Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

being individually racialized as white and whiteness as a social, cultural, political, economic thing (lol sorry) are not the same

― rob, Thursday, 17 August 2023 16:24 (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

what's the difference? I mean, you can't have one without the other, surely? They're two sides of the same coin

_being individually racialized as white and whiteness as a social, cultural, political, economic thing (lol sorry) are not the same

― rob, Thursday, 17 August 2023 16:24 (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink_

what's the difference? I mean, you can't have one without the other, surely? They're two sides of the same coin

Yeah otm

lots of excellent posts itt, but just to address soref for a sec:

I actually meant to post "obviously they're related" after that post but got distracted

if someone is advocating dismantling whiteness and masculinity, that suggests that they think there in fact is something wrong with being white or male, surely?

I guess the way I see it is that whiteness and maleness are most significant in terms of this conversation as social relations not as qualities of individuals, so the "something wrong with being white/male" is that those relations are unjust and that's what people want to dismantle. People also want to abolish the categories of gender and race, but that isn't solely motivated by "there's something wrong with being male/white," it's usually a recognition of the harm these forces have had on everyone (disproportionally, tbc).

But I think at this point I need you to explain what *you* mean by "something wrong"; I'm not quite sure what I'm being asked to contest with.

I guess I don't think that *there's nothing wrong with being male (or white, or whatever), there's just something wrong with being a dick about it* (paraphrasing) doesn't work as a formulation, partly because one aspect of privilege is that you don't need to be a dick to benefit at others expense, society will do the dirty work for you, allowing you to keep you're own hands clean.

Like the social type of the Hugh Grant style upper-class brit who is charmingly diffident and self-effacing and polite - he doesn't need to trample on other people's heads to get to the top because he will effortlessly rise to the top anyway, pushed there by various social and political forces. Being a dick or not being a dick doesn't make much difference to the end result for him or for the people beneath him the hierarchy, everyone ends up in basically the same position whether he's a dick or not. In fact, maybe the people below him would rather he was a dick, because then it would be more straightforward to resent him, rather than having to acknowledge that he's a nice guy and he's doing his best etc

and obviously a lot of those upper-class brits are not charmingly polite and are brash, bullying arseholes, but that only make a difference at the margins, everything basically stays the same whether they're a dick or not

That's the toxicity around whiteness and masculinity that people talk about being rid of when they say they want 'eliminate' whiteness.

Reducing the "don't be a dick" advice to "be charmingly polite" is severely misguided at best.

"Be humble and kind" works too.

A lot of people (from what I see of soref's posting and in social media) tend to really struggle and get very defensive around this type of stuff, and ask a lot of draining questions. People give answers and the questions keep coming, with no end in sight.

So a focus on being good to other people is important. Good for others but also good for you as well, as tying yourself in knots is no good for you.

Like there's obviously ways in which wealth can be used to good political purposes! Financing legal advice for protesters, mutual aid groups, investigative journalism, etc. None of which makes that wealth "good" or an article about how to be a good rich person a good idea.

does anything in the article quote or refer to Kipling's "If"? I grew up with that model ... did I post about that upthread? Anyway, I grew up with concepts where "how to be a good person" and "how to be a good man" were conflated. Like masculinity was always part of "goodness" and "adulthood" ... and being female, that gave me cognitive dissonance as well as gender dysphoria. Why shouldn't everyone aspire to be masculine, if "goodness" is wrapped up in it, plus men have more power? Why would you _not_ want that in some way / shape / form?

To clarify for soref, in the example he gave “being a dick about it” isn’t existing as an affable White man who is riding society’s preferences for his identity to success; it’s shutting down any talk of the intersectional forces that contributed to his success with “but he’s nice, you are attacking White people”

None of which makes that wealth "good" or an article about how to be a good rich person a good idea.

but there are so many of these articles lol

xp there are successful white people who try to shut down any talk of the intersectional forces that contributed to their success, but there are also plenty of successful white people who are eager to talk of those intersectional forces that contributed to their success at great length, and who delight in wringing their hands about this, and it doesn't seem to make much difference at the end of the day? It seems like what unites them is more significant that whether they shut down or encourage talk about intersectional forces

but there are also plenty of successful white people who are eager to talk of those intersectional forces that contributed to their success at great length, and who delight in wringing their hands about this, and it doesn't seem to make much difference at the end of the day?

huh?

A difference to whom?

to anyone I guess, including the people disadvantaged and exploited by those same intersectional forces

sorry but you'll have to bring up cases of these sad white men

Look, we've answered your questions every which way.

Failing to see how articles going "being a good man is like being George Clooney or the captain from Star Trek" do not leave everything the same tbh.

those articles do leave everything the same! that's what I'm trying to say - I can't see the big difference between articles like that and symposia on how to be mindful of your privilege as a man, and how to be a good ally etc, so I don't understand why somebody would disapprove of the former but approve of the latter

I can't see the big difference between articles like that and symposia on how to be mindful of your privilege as a man

Because the one reinforces assumptions and the other challenges them? (Not saying that symposia are necessarily a great idea either, it kind of depends on the content.)

I don't think you need to approve of symposiums of any kind to want to abolish gender! You can reduce "being a good ally" to introspective self-analysis but there's all sorts of deeds, not words, that come into it, from simple speaking up at moments of bigotry through to organising, volunteer work, direct action, etc.

Still it seems like your initial take wasn't "none of this creates material change" but rather "finding a positive defintion of masculinity could be useful" so I'm a bit ??? at this pivot.

Still it seems like your initial take wasn't "none of this creates material change" but rather "finding a positive defintion of masculinity could be useful" so I'm a bit ??? at this pivot.

I'm not sure if finding a positive definition of masculinity would be useful or not, but it's more that I don't see an obvious difference between finding a positive definition of masculinity and the how to be a feminist ally stuff aside from semantics, but my thinking on this is confused and I don't think I'm capable of articulating it very well anyway, so I'll leave it there. Apologies to those who found all this annoying

This post isn't be a direct response to anything or anyone immediately preceding it, but rather is my attempt to step back and gather my thoughts on the subject.

Most of the ideas of masculinity expressed by the contributors to that WaPo article, when they are considered in isolation, are worthwhile attributes and valuable traits when they are applied in their proper context. On the whole these men are attempting to define an idealized set of virtues, like courage, honesty, humility, good judgment, reliability, tenderness, accessibility and the like, then identifying these as the ideals that they, as men, would like to embody.

I think we should acknowledge they really are doing their best, in a confused and unhelpful society, to understand that basic "to be a good man just be a good person" idea. I don't think they should be faulted or dismissed for failing to see the hidden pitfalls in the question they were invited to answer. It's obvious to most of us here that those pitfalls can and do lead to very bad consequences, easily typified by such crap artists as Jordan Peterson.

"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."

This old guy knows the score, but this one brief quote doesn't go far enough to untangle the process and identify where the danger lies. I'd identify the biggest trap as the fact that all those admirable virtues listed by the men in that article are inherent in specific human actions, not in categories of people or states of being. The moment you identify these virtues as a property of an abstract category such as masculinity (or religious affiliation or sexual orientation or...) you're irrevocably moving into nonsense and worse.

The effect of thinking in nonsense is bad enough, because it leads to confusion that can't be resolved until you recognize and abandon the false premise that led you into nonsense. That's the "fool's errand" piece of it.

Just as often the "at worst, dangerous" consequence emerges from the strong human tendency to binary and oppositional thinking. Even if the majority of the men in the article, when asked, would deny thinking that women can't have courage, good judgment or the other virtues they were naming, by claiming those virtues as part of 'masculinity' they're unconsciously setting up an opposite category into which all 'un-masculine' people belong, the members of which lack the masculine qualities of courage or good judgment. The next step is simple enough, which is that the more virtuous masculine people should have power and precedence over the less virtuous and therefore sadly inferior, un-masculine people.

As a sidebar, this oppositional formula often sets up a harrowing anxiety among young men that they may actually be among the un-masculine inferiors, because the ideal that is "masculinity" is basically an unachievable state of being. The most toxic path to resolving that anxiety is to substitute conventional signifiers of masculinity for those ideal virtues listed in the WaPo article, allowing one to proclaim one's masculinity, and by proxy, one's greater virtue and worthiness to social precedence. It's the consumer version of masculinity and capitalism is thrilled to cater to it.

I know there's much more to be said about all these toxic social misconceptions, but I think for me this covers the basics of the question.

This is what every group of guy friends thinks they look like when they go out pic.twitter.com/2dTMZgAobn

— socialist sopranos memes (@gabagoolmarx) August 17, 2023

"big solution to male loneliness epidemic just there" - locked account

i think more people should give cat ownership a chance. so many cuties looking for a good home.

— big cp 🪩💋 (@theBKbelle) August 18, 2023

juxtaposing whiteness and masculinity makes for an interesting point: whiteness, at least in the culture I’ve lived in, is inherently exclusionary. there’s no “congrats, you’re white now” award, but acceptance as white means you’ve jettisoned certain ethnic or cultural signifiers, or those pieces have been absorbed into culture at large. with the huge caveat that you have to visually pass as white

many of the takes on masculinity also are inherently exclusionary, but there are “bad” masculinities according to the toxic arbiters of the term that usually involve racism and homophobia. your masculinity has to code as white and straight. the number of things I’ve heard over my lifetime that have been tagged as not-manly is absurdly high, and contradictory over time. not so much of a shift of the goalposts, but a constant churn to redefine in-groups versus out-groups

This survey is doing the rounds today

What makes men uncomfortable?

Being naked in a men's changing room: 49%
Crying in front of male friends: 48%
Saying "I love you" to a male relative: 45%
Going to a gay bar: 44%
Putting sunscreen on a male friend's back: 42%
Sharing a bed with a male friend: 42%
Wearing pink: 31% pic.twitter.com/Avl8y9Doqq

— YouGov (@YouGov) September 8, 2023

I would like to join in with the fun, but all interactions with people make me uncomfortable.

first one is the only one I feel uncomfortable with, but I also have discomfort being naked in front of anybody of any gender identification because I think I'm coarse and ugly

my best friend and I tell each other we love each other all the time, it's great and more people should do this

No thanks to naked & crying, everything else is nbd

It was a revelation to find out that most other people don't have a mini panic attack from simply seeing someone they know in the street, still not sure what to do with this knowledge though.

not particularly comfortable spreading suncream on anyone elses back tbh but i mean it doesnt come up that often in Ireland

Camaraderie I actually do if they're someone I know but not well because my brain wants to overanalyze the level of engagement I'm supposed to give

not particularly comfortable spreading suncream on anyone elses back tbh but i mean it doesnt come up that often in Ireland

― close encounters of the third knid (darraghmac),

Try it sometime. You'll get a woody.

timely advice given the admission that "it doesnt come up often in Ireland"

feel like that was the joke

did u now

straight men should learn to love themselves and each other and maybe even kiss a guy or two, then there’ll be world peace

Nudity burns my eyes - I'm very awkward with it. My son is the opposite. One day at college he got very wet in the pond and while they were drying his clothes he refused to wear anything they offered him. Because of autism sensory issues he will only wear the same brand plus size trackie bottoms he has been wearing for years now. So the mainly female staff had a 22 year old man wondering about campus naked problem. In the end they managed to persuade him to wear some Roman style toga from the theatre costume wardrobe while his clothes were dried!

i'm weird w/ nudity when I'm not expecting it. for instance I had one friend who I only barely know from karaoke nights and stuff and one day she randomly posts a nude of herself from the back on FB and I felt real awkward because it paradoxically felt invasive, like I wasn't supposed to have seen that, even though they obviously publicly posted it.

I've gone a couple times to a gay glamping site with nude pool swimming and was surprisingly okay with it.

lads

Sprayable sunblock is both a blessing and a curse.

I have a pink plaid shirt but it's like a skinhead/Ben Sherman shirt so I feel pretty tough in it

most of these i think i'm unanxious about (i mean crying would be a lil embarrassing but it's not like i'm gonna refuse to watch jurassic park with other people) but "i love you" to anyone of any gender except romantic partners OR large groups is v difficult lol

I'm fine with "love you, brother" but looking a buddy in the eyes and saying "I LOVE YOU" would be kinda weird, yeah

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/020103f9-35f8-417f-b603-e7db9988abe1

unsurprisingly, i don’t feel uncomfortable with any of these.