Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

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

not very articulate of me so i'll try again (and still be inarticulate): recognising how categories of identity are imposed on you and how they impact your privilege and your oppression is good and necessary. trying to find a way to perform your imposed categories more positively seems like a foolish endeavour that's already surrendered to that which is imposed

all the stuff about how to be a good white ally or how to be a 'white abolitionist' or a white person who 'works to dismantle whiteness' - this is to all intents and purposes "positive whiteness", even if the people advocating it wouldn't use that term, yes?

even if the hypothetical end goal is a society where 'whiteness' no longer exists (but it's understood that this will be in some unforeseeable future, that you as a 'white ally' will never transcend whiteness)

what

Being conscious of the privilege that one lives with is markedly different from attempting to be embody an “ideal” of a privileged state that one is trying to mitigate/eliminate

if all of those 'postive definitions of masculinity' had been proceeded with throat clearing about how masculinity is inherently bad, and hopefully one day will not exist, but for the moment while it does here's the best way to live your life as a man who can't effectively renounce his maleness, would that have made them more palatable to the people who found fault with them? Because it doesn't seem like something that would make any real practical difference to the content of those definitions, or their utility as advice on how a man should conduct himself in the world

it's not about palatability, it's about recognising that what somebody is doing when they talk about "how to be a man" is reinforcing the concept of masculinity, whatever the stated intent

I think the piece missing here, and it’s what is missing whenever defensiveness starts to crop up in these conversations about intersectionality, is that there’s nothing wrong with being White, there’s nothing wrong with being straight, and there’s nothing wrong with being male, but there is something wrong when you’re a dick about it, and the difficult thing is that the definition of “being a dick” is going to change depending on who you are interacting with and will sometimes be or feel unfair. And, well… that’s just life.

Part of the message here is that if you are focusing less on “how can I be a good [x] person” and more on “how can I be a good person”, you will make fewer mistakes and missteps. You’ll still make some, because again that’s life, and the nature of intersectionality means there aren’t any one-size-fits-all answers to how to be a good person, but navigating all of this as best you can is literally the definition of trying to live a good life.

Otm

'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?

Oh I mean, I think men should think about the construction of male-ness and its relationship to power, in more or less the same way white people should think about and engage with whiteness. It's just that asking men what they think a good way to "be a man" is is probably not the route to go, because you're going to get ... that. (And surely WaPo would have better sense than to ask white people what are the good ways to be white people, because you'd get endless lists of all the great things white people have done and why you "shouldn't feel ashamed" to be white or whatever.)

And DJP otm.

DJP otm x3

To finish my thought, the unfair part of mixing “how can I be a good person” with intersectionality means that, while there are many instances where focusing on being a good person is sufficient , there are also going to be times where you identity has to be considered, whether it’s race, gender, sexual orientation, profession, whatever. So it does eventually come back to including elements of your identity in the equation, but that’s not necessarily the starting point, if you get what I mean.

there’s nothing wrong with being White there’s nothing wrong with being male

idk if that's the consensus view here, though? 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?

sigh

lol you ask a lot of rhetorical questions

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

Cutting out “there’s something wrong with being a dick about it” and the complications of defining what “being a dick” means changes the meaning of what I’m saying dramatically.

We want a simple answer. Superficially, there is one. Practically, it’s insufficient to the point of uselessness and none of this can move forward without being comfortable with consciously examining things through the multiple overlapping prisms of experience and perspective that we all do subconsciously and interrogating whether the conclusions we’re drawing are true/fair/reasonable/the conclusions we wish to see.

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.