Strong language in this post below the fold, at least a smidgen.
In a long comment below this post, SamSeaborn writes and asks:
You can be a great MALE while being a virgin. But can you be a great MAN?
These are three distinct layers of identiy - PERSON - MALE - MAN
So what is it that makes a MALE PERSON a MAN? Of course, sexual success with women is just one arbitrary measure. But what other criterion could be used?
He gets some sharp responses from other commenters, and those responses are excellent.
In one sense, though not perhaps in the sense he intended, Sam is right. We live in a culture in which manhood has been made distinct from biological maleness. “Boys are born, men are made” is the sort of thing repeated over and over again by those who imagine themselves wise about such matters. And there’s no shortage of institutions in our culture which promise to “make boys into men”; the military has done nicely for quite some time by recruiting on that promise very explicitly. Plenty of boys try out for football, or learn to hunt, or join a fraternity, or allow themselves to be jumped into a gang, all because of some desperate hope that through membership in a select company of the be-penised (the team, the gang, the Marines) the boy will be magically transformed into someone recognizable to his peers and to himself as a Man.
Heterosexual initiation is, as Sam makes clear, the sine qua non of real American manhood. That it ought to be otherwise seems wise and reasonable, that American males are generally made to feel it to be essential to their acquisition of manhood is indisputable. There are some wonderful works out there, by the way, about how young Catholic males view their presumably celibate and virginal priests — priests are often granted a special dispensation into ‘manhood’ by virtue of what seems a heroic sacrifice. And after all, priests and monks make a conscious choice to remain virgins (though some, of course, have sexual experience before their vows). And for many men in our culture, having enough “game” to have been able to have sex if one wanted to, but choosing otherwise because of a higher commitment, is sufficient to establish at least a partial manhood. It’s the males who are homosexual and have no interest in intercourse with women, or the males who (for all their desire) lack the “pull”, the “game”, the magnetism to get women into bed who receive the full measure of scorn from their fellows.
Many women are stunned to find out — and they do usually find out — how much of men’s sexual attention is actually about winning praise from other men. The lies (or half-truths) young men tell to each other about their “conquests” generally come at the expense of young women. In Michael Kimmel’s he notes the phenomenon that has been commented on by countless students of American masculinity. Writing of his most recent study on American male college students and the “hook-up” culture, Kimmel notes:
If sex were the goal, a guy would have a much better chance of having more (and better) sex if he had a steady girlfriend. Instead, guys hook up to prove something to other guys. The actual experience of sex pales in comparison to talking about the sex.
Kimmel quotes one of his subjects, a 21 year-old junior at Wisconsin-Madison whom he calls “Ted”:
When I’ve just got laid, the first thing I think about — really, I shouldn’t be telling you this, but really it’s the very first thing, before I’ve even “finished” — is that I can’t wait to tell my crew who I just did. Like, I say to myself, “Omigod, they’re not going to believe that I just did Kristy!”
All the literature on contemporary American masculinity makes clear that there are a great many Teds on college campuses (and in the ranks of those young men who will never go near a college campus). It’s not that these boys don’t have a sex drive, they do — but that despite all the protestations of the Men’s Rights Advocates to the contrary, women do not and never have “held all the power.” In “Guyland”, what matters more than sex with women is other men’s knowledge of the sex you’ve had with women. The old vulgar saying, “Bros before Hos” (elongate the vowels) is sadly truer than many of those who repeat it realize. For far too many young males, what “makes a boy a man” is not sex with a woman itself, but the approval he receives from his male peers once they know he has had that sex. All the research (and see Kimmel’s bibliography for more) bears this out in spades.
So if the goal is to live up to a perverse American definition of the masculine, then SamSeaborn is right: it’s almost impossible to be a “real man” and a virgin. But we who care about justice and the full range of human possibility for our sons and our daughters alike ought not cede the definition of manhood so easily. The opposite of boy, we can argue, is not “man” — nor is the opposite of “guy” necessarily “gay”. The opposite of boy is “adult”. While for most of us, our biological identity as male or female is defined in the womb, becoming an adult is a long (and in affluent Western culture, perhaps overly long) process. A man, simply, is a male human who has, through a set of experiences and received wisdom and good choices become an adult male. And a woman is a female human who has, through a similar set of experiences and wisdom-building choices, become an adult female.
I’m fine with an oppositional tension between “boy” and “man”, or between “girl” and “woman”. But the root of the distinction ought to lie in the acquisition not of sexual partners, or in the display of the ability to reproduce, but in the ability to exercise the classic characteristics of adulthood: the capacity for sober reflection, the ability to practice some degree of delayed gratification, empathy for others, emotional independence from the value judgments of peers. Both males and females can acquire those abilities; no male or female has all of those from birth. These qualities can come as easily to men as to women, and the sheer number of sexual partners alone has damn all to do with it.
I don’t share my “number” on this blog. I will say this: I have a depressing number of short-term (in many cases, one-time) partners on my “list.” (No such actual list exists, of course, I tore those up years and years ago.) And though I am not in the habit of engaging in reverie over my sexual past, I can say that I slept with a great many of these women less out of libidinous desire than out of status-seeking. Reading about “Ted and Kristy” in Kimmel’s book, I felt that awful shudder of recognition. Time and again when I was young I pursued and slept with women to whom I was not terribly attracted, but whom I knew other men found desirable. What I wanted more than orgasm was approbation; a reputation as a guy who could score was infinitely more valuable than the scoring itself. And I did a lot of deceptive, thoughtless, and irresponsible things in pursuit not of pleasure but of evidence that I was desirable — and, above all else, a man.
Whatever wisdom I have today is as much in spite of my experiences as because of it. “We become what we do”, the old saying goes — and unlearning old behaviors is not, despite all the claims to the contrary, particularly character-building. All of my experiences have given me some perspective and some empathy, I suppose, as well as a horde of colorful anecdotes that I am more and more reticent to share as I age. But no matter how many women I fucked, no matter how many bold and impulsive and jaw-droppingly stupid things I tried when I was young, none of these experiences made me a “man.”
We all know the Apostle:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
And that’s what makes a man: to give up the childish, boyish search for homosocial approval. (And in a not terribly dissimilar way, it’s what makes a woman too.) We grow into manhood and womanhood by putting away childish dependency, “kid fears”, and the juvenile tendency to avoid personal responsibility. Adulthood is ultimately the same for both males and females, and the terms “man” and “woman” are all but interchangeable with the word adult. They ought have no meaning beyond the combination of biological identity with acquired maturity.
“classic characteristics of adulthood: the capacity for sober reflection, the ability to practice some degree of delayed gratification, empathy for others, emotional independence from the value judgments of peers.”
Hugo, I have many lists of the characteristics of adulthood, but have never quite seen a list this. Since you call it classic, what sources are you getting it from?
I’m summarizing it from a lot of different sources, but honestly a lot of it comes from two areas: the development theories of folks like Maslow/Erikson/Perry and the Bildungsromanen of 19th century German lit.
Hugo,
I agree with almost everything you wrote here, except for this:
“And that’s what makes a man: to give up the childish, boyish search for homosocial approval. ”
I don’t think that is true, because of the fundamental assumption that any and every group of men always manifests and reinforces pathology. There is something deeply wrong with such a sweeping caracterization.
Instead I would say that the transition to adulthood usually involves finding the right group of men to seek advice from, to support you, and to challenge you.
Hugo wrote:
Not knowing exactly what approbation means, I looked it up:
Then I realized that I already agreed with the premise of the above quote. Manhood has become a socially-conferred concept, to its detriment. Seems to me that the real issue is masculinity. I define masculinity, in part, as the willingness to follow your own judgment, and thereafter, to stand your ground. This is an entirely individualistic act, depending on one’s force of will rather than external recognition. I suppose you could pit two definitions of manhood as being in direct conflict:
1. Masculine manhood (as I have defined it above)
2. Homosocial manhood (I just learned this word, but it fits)
I use the term “masculine” rather than “adult” because I believe that each of us — men and women — have a masculine and feminine side. When we rely on our independent judgment and resolve, overriding other considerations, we are embracing our masculine side. It may or may not even be mature — hence not a phenomenon of adulthood — but I consider it to be masculine to eschew social validation.
Therefore I think that masculinity is a much more solitary phenomenon than femininity. It is masculine for a boy (or girl) to successfully resist the temptation to join a gang. It is masculine to refrain from “kissing and telling.” It is masculine to protect something precious because it’s important to you, rather than your reputation or role obligating you to that role. It is masculine to simply not give a damn, and instead to do what you know to be right.
I’ve long wished there were a female equivalent to the term “guy,” which is not age-specific. I never called myself a woman until I was married, and realized “married girl” sounds absurd. I stuck with “lady” for a long time, because it felt like a good middle ground. In fact, I remember vividly the first time I heard a stranger refer to me as a “lady,” and not a “girl,” and being rather impressed with myself, contrary to my discomfort at being called a “woman.” This was during my dating-older-men phase (15-17), where I’m afraid it was a point of pride that I was often confused for being older than I actually was.
The sexual double-standard on aging, where boys must bed “girls” (rarely are the beddable referred to as “women”) to become men, and only stand to gain respect in their transition into manhood makes negotiating the “woman” or “girl” question a rather difficult task.
In a way, I really didn’t want to be a “woman,” even though I disliked being a child. I think now that both feelings came from the desire to be sexual.
“I’ve long wished there were a female equivalent to the term “guy,” which is not age-specific.”
Female/Male equivalents: girl/boy, gal/guy, lady/gentleman, and woman/man.
So “gal” is the term you are wishing for.
“Therefore I think that masculinity is a much more solitary phenomenon than femininity. It is masculine for a boy (or girl) to successfully resist the temptation to join a gang. It is masculine to refrain from “kissing and telling.” It is masculine to protect something precious because it’s important to you, rather than your reputation or role obligating you to that role. It is masculine to simply not give a damn, and instead to do what you know to be right.”
Then I’m one helluva masculine woman. Long hair, makeup, dresses, and desire to fuck men and all.
Hugo,
I think you completely misread me here - though in a way that has led to some interesting additional observations. I wasn’t referring to a boy-man dichotomy as you seem to have understood but simply to the common distinction between the biological (sex) and the cultural (gender).
If we live in a culture in which manhood has been made distinct from biological maleness, this is clearly due to the establishment the concept of a “cultural sex”, or gender, which, I think, has mainly been achieved by feminists, starting with Simone de Beauvoir, who explained that “the second sex” wasn’t born, but made.
“Heterosexual initiation is, as Sam makes clear, the sine qua non of real American manhood. “
Interesting interpretation. I mentioned what made ME feel like a man and I stated that my measure was arbitrary and personal - and I wondered what other criterion could be used precisely to get around the problems you mention the criterion I chose does present for others and has presented for me in the past.
My posts in the other thread was not about “becoming a man” but rather about what it could be that makes “being a man” different from “being a woman”. That’s also why the difference between male and man as well as between female and woman is important.
Not even the most radical social constructionist will be able to deny that males and females are different by nature. But if there aren’t any qualities unique to making a male a (good) MAN and other qualities that male a female a (good) WOMAN (as per the Kimmel quote from the last post), if there are in fact only qualities that apply to both sexes equally, then the only difference between the sexes is biological/sexual and thus, if MAN is indeed conceptionally different from MALE and WOMAN is indeed different from FEMALE (as the gender concept holds), the only area in which this makes sense is the one in which maleness and femaleness matter in a behavioral context: mating/sexuality.
Thus, what makes a good woman and a good man MUST be either related to sexuality, OR there must be some quality outside of the sexual realm that doesn’t equally apply to both sexes. Again, if the definition of MAN/WOMAN is not merely biological/sexual there must be non-sexual mutually exclusive qualities that make a good female human a good woman and a good male human a good man.
That’s just to try again to get my point across - obviously your definition of MAN/WOMAN is rather different, as this quote makes clear:
“A man, simply, is a male human who has, through a set of experiences and received wisdom and good choices become an adult male. And a woman is a female human who has, through a similar set of experiences and wisdom-building choices, become an adult female.”
Now I’m off to enhance a certain woman’s womanhood. Of course I’m only mentioning this to gain your acceptance as a man ;), so you will forgive me that I’ll reply to the interesting points you raise in this post when I’m back.
i guess i’m just not seeing why there has to be some exclusively male and exclusively female identity in the first place. it seems from most of what i’ve read that despite the obvious biological differences, that most of personality doesn’t come from one’s gender identification, so why does it matter?
I agree, Chareth — but as Kimmel points out, arguments over whether there really is any value in these categories distracts us from the vital work of encouraging our young men and women to grow into full and complete human beings.
SamS, “Woman” and “Man” are socially constructed categories; you suggest that it is in the area of sex that this matters most, but plenty of gay men manage to have sex with other men while holding on to their own sense of masculinity, and plenty of women have sex with other women without feeling their sense of being a woman somehow compromised as a compromise. My lesbian friends don’t need a penis in their vaginas in order to feel like women, thanks!
These are artificial categories that are more useful for some than for others, clearly. What is important is a category that distinguishes between the child and the ault — and “man” and “woman”, with the opposition of “boy” and “girl”, fit that requirement nicely.
Faith wrote:
Long hair, makeup, dresses… Those are related to appearance. People who are fixated on their appearance are adopting the feminine mentality (whether it is “feminine-looking” or “masculine-looking,” or non-categorizable). The feminine mentality is passive. It says “look at me.” A metrosexual has the feminine mentality because of the obsession with looks. A buff-looking male weightlifter, seemingly masculine, can have the feminine mentality if his motivation is simply to look good, rather than DO something with his health or improving fitness.
So yes, you may have a strong masculine side, but if you spend an hour every morning putting on makeup, then I don’t think you are dominated by it.
hugo, totally with you on that and i’m certainly not faulting kimmel for not getting into this in his book (which i’m definitely now interested enough to read, btw). my confusion is more related to sam and what (at least what i think) he was saying in the comments to the other post and here–this idea that our boys (and subsequently) our men are doomed to be lost because there is no longer some handy separate spheres box to put men into that distinguishes them from women in meaningful ways.
Nice post Hugo.
It really got me thinking.
Being as I am, immersed in a queer and progressive and feminist subculture, there is no approval for, as my girlfriend scornfully puts it, ‘dicking around’.
The only place where there is the ‘homosocial approval’ culture in action is at work. When I was in girl mode they all figured I was out of their league, and now that I am transitioning they are constantly being arseholes about the kinds of ‘freaks’ I date.
I know that I am capable of ‘pulling’ extremely attractive and awesome young women should I choose… and now and then I find myself thinking wistfully of being able to brag about it at work.
Then I snap out of it, cos I realise I’m being a dickhead.
It exists because it is in human nature to want to have some sense of differentiation while also belonging to a particular group. It appears to be an innate trait, something we do whether or not others prompt us to do it. That is why one chooses to group with other feminists rather than group with those who hold different political views. There technically is no reason for you to form some exclusively feminst identity, but you do so anyway. The same is true about racial identity, sexual identity, religious identity, national identity, cultural identity and so on. It all technically serves little purpose, but we still do it. Therefore it seems odd to deny boys and men of their sense of male identity. It is no better or worse than you having a feminist identity.
toy soldier, i have a “feminist identity” because feminism is a belief system and cause i feel strongly about. it’s not any different than having a vegan identity or an environmentalist identity or a liberal or conservative identity or whatever in that respect. it’s not something i adopt to feel different or special. and, i should point out, identifying as a feminist isn’t exclusive to women, either! there are no requirements of having any particular genitalia or belonging to any race or religion or sexual orientation to be a feminist.
i agree that it is probably a fairly inescapable need for human beings to want to group identify in some way. you might say that the way i dress or cut my hair or the bars i frequent are all part of a subculture that i voluntarily belong to, both because i like a particular aesthetic and because sure, it feels good to be among other people who like the same things. but nowhere have i mentioned any group identity that is in any way dependent on sex or gender. every kind of group i belong to in some way is open in “membership” to both men and women. i’d say that men and boys have the same abilities as women to find groups that mesh with (and to some extent, mold) their personalities.
other than the simple fact that growing up female in a patriarchal culture means that women will share some common negative experiences, i don’t think that any Sisterhood of Magical Vagina Possessors has conferred upon me or any other woman for that matter, any special privileges necessitating the creation of a corresponding Brotherhood of Amazing Penis Wielders. so yeah, i’m not denying anyone anything.
“The feminine mentality is passive.”
I would sincerely love to know where men learn this. Really, at one point in your lives do you learn that to be feminine is to be passive and to be masculine is to be aggressive. I am not passive simply because I am female; a man is not aggressive simply because he is male.
These classifications of masculinity and femininity are ultimate useless, frustrating, and not to mention, demeaning and dehumanizing. They are completely useless for anyone who wishes to see people as human rather than as genders.
John Dias,
You lose me is in what seems like your desire to affix value judgments to “masculine” and “feminine” - with, of course, the positive/strong traits being masculine and the negative/weak traits being feminine.
There’s nothing gendered about being weak or strong, about being independent or codependent. If you took a large group of people and labeled their characteristics, you’d probably find absolutely no correlation between those traits and gender.
I get that society is obsessed with placing things into categories and labelling and grouping, even when the result isn’t very accurate. But we’d all do ourselves a favor if we tried to break that habit. Call someone co-dependent, but don’t call it a feminine trait. Co-dependent is co-dependent, that’s all.
“The feminine mentality is passive.”
I agree with Faith and B. As someone who people labelled as “too feminine” whatever that means (and when I challenged them they responded with vitrol) I knew it was not meant as complimentary. Sadly I heard this comment from more women than men. Labels and value judgments are limiting and inaccurate, not to mention oppressive. I think it sad that femininity is labeled in a negative way.
Faith wrote:
I agree. Femininity is not always an attribute attached to women, especially since feminists began telling the world that there’s no major difference between men and women. That’s where we get the word “gender,” replacing the word “sex” in most instances; the goal was to separate the effects of one’s mentality from one’s biology. Hewing to that, I merely indicate what is feminine, and what is masculine.
If you think that you’re more feminine, why treat that as shameful? Sensitivity to shame is, in fact, a feminine trait — and again, not related to sex. When men are sensitive to shame, it’s their feminine side at work. The more you get offended at this highlighting of differences between feminine and masculine, on the assumption that it is penalizing someone for their biology, the more you reject feminist thinking that gender is not connected to biology.
By the way, there are plenty of aspects of femininity that are positive (in my view). For example, the feminine mentality helps things grow. It nurtures. It enhances one’s comfort, and soothes. Masculinity doesn’t do that. But a lack of masculinity is something that you don’t want in a decision maker, such as a CEO or a president. Again, this is not a critique of male vs. female; like feminists say, it has nothing to do with biology.
But it is still using gendered words.
Why the insistance on that instead of just using accurate descriptive words?
“But a lack of masculinity is something that you don’t want in a decision maker, such as a CEO or a president.”
Becomes
“But a lack of strength/decisiveness/independent thinking/ is something that you don’t want in a decision maker, such as a CEO or a president.”
Not only does it not insult anyone, but it’s a lot more precise, language-wise.
Talking about how feminine it is to be nurturing just reinforces the idea that men are not good parents. Labeling a characteristic, negative or positive, with a gendered word will almost always have the effect of slapping the opposite gender in the face.
What B and Faith said. We simply need some new words. If they really have nothing to do with biology, they should show it. As a pre-op trans-neuter, and as a Mind, I am so sick of people calling “masculine” the qualities I wish I had (the less assholeular ones anyway), and “feminine” the qualities I wish everyone else had [but know I should cultivate them too, at least the nurturant ones.] Someone name of Bakan, a couple decades or so back, made a step in the right direction–I am agentic, and wish everyone else was communal. Someone else’s dyad of systematizers and empathizers is close but not quite the same. As for narcissism, or whatever you call the desire to be looked at, I don’t think any gender or race has the corner on that.
Anyt time someone refers to a woman’s courage, etc. as her masculine side, it still winds up sounding like courage is more natural or inherent to men than to women. This sucks! Change it!
“By the way, there are plenty of aspects of femininity that are positive (in my view). For example, the feminine mentality helps things grow. It nurtures. It enhances one’s comfort, and soothes. Masculinity doesn’t do that. But a lack of masculinity is something that you don’t want in a decision maker, such as a CEO or a president.”
Oh, good grief. Well, I congratulate you for throwing “in my view” in parentheses there; at least you’re not trying to pretend that what you’re saying is in any way connected to the reality of the rest of the universe outside your head.
Faith: ““The feminine mentality is passive.”
I would sincerely love to know where men learn this.”
It’s more along the lines of them fervently wishing this was the case, developing entire religions based upon a fantasy universe where this IS the case, and doing their darndest to create and/or maintain a world where it’s forcibly the case.
“These classifications of masculinity and femininity are ultimate useless, frustrating, and not to mention, demeaning and dehumanizing.”
Also, in some situations, incredibly funny. :)
Remember the first rule of commenting, folks: don’t feed the trolls.
“Talking about how feminine it is to be nurturing just reinforces the idea that men are not good parents. Labeling a characteristic, negative or positive, with a gendered word will almost always have the effect of slapping the opposite gender in the face.”
I agree with B who I think hit the nail on the head. Precise language is key.
Lisa KS wrote:
You want examples? Here are some:
1. “It’s a mouse! Somebody, please, DO
something!” (”Do something” — the most non-masculine phrase ever uttered)
2. “The flat tire needs to be fixed.” (passive voice used)
“I will fix the flat tire.” (active voice used)
3. “I want to BE a doctor.” (passive voice used, emphasizing being rather than doing)
“I want to HEAL the sick.” (active voice used, emphasizing doing rather than being)
Erm, John, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a troll, as Hugo suggested, and that you’re just one of the millions of people who fall prey to society’s desire to categorize.
But when you offer random, made-up quotes that for some reason we’re supposed to take as representative of things that people of each gender say, I’m gonna have to change my mind.
I’m actually kind of nearly-speechlessly flabbergasted about your “examples.” WHAT are we supposed to do with those? Are you asserting that men are really universally walking around using only the active voice and women only the passive? I mean, really?
Unless you REALLY want to have a discussion about this, and not just make up fake quotes for evidence (I mean, REALLY?!), I think I’ve made my point and will take Hugo’s advice to stop feeding the troll.
John Dias is done here, I think.
“Remember the first rule of commenting, folks: don’t feed the trolls.”
That was a troll? Ok, I took him to be legit. It’s been my experience that this is pretty standard thinking amongst a tremendous number of men. The idea that “femininity” is passive and “masculinity” is active or aggressive is actually a quite common attitude found in Eastern philosophy…
My apologies for feeding the troll.
Hugo, one thing that I noticed in your reference to Kimmel was that the homosocial bonding doesn’t just depend there on sex, but on power-based sex. The young man he quoted isn’t ready to brag to his friends about how “I got laid” or “I just had great sex”, but about how he “did Kristy”. His crew is going to be impressed not just that he had heterosexual sex, but that he was able to get a particular woman to accede to sex. That’s why it’s called scoring.
Faith, if you checked out his link, John is tied into the MRAs in a big way. And trolls often share widespread views. But the number of people who believe something doesn’t establish the idea’s legitimacy!
Mythago, good point. It’s all wrapped up in conquest and aggressionm, no doubt.
For what it’s worth, that Dias fellow set off my crap alarm the minute he 1st posted here. And whoever made up the stuff about masculine=active, feminine=passive, never noticed how at least among mammals, so many species have the female doing all the raising of the young–which is not passive in the least. Oh, and didn’t I read somewhere (forgot where so you don’t have to believe it but you do gotta wonder) that some study found that women do 2/3 of the world’s work?
According to Janet Saltzman Chafetz, a feminist sociologist, the following are traits of masculinity:
Physical — virile, athletic, strong, brave
Functional — breadwinner, provider for family
Sexual — sexually aggressive, experienced. Single status acceptable
Emotional — unemotional, stoic, for example, the proverb “boys don’t cry”
Intellectual — logical, intellectual, rational, objective, practical
Interpersonal — leader, dominating; disciplinarian; independent, free, individualistic; demanding
Other Personal Characteristics — success-oriented, ambitious, aggressive, proud, egotistical; moral, trustworthy; decisive, competitive, uninhibited, adventurous
“But the number of people who believe something doesn’t establish the idea’s legitimacy!”
Well, certainly not.
I never even checked the link on his name. That’s something I used to do all the time when encountering a new person on a blog. Guess I need to get back into that habit.
“According to Janet Saltzman Chafetz, a feminist sociologist, the following are traits of masculinity:”
Those are all pretty standard definitions of -traditional- masculinity. I have not read any of Janet Saltzman Chafetz’s work, but if she is a feminist, I’d assume that she doesn’t actually subscribe to this belief of “masculinity”.
Meh, John Dias didn’t even post a link with his name until his final post.
Fred, one can point out what society has labeled “masculine” without subscribing to the idea that it’s true or worth using. Looking up Janet Saltzman Chafetz on Wikipedia, I see two publications attributed to her:
# Chafetz, Janet Saltzman (ed.). 1999. Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
# Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. 2001. “Theoretical Understandings of Gender: A Third of a Century of Feminist Thought in Sociology” in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited Jonathan H. Turner. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
In simple terms, sociology would ask, “What does our society say about gender?” It wouldn’t say, “Gender IS X.”
Yet another reason I don’t believe there really is any “masculine code” as the gateway to success, recognition and fame:
“According to Janet Saltzman Chafetz, a feminist sociologist, the following are traits of masculinity:”
“Physical — virile, athletic, strong, brave”
Like Einstein?
“Functional — breadwinner, provider for family”
Like J. Edgar Hoover?
“Sexual — sexually aggressive, experienced. Single status acceptable”
Like Liberace?
“Emotional — unemotional, stoic, for example, the proverb “boys don’t cry”
Like Pavoratti?
“Intellectual — logical, intellectual, rational, objective, practical”
Like Chaplain?
“Interpersonal — leader, dominating; disciplinarian; independent, free, individualistic; demanding”
Like Billy Graham?
No here is no masculine code, a position I elaborated on here.
Posting again to add that calling someone a “feminist sociologist” is kind of funny, since I think feminism IS sociology. Although it’s not always explicit, I think that one of the general pillars of feminism is that our perceptions about women and men are ALL a product of our creation. There’s so little that’s inherently male and inherently female, and we, as a society, set the definitions and expectations regarding gender. Yes, only women can get pregnant and give birth, but the idea that women, not men, are the suitable ones to raise kids once they exist her womb? Created by society. We can change it however we wish because the only thing shaping things as they currently are our beliefs, not inherent limitations within people.
Hear, hear, B.
Chafetz–or Fred–should’ve put sneer quotes around “masculinity”–that’d make it clearer how bogus/arbitrary that concept is.
Good thread.
Hugo,
took me a bit longer, sorry.
“SamS, “Woman” and “Man” are socially constructed categories; you suggest that it is in the area of sex that this matters most, but plenty of gay men manage to have sex with other men while holding on to their own sense of masculinity, and plenty of women have sex with other women without feeling their sense of being a woman somehow compromised as a compromise. My lesbian friends don’t need a penis in their vaginas in order to feel like women, thanks!”
Well, sometimes I really have the feeling we’re using a different language. I said that - I’ll try again - that if there is nothing non-biological that differentiates a male from a female the concepts of man and woman (as NORMATIVE analytical categories in gender theory, they are still valuable as DESCRIPTIVE concepts) are pointless, as would be their corollary “feminity” and “masculinty” for everything that would not be biologically different between the sexes.
Fine. But we DO know that MASCULINITY and FEMININTY do have a meaning at least in a sexual context. In fact, you yourself wrote a post about the celebration of masculinity and femininity in lesbian butch/femme relationships.
These are artificial categories that are more useful for some than for others, clearly. What is important is a category that distinguishes between the child and the ault — and “man” and “woman”, with the opposition of “boy” and “girl”, fit that requirement nicely.
Well, the whole question is how artificial categories relate to assumend natural categories. I have no problem with you looking at the oppositionf of youth and adults, it just wasn’t what I was thinking of - so in that context your reply to me isn’t actually reply.
“Adulthood is ultimately the same for both males and females, and the terms “man” and “woman” are all but interchangeable with the word adult. They ought have no meaning beyond the combination of biological identity with acquired maturity.”
Which would still beg the question I have asked initially…
“If sex were the goal, a guy would have a much better chance of having more (and better) sex if he had a steady girlfriend. Instead, guys hook up to prove something to other guys. The actual experience of sex pales in comparison to talking about the sex.”
For one, I would say that’s a narrow definition of sexual interest, especially when both sexes are still in a phase in their life where they learn about their desires and preferences by actively trying them out. Without trying out, how would I know what I want in the end? The sex in a relationship may be cp better than the sex outside a relationship, but in these things, you hardly ever get a cp situation, do you? I can’t think of anyone in “hook up” culture, who wasn’t interested in a committed relationship as the final step in their personal development.
Bragging rights are important, but mostly because they enhance the status and improve future sexual prospects. Male approval is one way in which status is communicated in “hook up” situations. I would agree that “slut shaming” is still more of a problem for young women, but it’s getting less important in many places (just look at British girls/women changing sexual assertiveness). So the mechanism are - technically - the same for women, in my opinion.
Chareth wrote:
No, but the beliefs — or principles — you hold appear in numerous ideologies, even some that you might consider sexist. Yet, you still differentiate yourself from others based on a set of largely superficial criteria. When one speaks of gender differences, the closer comparison would be national identity, ethnic identity, racial identity, religious identity and so on. No matter how much Bill Clinton believes that there is no difference between a white man and a black man, holding that view does not make him “black.” That does not mean that he cannot hold the same principles as Obama, only that Obama can identify as a “black man” while Clinton cannot. Would it be appropriate to tell Obama that he cannot value and identify himself based on his ethnic origin just because most people would be excluded from claiming that identity?
Most feminists do not agree with that, as I have been told many times. Many of them hold the view that only women can be feminists and the at best men can be pro-feminist.
Likewise, growing up male in a culture that devalues men while making unfair demands of them along with subjecting men to political ideologies that demonize and vilify them means that men will share certain common experiences. As a result, those males might be inclined to define themselves based on those collective experiences. I suppose my question is why should males not be allowed to form an identity based on an element they all share when this is allowed in so many other instances?
But we DO know that MASCULINITY and FEMININTY do have a meaning at least in a sexual context. In fact, you yourself wrote a post about the celebration of masculinity and femininity in lesbian butch/femme relationships.”
Well, only if you define having a penis as masculine (as opposed to male) and having a vagina as feminine (as opposed to female). As for butch/femme lesbian relationships, I know that there are feminists (even some of whom are lesbians) who object to these relationships as well since they see these relationships as also being a result of living in a patriarchal society. Or in other words, they believe these relationships wouldn’t exist as such if patriarchal society hadn’t created false notions of what it means to be masculine and feminine. There’s also the issue of some femme lesbians ending up suffering similar abuse as women in heterosexual relationships because of the butch partner identifying as masculine.
“Bragging rights are important, but mostly because they enhance the status and improve future sexual prospects. Male approval is one way in which status is communicated in “hook up” situations.”
Whoa. No one, and I mean no one, has any business bragging about their hook-ups. Doing so is nothing other than purely juvenile behavior and frankly repulsive. There is nothing at all attractive about a man who brags about having slept with a certain woman, or number of women. Having sex is not a means of scoring status points with your buddies. Doing so is demeaning to the woman, women as a whole, and to the act of sex itself.
“Most feminists do not agree with that, as I have been told many times. Many of them hold the view that only women can be feminists and the at best men can be pro-feminist.”
TS,
I’d be careful about saying -most- feminists believe that men cannot be feminist. Some do. Some do not. Then there are some who wish that men would be feminist, but their trust in men has been so greatly damaged that they don’t think it’s likely that a man would ever evolve to a point that they could honestly call themselves feminist.
Faith,
“Whoa. No one, and I mean no one, has any business bragging about their hook-ups. Doing so is nothing other than purely juvenile behavior and frankly repulsive. There is nothing at all attractive about a man who brags about having slept with a certain woman, or number of women. Having sex is not a means of scoring status points with your buddies. Doing so is demeaning to the woman, women as a whole, and to the act of sex itself.”
a gentleman doesn’t kiss and tell. But usually people meet in a public place where it’s pretty obvious to everyone around what’s happening, or going to happen back home. I am someone who knows every social state from “dork” to “could you please talk to that girl and introduce me later.” If there is one thing I can tell you about female behaviour in a social environment where mating is a possibility, it is that there is hardly anything more attractive in a man than being preselected by other women (especially if the women know the preselecting woman and respect her but aren’t emotionally connected to her). It’s simply a quality indicator - and really, not the worst one… So “bragging rights” (which don’t need to be actively communicated if they are real bragging rights) matter not so much because they increase the status among male friends (which they do, but who cares compared to the women’s “sexual” respcet), but because they increase the sexual reputation in the entire social circle and thus increase the prospects of future sexual encounters, one of which may lead to a fulfilling long-term partnership and procreation. Sounds technical, but it’s actually really emotional when it happens.
Hugo, you may stand totally athwart this line of thinking, but it seems to me a common perception that “manhood” and “being a man” is something conferred by homosocial approval, possibly only by homosocial approval, and, for better or worse, stands quite apart from simply being an “adult male”. There is always a code. You may not approve of this or think it natural, and its predication on a successfully promiscuous sex life is probably relatively historically and culturally unique. Nevertheless, it seems pretty much the case everywhere I’ve seen that in practice very few people, if anybody, treats “being a man” as synonymous with being an “adult male”, or even taking your qualifications into account, as someone possessing “the combination of biological identity with acquired maturity”. There’s always either a pecking order as to who are going to be the alpha males and who aren’t, or at the very least an in-out distinction: some measure up and some, for whatever describable or ineffable reasons, just don’t. Men and women reinforce this distinction by deciding who they are going to treat as a man under the code and who they are not in their respective ways (from men, that means respect, recognition, fellowship, confidence, and unwillingness to excessively threaten challenge or offense; from women, that means likewise respect and recognition, as well as very often the possibility of sexual interest).
The codes of manhood change and vary, both in the broad culturally hegemonic sense and with respect to specific subcultures. Gene Autry’s “Cowboy Code” of a previous era is one very specific and articulated example (and one that I think highly of). The “guy code” is a contemporary example among a subculture of mostly white, college educated, young men. Ironically enough, a century ago, college-educated gentlemen would have been expected to live up to a very, very different code. The military has its codes. Gang and street culture has its own rather brutal code, prison its even more brutal and severely enforced one. We probably to some extent have our own personal codes, which we believe we ought to be living up to, and against which we evaluate others.
Dare I say it, but as much as commentators here and in other feminist venues expound in detail upon what men ought to be or need to be, feminism seems to have many of the trappings of its own code of manhood as well, one that is proffered not too implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, with the same promise of respect, acceptance, and by commentators below your first post in the Guyland series, with sex as well.
What I wonder is whether we have anything of manhood, and as men, a significant part of our status as human beings, outside these codes. As has been pointed out, much of what we might define as positive masculine virtues are positive in women as well. Women perhaps have their own codes and sense of acquired womanhood, though anecdotally, the apparent disconnect in perceptions under which women seem not to appreciate the centrality of manhood to our beings suggests to me that such questions for most them are not as significant and central to their identities as they are to ours. In any case, failing to live up to those, at least in contemporary times, doesn’t seem to bring women either the social or personal disapprobation that we feel when we fail to measure up. Women can have positive masculine virtues, and/or positive feminine ones, or perhaps neither, but no one would not call them “women”.
I can only speak for myself, but when I see a male failing in critical respects to measure up to what I believe a man should be, sometimes very much despite myself when it may be someone whom I might otherwise have respect or admiration for, I often feel a sense of unease, mistrust, even disgust, as though I’m looking at some strange and ugly bug in a jar. I may feel some of these things about myself, when I’ve failed significantly to measure up to what I believe I ought to be as a man. I could ask: “What are you? Are you a man? You’re sure not doing a very good job as one. Not too many people would think much of you as one. You’re not a woman, so if you’re not a man, are you anything at all?”
“If there is one thing I can tell you about female behaviour in a social environment where mating is a possibility, it is that there is hardly anything more attractive in a man than being preselected by other women (especially if the women know the preselecting woman and respect her but aren’t emotionally connected to her). It’s simply a quality indicator - and really, not the worst one…”
I’ve heard men state this before. I, for one, have never taken into consideration a man’s previous relationships - purely sexual or otherwise - for anything other than attempting to determine his danger level. As in, is this guy likely to take me home and beat the hell out of me or tie me to the bed and rape me. I’m not judging him on his “sexual prowess” or lack thereof in relation to the number of women he’s been with.
For women who do engage in such behavior, I’d posit that it is in fact a negative factor. These women are being driven by the feeling of need to compete with other women for males and the status that women incur by being involved with a male. Because on our own, it’s quite difficult for a woman to have any real status at all. Yes, this is changing. But a lot of women are still stuck in believing that they “need a man” in order to have a position in society…and not to mention simply food in their belly and a roof over their head.
The behavior that you are speaking of is not natural, or positive. It is a result of being raised in a patriarchal culture.
““What are you? Are you a man? You’re sure not doing a very good job as one. Not too many people would think much of you as one. You’re not a woman, so if you’re not a man, are you anything at all?””
Are you an adult individual with a male body? Then guess what….you’re a man!!
Fascinating isn’t it.
I should probably also mention that the older I get, the more private I get about who I actually am or am not having sex with. This is largely because I flat-out refuse to allow any man to use me as a means of increasing his sexual status with the boys. At this point in my life, I try to only have sex with men that I believe are mature enough to see me - and themselves - as a human being. I will not be treated as a means to an end.
“For women who do engage in such behavior, I’d posit that it is in fact a negative factor. These women are being driven by the feeling of need to compete with other women for males and the status that women incur by being involved with a male. Because on our own, it’s quite difficult for a woman to have any real status at all. Yes, this is changing. But a lot of women are still stuck in believing that they “need a man” in order to have a position in society…and not to mention simply food in their belly and a roof over their head.
The behavior that you are speaking of is not natural, or positive. It is a result of being raised in a patriarchal culture.”
Dang … there is that passive voice again. “being driven by the feeling of need.” “by being involved with.” “a result of being raised.”
You seem to admit that some women do compete - however passively - for men, in an attempt to gain status. But when it is women competing for status, we surely can’t make any judgments about their maturity, or lack of personal growth. We can’t claim that this is the result of some socially constructed “gal code” - that might suggest that these women bear some responsibility for their common situation. Their lack of status is seen as a need we must sympathize with, and as needy people who never act, but are always only acted upon we can’t criticize them for climbing over lower status women. When guys complete for status, it is because of a corrupt sense of misplaced entitlement, a personal moral defect. Women need and deserve status as people. Period. Men must prove themselves worthy of status by “acting like grownups”
“Nevertheless, it seems pretty much the case everywhere I’ve seen that in practice very few people, if anybody, treats “being a man” as synonymous with being an “adult male”, or even taking your qualifications into account, as someone possessing “the combination of biological identity with acquired maturity”. There’s always either a pecking order as to who are going to be the alpha males and who aren’t, or at the very least an in-out distinction: some measure up and some, for whatever describable or ineffable reasons, just don’t.”
While I don;t agree that there is any universal code of masculinity, I do admit there are many, many different codes, each emphasizing different qualities. I think maturity is mostly about finding the right code for you.
“But when it is women competing for status, we surely can’t make any judgments about their maturity, or lack of personal growth. We can’t claim that this is the result of some socially constructed “gal code” - that might suggest that these women bear some responsibility for their common situation. Their lack of status is seen as a need we must sympathize with,”
Women compete for men as a means of survival and because of a result of patriarchal programming. Men compete for women as a means of increasing social status because of patriarchal programming. However, women have very little choice in the matter as having a man is still something that they actually -need- in order to survive, particularly in countries which are still heavily patriarchal.
Men, on the other hand, do have far more of a choice as they already have status (and usually some degree of financial power) simply by being male. They also tend to reinforce these structures which leads to women either literally needing a man in order to survive, or feeling that they do.
So, yes, women do engage in poor behavior when it comes to relating with the other sex. I, for one, have never denied this. But yep, I absolutely have more sympathy for women because they have little to no other choice in the matter…and because their behavior causes very little actual damage. Whereas men’s poor behavior because of their patriarchal programming actually causes severe psychological and even physical damage to women as individuals and as a whole.
Faith,
“I, for one, have never taken into consideration a man’s previous relationships - purely sexual or otherwise - for anything other than attempting to determine his danger level. As in, is this guy likely to take me home and beat the hell out of me or tie me to the bed and rape me. I’m not judging him on his “sexual prowess” or lack thereof in relation to the number of women he’s been with.”
Well, use the “quality indicator” for what you want, the mechanism is the same: Preselection indicates that he’s done something right with respect to women - economically speaking, it’s a signal that is used for screening by optimizing decision makers. BTW, if a woman actually told me that I feel “safe” as in “I would not likely beat her up or even rape her”, that would clearly be the last words we’d speak. It’s not a compliment, it’s a derogatory statement about what she sees in men in general, that statement would probably be a sufficient statement to avoid future interaction if not qualified with a credible psychological background story.
“For women who do engage in such behavior, I’d posit that it is in fact a negative factor. These women are being driven by the feeling of need to compete with other women for males and the status that women incur by being involved with a male.
Sorry, we talk about different things. I’m talking about previous sexual history (preselection) as a useful evolutionary fitness indicator for both men and women and you’re talking about women choosing men for their social status. I was talking about “sexual status” that was conferred to men by female mating decisions not about “social status” that may or may not be related to a persons sexual status but in most circumstance will be a consequence of a plethora of different factors.
“Because on our own, it’s quite difficult for a woman to have any real status at all. Yes, this is changing. But a lot of women are still stuck in believing that they “need a man” in order to have a position in society…and not to mention simply food in their belly and a roof over their head.
Again, not what I was talking about.
“The behavior that you are speaking of is not natural, or positive. It is a result of being raised in a patriarchal culture.”
I disagree entirely. This has nothing at all to do with culture. We’re all trying to find the “best” partner possible. We may not be “rational actors” in the sense required by choice theory in a lot of respects, but preselection by others is a strong indicator that there must be something right about that person. It’s a fitness indicator, it’s a reliable and cheap mechanism to convey useful information to potential future mates.
I think you missed Tom’s point. Yes, being a 25-year-old male makes me a man because technically the term refers to adult males. However, in my opinion, being an adult male does not make me a man. Regardless of my life experiences, the struggles I have gone through or the problems I have overcome, I do not think that my age automatically makes me a man. As Tom noted, there is a code — a set principles and qualities– that I feel men should possess. Since I lack those qualities, I do not consider myself as such. More so, I do not think the status of manhood is something I can bestow upon myself. Others must recognize me as a man, primarily other males. So it matters much more to me that the men I look up to, who possess the principles and qualities I wish to adhere to, recognize me as a man and that I have their respect and approval than it does for me to fit your broadly defined criteria of what it is to be a man.
Speaking as someone who experienced unwanted physical and sexual contact with women as a child and as someone who is related to, lives with and volunteers to work with males with similar experiences I can assure you that female behavior results in very real actual damage. So I would be careful about saying that female behavior cannot cause actual psychological or physical damage to males and that women have no choice in how they behave.
“Women compete for men as a means of survival and because of a result of patriarchal programming. Men compete for women as a means of increasing social status because of patriarchal programming.”
The bias here is clear. Men compete because of a selfish desire for status, while woman compete only because society forces them to. Recall I made reference to your earlier admission that women compete for status, and you did not reference anything about survival until now. When I point out that this is morally equivalent to, and no better than men competing for status, you trotted out survival - oh no, women only compete for survival not status. The great devil Patriarchy forces women to elbow each other out of the way in their quest for men. Well, I’m glad Leona Helmsley managed to scratch out an existence for herself, since her survival was a close-run thing.
“So, yes, women do engage in poor behavior when it comes to relating with the other sex. I, for one, have never denied this. But yep, I absolutely have more sympathy for women because they have little to no other choice in the matter…and because their behavior causes very little actual damage. Whereas men’s poor behavior because of their patriarchal programming actually causes severe psychological and even physical damage to women as individuals and as a whole.”
I can’t quibble with anyone who has more sympathy for people they identify with. But I can’t agree with any claim that women are passively driven to compete for status, while men actively compete for status because of their nature. I can’t accept any claim that woman’s behavior “causes little real damage.” Your words imply that there are two different human natures, one selfish and powerful enough to hurt, and one who remains weak because their virtue has remained uncorrupted, and they compete only when driven to it. I can’t accept such sweeping claims. I see no reason to believe that a sad geeky loser who is mocked by girls is any less damaged than he would be if he was mocked by guys. I can’t accept a claim that a young girl who is mocked by her so-called friends for her appearance is any better off than a young girl that is mocked by guys for her appearance.
I find it amusing how these very attitudes actually buttress Patriarchical beliefs. Suppose I’m someone who has a mixture of fear, ambition and anger, quite typical feelings that many people have. I’m afraid, so I want security. I’m ambitious, so I want power. I’m angry, so I want revenge. So who would I want as a partner? Someone strong enough to protect me. Someone competitive enough to take things. Someone with the power to scare people I fear. Why would I want to partner with someone who doesn’t naturally want to compete? Why would I want to partner with someone so weak that they lack the power to hurt others, when I feel afraid on the one hand, and want to exact retribution on the other? No the most desirable outcome is to ally myself with someone competitive, willful, and dangerous, and from what you are saying this is necessarily a man, and a quite successful one to boot. I’d be foolish to partner with a woman, because she’s not dangerous enough cause real damage to anyone, and not ambitious enough to compete for status once the question of her own survival is settled.
“Speaking as someone who experienced unwanted physical and sexual contact with women as a child and as someone who is related to, lives with and volunteers to work with males with similar experiences I can assure you that female behavior results in very real actual damage.”
I’m speaking purely of interaction between adult men and women. Child abuse is a whole different can of worms.
“Regardless of my life experiences, the struggles I have gone through or the problems I have overcome, I do not think that my age automatically makes me a man.”
Your age and body makes you a man. Anything else that you believe that you need to obtain in order to be a man is purely arbitrary.
“BTW, if a woman actually told me that I feel “safe” as in “I would not likely beat her up or even rape her”, that would clearly be the last words we’d speak. It’s not a compliment, it’s a derogatory statement about what she sees in men in general, that statement would probably be a sufficient statement to avoid future interaction if not qualified with a credible psychological background story.”
Newsflash, Sam: Men abuse women in very large numbers. It isn’t a sign of psychological problems for a woman to be aware of this and to take this into consideration when dating men, it’s a sign of realistically recognizing the reality that men often abuse women. And it is a compliment if a woman doesn’t think you’ll harm her. It’s one of the highest compliments.
“Recall I made reference to your earlier admission that women compete for status, and you did not reference anything about survival until now.”
Actually I did, Sweating through the Fog. And you completely misinterpreted what I have said and twisted it for your own purposes. And I have nothing more to say to you, quite frankly. You are an anti-feminist. I made a promise to myself not to interact with anti-feminists as I find it a frank waste of my time.
Have a cheery day!
And with that, it is clear the productivity of this thread has come to an end, and it is closed.