Against Masculinity - Young men do not need a vision of “positive masculinity.” They need what everyone else needs: to be a good person who has a satisfying, meaningful life.
This just sounds like the author thinks masculinity is all negative things.
Anyone who thinks Trump is a representation of masculinity is not someone who’s opinion on the matter I care for.
I feel like the point is rather that instead of redefining masculinity into something more positive, we should rather deconstruct gender norms in general. Because regardless of masculinity being something "positive" or "negative", it is still an expectation for people to live up to. And eventually people will fail to live up to them. That's why I would say it is preferable to deconstuct gender as a whole, rather than redefining it.
If the goal of the article is to promote agenderism, it goes about it poorly. From the tagline of
It’s perfectly fine to be a “feminine” man. Young men do not need a vision of “positive masculinity.”
Before leading into countless criticisms based purely on a far-right view of masculinity. It takes a rather hostile approach to many people’s identities and falsely attributes a perspective onto it that not everyone shares.
While it would be interesting to live in a world without gender, it’s a very radical change. It would be more prudent to achieve the shorter timeframe goal of eliminating that harmful right wing conceptualisation in the meanwhile.
Not to mention the morality, as we would effectively be erasing people’s experiences, as for many people they do identify as somewhere on a gender spectrum.
Is it okay to say that’s wrong, and they shouldn’t? I don’t know, I can see the merit, but I can also see the oppression in dictating how others live and identify.
There’s also a bit of a colonial attitude issue, can we say tell other cultures (ex. Indigenous) to stop their traditions around gender such as coming of age ceremonies?
For a lot of folks Trump is representation of masculinity. I think it's something worth reflecting on.
Anyone who thinks Trump is a representation of masculinity is not someone who’s opinion on the matter I care for.
While this is a fine personal metric, I think it ignores the growing social power of the strong man right and the related manosphere subcultures.
It seems like the author cannot reconcile that positive masculinity cannot simultaneously mean to be a good person who has a satisfying, meaningful life.
There is no rule set down in stone for what men have to be like and what women have to be like. I do think there are rules for what people generally ought to be like, and I admire those who display what I consider to be the universal virtues. It’s true that many young men lead lives of quiet desperation. But I don’t see how masculinity has anything to do with the solution to that.
I get the general point that gender roles should be overcome etc, but we're definitely not gonna be able to change anything by ignoring the fact that they exist and influence us on a daily basis.
That makes as much sense as saying trans, non-binary people only need to have a satisfying, meaningful life without a vision of masculinity, femininity, or gender Identity.
you left out the "positive" in your analogy:
trans, non-binary people only need to have a satisfying, meaningful life without a vision of positive masculinity, femininity, or gender Identity
Of course it makes sense to have a concept of these things, but the point is that it is not helpful to define these things with positive or negative values, but rather to look consider these things independent from one another.
this was a really funny article to me because the author really doesn't seem that attached to being a man. i want to be clear, that's fine and valid. but it seems weird to then speak to the want of men in general to have more positive role models of masculinity, and say, well you should just want positive role models
like? yeah, you can have role models of any gender, but isn't it nice to have role models who look like you? isn't that the entire point that people make when saying representation is important? that doesn't stop being true just because we're talking about men now
he's missing such a basic and fundamental argument that the entire thing just becomes, at least for me, an externalized argument about how he feels about his own gender, which appears to be disconnected and largely not good
also he picked like, apparently the worst examples of masculinity he could find and said, yeah this is why we don't need positive masculinity?? like c'mon
i like being a man, it's cool. there's a lot (A LOT) of shit i have to reconcile with being a man. but imo that's part of the duty that comes with it. so yeah, author, it would be pretty cool to see men who had done that, who expressed their masculinity in unique and authentic ways that sometimes conform and sometimes don't
you know. like people
(i want to take a moment to say that i have several women role models and also people whose gender identities aren't so easily captured by the binary. but those people, generally speaking, don't need to reconcile with the long history of people of their gender doing harm to those around them, nor with the present day scars from that harm. it's a LOT to come to grips with understanding that you scare a lot of people just by existing, and frankly, that's just an experience that a man is more commonly going to have to experience. exclusively? of course not. obviously, there's a racial bias here as well. but due to the commonality, having readily available examples of how to handle it well, and even gracefully, would be nice)
This guy is so close but got stuck jerking off his own intellectualism half way.
As a rule masculinity and femininity are both a collection of traits. Usually defined something like this:
Masculinity is assertiveness, confidence and maybe something like independence.
Femininity is Emotional intelligence, Empathy and maybe something like team-coordination.
Now I view these groups like the hormones testosterone and estrogen. You need both to function. But the ratio between them defines whether you appear masculine or feminine.
You need to be capable of displaying both groups.
However, currently one side demonizes masculine traits, while the other side calls feminine traits gay.
The Author is close to the truth, in the sense that the traits he describes as good masculine traits shouldn't be exclusive to men. But he looses the plot by tying the traits directly and exclusively to the genders. This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.
Because of this he concludes, that everyone should have all traits regardless of group. This is correct but looses the significance of these groups, both in terms of role models and sexuality.
He accurately points out the issues and ridiculousness of current masculinity gurus but misses why they are appealing. The need for guidance amongst young men is evident.
But let’s leave aside all discussion of what makes someone a real “man” and just aspire to become decent human beings.
This quote betrays a general misunderstanding of what the issue is. Becoming a decent human is not a problem. The issue is becoming a (good) man. Society has gone far in expanding women's possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don't fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.
Now Tate and company offer some form of help. Its terrible, but it speaks to the problem, while Mr. Robinson pretends like the problem doesn't exist and just tells young man to become good humans.
Its often interesting to view gender issues through the trans lens. In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man very differently.
In my opinion this article is part of the problem driving more men to become Tate-stans and misogynists.
TL;DR: Everyone should display all traits, but the ratio is significant to determine overall appearance.
The existence of stereotypes like tomboy show that there is a link between traits and gender, but on an individual basis the ratio of traits can swap. And that's also cool.
Also the author is an ideolog ignoring the problem he writes about.
This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.
The author is quoting here, he didn't say that himself:
Josh Hawley, who thinks the left is waging a war on our Masculine Virtues, defines those virtues as “courage, independence, and assertiveness,” presumably qualities that women aren’t meant to have—or if they do possess them, it simply means they’re Manly women (just as Thatcher becomes an honorary man in Mansfield’s formulation)
Society has gone far in expanding women’s possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don’t fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.
I don't think anybody should ever "perform" a gender! As soon as it becomes a performance, it is unauthentic to the person they truly are, and needs to be deconstructed. The don't need instructions on how to 'perform' a gender, they need instructions on how to free themselves from these expectations.
In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man
There is nothing a trans man has to do in order to be a man. They are a man. There is nothing that could possibly make them less of a man. No instructions needed. Just be authentic to yourself.
I don't think anybody should ever "perform" a gender!
“Perform” in a sociological sense doesn’t mean inauthentic. It simply means to fulfill a societal role. We perform constantly. I do. You do. The author does. We perform as spouses, parents, children, siblings, professionals, leaders, followers, etc.
He does refer to a quote, but I think the "honorary man" wording comes from him. If he quotes it, the rest of the article still proves that he links these trait-groups exclusively to either gender.
Gender performance isn't something you fake, like in a theater, it's more something you do like performing in a sport. I should have clarified that.
Also being yourself is not an answer. Young people are struggling with exactly that. Being yourself only works, if you know what yourself is. Gender traits or role models can give great guidelines for what you strive to be. And somewhere along your growth as a person you will find things that work and things that don't. But you need some "starting direction" because yourself is usually still a kid.
For the trans thing, my wording is a bit unclear.
I meant acting like a (stereotypical) man.
You can say that they are a man as soon as they identify as one. I would also treat people that way. But the goal of most trans people is being recognized as their identified gender, without stating it, also called passing.
If you talk to trans people, there is often a concept of performing gender. This includes fashion and voice, but also mannerisms. To some these mannerisms come naturally, some train them to be more in line with how they view themselves.
I think these mannerisms and to an extend fashion are things that young men are also looking to modify in order to pass as men.
The obvious difference being that trans men switch gender, while cis men just go from boys to men.
Sounds like the author thinks we need to change our culture's definition of "masculine." I agree.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't believe there is such a thing as a "good masculinity" in the same way there isn't any "good femininity". Gender roles don't need to be redefined, they should be overcome.
Gender is merely an aspect of identity, and expressing your identity in a positive way should not be discouraged
of course it shouldn't! but the problems arise when it becomes some sort of pressure to conform to. A man likes working out, look jacked and have a well combed beard? If he's happy in his body, that is awesome! doesn't mean we should make a role model out of him and encourage others to be like that to. Because a man who wears dresses, knits and is a huge nerd about make-up is equally worthy of feeling happy about himself. If we make any kind of masculinity more 'positive' than the other, we run into problems
Gender roles don't need to be redefined, they should be overcome.
It's fascinating to me how people blurt statements like this out and then just move on like that settles the issue.
Like we're not living in a gendered world and will continue do so for every single day of our lives.
Even if you think that gender should be abolished as the ultimate goal you have to acknowledge that, in the mean time, boys and young men have to navigate a world that is not blind to gender. And if they are looking for guidance on how to do that and you're just sticking your head in the sand, they will get their answers from people who give them what they're looking for. Even if those answers are terrible.
So why do men look for guidance on how to be masculine? Why is it even appealing to be masculine? I believe it has little to do with the characteristics themselves (which keep changing and are hard to specify), I believe boys and young men aspire to be masculine because of the benefits you receive when you conform to these ideals. The more masculine you are, the more respect society pays you, you'll have more authority, people will find you more sexually attractive. All of these things are universally desirable, so young men will certainly want all of these things. So any kind of 'guidance' on masculinity, even if it is positive and affirmative, isn't a means for people to find out who they are, and instead it maintains a system in which men (also women, if we speak more broadly about patriarchy) are made to conform to gender norms.
I’m not a very “masculine” man, I guess. I like flowers, and I wear purple. I sip lattes and my hair is longer than average. I have a trace of a British accent, which makes me sound prissy. I do lift weights at the gym most days, but it certainly hasn’t turned me into the Hulk. When I’m sad, I cry, and when I am delighted, I laugh. I am tender toward animals. Does it add up to being “unmanly”?
If you substitute for black coffee, I fulfill just about all of this criteria.
Based on my limited understanding of what masculinity is supposed to be, he beats me at it.
So he admits to not understanding masculinity, not engaging with it, then stating that it is pointless. Methinks he is threatened by masculinity and thus he tries to claim it is unnecessary or automatically and necessarily harmful on its face. The "essence" of the sexes — masculinity and feminity — have been commercialized, commodified, pulled out by the roots and dipped in a disinfectant solution. I can see this in how every reference to his understanding is hinged on pop stars and movie figures.
What is masculinity? It's a hard term to define because the basic sense of it is so general. How do you describe sight? How do you describe feeling confident? It's not exactly easy to define the sweeping, largest-scale aspects of our lives. I think that masculinity is not set in stone but there are some general, atavistic elements of it that are mostly universal to all men who have those traits, borne necessarily of living in a dangerous world and needing to protect kith and kin:
Women historically often encapsulated the reversal or mirror of many of these traits:
It isn't to say that I don't believe that these traits cross over between the sexes, of course they do, and someone can embody many of these traits and be masculine or feminine.
But people have an essence about them. The reader himself states that he considers himself to be more feminine. I think that it is healthy and normal to recognize one's essence in this manner, and to strive to live in comport with their basic feeling of self. I lived a very feminized life for years and was unhappy with myself. Upon taking on some more masculine traits, I found strength and austerity that I lacked before.
I think the traits you list are a bit too abstract. When people list traits they strive for, they are usually derived from yours.
Yours might factually fit the data, but men don't aim to be disagreeable, they aim to be independent or confident. Same with women and being empathetic and social.
The problem is that everyone needs all those traits. This is where the author fails by saying the groups are pointless.
I think the ratio of how pronounced the traits are is what makes masculinity and femininity.
I certainly can be more specific but people don't tend to like when you get too detailed. I don't think people strive towards these traits necessarily, and certainly someone raised in such a way will do so naturally without thought, which is partially why is hard to define masculinity etc. I do like what you say, and I absolutely agree that both sets of traits are needed. It's just that they tend to weigh differently with populations
Well he doesn't call it immoral, he just says that it doesn't exist. (Also pretty dumb tho)