Masculinity

[Kelli Fury]

Hrokken- I can't speak for that poster but I can explain about fragile masculinity as a concept. It certainly isn't an admonishment for men to "toughen up", it is about not allowing irrelevant things to make you defensive about your role as a man. 

 

I'm female, but not considered to be traditionally feminine in most ways. I was raised by a single man in his early thirties in my formative years, with an unusually small amount of people in our lives outside of us and my siblings. So, I'm a lot like Fury Sr, who is a 35+ year cement mason. I am better with tools and fixing things than most men my age, I am more comfortable around livestock than most people, I work in a very small, traditionally make field. I know how to weld and took leather and change my own oil and get my own spare tire on. I don't consider these traits to be masculine or feminine at all, I was just raised to not expect anyone is going to be around to help me and thus I'd need to learn basic skills in taking care of things myself. It's been very useful for me in life, it's made me a more useful friend. BUT- flash forward to adulthood when I am dating, and no matter how very not sexist a guy I date, I do run into minor (and sometimes major) problems with them feeling unhappy that they can't take care of me, because I don't need them to. I can totally understand why- society expects a straight man to provide a lot of that stuff, to be the phone call his girlfriend makes when something goes wrong. And it feels great to help somebody that way, I know, because a lot of my female friends call me for that sort of thing. But I have dated perfectly nice guys who did admire my independence -at first- but after awhile found it made them feel emasculated. I have also dated guys who made less money than I do, and it's been a thing even other people ask about like it should reflect poorly on them somehow. I regularly have guys get offended if I hold a door open I get to before them. No matter what type of man I have dated, and I have never been interested in the macho type you'd expect it from, I have never been able to avoid some degree of my "masculine" traits making them feel diminished. I don't blame the individuals, it's certainly not malicious or intentional. But, it is something that should be brought to their attention as a symptom of their idea of their own masculinity being something that isn't inherent and constant but something you must display and test against others all the time. 

[Wise Fool]

This thread isn't for men or for women, anyone can post here, it's all good. I always want to open dialogues rather than shut them off. I invite anyone who wishes to speak their mind to feel safe commenting on this thread. Let's not get into that girls club boys club cootie wars silliness.

I think there is such a thing as a "natural" masculinity versus a "traditional" or role-playing-based idea of masculinity. A genuine, innate, biological, mystical, philosophical import and character. As opposed to a stereotype, like men like fart jokes. I mean we do, but that's silly. I'm talking about meaningful, fundamental differences that should be honored and respected.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

10 minutes ago, Wise Fool said:

I think there is such a thing as a "natural" masculinity versus a "traditional" or role-playing-based idea of masculinity. A genuine, innate, biological, mystical, philosophical import and character. As opposed to a stereotype, like men like fart jokes. I mean we do, but that's silly. I'm talking about meaningful, fundamental differences that should be honored and respected.

All you are doing is replacing one set of characteristics you feel are not desirable with a set of characteristics you feel are desirable. I mean, what you actually said in the OP is:

 

Quote

 

I think a lot of men are indeed effete and weak, but not because of feminism or anything remotely like that. Because our society, for whatever reasons, happens to promote a way of thinking and doing that is psychologically unhealthful. Materialism makes us waste resources chasing after baubles which only impoverishes the spirit. Men are not in touch with their masculinity, nor are they in touch with the feminine energy. Materialist philosophy makes hedonism the logical conclusion, and so the pursuit of sex as goal of a game rather than as something sacred dominates the sociology of sex. 

Is a real man supposed to be intimidating, possibly even dangerous? Is his energy capable of violence? Of course it is.

I think real masculinity is about control. There is a powerful force here and it must be controlled and restrained and civil and honorable. But, you see, the social paradigm does not support this. It rewards uncontrolled outbursts of choreographed melodrama.

 

So if masculinity is about control - what does that say about femininity? Is femininity about ... surrender? Being controlled? Being out of control and hysterical? I appreciate that you think you are somehow subverting some traditional understanding of masculinity, but you're not - you're just reinforcing the same stuff, crudely masked by appeals to the sacred that amount to little more than warmed-over Robert Bly "Iron John" garbage. 

It's silly and childish and amounts to nothing more or less than "I like these traits - and therefore I want to associate them with myself." Which, hey, is fine. Go ahead and be all those things you think you want to be. But let's not pretend that any of these traits are "inherently" male or a part of some "fundamental masculinity." 

 

 

 

[karaddin]

Ok I didn't really phrase it well, I feel like other women should feel free to join is, I feel like I both am too vocal on gender and have views that won't necessarily be helpful to what you are after, so I at least will try take a step back. Not that I think it's a boys club thing, just that I think there's value in you getting to have the discussion without a feminist and trans viewpoint overlaid.

So much of femininity and masculinity is a very personal "what it means to you" alongside what it means to society. The former is the type of masculinity that can be a good positive thing, the latter is both toxic and fragile. For me personally the two are very simple though, masculinity is bondage and torture, riven from my emotions and unable to be myself. Femininity is freedom from this, full of life and energy and joy. They won't mean anything like that to someone with different experiences though.  

On a more impersonal level, when dealing with things that I would argue are more accurately defined as being an adult (like loyalty etc talked about above) I feel masculinity and femininity are more like a flavour or tone to the act, tinting the way it looks to a third party but fundamentally the same. For example both father's and mother's are protective of their children, and I do feel there is a gendered difference to the way this manifests, but I couldn't articulate what those differences are - it's a difference in how it feels.

[Wise Fool]

1 minute ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

All you are doing is replacing one set of characteristics you feel are not desirable with a set of characteristics you feel are desirable. I mean, what you actually said in the OP is:

 

So if masculinity is about control - what does that say about femininity? Is femininity about ... surrender? Being controlled? Being out of control and hysterical? I appreciate that you think you are somehow subverting some traditional understanding of masculinity, but you're not - you're just reinforcing the same stuff, crudely masked by appeals to the sacred that amount to little more than warmed-over Robert Bly "Iron John" garbage. 

It's silly and childish and amounts to nothing more or less than "I like these traits - and therefore I want to associate them with myself." Which, hey, is fine. Go ahead and be all those things you think you want to be. But let's not pretend that any of these traits are "inherently" male or a part of some "fundamental masculinity." 

 

 

 

Masculinity is about self-control. Self-restraint. Not being an asshole, in other words. It's not silly or childish. Femininity is not about "surrender," where the fuck did you pull that from? Being controlled? Those are your words, not mine. Femininity is about strength and love and divine energy and if you do not understand that then you know nothing, Jon Snow.

A man like you trying to understand women, or understand anything for that matter, is like an ape comically picking at a computer, trying in vain to figure it out. You don't get it. Everyone has both masculine and feminine qualities in different amounts and variants and that expresses itself in many wonderful ways. There's a lot more going on here than you trying to undermine me with your bombastic bloviating and incoherent nonsense. Feel free to babble as you wish of course, but I'm going to say what I'm going to say and your attempt to dismiss it as "all you are doing" or "silly and childish" or "pretend" has failed.

I mean, hey, I understand. I get it. You don't like me. I don't like you. That's okay, you don't have to like me, and you can stop trying. I've lost nothing in that transaction. One wonders what you think you're gaining. In any case you're not exactly expressing ideas worth considering.

[karaddin]

Masculinity being about self-control would mean femininity is about the lack of it if you are looking at things from an oppositional sexism point of view.  Once you've discarded that there is no reason that an attribute for one implies the lack of that attribute in the other, however the vast majority of society still buys into oppositional sexism (on top of traditional sexism).  This is another of the things from Serano's Whipping Girl that Lyanna plugged earlier and I feel is the element of sexism least recognised by people despite the huge damage it does.  Too much of the popular conception of masculinity is "not feminine/not female" and that drives a lot of nasty stuff.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 minutes ago, Wise Fool said:

Masculinity is about self-control. Self-restraint. Not being an asshole, in other words. It's not silly or childish. Femininity is not about "surrender," where the fuck did you pull that from? Being controlled? Those are your words, not mine. Femininity is about strength and love and divine energy and if you do not understand that then you know nothing, Jon Snow.

A man like you trying to understand women, or understand anything for that matter, is like an ape comically picking at a computer, trying in vain to figure it out. You don't get it. Everyone has both masculine and feminine qualities in different amounts and variants and that expresses itself in many wonderful ways. There's a lot more going on here than you trying to undermine me with your bombastic bloviating and incoherent nonsense. Feel free to babble as you wish of course, but I'm going to say what I'm going to say and your attempt to dismiss it as "all you are doing" or "silly and childish" or "pretend" has failed.

I mean, hey, I understand. I get it. You don't like me. I don't like you. That's okay, you don't have to like me, and you can stop trying. I've lost nothing in that transaction. One wonders what you think you're gaining. In any case you're not exactly expressing ideas worth considering.

This doesn't exactly dispel my suspicion that you're just picking traits you like out of a hat and haphazardly associating them with one gender or another. 

Being a man is all about "control" and being "intimidating" and "possibly even dangerous" (call me when you figure that one out). 

And being a woman is all about... strength, and love and "divine energy."

Does that mean that being a man is not about strength? That being masculine has nothing to do with your capacity to love? That men are somehow devoid of "divine energy" - whatever that means?

Do you have any like... actual evidentiary basis to make these claims? How did you come to  determine that being masculine means being intimidating? And why is that a good thing? How come being feminine is about love but being masculine is not? Or is being masculine about love, too - and are we just adding another trait from the grab bag? 

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like me. Maybe you'll come around? 

[Wise Fool]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This doesn't exactly dispel my suspicion that you're just picking traits you like out of a hat and haphazardly associating them with one gender or another. 

Being a man is all about "control" and being "intimidating" and "possibly even dangerous" (call me when you figure that one out). 

And being a woman is all about... strength, and love and "divine energy."

Does that mean that being a man is not about strength? That being masculine has nothing to do with your capacity to love? That men are somehow devoid of "divine energy" - whatever that means?

Do you have any like... actual evidentiary basis to make these claims? How did you come to  determine that being masculine means being intimidating? And why is that a good thing? How come being feminine is about love but being masculine is not? Or is being masculine about love, too - and are we just adding another trait from the grab bag? 

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like me. Maybe you'll come around? 

Ooh, kitty has claws. You're drawing silly conclusions that very obviously don't follow from what I said at all. i.e that because women have divine energy, men are devoid of it? Why would that be? I didn't say that, but you thought it, because your thoughts are rather crude and simplistic and you really, really don't understand what I'm saying.

I did not make the claim that "being a man is all about being possibly even dangerous," Mr Strawman. So, good job, I don't have "evidentiary basis" to make "claims" that I'm not making! You figured it out. Go have a cookie, you angry little man.

[peterbound]

Ok I didn't really phrase it well, I feel like other women should feel free to join is, I feel like I both am too vocal on gender and have views that won't necessarily be helpful to what you are after, so I at least will try take a step back. Not that I think it's a boys club thing, just that I think there's value in you getting to have the discussion without a feminist and trans viewpoint overlaid.

So much of femininity and masculinity is a very personal "what it means to you" alongside what it means to society. The former is the type of masculinity that can be a good positive thing, the latter is both toxic and fragile. For me personally the two are very simple though, masculinity is bondage and torture, riven from my emotions and unable to be myself. Feminist is freedom from this, full of life and energy and joy. They won't mean anything like that to someone with different experiences though.  

On a more impersonal level, when dealing with things that I would argue are more accurately defined as being an adult (like loyalty etc talked about above) I feel masculinity and femininity are more like a flavour or tone to the act, tinting the way it looks to a third party but fundamentally the same. For example both father's and mother's are protective of their children, and I do feel there is a gendered difference to the way this manifests, but I couldn't articulate what those differences are - it's a difference in how it feels.

I like all of that. The traits can be the same (and usually are) but can manifest differently. Well said.

[Red Tiger]

Wanted to post this, cause I felt Maher made some good points with this. The title is about femininity, but he goes to town on masculinity as well if you read between the lines.

 

 

 

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Karradin hit the nail on the head. When Peterbound posted what he considered to be masculine, I felt a lot of the same things. Then Kalbear posted that women can also have those traits, so what's the difference? Well, I do feel there is a difference and while I would have a hard time articulating why, I think Karradin summed it up well. 

Kay Fury, I want to say wow, your the perfect woman. And while I'd like to think I'd be pleased to have a woman that is so capable, if I'm to be honest, it would probably make me feel a little useless at some point. I think that is a part of traditional masculinity, to be able to provide the labor that a female isn't capable to do or simply doesn't know how. Which is funny, because I teach my little girl to be independent. There isn't a chore I do that she isn't tagging along asking questions. And, more than anything, I don't want her to be dependent upon a man when she is older. So right there shows the conflict in how it would make me feel and how I want my daughter to be independent when she's an adult. Now, I don't have to worry about this in my life, because my wife doesn't know how to do any of those things. And yes, I feel like King of the World when I help her get out of a jam. I think all woman should be independent and not have to rely on others to do those type of things, but I love being there for the women in my life. I can see the conflict.

[sologdin]

12 hours ago, karaddin said:

Masculinity being about self-control would mean femininity is about the lack of it if you are looking at things from an oppositional sexism point of view.  Once you've discarded that there is no reason that an attribute for one implies the lack of that attribute in the other, however the vast majority of society still buys into oppositional sexism (on top of traditional sexism).  This is another of the things from Serano's Whipping Girl that Lyanna plugged earlier and I feel is the element of sexism least recognised by people despite the huge damage it does.  Too much of the popular conception of masculinity is "not feminine/not female" and that drives a lot of nasty stuff.

once the oppositional binary is imploded, as it should be, then what remains of the abstractions masculine/feminine?  (i'd respectfully submit that nothing remains.)

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

once the oppositional binary is imploded, as it should be, then what remains of the abstractions masculine/feminine?  (i'd respectfully submit that nothing remains.)

I'm not 100% convinced that absolutely nothing remains, but what's left amount to minimalist behavioral observations free of value judgment. Even Serano in Whipping Girl, for example, recognizes that people tend to exhibit behavioral characteristics consistent with their gender - ie: that boys often "act boyish" and that girls often "act girlish" - and that there's reason to believe these actions are not 100% the result of enculturation - but there are no value judgments attached to these observations. Her position is that both typical gender expressions and atypical (or as she says - "exceptional" gender expressions) should be accepted without judgment. 

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what Wise Fool is attempting to do. Whereas people like Serano are attempting to desconstruct and dissolve all of the value judgments that sneak into the qualities that supposedly comprise "masculinity" and "femininity," Wise Fool is pretty explicitly attempting to reconstruct slightly modified, value-judgment-positive versions of these concepts. Being a "real man" is a good thing - and if you are a man and you don't have the qualities of a "real man" - you're doing something wrong (or something is wrong with you). 

[sologdin]

doesn't acting boyish/acting girlish strike you as an imposition of unwarranted abstraction when we are  to accept 'typical' and 'atypical' 'expressions'?  how gross is that?  expressions of what, a fundamental gender platonism arising out of biological bits, that are in themselves not stable, except through further unwarranted abstraction, that manifests itself in the material practice? 

[Mladen]

For me, it is very simple question. Masculinity is the sense of being man. I see it that way. I find entire debate on whether some people are "real" or "not true" men completely obsolete and outdated. If you are feeling like a man, you posses masculinity regardless of your sexual orientation, political, religious or any other views. 

Speaking about perception of masculinity, I will never forget a debate about serving in military. Overwhelming majority of ladies in the room spoke rather fervently about "lack of real men these days", "a true man must do..." etc. It went so far that I basically lost my temper, stood up and said "OK, you want military service reinstated? Fine. Then, all of you, ladies, pack your things and go on courses of cooking, knitting, housekeeping so when I, a true man, come from military service, a "real woman" would welcome me with hot plate on the table and ready to wash my shitty underwear" Needless to say, it didn't end well  But, I still believe in what I said all those years ago. Just like there are no "true" or "untrue" men, there are neither "true" or "untrue" women.

[Lyanna Stark]

12 hours ago, karaddin said:

Masculinity being about self-control would mean femininity is about the lack of it if you are looking at things from an oppositional sexism point of view.  Once you've discarded that there is no reason that an attribute for one implies the lack of that attribute in the other, however the vast majority of society still buys into oppositional sexism (on top of traditional sexism).  This is another of the things from Serano's Whipping Girl that Lyanna plugged earlier and I feel is the element of sexism least recognised by people despite the huge damage it does.  Too much of the popular conception of masculinity is "not feminine/not female" and that drives a lot of nasty stuff.

Yes. I feel it's quite strange to discuss stuff like femininity and masculinity without any sort of definition or discussion of what those entails, and indeed the discussion of oppositional sexism.

The fact that masculinity and femininity are often set up as opposites is in itself harmful (which is also one of the core tenets in Whipping Girl, I think), because that means, that by default femininity becomes the opposite of masculinity. If masculinity is associated with strength, then femininity must be associated with weakness.

 

12 hours ago, Wise Fool said:

Masculinity is about self-control. Self-restraint. Not being an asshole, in other words. It's not silly or childish. Femininity is not about "surrender," where the fuck did you pull that from? Being controlled? Those are your words, not mine. Femininity is about strength and love and divine energy and if you do not understand that then you know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

While it's a good thing you don't put masculinity and femininity opposite eachother, the fact is that they often are listed as some sort of opposites, which normally leads to femininity being seen as the negative. However, what struck me the most is that you imbue femininity with some sort of spiritual essence. That, my friend, is gender essentialism.

Simone de Beauvoir said this about the "feminine essence" in 1949:

Quote

But first we must ask: what is a woman? ‘Tota mulier in utero’, says one, ‘woman is a womb’. But in speaking of certain women, connoisseurs declare that they are not women, although they are equipped with a uterus like the rest. All agree in recognising the fact that females exist in the human species; today as always they make up about one half of humanity. And yet we are told that femininity is in danger; we are exhorted to be women, remain women, become women. It would appear, then, that every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity. Is this attribute something secreted by the ovaries? Or is it a Platonic essence, a product of the philosophic imagination? Is a rustling petticoat enough to bring it down to earth? Although some women try zealously to incarnate this essence, it is hardly patentable. It is frequently described in vague and dazzling terms that seem to have been borrowed from the vocabulary of the seers, and indeed in the times of St Thomas it was considered an essence as certainly defined as the somniferous virtue of the poppy

Imbuing femininity with some sort of strange essence and mystic nature means that it is destiny. It exists within us.

The same goes if we imbue masculinity with set, mystical values. It means we are stuck in that, our destiny is set, and we are stuck.

Even if I think Nestor is perhaps needlessly combative, he has a theoretical structure to his arguments that is based in academia.

 

34 minutes ago, sologdin said:

once the oppositional binary is imploded, as it should be, then what remains of the abstractions masculine/feminine?  (i'd respectfully submit that nothing remains.)

Interesting question. I tend to agree with Serano that *something* will remain, but what that will be is another thing completely.

[Wise Fool]

Ah. Academia. And see here we come across my great weakness, for I'm an uneducated meat worker, so how could I know anything about anything. How dare I talk about gender, and so forth.

Bleh.

Well, it was worth a shot. I guess I don't have to share my ideas with any of you and I don't feel a need to justify anything as if I am being placed on trial. People around here treat ideas like threats and challenges and do so enjoy trying to put others down, put them in their place, dismiss them, categorize them, and so on. There's a correct venue for all efforts and this is not mine for mine. Go with God, adios, and peace.

[sologdin]

Interesting question. I tend to agree with Serano that *something* will remain, but what that will be is another thing completely.

it is interesting.  since i've been working through fausto-sterling, have started to attempt the process of not thinking of myself as 'male.' once the material sex signifier elides, so do all of the other bullshit signifiers, such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation.  at least, that's the theory.  whether being able to think this through to an alleged terminus is itself a marker of the standard male/masculine/cisgender/heteronormative privilege package is also an interesting question.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Well, I for one feel that there is something to being male. I feel there is a difference between male and female besides our biological differences. I don't quite understand why others want to dismiss this and try and say what we perceive as masculine has been ingrained into us through culture. I think the differences are there from birth. I can tell the differences between my son and daughter. My daughter is quiet, calm and wants to feel loved and needed. My son is dominant of his surrondings, more outgoing, more independent, and is naturally attracted to more dangerous things. Where my daughter wants to coexist with other kids, my son wants to be in control of the room. There are differences wether you want there to be or not. 

Is every male what we would call Alpha? No. But, wether you want to admit it or not, it is a worthy trait. They are who other males are attracted to and look to them as leaders. There is such a thing as a man's man as Wise Fool suggested. In today's society it is not necessarily needed, but it was in the past when war was a way of life. And I think this mentality is part of who we are as males. I've neither read books on the subject or studied it in any way. But, you see it in life and it's part of growing up as a male. Who is the Alpha? Who controls the situation? All of this is part of who a male is and does not need to be taught. 

Now, that being said, when we become adults in today's society these things are a bit silly and doesn't mean what they used to. And this is where all of the comments about #MasculinitysoFragile comes in, I'm my opinion. Why is there something wrong with a man being in touch with his masculinity, where in essence makes him a man? Its all different today then it was 200 years ago, sure. I just don't understand where masculinity has to be at odds with femininity. They both have there own set of characteristics and I feel that they can be different to each and every one of us. But basically what I'm reading in this thread from many of you is that if a man is in touch with his masculinity that it's fragile and doesn't really mean anything. What? That makes absolutely zero sense to me. I guess it's another attempt to make everyone the same, there are no differences in human beings. Its all just window dressing that you've been programmed to believe. And that doesn't add up to me.

[Kalbear]

Msj, is your daughter first or second? Because what you described fits my kids perfectly, and they're both boys.