Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

inspired by this thread i was listening to a lot of AC/DC and i think these fellows don't get enough credit for their enlightened attitudes towards masculinity and women. just have a look at T.N.T. from their first album

Women to the left of me
And women to the right

Ain't got no gun
Ain't got no knife
Don't you start no fight

surrounded by women, the singer is advocating an end to violence. but what about their famously cro-magnon sex jams? look closer. in 'rock and roll ain't noise pollution', from back in black, we hear these lascivious lines:

I took a look inside your bedroom door
You looked so good lyin' on your bed

but guess what? this gentleman asks for enthusiastic consent, and seems content - even kind of awed - to be told she isn't interested in sex, or at least not the type he's asking about:

Well, I asked you if you wanted any rhythm and love
You said you wanna rock and roll, instead

now, i won't even get into bon scott's famous cross-dressing but i think it suffices to say these fellas were a little more ahead of the game than we suppose

shirt for bonnet, which many people aren't aware of

short

ffs

Re "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution", that is credited to Young/Young/Johnson but there's a lot of people who think the band carried on using unpublished (and uncredited) Bon Scott lyrics for years after his death.

AC/DC were all about consent from the very start.

_straight dudes talkin about straight dudes_

it's not a very diverse sample, but at least a few ideas might have emerged that ever-so-slightly nudge the process of defining straight dude masculinity in a better direction, even if only accidentally. you can't create a better society by just trying to erase straight dudes from the face of the earth.

George Clooney: a man who exhibits the “traditional” aspects of masculinity but does so with a modern interpretation. He embraces all of the things men are conditioned to enjoy: sports, motorcycles, cars, a night out with “the boys,” attention to fitness/appearance, a passion for his career and an appreciation for beautiful women.

ew

Real men slay dragons. They also dance, express their emotions, cultivate friendships and write poetry. — Sean Nolan, Albany, N.Y., 37

Men sure love a bit of poetry.

"I’d say Captains Jean-Luc Picard, Jonathan Archer, Benjamin Sisko, Christopher Pike and, yes, even James Tiberius Kirk."

Aimless: there is an idea here.

"He served his nation in the U.S. Army beginning at the age of 17 for 21 years, and when he was called to serve in Vietnam near the end of his career, he went willingly, because that was his duty. While there, he was awarded the Bronze Star for physically carrying an injured soldier from an ordnance-littered field, thinking of that soldier before himself. He provided not only for his family but also others as he could afford. He wasn’t an easy man to know, but he embraced the core values that made him the man he was and that his three sons embraced."

Daddy loves imperialism!

"There once was a man from Nantucket...' (xps)

"Men should listen attentively, keep an open mind, use their strength for the betterment of all, use words instead of fists, not play with guns, and never, never, never strike a woman. Men are at their best when protecting and defending women. — Bennett Werner, 71, Cape May, N.J."

Men should know how to use their fists and make sure they know how to handle firearms safely before they use it.

I feel like that whole column is an exercise in “never read the comments.”

Frankly it makes most men look as toxic and shitty as some of us have been making them out to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUQzQYv8J90

Didn't read it all but this was the only good comment:

"The very question of what constitutes ideal masculinity is, at best, a fool’s errand and, at worst, dangerous. It also might lie at the heart of why we are losing young men to cults of toxic masculinity. The minute you define this false ideal, you are falsely defining those who don’t meet the ideal. — Craig Culp, 63, Gaithersburg, Md."

And the end of this one:

"I look at myself, shrug at myself and walk away from the mirror, thinking, What does it matter anyway? We live alone, we die alone. Maybe that’s as masculine as it gets."

nihilism famously has no bearing on any of the online toxic masculinity we're witnessing

That's an acceptance of realities that person is facing.

Beats listening to Blur or voting Labour, imago.

Some of the guys in that wapo piece going to a Subway.

This is a masterpiece. No notes pic.twitter.com/IhSEtPsixQ

— Swolecialist (@BlackLanterrn) August 17, 2023

WaPo thing was very weird and kind of alarming. So many of the comments rest on the idea that men are stronger—and not even necessarily physically, more like a nebulous but inherent strength of mind and spirit—than everyone around them (not excluding other men afaict), so the good model is for individual men to protect others not dominate them. But an immutable natural hierarchy with the individual adult man on top is still assumed. The columnist's intro to the sole comment that brings up being gay is esp weird

i would argue that this is one of the inevitable consequences of seeking to define (positive) masculinity

yes, that's a good point. pressed to define masculinity as an "ideal" it's likely difficult not to reach for things that make being a man supposedly better than not being a man. so yeah, the first guy xyzzzz quoted above is otm

yup!

We live alone, we die alone. Maybe that’s as masculine as it gets.

The real masculinity is the friends we didn't make along the way

tbf to the article it includes these quotes:

I don’t think I have an “ideal of masculinity” precisely because I reject the term. When I hear the term “masculine,” I shudder because the likes of Josh Hawley and the incel movement have taken over the term. I see “men” driving enormous trucks — clean and sparkling because they’ve never been used for actual work — and I think, “He’s compensating for something.” — Peter Hornbein, 70, Boulder, Colo.

The very question of what constitutes ideal masculinity is, at best, a fool’s errand and, at worst, dangerous. It also might lie at the heart of why we are losing young men to cults of toxic masculinity. The minute you define this false ideal, you are falsely defining those who don’t meet the ideal. — Craig Culp, 63, Gaithersburg, Md.

Those two quotes surrounded by toxicity does not mean we have to be fair to it.

Fair.

I feel like avoiding the question of what masculinity is or should be is just not possible, not once the old answers to that question have been unsettled - something has to fill the space created, if it's not discussed that just means the answer is something implicit, or defined negatively by what is rejected?

It's like the "define British?" 'debate' you get here, it's a trap.

xp
the Culp quote is the one I said was otm. I think the other one ends up kind of problematic though -- as much as I also lazily mock male strangers for what their vehicular choices say about their insecurities -- why do men have to do "actual work" and how is that different from non-actual? idk maybe that guy is aware of all that, but, well, we're back to "this article sucks"

soref: I think we could instead discuss rejecting gender binaries? I'm maybe not sure what you're saying

no true Scotsman

I feel like avoiding the question of what masculinity is or should be is just not possible, not once the old answers to that question have been unsettled - something has to fill the space created, if it's not discussed that just means the answer is something implicit, or defined negatively by what is rejected?

― soref,

The only response, I think, is to ask, "Who cares? Teach your kids to respect others, to show compassion, to realize they aren't the only people on earth."

I don’t think I have an “ideal of masculinity” precisely because I reject the term. When I hear the term “masculine,” I shudder because the likes of Josh Hawley and the incel movement have taken over the term. I see “men” driving enormous trucks — clean and sparkling because they’ve never been used for actual work — and I think, “He’s compensating for something.” — Peter Hornbein, 70, Boulder, Colo.

I mean this guy can reject the term all he likes, but he's still a man, that still defines all kinds of stuff about how he exists in the world and is treated by people and institutions etc, rejecting the term just seems like sticking your head in the sand

why is he "still a man"?

Contrary to the existence of this whole thread (including anything I’ve said in it), the actual answer is “just be a good person and try to not worry too much about ‘being a man.’”

Because clearly when men think about “being a man,” it goes to bad places.

The only response, I think, is to ask, "Who cares? Teach your kids to respect others, to show compassion, to realize they aren't the only people on earth."

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 August 2023 15:06 (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

these things aren't gender neutral though, if you're raising a male kid then stuff like what it means for them to be compassionate and respectful of others will mean wrestling with their position in the world as male (as well as their class and race and various other things).

That comment Alfred pulled out re: men driving enormous trucks. I mean, plenty of women drive these big cars taking the children to school or some after school 'activity' as well. Are they saying they have a family to protect?

yes this feels like it's going to be a rerun of the national identity debate. rejecting a model of identity does not imply being blind to one's position within power structures.

In my hood every member of a family household -- men and women -- drives at least one goddamn F-150 and their ilk.

these things aren't gender neutral though, if you're raising a male kid then stuff like what it means for them to be compassionate and respectful of others will mean wrestling with their position in the world as male (as well as their class and race and various other things).

― soref,

Sure. I don't mind negative definitions. As the boy grows older, he's going to see and even befriend examples of more typical masculinity; it'll be up to his parents to say, "Here's how I would like YOU to be."

if you're raising a male kid then stuff like what it means for them to be compassionate and respectful of others will mean wrestling with their position in the world as male

how do you know you're raising a male kid? like at what age are you *sure*

yes this feels like it's going to be a rerun of the national identity debate. rejecting a model of identity does not imply being blind to one's position within power structures.

― Daniel_Rf, Thursday, 17 August 2023 15:12 (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

if rejecting a model of identity does not imply being blind to one's position within power structures, then what does rejecting a model of identity mean? What is it other than an empty rhetorical gesture? Most of the 'positive' definitions of masculinity could be described as 'being aware of your place in the power structure', and using that position in the most positive way you can - I can't see what the big difference is between 'positively defining masculinity' (bad) and 'being aware of your position in the power structure' (good), aside from semantics?

*Most of the 'positive' definitions of masculinity* IN THAT ARTICLE is what I meant to type

it's empty rhetorical gestures all the way down

is the difference that the positive definitions of masculinity sometimes fall into essentialism, that men are naturally stronger than women (not just physically but mentally, emotionally) rather than differences between men and women being the result of a way of organizing society that could potentially be changed? But accepting that wouldn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try to define masculinity, or mean that the question is pointless and we should just focus on 'being a good person'

The apparent exclusion of gay men, soft boys, trans men from the article is itself kinda the point, the “masculinity” under discussion is a series of aesthetics and poses that are intractable from dangerous patriarchal power structures

Craig Culp, 63, seems like the sole voice of reason here

I’ve recently been thinking about the difference between “destination” and “vector”. That is, with any societal issue, there is an ideal endpoint that can be defined, but there is also critical action that needs to be taken to redress those who are in a current state of oppression; engaging in the critical action may sometimes contradict the direction toward the ideal endpoint.

For example I am a communist who does not believe that land should be owned, but I support the land back movement which insists on returning ownership of stolen land back to Indigenous people

For example I subscribe to the idea that James Baldwin stated whereby the entire concept of “race” was created by those who would oppress and the idea should be eliminated, but I also acknowledge that while socio-economic systemic oppression of certain racial groups exist within a society, we cannot simply do away with terms of “race” until these disparities have been redressed

wrt masculinity, I remember ten years ago that I felt most-comfortable with my (non-)gender, and would agree strongly with essays arguing for anti-essentialism, and wore a shirt that nodded to Ono: “Gender is over! if you want it”.

It seems over the past ten years that (broadly speaking) the gender gap is simply too critical an issue that needs to be corrected, it needs fixing before we can truly say “gender is over”. Anti-essentialism is the destination, a world where we enjoy our beards and leather fragrances and penises and Paul Newman movies but have absolutely no relationship of these things to any concept of “maleness”, a concept that will hopefully within my lifetime seem prehistoric

In the meantime, Jordan Peterson and adjacent philosophies are as offensive to me as white supremacism; the safety and security and employability of non-men remains in a state of crisis and this is the (only) topic at hand

Kate— bless you, Kate, by the way, your posts are always the highlight of my day— posted on another thread about how she “loves men”; I do not love men. I love humans, and some of these humans would previously be described as being “men”, but I seldom think of them as such, unless they start exhibiting behaviours that are reminiscent of “maleness”, at which point I stop loving the human and start disliking the man

I’ve recently become acquainted with a poly pan she/them in my neighbourhood, her name is S. S recently was drinking with a dude in our extended circle. They were flirting, he walked her home, and he prefaced an acceptance of an invitation inside with an assertion that he “doesn’t eat pussy”. S got angry and called him names and he left.

I went with S out to meet some friends, and the man-who-doesn’t-eat-pussy was there. S started trying to pick a fight with the guy, but he (genially?) was exacerbating things, edging further and further into problematic territory. S would leave, and then come back, and leave, and then come back. The hostile dialogue between them both continued, apparently, long after I left.

A couple nights later, I was with some other people who were present, including a cavalier bartender woman named B. I asked B what her take was on the whole thing.

B said, “there is so much sexual tension between S and that pussy-non-eater. Have you seen the dudes S dates? They’re all soft boys with blue hair. Sometimes you want a dude who will be sweet and listen to you. Sometimes you want to get railed by a misogynistic shithead who doesn’t eat pussy. S is attracted to that guy but she doesn’t want to admit it.”

I bring this story up because I think there is a contradiction at play here— hating maleness, but also feeling attracted to it— that doesn’t just apply to the sexual arena but a broader arena as well

But accepting that wouldn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try to define masculinity, or mean that the question is pointless and we should just focus on 'being a good person'

I was being sort of flippant there, responding to the WaPo thing. It just made me think it's probably better if most men don't think too much about "being a man" because it's more likely to reinforce insecurities and bad existing models than challenge them. Getting men in general to think/worry less about "being a man" is probably a step in the right direction.

I think there is a contradiction at play here— hating maleness, but also feeling attracted to it— that doesn’t just apply to the sexual arena but a broader arena as well

Sure, and I think there's version of that contradiction in conceptions of femininity. In an ideal world these are types or roles everyone can play with and enjoy, but obviously that ideal world would be one without our existing gendered power differentials.

I was being sort of flippant there, responding to the WaPo thing. It just made me think it's probably better if most men don't think too much about "being a man" because it's more likely to reinforce insecurities and bad existing models than challenge them. Getting men in general to think/worry less about "being a man" is probably a step in the right direction.

I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it's weird to me how many people would argue this who very much wouldn't argue that white people should think less about being white, who would insist that white people in fact have a duty to think about being white and 'whiteness', why is it different in this case?

i don't think it is different, really*

but thinking *about* whiteness or masculinity or privilege in general is very different from trying to define positive versions of these things which are essentially constructs of power and hierarchy. gods help us there's people talking about "positive whiteness" out there but i hope mostly when somebody does that it's seen as the huge red flag it is

*BIG CAVEAT: the stuff about sexuality and desire that fgti and kate and tabes and others have brought up here, which is such a rich topic for exploration that it deserves its own thread(s) imo