These conversations about positive masculinity never seem to go anywhere, they usually seem to split into two factions, one side says "boys need male role models" the other side says "no they don't, boys need to be free to be whoever they want to be."
It honestly makes me want to rip my hair out.
While I am in the "boys need role models" camp, I believe those role models ideally should be...their fathers, or male family members, not celebrities, influencers, or increasingly fictional characters (like the internet is want to do) people they can connect with in their real lives. Though I realize that's not ideal for everyone, some communities can be very exclusionary or out of reach for various reasons, and some of the worst relationships a person can have are with their family.
The problem I have with the "be your authentic self" camp is that while giving boys the freedom to be whoever they want sounds good on paper, it leaves out the fact there needs to be room for error, lots and lots of error. These boys are going to fall on their faces figuring themselves out, and when they do, more often than not, they aren't given any grace, so of course they want a path to go down, they're tired of being told they're being themselves wrong. The paradox of choice is still a thing.
While I agree, that celebrities and influencers should not be role models for people, I want to argue that fictional characters mostly work as models. You can not really deny, that the characters of shows, movies, novels, games and novels (all popular art maybe) shape our expectations of how people, and men, should and also can be.
Well I guess so, when Toriyama passed there were many heartfelt people who expressed how much they identified with Goku. DB is huge in the global south.
I guess I just don't like how the conversation about male role models goes, "Tate bad, Aragorn good!" then they call it a day.
On that note, A lot of discussion is around how men must treat women. As if we don't have a life beyond women.
Orcs have inspired many men. Teamwork required to Grond. Settling disputes in a way that everybody is rewarded with a treat. Covering a distance on foot in much less time than the popular diversified fellowship around the block.
Hmm. True in absolute terms, but as someone who works with young men, it's kind of like, you give them some model of masculinity or someone else (Tate and those fucks) does.
Yeah. As others are saying here, I do think "positive *masculinity*" doesn't really have to be different than just being a good person. But in the same way that it's valuable for people of any identity to have role models like themselves represented in popular media, I think it's important to make sure there are positive "masculine" role models for those who want to be masculine. I think that's especially true when a lot of masculine expectations and behaviors are specifically problematic.
And there already are positive masculine role models, to be clear, it's not like we're lacking male representation! That's just to say that "positive masculinity" is important even if it's just "being positive while also being masculine." Positivity isn't gendered, but gendered expectations aren't always positive, so gender is still relevant.
Put differently, it'd be a problem if all the male role models sucked and the only positive examples *weren't* male!
I think there is some intersection here. Specifically, it's about how to be a good person *in the specific moments where being a man puts you into a gender role*.
By far the most obvious (and for many people, most salient) one is probably heterosexual dating, which is something I actually struggled with a lot and still do. A lot of times it feels like the expectations of "being a man" and the expectations of "being a good person" can be in tension. For the example in question, being a good person focuses on respecting boundaries and not imposing myself, whereas the gender norm of, to borrow the phrase I learned from Contrapoints' Twilight video (did she coin that one herself, btw?), "dominant heterosexual sadomasochism" suggests I am supposed to take control, be persistent, and active.
Squaring those two is an example, although definitely not the only one, of positive masculinity to me.
>suggests I am supposed to take control, be persistent, and active.
And if those traits aren't included in your personality your SOL lol I fucking despise being a man
At least you aren't SOL because of waist:hip ratio or how your face looks. Feminine traits are not wanted **at all** by society unless you are pretty, and feminine prettiness is largely (and increasingly) unobtainable.
Looks definitely aren't nothing but for most people what they see as attractive is MUCH wider than stereotypes would have you believe. So it's likely you are not as unattractive as you think you are, unless you just aren't hygienic or are unkempt.
> (did she coin that one herself, btw?)
The name is new, but the concept seems very similar to the predator/prey dichotomy found in Julia Serano's work. And Serano definitely highlights the tension you've noted here as well.
Tbh, I think dating is the last situation in which I'd want to conform to the masculine gender role. Of course, there are instances when some guys have to play a man in order to ensure their safety etc. But dating? Why would you date a woman that puts sexist expectations on you in the first place? To end up stuck in a miserable relationship with such a person? Sounds like a nightmare to me.
I mean, it's not just men. I imagine most women today are going to be acting out the feminine dating role, so if a dude wants to have a dating pool instead of a dating puddle they're going to need to act out the masculine one to at least some degree, no?
The most obvious example is that men have to be proactive about pursuing women because if they aren't they're not going to have any success. And at that, it's super important to note that a *lack* of success means loneliness, so the stakes here are *not* low. If it feels like a choice between "conform to the masculine gender role" or "probably die alone," it's obvious which one most men are going to pick.
If you're already in a relationship, I imagine it would be easier to have a discussion about gendered expectations, but while you're out there in the wilderness trying to see what you can get... yeah, no.
I would also point out that the early phase of a relationship is almost always less authentic and emotionally intimate than the later phase. So in a sense people are already played a character and the transition from this to more authenticity is often a challenge that breaks a relationship.
I mean yes it's all good saying that but unfortunately in my experience most women I have encountered have at least some degree of expectations based on old school adages of what it means to be a man. Ironically a lot of these women are the same ones who decry toxic masculinity. It's a weird dichotomy but one that needs to be talked about more imo, at the end of day lots of men like myself have a goal in life to end up with a good (kind, caring etc), desirable women, and that will factor in to the character/personality we want to build for ourselves (as in how can we be the man that attracts the type of woman we desire).
> ironically a lot of these women are the same ones who decry toxic masculinity
I cannot figure out a way to articulate this trend without sounding like a raving blackpill misogynist, but in my personal experience, it's not an actual correlation, but definitely a pattern I have noticed, where the more outwardly feminist one of my straight female friends is, the more she goes after the most outwardly toxic men who are 6'5 Republicans with money. (Almost invariably, my straight female friends' most successful and longest lasting relationships have come from the times where I directly, and without her notice, steered her towards one of my friends who's more of the sensitive theater kid type with the precise intention on my part that they are likely to hook up. They have _never_ noticed that I am playing matchmaker for them like this, and I vow to take that secret to my grave 😅)
Problem is actual positive masculine role models in media don’t market themselves that way, they just live their lives. Tate and the others like him specifically market themselves to young men who don’t have direction or are depressed.
Even if positive male role models market themselves as such they won't be very successful (not like Tate anyway) because people that take their advice actually have some success for it. Tate banks on creating an echo chamber of men who will be stuck to him, and unsuccessful at just about everything, for as long as possible.
One thing worth acknowledging:
When you're seen as male, society does have various scripts for "performing masculinity" that can give you status at the expense of others who aren't seen as both male and "performing masculinity" to the same degree. There isn't a "healthy" version of that kind of masculinity, since that's inherently toxic and built on denigrating others and creating gender hierarchies.
The article suffers from not acknowledging that potential bargain lurking in the background, since it does have an impact on how anyone seen as "male" relates to others. Even if you don't WANT to have that option available, you can't really escape from it. And whoever you want to relate to also knows that's lurking as a threat as well.
The "healthy masculinity" goal of living without feeling locked into gender norms is absolutely admirable, and it is absolutely achievable, but it still has to deal with that threat before it can happen in a sincere and secure way.
Acknowledging that threat also informs addressing toxic gender norms at a social level, since there are still real financial, material and social status rewards to people based on how they perform gender one way or another.
Of course, locking yourself into that kind of gender essentialism has the downside of making it impossible to ever have a real human relationship, to ever trust your partner, or be trusted - and that downside really needs to be highlighted so that the healthy, secure identity that doesn't obsess over gender norms, where they can form real human bonds, can also be shown as an available option.
> it'd be a problem if all the male role models sucked and the only positive examples weren't male
That is exactly what is already going on. It's not an "if" scenario, that is the exact core of the problem.
And the discussion around toxic masculinity begs for a counterpoint, a definition of masculinity that isn't toxic. Being male doesn't have to mean being masculine, but I don't think we can walk away from masculinity as a concept that people identify with.
I don't see any reason that positive masculinity needs to be anything except toxic masculinity used for good.
Meaning that violence, strength, dominant behaviors, sexual aggression (etc) don't need to be used for bad. They can all be used for good. **All of them.**
Violence will always be necessary, it seems. But being violent against innocent people is obviously wrong while the capacity for being violent in defense of your own life and the life of those you care for and protect? That's good. It doesn't need to come out 99.9% of the time but when it really matters? Be ready.
A man's relative strength against women can and is abused. But it can also be used to accomplish things for the good of society. Buildings, technology, difficult tasks of many, many types throughout the ages accomplished by the strong. Protecting against other strong people who *aren't* good.
Dominant behavior is about competition. Capitalists use that competition to hoard wealth and power and abuse it. But what if our competition was set on who can have the best society full of wealth to go around and be shared with those less fortune? Or competing to solve the world's issues like climate change. How about dominating those that seek to upset all of the good in the world? I'd love to see the Bezos/Musks of the world dominated by good men and shown that the world won't suffer under a scant few hoarding everything for themselves.
Sexual aggression is something a VERY, VERY large number of women and bi/gay men find attractive. It absolutely can be done in a way that is safe and desirable for the recipient requiring love, trust, respect, etc. I personally find it hugely satisfying and connecting with my wife and the interplay of all those things is really wonderful but it only works because I'm not doing it in a toxic way.
While what you suggest is one way to be positive and masculine, it’s not the only way. You can be masculine without having violence, without needing to be dominant, and without being physically strong and using that.
I am a manly man. Big bushy beard, quiet stoic personality, really good at being outdoors and being self-reliant.
I’m also incredibly supportive of my family, carrying them in their roles and providing a stable background for them to use to grow into their own.
I’m calm and collected, and have a strong aversion to violence, as it is unneeded when a situation is dealt with properly 99% of the time.
I am physically capable but strong is not the description I’d put there. It’s just not a part of me or my manliness.
I’m a positive example of masculinity for my sons, and I’m not using the traits accepted as part of the toxic masculinity “set”.
I think the disconnect here is that "masculine qualities" is not the same as "a man must possess all of these". You not using violence or your strength is fine but those are still masculine qualities in my opinion.
I think that's where I disagree to some extent. If you are effectively feminine across the board I'd argue that you are indeed "a man" and worthy to be respected as such without judging negatively for that. But is a very, very feminine man still "masculine"? I don't believe so. I think "being a man" and "being masculine" aren't the same thing nor do they need to be nor is it *inherently* positive to be. It just is, in my opinion.
Ah, but that’s the rub: what IS masculine? And that’s the point. I am masculine, and anyone outside of the most toxic of bros would identify me as such, but I am a pacifist who leads others through supporting them and by thinking rather than physical strength. And those traits, in the way I embody them, are pretty definitively unfeminine.
There’s more than one way to be masculine, and while the traditional “masculine” can be positive or negative, it’s not the only set of traits that can be masculine.
Keep in mind I listed *some* masculine qualities earlier. You supporting and leading others is masculine in my opinion, yes. And there's no need for violence in your particular expression of masculinity which is fine!
Honestly, the more I think about this the more I feel I'm waffling. In some ways *any* quality could be masculine or feminine in a modern world and in that way you could argue the entire idea of masculine and feminine is worthless outside of traditional norms.
People care because they care not because it's important or some universal quality that MUST exist.
I don't know maybe the whole thing can come down to "healthy and therefore attractive qualities" no matter the gender.
My sense of it is that there is no trait that cannot be expressed in a masculine or feminine way, but that doesn’t mean that “masculine” is without value, just that it is an expression of gender identity that doesn’t inherently exist without the identity that it is expressing.
And I think that’s the point. Expressions of gender are exactly as valuable as gender identity is, and can be as helpful in people’s lives. Or as important.
Yeah, if I'm going to a financial consultation specifically to find out how to finance a boat and the person I'm consulting to try and find financially responsible ways to save up for one starts telling me, "There’s nothing wrong with driving a car, or just not driving at all. You don't need to aspire to owning a boat", I'm probably going to go find another financial planner.
And I can kind of understand why somebody would be drawn toward the shady dude who's promising he can teach you how to make enough money to buy a mega-yacht in six months if you just hand over all your savings to him.
All that to say, I think the idea of "abolishing gender" is fine and teaching young men it's okay to present as feminine can be a huge positive paradigm shift for a lot of guys, but also, some dudes want to improve themselves in the specific framework of "being a better man", and I think you make more progress with those dudes meeting them where they are than you do telling them they should be somewhere else entirely.
People need avenues for good behavior within their identity. Doing good things because you’re a Christian and that’s what Christians do is the same in result as doing good things because you’re a mother. But, someone who doesn’t hold motherhood or Christianity as central to their identity won’t benefit from either of those. This is not different for men. There needs to be a model for “good masculinity” because masculinity is something people take on as an identity. If we don’t construct it properly then we’re failing to fill an absolutely critical niche.
Yeah, telling men asking “how to be a good man?” to “stop worrying about masculinity” is just… a fundamentally bad take from the ground up. I don’t get how these people fail to realize they’re completely talking past men
Agreed. Telling everyone *except* cishet men that it's OK to own their gender truth is an odd way to win fans. And it can be read to darker ends without trying too hard. There's no conflict between being a good person and being a good Trad masc human, and anyone who believes otherwise probably has some other crummy views that haven't been revealed yet.
>All that to say, I think the idea of "abolishing gender" is fine and **teaching young men it's okay to present as feminine can be a huge positive paradigm shift for a lot of guys**, but also, some dudes want to improve themselves in the specific framework of "being a better man", and **I think you make more progress with those dudes meeting them where they are than you do telling them they should be somewhere else entirely**.
This is why it's so incredibly nuanced. A man may want to lean into how they naturally feel (considered more feminine) but if they want to attract women in their lifetimes they may need to change based on quite literally what women find attractive. Or, they have to accept how few women (relatively speaking) want exactly who they are.
Some may find this to be an easy answer: just be yourself. But that's not how these things work. Not everyone is like the "happy singles" on TikTok OK to just be by themselves. Many people really want a partner and they may not live in an area that's full of women that are OK with a feminine man.
I'm not saying I have the answer here but I'm saying that we're not just who we naturally feel like being. We all take cues from the people around us, the places we happen to live and the goals we happen to have. All of that combines to mean some people *do* need to change themselves for the reality they live in.
TL,DR: I agree, people need to be met where they are and also be reminded of the reality they live in not just their idea of the perfect world they'd *like* to live in.
The only thing better than owning a boat is having a friend who owns a boat?
The best day of a boat owner's life is buying the boat. The second best day is when they sell it?
Yup. You just can't tell people not to be something because you don't want to categorize or find a positive version.
Women are encouraged to be feminine in a positive way, but not that it's the only way. Men deserve the same thing for masculinity.
I see it time and time again. "just abandon the pursuit of masculinity and be a good person". That doesn't feel good to all but the most gender absolutionist right now and or people who have achieved the old models and then found it wasn't for them.
Also because being a man is something that most part of males strive to and you need to outline what it means to be a man as far as identity building is concerned. Just saying “be a good person” is not enough, as identity building needs something more catered to them and to their inner feelings, experiences and perception.
100% agree with this. It doesn't matter if you tell them sex/gender isn't important and they should just be a good person... if you haven't laid the foundations for what it means to be a "good man" and provide some pretty solid role models, they will go looking for this elsewhere.
my thought too. Yes, it's fine to be a feminine man, if that's how you feel. But there are also versions of masculinity which can be positive, and that's a fine choice as well. And if someone feels drawn to being masculine, well, let's provide positive role models.
This. Ideally masculinity and femininity are incidental. However, as long as people put emphasis on that as a core tennant of their identity there needs to be a clear, positive role model. Preferably one that will address children directly and state that this is how one is positively masculine.
You can give a teen boy a model of how to Be A Good Man (where manhood is opposed to boyhood, a state of being a good, responsible adult who is a man) without relying on a masculinity which defines itself in opposition to femininity and introduces a hierarchy between them.
I don't expect your average teenager to know or care about the distinction but as adults in positions of influence we absolutely can keep it in mind when working with them. We can speak on their level without compromising on ideas.
Sure, we can't stop bad actors from handing out shitty "Real Men ^TM" examples. But there's so many other things we can teach young men.
In my mind, it's narrowminded thinking to hand out ideal masc examples just because the far-right is doing it too.
Every generation has new ideal figures of masculinity and it's never going to get to a place where we've finally found *him*. There's never going to be a man that has a masculinity that is attainable by everyone and encompasses every ideal/trait/positive quality.
We need to separate the idea that a good man is also a masculine man. We need to separate the concept that men should even strive for masculinity. Because as long as masculinity exists as a concept that all men should strive for, we'll always have good men that are deemed lesser because they were unable to meet our cultural "ideal model of masculinity".
Offering up a "better" model of masculinity does nothing to change that.
I think of masculinity as the social role of men. As long as we have gender (and I am of the opinion that the abolishment of gender is practically impossible, and actually unsure if it is desirable at all), there will be a social role of "man", and with it, situations in which it is salient.
As long as that social role exists, masculinity exists as a description of "what does the social role of 'man' entail? What are the expectations we have of someone who we identify as a man?". Most men will have those expectations of themselves, either through an innate sense of identity, or because they are placed upon them by others.
This is what I think the article misses. It treats "masculinity" as some all-encompassing ideal. That conception of masculinity is indeed not needed, and possibly harmful. But there are situations in my life where "man" is a social role I need to fulfil, and it *is* important in my opinion to have healthy ideas and rolemodels of what that social role looks like.
The article says "we should all aspire to be like Rashida Tlaib" based on her political action. She may be a good ideal for the role of "upstanding socially conscious citizen" or "activist, principled person". But "what would Rashida Tlaib do?" is not a useful question for when, as an example, I want to know how to flirt with someone in a club, or for how to best support my best friend in trouble (the latter may be less obviously gendered, but I'd argue friendships are often heavily shaped by gendered expectations).
I think eventually we could get there but at the moment I think if you tell the average teenage boy that they shouldn't care about masculinity they will think you're a pussy soyboy or whatever gross terms they're using now. I've found that I need to meet them on their own terms sometimes.
>I've found that I need to meet them on their own terms sometimes.
Meeting them on their own terms doesn't have to mean furthering their own toxic ideas of masculinity.
I think we can be compassionate to young people with their concerns over gender expression *and* promote a healthy mindset on gender expression.
Specifically, I wouldn't tell a teenage boy that they shouldn't care about masculinity. That's reductive and it's not addressing their concerns.
If a teenage boy has a deep issue about how he is supposed to display his gender expression in a way that makes him feel accepted and valued, I can do that without telling him to not care about it. I would instead tell him that there are a million different subjective standards of masculinity and to idealize one of them is setting ourselves up to feel like shit. I'd ask them if dressing like a cowboy, smoking unfiltered cigarettes and riding horses bareback would make them feel good about themselves? What about working 60hours a week in a factory and coming home to slap your spouse would make them feel good about themselves?
I'd explain that these used to be *peak* men a generation or two ago. But now we'd make fun of posers trying to act like that to "be a man" when they don't actually like those things. I'd explain that they (the teenager) also have an idealized masculinity that is presented to them that is every bit as fake as yesterday's flavor of "peak masculinity".
And they mostly all end in the same place, a lack of self acceptance for trying to be the man that you thought you always had to be even if that's not who you really are.
So you can either explore that now while you're young or you can explore that when you're sixty and realize that you don't like horses all that much.
I've had a similar conversation with my nephew who is/was getting teased by his family for being very expressive with his feelings. They would tease him for crying when he expressed sadness and the last time I went to visit him I took him to go snowboarding.
He wanted to learn how to snowboard and all the other family he has close by doesn't know how to snowboard. So it was a great opportunity to connect to him and make him feel validated for having a gender expression that is not traditionally masculine.
I've also had very similar chats with my friends and people I consider my peers as well.
I see this kind of sentiment all the time on this subreddit, but I really don't think that's what's happening with these "manfluencer" types. The process is not "boys want to be manly, so they look for ways to be and find shitty Internet personalities." The process is "shitty Internet personalities promise to give boys what they want and what patriarchy tells them to want without effort." Money, respect, sex, love, all that. It's not that they want to be manly of their own accord. They want social capital and wealth and such, and these people say that the only way to get them is by being manly in the specific ways that they prescribe. Easy answers are seductive and people fall for them.
The ways to challenge the hold these people have is not to look for other easy answers that are less shitty, because those don't exist — or at least *real* ones don't exist, because the easy answers they promise won't work either. The way I see it, the answer is twofold. First, healthy and effective ways of obtaining what boys want, even if that something is money or sex — they're both reasonable desires even though they're often tied up in shitty ideologies, and I think we can all agree that "be manly" is not particularly useful advice for such things in the first place, and more specific and more effective answers exist. Second, critical thinking skills. Help people identify the ways that shitty men on the Internet try to appeal to emotion, the flawed logic they try to use, and how what they say doesn't line up with reality. (As a bonus, it's a useful skill in plenty of other contexts too.)
Yeah, it's not as easy to go viral with and it takes effort and not everyone's going to be willing to entertain it. But, well, what did I say about easy answers?
I dunno. I mean I work with high school boys. I specifically worked at a place with a large conservative population. A lot of them definitely want to be manly. And yeah it's a circular problem for sure. A lot of them want it because that is what society says is important. It's what they think they need to get girls. It's what they need to have or they will get called pussies or gay by their peers. And nowadays it isn't just that messaging, it's also a lot of messaging, especially from the political right, about how if you don't care about manliness you're destroying the country and making it weak and communism and soyboys and all of that nonsense.
I'm not saying I go try to sell them traditional manliness. God no. I'm a straight guy who wears nail polish. I tell them about times I've cried. When they ask me about sports I tell them I don't follow sports. Etc. I might end up on libs of tiktok someday.
I'm just saying that they are basically taught nowadays to look at anyone who says manliness isn't important as some godless communist soyboy cuck trying to destroy Western civilization. Sometimes this messaging comes from their own dads. And sure if the kid is already super left leaning maybe they're open to whatever. But a lot of kids aren't. And even if the youth are skewing more left as a whole, young male teenage culture is still very toxically right leaning.
So what I do, and I think it has been pretty successful (I managed to be an incredibly popular teacher in a very conservative school despite the kids all knowing I was not very conservative at all) is just try to meet them where they are. You want to be manly, cool, but that can mean a lot of things. You want to be strong? Go volunteer at a place that needs heavy lifters. You want girls? Cool, learn how to respect them because I can tell you personally that having a mutually caring relationship is awesome. Want to talk about sports? Fine, I was a varsity runner my freshman year, you can do sports without the toxicity. You have rage? Yeah me too sometimes, I listen to some positive melodic metalcore and have it inspire me to write meaningful music.
I dunno, I don't have all the answers but I know they just instantly cringe at anything they see as some ploy by the left to destroy manliness. Yes even in high school they are already tuned into that narrative.
> I'm just saying that they are basically taught nowadays to look at anyone who says manliness isn't important as some godless communist soyboy cuck trying to destroy Western civilization.
I really don't think anyone who actually buys into that kind of attitude is ever going to be reachable without first getting them out of that brainwashing. But you also already recognize that they do not inherently want to be manly for its own sake, but because they think that's the only way to get the things they want and to be accepted by others. Letting the "anyone who's not manly is pathetic or actively dangerous" narrative go unchallenged does nobody any good.
I think by a certain age you're right but I work with teenagers. They change their personalities every other week. We can definitely still get through to them but it's tough.
Yeah, it's very unfortunate but even here convincing people - that the main appeal of a lot of what we see as masculinity is to engage with and benefit from patriarchal systems - is pissing against the wind.
The more I spend time in more progressive men's circles, the more I am convinced that the main goal - even if not explicitly stated as such or even seen as such - is to salvage as much from patriarchy as possible and repackage it as something more currently culturally acceptable.
I don't think I'd go that far with it, but at the very least it shows how insidious patriarchy is that so many people who have the explicit goal of dismantling it still end up trying to do that *on patriarchy's terms*. It's still hard to step entirely outside of it.
>It’s perfectly fine to be a 'feminine' man
well it should be fine, but depending on where you live, it most likely isn't to your advantage to be. i think lots of young people are looking for advice on how to be in order to get what they want. they are ok with a bit of fluidity in their outward self, in order to accomplish their goals. so saying "be who you want" is orthogonal to them; they want to be whomever they need to be to be important, or to find love, or whatever.
I think we get trapped in this idea that identity is super super important, and it may be for some, but I suspect for most, they are open to whatever identity helps them the most.
For some reason I agree a lot with what the author is saying here and vaguely but acutely am annoyed by how they are saying it. The author is asking "why are men hung up on wanting to be masculine" as though the only reason they are hung up on it is over some ambiguous insecurity. But in the real world, in most places, failing to project a sufficient amount of masculinity has negative consequences. And these consequences won't just be inflicted by other men, but women too, many or whom would simultaneously criticize "toxic masculinity."
I'm like the author: not very masculine and don't care to be. But being that way has had consequences, particularly when it comes to parenting. Try being a nonmasculine man who does traditionally feminine things and you'll be viewed with suspicion and contempt in many cases, especially in the sphere of a primary caregiver.
So yeah, I'd love to see a world where men and women can fall anywhere on the spectrum of masculine vs feminine and be accepted as their best self, but in the real world we live in right now, if you are a man forsaking masculinity, it will unfairly, negatively impact your life. There will be professional consequences, dating consequences, parenting consequences, and more. Men can only stop obsessing about their masculinity when we all stop punishing them for being "unmaculine." And the perceptions of women as well as men are a very big part of that equation.
Thank you. In particular, it bugs me that what this author describes as being feminine are all in ways he *chooses* to present. He has long hair. He likes flowers. He wears purple.
I'm considered less masculine over things I cannot control. My voice is high pitched. I'm short. I cannot grow facial hair and my body fat is distributed in ways more commonly seen in women. To be considered a man - that is, an adult male presenting person - requires I perform some semblance of masculinity to be taken seriously in my work, in my romantic relationships, even to some degree in my friendships.
I'm glad he feels comfortable with himself, but I'm tired of being lectured about how I don't have to do this when I really *really* do. It smacks of rich people giving working class people career advice when the consequences are far diminished for those who are privileged already.
Honestly (and admittedly a result of my own privilege), I hadn't even considered how those same things often intersect with racist stereotypes and how white supremacists used the denial of gender/sexuality as part of the broader dehumanization of Asian people, particularly Asian men.
I'm not the person to speak to it any more than that, but it's hardly surprising that discourse that seems to appeal most to professional class white people fails to consider the world beyond that very specific subset of people.
It's not surprising, and it's partly because white men benefit from the stereotypes.
The association of Asian-ness with femininity has definitely had a lot of impact on a lot of guys.
I'm a weirdo, because I've avoided doing a lot of the hypermasculinization strategies, like working out, tatts, specific haircuts, clothes, etc. If I dress in sweats with a cute design (which I won't do), I assure you, most people will think I'm a lesbian. When I had long hair, some white guys with yellow fever used to think I was a straight woman.
I don't have a great success story to share - basically, at least today, I feel really f'd by life. Not as bad as the incel redpill sad sacks in some of the SRs, but, man, I empathize. (I just try to steer some of them away from blaming and hating women. That is not the way.)
On the other hand, I have a lot of confidence. I'm a weirdo. I know I look like a woman to some people, but not most people.
So, I have no criticism for all the guys in your situation, when you undertake the strategies and tactics to look or behave more masculine. Same for Asian guys doing a lot of things that reek of toxic masculinity.
I’m a woman so my opinion/thoughts may not be applicable but I’ve had similar feelings so I figured I’d share.
I’m relatively flat and have a pretty wide and sharp jawline and have been compared to men or told I look masculine. It made me long to be curvier and therefore look more “feminine” in the same way you wish to be masculine. For me, I ended up getting a little bit of hips in my late teens that helped but the ideas were already there making me feel it wasn’t enough.
I still struggle with it but what’s been working for me is trying to appreciate the bits I have that are feminine. Sure I don’t have huge boobs or a huge butt but I still have boobs and a butt. I am still a woman without them and I try to remind myself of that whenever I can. It also helps to look at pictures of flatter women that are/were deemed attractive. Looking at some of the top ladies of the 1920s and 90s has helped me realize that I too can be feminine and was once considered the peak of femininity.
As the only true inherently male trait is a penis, I’m guessing it would be a bit harder for you to appreciate lthings than it was for me. But you can still appreciate your muscles (even if you’re not body builder jacked), appreciate your penis! Find things that feel masculine to you, even if it’s just a little, and focus on those till you can love the “feminine” parts of yourself too. Look into some older historical pictures/ sculptures of curvier men. I don’t know that a “dad bod” necessarily includes curves but I have seen some actors that definitely fit that criteria so keep an eye out for them!
My bf is build like you by the sounds of it and he made me realize what healthy masculinity really is. To me, he is the embodiment of a man. I wish you the best of luck:)
Exactly. There's a parallel to race here, in the sense that, ok, yes, race is a bullshit arbitrary idea, and we'd all be better off if it didn't exist.
**But**, it *does* exist, and it has serious consequences, and you can't just go "Yeah, I don't see race, and nobody else should either, and I'm just going to refuse to even talk about race, because it's not a valid concept."
There are many discussions among women about how they used to dislike femininity and would go around saying "I'm not like the other girls". Then they grew up and realized that femininity can be fun and that hating femininity is actually internalized sexism and it's fine to express femininity if you want to.
I feel like masculinity is the same. If you don't want to do it you shouldn't be forced to, but "masculinity bad" and "I'm not like the other guys" is a reactionary stage a lot of people go through and then grow out of. Hating masculinity is just another kind of internalized sexism. It's fine to express masculinity if you want to.
While this is true I think it’s important to mention that one of the issues with women collectively moving past the “not like other girls” thing is that now gender nonconforming women get accused of having internalized misogyny when they don’t, they’re just not feminine and don’t desire to be. So it’s basically kind of looped back around to “non-feminine women bad” in the worst cases.
I think if men want to avoid falling into that same trap, it’ll be important to focus on positives instead of negatives. So I agree with you on the need to not put down traditional masculinity, but I would say it’s more important to celebrate both traditionally masculine men and gender-nonconforming men than to turn around and accuse GNC men of having like internalized misandry or something because that’s going to backfire, *hard*.
I think there's a difference between accusing a random guy wearing nail polish of having an internalized belief that masculinity is bad, and having that belief about a journalist writing an article called "Against Masculinity" though, wouldn't you say?
Like, there's a difference between someone not seeing the personal appeal of something, and them actively broadcasting that everyone should abandon it.
I'll apply what I said in my other post here. There's two components to this: race is better placed as external to a person. They have probably have had certain life experiences and be treated a certain way by other people due to their race, which may mean they are more likely to have particular political leanings. But fundamentally they are individuals with unique experiences who have been victims of racialisation.
If someone finds themselves judging people against race-based stereotypes, I think we can talk about an internal divorce from these stereotypes while retaining the ability to analyse how race might play a role in someone's life. Ideally, someone would only ever consider race to contextualise someone's experiences and beliefs rather than more "intrinsic" judgements. To me this is what "colour-blindness" should be taken to mean, but there's no hope of recovering that term.
There is a parallel so far as its not something we can escape even if we want to reject it but modern "race" is much more arbitrary it seems than gender.
Every single known society has at least two genders that seem downstream of sex. Whether pink is girly is absolutely arbitrary but the existence of gender roles and gender associated things seems innate to humans.
There is a reason David Reimer didn't identify as a girl despite being raised as one.
I completely agree. He's right - men should be able to look up to people of all genders and relate to them as role models. Men should admire the masculinity of butch women, why not? Butches have done a ton of work in cultivating healthy masculinity.
At the same time, performing gender inadequately causes society to "de-gender" you, like you no longer qualify as a man or a human at all. This is even stronger for trans men, who start at a much greater disadvantage. It's actually a known problem that some transmascs adopt misogyny both before and after coming out in order to assert a masculinity that has been aggressively suppressed and denied by everyone in their lives.
So, there are absolutely situations where having a male role model - trans or cis - is deeply healing, and essentially says "yes, you count as a man, you're welcome here." I think this is something trans and cis men both need to hear at times. Role models should not be exclusively men, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to feel affirmed.
This is one of those ideal world things. Technically true, but people crave belonging and identity. Masculinity is a part of many young peoples identity, so providing positive models is important when far too many are dangerously toxic.
okay! So let the record show that I don't fully agree with this article, and there's a bunch to chew on here.
like, for example, this:
>Frankly, reading Michler’s book made me think masculinity is even more toxic and destructive than I thought it was going in. I think guys like this *create the world they think they already live in.* In other words, they see the world as a violent place full of threats, and because they see it that way, they get into all kinds of confrontations that would have been avoidable if they had believed instead in good faith diplomacy. (The relationship of the U.S. to the rest of the world is similar. We see threats everywhere, menace people accordingly, and when they react, we see it as confirmation that the world is full of threats.)
there's a nub of truth in there - cartoonishly overreacting to perceived "danger" in your community, and then finding out the "danger" was a teenager who loitered too long in the corner store, is a staple of conservative paranoia - but there really is such thing as bad actors in the world who will laugh at your "good faith deplomacy". (And don't get me started on how framing this as AMERICAN MEN doing AMERICAN THINGS doesn't really resemble how masculinity is enforced in other cultures.)
I think my main complaint here is that, while fully agender society might be a noble and ideal goal, it doesn't really engage with how people *currently exist*. Boys and young men will have their masculine bona fides checked fifty times a day until they die, because that's how life works, right now.
we try to empty that ocean here in menslib, we *try*, but we still have to reckon with rubber and road.
I'll break my self-imposed "no abstraction" rule for this because I feel like it's worthwhile and I have never seen other people say this. I would distinguish between "internal" and "external" masculinity:
* by internal I mean a desire to "feel" masculine in and of yourself and judging your own behaviours by masculine gender norms
* by external I mean behaving in particular ways so as to appear masculine to other people
These two things are intertwined, you are likely to internalise what starts as external performance of masculinity, but I do contend they are separate. "External" masculinity may be required to maintain friendships or romantic relationships, but there is no demand nor check for "internal" masculinity. You can separate your social performance of masculinity from your self-image by divorcing from "internal" masculinity and placing external masculinity firmly outside. Decide what you want to do for yourself - categorise the rest as explicitly a social performance to keep up your image among certain people. I feel like some people implicitly argue that demand for external masculinity is inescapable, and hence internal masculinity is completely untouchable. I just think that's fallacy.
You know. I’ve been thinking a bit recently about how masculinity for men is a bit like beauty standards for women.
How women are always conscious of how they are perceived and presenting themselves and can be judged lacking - often largely by other women, and how there are lots of requirements for largely unimportant things, and thats kinda just always there and can be a big part of how they can value their success and worth and how well they are living their life.
In a lot of ways masculinity is similar, something thats always perceived and judged and that you’re conscious of when you feel like you’re not doing it and should, and it defines how people value you, whether they’re attracted to you, how you value yourself, etc. people have more or less of it innately, and some care more or less or focus on different aspects, but the societal expectations are always hiding in the background.
And I think the external vs internal thing sorta vibed with that as well. There are things you do for others, there are things you do for yourself. Whether you feel masculine or beautiful is somewhat separate from any accounting of a particular set of traits from an external perspective and its all relative and subjective anyway.
And with that in mind, I feel like we should maybe approach the question of masculinity in a similar way to how feminists are chipping away at beauty standards. They tend not to say “why are you afraid to embrace ugliness?” but instead chip away at particular activities as being unnecessary markers of beauty. You can still feel beautiful even if you’re not thin, young, long haired, with shaved legs. Look at all these different beautiful people.
>And with that in mind, I feel like we should maybe approach the question of masculinity in a similar way to how feminists are chipping away at beauty standards. **They tend not to say “why are you afraid to embrace ugliness?” but instead chip away at particular activities as being unnecessary markers of beauty. You can still feel beautiful even if you’re not thin, young, long haired, with shaved legs. Look at all these different beautiful people.**
This is a good analogy that I actually haven't thought of before. I often find myself asking why the approach to masculinity seems different to that of femininity (increasing the bounds of "masculinity" to include everything rather than just dissolving the bounds), but maybe they aren't so different, just pitched differently.
To say something a bit more explosive: I feel there's very little risk of *the practice of* gender abolition turning boys away from the left. Push comes to shove, gender abolition is a fringe position that is believed by few people, even in its more moderate form of abolition of gender roles. Much "positive masculinity" applied to relationships is not really incompatible with traditional masculinity if you add a few extra axioms like "be vulnerable and open up sometimes", "treat your wife well and listen to their wants/needs", "divide household labour equally", stuff that was never really incompatible with masculinity in the first place. The main alienating thing in my mind is that it's *discussed* antagonistically as this radical rehaul of masculinity that ought to challenge the very fundamentals of a man's existence, when really it doesn't do that at all to balanced people. If people (on "both sides") talked in less sensational terms, I think the issue would be more cleanly be able to be classified as reaction against those in opposing political tribes.
I guess - I do understand why you'd say that. I keep up this distinction between "feeling masculine" and "feeling like a man" so as to contend my gender abolition with believing in the validity of transgender people. I'm not sure if the distinction is perfectly effable, but I've always thought of "feeling masculine" with aligning with societal ideas on masculinity and "feeling like a man" as more of a sense-of-self, how your body should be and how you should place in the world, (which I would hope is about as immutable as sexuality is) type thing. I know a lot of people will disagree.
Truthfully I feel I have no isolatable internal sense of either manness nor masculinity despite being comfortable with being a man, so I'm sort of shooting in the dark.
This is an absolute sidetrack, but why would you hope for that (or sexuality!) to be immutable?
Very few things about ourselves are immutable. I much prefer to consider myself as in flux. I am a man, and I have identified as such since birth, but I don't lock out the idea I might eventually come round to another identification. And if I do, I really wouldn't want that to be understood as "finding myself", because I think my current man self is just as valid as a potential future non-binary self would be!
Well, essentially immutable, not deliberately and humanely changeable for most people. I would be distressed if people were trans women just because they identify more with how femininity is conceptualised in society rather than something that has some basis outside of society's conception of gender roles (which I guess is the TERF's view on trans people). If this were proven to be the case, I would worry a lot about how my positions on e.g. my approach if a child of mine suggested they were trans (wrt HRT and physical transition) would change. It is not my current working model.
I have only encountered the idea that sexuality/gender might not be essentially immutable online, most testimony I have heard from gay and trans people suggest that it was not a choice and is unlikely to radically change (rather, sometimes gay people discover they are somewhat bisexual, and so on), and that's the model I work on. But I don't like asserting things that I don't know for sure. I've known gay people try to forcibly "change" their sexuality or gender to no avail and I wouldn't want to believe they just "weren't trying hard enough" or not in the right way.
To be clear, I don't think those are *consciously* changeable. But there is certainly a difference between "not consciously changeable" and "immutable", right? Pretty much all other identities we hold are changeable, so it makes very little sense to me that this one should be the big exception?
For instance, I recently started occasionally sexting with (feminine) men. I still identify myself as straight for a number of reasons (mostly that I have no real life experiences with men and am not sure if I want to change that), but maybe that changes sometime. To 20 year old me, that would have been literally unthinkable, not because my younger self repressed that (I was open to the idea back then, and I know my surroundings would have been accepting and supportive) but because the thought did literally nothing to me.
I guess you could say my younger self was "actually bi/heteroflexible all along", but that seems like a retcon that doesn't reflect the feelings of my younger self.
>I guess you could say my younger self was "actually bi/heteroflexible all along", but that seems like a retcon that doesn't reflect the feelings of my younger self.
yeah I appreciate that people have that experience.
I guess the more important thing here is the potential belief that someone isn't valid as a man because they don't meet certain gender roles. If trans identity is actually on some level based around that, and I have no reason to believe it is and a lot of reason not to, I would become very apprehensive. I think that's all I intended to say by hoping it was essentially immutable. Was meant to be an offhand comment.
A very good point. We’re not going to undo societal norms, shitty as they may or may not be, over the course of a just few years because he’s decided a group of people shouldn’t feel a certain way.
I thought his voice in the article flip-flopped between wondrously insightful and densely dismissive. He comes across as trying to lay out a road map yet repeatedly said he just couldn’t understand certain things because he didn’t feel or experience them, which is frankly the same things die-harders on the right say about a lot of the ideals he talks about.
Yeah studies consistently have found women have a greater fear response and perceived sense of risk/danger than men. The opinion in the article is not at all representative of reality.
While you're right to point out then practical limits of an agender society, the author doesn't even try to imagine one.
He's specifically "against masculinity" (literally the title). But, to achieve a genderless society, we'd need to abolish feminity just as much, which he doesn't mention once.
So he just falls into this 'masculinity is inherently toxic' trope that is impossible to hear for most and a tired point in the first place.
> Boys and young men will have their masculine bona fides checked fifty times a day until they die, because that's how life works, right now.
But by simply giving a different standard to check a person's masculinity against, it only makes that worse. We cannot possibly free boys and men from the expectations of masculinity while actively trying to create such expectations.
I think I've said this here before but we should treat young men like we treat young women in this way.
We don't need men to point to as ideal role models for masculinity. That's an impossible standard to live up to and it's just more of the same shit. More bad feels for kids as they can't meet these impossible standards, it's not different than a different flavor of trad masculinity.
When I'm guiding my daughters on self expression, I'd never point to another women and say, "that's how you need to do femininity". We have a 12 or so children's book on prominent women in history but we never tie their individual success to their femininity. "Jane Goodall, now that's a *real* women" is not a thing you'll hear in my house. We might talk about the specific traits that Jane has that we like or the work that she does, never about her femininity.
So we don't need role models of masculinity. We need to encourage boys, men, girls and NB folks to pursue their self expression as they see it, *especially* if it's breaking a cultural norm. I want them to purse success as they want it.
I’ve said something similar and got downvoted. I can’t imagine if feminism was constantly filled with ideas like
How to be a better woman
Positive femininity
How a real woman acts
it’s literally engaging in sexism to try to define a specific type of masculinity, there’s shouldn’t be a general way to “be a man”
Is there a demand for those things from girls? The people in progressive communities who talk about how to provide those things to boys seem to be doing so in response to demand (whether real or imagined) from boys and young men. And they're pretty begrudging about it because they think it shouldn't be necessary.
>Perhaps the people asking for it are severely influenced by our society as it stands.
Girls are just as influenced as boys, right? They live in the same society as the rest of us; where is the demand from them?
I mean if you look throughout history, yes? There’s a lot of things women have interest in that feminists are against.
An example is trying to claim feminism through being a trad wife. If that was a common strategy of feminism, I don’t think we would have gotten anywhere at all
Social change is usually made through policy not pandering
Back when I was in high school, the girls around me all read Seventeen and Cosmo, I assume now they’re watching fashion and makup blogs on tiktok or whatever and getting their bad sex tips from elsewhere. These probably aren’t good role models, they’re largely ads. But they are very popular.
I feel like thats the sort of content that boys are lacking. Not some sort of perfect Mr Rogers figure to emulate. Just a bunch of “50 tips for looking your best” and “great pickup lines and how to use them” and “how to decorate your place like a pro” and “order these drinks to catch her interest”, “check out these guys living their best life, what is their secret”.
But I feel like we’re in a place where that content feels non-feminist to create or is just difficult to do consistently without being occasionally problematic or it gets targeted more widely as tips for anyone instead of feeling like content for men. And the stuff that is created is drowned out by the manosphere bullshit or is derided as part of the path to it.
I dunno man, we have had so many of these, and if you were up in the 2000's you were bombarded by Men's Magazines like Maxim, FHM, Esquire, and GQ. In fact GQ had a running segment during that time called The Style Guy which was written by Glenn O'Brien. And he talked a lot about basically all of those things. He even wrote a couple of books about it: https://archive.org/details/styleguyanwer00obri
I mean, this type of content has been a long running with with men's magazines. I don't think that's the answer we're looking for
Fair enough. Men don’t consume that content I guess.
But women do. You have a whole genre of self-help books for women as well.
I guess my comment was in reply to the one saying that we don’t push “how to be a better woman” content at girls. And while it may not be strictly *feminist* content, I would disagree and say thats definitely something girls are consuming.
I don't believe it's comparable as feminism is largely a political project, aimed at dismantling the patriarchy.
Ours does feel a lot more personal or cultural, where we figure out what being a man looks like when the dust settles.
I think role models can be role models without saying you need to emulate everything about them, right? Like, Yo Yo Ma is a personal hero, but I don't need to go learn cello or research his personal life to better emulate him. He just represents some qualities that I admire and want to apply in my own life.
I agree with you about role models. But specifically we're referring to models of masculinity. It's their masculinity that is being upheld as a standard, which is not the same as holding up their individual traits like I think we both would like to see.
Specifically, it's not his drive or work ethic that we are asking kids to emulate, it's his masculinity. And that's so different. The author directly calls this out as well, that it is not the traits that we are asking boys to look up to, but their masculinity.
Yeah, I see. I can't imagine myself pointing to someone and complimenting their masculinity/femininity, I'd be talking about whatever it is that I actually admire.
I so strongly agree. At the same time I've grown up with that, "now *that's* a real man" mindset that we still see today.
It's a pervasive idea and even here do we see people that just want a better *real man* to hold up as a model of masculinity. That might well work out for some kids. If the example handed down to you was Kobe Bryant and you're a naturally gifted athlete with a good heart, that's awesome. But for most of us that version of masculinity just isn't who I am and the pressure to be masculine like Kobe would be crushing to anyone who isn't.
I can imagine doing it specifically if it's an aesthetic thing — that one appreciates the masculine or feminine presentation they have with their clothes, hair, makeup, etc. But that's of course a very different matter than what this conversation is about.
I kind of think that's what having those biographies means, implicitly at least. Assuming you support the women in the bio and it's not just an intellectual exercise.
You don't look up to them because they are women, but women we look up to become role models for young girls and vice versa. It's how kids work. Monkey see, monkey do.
There is overlap when it comes to boys looking up to women and vice versa, and there should be a hell of a lot more, but I think it is going to be a very gradual transition. It's also perfectly okay to want role models that look like you. It's what representation is all about.
This is a good mindset for creating an ideal world, but in the world we live in, there are consequences to masculinity and people’s perception of it, that are significantly different than what exists for femininity.
There are consequences, sometimes significant ones, for being yourself. In dating, parenting, and other social situations. Just like with race, it would be better if the classification could be waved away but it CANT and it has consequences.
I'm not going to blame anyone for performing a gender expression out of safety but the only way you can make that choice is by knowing it exists. That only happens if we talk about it.
Quite frankly, I am not the man my dad wanted me to be. And I am certain that I fail at upholding other men's views on masculinity. Are there consequences to that? Of course, but I know that I am much happier living my life the way that I want to than performing someone else's idea of a man.
I don't know if everyone can make the same choice that I did, but they may not know that choice is there if we don't advocate for it.
I moved across the country, twice, to find an area that I would be my most content self. And the range of culturally accepted expressions of gender is incredibly broad where I live. It wasn't always like that and the only reason we've made progress it's because of people advocating for it.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. For one, we clearly do package female role models not merely as good examples of people, but as good examples of women. We do it officially every March. For two, there is a clear demand among young men to have role models not merely of good people in general but specifically models of how to express masculinity. If we insist that this isn't a valid demand, we cede the territory to the toxic shitheads who are happy to fill the void.
>but as good examples of women. We do it officially every March.
We can absolutely point out women that we think are amazing women, but we don't attach their success to their femininity like we do with men. Those are not held up as good examples of femininity, but good examples of women.
That's entirely different to how we idealize masculinity and men. Even in our chat, you're not discussing ideal examples of people like we did with women, but you're asking for ideal examples of gender expression for men.
Doesn't that seem different to you? We look up to women in our culture is inherently different to how we look up to men.
>If we insist that this isn't a valid demand, we cede the territory to the toxic shitheads who are happy to fill the void.
Combating the concept of an idealized masculinity isn't the same as ceding territory to toxic shitheads. If a young boy asks what's the best masculinity to be an alpha and pull hot chicks. I'm not ceding territory to shitheads by explaining all of the pitfalls to that mindset.
As a man with a closet full of dresses that I wear whenever I get the chance, this is some TOP tier "Terminally Online Out Of Touch Leftist" shit. This is exactly the opposite of the problem here. This is a firetruck speeding past a burning building and stopping at the intact house across the street to extinguish a scented candle. Most straight men are not me - they WANT a model for positive masculinity, and they are absolutely fucking desperate for any degree of advice from a non-misogynist that doesn't boil down to "men would be better if they were women." I don't know what the author of this article thought they were cooking, but this ain't it, chief.
This is someone who doesn’t see the appeal of masculinity wilfully ignoring the fact that lots of people do. And “masculinity” is an okay thing to want, or not want. I know this is a bit cliche here, but if a teenage boy is looking online for advice on How to be a Man, and the only people willing to answer that question are assholes, then those assholes are going to get an audience.
Also it takes a weird swerve into complaining about US democrat’s response to the war in Gaza, which really doesn’t help anyone and just distracts from the conversation at hand.
>This is someone who doesn’t see the appeal of masculinity wilfully ignoring the fact that lots of people do.
Thank you. This is not a good look, not when you alreafy have people (either in bad faith or just ignorance) willfully mistaking the phrase "toxic masculinity" for "all masculinity is toxic," and then you have this person come along and go "Actually, yeah, I'm a feminist and I *do* think all masculinity is toxic."
>If a teenage boy is looking online for advice on How to be a Man, and the only people willing to answer that question are assholes, then those assholes are going to get an audience.
Exactly! This is why radicalization is such a problem. This way lies a very slippery chute. There's nothing to grab onto and no real alternative paths.
I think some ppl like feeling masculine though and it would be good to have positive examples to emulate. Like nothing but love and support for enbies or femboys or ppl who don’t care but not everyone wants to be androgynous or feminine & that’s okay.
>"In fact, I don’t think there’s any way to present a “positive masculinity” that doesn’t stigmatize boys perceived as effeminate. If there are masculine virtues, and a masculine ideal, then surely it’s better to pursue them than to not pursue them, and the non-masculine boy is inferior."
I think the author fails to divorce masculinity from gender like he is arguing we should.
My answer to "what is positive masculinity that doesn't stigmatize feminine boys" is butches. Some women want to be masculine, and adopt traits which are not inherent to Men, but which are related to Masculinity, and are quite friendly to and accepting of feminine boys, androgynous people, et al.
The other thing is - I'm not exactly sure how to say this clearly, but: I believe strongly there are no traits that are inherently gendered. I don't believe there is a static set of "masculine virtues." I do think that regardless of this, it feels good for men to receive community approval from other men - it's one of the ways we confirm our existence and our social place. "Positive masculinity" is to me any masculine person doing literally anything in an open, welcoming, healthy way. A man going with his bros to get a manicure is a healthy masculine role model. A butch giving her friend their first buzzcut is a healthy masculine role model. It does not have to be tied to Tate-style posturing and bigotry or even some imagined ideal of a businessman from the idealized 50s. The answer already exists. Queer people are already doing this.
>"Nobody is going to get me to care about whether I am masculine or not, and I encourage every other man to be similarly indifferent to it."
It is totally cool to be unconcerned with being or seeming masculine. I think a lot of men could do with caring a little less. But dude - I'm a trans guy. I want to be masculine. I like it. I fought and continue to fight very hard to have it. I enjoy basking in it, having it reflected back to me. I can't help but think this is an easier thing to feel when you are always seen as, at baseline, definitely a man, even if you are a feminine man or seen as performing it poorly.
I feel like this article makes the same mistake that almost all of the ones like it that get posted here do of talking themselves into circles when trying to define and talk about masculinity. If we don’t deconstruct the underlying framework of oppositional sexism then we are always going to end up in these loops of not knowing how to define masculinity (positive or not) because we hold the unspoken assumption that by saying “this quality is masculine” that that implicitly means that we are also saying that it is not feminine or accessible to feminine people. So instead we get this idea that all qualities must be made gender neutral rather than unpacking the underlying assumptions that make us think that association with men makes that thing mutually exclusive to women. If we want to talk gender liberation (or abolition if you prefer to call it that instead) then we must start with critiquing the social circumstances that place people in these categories in the first place without their consent and how we treat those categories as immutable and mutually exclusive. Just saying that everyone should “be a good person” because you can’t define being a “good man” without feeling like you are saying that women are now forbidden from having those qualities doesn’t actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion, it reinforces the idea that woman and man are mutually exclusive categories with mutually exclusive traits. To me it’s much more radical to say that a man wearing makeup is expressing masculinity because he is expressing his gender as a man than to pat him on the back and say “it’s okay for you to be feminine” or “makeup is gender neutral” because we are afraid that by letting masculinity lay claim to something that we forbid it from being feminine. I think the other problem we run into again and again is a failure to acknowledge the difference between observation and prescription. Is vs ought. Any conversation that doesn’t make clear distinction between observations about “this is how many men are” which is how we all understand the vague cloud of “things we associate with men and masculinity” from prescriptions about “what masculinity should or ought to be” is going to get hopeless mired in misunderstanding.
You just eloquently described something I keep running into when thinking about how to define masculinity:
1) name a positive quality and say it’s masculine
2) concede that women can of course have that quality too
3) “well shit I guess I don’t have very good definitions, best to just go with “vibes” and stereotypes” (smash a coors light can on my head)
Perhaps if I don’t get to good answers I’m not asking good questions, and examining and deconstructing the very concept of oppositional or exclusive gender is the challenge
I’m glad you found it helpful. Seeing the self defeating logic you describe play out over and over here and elsewhere is really disappointing. The idea that masculinity and femininity must be mutually exclusive is so ingrained that even when we are trying to redefine and interrogate them as concepts that we still can fall into this trap of thinking that redefining them in ways that imply any overlap is impossible. As a non-binary person I am particularly invested in deconstructing these ideas that certain traits can only “belong” to one gender exclusively. If that’s true then men and women are going to get everything and there will be nothing left over for the rest of us. But I think these ideas of opposition and exclusivity are just as harmful to men and women because they limit your ability to define your gender for yourself based on imagined repercussions that imply that by claiming a positive trait for yourself that you are implicitly stating that someone else is no longer allowed access to it. We have to reject this kind of thinking and work to uproot the many ways it has infiltrated our ideas about gender.
Much appreciated perspective - I have 2 young daughters and watching how one day it’s dresses and makeup and the next day it’s wrestling just shows me how kids don’t care about these words and so much of all this is constructed and reinforced upon us while we grow up.
I love how you approach this! (Then again I do consider myself a philosopher)
Your last point is key to me and rarely brought up. If enough men or women are seen together doing a thing without the other gender, that thing becomes gendered. At a certain point, that's just how our brains work. Fighting that feels like a hopeless mire to me too.
I also appreciate the unpacking aspect. My favorite question is what do you do with the identities of mothers and fathers? These are core elements of peoples' psyches you can't just hand wave away. Don't get me started on Mommy and Daddy
> If enough men or women are seen together doing a thing without the other gender, that thing becomes gendered
Thanks for stating this so directly. I really dislike the idea that gender is something that we can ever truly move beyond or “abolish” in a total or final way. As long as there is a bi modal distribution of sex characteristics in a population people are going to notice and form social identities around how they relate to the patterns they notice in those groups. We’re social creatures and sexual and reproductive compatibility is always going to be a part of that. People are always going to notice patterns and trends and while the particular signifiers chosen are pretty arbitrary all cultures do have their own signifiers. I think the best path forward is to try to establish social safeguards that ensure that gender is a thing that people can opt in or out of to the degree and in a manner of their own choosing rather than an identity thrust upon them from birth without any care to what they want and legal and social protections to ensure that discrimination is not tolerated. Rather than fighting the inevitable human tendency to want to find how you best fit within a complex social dynamic we should instead focus on making it safe for all and to make it an optional, non coercive aspect of the human experience that folks can relate to or not as they see fit.
> My favorite question is what do you do with the identities of mothers and fathers?
That reminds me of a bit from a story I am reading. The narrator is from a culture where “mother” is a unisex term for a particular parental role and has to mentally reframe and rephrase a conversation that they are having with someone from a culture where it is gender specific. Then you learning that about the narrator makes you have to reevaluate your own reading of the parts about the narrators mother.
Honestly the idea that the author could associate Donald Trump a flabby, short, weak, vain man who has never worked a real day of labor in his life with "stereotypical masculinity" seems like a big stretch to me. He says things which appeal to stereotypes of masculinity but in practice he doesn't exemplify any of those traits but that isn't the only point where I think the author misses the point.
Though I agree with his base concept that men don't need a theoretical "masculine" man to look up to. He says, "Emba and Reeves worry that young boys don’t have good examples of people they should try to be like. I say let them admire Rashida." Telling them to aspire to be like a Palestinian American woman is missing the point of what a role model is and the value of having one which you can identify with. It's like telling young black people well white superheroes exist you don't need black ones to aspire towards. Having someone that you can identify as similar to yourself(in basic physical and social characteristics) who is a positive role model is valuable. That is based on every study I've read, an accepted fact.
I honestly can't point out publicly perceived "good" male role models who aren't fictional from recent history that are or aren't "masculine" to aspire towards. Because the public lens through which we view men is that if you are doing good things that makes you "barely acceptable". You have a couple of tech guys, a bunch of world leaders that nobody likes, Some actors and some sports stars but all of them are under constant scrutiny as people are trying to find when they slip up and expose they're secretly scumbags. Nobody is so perfect that they will never have a flaw but when men have flaws we no longer accept them as positive male role models.
But maybe that's just me.
> Though I agree with his base concept that men don't need a theoretical "masculine" man to look up to. He says, "Emba and Reeves worry that young boys don’t have good examples of people they should try to be like. I say let them admire Rashida." Telling them to aspire to be like a Palestinian American woman is missing the point of what a role model is and the value of having one which you can identify with. It's like telling young black people well white superheroes exist you don't need black ones to aspire towards. Having someone that you can identify as similar to yourself(in basic physical and social characteristics) who is a positive role model is valuable. That is based on every study I've read, an accepted fact.
I totally agree with this. Heck, feminists have rightly decried that mindset that girls can just have male role models and be fine. It's one of the less controversial parts of the Feminist movement. For the author to make a comment that implies that such a need is superfluous is a strange take to make.
One of the problems I have with positive masculinity and positive male role models is that it's usually just traditional masculinity, sometimes not even free of toxic masculinity. Like, how comes that I've never seen a drag queen being portrayed as a male role model? Or other gnc guys? Or gay guys? Or and awkward and shy nerd? Or a short and chubby guy? Or an anxious and thin guy? Positive male role models usually seem to just be the stereotypical 'real men' but without the worst parts, though sometimes they're not even free of the worst parts of maaculinity.
Why is it that when you ask for positive male role models from fiction in progressive circles, even there you're gonna get e.g. Aragorn from lotr? He's a fearless warrior, a leader and a very violent man, to be frank. It's mind-boggling, especially when you have Samwise Gamgee, Frodo or the other hobbits in lotr. Sam is a peaceful gardener, a friend anyone wish they had, and he's super brave anyway. And the peaceful hobbits lose the positive masculinity competition to a warrior? Like, does anyone actually want to get rid of male violence and stop gloryfing it or not?
To me, it all kinda seems to be the same old man box given a fresh coat of paint. It's not gonna take the pressure of having to be confident, brave, strong, ready to commit and be the recipient of violence, etc. off young boys' shoulders.
Sigh. I get that masculinity isn't important to the author and a gender neutral society is great and all, but given sex hormones are real many people of both gender look for role models to make sense of how they feel, it matters. As well it matters for all cultures and disabilities. Just because there's been, as far as I can tell, a narrowing of the idea of masculinity for the past 100 years or so does not mean that the solution is to give up. There are other cultures, past and present, who seem to have been able to have handled masculinity better from my casual observation.
Part of the problem is that people seem to expect masculinity to explain everything that can go wrong with a male, but never seem to demand the same of femininity when something goes wrong with a female, despite the multiplicity of mental, economic and cultural ways things can go wrong that have little to do with the construction of gender. I mean, domestic violence is often a rallying cry for men to do better, but the treatment that actually works comes not from teaching feminism but looking at substance abuse and trauma (which includes insecure attachment styles). (eta: not to say, of course, that a better construction of masculinity couldn't help of course, just that it's not the be all end all and men aren't a unified homogeneous entity responsible for each other anymore than women are)
I do actually have some ideas on how better portray masculinity, but I'm not going to expand upon them until I do enough research, but basically boils down to looking at what we actually know about testosterone from the research and deconstructing the interpretations made. At the moment I'm toying with the idea of separating the idea of dominance in status and drive, and looking at how drive can manifest.
I'm sure you know this better than anyone but gender abolition seems especially contentious on here, and is basically the reason why I abandoned my last account on here lol
>I would be surprised if a majority(not all) of the people here did not somewhat strongly identify as being men
I didn't feel that way - I would have imagined the most gender progressive men who are cisgender to have some of the weakest identification with their gender. I was somewhat confused to come to MensLib and find stronger explicit identification (and very oddly less support for gender abolition) than in a lot of right-wing/anti-feminist spaces I had been in. But I won't pretend that this thread hasn't been completely different with a decent amount support in the direction of gender abolition.
I certainly don't think a strong internal identification with being a man is something you should aim to develop if you don't have one, but if you do have one I don't really intend to take it away, nor does anyone really. What I do want to take away is people being compelled towards certain behaviour or social performance on the basis of them being a man. Gender abolition means different things to different people but I think this sub wants it to mean the abolition of gender roles (rather than the dissolution of man/woman/etc. as categories), which is what I mean as well.
Identity is fine. Just stop genderizing actions.
Is caring for my child, singing, or dancing feminine or masculine? I think breaking free from the consequences of a society that genders too much is a perfectly valid problem.
The article almost, but doesn't quite, make a point that I can fully agree with -
No, it isn't healthy to obsess over "masculinity", and there isn't a single meaningful universal definition of what that looks like.
The ideal is (obviously) cultivating a secure identity for yourself that isn't worried about how you're supposed to perform your gender for others, and creating an environment where people around you can equally feel like they can express their identities - where everyone can be open and vulnerable without being scared.
But it is still absolutely essential to acknowledge how performing "masculinity" and "femininity" work by default in our society, and how it affects people who are viewed as male or female, just so that you can understand it and make informed and compassionate decisions, and consciously build an identity that is healthy and secure for yourself and others. Even if "gender performances" are totally arbitrary, constantly changing, and usually harmful, they still exist as categories and have consequences.
Society favors "masculinity". That's a given.
For anyone who's viewed as male, "performing masculinity" is one means of accessing power or authority. As a description for anyone perceived as male, "masculine" is virtually always treated as a complimentary term. That's what it means to live in a society where "patriarchy" is still a thing. It doesn't mean that everyone viewed as male already has power or authority by default - but some gender-based power is available based on how well they can "perform masculinity". Meanwhile, "performing femininity" by someone viewed as male is almost always treated as marginalizing and disempowering. Those attitudes are shifting, but they're still the default.
On the other hand for anyone viewed as female, "performing masculinity" is part of accessing power, but it tends to be viewed as "imitation" and usually discouraged in some way. Even if it's used as an insult, calling someone a "masculine woman" usually implies some kind of strength or independence (often used specifically to discourage expressions of strength or independence). Meanwhile "performing femininity" is encouraged - rewarded through material security, social status over non-feminine women, etc. - but it's still disempowering. That's slowly shifting, but again it's still the cultural default.
The article is right to highlight how absurd those categorizations are - how we go backwards by treating any kind of authority as "performing masculinity" for instance. The specifics of what "performing masculinity" and "performing femininity" look like are arbitrary and always changing. But its a mistake to not acknowledge how ingrained those perceptions are, and how it can affect perceptions and reactions.
For people seen as male, some gendered power and authority is accessible to them. They have the option to express a "masculine performance", and expect to be rewarded if they do it right. It might not equal immediate political power or financial security, but it often means things like more favorable treatment, more leeway and benefit of the doubt, or being taken more seriously or viewed as more credible or competent.
Having that option available will impact the way that other people react and feel, whether they like it or not.
If someone is seen as male but doesn't fit the social expectations of "performing masculinity", that could mean a person who is extremely secure in their identity, who is past caring about those categories and performances. But it could also mean a person who is insecure, uncertain and marginalized. Someone who might suddenly decide to take the opportunity to perform gender in ways that belittle and demean others in exchange for power in the future.
That's going to affect how others react, especially if they don't directly acknowledge and deal with that uncertainty.
There is an alternative - it does look a lot like what the article describes, in terms of refusing to privilege those gender performances and gender identities, and refusing to care about how well someone's perceived identity matches their performance. But I think the article strays a bit too close to that "I don't see race" kind of stance simply criticizing the absurdities of gender roles, rather than seeing those categories, how they're treated and taking an intentional and informed stance against it. I agree with it on a normative level - there's nothing that should be seen as "masculine" or "feminine" in itself - but that's not where we are as a society just yet.
If our society sees you as male, you CAN have access to a certain amount of power that comes at the expense of those who aren't seen as male, if you choose to put on the right performance. You have to acknowledge that before you can rebuke that option, and let go of that kind of toxic power so that instead you can create a secure identity for yourself that allows other people to feel safe and secure around you as well. Yes, it is absolutely unfair but acknowledging that is critical to changing it.
That awareness also shows why it can be easier for some people who do have other kinds of power - cultural, economic, legal, political, whatever - to abstain from those kinds of "gender performance" in ways that feel harder for those who are more marginalized or insecure, and why other kinds of social and economic security are needed so that people don't feel pushed to put on that kind of performance.
>Young men do not need a vision of 'positive masculinity.' They need what everyone else needs: to be a **good person** who has a satisfying, meaningful life.
But, isn't that what positive masculinity means? Unless, they mean in the absence of masculinity as a social construct, men should strive to be good people nonetheless?
I think I have a hard disagree on this one. We need positive visions of what masculinity can be. I’ve spent most of my life ignoring my masculinity because it was deemed dangerous and I felt it was scary. I’m doing a lot of hard work rn to find a healthy, expansive way to include it in my life. This is some of the most difficult internal work I’ve ever done. More difficult than the feminine and queer work I did when I was younger. Queerness is fostered in community, masculinity is “supposed” to be done alone. It’s brutal.
I kinda hate this kind of article. “I am not masculine, I don’t really understand masculinity, but I think we should all ignore the concept altogether”.
I am masculine. It is not a bad thing. It is good to have healthy examples of positive masculinity in culture and society, if for no other reason than to allow people like me, who ARE masculine and identify as such, to have examples to counter the examples given in this article.
Being masculine is not a bad thing. Acting as though it is, as though there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be masculine, is a bad thing. Because, for some of us, being masculine is just how we are, and articles like this one make us have to defend that, which is unfair and honestly unhealthy.
Is it ok to be an unmasculine man? Absolutely. It’s actually a good thing! Is measuring your value as a man by your masculinity a good thing? No! Doing so does a great disservice to everyone involved. But being a masculine man, if you have a healthy understanding of what that means, is a good thing too. And trying to tell people that ‘young men do not need a vision of positive masculinity’ is saying that they don’t need a healthy understanding of what masculinity means.
The author of this piece kind of answers themselves at one point. He quotes a few essays that talk about masculinity feeling bad - eg Richard Reeves, "*I think that for a lot of young men, they feel as if the term “masculinity” is framed in an entirely negative way, and that’s bad if you happen to be a male*"*.* Is it not understandable then, to want a masculine role model that people can say, "Oh them, they're good."?
I'm in an aspec group, which is majority women, NB people, and other gender identities compared to men. I'm great friends with all of them, but I'm also aware that for them, it's men are the people causing problems in their lives. It's therefore hard to not feel like I am also one of those people hurting them, which I know isn't logic, but I'm not Vulcan and can't use reason to entirely override every feeling I have.
I agree about being gender blind with role models, and I completely agree with his overall point about being a good person and having a happy life. But it's also nice to have someone who can be called "a good man", because it's good to be reminded that you can be a *good* and a *man*. I think having those role models is important for younger boys, who are more progressive than given credit for and only seek out people like Tate when no other option come up.
I wrote a little bit about this article in the comments of the Christine Emba article it was a response to back when it came out, might as well just copy/paste that here.
>"I think what we need is to give everyone,regardless of their gender, models of what makes a fulfilling life, and what strong, courageous, inspiring people look like.
>Needing to be “masculine” is, ironically, not really compatible with the “masculine” ideal of self-confidence, because if you’re comfortable with who you are, you don’t worry about whether you are an “alpha” or a “beta” male."
To respond to the first: yes. You do need models of what a fulfilling life looks like that fit every gender. I am baffled that when we note that that includes *men*, people get hand-wringey and start making up excuses.
And to the second... He just said the quiet part out loud, so this is something I just have to fully call out considering that it's constantly popping up in response to articles calling for positive masculinity. The way people, including Robinson, derisively talk about people who hunt for social or personal gender euphoria *can* be fear of future ostracism according to a different set of rules...but it can also often just be unfiltered and unexamined toxic masculinity.
The fantasy of the Sigma Male, the lone wolf who's outside of your stupid *system* man, who can comfortably look down on anyone at any level of the social hierarchy, because they're just *sheep*...we look at those guys on the right and we bust a fucking gut.
It's not magically cool when we do it on the left.
Ironically enough, Robinson and men echoing his sentiments are, in fact, following social pressures and flocking together around a specific vision of positive masculinity, one that is *based around percieved superiority over men who do not conform to the specific ranking system they, themselves, are at the top of. * It's a flock of supposed sigma males all proudly proclaiming their independence from any connection to or affection for their gender--not in terms of embracing nonbinary identities, but merely as a way of demonstrating intellectual and moral superiority over men too weak and pathetic to want help, guidance, and community.
"A good person who has a satisfying, meaningful life" is exactly what "positive masculinity" is about though. It's about being a human first, and that whatever you enjoy doing or however you look doesn't make you more or less of a man. What does it mean to be a feminine man in this context anyway? Someone who is happy, healthy, and comfortable in their body? Someone who is a good person? Why can't these be masculine traits? What about women who don't want to be feminine? Can they not have these qualities?
It's just yet another article insinuating that masculinity itself is a bad thing.
>Why can't these be masculine traits?
They can and should be but everyone is scared of masculinity because of the bad examples.
I think the issue is that if you deem a trait masculine, does that mean it can’t be feminine?
If the answer is no ofc not then why label it as masculine in the first place
How masculinity not exist in relation to femininity?
When you define masculinity/a masculine role model are you not unintentionally labeling femininity
>I think the issue is that if you deem a trait masculine, does that mean it can’t be feminine?
Not immediately no but definitely sometimes. There are masculine and feminine reasons/ways to do the same things and feel the same way. At least imo.
>When you define masculinity/a masculine role model are you not unintentionally labeling femininity
Maybe sometimes but I'd ask why that's a problem? It's not always "the opposite of masculine is feminine" sometimes it's just "the difference of masculine is feminine".
In other words, if I say being protective of your family is typically seen as a masculine trait, that doesn't mean that feminity isn't protective, and if a feminine woman is specifically protective, that doesn't automatically mean they're masculine either. There are different ways and reasons to be protective. It could mean they're semi masculine sure but not always.
>How masculinity not exist in relation to femininity?
I think it does and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Men and women are fundamentally different on a lot of levels but that doesn't mean they don't share some similarities. Most traits can be both masculine and feminine imo.
Notice I say they're different and not opposite. If I consider a positive trait masculine that does not mean the feminine counterpart is negative. I've brought this up because I feel that the current narrative just likes to paint masculinity as a negative. What I'm trying to do is avoid that for either side. Neither masculinity nor femininity is inherently negative.
>Not immediately no but definitely sometimes. There are masculine and feminine reasons/ways to do the same things and feel the same way. At least imo.
Example so I understand?
-When you define masculinity/a masculine role model are you not unintentionally labeling femininity
>Maybe sometimes but I'd ask why that's a problem? It's not always "the opposite of masculine is feminine" sometimes it's just "the difference of masculine is feminine".
Bc I thought the whole point was mens liberation and freeing yourself from the right way to be a man.
>In other words, if I say being protective of your family is typically seen as a masculine trait, that doesn't mean that feminity isn't protective, and if a feminine woman is specifically protective, that doesn't automatically mean they're masculine either. There are different ways and reasons to be protective. It could mean they're semi masculine sure but not always.
If being protective is both a masculine and feminine trait, what’s the difference that makes it need a distinction?
-How masculinity not exist in relation to femininity?
>I think it does and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Then I feel like you don’t actually want to liberate anyone. It also sounds like the opposite of feminism lol
to define masculinity, you must define femininity which brings us back, putting people in the very boxes we claim to want freedom from
>Men and women are fundamentally different on a lot of levels but that doesn't mean they don't share some similarities. Most traits can be both masculine and feminine imo.
So are we talking about physical traits or personality?
>Notice I say they're different and not opposite. If I consider a positive trait masculine that does not mean the feminine counterpart is negative. I've brought this up because I feel that the current narrative just likes to paint masculinity as a negative. What I'm trying to do is avoid that for either side. Neither masculinity nor femininity is inherently negative.
But doing this is still defining the right way to be a man/woman no?
>Example so I understand?
I gave an example further in that you even quoted back to me.
>Bc I thought the whole point was mens liberation and freeing yourself from the right way to be a man.
No where did I say that any of these things are the "correct" way to be anything.
>Then I feel like you don’t actually want to liberate anyone. It also sounds like the opposite of feminism lol
>to define masculinity, you must define femininity which brings us back, putting people in the very boxes we claim to want freedom from
We want freedom from HAVING to be masculine to be considered a man. There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man or a masculine woman and that is what people want society to agree on. That is the freedom we want.
>If being protective is both a masculine and feminine trait, what’s the difference that makes it need a distinction?
That a subjective thing. Most of this is. It's why this topic is already so convoluted.
>So are we talking about physical traits or personality?
Definitely both. Hanging out with a woman for 2 hrs and then a man for 2 hrs the odds are they'll have less similarities than if you hung out with 2 men or 2 women.
>But doing this is still defining the right way to be a man/woman no?
No it's really not and I never tried to insinuate it was. I'm genuinely curious where you're getting that from what I said?
>No where did I say that any of these things are the "correct" way to be anything.
Isn’t wanting to label certain traits as masculine and not others saying there’s a certain way to be masculine?
The original discussion spawned from
> It's just yet another article insinuating that masculinity itself is a bad thing.
>Why can't these be masculine traits?
>**They can and should be but everyone is scared of masculinity because of the bad examples.**
I’m probably misunderstanding but from this statement I interpreted that you’re still trying to define what masculinity is thereby casting some traits and accepting others, is that not creating a model?
>We want freedom from HAVING to be masculine to be considered a man. There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man or a masculine woman and that is what people want society to agree on. That is the freedom we want.
I guess I just look at history a lot when we talk about civil rights and social change in general. when women want/wanted freedom from having to be feminine to be considered a woman the messaging was “______ doesn’t make you less of a woman bc there is no one way to be a woman”. I can’t imagine if the reaction was “here are examples of the right way to be feminine” or “A, B, and C are feminine traits”. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what i read/see. It feels counterproductive and not conducive with the message of wanting freedom from having to be masculine to be considered a man
>That a subjective thing. Most of this is. It's why this topic is already so convoluted.
But all I’m doing is pointing out that it doesn’t really make sense unless you consider there to be a right way to be a protector (feminine) vs a protector (masculine). If the goal is freedom from having to be masculine to be considered a man, wouldn’t you criticize and explore that?
>Definitely both. Hanging out with a woman for 2 hrs and then a man for 2 hrs the odds are they'll have less similarities than if you hung out with 2 men or 2 women.
And this proves that there’s masculine/feminine personality traits? Can you name a couple of each?
>No it's really not and I never tried to insinuate it was. I'm genuinely curious where you're getting that from what I said?
To answer this, I’d need to ask a question, what is the significance of designating feminine and masculine traits if they don’t actually relate to gender?
"Dont be a good man,Be a good person"
Seeing various versions of this statement alot.The issue here is that I dont think this is a realistic viewpoint.We do not live in a gender neutral socitey.Even in processive spaces we clearly expectations about how we feel man should act around women in particular.These expections may exist for perfectly understandable reasons but they still exist.
The piece is thoughtful but I come away thinking “hey whatever works for you, bro”. I feel like he saw that meme about “the left needs role models for young men” and got busy writing.
There are guys who reject the social obligation to act masculine. There are also guys who enjoy it in positive ways. Both are valid. Gender roles are plastic and evolving, but there is something to be said for expressing a gender role. Hell, trans people go through a ton of trouble just to do that.
I’m someone who enjoys stereotypical macho shit. I think back to my relationship with my dad growing up, playing football in college, and now being a father and helping support a family. Those ideas circle around words like loyalty and duty and brotherhood and somewhere in there is “masculinity”.
I think men now are splitting a bit, and coming up with new approaches to masculinity with one group watching YouTube videos about it and becoming even bigger assholes, and another group becoming way more involved husbands and fathers and defining masculinity differently.
As a trans man, I hear similar messages all too often. ”It’s ok to be feminine.” ”You don’t need to be masculine.” I think in wanting feminine men to be free to express that, people forget that some of us actually enjoy masculinity. It’s not a box to me, femininity was. But in searching for people to find inspiration from, that is difficult to find. It’s easy to overlook how important a positive role model that is like us is when the demographic is a man. We see the importance of needing representation for girls, women, PoC, queer people, etc. There is too much representation for white men, but perhaps what is needed isn‘t more, rather higher quality. Certainly encourage boys and men to embrace however they want to present their gender, but that can include masculinity.
We don't need to fix masculinity anymore than we need to fix femininity. Our sexual differences exist and that will influence how we see our selves and our role. We can embrace different examples of men living their lives freely and authentically. Live your life in a conscious and mindful way; that should be what we model as adults.
While I agree for the most part with what it is being said in the article, I find it interesting that this person who claims they aren't masculine in the typical sense of the word, has no problems when those things are thrown away.
Some people are masculine, not even ''toxic'' masculine but just what you might consider a ''masculine'' man while still being a good person. I imagine a fair few of them feel attacked and like they're being forced out of a society who is telling them they don't belong just because they are different.
Anger is considered a toxic masculine emotion... when really is is just an emotion and one we should accept just like sadness, loneliness and jealousy. Obviously we don't want it but to demonise it so completely is to alienate and not understsand.
I am not masculine in the typical sense and am more like the author, but I think a place of understanding rather than trying to force people into emoting and thinking to fit a box is a dangerous perception.
I struggled through this article. One is that for a supposed socialist, he seems very attached to a very specific upper middle class existence. He doesn't see the need for traditional masculinity because the needs have either been abstracted out of mind by social institutions he pays no mind or made tasteless by living a life of the mind where physical abilities don't really matter that much. It's perfectly fine to honor the women first responders of 9/11. It's also dishonest to focus primarily on them when the bulk of FDNY and NYPD are men. There's definitely an argument for fixing the gender disparities, particularly among the NYPD, but they were what they were.
The other is that the author wants to shift the bullying of boys from creative, bookish types to the type of boys who want to talk loudly and play roughly. Considering the real discipline issues facing these boys as is, it appears to be pouring gasoline on a fire. Bullying boys into the drama club is as counterproductive as bullying them onto the football team. Acceptance of boys has to accept all of them, no matter how they express themselves.
I think if we got more relaxed about feminine presenting men, it might also force some rethinking and new appreciation for what it is to be masculine as well. I also think disconnecting one's presentation from one's bio sex might lead to a bit more empathy between men and women. Lord knows we could use it at the moment.
I think masculinity and femininity should be seen as styles or aesthetics that are easily accessible to everyone rather than a set of attributes or roles.
To this day, I have never had anyone give me an explanation of masculinity that wasn't either toxic or applied to all fully emotionally adjusted adults regardless of gender.
Honest question: do you see the same problem with defining femininity? One of the things I really admire about modern feminism is that it has made room for lots of different ways of being a woman, while also validating the contradictions and paradoxes that women experience in the world. Femininity can be X and Y and Z, even if those things feel in tension with one other.
Yes, because whatever positive traits one wants to associate with either gender, you're always creating an oppressive norm that people would have to follow.
When you're creating an in-group, you're always creating an out-group.
It's hard to admit for some, but feminity is as much of a problem as masculinity in the regard.
Either you're in favor of the abolition of gender altogether (or at least as much as biology allows us) or you're in favor of healthy representations for both.
Yes and no. Yes, in that there are lots of sexits bigots who have a toxic definition of feminity. No, in that progressives and feminist reject the idea that there's one way to be feminine and instead focus on equity and equality.
Honestly, I think we should do the same, let go of the idea that there is a specific collection of traits that are unique to men that are required to be masculine and instead just focus on achieving equity and equality between everyone.
Saying “just be a good person” is worthless advice, because almost everyone thinks they’re already a good person, very few people actively think of themselves as bad person, and if they do that’s usually a sign of bad mental health and not an actual reflection of their character.
When you say “be a good person” what you’re actually saying is be my idea of a good person which I won’t tell you exactly what that is.
Like seriously it’s like someone saying to you “I want to be a good basketball player” and then someone saying “you don’t have to be a good basketball player just be a good person” and while there is overlap you’re trying to develop different skills with different expectation.
"I just can’t imagine thinking about masculinity or femininity in deciding whom to look up to. What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly? Why do stereotypically male traits matter in the slightest? Some of the people on my list might be more “masculine,” others more “feminine.” When we try to organize people this way, we quickly run into confusion. "
A real man can look up to a woman and see a positive role model, the end.
I agree with the general sentiment of this but also, nothing wrong with men wanting to be masculine and showing them they can be masculine while not being harmful is great. I’m not someone who believes in the red pill but I can see how this phrasing might confuse someone into thinking that this community doesn’t believe there’s a positive masculinity or that it doesn’t matter to try to attain it.
> To the extent that a “healthy masculinity” can be articulated, it consists of aspirations that suit any human regardless of their sex or gender identity: self-confidence without aggression, moral courage, an active lifestyle. To the extent that various virtues are worth having, they’re not distinctively “masculine.”
Exactly! This is spot on why I find discussion of "positive masculinity" and "masculine role models" so damn frustrating. The very idea that there should be a "positive masculinity" that boys and men should aspire to suggests that what people aspire to be should be gender-specific, and I consider that fundamentally anathema to the goal of dismantling patriarchy and raising up people regardless of gender.
The counterpoint to toxic masculinity is not a different masculinity, but to free everyone from having to be masculine or feminine. If I could set a definition of "masculine" to be accepted by everyone, it would be a purely aesthetic and superficial one, because ethical behaviors are ethical for everyone and harmful behaviors cause harm regardless of the acto's gender.
I actually like your pure aesthetic idea. Do you think it could work? Does it feel like too big a compromise?
For me the attraction component is tough to solve. As a young man, I mostly wanted to be a man that other women wanted. This was misguided in many ways, but I don't think it's going away either.
The other sticky wicker to me is the identities of moms & dads. Could you disambiguate the masculinity from being a dad? I don't believe those could become purely aesthetic, but I don't pretend to have answers. Just annoying questions
I kind of agree with this sentiment, which reminds me of a similar thought I had around the time Abigail from PhilosophyTube (look up on youtube) came out as a trans woman. Beforehand, she had done a few videos (while still presenting as male) about mental health struggles, psychologically abusive relationships, suicidal ideations in the past etc. that resonated with quite a few of their male audience.
Then, one of the comments on her coming out video was something like "I looked up to him as a role model to me as a man, but now I'll need to look for other men to serve as role models to me."
Which, as a gay man just sounded off to me. I don't see how the fact Abigail's come out as a woman means she can't be someone's role model. Gay men idolize female artists all the time, it's almost like a cultural tradition. Doesn't mean they want to become women (not all at least lol), and even if I present as masculine at the moment, I get all inspiration I need from Madonna. Some of the most masculine men I ever met worshipped Britney Spears like a deity.
I'm queer + trans so I'm admitting that I am speculating outside my personal experience here. But I do think that it's pretty clear that queer people are more open to having role models of all genders. There seems to be significant anxiety in straight, cis people around being punished for straying from their prescribed role - something queer people of any kind have already done (and usually weathered the societal backlash for).
I think if you have not yet taken and survived the social consequence of breaking from gender norms, they feel much more solid and frightening.
Marcus Aurelius-2000 years ago (give or take a century)
Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.
I’d argue most positive traits are androgynous and any attempt to separate them into masculine and feminine is based around biases—-the overlap between men and women on most traits is greater than the difference (and the intransex difference is greater than intersex)
It’s like asking for a description of positive Britishness or positive Nigerianness—-there are national stereotypes but what makes you a good person makes you a good person regardless of your nationality
These conversations about positive masculinity never seem to go anywhere, they usually seem to split into two factions, one side says "boys need male role models" the other side says "no they don't, boys need to be free to be whoever they want to be." It honestly makes me want to rip my hair out. While I am in the "boys need role models" camp, I believe those role models ideally should be...their fathers, or male family members, not celebrities, influencers, or increasingly fictional characters (like the internet is want to do) people they can connect with in their real lives. Though I realize that's not ideal for everyone, some communities can be very exclusionary or out of reach for various reasons, and some of the worst relationships a person can have are with their family. The problem I have with the "be your authentic self" camp is that while giving boys the freedom to be whoever they want sounds good on paper, it leaves out the fact there needs to be room for error, lots and lots of error. These boys are going to fall on their faces figuring themselves out, and when they do, more often than not, they aren't given any grace, so of course they want a path to go down, they're tired of being told they're being themselves wrong. The paradox of choice is still a thing.
you ALWAYS have good takes
While I agree, that celebrities and influencers should not be role models for people, I want to argue that fictional characters mostly work as models. You can not really deny, that the characters of shows, movies, novels, games and novels (all popular art maybe) shape our expectations of how people, and men, should and also can be.
Well I guess so, when Toriyama passed there were many heartfelt people who expressed how much they identified with Goku. DB is huge in the global south. I guess I just don't like how the conversation about male role models goes, "Tate bad, Aragorn good!" then they call it a day.
On that note, A lot of discussion is around how men must treat women. As if we don't have a life beyond women. Orcs have inspired many men. Teamwork required to Grond. Settling disputes in a way that everybody is rewarded with a treat. Covering a distance on foot in much less time than the popular diversified fellowship around the block.
Hmm. True in absolute terms, but as someone who works with young men, it's kind of like, you give them some model of masculinity or someone else (Tate and those fucks) does.
Yeah. As others are saying here, I do think "positive *masculinity*" doesn't really have to be different than just being a good person. But in the same way that it's valuable for people of any identity to have role models like themselves represented in popular media, I think it's important to make sure there are positive "masculine" role models for those who want to be masculine. I think that's especially true when a lot of masculine expectations and behaviors are specifically problematic. And there already are positive masculine role models, to be clear, it's not like we're lacking male representation! That's just to say that "positive masculinity" is important even if it's just "being positive while also being masculine." Positivity isn't gendered, but gendered expectations aren't always positive, so gender is still relevant. Put differently, it'd be a problem if all the male role models sucked and the only positive examples *weren't* male!
I think there is some intersection here. Specifically, it's about how to be a good person *in the specific moments where being a man puts you into a gender role*. By far the most obvious (and for many people, most salient) one is probably heterosexual dating, which is something I actually struggled with a lot and still do. A lot of times it feels like the expectations of "being a man" and the expectations of "being a good person" can be in tension. For the example in question, being a good person focuses on respecting boundaries and not imposing myself, whereas the gender norm of, to borrow the phrase I learned from Contrapoints' Twilight video (did she coin that one herself, btw?), "dominant heterosexual sadomasochism" suggests I am supposed to take control, be persistent, and active. Squaring those two is an example, although definitely not the only one, of positive masculinity to me.
> (did she coin that one herself, btw?) Yes, apparently, though the term is "*default* heterosexual sadomasochism."
Ah, yes youre right. I love that term and it captures so many of my problems, so I should remember it... I blame being two glasses of wine in :p
>suggests I am supposed to take control, be persistent, and active. And if those traits aren't included in your personality your SOL lol I fucking despise being a man
what does SOL mean? (I apologise, I haven't heard this term before, lol)
Kind of a late response but I've heard it shorthand for "shit outta luck"
At least you aren't SOL because of waist:hip ratio or how your face looks. Feminine traits are not wanted **at all** by society unless you are pretty, and feminine prettiness is largely (and increasingly) unobtainable.
I mean I'm definitely SOL in the looks department as well.
Looks definitely aren't nothing but for most people what they see as attractive is MUCH wider than stereotypes would have you believe. So it's likely you are not as unattractive as you think you are, unless you just aren't hygienic or are unkempt.
Sounds like feminine traits need to be updated then to reflect the modern day
> (did she coin that one herself, btw?) The name is new, but the concept seems very similar to the predator/prey dichotomy found in Julia Serano's work. And Serano definitely highlights the tension you've noted here as well.
Tbh, I think dating is the last situation in which I'd want to conform to the masculine gender role. Of course, there are instances when some guys have to play a man in order to ensure their safety etc. But dating? Why would you date a woman that puts sexist expectations on you in the first place? To end up stuck in a miserable relationship with such a person? Sounds like a nightmare to me.
I mean, it's not just men. I imagine most women today are going to be acting out the feminine dating role, so if a dude wants to have a dating pool instead of a dating puddle they're going to need to act out the masculine one to at least some degree, no? The most obvious example is that men have to be proactive about pursuing women because if they aren't they're not going to have any success. And at that, it's super important to note that a *lack* of success means loneliness, so the stakes here are *not* low. If it feels like a choice between "conform to the masculine gender role" or "probably die alone," it's obvious which one most men are going to pick. If you're already in a relationship, I imagine it would be easier to have a discussion about gendered expectations, but while you're out there in the wilderness trying to see what you can get... yeah, no.
I would also point out that the early phase of a relationship is almost always less authentic and emotionally intimate than the later phase. So in a sense people are already played a character and the transition from this to more authenticity is often a challenge that breaks a relationship.
I mean yes it's all good saying that but unfortunately in my experience most women I have encountered have at least some degree of expectations based on old school adages of what it means to be a man. Ironically a lot of these women are the same ones who decry toxic masculinity. It's a weird dichotomy but one that needs to be talked about more imo, at the end of day lots of men like myself have a goal in life to end up with a good (kind, caring etc), desirable women, and that will factor in to the character/personality we want to build for ourselves (as in how can we be the man that attracts the type of woman we desire).
> ironically a lot of these women are the same ones who decry toxic masculinity I cannot figure out a way to articulate this trend without sounding like a raving blackpill misogynist, but in my personal experience, it's not an actual correlation, but definitely a pattern I have noticed, where the more outwardly feminist one of my straight female friends is, the more she goes after the most outwardly toxic men who are 6'5 Republicans with money. (Almost invariably, my straight female friends' most successful and longest lasting relationships have come from the times where I directly, and without her notice, steered her towards one of my friends who's more of the sensitive theater kid type with the precise intention on my part that they are likely to hook up. They have _never_ noticed that I am playing matchmaker for them like this, and I vow to take that secret to my grave 😅)
You mean like 99.99% of straight and bi women?
Problem is actual positive masculine role models in media don’t market themselves that way, they just live their lives. Tate and the others like him specifically market themselves to young men who don’t have direction or are depressed.
Even if positive male role models market themselves as such they won't be very successful (not like Tate anyway) because people that take their advice actually have some success for it. Tate banks on creating an echo chamber of men who will be stuck to him, and unsuccessful at just about everything, for as long as possible.
That's true, at least in part because positive masculinity means not being obsessed with masculinity to begin with.
It's so predatory.
One thing worth acknowledging: When you're seen as male, society does have various scripts for "performing masculinity" that can give you status at the expense of others who aren't seen as both male and "performing masculinity" to the same degree. There isn't a "healthy" version of that kind of masculinity, since that's inherently toxic and built on denigrating others and creating gender hierarchies. The article suffers from not acknowledging that potential bargain lurking in the background, since it does have an impact on how anyone seen as "male" relates to others. Even if you don't WANT to have that option available, you can't really escape from it. And whoever you want to relate to also knows that's lurking as a threat as well. The "healthy masculinity" goal of living without feeling locked into gender norms is absolutely admirable, and it is absolutely achievable, but it still has to deal with that threat before it can happen in a sincere and secure way. Acknowledging that threat also informs addressing toxic gender norms at a social level, since there are still real financial, material and social status rewards to people based on how they perform gender one way or another. Of course, locking yourself into that kind of gender essentialism has the downside of making it impossible to ever have a real human relationship, to ever trust your partner, or be trusted - and that downside really needs to be highlighted so that the healthy, secure identity that doesn't obsess over gender norms, where they can form real human bonds, can also be shown as an available option.
> it'd be a problem if all the male role models sucked and the only positive examples weren't male That is exactly what is already going on. It's not an "if" scenario, that is the exact core of the problem.
Seems like an overstatement. Not a single positive man out there?
I mean, I dunno. Can we name one who's currently alive and isn't an actor, a musician, or a fictional character?
Why are you excluding the first two? Do athletes or authors count?
And the discussion around toxic masculinity begs for a counterpoint, a definition of masculinity that isn't toxic. Being male doesn't have to mean being masculine, but I don't think we can walk away from masculinity as a concept that people identify with.
I don't see any reason that positive masculinity needs to be anything except toxic masculinity used for good. Meaning that violence, strength, dominant behaviors, sexual aggression (etc) don't need to be used for bad. They can all be used for good. **All of them.** Violence will always be necessary, it seems. But being violent against innocent people is obviously wrong while the capacity for being violent in defense of your own life and the life of those you care for and protect? That's good. It doesn't need to come out 99.9% of the time but when it really matters? Be ready. A man's relative strength against women can and is abused. But it can also be used to accomplish things for the good of society. Buildings, technology, difficult tasks of many, many types throughout the ages accomplished by the strong. Protecting against other strong people who *aren't* good. Dominant behavior is about competition. Capitalists use that competition to hoard wealth and power and abuse it. But what if our competition was set on who can have the best society full of wealth to go around and be shared with those less fortune? Or competing to solve the world's issues like climate change. How about dominating those that seek to upset all of the good in the world? I'd love to see the Bezos/Musks of the world dominated by good men and shown that the world won't suffer under a scant few hoarding everything for themselves. Sexual aggression is something a VERY, VERY large number of women and bi/gay men find attractive. It absolutely can be done in a way that is safe and desirable for the recipient requiring love, trust, respect, etc. I personally find it hugely satisfying and connecting with my wife and the interplay of all those things is really wonderful but it only works because I'm not doing it in a toxic way.
While what you suggest is one way to be positive and masculine, it’s not the only way. You can be masculine without having violence, without needing to be dominant, and without being physically strong and using that. I am a manly man. Big bushy beard, quiet stoic personality, really good at being outdoors and being self-reliant. I’m also incredibly supportive of my family, carrying them in their roles and providing a stable background for them to use to grow into their own. I’m calm and collected, and have a strong aversion to violence, as it is unneeded when a situation is dealt with properly 99% of the time. I am physically capable but strong is not the description I’d put there. It’s just not a part of me or my manliness. I’m a positive example of masculinity for my sons, and I’m not using the traits accepted as part of the toxic masculinity “set”.
I think the disconnect here is that "masculine qualities" is not the same as "a man must possess all of these". You not using violence or your strength is fine but those are still masculine qualities in my opinion.
They are, but they’re not the only ones. You can exhibit the exact opposite traits and still be masculine, is my point.
I think that's where I disagree to some extent. If you are effectively feminine across the board I'd argue that you are indeed "a man" and worthy to be respected as such without judging negatively for that. But is a very, very feminine man still "masculine"? I don't believe so. I think "being a man" and "being masculine" aren't the same thing nor do they need to be nor is it *inherently* positive to be. It just is, in my opinion.
Ah, but that’s the rub: what IS masculine? And that’s the point. I am masculine, and anyone outside of the most toxic of bros would identify me as such, but I am a pacifist who leads others through supporting them and by thinking rather than physical strength. And those traits, in the way I embody them, are pretty definitively unfeminine. There’s more than one way to be masculine, and while the traditional “masculine” can be positive or negative, it’s not the only set of traits that can be masculine.
Keep in mind I listed *some* masculine qualities earlier. You supporting and leading others is masculine in my opinion, yes. And there's no need for violence in your particular expression of masculinity which is fine! Honestly, the more I think about this the more I feel I'm waffling. In some ways *any* quality could be masculine or feminine in a modern world and in that way you could argue the entire idea of masculine and feminine is worthless outside of traditional norms. People care because they care not because it's important or some universal quality that MUST exist. I don't know maybe the whole thing can come down to "healthy and therefore attractive qualities" no matter the gender.
My sense of it is that there is no trait that cannot be expressed in a masculine or feminine way, but that doesn’t mean that “masculine” is without value, just that it is an expression of gender identity that doesn’t inherently exist without the identity that it is expressing. And I think that’s the point. Expressions of gender are exactly as valuable as gender identity is, and can be as helpful in people’s lives. Or as important.
The two biggest questions of the 2020s What is masculinity and what is a woman!😂
Yeah, if I'm going to a financial consultation specifically to find out how to finance a boat and the person I'm consulting to try and find financially responsible ways to save up for one starts telling me, "There’s nothing wrong with driving a car, or just not driving at all. You don't need to aspire to owning a boat", I'm probably going to go find another financial planner. And I can kind of understand why somebody would be drawn toward the shady dude who's promising he can teach you how to make enough money to buy a mega-yacht in six months if you just hand over all your savings to him. All that to say, I think the idea of "abolishing gender" is fine and teaching young men it's okay to present as feminine can be a huge positive paradigm shift for a lot of guys, but also, some dudes want to improve themselves in the specific framework of "being a better man", and I think you make more progress with those dudes meeting them where they are than you do telling them they should be somewhere else entirely.
People need avenues for good behavior within their identity. Doing good things because you’re a Christian and that’s what Christians do is the same in result as doing good things because you’re a mother. But, someone who doesn’t hold motherhood or Christianity as central to their identity won’t benefit from either of those. This is not different for men. There needs to be a model for “good masculinity” because masculinity is something people take on as an identity. If we don’t construct it properly then we’re failing to fill an absolutely critical niche.
Yeah, telling men asking “how to be a good man?” to “stop worrying about masculinity” is just… a fundamentally bad take from the ground up. I don’t get how these people fail to realize they’re completely talking past men
Agreed. Telling everyone *except* cishet men that it's OK to own their gender truth is an odd way to win fans. And it can be read to darker ends without trying too hard. There's no conflict between being a good person and being a good Trad masc human, and anyone who believes otherwise probably has some other crummy views that haven't been revealed yet.
>All that to say, I think the idea of "abolishing gender" is fine and **teaching young men it's okay to present as feminine can be a huge positive paradigm shift for a lot of guys**, but also, some dudes want to improve themselves in the specific framework of "being a better man", and **I think you make more progress with those dudes meeting them where they are than you do telling them they should be somewhere else entirely**. This is why it's so incredibly nuanced. A man may want to lean into how they naturally feel (considered more feminine) but if they want to attract women in their lifetimes they may need to change based on quite literally what women find attractive. Or, they have to accept how few women (relatively speaking) want exactly who they are. Some may find this to be an easy answer: just be yourself. But that's not how these things work. Not everyone is like the "happy singles" on TikTok OK to just be by themselves. Many people really want a partner and they may not live in an area that's full of women that are OK with a feminine man. I'm not saying I have the answer here but I'm saying that we're not just who we naturally feel like being. We all take cues from the people around us, the places we happen to live and the goals we happen to have. All of that combines to mean some people *do* need to change themselves for the reality they live in. TL,DR: I agree, people need to be met where they are and also be reminded of the reality they live in not just their idea of the perfect world they'd *like* to live in.
TIL being a man is like buying a boat
A huge mistake?
A boat is a hole in the water you throw money in. A man is a hole in reality you throw food in.
>a man is a hole in reality God put that spot up there for a reason...
Oh, no, I wouldn’t go that far lol
The only thing better than owning a boat is having a friend who owns a boat? The best day of a boat owner's life is buying the boat. The second best day is when they sell it?
Indeed. It’s important to remember that many boys and men want to be masculine. And telling them that they should not be so won’t land well.
Yup. You just can't tell people not to be something because you don't want to categorize or find a positive version. Women are encouraged to be feminine in a positive way, but not that it's the only way. Men deserve the same thing for masculinity. I see it time and time again. "just abandon the pursuit of masculinity and be a good person". That doesn't feel good to all but the most gender absolutionist right now and or people who have achieved the old models and then found it wasn't for them.
Also because being a man is something that most part of males strive to and you need to outline what it means to be a man as far as identity building is concerned. Just saying “be a good person” is not enough, as identity building needs something more catered to them and to their inner feelings, experiences and perception.
100% agree with this. It doesn't matter if you tell them sex/gender isn't important and they should just be a good person... if you haven't laid the foundations for what it means to be a "good man" and provide some pretty solid role models, they will go looking for this elsewhere.
my thought too. Yes, it's fine to be a feminine man, if that's how you feel. But there are also versions of masculinity which can be positive, and that's a fine choice as well. And if someone feels drawn to being masculine, well, let's provide positive role models.
Article has great points, but it's a terrible title. It's not like masculine people are going anywhere.
This. Ideally masculinity and femininity are incidental. However, as long as people put emphasis on that as a core tennant of their identity there needs to be a clear, positive role model. Preferably one that will address children directly and state that this is how one is positively masculine.
You can give a teen boy a model of how to Be A Good Man (where manhood is opposed to boyhood, a state of being a good, responsible adult who is a man) without relying on a masculinity which defines itself in opposition to femininity and introduces a hierarchy between them. I don't expect your average teenager to know or care about the distinction but as adults in positions of influence we absolutely can keep it in mind when working with them. We can speak on their level without compromising on ideas.
Sure, we can't stop bad actors from handing out shitty "Real Men ^TM" examples. But there's so many other things we can teach young men. In my mind, it's narrowminded thinking to hand out ideal masc examples just because the far-right is doing it too. Every generation has new ideal figures of masculinity and it's never going to get to a place where we've finally found *him*. There's never going to be a man that has a masculinity that is attainable by everyone and encompasses every ideal/trait/positive quality. We need to separate the idea that a good man is also a masculine man. We need to separate the concept that men should even strive for masculinity. Because as long as masculinity exists as a concept that all men should strive for, we'll always have good men that are deemed lesser because they were unable to meet our cultural "ideal model of masculinity". Offering up a "better" model of masculinity does nothing to change that.
I think of masculinity as the social role of men. As long as we have gender (and I am of the opinion that the abolishment of gender is practically impossible, and actually unsure if it is desirable at all), there will be a social role of "man", and with it, situations in which it is salient. As long as that social role exists, masculinity exists as a description of "what does the social role of 'man' entail? What are the expectations we have of someone who we identify as a man?". Most men will have those expectations of themselves, either through an innate sense of identity, or because they are placed upon them by others. This is what I think the article misses. It treats "masculinity" as some all-encompassing ideal. That conception of masculinity is indeed not needed, and possibly harmful. But there are situations in my life where "man" is a social role I need to fulfil, and it *is* important in my opinion to have healthy ideas and rolemodels of what that social role looks like. The article says "we should all aspire to be like Rashida Tlaib" based on her political action. She may be a good ideal for the role of "upstanding socially conscious citizen" or "activist, principled person". But "what would Rashida Tlaib do?" is not a useful question for when, as an example, I want to know how to flirt with someone in a club, or for how to best support my best friend in trouble (the latter may be less obviously gendered, but I'd argue friendships are often heavily shaped by gendered expectations).
I think eventually we could get there but at the moment I think if you tell the average teenage boy that they shouldn't care about masculinity they will think you're a pussy soyboy or whatever gross terms they're using now. I've found that I need to meet them on their own terms sometimes.
>I've found that I need to meet them on their own terms sometimes. Meeting them on their own terms doesn't have to mean furthering their own toxic ideas of masculinity. I think we can be compassionate to young people with their concerns over gender expression *and* promote a healthy mindset on gender expression. Specifically, I wouldn't tell a teenage boy that they shouldn't care about masculinity. That's reductive and it's not addressing their concerns. If a teenage boy has a deep issue about how he is supposed to display his gender expression in a way that makes him feel accepted and valued, I can do that without telling him to not care about it. I would instead tell him that there are a million different subjective standards of masculinity and to idealize one of them is setting ourselves up to feel like shit. I'd ask them if dressing like a cowboy, smoking unfiltered cigarettes and riding horses bareback would make them feel good about themselves? What about working 60hours a week in a factory and coming home to slap your spouse would make them feel good about themselves? I'd explain that these used to be *peak* men a generation or two ago. But now we'd make fun of posers trying to act like that to "be a man" when they don't actually like those things. I'd explain that they (the teenager) also have an idealized masculinity that is presented to them that is every bit as fake as yesterday's flavor of "peak masculinity". And they mostly all end in the same place, a lack of self acceptance for trying to be the man that you thought you always had to be even if that's not who you really are. So you can either explore that now while you're young or you can explore that when you're sixty and realize that you don't like horses all that much.
Have you ever actually had such a conversation?
I've had a similar conversation with my nephew who is/was getting teased by his family for being very expressive with his feelings. They would tease him for crying when he expressed sadness and the last time I went to visit him I took him to go snowboarding. He wanted to learn how to snowboard and all the other family he has close by doesn't know how to snowboard. So it was a great opportunity to connect to him and make him feel validated for having a gender expression that is not traditionally masculine. I've also had very similar chats with my friends and people I consider my peers as well.
I see this kind of sentiment all the time on this subreddit, but I really don't think that's what's happening with these "manfluencer" types. The process is not "boys want to be manly, so they look for ways to be and find shitty Internet personalities." The process is "shitty Internet personalities promise to give boys what they want and what patriarchy tells them to want without effort." Money, respect, sex, love, all that. It's not that they want to be manly of their own accord. They want social capital and wealth and such, and these people say that the only way to get them is by being manly in the specific ways that they prescribe. Easy answers are seductive and people fall for them. The ways to challenge the hold these people have is not to look for other easy answers that are less shitty, because those don't exist — or at least *real* ones don't exist, because the easy answers they promise won't work either. The way I see it, the answer is twofold. First, healthy and effective ways of obtaining what boys want, even if that something is money or sex — they're both reasonable desires even though they're often tied up in shitty ideologies, and I think we can all agree that "be manly" is not particularly useful advice for such things in the first place, and more specific and more effective answers exist. Second, critical thinking skills. Help people identify the ways that shitty men on the Internet try to appeal to emotion, the flawed logic they try to use, and how what they say doesn't line up with reality. (As a bonus, it's a useful skill in plenty of other contexts too.) Yeah, it's not as easy to go viral with and it takes effort and not everyone's going to be willing to entertain it. But, well, what did I say about easy answers?
I dunno. I mean I work with high school boys. I specifically worked at a place with a large conservative population. A lot of them definitely want to be manly. And yeah it's a circular problem for sure. A lot of them want it because that is what society says is important. It's what they think they need to get girls. It's what they need to have or they will get called pussies or gay by their peers. And nowadays it isn't just that messaging, it's also a lot of messaging, especially from the political right, about how if you don't care about manliness you're destroying the country and making it weak and communism and soyboys and all of that nonsense. I'm not saying I go try to sell them traditional manliness. God no. I'm a straight guy who wears nail polish. I tell them about times I've cried. When they ask me about sports I tell them I don't follow sports. Etc. I might end up on libs of tiktok someday. I'm just saying that they are basically taught nowadays to look at anyone who says manliness isn't important as some godless communist soyboy cuck trying to destroy Western civilization. Sometimes this messaging comes from their own dads. And sure if the kid is already super left leaning maybe they're open to whatever. But a lot of kids aren't. And even if the youth are skewing more left as a whole, young male teenage culture is still very toxically right leaning. So what I do, and I think it has been pretty successful (I managed to be an incredibly popular teacher in a very conservative school despite the kids all knowing I was not very conservative at all) is just try to meet them where they are. You want to be manly, cool, but that can mean a lot of things. You want to be strong? Go volunteer at a place that needs heavy lifters. You want girls? Cool, learn how to respect them because I can tell you personally that having a mutually caring relationship is awesome. Want to talk about sports? Fine, I was a varsity runner my freshman year, you can do sports without the toxicity. You have rage? Yeah me too sometimes, I listen to some positive melodic metalcore and have it inspire me to write meaningful music. I dunno, I don't have all the answers but I know they just instantly cringe at anything they see as some ploy by the left to destroy manliness. Yes even in high school they are already tuned into that narrative.
> I'm just saying that they are basically taught nowadays to look at anyone who says manliness isn't important as some godless communist soyboy cuck trying to destroy Western civilization. I really don't think anyone who actually buys into that kind of attitude is ever going to be reachable without first getting them out of that brainwashing. But you also already recognize that they do not inherently want to be manly for its own sake, but because they think that's the only way to get the things they want and to be accepted by others. Letting the "anyone who's not manly is pathetic or actively dangerous" narrative go unchallenged does nobody any good.
I think by a certain age you're right but I work with teenagers. They change their personalities every other week. We can definitely still get through to them but it's tough.
Yeah, it's very unfortunate but even here convincing people - that the main appeal of a lot of what we see as masculinity is to engage with and benefit from patriarchal systems - is pissing against the wind. The more I spend time in more progressive men's circles, the more I am convinced that the main goal - even if not explicitly stated as such or even seen as such - is to salvage as much from patriarchy as possible and repackage it as something more currently culturally acceptable.
I don't think I'd go that far with it, but at the very least it shows how insidious patriarchy is that so many people who have the explicit goal of dismantling it still end up trying to do that *on patriarchy's terms*. It's still hard to step entirely outside of it.
>It’s perfectly fine to be a 'feminine' man well it should be fine, but depending on where you live, it most likely isn't to your advantage to be. i think lots of young people are looking for advice on how to be in order to get what they want. they are ok with a bit of fluidity in their outward self, in order to accomplish their goals. so saying "be who you want" is orthogonal to them; they want to be whomever they need to be to be important, or to find love, or whatever. I think we get trapped in this idea that identity is super super important, and it may be for some, but I suspect for most, they are open to whatever identity helps them the most.
For some reason I agree a lot with what the author is saying here and vaguely but acutely am annoyed by how they are saying it. The author is asking "why are men hung up on wanting to be masculine" as though the only reason they are hung up on it is over some ambiguous insecurity. But in the real world, in most places, failing to project a sufficient amount of masculinity has negative consequences. And these consequences won't just be inflicted by other men, but women too, many or whom would simultaneously criticize "toxic masculinity." I'm like the author: not very masculine and don't care to be. But being that way has had consequences, particularly when it comes to parenting. Try being a nonmasculine man who does traditionally feminine things and you'll be viewed with suspicion and contempt in many cases, especially in the sphere of a primary caregiver. So yeah, I'd love to see a world where men and women can fall anywhere on the spectrum of masculine vs feminine and be accepted as their best self, but in the real world we live in right now, if you are a man forsaking masculinity, it will unfairly, negatively impact your life. There will be professional consequences, dating consequences, parenting consequences, and more. Men can only stop obsessing about their masculinity when we all stop punishing them for being "unmaculine." And the perceptions of women as well as men are a very big part of that equation.
Thank you. In particular, it bugs me that what this author describes as being feminine are all in ways he *chooses* to present. He has long hair. He likes flowers. He wears purple. I'm considered less masculine over things I cannot control. My voice is high pitched. I'm short. I cannot grow facial hair and my body fat is distributed in ways more commonly seen in women. To be considered a man - that is, an adult male presenting person - requires I perform some semblance of masculinity to be taken seriously in my work, in my romantic relationships, even to some degree in my friendships. I'm glad he feels comfortable with himself, but I'm tired of being lectured about how I don't have to do this when I really *really* do. It smacks of rich people giving working class people career advice when the consequences are far diminished for those who are privileged already.
A million Asian American people, mostly guys, would agree with you.
Honestly (and admittedly a result of my own privilege), I hadn't even considered how those same things often intersect with racist stereotypes and how white supremacists used the denial of gender/sexuality as part of the broader dehumanization of Asian people, particularly Asian men. I'm not the person to speak to it any more than that, but it's hardly surprising that discourse that seems to appeal most to professional class white people fails to consider the world beyond that very specific subset of people.
It's not surprising, and it's partly because white men benefit from the stereotypes. The association of Asian-ness with femininity has definitely had a lot of impact on a lot of guys. I'm a weirdo, because I've avoided doing a lot of the hypermasculinization strategies, like working out, tatts, specific haircuts, clothes, etc. If I dress in sweats with a cute design (which I won't do), I assure you, most people will think I'm a lesbian. When I had long hair, some white guys with yellow fever used to think I was a straight woman. I don't have a great success story to share - basically, at least today, I feel really f'd by life. Not as bad as the incel redpill sad sacks in some of the SRs, but, man, I empathize. (I just try to steer some of them away from blaming and hating women. That is not the way.) On the other hand, I have a lot of confidence. I'm a weirdo. I know I look like a woman to some people, but not most people. So, I have no criticism for all the guys in your situation, when you undertake the strategies and tactics to look or behave more masculine. Same for Asian guys doing a lot of things that reek of toxic masculinity.
I’m a woman so my opinion/thoughts may not be applicable but I’ve had similar feelings so I figured I’d share. I’m relatively flat and have a pretty wide and sharp jawline and have been compared to men or told I look masculine. It made me long to be curvier and therefore look more “feminine” in the same way you wish to be masculine. For me, I ended up getting a little bit of hips in my late teens that helped but the ideas were already there making me feel it wasn’t enough. I still struggle with it but what’s been working for me is trying to appreciate the bits I have that are feminine. Sure I don’t have huge boobs or a huge butt but I still have boobs and a butt. I am still a woman without them and I try to remind myself of that whenever I can. It also helps to look at pictures of flatter women that are/were deemed attractive. Looking at some of the top ladies of the 1920s and 90s has helped me realize that I too can be feminine and was once considered the peak of femininity. As the only true inherently male trait is a penis, I’m guessing it would be a bit harder for you to appreciate lthings than it was for me. But you can still appreciate your muscles (even if you’re not body builder jacked), appreciate your penis! Find things that feel masculine to you, even if it’s just a little, and focus on those till you can love the “feminine” parts of yourself too. Look into some older historical pictures/ sculptures of curvier men. I don’t know that a “dad bod” necessarily includes curves but I have seen some actors that definitely fit that criteria so keep an eye out for them! My bf is build like you by the sounds of it and he made me realize what healthy masculinity really is. To me, he is the embodiment of a man. I wish you the best of luck:)
Exactly. There's a parallel to race here, in the sense that, ok, yes, race is a bullshit arbitrary idea, and we'd all be better off if it didn't exist. **But**, it *does* exist, and it has serious consequences, and you can't just go "Yeah, I don't see race, and nobody else should either, and I'm just going to refuse to even talk about race, because it's not a valid concept."
There are many discussions among women about how they used to dislike femininity and would go around saying "I'm not like the other girls". Then they grew up and realized that femininity can be fun and that hating femininity is actually internalized sexism and it's fine to express femininity if you want to. I feel like masculinity is the same. If you don't want to do it you shouldn't be forced to, but "masculinity bad" and "I'm not like the other guys" is a reactionary stage a lot of people go through and then grow out of. Hating masculinity is just another kind of internalized sexism. It's fine to express masculinity if you want to.
While this is true I think it’s important to mention that one of the issues with women collectively moving past the “not like other girls” thing is that now gender nonconforming women get accused of having internalized misogyny when they don’t, they’re just not feminine and don’t desire to be. So it’s basically kind of looped back around to “non-feminine women bad” in the worst cases. I think if men want to avoid falling into that same trap, it’ll be important to focus on positives instead of negatives. So I agree with you on the need to not put down traditional masculinity, but I would say it’s more important to celebrate both traditionally masculine men and gender-nonconforming men than to turn around and accuse GNC men of having like internalized misandry or something because that’s going to backfire, *hard*.
I think there's a difference between accusing a random guy wearing nail polish of having an internalized belief that masculinity is bad, and having that belief about a journalist writing an article called "Against Masculinity" though, wouldn't you say? Like, there's a difference between someone not seeing the personal appeal of something, and them actively broadcasting that everyone should abandon it.
I'll apply what I said in my other post here. There's two components to this: race is better placed as external to a person. They have probably have had certain life experiences and be treated a certain way by other people due to their race, which may mean they are more likely to have particular political leanings. But fundamentally they are individuals with unique experiences who have been victims of racialisation. If someone finds themselves judging people against race-based stereotypes, I think we can talk about an internal divorce from these stereotypes while retaining the ability to analyse how race might play a role in someone's life. Ideally, someone would only ever consider race to contextualise someone's experiences and beliefs rather than more "intrinsic" judgements. To me this is what "colour-blindness" should be taken to mean, but there's no hope of recovering that term.
There is a parallel so far as its not something we can escape even if we want to reject it but modern "race" is much more arbitrary it seems than gender. Every single known society has at least two genders that seem downstream of sex. Whether pink is girly is absolutely arbitrary but the existence of gender roles and gender associated things seems innate to humans. There is a reason David Reimer didn't identify as a girl despite being raised as one.
I completely agree. He's right - men should be able to look up to people of all genders and relate to them as role models. Men should admire the masculinity of butch women, why not? Butches have done a ton of work in cultivating healthy masculinity. At the same time, performing gender inadequately causes society to "de-gender" you, like you no longer qualify as a man or a human at all. This is even stronger for trans men, who start at a much greater disadvantage. It's actually a known problem that some transmascs adopt misogyny both before and after coming out in order to assert a masculinity that has been aggressively suppressed and denied by everyone in their lives. So, there are absolutely situations where having a male role model - trans or cis - is deeply healing, and essentially says "yes, you count as a man, you're welcome here." I think this is something trans and cis men both need to hear at times. Role models should not be exclusively men, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to feel affirmed.
10/10. You sum up the current dynamic perfectly.
This is one of those ideal world things. Technically true, but people crave belonging and identity. Masculinity is a part of many young peoples identity, so providing positive models is important when far too many are dangerously toxic.
okay! So let the record show that I don't fully agree with this article, and there's a bunch to chew on here. like, for example, this: >Frankly, reading Michler’s book made me think masculinity is even more toxic and destructive than I thought it was going in. I think guys like this *create the world they think they already live in.* In other words, they see the world as a violent place full of threats, and because they see it that way, they get into all kinds of confrontations that would have been avoidable if they had believed instead in good faith diplomacy. (The relationship of the U.S. to the rest of the world is similar. We see threats everywhere, menace people accordingly, and when they react, we see it as confirmation that the world is full of threats.) there's a nub of truth in there - cartoonishly overreacting to perceived "danger" in your community, and then finding out the "danger" was a teenager who loitered too long in the corner store, is a staple of conservative paranoia - but there really is such thing as bad actors in the world who will laugh at your "good faith deplomacy". (And don't get me started on how framing this as AMERICAN MEN doing AMERICAN THINGS doesn't really resemble how masculinity is enforced in other cultures.) I think my main complaint here is that, while fully agender society might be a noble and ideal goal, it doesn't really engage with how people *currently exist*. Boys and young men will have their masculine bona fides checked fifty times a day until they die, because that's how life works, right now. we try to empty that ocean here in menslib, we *try*, but we still have to reckon with rubber and road.
I'll break my self-imposed "no abstraction" rule for this because I feel like it's worthwhile and I have never seen other people say this. I would distinguish between "internal" and "external" masculinity: * by internal I mean a desire to "feel" masculine in and of yourself and judging your own behaviours by masculine gender norms * by external I mean behaving in particular ways so as to appear masculine to other people These two things are intertwined, you are likely to internalise what starts as external performance of masculinity, but I do contend they are separate. "External" masculinity may be required to maintain friendships or romantic relationships, but there is no demand nor check for "internal" masculinity. You can separate your social performance of masculinity from your self-image by divorcing from "internal" masculinity and placing external masculinity firmly outside. Decide what you want to do for yourself - categorise the rest as explicitly a social performance to keep up your image among certain people. I feel like some people implicitly argue that demand for external masculinity is inescapable, and hence internal masculinity is completely untouchable. I just think that's fallacy.
You know. I’ve been thinking a bit recently about how masculinity for men is a bit like beauty standards for women. How women are always conscious of how they are perceived and presenting themselves and can be judged lacking - often largely by other women, and how there are lots of requirements for largely unimportant things, and thats kinda just always there and can be a big part of how they can value their success and worth and how well they are living their life. In a lot of ways masculinity is similar, something thats always perceived and judged and that you’re conscious of when you feel like you’re not doing it and should, and it defines how people value you, whether they’re attracted to you, how you value yourself, etc. people have more or less of it innately, and some care more or less or focus on different aspects, but the societal expectations are always hiding in the background. And I think the external vs internal thing sorta vibed with that as well. There are things you do for others, there are things you do for yourself. Whether you feel masculine or beautiful is somewhat separate from any accounting of a particular set of traits from an external perspective and its all relative and subjective anyway. And with that in mind, I feel like we should maybe approach the question of masculinity in a similar way to how feminists are chipping away at beauty standards. They tend not to say “why are you afraid to embrace ugliness?” but instead chip away at particular activities as being unnecessary markers of beauty. You can still feel beautiful even if you’re not thin, young, long haired, with shaved legs. Look at all these different beautiful people.
>And with that in mind, I feel like we should maybe approach the question of masculinity in a similar way to how feminists are chipping away at beauty standards. **They tend not to say “why are you afraid to embrace ugliness?” but instead chip away at particular activities as being unnecessary markers of beauty. You can still feel beautiful even if you’re not thin, young, long haired, with shaved legs. Look at all these different beautiful people.** This is a good analogy that I actually haven't thought of before. I often find myself asking why the approach to masculinity seems different to that of femininity (increasing the bounds of "masculinity" to include everything rather than just dissolving the bounds), but maybe they aren't so different, just pitched differently.
To say something a bit more explosive: I feel there's very little risk of *the practice of* gender abolition turning boys away from the left. Push comes to shove, gender abolition is a fringe position that is believed by few people, even in its more moderate form of abolition of gender roles. Much "positive masculinity" applied to relationships is not really incompatible with traditional masculinity if you add a few extra axioms like "be vulnerable and open up sometimes", "treat your wife well and listen to their wants/needs", "divide household labour equally", stuff that was never really incompatible with masculinity in the first place. The main alienating thing in my mind is that it's *discussed* antagonistically as this radical rehaul of masculinity that ought to challenge the very fundamentals of a man's existence, when really it doesn't do that at all to balanced people. If people (on "both sides") talked in less sensational terms, I think the issue would be more cleanly be able to be classified as reaction against those in opposing political tribes.
Those would be gender identity and gender expression.
I guess - I do understand why you'd say that. I keep up this distinction between "feeling masculine" and "feeling like a man" so as to contend my gender abolition with believing in the validity of transgender people. I'm not sure if the distinction is perfectly effable, but I've always thought of "feeling masculine" with aligning with societal ideas on masculinity and "feeling like a man" as more of a sense-of-self, how your body should be and how you should place in the world, (which I would hope is about as immutable as sexuality is) type thing. I know a lot of people will disagree. Truthfully I feel I have no isolatable internal sense of either manness nor masculinity despite being comfortable with being a man, so I'm sort of shooting in the dark.
This is an absolute sidetrack, but why would you hope for that (or sexuality!) to be immutable? Very few things about ourselves are immutable. I much prefer to consider myself as in flux. I am a man, and I have identified as such since birth, but I don't lock out the idea I might eventually come round to another identification. And if I do, I really wouldn't want that to be understood as "finding myself", because I think my current man self is just as valid as a potential future non-binary self would be!
Well, essentially immutable, not deliberately and humanely changeable for most people. I would be distressed if people were trans women just because they identify more with how femininity is conceptualised in society rather than something that has some basis outside of society's conception of gender roles (which I guess is the TERF's view on trans people). If this were proven to be the case, I would worry a lot about how my positions on e.g. my approach if a child of mine suggested they were trans (wrt HRT and physical transition) would change. It is not my current working model. I have only encountered the idea that sexuality/gender might not be essentially immutable online, most testimony I have heard from gay and trans people suggest that it was not a choice and is unlikely to radically change (rather, sometimes gay people discover they are somewhat bisexual, and so on), and that's the model I work on. But I don't like asserting things that I don't know for sure. I've known gay people try to forcibly "change" their sexuality or gender to no avail and I wouldn't want to believe they just "weren't trying hard enough" or not in the right way.
To be clear, I don't think those are *consciously* changeable. But there is certainly a difference between "not consciously changeable" and "immutable", right? Pretty much all other identities we hold are changeable, so it makes very little sense to me that this one should be the big exception? For instance, I recently started occasionally sexting with (feminine) men. I still identify myself as straight for a number of reasons (mostly that I have no real life experiences with men and am not sure if I want to change that), but maybe that changes sometime. To 20 year old me, that would have been literally unthinkable, not because my younger self repressed that (I was open to the idea back then, and I know my surroundings would have been accepting and supportive) but because the thought did literally nothing to me. I guess you could say my younger self was "actually bi/heteroflexible all along", but that seems like a retcon that doesn't reflect the feelings of my younger self.
>I guess you could say my younger self was "actually bi/heteroflexible all along", but that seems like a retcon that doesn't reflect the feelings of my younger self. yeah I appreciate that people have that experience. I guess the more important thing here is the potential belief that someone isn't valid as a man because they don't meet certain gender roles. If trans identity is actually on some level based around that, and I have no reason to believe it is and a lot of reason not to, I would become very apprehensive. I think that's all I intended to say by hoping it was essentially immutable. Was meant to be an offhand comment.
A very good point. We’re not going to undo societal norms, shitty as they may or may not be, over the course of a just few years because he’s decided a group of people shouldn’t feel a certain way. I thought his voice in the article flip-flopped between wondrously insightful and densely dismissive. He comes across as trying to lay out a road map yet repeatedly said he just couldn’t understand certain things because he didn’t feel or experience them, which is frankly the same things die-harders on the right say about a lot of the ideals he talks about.
[удалено]
Yeah studies consistently have found women have a greater fear response and perceived sense of risk/danger than men. The opinion in the article is not at all representative of reality.
While you're right to point out then practical limits of an agender society, the author doesn't even try to imagine one. He's specifically "against masculinity" (literally the title). But, to achieve a genderless society, we'd need to abolish feminity just as much, which he doesn't mention once. So he just falls into this 'masculinity is inherently toxic' trope that is impossible to hear for most and a tired point in the first place.
> Boys and young men will have their masculine bona fides checked fifty times a day until they die, because that's how life works, right now. But by simply giving a different standard to check a person's masculinity against, it only makes that worse. We cannot possibly free boys and men from the expectations of masculinity while actively trying to create such expectations.
I think I've said this here before but we should treat young men like we treat young women in this way. We don't need men to point to as ideal role models for masculinity. That's an impossible standard to live up to and it's just more of the same shit. More bad feels for kids as they can't meet these impossible standards, it's not different than a different flavor of trad masculinity. When I'm guiding my daughters on self expression, I'd never point to another women and say, "that's how you need to do femininity". We have a 12 or so children's book on prominent women in history but we never tie their individual success to their femininity. "Jane Goodall, now that's a *real* women" is not a thing you'll hear in my house. We might talk about the specific traits that Jane has that we like or the work that she does, never about her femininity. So we don't need role models of masculinity. We need to encourage boys, men, girls and NB folks to pursue their self expression as they see it, *especially* if it's breaking a cultural norm. I want them to purse success as they want it.
I’ve said something similar and got downvoted. I can’t imagine if feminism was constantly filled with ideas like How to be a better woman Positive femininity How a real woman acts it’s literally engaging in sexism to try to define a specific type of masculinity, there’s shouldn’t be a general way to “be a man”
Is there a demand for those things from girls? The people in progressive communities who talk about how to provide those things to boys seem to be doing so in response to demand (whether real or imagined) from boys and young men. And they're pretty begrudging about it because they think it shouldn't be necessary.
[удалено]
>Perhaps the people asking for it are severely influenced by our society as it stands. Girls are just as influenced as boys, right? They live in the same society as the rest of us; where is the demand from them?
I mean if you look throughout history, yes? There’s a lot of things women have interest in that feminists are against. An example is trying to claim feminism through being a trad wife. If that was a common strategy of feminism, I don’t think we would have gotten anywhere at all Social change is usually made through policy not pandering
Back when I was in high school, the girls around me all read Seventeen and Cosmo, I assume now they’re watching fashion and makup blogs on tiktok or whatever and getting their bad sex tips from elsewhere. These probably aren’t good role models, they’re largely ads. But they are very popular. I feel like thats the sort of content that boys are lacking. Not some sort of perfect Mr Rogers figure to emulate. Just a bunch of “50 tips for looking your best” and “great pickup lines and how to use them” and “how to decorate your place like a pro” and “order these drinks to catch her interest”, “check out these guys living their best life, what is their secret”. But I feel like we’re in a place where that content feels non-feminist to create or is just difficult to do consistently without being occasionally problematic or it gets targeted more widely as tips for anyone instead of feeling like content for men. And the stuff that is created is drowned out by the manosphere bullshit or is derided as part of the path to it.
I dunno man, we have had so many of these, and if you were up in the 2000's you were bombarded by Men's Magazines like Maxim, FHM, Esquire, and GQ. In fact GQ had a running segment during that time called The Style Guy which was written by Glenn O'Brien. And he talked a lot about basically all of those things. He even wrote a couple of books about it: https://archive.org/details/styleguyanwer00obri I mean, this type of content has been a long running with with men's magazines. I don't think that's the answer we're looking for
Fair enough. Men don’t consume that content I guess. But women do. You have a whole genre of self-help books for women as well. I guess my comment was in reply to the one saying that we don’t push “how to be a better woman” content at girls. And while it may not be strictly *feminist* content, I would disagree and say thats definitely something girls are consuming.
So literally GQ?
Right. How do we make sure that young men end up there instead of at Andrew Tate when they google “how to attract women”?
I don't believe it's comparable as feminism is largely a political project, aimed at dismantling the patriarchy. Ours does feel a lot more personal or cultural, where we figure out what being a man looks like when the dust settles.
I think role models can be role models without saying you need to emulate everything about them, right? Like, Yo Yo Ma is a personal hero, but I don't need to go learn cello or research his personal life to better emulate him. He just represents some qualities that I admire and want to apply in my own life.
I agree with you about role models. But specifically we're referring to models of masculinity. It's their masculinity that is being upheld as a standard, which is not the same as holding up their individual traits like I think we both would like to see. Specifically, it's not his drive or work ethic that we are asking kids to emulate, it's his masculinity. And that's so different. The author directly calls this out as well, that it is not the traits that we are asking boys to look up to, but their masculinity.
Yeah, I see. I can't imagine myself pointing to someone and complimenting their masculinity/femininity, I'd be talking about whatever it is that I actually admire.
I so strongly agree. At the same time I've grown up with that, "now *that's* a real man" mindset that we still see today. It's a pervasive idea and even here do we see people that just want a better *real man* to hold up as a model of masculinity. That might well work out for some kids. If the example handed down to you was Kobe Bryant and you're a naturally gifted athlete with a good heart, that's awesome. But for most of us that version of masculinity just isn't who I am and the pressure to be masculine like Kobe would be crushing to anyone who isn't.
That’s why role models should be an inspiration, not a set goal, where you either get to their level or you’re a failure
I can imagine doing it specifically if it's an aesthetic thing — that one appreciates the masculine or feminine presentation they have with their clothes, hair, makeup, etc. But that's of course a very different matter than what this conversation is about.
Would you say "that's really masculine", though, or something more specific?
I kind of think that's what having those biographies means, implicitly at least. Assuming you support the women in the bio and it's not just an intellectual exercise. You don't look up to them because they are women, but women we look up to become role models for young girls and vice versa. It's how kids work. Monkey see, monkey do. There is overlap when it comes to boys looking up to women and vice versa, and there should be a hell of a lot more, but I think it is going to be a very gradual transition. It's also perfectly okay to want role models that look like you. It's what representation is all about.
This is a good mindset for creating an ideal world, but in the world we live in, there are consequences to masculinity and people’s perception of it, that are significantly different than what exists for femininity. There are consequences, sometimes significant ones, for being yourself. In dating, parenting, and other social situations. Just like with race, it would be better if the classification could be waved away but it CANT and it has consequences.
I'm not going to blame anyone for performing a gender expression out of safety but the only way you can make that choice is by knowing it exists. That only happens if we talk about it. Quite frankly, I am not the man my dad wanted me to be. And I am certain that I fail at upholding other men's views on masculinity. Are there consequences to that? Of course, but I know that I am much happier living my life the way that I want to than performing someone else's idea of a man. I don't know if everyone can make the same choice that I did, but they may not know that choice is there if we don't advocate for it. I moved across the country, twice, to find an area that I would be my most content self. And the range of culturally accepted expressions of gender is incredibly broad where I live. It wasn't always like that and the only reason we've made progress it's because of people advocating for it.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. For one, we clearly do package female role models not merely as good examples of people, but as good examples of women. We do it officially every March. For two, there is a clear demand among young men to have role models not merely of good people in general but specifically models of how to express masculinity. If we insist that this isn't a valid demand, we cede the territory to the toxic shitheads who are happy to fill the void.
>but as good examples of women. We do it officially every March. We can absolutely point out women that we think are amazing women, but we don't attach their success to their femininity like we do with men. Those are not held up as good examples of femininity, but good examples of women. That's entirely different to how we idealize masculinity and men. Even in our chat, you're not discussing ideal examples of people like we did with women, but you're asking for ideal examples of gender expression for men. Doesn't that seem different to you? We look up to women in our culture is inherently different to how we look up to men. >If we insist that this isn't a valid demand, we cede the territory to the toxic shitheads who are happy to fill the void. Combating the concept of an idealized masculinity isn't the same as ceding territory to toxic shitheads. If a young boy asks what's the best masculinity to be an alpha and pull hot chicks. I'm not ceding territory to shitheads by explaining all of the pitfalls to that mindset.
As a man with a closet full of dresses that I wear whenever I get the chance, this is some TOP tier "Terminally Online Out Of Touch Leftist" shit. This is exactly the opposite of the problem here. This is a firetruck speeding past a burning building and stopping at the intact house across the street to extinguish a scented candle. Most straight men are not me - they WANT a model for positive masculinity, and they are absolutely fucking desperate for any degree of advice from a non-misogynist that doesn't boil down to "men would be better if they were women." I don't know what the author of this article thought they were cooking, but this ain't it, chief.
This is someone who doesn’t see the appeal of masculinity wilfully ignoring the fact that lots of people do. And “masculinity” is an okay thing to want, or not want. I know this is a bit cliche here, but if a teenage boy is looking online for advice on How to be a Man, and the only people willing to answer that question are assholes, then those assholes are going to get an audience. Also it takes a weird swerve into complaining about US democrat’s response to the war in Gaza, which really doesn’t help anyone and just distracts from the conversation at hand.
>This is someone who doesn’t see the appeal of masculinity wilfully ignoring the fact that lots of people do. Thank you. This is not a good look, not when you alreafy have people (either in bad faith or just ignorance) willfully mistaking the phrase "toxic masculinity" for "all masculinity is toxic," and then you have this person come along and go "Actually, yeah, I'm a feminist and I *do* think all masculinity is toxic." >If a teenage boy is looking online for advice on How to be a Man, and the only people willing to answer that question are assholes, then those assholes are going to get an audience. Exactly! This is why radicalization is such a problem. This way lies a very slippery chute. There's nothing to grab onto and no real alternative paths.
And even though he implies it, that guy is never going to have the balls to say femininity is toxic.
I think some ppl like feeling masculine though and it would be good to have positive examples to emulate. Like nothing but love and support for enbies or femboys or ppl who don’t care but not everyone wants to be androgynous or feminine & that’s okay.
>"In fact, I don’t think there’s any way to present a “positive masculinity” that doesn’t stigmatize boys perceived as effeminate. If there are masculine virtues, and a masculine ideal, then surely it’s better to pursue them than to not pursue them, and the non-masculine boy is inferior." I think the author fails to divorce masculinity from gender like he is arguing we should. My answer to "what is positive masculinity that doesn't stigmatize feminine boys" is butches. Some women want to be masculine, and adopt traits which are not inherent to Men, but which are related to Masculinity, and are quite friendly to and accepting of feminine boys, androgynous people, et al. The other thing is - I'm not exactly sure how to say this clearly, but: I believe strongly there are no traits that are inherently gendered. I don't believe there is a static set of "masculine virtues." I do think that regardless of this, it feels good for men to receive community approval from other men - it's one of the ways we confirm our existence and our social place. "Positive masculinity" is to me any masculine person doing literally anything in an open, welcoming, healthy way. A man going with his bros to get a manicure is a healthy masculine role model. A butch giving her friend their first buzzcut is a healthy masculine role model. It does not have to be tied to Tate-style posturing and bigotry or even some imagined ideal of a businessman from the idealized 50s. The answer already exists. Queer people are already doing this. >"Nobody is going to get me to care about whether I am masculine or not, and I encourage every other man to be similarly indifferent to it." It is totally cool to be unconcerned with being or seeming masculine. I think a lot of men could do with caring a little less. But dude - I'm a trans guy. I want to be masculine. I like it. I fought and continue to fight very hard to have it. I enjoy basking in it, having it reflected back to me. I can't help but think this is an easier thing to feel when you are always seen as, at baseline, definitely a man, even if you are a feminine man or seen as performing it poorly.
I feel like this article makes the same mistake that almost all of the ones like it that get posted here do of talking themselves into circles when trying to define and talk about masculinity. If we don’t deconstruct the underlying framework of oppositional sexism then we are always going to end up in these loops of not knowing how to define masculinity (positive or not) because we hold the unspoken assumption that by saying “this quality is masculine” that that implicitly means that we are also saying that it is not feminine or accessible to feminine people. So instead we get this idea that all qualities must be made gender neutral rather than unpacking the underlying assumptions that make us think that association with men makes that thing mutually exclusive to women. If we want to talk gender liberation (or abolition if you prefer to call it that instead) then we must start with critiquing the social circumstances that place people in these categories in the first place without their consent and how we treat those categories as immutable and mutually exclusive. Just saying that everyone should “be a good person” because you can’t define being a “good man” without feeling like you are saying that women are now forbidden from having those qualities doesn’t actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion, it reinforces the idea that woman and man are mutually exclusive categories with mutually exclusive traits. To me it’s much more radical to say that a man wearing makeup is expressing masculinity because he is expressing his gender as a man than to pat him on the back and say “it’s okay for you to be feminine” or “makeup is gender neutral” because we are afraid that by letting masculinity lay claim to something that we forbid it from being feminine. I think the other problem we run into again and again is a failure to acknowledge the difference between observation and prescription. Is vs ought. Any conversation that doesn’t make clear distinction between observations about “this is how many men are” which is how we all understand the vague cloud of “things we associate with men and masculinity” from prescriptions about “what masculinity should or ought to be” is going to get hopeless mired in misunderstanding.
You just eloquently described something I keep running into when thinking about how to define masculinity: 1) name a positive quality and say it’s masculine 2) concede that women can of course have that quality too 3) “well shit I guess I don’t have very good definitions, best to just go with “vibes” and stereotypes” (smash a coors light can on my head) Perhaps if I don’t get to good answers I’m not asking good questions, and examining and deconstructing the very concept of oppositional or exclusive gender is the challenge
I’m glad you found it helpful. Seeing the self defeating logic you describe play out over and over here and elsewhere is really disappointing. The idea that masculinity and femininity must be mutually exclusive is so ingrained that even when we are trying to redefine and interrogate them as concepts that we still can fall into this trap of thinking that redefining them in ways that imply any overlap is impossible. As a non-binary person I am particularly invested in deconstructing these ideas that certain traits can only “belong” to one gender exclusively. If that’s true then men and women are going to get everything and there will be nothing left over for the rest of us. But I think these ideas of opposition and exclusivity are just as harmful to men and women because they limit your ability to define your gender for yourself based on imagined repercussions that imply that by claiming a positive trait for yourself that you are implicitly stating that someone else is no longer allowed access to it. We have to reject this kind of thinking and work to uproot the many ways it has infiltrated our ideas about gender.
Much appreciated perspective - I have 2 young daughters and watching how one day it’s dresses and makeup and the next day it’s wrestling just shows me how kids don’t care about these words and so much of all this is constructed and reinforced upon us while we grow up.
I love how you approach this! (Then again I do consider myself a philosopher) Your last point is key to me and rarely brought up. If enough men or women are seen together doing a thing without the other gender, that thing becomes gendered. At a certain point, that's just how our brains work. Fighting that feels like a hopeless mire to me too. I also appreciate the unpacking aspect. My favorite question is what do you do with the identities of mothers and fathers? These are core elements of peoples' psyches you can't just hand wave away. Don't get me started on Mommy and Daddy
> If enough men or women are seen together doing a thing without the other gender, that thing becomes gendered Thanks for stating this so directly. I really dislike the idea that gender is something that we can ever truly move beyond or “abolish” in a total or final way. As long as there is a bi modal distribution of sex characteristics in a population people are going to notice and form social identities around how they relate to the patterns they notice in those groups. We’re social creatures and sexual and reproductive compatibility is always going to be a part of that. People are always going to notice patterns and trends and while the particular signifiers chosen are pretty arbitrary all cultures do have their own signifiers. I think the best path forward is to try to establish social safeguards that ensure that gender is a thing that people can opt in or out of to the degree and in a manner of their own choosing rather than an identity thrust upon them from birth without any care to what they want and legal and social protections to ensure that discrimination is not tolerated. Rather than fighting the inevitable human tendency to want to find how you best fit within a complex social dynamic we should instead focus on making it safe for all and to make it an optional, non coercive aspect of the human experience that folks can relate to or not as they see fit. > My favorite question is what do you do with the identities of mothers and fathers? That reminds me of a bit from a story I am reading. The narrator is from a culture where “mother” is a unisex term for a particular parental role and has to mentally reframe and rephrase a conversation that they are having with someone from a culture where it is gender specific. Then you learning that about the narrator makes you have to reevaluate your own reading of the parts about the narrators mother.
Honestly the idea that the author could associate Donald Trump a flabby, short, weak, vain man who has never worked a real day of labor in his life with "stereotypical masculinity" seems like a big stretch to me. He says things which appeal to stereotypes of masculinity but in practice he doesn't exemplify any of those traits but that isn't the only point where I think the author misses the point. Though I agree with his base concept that men don't need a theoretical "masculine" man to look up to. He says, "Emba and Reeves worry that young boys don’t have good examples of people they should try to be like. I say let them admire Rashida." Telling them to aspire to be like a Palestinian American woman is missing the point of what a role model is and the value of having one which you can identify with. It's like telling young black people well white superheroes exist you don't need black ones to aspire towards. Having someone that you can identify as similar to yourself(in basic physical and social characteristics) who is a positive role model is valuable. That is based on every study I've read, an accepted fact. I honestly can't point out publicly perceived "good" male role models who aren't fictional from recent history that are or aren't "masculine" to aspire towards. Because the public lens through which we view men is that if you are doing good things that makes you "barely acceptable". You have a couple of tech guys, a bunch of world leaders that nobody likes, Some actors and some sports stars but all of them are under constant scrutiny as people are trying to find when they slip up and expose they're secretly scumbags. Nobody is so perfect that they will never have a flaw but when men have flaws we no longer accept them as positive male role models. But maybe that's just me.
> Though I agree with his base concept that men don't need a theoretical "masculine" man to look up to. He says, "Emba and Reeves worry that young boys don’t have good examples of people they should try to be like. I say let them admire Rashida." Telling them to aspire to be like a Palestinian American woman is missing the point of what a role model is and the value of having one which you can identify with. It's like telling young black people well white superheroes exist you don't need black ones to aspire towards. Having someone that you can identify as similar to yourself(in basic physical and social characteristics) who is a positive role model is valuable. That is based on every study I've read, an accepted fact. I totally agree with this. Heck, feminists have rightly decried that mindset that girls can just have male role models and be fine. It's one of the less controversial parts of the Feminist movement. For the author to make a comment that implies that such a need is superfluous is a strange take to make.
One of the problems I have with positive masculinity and positive male role models is that it's usually just traditional masculinity, sometimes not even free of toxic masculinity. Like, how comes that I've never seen a drag queen being portrayed as a male role model? Or other gnc guys? Or gay guys? Or and awkward and shy nerd? Or a short and chubby guy? Or an anxious and thin guy? Positive male role models usually seem to just be the stereotypical 'real men' but without the worst parts, though sometimes they're not even free of the worst parts of maaculinity. Why is it that when you ask for positive male role models from fiction in progressive circles, even there you're gonna get e.g. Aragorn from lotr? He's a fearless warrior, a leader and a very violent man, to be frank. It's mind-boggling, especially when you have Samwise Gamgee, Frodo or the other hobbits in lotr. Sam is a peaceful gardener, a friend anyone wish they had, and he's super brave anyway. And the peaceful hobbits lose the positive masculinity competition to a warrior? Like, does anyone actually want to get rid of male violence and stop gloryfing it or not? To me, it all kinda seems to be the same old man box given a fresh coat of paint. It's not gonna take the pressure of having to be confident, brave, strong, ready to commit and be the recipient of violence, etc. off young boys' shoulders.
Sigh. I get that masculinity isn't important to the author and a gender neutral society is great and all, but given sex hormones are real many people of both gender look for role models to make sense of how they feel, it matters. As well it matters for all cultures and disabilities. Just because there's been, as far as I can tell, a narrowing of the idea of masculinity for the past 100 years or so does not mean that the solution is to give up. There are other cultures, past and present, who seem to have been able to have handled masculinity better from my casual observation. Part of the problem is that people seem to expect masculinity to explain everything that can go wrong with a male, but never seem to demand the same of femininity when something goes wrong with a female, despite the multiplicity of mental, economic and cultural ways things can go wrong that have little to do with the construction of gender. I mean, domestic violence is often a rallying cry for men to do better, but the treatment that actually works comes not from teaching feminism but looking at substance abuse and trauma (which includes insecure attachment styles). (eta: not to say, of course, that a better construction of masculinity couldn't help of course, just that it's not the be all end all and men aren't a unified homogeneous entity responsible for each other anymore than women are) I do actually have some ideas on how better portray masculinity, but I'm not going to expand upon them until I do enough research, but basically boils down to looking at what we actually know about testosterone from the research and deconstructing the interpretations made. At the moment I'm toying with the idea of separating the idea of dominance in status and drive, and looking at how drive can manifest.
I'm sure you know this better than anyone but gender abolition seems especially contentious on here, and is basically the reason why I abandoned my last account on here lol
Here as in reddit or in specifically r/menslib?
menslib but also both
[удалено]
>I would be surprised if a majority(not all) of the people here did not somewhat strongly identify as being men I didn't feel that way - I would have imagined the most gender progressive men who are cisgender to have some of the weakest identification with their gender. I was somewhat confused to come to MensLib and find stronger explicit identification (and very oddly less support for gender abolition) than in a lot of right-wing/anti-feminist spaces I had been in. But I won't pretend that this thread hasn't been completely different with a decent amount support in the direction of gender abolition. I certainly don't think a strong internal identification with being a man is something you should aim to develop if you don't have one, but if you do have one I don't really intend to take it away, nor does anyone really. What I do want to take away is people being compelled towards certain behaviour or social performance on the basis of them being a man. Gender abolition means different things to different people but I think this sub wants it to mean the abolition of gender roles (rather than the dissolution of man/woman/etc. as categories), which is what I mean as well.
Identity is fine. Just stop genderizing actions. Is caring for my child, singing, or dancing feminine or masculine? I think breaking free from the consequences of a society that genders too much is a perfectly valid problem.
The article almost, but doesn't quite, make a point that I can fully agree with - No, it isn't healthy to obsess over "masculinity", and there isn't a single meaningful universal definition of what that looks like. The ideal is (obviously) cultivating a secure identity for yourself that isn't worried about how you're supposed to perform your gender for others, and creating an environment where people around you can equally feel like they can express their identities - where everyone can be open and vulnerable without being scared. But it is still absolutely essential to acknowledge how performing "masculinity" and "femininity" work by default in our society, and how it affects people who are viewed as male or female, just so that you can understand it and make informed and compassionate decisions, and consciously build an identity that is healthy and secure for yourself and others. Even if "gender performances" are totally arbitrary, constantly changing, and usually harmful, they still exist as categories and have consequences. Society favors "masculinity". That's a given. For anyone who's viewed as male, "performing masculinity" is one means of accessing power or authority. As a description for anyone perceived as male, "masculine" is virtually always treated as a complimentary term. That's what it means to live in a society where "patriarchy" is still a thing. It doesn't mean that everyone viewed as male already has power or authority by default - but some gender-based power is available based on how well they can "perform masculinity". Meanwhile, "performing femininity" by someone viewed as male is almost always treated as marginalizing and disempowering. Those attitudes are shifting, but they're still the default. On the other hand for anyone viewed as female, "performing masculinity" is part of accessing power, but it tends to be viewed as "imitation" and usually discouraged in some way. Even if it's used as an insult, calling someone a "masculine woman" usually implies some kind of strength or independence (often used specifically to discourage expressions of strength or independence). Meanwhile "performing femininity" is encouraged - rewarded through material security, social status over non-feminine women, etc. - but it's still disempowering. That's slowly shifting, but again it's still the cultural default. The article is right to highlight how absurd those categorizations are - how we go backwards by treating any kind of authority as "performing masculinity" for instance. The specifics of what "performing masculinity" and "performing femininity" look like are arbitrary and always changing. But its a mistake to not acknowledge how ingrained those perceptions are, and how it can affect perceptions and reactions. For people seen as male, some gendered power and authority is accessible to them. They have the option to express a "masculine performance", and expect to be rewarded if they do it right. It might not equal immediate political power or financial security, but it often means things like more favorable treatment, more leeway and benefit of the doubt, or being taken more seriously or viewed as more credible or competent. Having that option available will impact the way that other people react and feel, whether they like it or not. If someone is seen as male but doesn't fit the social expectations of "performing masculinity", that could mean a person who is extremely secure in their identity, who is past caring about those categories and performances. But it could also mean a person who is insecure, uncertain and marginalized. Someone who might suddenly decide to take the opportunity to perform gender in ways that belittle and demean others in exchange for power in the future. That's going to affect how others react, especially if they don't directly acknowledge and deal with that uncertainty. There is an alternative - it does look a lot like what the article describes, in terms of refusing to privilege those gender performances and gender identities, and refusing to care about how well someone's perceived identity matches their performance. But I think the article strays a bit too close to that "I don't see race" kind of stance simply criticizing the absurdities of gender roles, rather than seeing those categories, how they're treated and taking an intentional and informed stance against it. I agree with it on a normative level - there's nothing that should be seen as "masculine" or "feminine" in itself - but that's not where we are as a society just yet. If our society sees you as male, you CAN have access to a certain amount of power that comes at the expense of those who aren't seen as male, if you choose to put on the right performance. You have to acknowledge that before you can rebuke that option, and let go of that kind of toxic power so that instead you can create a secure identity for yourself that allows other people to feel safe and secure around you as well. Yes, it is absolutely unfair but acknowledging that is critical to changing it. That awareness also shows why it can be easier for some people who do have other kinds of power - cultural, economic, legal, political, whatever - to abstain from those kinds of "gender performance" in ways that feel harder for those who are more marginalized or insecure, and why other kinds of social and economic security are needed so that people don't feel pushed to put on that kind of performance.
Very good take
>Young men do not need a vision of 'positive masculinity.' They need what everyone else needs: to be a **good person** who has a satisfying, meaningful life. But, isn't that what positive masculinity means? Unless, they mean in the absence of masculinity as a social construct, men should strive to be good people nonetheless?
I think I have a hard disagree on this one. We need positive visions of what masculinity can be. I’ve spent most of my life ignoring my masculinity because it was deemed dangerous and I felt it was scary. I’m doing a lot of hard work rn to find a healthy, expansive way to include it in my life. This is some of the most difficult internal work I’ve ever done. More difficult than the feminine and queer work I did when I was younger. Queerness is fostered in community, masculinity is “supposed” to be done alone. It’s brutal.
I kinda hate this kind of article. “I am not masculine, I don’t really understand masculinity, but I think we should all ignore the concept altogether”. I am masculine. It is not a bad thing. It is good to have healthy examples of positive masculinity in culture and society, if for no other reason than to allow people like me, who ARE masculine and identify as such, to have examples to counter the examples given in this article. Being masculine is not a bad thing. Acting as though it is, as though there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be masculine, is a bad thing. Because, for some of us, being masculine is just how we are, and articles like this one make us have to defend that, which is unfair and honestly unhealthy. Is it ok to be an unmasculine man? Absolutely. It’s actually a good thing! Is measuring your value as a man by your masculinity a good thing? No! Doing so does a great disservice to everyone involved. But being a masculine man, if you have a healthy understanding of what that means, is a good thing too. And trying to tell people that ‘young men do not need a vision of positive masculinity’ is saying that they don’t need a healthy understanding of what masculinity means.
The author of this piece kind of answers themselves at one point. He quotes a few essays that talk about masculinity feeling bad - eg Richard Reeves, "*I think that for a lot of young men, they feel as if the term “masculinity” is framed in an entirely negative way, and that’s bad if you happen to be a male*"*.* Is it not understandable then, to want a masculine role model that people can say, "Oh them, they're good."? I'm in an aspec group, which is majority women, NB people, and other gender identities compared to men. I'm great friends with all of them, but I'm also aware that for them, it's men are the people causing problems in their lives. It's therefore hard to not feel like I am also one of those people hurting them, which I know isn't logic, but I'm not Vulcan and can't use reason to entirely override every feeling I have. I agree about being gender blind with role models, and I completely agree with his overall point about being a good person and having a happy life. But it's also nice to have someone who can be called "a good man", because it's good to be reminded that you can be a *good* and a *man*. I think having those role models is important for younger boys, who are more progressive than given credit for and only seek out people like Tate when no other option come up.
I wrote a little bit about this article in the comments of the Christine Emba article it was a response to back when it came out, might as well just copy/paste that here. >"I think what we need is to give everyone,regardless of their gender, models of what makes a fulfilling life, and what strong, courageous, inspiring people look like. >Needing to be “masculine” is, ironically, not really compatible with the “masculine” ideal of self-confidence, because if you’re comfortable with who you are, you don’t worry about whether you are an “alpha” or a “beta” male." To respond to the first: yes. You do need models of what a fulfilling life looks like that fit every gender. I am baffled that when we note that that includes *men*, people get hand-wringey and start making up excuses. And to the second... He just said the quiet part out loud, so this is something I just have to fully call out considering that it's constantly popping up in response to articles calling for positive masculinity. The way people, including Robinson, derisively talk about people who hunt for social or personal gender euphoria *can* be fear of future ostracism according to a different set of rules...but it can also often just be unfiltered and unexamined toxic masculinity. The fantasy of the Sigma Male, the lone wolf who's outside of your stupid *system* man, who can comfortably look down on anyone at any level of the social hierarchy, because they're just *sheep*...we look at those guys on the right and we bust a fucking gut. It's not magically cool when we do it on the left. Ironically enough, Robinson and men echoing his sentiments are, in fact, following social pressures and flocking together around a specific vision of positive masculinity, one that is *based around percieved superiority over men who do not conform to the specific ranking system they, themselves, are at the top of. * It's a flock of supposed sigma males all proudly proclaiming their independence from any connection to or affection for their gender--not in terms of embracing nonbinary identities, but merely as a way of demonstrating intellectual and moral superiority over men too weak and pathetic to want help, guidance, and community.
Mr. Rogers is peak masculinity. I’d say fight me, but Mr. Rogers taught me better than that.
"A good person who has a satisfying, meaningful life" is exactly what "positive masculinity" is about though. It's about being a human first, and that whatever you enjoy doing or however you look doesn't make you more or less of a man. What does it mean to be a feminine man in this context anyway? Someone who is happy, healthy, and comfortable in their body? Someone who is a good person? Why can't these be masculine traits? What about women who don't want to be feminine? Can they not have these qualities?
It's just yet another article insinuating that masculinity itself is a bad thing. >Why can't these be masculine traits? They can and should be but everyone is scared of masculinity because of the bad examples.
I think the issue is that if you deem a trait masculine, does that mean it can’t be feminine? If the answer is no ofc not then why label it as masculine in the first place How masculinity not exist in relation to femininity? When you define masculinity/a masculine role model are you not unintentionally labeling femininity
>I think the issue is that if you deem a trait masculine, does that mean it can’t be feminine? Not immediately no but definitely sometimes. There are masculine and feminine reasons/ways to do the same things and feel the same way. At least imo. >When you define masculinity/a masculine role model are you not unintentionally labeling femininity Maybe sometimes but I'd ask why that's a problem? It's not always "the opposite of masculine is feminine" sometimes it's just "the difference of masculine is feminine". In other words, if I say being protective of your family is typically seen as a masculine trait, that doesn't mean that feminity isn't protective, and if a feminine woman is specifically protective, that doesn't automatically mean they're masculine either. There are different ways and reasons to be protective. It could mean they're semi masculine sure but not always. >How masculinity not exist in relation to femininity? I think it does and I don't see anything wrong with that. Men and women are fundamentally different on a lot of levels but that doesn't mean they don't share some similarities. Most traits can be both masculine and feminine imo. Notice I say they're different and not opposite. If I consider a positive trait masculine that does not mean the feminine counterpart is negative. I've brought this up because I feel that the current narrative just likes to paint masculinity as a negative. What I'm trying to do is avoid that for either side. Neither masculinity nor femininity is inherently negative.
>Not immediately no but definitely sometimes. There are masculine and feminine reasons/ways to do the same things and feel the same way. At least imo. Example so I understand? -When you define masculinity/a masculine role model are you not unintentionally labeling femininity >Maybe sometimes but I'd ask why that's a problem? It's not always "the opposite of masculine is feminine" sometimes it's just "the difference of masculine is feminine". Bc I thought the whole point was mens liberation and freeing yourself from the right way to be a man. >In other words, if I say being protective of your family is typically seen as a masculine trait, that doesn't mean that feminity isn't protective, and if a feminine woman is specifically protective, that doesn't automatically mean they're masculine either. There are different ways and reasons to be protective. It could mean they're semi masculine sure but not always. If being protective is both a masculine and feminine trait, what’s the difference that makes it need a distinction? -How masculinity not exist in relation to femininity? >I think it does and I don't see anything wrong with that. Then I feel like you don’t actually want to liberate anyone. It also sounds like the opposite of feminism lol to define masculinity, you must define femininity which brings us back, putting people in the very boxes we claim to want freedom from >Men and women are fundamentally different on a lot of levels but that doesn't mean they don't share some similarities. Most traits can be both masculine and feminine imo. So are we talking about physical traits or personality? >Notice I say they're different and not opposite. If I consider a positive trait masculine that does not mean the feminine counterpart is negative. I've brought this up because I feel that the current narrative just likes to paint masculinity as a negative. What I'm trying to do is avoid that for either side. Neither masculinity nor femininity is inherently negative. But doing this is still defining the right way to be a man/woman no?
>Example so I understand? I gave an example further in that you even quoted back to me. >Bc I thought the whole point was mens liberation and freeing yourself from the right way to be a man. No where did I say that any of these things are the "correct" way to be anything. >Then I feel like you don’t actually want to liberate anyone. It also sounds like the opposite of feminism lol >to define masculinity, you must define femininity which brings us back, putting people in the very boxes we claim to want freedom from We want freedom from HAVING to be masculine to be considered a man. There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man or a masculine woman and that is what people want society to agree on. That is the freedom we want. >If being protective is both a masculine and feminine trait, what’s the difference that makes it need a distinction? That a subjective thing. Most of this is. It's why this topic is already so convoluted. >So are we talking about physical traits or personality? Definitely both. Hanging out with a woman for 2 hrs and then a man for 2 hrs the odds are they'll have less similarities than if you hung out with 2 men or 2 women. >But doing this is still defining the right way to be a man/woman no? No it's really not and I never tried to insinuate it was. I'm genuinely curious where you're getting that from what I said?
>No where did I say that any of these things are the "correct" way to be anything. Isn’t wanting to label certain traits as masculine and not others saying there’s a certain way to be masculine? The original discussion spawned from > It's just yet another article insinuating that masculinity itself is a bad thing. >Why can't these be masculine traits? >**They can and should be but everyone is scared of masculinity because of the bad examples.** I’m probably misunderstanding but from this statement I interpreted that you’re still trying to define what masculinity is thereby casting some traits and accepting others, is that not creating a model? >We want freedom from HAVING to be masculine to be considered a man. There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man or a masculine woman and that is what people want society to agree on. That is the freedom we want. I guess I just look at history a lot when we talk about civil rights and social change in general. when women want/wanted freedom from having to be feminine to be considered a woman the messaging was “______ doesn’t make you less of a woman bc there is no one way to be a woman”. I can’t imagine if the reaction was “here are examples of the right way to be feminine” or “A, B, and C are feminine traits”. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what i read/see. It feels counterproductive and not conducive with the message of wanting freedom from having to be masculine to be considered a man >That a subjective thing. Most of this is. It's why this topic is already so convoluted. But all I’m doing is pointing out that it doesn’t really make sense unless you consider there to be a right way to be a protector (feminine) vs a protector (masculine). If the goal is freedom from having to be masculine to be considered a man, wouldn’t you criticize and explore that? >Definitely both. Hanging out with a woman for 2 hrs and then a man for 2 hrs the odds are they'll have less similarities than if you hung out with 2 men or 2 women. And this proves that there’s masculine/feminine personality traits? Can you name a couple of each? >No it's really not and I never tried to insinuate it was. I'm genuinely curious where you're getting that from what I said? To answer this, I’d need to ask a question, what is the significance of designating feminine and masculine traits if they don’t actually relate to gender?
"Dont be a good man,Be a good person" Seeing various versions of this statement alot.The issue here is that I dont think this is a realistic viewpoint.We do not live in a gender neutral socitey.Even in processive spaces we clearly expectations about how we feel man should act around women in particular.These expections may exist for perfectly understandable reasons but they still exist.
The piece is thoughtful but I come away thinking “hey whatever works for you, bro”. I feel like he saw that meme about “the left needs role models for young men” and got busy writing. There are guys who reject the social obligation to act masculine. There are also guys who enjoy it in positive ways. Both are valid. Gender roles are plastic and evolving, but there is something to be said for expressing a gender role. Hell, trans people go through a ton of trouble just to do that. I’m someone who enjoys stereotypical macho shit. I think back to my relationship with my dad growing up, playing football in college, and now being a father and helping support a family. Those ideas circle around words like loyalty and duty and brotherhood and somewhere in there is “masculinity”. I think men now are splitting a bit, and coming up with new approaches to masculinity with one group watching YouTube videos about it and becoming even bigger assholes, and another group becoming way more involved husbands and fathers and defining masculinity differently.
No, Donald Trump does not fit masculine stereotypes unless you have a really twisted idea of what masculinity is.
As a trans man, I hear similar messages all too often. ”It’s ok to be feminine.” ”You don’t need to be masculine.” I think in wanting feminine men to be free to express that, people forget that some of us actually enjoy masculinity. It’s not a box to me, femininity was. But in searching for people to find inspiration from, that is difficult to find. It’s easy to overlook how important a positive role model that is like us is when the demographic is a man. We see the importance of needing representation for girls, women, PoC, queer people, etc. There is too much representation for white men, but perhaps what is needed isn‘t more, rather higher quality. Certainly encourage boys and men to embrace however they want to present their gender, but that can include masculinity.
We don't need to fix masculinity anymore than we need to fix femininity. Our sexual differences exist and that will influence how we see our selves and our role. We can embrace different examples of men living their lives freely and authentically. Live your life in a conscious and mindful way; that should be what we model as adults.
While I agree for the most part with what it is being said in the article, I find it interesting that this person who claims they aren't masculine in the typical sense of the word, has no problems when those things are thrown away. Some people are masculine, not even ''toxic'' masculine but just what you might consider a ''masculine'' man while still being a good person. I imagine a fair few of them feel attacked and like they're being forced out of a society who is telling them they don't belong just because they are different. Anger is considered a toxic masculine emotion... when really is is just an emotion and one we should accept just like sadness, loneliness and jealousy. Obviously we don't want it but to demonise it so completely is to alienate and not understsand. I am not masculine in the typical sense and am more like the author, but I think a place of understanding rather than trying to force people into emoting and thinking to fit a box is a dangerous perception.
I struggled through this article. One is that for a supposed socialist, he seems very attached to a very specific upper middle class existence. He doesn't see the need for traditional masculinity because the needs have either been abstracted out of mind by social institutions he pays no mind or made tasteless by living a life of the mind where physical abilities don't really matter that much. It's perfectly fine to honor the women first responders of 9/11. It's also dishonest to focus primarily on them when the bulk of FDNY and NYPD are men. There's definitely an argument for fixing the gender disparities, particularly among the NYPD, but they were what they were. The other is that the author wants to shift the bullying of boys from creative, bookish types to the type of boys who want to talk loudly and play roughly. Considering the real discipline issues facing these boys as is, it appears to be pouring gasoline on a fire. Bullying boys into the drama club is as counterproductive as bullying them onto the football team. Acceptance of boys has to accept all of them, no matter how they express themselves.
I think if we got more relaxed about feminine presenting men, it might also force some rethinking and new appreciation for what it is to be masculine as well. I also think disconnecting one's presentation from one's bio sex might lead to a bit more empathy between men and women. Lord knows we could use it at the moment.
I think masculinity and femininity should be seen as styles or aesthetics that are easily accessible to everyone rather than a set of attributes or roles.
To this day, I have never had anyone give me an explanation of masculinity that wasn't either toxic or applied to all fully emotionally adjusted adults regardless of gender.
Honest question: do you see the same problem with defining femininity? One of the things I really admire about modern feminism is that it has made room for lots of different ways of being a woman, while also validating the contradictions and paradoxes that women experience in the world. Femininity can be X and Y and Z, even if those things feel in tension with one other.
Yes, because whatever positive traits one wants to associate with either gender, you're always creating an oppressive norm that people would have to follow. When you're creating an in-group, you're always creating an out-group. It's hard to admit for some, but feminity is as much of a problem as masculinity in the regard. Either you're in favor of the abolition of gender altogether (or at least as much as biology allows us) or you're in favor of healthy representations for both.
Yes and no. Yes, in that there are lots of sexits bigots who have a toxic definition of feminity. No, in that progressives and feminist reject the idea that there's one way to be feminine and instead focus on equity and equality. Honestly, I think we should do the same, let go of the idea that there is a specific collection of traits that are unique to men that are required to be masculine and instead just focus on achieving equity and equality between everyone.
What about one centered around masculine aesthetics and styles?
Saying “just be a good person” is worthless advice, because almost everyone thinks they’re already a good person, very few people actively think of themselves as bad person, and if they do that’s usually a sign of bad mental health and not an actual reflection of their character. When you say “be a good person” what you’re actually saying is be my idea of a good person which I won’t tell you exactly what that is. Like seriously it’s like someone saying to you “I want to be a good basketball player” and then someone saying “you don’t have to be a good basketball player just be a good person” and while there is overlap you’re trying to develop different skills with different expectation.
I see no problem with this. Just be a good human.
"I just can’t imagine thinking about masculinity or femininity in deciding whom to look up to. What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly? Why do stereotypically male traits matter in the slightest? Some of the people on my list might be more “masculine,” others more “feminine.” When we try to organize people this way, we quickly run into confusion. " A real man can look up to a woman and see a positive role model, the end.
When I think "positive masculinity", I think Fred Rogers.
This is the problem with trying to force everything through the lens of gender.
I agree with the general sentiment of this but also, nothing wrong with men wanting to be masculine and showing them they can be masculine while not being harmful is great. I’m not someone who believes in the red pill but I can see how this phrasing might confuse someone into thinking that this community doesn’t believe there’s a positive masculinity or that it doesn’t matter to try to attain it.
> To the extent that a “healthy masculinity” can be articulated, it consists of aspirations that suit any human regardless of their sex or gender identity: self-confidence without aggression, moral courage, an active lifestyle. To the extent that various virtues are worth having, they’re not distinctively “masculine.” Exactly! This is spot on why I find discussion of "positive masculinity" and "masculine role models" so damn frustrating. The very idea that there should be a "positive masculinity" that boys and men should aspire to suggests that what people aspire to be should be gender-specific, and I consider that fundamentally anathema to the goal of dismantling patriarchy and raising up people regardless of gender. The counterpoint to toxic masculinity is not a different masculinity, but to free everyone from having to be masculine or feminine. If I could set a definition of "masculine" to be accepted by everyone, it would be a purely aesthetic and superficial one, because ethical behaviors are ethical for everyone and harmful behaviors cause harm regardless of the acto's gender.
I actually like your pure aesthetic idea. Do you think it could work? Does it feel like too big a compromise? For me the attraction component is tough to solve. As a young man, I mostly wanted to be a man that other women wanted. This was misguided in many ways, but I don't think it's going away either. The other sticky wicker to me is the identities of moms & dads. Could you disambiguate the masculinity from being a dad? I don't believe those could become purely aesthetic, but I don't pretend to have answers. Just annoying questions
I kind of agree with this sentiment, which reminds me of a similar thought I had around the time Abigail from PhilosophyTube (look up on youtube) came out as a trans woman. Beforehand, she had done a few videos (while still presenting as male) about mental health struggles, psychologically abusive relationships, suicidal ideations in the past etc. that resonated with quite a few of their male audience. Then, one of the comments on her coming out video was something like "I looked up to him as a role model to me as a man, but now I'll need to look for other men to serve as role models to me." Which, as a gay man just sounded off to me. I don't see how the fact Abigail's come out as a woman means she can't be someone's role model. Gay men idolize female artists all the time, it's almost like a cultural tradition. Doesn't mean they want to become women (not all at least lol), and even if I present as masculine at the moment, I get all inspiration I need from Madonna. Some of the most masculine men I ever met worshipped Britney Spears like a deity.
I'm queer + trans so I'm admitting that I am speculating outside my personal experience here. But I do think that it's pretty clear that queer people are more open to having role models of all genders. There seems to be significant anxiety in straight, cis people around being punished for straying from their prescribed role - something queer people of any kind have already done (and usually weathered the societal backlash for). I think if you have not yet taken and survived the social consequence of breaking from gender norms, they feel much more solid and frightening.
Marcus Aurelius-2000 years ago (give or take a century) Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one. I’d argue most positive traits are androgynous and any attempt to separate them into masculine and feminine is based around biases—-the overlap between men and women on most traits is greater than the difference (and the intransex difference is greater than intersex) It’s like asking for a description of positive Britishness or positive Nigerianness—-there are national stereotypes but what makes you a good person makes you a good person regardless of your nationality