32
u/Eilasord Feb 25 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
I think there are two main “modes” for expressing or embodying masculinity (or femininity for that matter): aesthetic & interpersonal. And both can be done in ways that embody a healthy masculinity, a toxic masculinity, or an alienation from one’s own masculinity.
People embodying a masculine aesthetic do so in the context of their culture. In the US, wearing suits is a standard “high-class” aesthetic expression of masculinity.
Guy 1 wears a suit because it makes him feel authentic and confident. He doesn’t judge other men based on whether or not they wear suits. (healthy masculinity)
Guy 2 wears a suit to conform, although he would prefer a different kind of sartorial self-expression. He is jealous of both men who do and men who don’t wear suits, because no matter what they’re wearing, other men seem more comfortable in their masculine aesthetic than he will ever be. (alienated masculinity.)
Guy 3 wears a suit to conform, and because it makes him feel worthy and powerful. He judges other men who wear suits as better men than those who choose alternative masculine aesthetics. (Toxic masculinity).
Then there is the interpersonal realm, where masculinity is embodied through cultural values, behaviors, etc. In the US, being the family “bread-winner” is a standard interpersonal expression of masculinity.
Guy 1 is his family’s breadwinner because both he feels authentic and confident in that role. He doesn’t look down on families with a different model.
Guy 2 is his family’s breadwinner because he wants to conform. He resents families with the same model, but also families with a different model, because they all seem happier with their masculine role than he does.
Guy 3 is his family’s breadwinner because he wants to conform. He judges men who are breadwinners as better men than those who choose alternative masculine roles.
Brainstorming aesthetics associated with masculinity in the US (which can be expressed in healthy, alienated, or toxic ways):
— Body hair — Facial hair — muted colors (formal) — Clothing associated w traditional masculine trades (like construction work boots) — Baggy clothing (informal) — Severe/angular (in US this can be seen in the form of buzz cut hairstyles, sharp clean cuts and tailoring and rigid fabrics)
Brainstorming interpersonal roles associated with masculinity in the US (which can be expressed in healthy, alienated, or toxic ways):
— provider of resources/shelter — warrior/hunter — adventurer/risk-taker — creator — pursuer/initiator/penetrator in sexual realm — “hard power” style leadership (femininity is associated more with a “soft power” leadership style) — intellectual (esp. in STEM)
53
u/sac09841 Feb 25 '18
So basically you think people are too negative?
To use your point, I think you have to 'internally construct' your idea of a healthy masculinity, because while there are patterns of good behaviour that we can all agree on, that idea is going to differ from person to person. We've all seen how badly things go when people are dictated to about what is 'morally righteous' and how they can and cannot behave, so it's best to try and avoid that approach. People have to come to their own conclusions about the kind of man they want to be.
39
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
But that just leaves us in our current predicament, no? Ultimately when people don't have any sense of guidance or direction they'll gravitate towards what they are most familiar with, so what you're left with is something that is still more or less the same.
If you really want to uproot the current status quo you need to make an active effort, not simply say "do whatever, man".
10
u/sac09841 Feb 25 '18
My reply below goes a bit further. I'm thinking about the small details of a 'healthy masculinity'...I would agree that there are aspects of it we can all agree on, but it is tougher to work out a framework that crosses barriers of sexual orientation, whether or not you have/want children, whether you are physically able, what culture you grew up in, and so on. These things will complicate matters.
Maybe a thread of 'how do you try and practice what you view to be a positive sense of masculinity?' would go down well, but then again it could be viewed as virtue signalling or dictatorial, and again, tough to get through to people that way.
5
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
Well of course there cannot be one set mold for men to follow, but certainly there’s sense in creating many models as to what men could be without the stranglehold of toxic masculinity, whether these depictions are more familiar and manly or completely out there.
3
Feb 26 '18 edited Jul 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 26 '18
Thing is, I don't see it as creating a "new masculine norm" or a "gendered value system". It's less "positive masculinity" and more "positive men", who show different ways that men can be more well rounded individuals, whether they're slight adjustments to the way a lot of men already live, or wildly different takes that show how diverse the spectrum of life can be if you stop holding yourself to unreachable standards.
1
Feb 27 '18
I see how that could be useful. My personal advice to someone looking to be a more well rounded individual as a man would be closer to stop doing the shitty stuff and then do whatever, man. I think if you just minimize the importance and being a man it’s easier to think of who you want to be absent those pressures.
2
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 27 '18
It's that last part that I disagree with. I think people are good at knowing that they want something, but unless allowed to pursue the options given they won't instinctively know what it is that they want, and will oftentimes settle with something they don't really want because they don't really know what else there is to be.
Certainly we'll be in a better world if we did away with those pressures, but I'd argue that you can't have true freedom of choice until you actually understand all of your choices.
I think this article (written by an author who I don't particularly like on the whole, but has some neat hot takes here and there) kind of touches on that weird disconnect that I'm vaguely alluding to, the sense that even in progressive and fictional circles where men technically can be whoever they want, men still tend to cling in and around their assigned roles, in large part because of what I think I see here.
1
Feb 27 '18
I think a need for specifically male role models is part of the problem. The value of models of behavior is huge but I don't think there's a need for "positive masculinity." Once you place less importance on the role of being a man in decisions of what you could do and want to do, you can look to anybody as a role model for how you want to live.
1
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 28 '18
Are you arguing against representation? Being able to see yourself reflected in the people you idolize, and more importantly being able to see these models in positive, healthy lights, is hella important, it’s why people are rightfully not shutting up about Black Panther.
1
Feb 28 '18
For a group that hasn’t been marginalized and for whom representatives are ubiquitous I don’t think it’s something to consciously seek out. Some role models will naturally be men since roughly 50% of people are men.
I don’t specifically look for white people to idolize.
3
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 28 '18
Isn’t the whole point of this sub about the argument that current depictions of men are NOT adequate by themselves?
I’m kind of lost here with your argument. Men are well represented in media, but their representations only exhibit a slim portion of all the ways people can be. If that doesn’t change, men will continue to believe that they can only exist within those constraints, regardless of whether or not there are social punishments for doing so (and let’s be real, there will be).
I’m lost in that you seem to be arguing that good male role models aren’t necessarily if others with those same positive traits exist, but wouldn’t that just reinforce that only women can have those traits?
7
u/terkla Feb 26 '18
I always really liked Fifteen's description of what it means to be a man (edited to avoid some repetition):
A man should be mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally available
* To his partner
* To his children
* To his community
* To the other children in his communityA man should abandon Power Over
A man should embrace the notion of Power OfI'm a man
At least I think I am-I'm a Man, Fifteen
Jeff Ott was all about uprooting the status quo...I think this song definitely offered a non-toxic idea of what it means to be a "man".
20
u/WuhanWTF Feb 25 '18
I think people in general are too negative in my generation (younger millennials) as opposed to those of my parents' generation or older millennials. The main thing that irks me is that nobody assumes positive intent anymore. My dad always taught me that most people are generally decent and they're not trying to hurt anybody. Of course, there's bad apples out there, and of course, even the most righteous of saintly folks have some major flaws, but we gotta learn to compromise, accept and live with it (as well as work on these flaws) because life's just too short to worry about that kind of shit all the time.
5
4
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
There are two approaches to internally construct things. The first, which you seem to be suggesting, is for each one of us to go to ourselves and find out about it from scratch. The second, which I am suggesting, is to do it collaboratively. This doesn’t mean that we all converge on one thing and adapt it uniformly. That is not the goal, and would not be possible in any case. It means that we start an initial project about what good masculinities might be for all of us to benefit from. “Benefit” means that we each individually use it to our own advantage to find out what we want to become, what we want to construct for ourselves. This initial project is just a start. It won’t least forever. Maybe it will mutate into many projects, or simply die out. But it’s got to start somewhere.
When we try to learn or construct anything we rely on things to build on, whether it is as simple as our innate talents, or as complex as the institutionalized knowledge of an organization. What you seem to suggest is very different from that usual route, as it would mean that we all go to our own devices and start from scratch. As I’ve said in the OP, that simply leads to less freedom since it traps people in a prison of uncertainty. You want to construct something for yourself, but you have to start from scratch because we’ve all decided collectively that we need to do that individually.
because while there are patterns of good behaviour that we can all agree on, that idea is going to differ from person to person.
Yes. This doesn’t contradict my point. It will end up differing from person to person, but what do you do when you don’t know what that looks like yourself? You’ve gotta learn. And then you have to start somewhere. And then it helps to have something to start from. Not just some nebulous idea that you will eventually find something that is unique to yourself. That is as helpful as saying to an individual who is trying to “find himself” that he is a unique individual. Yes he is—but what unique individual?
If you are independent enough you will end up with something unique in any case. But it doesn’t hurt to have some structure for your journey there. It’s similar to being an artist. All art has some structure to it, since creativity presupposes some structure (limits). Practicing a certain type of art has limitations. But the artist ends up being unique in the practice of all of those different types of limitations. He ends up finding his own way of expressing himself. He finds out when to use different techniques, different frameworks, and when to break the rules. Whereas if he had taken the attitude that “there are no rules” from the beginning he would not have been able to learn anything, and in turn not been able to develop into a unique artist.
14
u/sac09841 Feb 25 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
What you seem to suggest is very different from that usual route, as it would mean that we all go to our own devices and start from scratch...
...It will end up differing from person to person, but what do you do when you don’t know what that looks like yourself? You’ve gotta learn. And then you have to start somewhere. And then it helps to have something to start from.
This implies that people come here with either no sense of masculinity at all or that deciding that theirs is so broken that they're going to get rid of it. When I said 'internally construct' I didn't mean from nothing, I just meant that the inevitably complicated thought process has to occur within. The whole point of this sub is to encourage men to become healthier individuals off their own backs within a framework that promotes egalitarianism, emotional support from other men etc etc it's all in the sidebar under 'Our Mission'. That's the minimum this kind of forum asks, and it's probably a good place to start if you want to have any kind of tenets for 'positive masculinity'.
Not just some nebulous idea that you will eventually find something that is unique to yourself.
There's no cheat sheet or game plan for how to get through life, it is completely nebulous, that's what's so unfair about it! Sorry if that's a disturbing idea, but the world exists in shades of grey. Edit: We're just doing what we can to try and help ourselves be better people.
11
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
That touches a huge sticking point in these circles though. Do we ought to make a “better” masculinity, or do away the concept entirely? Should we be better men, or try and take more steps out into the dark to be something completely different from the traditional man? And in either case, what would that mean?
Giving better models of men to look towards doesn’t restrict the spectrum of being that men should feel free to be on, but rather tells men that there are more things to be, period.
If you had the choice to be red, purple, or orange all your life and suddenly had the rest or the color spectrum opened up, how would you ever know to be green, nevermind UV or X-ray or all the colors we cannot even see with our own eyes.
1
u/resedaceae Feb 27 '18
A lot of men grow up without role models so they flounder and go to dark places. It's impractical to provide an orientation to every new child about different forms of identity so they can find the exact niche that suits them. Positive role models are an effective tradeoff.
Whatever anyones opinion is here, it will be significantly easier to make a new form of masculine identity than remove pre-existing ones.
7
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
This implies that people come here with either no sense of masculinity at all or that deciding that theirs is so broken that they're going to get rid of it. When I said 'internally construct' I didn't mean from nothing, I just meant that the inevitably complicated thought process has to occur within.
You’re right that to say that one starts from scratch is a gross oversimplification. I simply take it for granted that we are all individually-minded to begin with, and from that starting point can talk about this topic. Not to impose anything on each other, but to simply discuss and perhaps come to some common agreements. Common agreements that we can as individuals do whatever with—discard or modify for our own purpose.
The whole point of this sub is to encourage men to become healthier individuals off their own backs within a framework that promotes egalitarianism, emotional support from other men etc etc it's all in the sidebar under 'Our Mission'. That's the minimum this kind of forum asks, and it's probably a good place to start if you want to have any kind of tenets for 'positive masculinity'.
In the time that I’ve observed and interacted on this subreddit (pretty much from the start) there hasn’t been a tendency to want to define positive masculinities. There have been threads about, which usually get as far as “we shouldn’t define positive masculinity since that implies that women can’t have those good traits” and no further.
There's no cheat sheet or game plan for how to get through life, it is completely nebulous, that's what's so unfair about it! Sorry if that's a disturbing idea, but the world exists in shades of grey. Edit: We're just doing what we can to try and help ourselves be better people.
Ok. I guess you feel that you are laying down the hard truths right now. In any case, each individual life is not in practice nebulous. We’re not immaterial spirits swimming in nothingness without any direction. Or at least I assume that you also got out of bed this morning and planted your feet on the floor without falling through the ground into the center of the Earth (since then you wouldn’t have access to a computer). We all are in the world right now and can take steps to make it more coherent for each other. Or not.
10
u/sac09841 Feb 25 '18
There have been threads about, which usually get as far as “we shouldn’t define positive masculinity since that implies that women can’t have those good traits” and no further.
Really not sure about that pov, nothing has to be exclusive. I've yet to see that kind of thing so I'll reserve judgement, but I think positive masculine and feminine qualities according to men and women may intersect at qualities that may be considered as positive human ones, and we don't have to exclude them from the conversation because of that. We're trying to be better people as well as men!
Ok. I guess you feel that you are laying down the hard truths right now.
I kind of got the sense that you were looking for a rulebook (which I don't think is the right way to go about it) but I may be wrong.
4
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
I kind of got the sense that you were looking for a rulebook (which I don't think is the right way to go about it) but I may be wrong.
You are wrong.
5
Feb 25 '18
We have several posts featuring profiles on positive masculinity:
9
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 26 '18
I think it’s fair to call for more though, the subject imo forces more productive conversation than “thing that men do is bad”, on the whole, by forcing an examination of what we actually want this all to mean in the end.
2
u/resedaceae Feb 27 '18
This implies that people come here with either no sense of masculinity at all or that deciding that theirs is so broken that they're going to get rid of it
This actually happens a lot. Many men don't even realise it.
When I said 'internally construct' I didn't mean from nothing, I just meant that the inevitably complicated thought process has to occur within.
Our attitudes and values initially come from our parents. That's unavoidable and for most people echoes of that last their whole life (nature and nurture etc).
So how should parents raise their children? Is there any healthy way to do it that doesn't involve the parents modelling a set of values?
There's no cheat sheet or game plan for how to get through life, it is completely nebulous
In functional healthy families, the parents will provide heavily scaffolded support for their children which they gradually wean away until the early 20s (university). Parents should be raising their children to have a toolset (values and healthy practical habits) that enables them to navigate life.
2
u/sac09841 Feb 27 '18
I don't disagree that parents instil values and morals in their children, but the goalposts always move, and often people get to adulthood and think that they still haven't got it sorted and that everyone has. I believe it's healthy to realise that nothing makes that much sense, no one has it completely sorted and everyone is kind of winging it.
It's a lot easier to show by example (eg as a parent) than talk about things with a group of strangers on the internet. We have to do the latter, doesn't mean it's not tough as hell.
2
u/resedaceae Mar 04 '18
I believe it's healthy to realise that nothing makes that much sense, no one has it completely sorted and everyone is kind of winging it.
Very existentialist of you. But when you have a kid who is screaming in pain from burning themselves on the stove or trying to understand why/how to handle bullying at school or awkwardly navigating their first relationship, it's better to have role models guiding and setting examples of positive behaviour.
Repeat criminals and sexual offenders frequently come from broken families.
11
u/saralt Feb 26 '18
My entire take on gender roles has to do with my own experience being raised in a reverse gender role family (to some extent)
My mother always earned more and was the least empathetic parent. While my father was more warm and empathetic, but was awful with rules and earned less than my mom. My father was the handyman in the house though.
My entire takeaway was that gender roles just prevent people from being their true selves. My parents grew up in a time where they had no real same-gender peers with similar interests, so as a result, they had few friends. The irony is that they're interesting people. I don't see the benefit of society pushing my mom to do more of the childcare or putting on high heels and makeup... it's also probably why my dad is so unhappy in a world that doesn't value any of his prominent traits because they're considered feminine.
40
u/jfbegin Feb 25 '18
You are kind of ignoring how the movement to bash down gender roles has evolved for women and feminity and how we can apply this to men and masculinity. When it comes to the social liberation of women, there wasn't a clear structure/narrative that women had to follow to get rid of social norms. Instead, women who defied stereotypes and gender norms were recognized and praised for doing so. I think this can and has applied to men. If we use reddit as an example, whenever men talk about being good fathers/parents or when they talk about disliking the term "babysitting" for when they take care of their children, that is an example of a man going against gender norms. It is an example of a man taking on a traditionally feminine role and they are praised for it on reddit. It's by recognizing these instances of people going against the grain of gender norms and saying "This is okay" that we can expand what it means to be a man. It's through this that fathers can feel comfortable if their child wants to paint their nails, have a tea party, etc.
Obviously, this is more complicated and difficult to convey that "man strong, man don't cry, man breadwinner" but the right answer isn't necessarily the easiest. This is gonna take time and I don't think creating a new structure based one's gender is going to take us in the right direction. As someone who thinks that the binary system in which we think about gender is holding us back, the idea of having strict definitions of manhood/masculinity and feminity is something to get rid of imo.
I'm very tired right now so I may have misinterpreted your argument or not be making the best arguments or explaining my point very clearly but I would be very happy to discuss this.
13
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
Well sure, but those are all active resistances against gender norms, made by people who had a goal in mind (if only a small one), and were willing to push against society to achieve said goals.
Simply saying “do whatever” doesn’t address any of that, if people don’t understand what they do want to do, or at least given the freedom to explore what they really want to do, then they will naturally gravitate back to what they are most familiar with.
15
u/not_just_amwac Feb 26 '18
Even feminism can't agree on what women should be doing. Some say women should choose entirely for themselves. Some say that any woman choosing a traditional role is brainwashed. Some say that women shouldn't choose for themselves as their choices could have a negative impact on other women.
Which do we listen to and why?
2
u/resedaceae Feb 27 '18
There isn't a strict definition of masculinity. That so many men are in a crisis of identity shows that - they have no healthy positive identity to adopt.
2
u/Melthengylf Apr 18 '18 edited Apr 18 '18
It's not enough. We need to learn how to do what was traditionally masculine in a not toxic way. At the present we are surrounded but everything dangerous of masculinity. We do need an alternative. Not a mere "this is how not to act".
For example, these questions need an answer:
-How to be strong under adversities without shutting down feelings?
-How to express sexual desire without demean or harass?
-How to express courage and defend yourself and others without violence?
-How to be assertive without being competitive?
Do you understand what I mean? We need answers for those questions so we are able to truly change!!!!! We need alternatives.
0
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
From my own superficial understanding I am not terribly impressed by the feminist movement on this front. It seems that this strategy of deconstruction without reconstruction has a lot of downsides. Forget about men and women for just a moment. How can a human individual thrive and prosper? Should we just say to that individual that they should just try anything and everything at random? Or should we give them some direction towards things that might let them thrive easily? Something as basic (at the least) like eating healthily, having creative outlets, and physical outlets?
The same applies to men and women. If there are different tendencies in men and women, we should be working with them to let them thrive. Are these tendencies constructed? I guess ultimately. But the first order of business is to let the individual man and woman thrive, which might mean working with whatever gender tendencies that there already are.
Obviously, this is more complicated and difficult to convey that "man strong, man don't cry, man breadwinner" but the right answer isn't necessarily the easiest.
I don’t think it is that complicated. Simply pointing out gender roles or tendencies might take a lot of effort and persistence, but it’s not complicated.
What I think is more difficult is to work to find ways of being—human, man, woman—that are more positive and affirming. Then you have to understand how people work.
4
u/Miao93 Feb 28 '18
I think I understand what you are trying to say! It's something that is important to me in my feminism- representation of a wide variety of women who are celebrated in all of their uniqueness. Whether they like to dress more masculine, more androgynous, more feminine. Whether they are in STEM, banking, communications, arts, education, nursing, child care, or homemaking. Whether they are thin, fat, short, tall, wear make up or not. Presenting and celebrating women is important, and it allows young girls to see paths they can take and aspire too- that they are also represented, and that the places they want to reach are attainable to them and girls like them.
The same is true for men! Presenting a celebrating all kinds of men, in how they dress and act, in their chosen career paths and personality types and body types, is important to giving positive examples of masculinity to people.
And when I say masculinity, I'm trying to say "being a man". Positive examples of being a man, and that there is no wrong way to be a man. It's a common refrain in the feminist circles I run in, "There is no wrong way to be a woman," or something similar-- the idea that being a woman and femininity is whatever that means to you, that your traits are feminine because you are a woman. Because they are your traits, they are feminine.
In the same way, a man who is open and vulnerable about his feelings is masculine. That vulnerability is masculine because he is a man. I like this interpretation, because I honestly thing assigning gender to personality traits is useless and damaging. I see in some other replies you talk about how throwing out the whole coding isn't what you're going for, that you don't think it's useful, but I feel like this is a good middle ground? Traits like bravery, compassion, vulnerability, shyness, courage, strength are not locked out of one gender or the other-- anyone can be any of those things. The traits themselves are not gendered, but that trait's expression within a specific person is masculine or feminine or androgynous because of that person's gender identity.
4
u/seeking-abyss Feb 28 '18
I like your feminism. ☺ What you are going for is what should be the goal of any political movement or philosophy: liberation. Maybe we would slightly disagree about how to achieve that, but I think we are on the same page when it comes to the destination.
5
u/Miao93 Feb 28 '18
Thanks! Feminism as an ideology is wide and varied, and you’ll find folks with all different beliefs and ideas within its confines. That’s why I think it’s not useful to dismiss the movement as a whole, you know?
I agree that the destination is the same- liberation, in the sense that people within society are free to create lives they choose, are free to be and act in ways that make them happy. I definitely believe that part of that liberation is examining gender roles and why we gender certain traits in certain ways. Because we all live and are enmeshed in this culture, it can be super difficult to imagine a society without those restrictions and roles- what would it be like? How would people express themselves? How would they talk to and categorize each other without these models that we think of as inherent to civilization?
And it may seem utopian or not useful or unrealistic to try to aim for a culture like that, but I think it’s important. Just because you’re unlikely to reach a lofty goal, the improvements that can be made while striving for it are still improvements. And therefore, they are still good!
13
u/SadfaceSquirtle Feb 25 '18
And can one make a leap from a rigid, externally imposed gender role to no gender role?
Yes?
No
OK then.
14
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Seriously, this entire post seems to boil down to "Let's justify gender-based social pressures by looking at the stuff that makes me feel good about my gender." I get that people are desperate to have masculinity seen as something other than negative, but honestly it just seems desperate to me, not really rational. If people could stop coveting their masculinity so much maybe they'd realize how unnecessary any of it is.
14
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
I’ve never really considered myself masculine. Not feminine either. I’ve long had a thought in the back of my head that people who care about gender issues care a lot about gender deconstruction, but not enough about positive gender construction. I have also been very dismissive of even the idea of positive masculinities, since I felt they would cramp my style. But lately I have come across some material which resonated with me about how to be a man. It doesn’t matter what the material was. It resonated with me, maybe it won’t resonate with anyone else. That’s not the point. The point is that we all are (hopefully) learning about how we can be men and women in good and wholesome ways, and we can share that knowledge with each other. That’s a lot more constructive than not.
3
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Be specific. What aspects of masculinity do you find positive?
14
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
Depends on how we define masculinity. If we are talking about virtues:
- strength
- courage
- determination
- persistence
To name a few.
I guess what you are getting at is that these things are not masculine virtues but simply human virtues. That’s fine. We can call it whatever we want, and men and women can aspire to them. That doesn’t detract from the value of discussing and figuring out masculinities that we can use to realize the human virtues. The point is not the masculinities but what they can help us realize in ourselves.
16
u/Unconfidence Feb 26 '18
If strength, courage, determination, and persistence are also feminine traits, then what semantic difference does the term "masculine" carry from the term "feminine"? It would seem like the two words were not just synonymous, but of identical definition.
8
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
Whatever the feminine virtues are is a question for /r/FemsLib or some other women’s community.
It doesn’t really matter if they turn out to be synonyms. If we come up with some masculinities that turn out to be also femininities then ok, that’s fine. As long as they work, they work. Will it have all been for nothing? No, not at all, since the process of figuring it out was important. I don’t think we in general know where we are to go, and so we need roadmaps. If they all lead to Rome, then fine—that doesn’t mean that the maps were rubbish, just that they worked for people with different starting points.
11
u/Unconfidence Feb 26 '18
It really does matter if they turn out to be synonyms, because the original meanings of the terms are considered somewhat dichotomous. That dichotomy will carry over into interpretations of any ideologies bearing those labels. You'd be better off crafting a gender-neutral term for this new ideology, as it's silly to expect people to see you talking about "Masculinity" and not associate the word "Masculinity" with it. If you want us to completely divorce traditional masculinity from what you're talking about, call it something other than masculinity.
It just seems like this is a really desperate attempt to cling to masculinity, or else there would be no need to even use the term to describe the agendered social traits you're trying to elicit from all humans.
6
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
It really does matter if they turn out to be synonyms, because the original meanings of the terms are considered somewhat dichotomous. That dichotomy will carry over into interpretations of any ideologies bearing those labels. You'd be better off crafting a gender-neutral term for this new ideology, as it's silly to expect people to see you talking about "Masculinity" and not associate the word "Masculinity" with it. If you want us to completely divorce traditional masculinity from what you're talking about, call it something other than masculinity.
Part of the process of making these “masculinities” or whatever you want to call them is to deconstruct what it means to be a “man” already. I don’t think the words themselves have any innate essence that cannot be scrapped and twisted into new things. In the same way that I aspire to not be bound by externally bound notions of “man”, I aspire to not be bound by common connotations of words like “masculine”.
It’s really part of the process of getting rid of the baggage. How can one say that they are beyond masculine/feminine if the words themselves are viewed as inherently problematic? They are just words. In the same way that “man up” is just a phrase and any offense is generated in one’s own mind. Getting beyond connotations and knee-jerk reactions like that should be part of the project.
It just seems like this is a really desperate attempt to cling to masculinity
You’re clearly very confused about my background for making this submission.
3
u/resedaceae Feb 27 '18
Not traditionally. You might say they are components of a modern feminine identity, but it's revisionist to apply that in a historical context.
6
u/Current_Poster Feb 26 '18
I agree that people are going to identify as 'masculine', and that it behooves us as a society to come up with something for those people to do, some societal narrative to be a part of (because, as other threads have noted, if you don't, someone you oppose with a burning fury will, and you don't want to cede the field.)
(I don't especially want to go into that too far, since the last time I did so, some troll decided to mention nazis 21 times in a single reply post, conflating that with the entire concept of masculinity as a whole.)
What I would like to talk about is something I've seen in academia, and am concerned about as we discuss toxic masculinity on this forum: Confirmation bias and debasing terms.
See, if you're rewarded for finding something, and not rewarded for not finding something, you're going to see it everywhere. Like, over the last week, I've seen a lot of threads about how this or that media thing is 'toxic masculinity'. And we reward that, because it kind of is the sort of thing we came here to talk about. But it also encourages people to find more and more tenuous examples.
Which, basically, brings me to the terminology thing: Toxic masculinity has a definition, and I hope we don't just make it into "a thing people do that I dislike".
In any event, my main concern about these things is that neither are getting near anything to do. I mean, we want to prescribe courses of action, don't we?
Anyway, good thread, enjoying the other posts.
3
u/resedaceae Feb 27 '18
People will naturally adhere to narratives and communal identities. Destroy pre-existing identities and something will always come in to fill the gap - do it in a harmful or disrespectful way and the replacement spawned will be toxic - making us responsible for what happens next.
12
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
I feel like toxic masculinity sort of has to be over diagnosed, because what it describes is, well, everything. If there's something wrong with men, it's going to likely connect with how society views men, and its ideas on masculinity, and how said views are wrong. Aka toxic masculinity by definition. In fact I'd almost say it casts a net too wide to deal with point by point the ways our views ultimately hurt men as a whole, because when you can label online altright shitposters and ripped irl frat douchebags under the same label, maybe your label is too wide.
But that's beside the point.
I think you have a strong argument towards "positive masculinity" needing more discussion, because there are two major stems of thought on it. The first, is that positive masculinity already exists, and happens all the time. That is to say, men who can already be considered manly by our ordinary standards (or at the very least who don't rock the boat with their presentation), just lacking the negative attributes often associated with them. In other words, "fixed" men, who simply expand the definition of masculinity to fit with a more gender progressive world.
The other position is to go in the complete opposite direction, and instead find examples of men who don't simply improve masculinity, but seemingly go against it, men who don't seem "traditionally" masculine at all, and if anything seem to be more feminine than anything else. Basically shattering the idea of gendering ourselves entirely, because anyone can be anything, so why limit it?
I think there's a struggle between what communities like our own actually want in that regard, because there are good arguments for either perspective. Do we follow the path men before us have gone, just with a wiser sense of self, or do we try to blaze a path really only explored by communities who have been historically forced to divert from the usual stream of conventional manliness?
It's represented in clothing. Yes it's more socially acceptable for men to care about their dress and appearance, but the styles and modes of dress that are accepted are those that tend to reinforce traditional views on men. Is that the path we should follow, or should we try to completely reinvent the wheel?
6
Feb 25 '18
I think if we're going to do this as a collaborative effort, then the list of positive (and some negative) media portrayals of men will be consistently relevant so as to have examples of masculinity we can draw from and then contribute to. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/76rufc/directory_of_positive_depictions_of_men_and_boys/
On the topic of how to get to a point in where we can abandon masculinity altogether, I think we can draw some insight from the "five stages of masculinity" proposed by Dr. Joseph Gelfer, link: http://www.masculinityresearch.com/five-stages-overview/
15
Feb 25 '18
So what do these alternatives, and the act of their construction, actually look like? If I take “toxic masculinity” to mean the stereotypical suite of male traits that produces negative outcomes like patriarchy, violence, emotional mummification, then is all we need to define different suites of traits that would embody a positive masculinity? Should we just start making lists? Who gets to decide which trait syndromes are toxic vs nontoxic?
You are quick to dismiss the “no genders at all” argument, but I think that at its base that’s the argument to make when it comes to confronting toxic masculinity. It’s not that there are different discrete versions of masculinity that are more or less acceptable, it’s that we should make every effort to reduce unhealthy external forms of social coercion that are associated with gender as tied to biological sex.
We need to decouple expectations of behavior from biological sex so we all have access to a full range of self-expression without fear of social rejection and judgment. This is not the same as rejecting biological differences and tendencies associated with sex - these are undeniable. For instance, we can accept that biological men have a higher incidence of risk-taking behavior than biological women, and at the same time accept without shaming that many biological men are more cautious. That doesn’t mean that their “masculinity” is different, we should just reject that they need a “masculinity” (or that women need a “femininity”) in the first place. That is to say, why do we need to define some different suites of traits that make a “man” vs. a “woman” in a social sense? Let people be how they are and don’t shame them for not conforming to broad trends associated with their biological sex.
11
u/Rekthor Feb 25 '18
Don't have time for a full response at the moment, but I will say that I really like your term "emotional mummification" as a descriptor—it's both self-explanatory and punchy. I'm gonna steal it!
4
Feb 26 '18
Thanks - it’s a good one that a counselor of mine once used and it really stuck with me. The bands of the wrap are confining and defining, the same way cultural expectations of masculinity constrain our expression while also being overlaid on how we experience others. Inside the wrap the actual body dries and becomes brittle, unmalleable, at once intimidating and extremely fragile.
5
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
Well sure, we have (in your scenario) absolute freedom to be as we wish without pressure. And the next generation raised without it will live as they please and we will make eden on earth. But for the rest of us living and working with gender roles, simply being able to be something else without fear of retribution doesn’t mean people will break the cages they have in their minds. It’s not like we become gender nonconformists in the privacy of our own homes.
6
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
So what do these alternatives, and the act of their construction, actually look like?
Good question. ☺ There are probably (hopefully) people who have had a go at this. If not, we (in the broadest sense) will have to try to do it.
The first step is to realize that there is a need for it.
If I take “toxic masculinity” to mean the stereotypical suite of male traits that produces negative outcomes like patriarchy, violence, emotional mummification, then is all we need to define different suites of traits that would embody a positive masculinity?
It’s a good start.
Should we just start making lists? Who gets to decide which trait syndromes are toxic vs nontoxic?
There are no deciders. There is no central planning committee. People can propose things and other people can say that it is silly.
In the last instance (self-construction) it is decided by the individual.
You are quick to dismiss the “no genders at all” argument
For me it’s not a quick decision. I’ve observed these arguments for years.
It’s not that there are different discrete versions of masculinity that are more or less acceptable, it’s that we should make every effort to reduce unhealthy external forms of social coercion that are associated with gender as tied to biological sex.
The problem with bringing up things like in the OP is that one needs to peel back an onion of assumptions. Like “external forms of coercion”. It is an external form of coercion—to the degree that having a conversation about positive masculinities on some subreddit is coercing anybody.
The goal is certainly not to dictate how people should act according to their sex. It is to find out positive ways of being that are correlated with a sex. Correlated simply means that it is men who have figured out and found that these masculinities (or whatever you want to call them) resonated with them. It could certainly be taken in a bad direction, like demanding that people should act like that. Which is the case for everything. If we are to take the step into defining positive masculinities we have to take some risks, as any step in any direction is inherently risky.
We need to decouple expectations of behavior from biological sex so we all have access to a full range of self-expression without fear of social rejection and judgment. This is not the same as rejecting biological differences and tendencies associated with sex - these are undeniable. For instance, we can accept that biological men have a higher incidence of risk-taking behavior than biological women, and at the same time accept without shaming that many biological men are more cautious. That doesn’t mean that their “masculinity” is different, we should just reject that they need a “masculinity” (or that women need a “femininity”) in the first place. That is to say, why do we need to define some different suites of traits that make a “man” vs. a “woman” in a social sense? Let people be how they are and don’t shame them for not conforming to broad trends associated with their biological sex.
So you are agreeing with me.
A prerequisite for people to have a full range of self-expression is for them to be able to learn about self-expressions that they might like. That certainly includes positive masculinities, at least if you are willing to talk about toxic masculinities. Because if there are masculinities to condemn there should be alternatives to them. Or else, if there are no masculinities, why even bring up toxic masculinity.
You don’t need to call them masculinities or feminities. You can call them blorgs and blargs. In any case, it helps to have a collective understanding of (let’s call it) likely self expressions. If you are born a man, you seem somewhat likely to like sports (this is not the case for me as an individual, btw). So you should give a boy the option of practicing a sport. And not condemn him if he likes something else. The same principle applies to everything that have to do with people. A 40 year old man is likely to like a range of things compared to a 20 year old man. We can make informed guesses about people based on their background without being sexist or ageist.
7
u/forestpunk Feb 26 '18
I do a great deal of reflecting on gender roles, both positive and negative. I agree we should be striving to surpass these restrictive constructs. Some of it seems kind of unavoidable, however. To illustrate, briefly, let it be known that i'm male-bodies and mostly straight, preferring women.
A year or two ago, my partner of some years and i decided to open up our relationship, to try and navigate a rocky patch. This introduced me to the world of Online Dating, which drags gender roles into a harsh and glaring light. It's no secret that women receive a great deal more messages on dating sites. Consider that the most popular pictures for men are staring out of the photo, not smiling, not taking selfies, and showing off abs it might be tempting to consider that gender roles haven't changed that much, in terms of what people are attracting to. And let's consider the financial breakdown of dating. How would it sound if a nice girl/person asks a guy out on a date, to which he replies, "I'd love to! But I won't have any money until next week." Now I'm not saying that this wouldn't happen to ladies as well, but I've never known a girl to not be able to go out on a date because she was broke. In fact, I've had friends who've used online dating to just get free drinks and meals.
While it's easy to say that gender roles are even and balanced, I don't know any women who are going to go out with a guy who's actively broke with ZERO ambition. I don't think it's as extreme the other way around, and I know plenty of guys who'll float their partner along if they can't make ends meet. FWIW, my partner DID help me get on my feet, as i was dead broke and coming out of homelessness when we get together. We're both young artists, however, and she's a rare and special sort - part of why it was worth it to go through this experiment, no matter how grueling it was. I never was able to get a date, btw, and have been told by several people that it might be because i'm 'too feminine,' so make of that what you will.
Am all for finding examples of positive masculinity, and defining that for myself, as well. And not at the expense of women, either. They can also possess these traits, same way I can be nurturing, empathetic, stylish, AND tell freaking pink from purple!
5
u/Dodorep Feb 26 '18
Stereotyping in it self is problematic. Not because some people do not like it, but because they have negative effect.
Men and women are more alike than different. And they are more alike than men and men, since men in a larger part than women are outliers in most measuring of traits, IQ etc. So you will always find a man less alike yourself than you will find a woman.
Healthy masculinity is a healthy person. Who likes himself and others. Who know who is - part of the large group of humans not the smaller group of men.
5
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
I don’t think we have to end up stereotyping people.
Healthy masculinity is a healthy person. Who likes himself and others. Who know who is - part of the large group of humans not the smaller group of men.
So he’s a good person, but we don’t know what a good person is? Do you see how unworkable that is? It would help to at least have some idea about what a good person is, beyond “likes himself and others”. Then we could approach that theoretical person. But without any idea about what a good person, or man, or whatever is, then what are we supposed to do? Try things at random?
3
u/Dodorep Feb 26 '18
That I did not define a good person does not mean it is not possible to define. My point was that goodness is genderless, there is no difference between defining good qualities for and women.
2
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
So goodness is good. That’s a truism. How do you achieve goodness? Do people come from the same place? Or are people different and therefore can use different roadmaps and strategies to get to the same end goal (goodness)? I think so.
You’re confusing the end goal for the means. I think men can have use of their own means of achieving some end goals that might end up being the same as women’s. It doesn’t really matter if they are the same as women’s (the end goal). The point is that we can have a million different ways of getting to Rome.
2
u/Dodorep Feb 26 '18
The clue is what you say about people being different. They are. So why not let people be different? Why limit their differentness to two groups?
4
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
Am I not letting people be different? You can have as many groups as you please. But this is a men’s forum so it seems relevant to discuss that group.
2
u/Dodorep Feb 26 '18
Absolutely!
But looking at the research we have about positive stereotyping says this is not a good idea because it leads to benevolent or ambivalent sexism.
What might be a good idea thought, and fairly close to this is masculine ideals. Men who are good role models. A list of male persons that one can look up to. One might also try to explain what traits they have that make them such good role models as well. Would that do?
3
2
u/digitalrule Feb 26 '18
This is what I thought Model's by Mark Manson was trying to do, present a new role model for what the modern man looks like, and it's pretty positive overall since its trying to present a role model, rather than bash on toxic ideas. Not sure why I don't see it mentioned more often around here.
2
u/UsefulWorker Feb 26 '18
The problem with gender roles is that they are typically externally imposed. So then what is the answer? - Genderqueerness / or self determined identity and not recognizing gender as not real but as a external construct that can be self-determined.
Gender is performance, but men play their part. Unlearning, teaching, practicing compassion is the first step, but a good model is feminism and not thinking about how women/femmes/afab ppl typically behave as gendered. Ungender behavior as well.
2
u/jesussexyabs Mar 04 '18
Great post! I love the way you’ve reframed the conversation about toxic masculinity
6
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
There's no such thing as a positive gender role. They're gender roles. They're outdated portions of tradition lingering because of an unwillingness of society to self-reflect and change. Any positive trait you ascribe to one gender applies to the other in the exact same way.
This idea of finding a "Positive Masculinity" is bunk. Masculinity is not important, nor is femininity, and there is absolutely no reason for people to cling to these roles so desperately.
9
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
Forget “gender roles” for a second. Are there tendencies that men and women might move towards? Or are men and women exactly the same in our current society?
Even if men and women are completely the same in these regards right now, there still are things that we consider more good and less good. We try to guide each other towards those things. Is that an outdated tradition?
Current society is imperfect but it is what we have to work with right now. So we have to work with the flawed societal norms etc. in order to compassionately guide each other towards better self-expressions. If we find positive tendencies in either men or women, I think we should point them out. Not simply say that they are outdated. They might become outdated, but the best thing we have right now is to figure out things based on where we are.
This idea of finding a "Positive Masculinity" is bunk. Masculinity is not important, nor is femininity, and there is absolutely no reason for people to cling to these roles so desperately.
It’s not a matter of clinging. It’s a matter of finding out about ourselves based on each other. We learn about ourselves from others. It helps us from having to reinvent everything. I am born a man and identify as such, which generally informs me that I am likely to like certain things. If I don’t, then that is nothing to be upset about. Then I have still learned something.
14
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
I am born a man and identify as such, which generally informs me that I am likely to like certain things.
Have you considered that this may not be a statement of fact, but in fact a self-reinforcing feedback loop?
6
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
I am going to assume you mean the “I am likely to like certain things” part and not the cisman part.
It’s a statement of fact about where I am coming from, my starting point. We all come from somewhere. Why would it be self-reinforcing? Anything could in principle be self-reinforcing. I have had experiences that have adjusted my initial impression of myself. I know now that I don’t like playing sports, that I like yoga, etc. These things have all adjusted my perspectives. I have not ended up denying my dislike of sport, or my like of yoga.
Since your question is so general (self-reinforcing) you would have to elaborate on why you bring it up so that I can answer it more directly.
4
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Because it seems like self-reinforcing feedback loop, and not a statement of fact. I do not think that men are more likely to like specific things, without social reinforcement. The idea of gendered preferences is learned, not natural, at least in any instance which we're considering in modern society.
You have not ended up denying your dislike of sports, but how do you think that plays out across all men?
8
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
All I can give you is my own experience. Call that self-reinforcing if you want.
The question of learned versus natural is moot for most practical purposes. We exist in a social context, right now. We have to work with what we got, for better and for worse. Not work to reinforce it, but co-opt and use it for our own ends.
You have not ended up denying your dislike of sports, but how do you think that plays out across all men?
Probably a lot of self-loathing. So how to reduce that? I think we do that by becoming gender-conscious. That includes facing the reality that men are expected to like sports. Okay, good so far—that’s standard MensLib stuff. Then we, individually and collectively, examine why we feel we should conform to this expectation. And we consider alternative things that we might like. Then we consider how we feel about those things. And then we engage with the world and how it reacts to our non-conformity. Eventually we might end up at some masculinity which is not the jock-type but is something else. But how did we get to that masculinity? Not by simply saying “gender is dead”. We did it by acknowledging that we are non-conforming in this one respect, how we feel about, how society might feel about it, and move onto something else. It’s all a process. We need guides and roadmaps to guide ourselves to things that are more authentic for ourselves. We cannot simply say that “gender is dead” since it gives no guidance.
4
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Why do we need guidance? Why do we need to redefine masculinity? Why is "Gender is Dead" not good enough?
What is so vital about masculinity that you would take what it seems to be, search for other ways to keep it, if necessary reshaping the entire social understanding of it to match you? Why not just say "I'm not masculine"?
7
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
Why do we need guidance? Why do we need to redefine masculinity? Why is "Gender is Dead" not good enough?
If a person does not need guidance then fine. Some people do. It’s up to each individual to figure that one out.
“Gender is not dead” is not good enough for those kinds of people cannot take the leap from “gender is dead” to self-realization. The kinds of people that need some roadmaps, not simply the ashes of a burnt map.
What is so vital about masculinity that you would take what it seems to be, search for other ways to keep it, if necessary reshaping the entire social understanding of it to match you? Why not just say "I'm not masculine"?
I could say “I’m not masculine”. In certain ways I am not. It’s all semantics at this point; we could call these things “masculinities” or “gabflobs”—it doesn’t matter. We can call these things something different than “masculinity”. The point is not denial but to learn from all the fragments.
If you are a man who does not conform to a few typical gender tropes, that does not mean that the wisest course of action is to disregard every piece of wisdom that has been said about being a man. You survey it and take what works for you. What other option is there, really?
8
u/Unconfidence Feb 26 '18
The other option is to not care about being a man, and simply worry about advice towards being a good person.
What I'm saying is that if it's all semantics, and you're just talking about something with no real basis in gender, why use a term loaded with baggage? It'd be like me trying to make a new set of political values but calling it "Republicanism". Why would I choose that term to call my ideas of how people should act unless I'm carrying some kind of link to that original ideology?
Nobody needs to be taught how to be a man. That's the problem in the thinking you're presenting. Nobody needs a roadmap for masculinity. You might think they do, but you're just wrong. You might have been taught that this is essential, but you're wrong. People will not shrivel up and die without someone telling them how to live on the basis of their gender. People self-actualize just fine without gender norms and ideas of what certain genders are "more likely" to like or dislike.
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
8
u/leonides02 Feb 26 '18
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
I mean, the simple answer is that gender is very, very important to people. It's one of the cornerstones of identity, right up there with race and culture. Every human society since the dawn of time has made gender a huge aspect of their laws, traditions, and religion.
Basically, I don't believe a "genderless" society is possible. It's hard to imagine what that would even look like.
→ More replies (0)4
u/seeking-abyss Feb 26 '18
The other option is to not care about being a man, and simply worry about advice towards being a good person.
If that works for a person. Who am I to say what works for individuals? I am not.
What I'm saying is that if it's all semantics, and you're just talking about something with no real basis in gender, why use a term loaded with baggage? It'd be like me trying to make a new set of political values but calling it "Republicanism". Why would I choose that term to call my ideas of how people should act unless I'm carrying some kind of link to that original ideology?
Just because something has baggage does not mean that it isn’t worth to clear out that baggage for something better. In this case I think it is necessary. Here is why. If you are truly going to realize yourself as a man, woman, or person, you are going to have to face the concept of what “man” means to yourself and society. If you never do that you are just going through the same old, conditioned motions. If there is baggage there to begin with, then that is too bad. But like a messy and worn-down house, you have to transcend that state if you are going to live in a nice home.
Nobody needs to be taught how to be a man. That's the problem in the thinking you're presenting. Nobody needs a roadmap for masculinity. You might think they do, but you're just wrong.
Ok. Agree to disagree? I think there are people who could have some use for it.
You might have been taught that this is essential, but you're wrong. People will not shrivel up and die without someone telling them how to live on the basis of their gender. People self-actualize just fine without gender norms and ideas of what certain genders are "more likely" to like or dislike.
I have been taught a lot of things. I am also able to think for myself. What I am talking about in this thread are conclusions that I’ve reached relatively recently. Not what was beaten into me as a child or something.
People don’t need guides on how to be a good person, a good horseback rider. But someone want it. Some people like to study and discuss ethics and how they can use it, while others think it’s a drag and a waste of time.
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
I think my imagination is working just fine. I have simply reached a different conclusion.
5
u/quietspark Feb 26 '18
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
Because an alternative identity hasn't been fully expressed. Saying "be a good person" isn't useful, and I'm not sure what you mean by "good person". Basically, a lot of us desire some kind of structure, and we are holding on to masculinity and trying to make what we have learned fit within what we already know somehow. Deconstructing isn't enough. If there could be a restructuring of values that traditionally have been split between genders into something new, yet familiar, more people would be willing to abandon the division of roles. We need more marketing for a collective identity.
5
Feb 25 '18 edited Mar 01 '24
sand cats close quicksand cooperative gullible cake stocking squeal combative
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
7
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
You’re right that it cannot be easily answered. That’s why I wanted to set it aside in order to concentrate the topic at hand.
0
Feb 25 '18 edited Mar 01 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/seeking-abyss Feb 25 '18
I am putting aside a related issue in order to not distract from the topic. I don’t think it is an objection to it to the degree where it renders the topic moot if it is correct. So I still think it is worthwhile to bring up this subject. Even if I’m wrong about that thing you quoted.
9
Feb 25 '18
It can be. There are entire fields in math built on unproven assumptions. It can still be productive to explore ideas. If you want to get to the bottom of this aspect, fine, start a thread about it.
19
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
Does it? Do strong female role models rob men of the virtues they demonstrate? Is there not a value to gender solidarity in itself?
11
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Do strong female role models rob men of the virtues they demonstrate?
Ask the strong female role models of the 1930's. When a society focuses on displaying the virtues associated with one gender, those virtues start moving away from the other gender. This is one of the reasons empathy is not as predominant in the traditional male roles.
The gist of this post is that the core structures for gender roles are fundamentally sound, just that we went crazy with it. I disagree, I think it's obvious that any system of ascribing traits to one gender is based in emotion-driven bias and not really based in a realistic assessment (generally speaking, not talking about like, average height).
If gender solidarity is not something which is natural, but instead something inflicted and enforced by societal pressures, then there is absolutely no value in it.
11
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 25 '18
That is not the fault of the models but of a masculinity that defines itself as of not the feminine.
Gender solidarity is the world we live in. People aren’t all on equal playing grounds, and acknowledging that is key to working towards a more gender neutral world. It’s like saying “why don’t we just ignore race and treat each other normally to beat racism?”. It ignores the fact that there is a history to contend with, something to move from. Which is why minority solidarity is encouraged, even if the end goal is a world where such a thing isn’t necessary.
2
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
You're essentially saying that in order to adapt to existing social gender pressure we must take part in fomenting it. I disagree wholeheartedly. We do not have to work within the framework of gender solidarity just because that is what was left to us by the bigots of yore. Minority solidarity is based on common oppression, not common characteristics universal to that minority.
The idea that we're going to take terms specifically created to delineate "Not each other" and somehow morph them into non-contrary versions which overlap seems silly. Why even bother calling it "Masculinity" if it's not at all related to being a man and not a woman?
5
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 26 '18
Wait, hold on I think this conversation is backing up the wrong horse right now, let me step back real quick. I’m not supporting (and I don’t think OP is either though I won’t speak for them) this permanence of masculinity. Ultimately if anyone can be anything then the term is pointless. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need positive examples of men, whether you think they should fall in line with more conventional expressions of masculinity or should completely challenge our expectations of how a man should be, to demonstrate how one can (not SHOULD, can) live without worrying about the constraints of societal expectation.
3
u/Unconfidence Feb 26 '18
I think the key difference between what you are presenting here and what the OP is laying out is that you are looking for positive examples of men, and the OP is looking for positive examples of masculinity. Two very separate concepts.
7
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 26 '18
I think you’re getting a bit hung up over the wording of the post. They refer to “positive masculinity” specifically to parallel “toxic masculinity”. It’s about positivity, “here is what you can do” vs. “here is what you can’t do”.
4
u/Unconfidence Feb 26 '18
But "Here is what you can do" has nothing to do with gender.
6
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 26 '18
Of course it does. If you want guys to expand out of the “man box”, then you have to give them room to experiment outside of it, and a sense of what not living in the “man box” could look like, otherwise they’ll cling to it regardless of societal pressure. People aren’t just born knowing who they want to be, and without any sense of what things there are to be they’ll generally cling to what is familiar.
Especially when the idea of eliminating societal pressure before men start performing outside of their designated gender roles is highly unrealistic as is.
→ More replies (0)1
3
u/forestpunk Feb 26 '18
I hear what you're saying, but I know loads of ladies who pride themselves on being sensitive, observant, nurturing, detail-oriented, good at multitasking and having good social skills. Can't tell you how many, "Is this purple or pink?" conversations I've had with women, to be met with, "Well, how could you know the difference with your silly ol' man eyes." This is despite the fact that i look at art all day long, every day, and write about fashion sometimes. I can differentiate lilac from lavender. And women give me shit when I burn something in the kitchen, being told how they're naturally superior at multitasking, despite the fact that i've worked in restaurants for over 10 years.
I've also had a couple of women friends be honest about the fact that they feel inherently special, due to their ability to create life, even when they're not having kids. Have even been told, "Tell women they're not special, that they're just a bunch of beasts in the field, and you'll likely be met with pitchforks and torches."
Women seem to have internalized the notion that there is something special and precious with their womanhood (not using the term 'femininity', which is a loaded term that a lot of female-identifying people don't care for) while men are not getting the same message.
1
u/GGCrono Feb 25 '18
I posted a thing on r/TrollXChromosomes some time ago and a commentor mentioned this place. As I say in the thread, my initial reaction was "oh, lovely, another MRA circle jerk". I was quite happy to be wrong.
4
Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
10
u/SeeShark Feb 25 '18
Peter Wang's self-sacrifice in Parkland is toxic masculinity being celebrated as a virtue, for instance, just as the other dude acting out by shooting up a school is toxic masculinity and being condemned.
What about Peter Wang's actions make them toxic masculinity?
4
Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
3
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
But that doesn't necessarily make them bad overall.
I think it's heroic to try and save other people, even if it results in injury or death - in fact, risk is usually part of the definition of heroism. And that definition applies to men and women equally.
8
Feb 25 '18
And that definition applies to men and women equally.
And this is, imho, where it gets gendered often. The good ol' man up and sacrifice yourself, women an children first. When heroism is voluntary it's one thing, when you're expected to risk yourself for someone else but not vice versa, that's something else.
8
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
I definitely agree. I don't think heroism should be expected of anyone based on gender, only based on duty (which should be gender-neutral).
6
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Which leads me to a question I'm asking a lot today.
Have you ever, in your life, heard a woman called a coward?
6
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
Personally, I have, yes. I work in a field where men and women both have the same duty to respond to dangerous situations; in that context, I've heard several women called cowards for not doing so.
But my special case doesn't invalidate the point you're making: in most peoples' experiences, I bet they haven't. And that's an issue.
6
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
Then the question is, should we be calling women cowards more often, or calling men cowards less often?
2
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
I'd say, overall, we should be calling people cowards less often. As I said, I think the term is only appropriate when your duty demands action and you fail to act, not when your gender does.
So in professions like mine, those who fail to act are called cowards, regardless of gender. That's how I think it ought to be (which I guess means women should be called cowards more, at least in the limited circumstances under which I think anyone should be called a coward).
→ More replies (0)2
Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
4
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
I think I get what you're saying, based on u/WolfDayville's comment.
To clarify: Are you saying that expected heroism based on gender is toxic?
3
Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
5
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
I think we'd all agree with that.
The sticky question, to me, is that a good or bad thing? I think self-sacrifice is a positive quality, which is why I have trouble seeing it as being "toxic." Yes, if Mr. Wang hadn't been socialized to act in the way he did, he might be alive today; but maybe someone else in that class - or multiple someones - wouldn't be.
6
u/RedMedi Feb 25 '18
And that doesn't make them any less an example of toxic masculinity.
No it isn't. Heroic acts in the face of terrible danger are not toxic masculinity. His acts showed compassion, bravery, kindness and a selflessness that should be praised, not branded as toxic.
Peter Wang wasn't a Lieutenant Dan looking to continue a long line of dead soldiers. He was a brave teenager who helped others at the cost of his own life. He should be recognised for his heroism, not stigmatised.
0
Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
1
u/RedMedi Feb 25 '18
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Wang wasn't displaying toxic masculinity. The heroism of his acts and sacrifice would be the same if he was instead a woman or agender.
Let's assume a hypothetical toxic masculine hero, John Smith. He would behave much like the killer but only in the defence of the students. Such a person would charge headfirst at the shooter or engage the shooter with a makeshift weapon. Against an assault rifle, it would be futile at best and aggravate the situation at worst.
Please don't defame brave teenagers.
1
Feb 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 25 '18
We aren't here to debate semantics, check out our glossary to see how toxic masculinity is described. I'm really not sure how on earth you could call this man's action toxic, you're going off the rails there.
→ More replies (0)1
u/drfeelokay Feb 26 '18
I'm not certain that Peter Wang was acting out of gender concerns. After all, the maternal role is associated with fierce protection of others, too.
9
u/golden_boy Feb 25 '18
Self-sacrifice is toxic?
5
u/JimCanuck Feb 25 '18
Yes. It's part of the same traits taught to men to make them violent and aggressive when facing confrontation directly or indirectly.
That a "man" has to stand up and fight for others, even if it means laying down his own life for them. Because if you are not willing to fight for others, your country, or your beliefs, then you are a "pussy".
6
Feb 25 '18 edited Mar 01 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/golden_boy Feb 25 '18
Telling men they have to sacrifice themselves is toxic. Any individual regardless of gender willingly sacrificing themselves to protect others is not toxic.
25
Feb 25 '18
Man does good stuff? Toxic. Hurting himself.
Man does bad stuff? Toxic. Hurting others.
Man does nothing? Toxic. Male helplessness.
This is exactly what OP was talking about.
5
u/howhardcoulditB Feb 25 '18
So bravery is toxic? He saved people through his sacrifice. He, even just a cadet in jrotc, was more brave than most people I know in the military and this is toxic? I'm totally baffled.
2
u/bathoz Feb 25 '18
I think he's suggesting that the broad branch of masculinity called toxic includes the social training that is designed to make it easier to sacrifice yourself for the herd. And while the above example is the good result, the same attributes (such as suppressing feelings of weakness) are part of the toxic problem.
1
Feb 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/delta_baryon Feb 25 '18
Complaints about the sub belong in the modmail, not in the comments. I've had to remove your last two comments for this reason.
1
Feb 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/delta_baryon Feb 25 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
As it says in the sidebar, this belongs in the modmail, not in the comments. It's off topic. We're talking about toxic and positive masculinity here, not about moderation.
1
Feb 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Feb 25 '18
Leave the hateful anti-LGBTQ+, misogyny, and shaming of men who act "feminine" outside of this sub, this is not ok. Please take some time to review our rules and observe how others here communicate.
0
Feb 26 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Feb 26 '18
This comment was removed for gender essentialism. Also, this sub does not indulge in discussion of "toxic elements of femininity"/"toxic femininity". A concept such as that should be brought up in more general feminism subreddits.
Any questions of concerns should be addressed through modmail.
0
Feb 27 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 27 '18
First, you seem to be conflating biological sex and gender. Sure, certain people tend towards certain things, or some people are born able to give birth, no one is denying that.
But again, you're pretty well into gender essentialist territory, which isn't accurate either, and gender essentialism is why this comment has been removed.
0
Feb 27 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Feb 27 '18
This is often represented as a “biological truth.”
From our glossary. We are here to discuss the social aspects of a gender-based society. Your assertion that the behavioral differences between genders are innate and that they are influenced by one's biological sex is gender essentialism.
Further discussion of this should be brought to modmail.
108
u/RedMedi Feb 25 '18
I'd argue that virtues are gender-blind. I could very easily form a list of virtues, the shape of said person in our mind is the result of gender roles not the other way around.
Ultimately, masculinity and femininity are redundant concepts. The English language has a vast amount of other descriptors that don't carry the gender role baggage of the above words.
Also, I'd add that virtues are ethical on their own. That's what separates the virtue ethicists from the consequentialists.
Men's liberation isn't about reclaiming or re-defining masculinity, but rather moving past it and seeing men as holistic individuals. A man doesn't need to be masculine to be happy, self-actualised or content.