The idea of writing this blog began when a psychiatric journal decided to launch a series of blogs to expand its readership. I proposed one titled Masculinity — A Work in Progress and submitted a sample post on male grievance that included the phrase “male pride.”
It turned out my proposal was far too controversial for the journal’s liking. They bristled at “male pride” — readers, they worried, might mistake the blog for an extension of the manosphere.
My having written about the grievances aired by angry men in that corner of the internet led some at the journal to conclude I must be one such man myself. But seriously considering how such men think doesn’t make the writer a fellow traveler — any more than reporting on the lives of Palestinians makes the reporter aligned with the Palestinian cause.
We live in highly polarizing times. Many feel pressured to pick a side, with no-man’s-land in between. In such an environment, it is easy to be mistaken for just such an angry, aggrieved, misogynistic man simply because you’re willing to write about what such men are experiencing.
A Topic Too Hot to Handle?
That, as it turns out, was only half the problem. The other half involved the radioactive nature of certain terms — male psychology, maleness, and, yes, masculinity. Wanting to address these topics landed me on the battlefield of the culture wars. I knew my blog would be controversial. But I failed to anticipate it would be radioactive.
Scientific journals are disinclined to seriously consider submissions on such topics. They fear pushback from readers who feel intense animosity about the subject matter. Given such conditions, their avoidance of such topics is understandable. In their shoes, I might well have rejected the proposal myself. At the same time, I find the de facto ban unfortunate. It removes a hard-to-ignore cultural phenomenon from serious academic discussion.
Is There Really No Such Thing as Masculinity?
The most perplexing objection to my proposed blog was put this way: “There is no such thing as masculinity.” So I was informed by those in the know. Academics these days consider terms like maleness and masculinity quaint relics — imaginary constructions that refer to nothing real and are therefore no longer permitted.
Many readers may find what I’m reporting unbelievable. The average person on the street uses the word masculine and thinks he knows what it means, much the way Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously defined pornography: “I know it when I see it.”
That leaves us with the task of explaining how we got to the point of dismantling a commonly used term that has been around for eons and that, I suspect, will survive the current deconstruction trend that thrives in — but is pretty much limited to — the ivy-covered walls of academia.
What follows is an attempt to make sense of what sounds, on its face, like a nonsensical statement. Things are about to get a bit heady. Readers who’d rather skip the deep end can jump out of the pool and on to the next post. For the intrepid, read on.
The “Nothing Universal About Masculinity” Argument
If the claim “there is no such thing as masculinity” rests on the objection that the term doesn’t refer to something universal, well-defined, widely agreed upon, and fixed across time — then I’m in complete agreement. That’s one way of justifying the statement.
The criteria a man might use to claim he is masculine — and to expect that others will regard him as such — are era-specific and culture-specific. What passed for masculinity in days gone by, when one man challenged another to a duel at ten paces to defend his honor, now reads as tomfoolery — an act that detracts from, rather than supports, the claim to be a manly man.
Which isn’t to say today’s man doesn’t display comparable tendencies. Road rage is, in many ways, the modern equivalent, driven by the sense that another driver has shown disrespect and must now pay the price. Expressions of anger and aggression, long used by men to feel strong rather than weak, are now being called into question as legitimate signs of masculinity. It is an interesting time to be a man.
The “Masculinity as Performance” Argument
Some argue that masculinity is nothing more than an act one performs. A man learns to act masculine, and then he does just that — performs a stereotypic rendition of what it means to be a man. This performance, the argument goes, doesn’t reflect anything essential about his being. It is monkey-see-monkey-do imitation.
I follow the argument. But that doesn’t negate the possibility that by acting masculine, a man may come to think of himself as being masculine — and may also come to experience himself as embodying that very thing. Here, masculinity is equivalent to learning the script and conducting oneself accordingly. How well one pulls off a hardy and believable enactment becomes, itself, a measure of masculinity. A man who performs it badly may, in turn, conclude that he is a failed man, not masculine in the least.
There is also the social side of the equation — how others judge a man based on the believability of his performance. If the performance does the trick, he is read as masculine in their eyes. The verdict ranges from “here is a manly man” to “he’s a poor excuse for a man.”
Though most would be loath to admit it, this is precisely the kind of assessment many make of trans individuals — judging how convincingly they embody the gender that aligns with their sense of who they are.
Beyond the critique of masculinity-as-performance lies a broader argument: against masculinity as a way a man identifies at all. But identification lies on a continuum from faint to intense, not from true to false.
“We Are All a Bit of Both” Argument
Another argument against thinking in terms of masculinity goes like this: “Since we are all a bit of both — part masculine, part feminine — what is the point of using an outdated term that props up a false dichotomy?”
At first glance, the argument makes sense. But sit with it a moment longer and something falls apart. The very premise that we are composed of parts that can be named — masculine and feminine — undercuts the argument, unless what’s being argued against is the existence of any individual who is quintessentially male or female. If that is the claim, I’m in complete agreement.
Why Do We Refuse to Give Men Their Due?
The advantages afforded men — the power they wield and sometimes abuse, the nefarious things they get away with — stir up animosity toward men as a class, as if all were equally to blame for failing to relinquish male privilege when they had the chance.
To speak in terms of masculinity risks pushing certain buttons, calling to mind the worst behaviors of toxic men. For some, equating masculinity with its toxic variant becomes a mental reflex — and an aversion to the term itself follows.
If what the critics object to is masculinity at its worst — entitlement, excessive self-importance, male supremacy, misogyny — then I understand the wish to dispense with the term altogether. Why honor such loathsome behavior with a lofty-sounding title?
The hate-filled rhetoric that echoes through the manosphere alienates anyone who isn’t already likeminded. The distracting tone of voice eclipses whatever message the men in question are trying to convey. It can cause potential allies to turn a deaf ear, judging such complaints as unwarranted, annoying, unbecoming — even unmanly. The advice is familiar: suck it up, grow a pair.
It is easy to see how women feel personally offended by the “I’m going to shove this down your throat” attitude that characterizes a certain kind of man. Indiscriminately denying men in general the right to something they call masculinity can feel like just retribution. But it ignores the obvious truth that not all men are alike. To punish some for the bad behavior of others is unfair. If you must strip a man of his stripes, take some, not all. Leave him with something to hold.