Jonathan Dresner was the first, but not the last, to send me a link to this Sara Robinson post: There’s Something About Men. Picking up on the recent disturbing news of adult men targeting young girls in school shootings, Robinson muses at length about "the man crisis". Her most powerful paragraph:
Something is not right with the boys. Something in the way Americans look at males and manhood has gone sour, curdling into to a rank, toxic, and nasty brew that is changing the entire flavor of our culture. Men everywhere seem to be furious. Some turn it outward against women, against society, against the institutions that no longer seem to nurture them. Some turn it inward against themselves, putting their energies into bizarre self-destructive fantasy lives centered around money, violence, and sex. Some, more disenchanted than angry, check out entirely, abdicating any interest in making commitments or contributions to a family, a profession, or a community to spend their lives as perpetual Lost Boys. Together, all this misdirected, destructive energy has become a social, cultural, and political liability that we can no longer afford to ignore.
As is being widely pointed out (and as even Robinson acknowledges) this sense of "crisis" is an old one. Read Michael Kimmel’s magisterial and indispensable Manhood in America; he points out that virtually every generation since the advent of mass industrialization has worried frantically about "what’s wrong with men today". (Teddy Roosevelt’s hyper-masculinity gets particular attention in this context.) Pointing out that anxiety about male behavior is not new is at least partly helpful; as many feminist commentators have pointed out (see Amanda’s long and excellent post, as well as the comments), it’s hard to blame modern feminism for all of the ills of contemporary men when the sense of "men in crisis" long predates what is claimed as the cause of the problem!
In discussions like this, I’m reminded of why it is that I sometimes prefer youth ministry to academia. It’s not that I abhor a vigorous discussion of ideas; it’s not that I don’t think trading fashionable gender theories isn’t (sometimes) productive and useful. It’s that frankly, I don’t read a lot in these discussions (from either side) about what folks are actually doing to help change and transform young men’s lives. This isn’t a criticism directed solely at feminists, mind; often the worst offenders are those in the men’s rights advocate (MRA) community whose proclaimed concern for the well-being of young men is not matched by a consistent track record of volunteering with the very lads they are apparently so worried about. Pontificating is easy — teaching and youth work are a bit tougher.
I’ve taught a course on men and masculinity, and I have worked with high school boys in a volunteer capacity for seven years now. As I sit here at the computer on this Monday morning, I can feel the sore muscles in my lower back. They’re not sore from running, boxing, or lifting; they’re sore from spending Saturday night on the floor in a sleeping bag, hanging out with the All Saints Pasadena 2006-2007 confirmation class. We’ve got a small group of boys this year, but they’re great guys and I loved the chance to get to know them better this weekend. We’re going to be spending lots of time together between now and May, when they will (if they choose) get confirmed at the hands of Bishop Bruno. So, in other words, I spend a lot of time thinking about young men, masculinity, and what I can do to reach out to boys who may feel alienated, lonely, exhausted, and overwhelmed.
Though I love both boys and girls equally, I feel especially called to mentor and care for young men. I wrote at length about how challenging and rewarding this can be at Participate. Let me repeat a relevant portion of what I wrote last year:
"Unlike some folks in the pro-feminist/feminist community, I’m not troubled by the notion that some of the most important "growing" we can do needs to be done in single-sex environments. What we need — and need desperately — is more men who are willing to mentor other young men and oversee all-male groups where sexism, homophobia, and misogyny, and ultimately, harassment are not used to foster male solidarity!
One of the most important things I do in the context of my work as a youth leader is spend time with groups of boys. Talking with one other man, one on one, it’s far easier to "let down one’s guard" and step away from sexist humor, than it is in a larger group where several young men may be (consciously or no) jostling for status. The vital task is to get groups of guys talking about sexuality, rape, and harassment, and to get them accustomed to the experience of discussing these things without using ugly humor to alleviate tension and bond the group together in quick solidarity against women. To lead groups like this, you’ve got to be secure in your own sense of masculinity; it’s all too easy for even adult males to get sucked into the tremendous temptation to try and win the approval of the other guys in the room by talking a "macho" game and using demeaning language about women to establish one’s manly bona fides. And of course, the other thing you’ve got to have is a love, a genuine love, for young men.
When I first started mentoring young men, I still wasn’t sure how I felt about other guys. My initial foray into men’s work was motivated, frankly, by a desire to do everything I could to protect the women in my life from rape and harassment. The impetus to work with boys had more to do with protecting girls than it did with a real desire to connect with the guys. Happily, in the process of doing the work, that all changed. As I made a conscious effort to overcome my fears of being judged "not cool enough" and "not man enough", I made deep and abiding friendships with men my own age, older men, and some of the teen boys whom I was mentoring. With the latter group, I was able to earn their trust first — and then, only then, begin to talk to them frankly and boldly about sexism, rape,and harassment."
I stand by that today.
In my work with boys, I do two things: I talk openly about the importance of courage, creativity, kindness, self-restraint, and a willingness to express emotion. In ways both subtle and direct, I advocate for both traditionally "masculine" and "feminine" virtues. And yes, to the dismay of some of my feminist friends, I often say things like "Bobby, you know, part of becoming a man is learning to…" My critics immediately want to know why I can’t say "Bobby, part of growing up is…" Why must I insist on naming anything good as particularly masculine, since it should be obvious that courage, creativity, and compassion are as easily manifested by women as by men?
But I remain convinced that while an insistence on gender-neutral language sounds lovely in theory, it’s lousy in practice. Young men are overwhelmingly anxious about one thing: "being man enough." A few opt out of the competition, choosing to openly reject participation in the anxious jockeying and measuring. (A disproportionate number of those who "opt out" end up blogging about gender issues. Ahem.) But for the rest, trying to tell them that "being a man" isn’t important is absurd and counter-productive. In youth work, trying to eradicate any sense of significant difference between the sexes may be a noble cause, but in practical terms, it just doesn’t meet the needs of most boys. What they need least is a gender-studies professor’s lecture on why masculinity and femininity are strait-jackets! What they need most is a loving, responsible older man who will challenge them to rethink what it means to be masculine, and who will offer them a more expanded understanding of the joys and possibilities of being male.
I reject the false dualism that sees the celebration of masculine virtue as a zero-sum game. (Echidne feels very differently.) In other words, hanging out with the boys and talking about "persistence" as a positive attribute of manhood doesn’t mean that it isn’t also a positive attribute of womanhood. And while it would seem obviously more accurate to speak of these virtues, therefore, as being attributes of "gender-neutral adulthood", to do so is to ignore the enormously compelling need young men have to be affirmed as young men. We live in a culture where the only folks who seem to celebrate the specifically masculine are those who are pushing a far-right social and religious agenda. In order to counteract that message, we must do more than reject masculinity itself as a false construct. Rather, we’ve got offer a vision of what it means to be a man that is grounded in justice, grounded in compassion, grounded in a respect for diversity — but also grounded in a sense that there is something magical,, unique, wonderful, and positive about masculinity itself.
I’ll finish this long post with a story. A few years ago, while planning our major confirmation retreat to Big Bear, I came up with an idea. We had equal numbers of boys and girls that year, and of course the two groups were placed in separate cabins. I told the boys they had to come up with a "fun surprise" for the girls. The female youth leader with whom I work told the girls they had to do the same for us. I let the boys plan, but I told them to think carefully about what they wanted to do for all the girls as a group. And the boys picked an astonishingly traditional role for themselves. When the vans finally arrived at our mountain cabins, the boys leapt out, and insisted on carrying in all the luggage. The girls simply pointed to the bunks they had chosen, and the boys placed suitcases and sleeping bags neatly and carefully on top of them. The boys then gave cards (signed by each of them) to each of the girls, as well as a flower (the boys had bought these themselves.) The girls ended up giving each boy a personalized note, and (oh stereotype!) a bag of cookies and treats. Both groups loved the whole experience.
Were the "treats" they planned for each other rooted in stereotypical gender roles? You bet. Were the kids left disempowered, angry, alienated? Uh, no. Did I have to face a furious parent or two when we got home? Yes, I did. All Saints has many very liberal parents, and a couple had heard about these "treats" from their kids, and were angry that I hadn’t done more to prevent the kids from acting out traditional gender roles. But my job is not to teach kids gender theory. My job is to love them and help them grow up. Where gender theory is useful, I’ll use it. Where traditional gender roles leave everyone feeling affirmed and valued, I’ll use them too. Ask any youth worker — we live in the realm of the practical, the possible, and the effective. And while sometimes that means challenging negative aspects of the "masculine ideal", at other times, it means celebrating and encouraging the positive attributes of the same.
I usually just a lurker here (trying to learn more about gender issues and feminism here and at a number of other blogs), but I wanted to tell you that I thought this was particularly insightful. I’m the sister of three wonderful brothers (one older, two younger), so I have an interest in making sure that they grow up to be the kind of men who will respect the women in their lives. I’ve also dated enough to see how a man’s perception (or misperception) of masculinity and manhood shape how he treats women.
My brothers each have different talents and virtues, some more traditionally masculine, some less so, but teaching boys what it means to be men doesn’t mean that some virtues should be seen as masculine, and others feminine. One of my younger brothers is praised for his ability to make peace in a family squabble; the other might be praised for standing up to the mean kid in the neighborhood. Neither need be treated as more masculine than the other.
It’s plain to anyone who spends a lot of time around guys of all ages that feeling masculine is important to them. Men are looking to connect with other men the same way women try to connect with other women. What we teach boys about masculinity will affect whether they bond over demeaning women, or more positive things.
I’ll end my commentary there, but thanks for this post.
I appreciate what you have to say about working with youth. I have spent a lot of time working in summer camps and there really is rich opportunity for theory meeting practice and the impact you can have on kids’ lives.
(Not to beat a dead horse, but that was largely at the back of my mind in all the hair threads. In every camp I have worked at I was the only woman with hair on her legs. (Once there was one other woman). The ONLY one. How the hell are we supposed to teach girls that hair removal isn’t obligatory to femininity if they *never* see women they respect with hairy bodies!) /aside
My quibble with your post is that I think the outcome was pretty inevitable given the starting point of sex segregation in groups. That meant that the kids had to think of what they could do for the others *as a group*, rather than as individuals ‘well, Kate would appreciate heavy lifting and Maria would love it if someone else took over her dining hall chores one night,’ etc. Further, the division between the groups was entirely and only based on sex.
So basically, when you ask kids to think of other kids not as individuals but as a group whose dominant characteristic is their shared and different sex, it’s hard to imagine anything but sex role stereotypes coming out of that.
Okay. So feeling masculine can involve taking care of women. (And feeling feminine involves taking care of men.) And it’s certainly nice to take care of other people.
So why not, next time, explain what happened and suggest they try to do something stereotypically associated with the other gender, to see that it’s not “taking care of you in a masculine way” feels good, but “being considerate in general” feels good.
Re: zero-sum game? Well, no, talking about positive quality X as a part of manhood doesn’t mean it’s not a part of womanhood — but if you aren’t quite clear that it’s *both*, then you’re essentially making it into a black-and-white thing: something is for men or women, but not both. (I have no idea how you present things. This is just a general comment.)
I have to say that I am disturbed by the notion of teenaged boys being so concerned about becoming “manly enough.” Because manliness by necessity has to be definied as not female.
As a teenager I was (and continue to be!) concerned about meeting my obligations to become a full-fledged grown-up and adult. It never occurred to be to think of this in terms of being sufficiently “feminine” or “womanly.” Why do we have to code the universal human desire to be a strong person in terms of “masculinity”?
Whether the differences between men and women owe more to biology or to social construction, the fact is that they “feel real” to the overwhelming majority of people. The role of the college gender studies professor is to challenge the assumptions that lie behind our notions of sex roles. But the job of the youth worker is to deal with the very real fears and anxieties young people have, and to look to affirm them in their very real sense of themselves as young men or women.
We put young men and women in distinct groups every time we have a retreat — we have separate bunkhouses for a host of reasons. We have separate bathrooms. This creates “male space” and “female space”. Integrating the bathrooms is fine for college students, but for ninth-graders? Most would find it terrifying (or at least awkward.) Acknowledging that there’s more to gender difference than different plumbing is fundamental common sense in youth work.
Hugo, this was the best, most responsive and understanding reply to my post that I’ve had so far. (Though I can recommend Amanda’s as well.) I’m coming from a place that seems to be rare — and, as you say — very misunderstood. I believe that women recognize, validate, and appreciate men as men without devaluing ourselves one bit as women. And men can do the same. And it’s all pretty nice, when it works.
It’s not a zero-sum game. I also worked with Methodist youth for many years (Aleve is good for that sleeping-on-the-church-floor back pain), and am the mother of a 13-year-old son. At that age, as you note, they’re all desperate to know how men behave, and how to treat the girls, and what it will take for them to join the adult ranks. No amount of feminist theory changes the facts on the ground. And furthermore, I think they get very angry and disengaged if they’re allowed to move through their teens without somebody taking the time to show them what’s expected. It’s a limited window of developmental opportunity — especially for those of us who want to raise men with a feminist sensibiity. Once it’s closed, you may never get another chance to teach them this stuff. (Unless they father daughters, which seems to be a common radicalizing experience for even very conservative men.)
Tara’s comment touches on what I’d like to see happen, which is that we take care of men, and they take care of us. It’s time for a whole lot more taking-care-of-each-other on all sides. I honestly thought that there were a lot of other men and women who might be ready for that, too; and that, in pointing out that we’ve got a goodly number of very scared, angry, disengaged men whose violence may be taking a new and odd turn, feminists might be moved to take notice.
Obviously, I underestimated the degree to which female rage has also festered and grown toxic. Which makes be a bit despairing that anybody’s going to be taking care of anybody any time soon.
Thanks, Mrs. R. Indeed, as you say, . No amount of feminist theory changes the facts on the ground.
Hugo, you said “Whether the differences between men and women owe more to biology or to social construction, the fact is that they “feel real” to the overwhelming majority of people.”
So, what about the minorities? There are lots of people who do not fit into the stereotypical constructs. I’m a female engineer. I’m more interested in typical male things than typical female things. I do not want or need a guy putting my camping gear on my bed for me. I can do that myself. If I need help from someone stronger than me, I will ask. What about homosexual teens? What are they learning from the gender constucts? Human gender and sexuality is not binary.
I agree that taking care of other people is important, but take care of people as individuals, not as one gender taking care of stereotypical stuff for the other gender.
Usually I like your writing, and your daily blogging is appreciated, but I really don’t agree with you here.
Why are people trying to control the idea of what it means to be masculine? They shouldn’t have to re-think what it means to be a man to fit the perspective of an older man they trust, part of becoming a man is finding yourself and discovering what it means to be a man. I belive a lot of mental illness is caused by trying to conform to an ideology that one does not belive in, but was raised to believe (usually by a person you trust, e.g. pastor, teacher, etc.) We need to teach boys to be capable to make the decisions themselves and not try to gain their trust and then press our political/ideological views on them. Lead by example and have discussions about issue’s but don’t try to shape their minds to your ideas.
Mastermind, you point out what I see as the left’s great problem: the profound concern for the minority which leads to ignoring the needs of the vast majority. Because a few teens may feel left out, we should therefore not do something fundamentally beneficial for the majority? Wouldn’t it be better to do as we do do at All Saints, and offer a time for kids to give feedback and discuss these issues? After the suitcase/cookie incident, we had time to talk and to debrief; like any good youth leader, I checked in with my kids afterwards to make sure they were all good with what we had done.
If we’ve got an intersexed teen, and we’ve only got two bunkhouses, we’re gonna have to put the kid in one of the two bunkhouses. In an ideal world, maybe we’d have three bunkhouses, or maybe we’d be able to all bunk together in comfort. And if wishes were fishes, they’d swim in the sea.
While I approve of the sentiment behind this topic and even parts of the enacting of it I am once again struck by how, again, in one part of the blog you reference to homophobia, but then engage approvingly on a heterosexist field exercise, one which you defend in your comments. Homophobia doesn’t come from mysterious food additives, but though normative assumptions of what it is to be socially acceptable as male and female.
When you earlier blogged about your religious envolvement with teens regarding sexual instruction, this topic came up and you, Hugo, promised a blog to address the needs of the LGBT teens closeted under your care - I’m still waiting for that.
Simply passing off responsibility that you don’t feel comfortable approaching with statments about “on the ground” or “wishes were fishes” is unacceptable. You went to school and educated yourself about feminist issues - surely educating yourself to be a resource for the intersex children YOU HAVE ALREADY INTERACTED WITH (incidence rate of 1 in 2000), or the gay children (1 in 10) or the transgender children (stats unclear) IS your responsiblity (unless you really aren’t there for all of those in your care).
It is your responsibility to, just as much as you affirm guys paying special attention to girls in traditional ways, affirm that is it just as masculine to pay special attention to guys - effeminate guys, butch guys, all sorts of guys in the same way. That part of “Being a guy…” is not just how we treat those we see as sexual partners or socially acceptable pairings but those whose view of sexual pairing and/or gender may be socially threatening.
Ignoring this gap between the ideology and the reality doesn’t make it go away; its kind of like how hundreds of schools have policies on bullying but never openly address the issues of sexual orientation/gender behaviour bullying - by not talking about it, you aren’t raising a generation of empowered males; you’re raising another generation with the same blind spots we inherited from the last.
Elizabeth, it’s a huge reach to say that because I talk about masculinity that I somehow ignore gay and lesbian youth. I’ve had queer kids in my youth group many a time (we are an affirming church), and I’ve been a resource to them.
I am very clear that embracing “manhood” in the positive sense is not the same thing as embracing heterosexuality. Nothing I say or do is intended to give the impression that gay men can’t be fully and deeply masculine. I’m also clear on distinguishing what society says is masculine (bravado, promiscuity,athletic prowess, power, wealth) from what we in the church offer up as masculine (self-restraint, tolerance, courage, kindness, inner strength). And remember, naming these virtues as “masculine” is not, not, not, not, not, saying that they can’t also be “feminine.” Insisting we dispense with masculine and feminine altogether, however, and focus only on the “human” ignores both biology and socialization.
I think I’m still confused. Sure, we shouldn’t have unisex bathrooms or kids of both sexes all bunking out together — but that relates to our differences in plumbing, as you put it.
But in terms of our character it sounds as though you want to tell the boys that certain valuable character traits are masculine, while also acknowledging that these same traits may be feminine as well. But, if I understand your argument correctly, we still need to extol those character traits by calling them “masculine” rather than just referring to them in gender neutral terms of being “adult” character traits. This is because (again if I’m understanding correctly) boys have a deep yearning to become “masculine” as opposed to just grown up.
So are we just playing a semantic trick on these kids? Or is there some meaning to being “fully and deeply masculine” that I’m not getting?
HF, it’s more than a semantic trick. While men and women are equally capable of the same virtues, most will manifest those virtues differently. A man’s courage may appear different than a woman’s; not better, not worse, just different.
Teenage boys IN GENERAL (yes, there are exceptions, but not enough to disprove the rule) have stronger sex drives than their female peers. They are also raised with different rules about sexual behavior — our culture ensures that, for better or worse. So a message about self-restraint and respect for young men can be couched in different terms than it might be couched for young women.
More men rape women than women rape men, after all. An anti-rape message needs to be grounded (as Men Can Stop Rape do) in a particular message about the virtues of Strength and Self-Control; it will be infinitely more effective (ask anyone who has done anti-rape work with boys) if it is couched in terms of masculinity.
Hugo,
Thank you for the clarification. I said what I said not because I am reaching but because as a feminist and a christian, I am facinated by your stories of mentoring within a church structure because they ARE heterosexist. While you may have been a resource to some queer kids, I haven’t seen that on your blog, I haven’t seen THAT story of big bear, nor do you seem to understand the equal (if not greater) importance of the leadership/mentoring roles to closeted queer youth. While you chastise MRA’s for not stepping up, where are the stories, insight and theories that shape your actions, when you know that you may be the ONLY queer sensitive mentor role model in a church setting these scared, closeted and confused queer kids might have.
The Amish youth leaders have LGBT youth in thier care, so do extreme Conservative Evangelicals, they just may not know who they are yet, but those kids are learning a LOT about expected role behavior and what “masculinity” and “femininity” is about. Please share with us, how, as an feminist leader in an affirming fellowship, your role differs, share with us those stories, please. I honestly beg you. Because I’m having a hard time seeing it through stories of boys carrying luggage for girls and girls baking treats for boys.
Hugo - if you ever wonder why people dislike “feminism”, read the critical comments here. (ANd rants like Echidne’s post.) You’ve goaded the ugly face of feminism - the intolerance, the One-True-Wayism, the denigration of the masculine, the rejection of reality, all the things which many men and women who don’t long for a return to patriarchy see in feminism, and cause them to decide that they can’t join the feminist project.
Okay, Elizabeth — between now and the end of next week I PROMISE a post on youth ministry with LGBTQQ youth.
Hugo - if you ever wonder why people dislike “feminism”, read the critical comments here. (ANd rants like Echidne’s post.)
I did rant, true, because I felt a sort of despair after reading the post originally, and the reason is my personal experiences of how masculinity has been defined in my own life, and it was as the negation of femininity, and the resulting exclusion of girls and women by gender. It is hard for me to imagine a world where a strong focus on what separates men and women wouldn’t fire back as more limitations of women for this reason.
But I never denigrated what is masculine or men, I never advocated intolerance or some one-true-wayism.
Fair enough; Anthony, if you could refrain from using the inflammatory “rants”, that would be nice. (Even if Echidne uses it herself.)
Gee, all over the place tonight.
I think one of the reasons for the heat behind this discussion is that many people have had experiences of masculinity/femininity being used as a weapon against them, often by loved ones. This leaves a bad taste and anger that certainly has not left me after 25 years. Throwing in “biology” into this is also problematic, because it’s most often used to justify some venus/mars polarity, rather than complex diversity.
So as much as I can respect a masculinity based on justice, compassion, (and I would add non-violence, but that’s just my ethical path) I’m not really ready to embrace it. I don’t know if I ever will be.
But that’s ok. We probably don’t need a monolithic pro-feminist men’s movement.
Thank you, Hugo. Your comments make a lot of sense to me.
Anthony, I don’t see how any of the comments on this thread could possibly be seen to constitute the “ugly” face of feminism. What you are seeing here are people grappling with the concepts of masculinity and femininity, what they really mean, and how to form a concept of masculinity that does not denigrate women or gay kids, or others. I can’t fathom anything particularly off-putting about that unless one is very much wedded to a one-dimensional view of masculinity that involves dominance and superiority over others.
Anytime someone engages in the project of finding new ways to present masculinity or femininity, progressive and constructive ways, there are pitfalls. Right? The people who want to defend traditional gender roles will probably hate it, and those who aren’t so fond of the masculinity or femininity they were taught would often rather abolish the ideas of masculinity or femininity altogether.
A military officer said in 2005, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
http://everythingsruined.typepad.com/blog/2005/02/speak_it.html
This is a view of masculinity that explicitly supports women’s rights. It’s also not pacifist, to say the least. Folks who are unhappy that the story Hugo Schwyzer mentioned included girls giving cookies to boys and boys moving heavy objects might take note.
Was chivalry ever egalitarian or pacifist? No. Can we draw upon the romance of chivalry to create a compelling story and ideal for young men today? Maybe!
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/11/21/fatherless/index.html
And the day-to-day being there, living out that compelling story, is so important. Thank you for doing that, Hugo.
A post I’d like to see is an explanation of what, exactly, these important differences between men and women are. Because right now you seem to be asserting a logical contradiction — that certain characteristics, say courage, should be considered both uniquely masculine *and* virtues for both sexes. Maybe that works in pulling one over on your irremediably gender-fixated kids, but it strikes me as philosophically unsustainable. On this blog I hear a lot of lip service to the idea that men and women are different, but that claim is never fleshed out in any substantive way — or if it is, it’s immediately contradicted by saying “oh, but that’s equally applicable to women, of course.”
I’ve recently come to realize that, as a feminist, I really don’t have a problem with concepts of “manliness” and “femininity.” In my ideal world, perhaps, we wouldn’t have such concepts; but culture has a very, very long memory. We have knights and samurai, and gunmen of the west, and soldiers and survivalists, and–I don’t believe that what we call ‘manliness’ is something that’s biologically inherently male, but I do recognize that our culture has historically coded it as male. All of that is okay with me just so long as I feel that these ideas are as accessible to me as they are to any man. Putting on manliness is something I can do, just as I can put on femininity on the days when I can be bothered to wear a skirt and pluck my eyebrows.
Or, to sum up the way I see things a bit more coherently:
-’Masculinity’ and ‘Femininity’ are concepts that aren’t biologically attached to the categories of ‘male’ and ‘female.’
-They are, however, historically and culturally attached.
-Given thousands of years of culture that tell us what masculinity and femininity are, it may not be such a bad thing to rehabilitate them as concepts accessible to both genders, rather than trying to extinguish them.
First of all, I want to say I enjoyed reading this post. I also have a couple of questions, and I’d like to qualify them by saying I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the premises, but searching for some clarification.
who will offer them a more expanded understanding of the joys and possibilities of being male
How do you present “the joys and possibilities of being male” without necessarily juxtaposing that against not being female? What are the joys and possibilities of being male? What are the joys and possibilities of being female? (Aside from the obvious fatherhood v. motherhood.)
we’ve got offer a vision of what it means to be a man that is grounded in justice, grounded in compassion, grounded in a respect for diversity — but also grounded in a sense that there is something magical,, unique, wonderful, and positive about masculinity itself
Is there something magical, unique, wonderful, and positive about masculinity iteslf? For some reason, this strikes me as odd. Maybe it’s because I associate “masculinity” and “femininity” with gender more than sex and because I’m gender-queer, told my whole life how “boyish” my personality is, but neither masculinity nor femininity seem to me to be intrinsically magical, unique, wonderful, or positive. I’m not suggesting we must reject masculinity as a false construct, but what about as a neutral construct? Why does it not make more sense to relay the message that masculinity (or femininity) is not inherently magical et. al, but is what you make of it?
As you pointed out, “We live in a culture where the only folks who seem to celebrate the specifically masculine are those who are pushing a far-right social and religious agenda.” Don’t they also believe that their vision of masculinity is magical, unique, wonderful, and positive? And are they actually wrong? Based on their definitions of manhood, masculinity is all those things, too.
I understand why it’s useful to frame it the way you have, but I’m still not sure that I see anything more than the same construct with “but be nice to girls and gays” tacked on. Which, you know, is great, but I don’t know that it’s about teaching masculinity as much as as teaching respect for The Other.
Hugo,
I appreciate your attempts both at your work and explaining your work to us! We definitely need to help create a “New Masculinity”. It needs to be inclusive and supportive of women and girls.
As men (and boys) we need to work with each other. The modern feminist movement has helped women and girls better understand themselves over the past 40 years. The Pro-Feminist (or Feminist if one prefers) Men’s Movement has done little, despite the efforts of many wonderful men and women.
From my life experience often it is important for men to work with other men and later build coalitions with women’s groups. Where we try to work directly with women and girls at first, often our blinders get in our way.
While I certainly don’t agree with everything you say, I respect your efforts. Thanks!
Stentor, I’m afraid I can’t answer the way you’d like me to — I’m better at embracing contradictions than in rejecting them. Holding two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time doesn’t tend to trouble me, largely because I can see how in practice (if not in theory) these contradictions can be reconciled.
SS, one way of thinking of masculinity is to think of it as “maturity in a specifically male way”. I am teaching young men to embrace responsibility and maturity , but I am specifically labelling those attributes as “masculine.” Again, not to suggest that women don’t have the potential for equal maturity, but to make the idea of responsibility more attractive and compelling to the audience of anxious young men I am trying to reach.
Call it my version of political repackaging.
SS, one way of thinking of masculinity is to think of it as “maturity in a specifically male way”. I am teaching young men to embrace responsibility and maturity , but I am specifically labelling those attributes as “masculine.”
I get that, and I appreciate it. I just can’t get my head around how the approach is qualitatively different from what a man with “a far-right social and religious agenda” does. They also view masculinity as “maturity in a specifically male way.” Having grown up in a religious family and a red state, I knew many men who were decent men in terms of taking responsibility for their families, not using overtly sexist or homophobic language, being generous and helpful to those in need, etc., and were still sexists and homophobes–which was primarily demonstrated through Othering women and gays, usually in covert ways. Would these men have raped a woman? No. Would they have hired a woman? Also no. Would they have called a gay man a “faggot” to his face? No. Would they have hired a gay man? Also no. Etc.
And all of that was wrapped up in being not only a masculine man, but A Good Man, by their definition–which, outwardly, doesn’t appear to differ significantly from yours. What lies beneath makes all the difference, but how does your framing compete with men who still incorporate Othering into their definitions of masculinity (reinforcing what the young men with whom you work are already predisposed), but have just sent it underground, so to speak?
I can see how your framing works more clearly when juxtaposed against the framing of a manhood which is depedendent on overt displays of oppression, belittlement, and discrimination. It’s when sexism and homophobia are conveyed in subtler ways that the framing seems to break down. Not every man who has a far-right social and religious agenda is a Promise Keeper, you know? My dad told me my whole life that men and women were equal, yet conveyed to me over and over in subtle ways that they really weren’t. If I had been a male, I’m not sure I would have been able to extricate masculinity from Othering, mainly because I would have had no reason.
I’m a lesbian step-parent to two teenagers, boy and girl. our boy is 14. I don’t know for sure if he’s straight or gay, I think he’s probably straight, but he’s not interested enough in sex yet to make that apparent yet. He’s just relieved his height has gone up 6 inches this year!
I think Hugo is doing fine. Boys are rising men, and they work in a largely heterosexual society with conflicting ideas of masculinity. Hugo is teaching them to enjoy their maleness, in a positive way, and there is nothing wrong with that. I celebrate my stepson’s growing masculinity, and it doesn’t matter what his orientation is. He’s a beautiful young man, and he’ll be a fine adult man, and gay or straight, he’ll be male. Lovely.
Men are not women and women are different than men and we can all enjoy that. Many of our friends are gay which might not surprise you, and we can maintain delightful conventions of behavior that have nothing to do with dissing sexual stereotypes. I dearly love and respsect our gay friends, but they aren’t women and we aren’t men and we can enjoy that too. Please, take the PCness and put it aside for a bit and think about that.
My stepson is cool with gays and straights. Regardless of what his sexuality is,, he will treat his partner with respect. He enjoys the company of women (God knows he lives with enough of them! :-) and he enjoys the company of men (he plays competitve team sports, quite well). I am firmly confident he will be an honorable friend and lover to his friends and lovers. I wish someone like Hugo were in his life too, but his wonderful Dad is there and he’ll do fine.
You know, we can recognize our differences and enjoy them, without disrespecting each other. If a nice young man opens a door for me, am I offended? Hell, no. I’m a woman of a certain age. Should I feel ashamed that I need to ask that nice young man to unscrew a bottle cap? Hell no. He’s got a physical strength I don’t have. Assuming he respects that I can be as accomplished as he can intellectually, and I do, why should I mind that we are different physically and that we apply some harmless social conventions? We don’t have to all go androgynous to recognize that we all have something to provide and respect in our diferences.
Vive la difference.
Sumana:
Well, it doesn’t support women’s rights to not be invaded, shot at, or colonized. I’m really tired of seeing this used (in discussions that don’t even pertain to the war) by white feminists who haven’t taken the time to learn about the situation.
Using tokenism to make a point is offensive, especially since the facts on the ground in Afghanistan are that the invasion has caused a lot of sexual abuse, forced many women into prostitution, and has been condemned by RAWA, which is the only group that represents Afghani women.
Some soldier in this war’s view of masculinity isn’t particularily relevant to me - he’s already sold his manhood out to the state.
Stentor, I’m afraid I can’t answer the way you’d like me to — I’m better at embracing contradictions than in rejecting them. Holding two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time doesn’t tend to trouble me, largely because I can see how in practice (if not in theory) these contradictions can be reconciled.
So you can see how it works out in practice, yet you are unable to give the kind of answer I want, which is to explain specifically how it works out in practice. Well, that at least illustrates your commitment to embracing contradictory ideas.
Stentor, that isn’t fair. You’re the one who said Hugo’s ideas were “philosophically unsustainable” and “a logical contradiction.”
I don’t see how you can complain that he responded by saying he isn’t interested in theory. The only reference you made to it “working out in practice” was to say you didn’t see the theories “fleshed out” which isn’t a very direct way of saying “be practical!”
Hugo likes to tell stories. If you want details from him, ask him to tell a story that illustrates whatever claims you think he’s telling and you may get more of an answer that way. :)