Senate Problems with perceptions of masculinity

I suppose this technically could have gone in the Feminist or Genderqueer threads, but the issues I'm addressing aren't really centered around women's or genderqueer experiences, and I don't want to suck the air out of those threads by bringing up masculine and cishet stuff.

Anyway, I recently read this article by Phil Christman in the adorably-named "Hedgehog Review:" What Is It Like to Be a Man? Christman's answer is essentially, "intellectually problematic and emotionally confusing." "Masculinity," he says, "is an abstract rage to protect." But to protect against what, exactly? He writes further: "If you want to defend traditional masculinity as a kind of slaying-dragons-for-its-own-sake, but you can’t offer a rational analysis of why this behavior is necessary, or why it is good, or why you need a penis to do it, the archetype theory offers you a pretentious and grandiose way of saying “It is what it is.” It dignifies tautology."

Christman uses a quote by Harvey Mansfield to explain why "the rage to protect" is problematic: " “Honor is an asserted claim to protect someone . . . and the claim to protect is a claim to rule. How can I protect you properly if I can’t tell you what to do?” Christman backs away from this troubling premise, but finds nothing to put in the rage to protect's place. Ruefully, he concludes that a man stripped of his macho delusions is sort of a self-important nonentity, or as he puts it, "a joke."

He's not the only person who feels that way. My father, who is 71 and has seen some things, sometimes talks about how the discrediting of traditional masculinity has left young men with no sure path out of boyhood. As a result, these big, superannuated boys sort of drift, until their anger over having somehow been robbed boils over and they shoot up their workplace, or commit some other destructive act. The premise of "Fight Club" is pretty much the same.

I'm curious as to what people see as the way forward for masculinity, traditional or otherwise. Do men really have to choose between being sexist brutes and being "a joke?" My initial response is that the only way out of this squirrel cage for men is for them to do what women have been doing--slowly, painfully crafting a new cultural aesthetic from the ground up. However, there doesn't appear to be widespread interest in doing this. For every young person who puts in the work to create their own gendered (or non-gendered) meanings, there's at least one troubled kid who figures it's better to be a monster than a joke, and beats up his girlfriend, or smashes a gay kid's face into the cement, or shoots up a school.

I don't think there's any way back to "the good old days" for men, since as Harvey alludes, women have to consent to be governed if men are to be their governors. Even the far right now have their career women poster girls in Ann Coulter and Tomi Lahren.

So whither masculinity? What is to be done if the old ways are untenable, and so many people are unwilling to accept anything new?

I'm not really looking for pat, "gender roles are stupid and we shouldn't have them" answers. War and money and blind self-interest are also stupid and we shouldn't have them, but here we are.

 

I don't think there's anything really wrong with masculinity and I don't think there's any need to get rid of it.

If people are unwilling to accept "anything new" then there is nothing to be done. Nobody gets to decide that people are obligated to change their gender roles.

 

Well one problem is men are not being allowed to be men. Masculinity is general, or rather men, are being shot down that they can be men at all. In general in media, men are being shown as lazy, unintelligent, useless, or not there furthering a distaste on the idea of men. And it does deal with the modern day feminism. Where as back when it started it was the belief women are equal to men, now in today's world men are inferior.

Everything "guy" related has been seen as chauvinist, sexist, or rather toxic. Guys can't be guys as anything we do must include women or it gets shut down as "toxic masculinity". Biggest case in point today -- The Boy Scouts. Boys have boy scouts, girls have girl scouts. Was fine since it started but in today's world you can't just be boys due to the liberal ideologies of today. So now the boy scouts will include girls, changing the name, which has angered across many on the family sides as guys can't be guts nor girls can be girls. Though the girl scouts are still trying to stay just girls. (Though both have allowed the opposite gender in the past do to location, family situation, but didn't broadcast it as a mainstream thing.)

It used to be guys could hold open the doors for women, walk on the street side of the curb, etc. and they were called a gentleman. Now the feminist women will call you a sexist for these things. Case in point this happened to my dad in the 70s when the radical feminism was coming in. Girl dropped her books, my dad went to help and she blasted him for it.

The whole argument against toxic masculinity has become at its core anti-male today to the point guys are even scared of girls. Seriously. Several talk shows I listen to callers call in and talk how guys can't approach women as they become aggressive and pour hate towards them. A construction guy called in this week to one of the shows and said how on construction sites they have a "3 second rule" which states if a guy is caught staring at a girl for more than 3 seconds they are fired. Even women who call in state because of the modern feminism, guys are afraid to approach them, or won't, due to being afraid of being called sexist.


A couple media ideas about it and examples. Here's a one article basically describing what I said.

 

I clicked on this threat thinking it would be about peeing while drunk. I'll go away now.

 

Whoa....not dismissing anecdotal stories, but -

I'm a feminist, but not don't ascribe to "X-wave" branch. I don't want men to hold doors for me - I want ANYONE to hold a door for me out of courtesy, as I hold doors open for them. I appreciate ANYONE helping me pick up something I dropped as I do with them - but I don't want (nor do I get) any patronizing attitude of "let's help the poor woman" (or in my case, "old lady." ).

If any male wanted to gaze appreciatively at me ( ) I wouldn't mind; I'd be plenty po'd if the gaze was intrusive, especially if aimed directly at my chest or accompanied by cat calls or whistles.

There are extremists/radicals in any movement. That includes feminists. Those so-called (possibly accurately) "anti-male" feminists are #notallfeminists. Just as the toxic males are not all males.

As a woman, I have no answers how to help boys navigate into men, but there has got to be many fine, wonderful male role models out there who can show boys how to be great male human adults.

 

I don't like Rian Johnson or his Star Wars movie much either, but who is anyone to say he isn't a feminist?

 

1. Oh trust me I'm not. Toxic =/= masculinity. The problem I'm seeing is that it keeps getting portrayed that way all over the place. So the scumbags in Hollywood get outed (well one did) but now all men are toxic? That's been a narrative that's come out. Especially with the #metoo thing. A guy makes a flirtatious remark and now he's labeled a sexual predator by social media? Yet all he did was compliment her? It's this stuff that I'm reading and seeing on how guys called stuff and treated a way which is bad.

The door thing I always open for anyone, but there have been a few times I've been accused of stuff or "they can do it themselves". Or at most if it's a girl they think I'm hitting on them, again I'm not. I'm holding open the door.

But that's one problem probably today is that anything a guy does for a girl like opening a door for some reason gets perceived as "interest". Well, some times yes. But other times no. But this stigma unfortunately holds and is blatant in main stream media that influences that discussion. Wrongly I might say.

2. Think I've heard of Crew before. But I understand girls want the camping stuff and things boy scouts offer. Awesome. The problem comes because they're changing an already established way to do it as supposed to the obvious way of changing the girl scouts. It made and makes a lot of guys feel that they're being attacked and can't do anything with being labeled toxic because it doesn't include girls. Not to mention now the GSA are hurting enough as it is and now this hurts their program even more.

 

A lot of things we expect of men are just plain toxic. Chivalry is simply sexist. I think holding the door open for people is a great thing, but if you're only doing it because the person is female than your actions are inherently sexist. Boys are told not to hit girls. I think that is unacceptable. What is the implication? Violence against men is okay? I get that women are often smaller than men- shouldn't we tell our young males not to hit weaker people? Or couldn't we just say not to be violent at all?

 

@Lord Vivec -- I don't think that masculinity needs to be gotten rid of. I don't actually think that's possible. However, traditional masculinity rests upon a particular relationship to women, namely that of being a leader/protector. You can't be a leader if no one agrees to follow you, and that is what has been happening to some men, I believe. We can't stick with the same old concept of masculinity--whether it was good, bad, or indifferent--because the bedrock isn't there anymore. Something new has to happen.

@AutumnLight91 -- I agree that there is a kind of cultural crisis around masculinity, but I can't agree that it's because of mean feminists who want to take over everything. The situation is more complex than that. Let me ask you--if you had a magic wand, how would you re-create the world? What would you restore? What new things would you introduce?

 

I’m not sure the logical train is very solid here. Or rather, not inevutable. At the least, I don’t know about protection implying control. After all, there is also athis proverb: The hand that gives us the hand that rules. Should we therefore understand that the central dynamic of traditional femininity was about asserting their power and control over others?

The reality is that both men and women have traditionally had a variety of roles onto which one can project several meanings. I don’t see masculinity as having been vested solely in the idea of “protection” not yet that as synonymous with control.

 

Agree very much with anakinfan and Valairy. I consider myself a feminist but I've never minded men (or women) opening doors for me or helping to pick up something I dropped, just as I often do both for both men and women of all ages.

Edit: On the Boy Scouts issue--while I'm not completely informed on all the details, my general feeling is to support boys being able to have some spaces that are just for boys (which would include transboys) and vice versa for girls (again, which would also be inclusive to transgirls). I would want Girl Scouts to make a fuller range of activities available (if there have been activities previously only available in Boy Scouts) as well as supporting an additional option of co-ed groups like the one anakinfan mentioned.

I also have a number of men in my life whom I love and cherish deeply--my husband, my nephews and male cousins, male friends, etc., some of whom enjoy activities and behaviors stereotypically associated with men (playing Airsoft, hunting, etc.) and some of whom do not enjoy such traditionally "masculine" pastimes (so, yeah, not an "anti-male" feminist here).

I think a couple of parts of the "toxic masculinity" definition in the link provided by anakinfan are important to pull out as well:

So while I certainly do not support behaviors and attitudes associated with "toxic masculinity," I am also not in favor of labeling any and all behaviors/interests/activities/attitudes traditionally associated with masculinity as "toxic." And I am sympathetic to the sense of sincere "confusion" that some young men are reporting in terms of figuring out where they "fit in" in contemporary society. For example, I recently listened to an NPR show ("1A") from a couple of weeks ago which addressed this topic:

"What Manhood Means Today" ( https://the1a.org/shows/2018-07-11/what-manhood-means-today (you can listen to a streaming version of the show on this page; it doesn't seem to be available via download, though)

The main guest on the show (which also features call-ins) is Anna Sale, who hosts a podcast out of WNYC radio called "Death, Sex, and Money." The podcast's latest series is called "Manhood, Now":

This podcast is available on this page in both streaming and downloadable versions: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/manhood-now

I've only listened to the NPR 1A show so far, but the "Manhood, Now" series is in my queue...

 

Fair enough--I can't imagine that something as complex as the concept of masculinity can be reduced to a formula so simple. However, I do believe that there is a connection between leadership (or control if you like), and protection, and that this is one of many things in the modern grab-bag concept that gets labeled "masculinity." I'd be interested in hearing what else you think belongs in that category.

 

Dammit . . . I tried to edit my post instead of double posting, ran out of time, and lost everything I wrote. >:0

Anyway--@Pensivia, I listened to the podcast you linked to, and there was some really good stuff there. I was struck by the idea that the confines of traditional masculinity tend to prevent men from talking with one another about what it means to be men. I grew up in liberal circles, where spaces were regularly reserved for women and girls to talk about what femininity was, and what it meant. I don't recall that ever being an option for boys and men. It could be that women have had better success at altering their gender roles to suit the 21st century because they compare notes.

 

There's an organization called Knights of the 21st Century that tries to guide men into positive masculinity. It's a Christian group (big surprise from me, right?) with strong ministries in prisons and inner cities. Their ideal is often referred to as the servant king, one who leads by example, doing the dirty jobs that no one else wants, exemplified by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples at the last supper.

Anyway, they have short daily messages of encouragement available by email and FB, and sometimes I share them on FB when one seems particularly apt. And what I've noticed is that those shares usually get more likes from my women friends than men. Maybe that means something... ?

Here's the last one I shared, so far just 1 like, from a woman.

Excellence is not a singular event, but a habit. You are what you repeatedly do. That's why I encourage you daily through these emails to remember the goals you have set for yourself, the goals of nobility and Christlikeness. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts. We just do it! When we're tired, we do it tired. When we're discouraged, we do it discouraged. When we're frustrated, we do it frustrated. When we feel underappreciated, we do it underappreciated. No one who keeps doing the right things long enough fails. Hang tough, brother.
Steve Sabol
Knights of the 21st Century

 

That is really cool, @Sarge! I like that very much. I visited the Knights of the 21st Century's page, and it said, among other things:

I bolded the last part because I think it's really important . . . if conversations between men about masculinity aren't happening, and apparently they generally aren't, then that needs to start.

My own gendered history is a bit of a mish-mash . . . I always have been, and generally still am, gendered female by those who don't know me, but I don't identify that way personally. I've always been fascinated by what masculinity meant to men, but have never seen much besides Marlboro ads and male-driven action flicks. I always assumed that was because men read me as female and didn't discuss masculinity around me. After all, women are their most open and honest about femininity and what it means to be a woman when there's nobody around that they gender male. Even one guy sitting quietly in the corner can throw things off. (This, by the way, is why some feminists will answer a male inquiry on how to be an ally with something like, "You can leave us the hell alone." It's not because they hate you, or don't value men in general. You just get in the way.) However, if Pensivia's podcast is accurate, men generally aren't having these conversations when women aren't around. They aren't generally having these conversations at all. That's a really huge thing.

By the way, I probably gave this thread a lousy name . . . it sounds too much like I meant "The problems WITH masculinity." I don't mean that at all. I mean that masculinity as an institution is in some trouble, and we're seeing negative effects from it. I'll probably ask a mod to change the title.

 

Masculinity, 300 years ago



It's... fluid.

 

You're right, men don't like talking with others about personal subjects like masculinity. (How's that for a sweeping generalization?) If the subject comes up, we're more likely to joke about something like the size of our manspread.



Yeah, that's masculine! Right?

 

Perhaps unilaterally, in that I've not seen a conception of leadership that doesn't involve protecting those under one's authority, but I don't think the reverse holds. At least as I understand it, the ethos of lawyers is a good example. While they putatively aim to help protect their clients legal interests, there is no sense that they can control their client or prevent them from legal trouble. Rather, they are advisers that help clients make the best legal position from whatever choices they elect at a given time. This is a form of protection that neither obligates nor even expects control, as the role is entirely supplementary and collaborative.

 

Yes, very cool site, @Sarge. The apparent spirit behind the 21st Century Knights group reminds me of another group dedicated to male-specific support and uplift, though coming from a different angle and focused on men and boys of color--the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative launched by President Obama in 2014:

"Today, as an initiative of the Obama Foundation, MBK Alliance leads a national call to action to build safe and supportive communities for boys and young men of color where they feel valued and have clear paths to opportunity. Alongside our partners across sectors, we will accelerate impact in targeted communities, mobilize citizens and resources, and promote what works, all with the goal of encouraging mentorship, reducing youth violence, and improving life outcomes for boys and young men of color."

https://www.obama.org/mbka/about-mbka/

^I don't know a lot about this initiative, but it seems it might be very helpful in providing those opportunities for men and boys to talk with each other about "what it means to be a man" today (with of course a particular focus of this group on the specific challenges to masculinity in communities of color).

I have some chores to do around the house this afternoon and I'm going to listen to the "Manhood Now" podcast and maybe come back with some thoughts later. This is a really interesting (and important) topic, @poor yorick Hopefully the thread will get a lot of input from more male posters here as well.

 

It's been an interesting few weeks over here, as there's been all sorts of stuff that have indicated there's changes in the sense of male identity that haven't been noticed. So I think it is happening, but it's not being reported on much. (Why? Hard to say, but I wouldn't be surprised if the UK national press view it competitively, much as they do girls-vs-boys on the exam results every year. Thus, in this mindset, to be feminist means not reporting on men, except to slag off 'em off. Total bollocks yes, but very much in the vein of what passes for UK journalism.)

For instance, the England World Cup football chants:
Supporters have reworked Atomic Kitten’s 2001 hit Whole Again to salute the national boss and it’s a catchy one.
“Looking back on when we first met; I cannot escape and I cannot forget; Southgate, you’re the one; you still turn me on; and football’s coming home again” (you may also hear “you can bring it home again")
Pay close attention to some of the words here, would anyone have expected it of a load of mostly male footie fans? Nope.

At the same time Gareth Southgate has blown up the traditional ideas of management, both for football and wider. Do you have to be a big, shouty, alpha bloke bastard to go into management? Not anymore. Southgate has made public what has been going on for some time as while I've seen that standard, alpha ******** style of management, which tends to be paired with a scheming, divide-and-conquer tendency, but the last few years I've seen some very different leadership styles, all from blokes, that are far more supportive and encouraging. It's why I'm now doing what I am at my workplace, a few years back I wouldn't have had the confidence to consider that I could be.

Leadership does not have to be micro-management or controlling, if you have a good team who you trust to want to do well in their jobs. Defending those who you manage I wouldn't see as a gender point - I've seen both men and women be good and bad at it, I would see this one as far more an individual character point than gender.

In terms of social and media perceptions of men, I do think there is this tendency to go "men are cocky bastards, so it doesn't matter what we say about them, they'll shrug it off", which then gives free rein on all kinds of crappy content that'd be slagged if the gender was female. Take a subject like male mental health, there will be the response that'll basically be: "man the **** up". The exact opposite of what the area actually needs.

 

I reject this mindset completely. Reminds me of that guy we had in the misogyny thread who called himself Peeta Mellark.

It's weird that he would refer to men absent macho delusions as self-important. Uh, have you met Bowen? You've seen the flexing, posing, ***** grabbing guys out there. Is there anyone more puffed up than them? To let go of your macho delusions is to not care at all if you're the biggest, strongest, toughest badass in the room.

Nonentity? Idk, I see everyone as unimportant. I'm certainly unimportant, just another guy. Diving into macho delusions won't change that. Letting them go is admitting you're unimportant.

Is he referring to some woke hipster making a big show of how he's not a traditional man? Is that the joke he is referring to? I really don't know.

Am I a joke for even participating in this discussion? Am I a beta male? Watch as I don't care.

Now watch me flex.

*phoo*

Had to hit my masculinity quotient.

Our own version of feminism, focused more on changing ourselves than society. Sort of internal feminism. Discourage rage and violence. Support for those who choose to step outside traditional masculine roles. Valuing ourselves independent of women. Valuing each other. I know you said there doesn't seem to be any interest in this, but we better get interested. I think eventually all the violence and self-destruction will force us to find a solution, and more violence won't be it. It will have to go the other way.

There is some interest in independence from women (MGTOW), but of course its twisted and full of bitter misogyny...like so many male social movements. It makes a sort of perverted sense in that a man who feels the need for such a movement is more likely to be bitter and angry with the current state of society; when masculinity discourages such needs as weak, you'd need to be angry enough to get past the perceived weakness of seeking help outside yourself.

I reject the entire idea of a man being "a joke" because they're not trying to emulate an 80s action movie every second of their lives. **** that completely. It sounds like something imagined from the most insecure of places.

*pops pecs*

While that answer may not work on a large scale, I absolutely would encourage individuals to be themselves and not worry about gender roles. Form your identity around yourself.


--------------


On doors. Everyone should stop opening doors for others. It's a dumb thing. Doors generally aren't heavy, you're not actually helping anyone when you open them. It seems more like a display of kindness than actual kindness. I don't open doors for anyone unless I see that their hands are full, or that they're seriously physically disabled to the point that opening a door would be a really annoying struggle. Otherwise, open the door yourself. If you're right behind me I might give you a token extension, but I'm not putting on a show. I prefer to avoid looking at you at all.

Let me ask you this: could Jesus bench press 250 pounds?

This I like. It was something I didn't learn until I became an adult. Get off your ass and just freaking do it. You can hate it the entire time, but do it anyway and get it over with. But Idk that this is something masculine, sounds like good advice for anyone.

lol of course we're not having those conversations. Did you not know that? That gave me a refreshing chuckle.

 

Today's K21 message:

We men would like to have an instruction manual, but our women want us to have intuition into what they want and need. If they have to tell us, it may be already too late. This doesn't come naturally for most of us, but I believe it is a skill we can discover and develop. For me, one of the many benefits of being married to the same woman for 49 years is that I have gotten a little better at this over the years. I can usually anticipate my bride's needs before they are spoken, and then address them. While this may be difficult and unnatural for us, real men do what is hard and receive from a Supernatural God the ability to do that which is humanly impossible.
Steve Sabol
Knights of the 21st Century

 

I totally agree with that. Women in general tend to rely on intuition more than men, so they absolutely expect men to do what they do and figure out what's wrong without it being said.

Women at work will complain to me about so and so not realizing what they're trying to indicate. This leads, at least in my experience with other women, to a lot of frustrated gossip. And maybe because my brain isn't wired like a normal woman (more on that in a later post), I absolutely hate this. I don't understand why women don't tend to just do what to me is the logical thing and confront it head on, ask the person to change their behavior rather than expecting them to be intuitive about what's wrong. This must be extremely frustrating for the less intuitive men out there when the women in their lives do it too.

Now, I must add that I think partly women are conditioned into being passive aggressive because they're taught it's not ladylike to be confrontational. So I'm certainly not saying this is all the fault of evil women who just want mind readers and are determined to frustrate men (or let's face it, fellow women). Clearly it's more complex than that.

I admire that the group is encouraging men to develop the skill of more intuition. On the flipside, if I were sending this message to women I'd say... Learn to be straightforward and confident when expressing your displeasure. This does NOT make you a bitch. It is helpful to everyone to know what you're thinking and not to guess.

Anyway, I'll have more thoughts on this whole topic later. Just wanted to touch on Sarge's post and an often difficult part of being a man.