in this world we live in, what can each of us do to be effective for this cause? And from that I try to think of those general things many people can do and put them out there as ideas.
As such, when we discuss this in terms of what can men do for gender rights, it can be discussed in the sense of evolving a new type of masculinity. But I don't think it's the same as men-do-this, women-do-that gender role nonsense.
Redefining masculinity leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. There is not one masculinity that fits for all men. Masculinity in some ways always meant versaility. Sadly these days all that seems to be left is a stereotypical view on masculinity and many people saying "men should do this or that".
I think if we can establish more role models and can get more fathers involved, the problem (if there even is one) will solve itself.
Masculinity, as expressed by the author, never seemed a proper fit for me. With time I grew into a rough compromise with a bunch of disparate elements working at cross purposes to each other, but I think the problem is that we assume gender can be proven like a mathematical equation. It is a construct that varies from person to person, and the reason it is simplified and reduced to basest stereotype is for the ease of those who would divide and conquer, while selling us something in the process.
I'm all for evolving the race along and rigid gender roles certainly don't get us there.
I think every man and boy should emulate Clint Eastwood.
"Macho was a fashionable word in the 1980s. Everybody was kind of into it, what's macho and what isn't macho. I really don't know what macho is. I never have understood. Does it mean somebody who swaggers around exuding testosterone? And kicks the gate open and runs sprints up and down the street? Or does handsprings or whatever? Or is macho a quiet thing based on your security. I remember shaking hands with Rocky Marciano. He was gentle, he didn't squeeze your hand. And he had a high voice. But he could knock people around, it was a given. That's macho. Muhammad Ali is the same. If you talked with him in his younger years, he spoke gently. He wasn't kicking over chairs. I think some of the most macho people are the gentlest."
and...my favourite, because it's true!!
"I don't like the wimp syndrome. No matter how ardent a feminist may be, if she is a heterosexual female, she wants the strength of a male companion as well as the sensitivity. The most gentle people in the world are macho males, people who are confident in their masculinity and have a feeling of well-being in themselves. They don't have to kick in doors, mistreat women, or make fun of gays."
I think every man and boy should emulate Clint Eastwood.
"Macho was a fashionable word in the 1980s. Everybody was kind of into it, what's macho and what isn't macho. I really don't know what macho is. I never have understood. Does it mean somebody who swaggers around exuding testosterone? And kicks the gate open and runs sprints up and down the street? Or does handsprings or whatever? Or is macho a quiet thing based on your security. I remember shaking hands with Rocky Marciano. He was gentle, he didn't squeeze your hand. And he had a high voice. But he could knock people around, it was a given. That's macho. Muhammad Ali is the same. If you talked with him in his younger years, he spoke gently. He wasn't kicking over chairs. I think some of the most macho people are the gentlest."
and...my favourite, because it's true!!
"I don't like the wimp syndrome. No matter how ardent a feminist may be, if she is a heterosexual female, she wants the strength of a male companion as well as the sensitivity. The most gentle people in the world are macho males, people who are confident in their masculinity and have a feeling of well-being in themselves. They don't have to kick in doors, mistreat women, or make fun of gays."
I think every man and boy should emulate Clint Eastwood.
"Macho was a fashionable word in the 1980s. Everybody was kind of into it, what's macho and what isn't macho. I really don't know what macho is. I never have understood. Does it mean somebody who swaggers around exuding testosterone? And kicks the gate open and runs sprints up and down the street? Or does handsprings or whatever? Or is macho a quiet thing based on your security. I remember shaking hands with Rocky Marciano. He was gentle, he didn't squeeze your hand. And he had a high voice. But he could knock people around, it was a given. That's macho. Muhammad Ali is the same. If you talked with him in his younger years, he spoke gently. He wasn't kicking over chairs. I think some of the most macho people are the gentlest."
I think every man and boy should emulate Clint Eastwood.
Interesting post.
I think most people spend too much time thinking about what others think of them. I'd rather see definitions of Masculinity and Femininity just trail off and let people define themselves as they see fit.
So you're saying that there's nothing that binds all men together and all women together? I find that hard to believe. I like hanging out with girls and all but sometimes I just want to be with my guy friends away from a feminine influence.
Why worry about redefining 'masculinity' or even 'femininity'?
Why not just be a person?
Thanks for the post, OP. The comments about the dangers of 'essentializing' masculinity or attaching masculine/feminine attributes to any biological gender I think are right-on. I think a big part of redefining "masculinity" involves separating it from a definition that implies "taking advantage" of or "owning" its counterpart (i.e. "femininity") in a patriarchal way, and separating it from assigned gender roles.
Just wanted to add an anecdote that seemed relevant:
The other day, I was walking a dog (I am a dog-walker) outside, and a man came up to me and started talking to me. First, he seemed interested in the dog I was walking, but then he made some sexually inappropriate comments that made me really uncomfortable. He clearly thought he had the right to say these things to me, even though I was trying to get away as fast as I could and I repeatedly told him I had to go.
I called my partner (a feminist, queer-positive dude), to talk to him about it. I could have called one of my lady friends to process the whole ordeal, and in some cases that would be more helpful. In this case, I felt I really needed to be reassured by a society-defined "guy" who I'm certain would never, ever take advantage of a girl in this way. (We have our issues, but this isn't one of them.) He "renewed" my hope that dudes can sometimes buck the trend, even though in many ways our relationship also defies traditional gender roles (and we generally do what makes us comfortable).
I think "role models" of masculinity (whether "male" or "female"), are really important, just as feminist role models are. They can often be the same person (Hillary comes to mind...) who can also model "femininity." I don't think there's anything wrong with assigning attributes as masculine/feminine if we can expand those definitions to include both men/women/in-betweeners who want to be described in those terms.
I don't think the general notions of good and bad men/masculinity have changed that much. The John Wayne's of today may look differently, and they may behave differently with respect to dating, but the basic prescription of good masculinity is still being a protector of loved ones, just as it has always been. That's not so far away from the definition of good feminity (caring). As feminity has become more outwardly oriented, masculinity has been forced to look more inward.
Since masculinity and femininity are at least partly defining each other by mutual exclusion, and as physical strength becomes less relevant, this move to the center is not without problems for the definitions.
As the OP writes -
"We're funny, we're short, we're tall, we like women who wear glasses, we think Batman is cooler than Superman (who doesn't, right?), we think Lost is overrated, and so on. I expect it's not that different for young women."
Exactly, nothing here is about masculinity. It's about being a person. But what's the specific masculine, or feminie part in this?
What's left but sex? If we can all do the same, have the same virtues, the only difference is biological. It's sexual. I've long struggled with what defines masculinity, and I'm still not sure what makes me a masculine man, or what makes my sister a feminine woman.
Personally, for me it was "success" with women, dating, that made me feel like a man for the first time. If women like me not just as a person/friend, but as a person who has a penis (although, I have to admit, despite all my recent success with women, I have never used it outside of my own hand yet) then I must be a man, then I have masculinity.
But that's a problematic definition as well. How about the Dalai Lama. Is he less of a man because he isn't looking for and getting dates? What about men who aren't as lucky - a lot of them out there - are they less of a man? Or am I less of a man than he is because I'm still "chickening"/"roostering" out when it comes to actually going through with it? But then, courage isn't a male only quality.
Still, the only time I really feel manly/masculine is when I approach a woman and she responds well to my approach. A rejection makes me feel less masculine. I can deal with it rather easily now, but that's what it feels like.
I don't know why I even *want* to be masculine, but, well, I don't know, it *is* a layer of my personality that means something to me, although, as explained, it actually doesn't have a real meaning... maybe that's what's the real problem.
As masculinity loses specific meaning in a social context, it becomes more important to men, since we feel the lack of it, but we don't know how to replace it.
This is a problem.
The simple answer to this problem is: Stop trying to re-define/reclaim masculinity. Do away with it. If these "feminist men" you are
referring to are really feminists, then they would have understood, absorbed, and applied the Feminism 101 concept that gender is an
oppressive tool to be abandoned completely, and wouldn't have trouble "attaching gender" because they wouldn't have been trying to
do so in the first place.
No matter how many positive elements you try to pack into masculinity, it is forever doomed to being a patriarchal tool for several
reasons. First, there is the sexist attempt to forge some sort of connection between characteristics that are applicable to/appropriate
for human beings generally, and men in particular. Second of all, masculinity is one half of a system (the other half being femininity)
built on a foundation of sexual dichotomization that ignores biological diversity, thereby marginalizing those classified as intersexed
(what is the -inity for the intersexed?);
In summary, masculinity can't be redeemed by fresh new content because it's conceptual faults are structural. The proper way
to "be a man" is virtually identical to the proper way to be a decent human being. Even though you admit this in your article, you deny
the realization by trying to cordon of certain ways of being a decent human being as "masculinity."