Redefining masculinity

 

“Be a man! You must be swift as the coursing river! Be a Man! With all the force of a great typhoon! Be a man! With all the strength of a raging fire, mysterious as the darkside of the moon!” – I’ll Make a Man Out of You, Mulan.

Any child of the ’90s or avid Disney aficionado will instantly recognize this verse as the chorus from one of the most popular songs from Disney’s Mulan. In the scene, the drill sergeant (voiced by Donny Osmond) is training his new recruits how to be “real men” and defeat the Huns. It is a very triumphant song, advocating that men must be strong, fast, powerful, and mysterious.

The irony in the song is that the unit of soldiers singing about how to be manly men isn’t as all-male as they imagine themselves to be. But for thousands of years, boys have heard a similar, darker, and far less ironic set of gender-defining directives: “Don’t cry,” “don’t be a pu**y!” “bros before hoes,” “man up,” “get laid,” “don’t be a f*g,” “grow some balls,” “be a man!”

This is the far darker and much more “real” version of masculinity most men grow up hearing as boys by our parents and classmates. This masculinity is toxic turning boys and men inward, suppressing their emotions or channeling them through escapes like sports, video games, or far more destructive activities like drinking, drug use, and violence towards themselves or others.

This is the toxic hegemonic masculinity that is destructive to all people, to men and women, and to society as a whole. It is discussed in Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s brilliant documentary “The Mask You Live In.” Boys naturally seek guidance from male role models, be they fathers, brothers or the friends who surround them. In college, they may get absorbed into fraternity life in the US or “lad culture” in the UK. Although there are certainly good aspects of the Greek lifestyle or of “lad culture” that can come from male bonding, often times it leads to verbal of physical violence against women, in the form of chanting “No means yes, yes means anal” by one Yale fraternity, rape on US campuses, rampant sexism in the UK or worse.

Drill instructor, via Wikimedia Commons

Drill instructor, via Wikimedia Commons

The American Psychological Association’s Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity determined that American society “socializes boys and men to conform to a definition of masculinity that emphasizes toughness, stoicism, acquisitiveness, and self-reliance,” which they say leads to “aggressive, emotionally stunted males who harm not just themselves but their children, partners, and entire communities.”

This processes of the socialization of toxic masculinity begins from birth. Clinical Psychologist David Wexler states that even at age two, girls refer to feelings more frequently than boys and after about age four or five, boys are not only held less than girls but the expression of emotions like fear and sadness by boys are more likely to be discouraged and punished by parents.

Attorney and staff writer for The National Review, David French — this David French — reflects upon his childhood growing up in the south, and the larger cultural shift in definitions of masculinity. In kindergarten, he once punched a boy for saying that he “hit like a girl” and instead of being punished, the teacher said that the boy deserved to be punched. In the last 200 years, French argues, there has been a cultural shift from an “honor culture” where transgressions towards one’s honor and integrity were met with “duels to the death”, to a “victim culture” where people “respond to even the slightest unintentional offence… but must not respond to the offence on their own, but respond to powerful others or administrative bodies.” This is the culture of micro-aggressions, where this hypersensitivity and fragility makes them politically and socially strong. French describes the “liberal elite” he encountered when he left the south for the Northeast as “whiny, petulant, hypersensitive, and incapable of either physical self-defense or even the most rudimentary tasks of manual labor.”

These two extreme forms of masculinity, one hyperaggressive and one hypersensitive, should both be considered toxic forms of masculinity. Although the hypsersensitive form of masculinity is arguably less prone to violence, it is still an extreme response to the question of what it means to be a man.

Given this context, it should therefore come as no surprise to you that the hashtag #MasculinitySoFragile, which trended in September, was met with aggressive responses from many men. The hashtag was created to highlight the effects of negative masculinity, and that “proving yourself” as a man inherently involves being aggressively masculine, cursing, or physically violent violence against the one “attacking your masculinity” – even, and perhaps especially, if the attacker is female. One example, by @MechOfJusticeWZ tweeted, in all seriousness, “I challenge any female tweeting unironically #MasculinitySoFragile to last three rounds in a fight. Let’s see who’s fragile” What @MechOfJusticeWZ, and others like him on the Twittersphere, fail to realize is that their hyperaggressive responses perfectly prove the point that the #MasculinitySoFragile is making. It’s not a personal attack on men, but on how society has socialized men and the toxic masculinity that the patriarchy has created.

Although the aggressive responses by men to this hashtag were left in the Twittersphere, that is not always the case. 97% of school shooters are male. One need look no further than Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, the Navy Yard, the Boston Marathon bomber, the UC Santa Barbara shooting or the Charleston AME Church shooting to see an obvious and terrifying pattern emerging. All relatively young men who felt isolated from their school, women, some other overarching cultural value like religion, race, or from American society and took it out on the general public.

The UC Santa Barbara shooting is particularly relevant in this context because of its direct intersection with the Mens Rights Movement (or MRA, men’s rights activism). What began in the 1960’s and 1970’s as a misogynistic backlash to 2nd wave feminism decrying female equality has seen a resurgence in recent years, whose most radical members preach a hatred, disdain, and fear of women and of the “feminization of men” while embracing the “pick-up artistry,” bodybuilding, and other hypermasculine activities. Naturally, there have been a number of disagreements between MRA members and feminists, with a debate between them in 2012 being cancelled by the convener due to a barrage of hate speech and threats from both camps. The UC Santa Barbra shooter, for example, turned to MRA websites to justify his demeaning and disrespectful behavior towards women, eventually pegging his victims’ fate to the supposed injustice of them not being attracted to him:

“It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls have never been attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It’s an injustice, a crime, because I don’t know what you don’t see in me. I’m the perfect guy, and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentleman.”

“I will punish all of you for it,” he says again, and then he laughs.

“On the day of retribution I will enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB, and I will slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see inside there. All those girls that I’ve desired so much, they would have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them. While they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes. I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true Alpha Male.

The feminist response to the men’s rights movement has been swift and near-uniformly negative. They accuse MRAs of condoning rape culture and disrespecting women, or in response to the realization that the days of white male patriarchal dominance are thankfully starting to come to an end. One MRA website, A Voice for Men, counters that the redefinition of masculinity must not only come from within the men’s rights movement, but be added to the original definition of men as “providers and protectors,” further defining masculinity within the hyperaggressive toxic paradigm.

What both movements, along with all men and women need to realize is that we need to work together to redefine masculinity away from both the hyperaggressive or hypersensitive extremes. It not just a male issue, or a female issue, but a human rights issue. Women give birth to all children, and to both cisgender and transgender boys who become men. However as with feminism and other social justice movements, change and leadership must come from within, it cannot be up to women to redefine masculinity.

If feminists engaged in a dialogue with men, about both feminism and toxic masculinity, instead of baiting them on twitter perhaps we may actually make some progress as a society. Those who get it already see what the twitter hashtag is doing. Those who don’t are responding as you would expect, with hate speech, anger, and violence. Especially when THOSE are the men who need the most help. Passive-aggressive twitter hashtags aren’t helping anything, and are most likely doing more harm than good. Ridicule can be an effective force for social change, but given the violent nature of these would-be alpha males, it’s playing with fire.

Society itself also needs to change, media representation of men needs to change, and more parents need to raise their sons to understand their own and other people’s emotions, to express their needs non-violently, to know that it is okay to cry when you are hurting. We have made progress in the last 20-30 years though. We’ve gone from SNL skits making fun of non-heteronormative masculinity like Lyle, the effeminate heterosexual and The Ambiguously Gay Duo, the latter featuring the voice acting of Stephen Colbert, to the visibility of men like Neil DeGrasse Tyson (a voice for nerds everywhere), and prominent gay actors in leading roles, like Neil Patrick Harris, Matt Bomer, and Jim Parsons. We need female to male transgender celebrities in mainstream media. We need more non-hegemonically male politicians, and male advocates for women’s rights. We need to reduce harassment and bullying of gay boys, nerds, boys who respect girls, boys who like sports, and boys who may not be the best at sports. We need those who wish to redefine masculinity to seek common ground and fight for greater gender equality and to reject toxic masculinity, before another young man who is isolated and angry takes his aggression out on society.

Nick Lehn
Nick Lehn recently received his Masters in Cognitive & Evolutionary Anthropology from the University of Oxford. His favorite topics include anything pertaining to science and society, global politics, social justice, globalization, and technology. Nick recently moved back to his hometown of Baltimore, MD.

Share This Post

  • Goodbye, daboys1215, you are banned.

  • daboys1215 .

    ^ Retard

  • daboys1215 .

    What a crock. Feminism is a hateful ideology. Women is a gender. Stop mixing them up. I know you losers do it on purpose but no one is buying it.

  • Nick Lehn

    ^Q.E.D. “toxic masculinity”

  • Ceara

    Horseshit. Every bit of this.

    1.) There is no such thing as “toxic masculinity.” There are toxic people, but a gender cannot be toxic. And when you call masculinity toxic, you are calling all men toxic because masculinity is as much a part of being a man as femininity is part of being a woman. How would you like it if I flipped your logic around and said, “The fact that women kill their children far more than men do shows that we, as a society, are not raising our little girls right. We are raising them not to care about their children, and this “toxic femininity” needs to be stopped before more babies are killed by their mothers.”

    2.) Elliot Rodger was NOT and MRA. I don’t know how many times it has to be said before you stupid progressives get it through your heads. He. was. NOT. an. MRA. Got it yet or do you need me to say it 10,000 more times to make sure?

    3.) The MRM is not and has never been a misogynistic movement. Just because they oppose feminism does not make them woman-haters. There are plenty of feminists who aren’t women and there are plenty of women who aren’t feminists. The MRM is fighting the IDEOLOGY of feminism, not women in general. Now feminists on the other hand are not fighting the MRM. They are attacking all men with their “toxic masculinity” narrative, just as they always have. So who is the real villain here?

    4.) #MasculinitySoGFragile was NOT meant to be used to fight against this imaginary “toxic masculinity.” It was meant to be used, by feminists, to attack men, and that’s exactly what they did with it. Most of the feminist tweets in that hashtag were feminists insulting men as a whole and sticking that hashtag on the end of it. Nothing more. What if a whole hashtag were created that was meant to insult women? How pissed would you be?

    5.) And we don’t need more men fighting for women’s rights. There are plenty of those already. We need more women fighting for men’s rights. Men are killing themselves left and right. They are having their genitals mutilated at birth. They are unfairly losing custody of their children and being forced into legal slavery (child support and alimony.) They are being forced to sign up for the draft when women aren’t. They are unable to receive help if they are the victims of domestic violence or sexual violence because there are NO programs out there for men (and feminists attacked and bullied the one man who TRIED to make one.) And now, with this “toxic masculinity” narrative, you are even trying to strip men of their identity and tell them that they need to be more like women so that they won’t be violent offenders. If you want to know why young men are snapping and shooting up schools, maybe look to THESE things as the cause and stop blaming men’s biology.

  • TheOriginalLiz

    We need to stop making the preeminent definition of someone man or woman and instead make it person. I believe that is the fundamental problem, putting gender before humanity.

  • Elizabeth Halloran

    .❝my neighbor’s aunt is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    ds……..
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentsVacanciesReportWeb/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • Indigo

    True enough. I think it’s a telling remark about the Arab-Muslim world that they are still in their medieval phase. They haven’t got as far as the Reformation yet. And therein lies the problem. They need to fight all that out among themselves. I don’t know of any good reason, apart from our desperate need for their oil, to meddle in their affairs.

  • emjayay

    Yes, while I don’t argue with any of the points, this post appears to be written by a college student taking a gender studies class.

    Women, and gender equality, have come such a long way in the West in the past couple of hundred years. If someone is looking for a real problem, look to the Arab/Muslim Middle East, where women and gender equality (which does not remotely exist) are about a thousand years behind the US as the beginning of the country.

  • Nick D

    Well thought out piece. While I don’t agree with the majority of your opinions regarding masculinity as toxic. Your points are clear, concise, and finish with a equitable thesis. But using the mainstream media examples as reasoning for the need to reinvent the world seriously lacks perspective. Are we to throw away what has made the western culture the most successful in human history? Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

    You stated that we have made tremendous progress in the last 30 years. I don’t see progress as a country or a society, I see a denigration of society into narcissism and feeling based logic. Truth, debate, and nature are thrown out as evils that need correction. Not to mention America has been tumbling in the world standing of actual actionable power and respect in the global community. We peaked as a country after WW2. The 60’s was a period of moral deviancy and nonsensical b.s. the only good that came out of it was the civil rights movement (for african americans). Feminism and their pseudo science’s of sociology and psychology interpret the world in half baked idealism without taking a pragmatic view of how it affects the culture.

    The fact of the matter is there has always been and there will always be dangerous and evil people. Men have more natural power to act out their evil, and are therefore more accomplished at committing evil (men pretty much are more efficient at every task regardless of the nature of it). Rigid moral lines are needed to keep evil and good seperate so that good can overcome evil. What this new wave bs has done is blurred the moral line.

    In the end, I see too much of what is happening in America today that directly parallels what happened in the collapse of the Roman Empire. The most egregious of this idealism is the denigration of history and the past as worthless because the authors are part of the “white male patriarchal dominance.” The truth of their history is disregarded because of the nature of their births. When we fail to learn from the lessons of the past, we concede to repeat the mistakes previously made. We cannot and should not punish the historians who have “white washed history.” To do so would be to dismiss the knowledge of past human successes. Consequently reducing our overall awareness of living as human beings on planet earth.

  • Indigo

    I had to look up ‘pwn.’ Clever. Yes, women are beginning to rival men in the public arenas. It’s almost as if old fashioned Irish, Brehon Law is resurfacing. And it’s about time! What I would ask of gender studies as a discipline is to embrace context. History has plenty of examples, we in the West have not always been cocooned inside this Fundamentalist, Victorian Christian swaddling that holds such sway with some.

  • Bullshit.

  • Don Chandler

    It’s pretty clear that women are beginning to rivaling men in areas like politics and business. Even the military has women among the elite fighting troops. Woman are showing strength in gaming too. Rather than take the teeth out of men, I think it’s healthier to encourage women to show similar mettle. I don’t want to engineer people. I don’t think it’s going to happen either. So long as there is the perception of an enemy, you will have to breed ‘strength’. Point in case: One thing I’ve learned, gays are not weak! And gays have lots of enemies. Tell me, who among us doesn’t like to ‘pwn’ our critics ;)

  • 2karmanot

    No man is worth his balls if he cannot love with his whole heart, protect and serve with the strength which is allotted him, live and express compassion in all its manifestations.

  • nicho

    “Why do people say “grow some balls”? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.”
    ― Betty White

  • Indigo

    When it comes to gender studies, I’m at a loss to know how to take ahold of the question because both statement and analysis strike me as hyper-infltated. Is there no middle ground? Is there no common vocabulary? Is there anything other than the politics of genderism to start the discussion? This is not a new conversation — it was known in ancient Greece, (Aristophanes), it was known in medieval Europe (Hroswitha and others), it was known in Ming China (The Dream of the Red Chamber), it was known in Puritan America (The Scarlet Letter), it was known in Early Television (Tea and Sympathy) — but every time the topic of gender studies comes up, it presents itself as a brand new insight. It isn’t.

    As for the American Male Myth, the campaign speeches of Teddy Roosevelt set a tone that continues to resonate in the issues this article addresses. A secondary source, the sermon literature of the 19th century preachers who ranted against Walt Whitman whom they understood perfectly well. It’d serve the conversation well to go back and unearth that Rough Rider mythos that re-defined cowboys and turned ruffians into political capital that has sold movies since the first flickers of the motion picture industry.

© 2018 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS