This is the first of three guest posts, reprinted with the kind permission of Clarisse Thorn. This post originally appeared here on Clarisse’s blog. Once they’ve been posted, all three posts will be accessible at this link.
Clarisse Thorn is a feminist, sex-positive educator who has delivered workshops on both sexual communication and BDSM to a variety of audiences, including New York’s Museum of Sex, San Francisco’s Center for Sex and Culture, and several Chicago universities. She curated the original Sex+++ sex-positive documentary film series at Chicago’s Jane Addams Hull-House Museum in 2009, and has also volunteered as an archivist and curator at the Leather Archives & Museum. Currently, she is working on HIV mitigation in southern Africa.
Due to irregular internet access while she’s in Africa, Clarisse may be slow responding to comments.
* * *
Over the summer, I wrote a 3500-word piece about masculinity. It touched on some themes I’ve messed around with before, most notably in my reviews of the Sex+++ documentaries “Private Dicks: Men Exposed” and “Boy I Am.” I fondly hoped that I might be able to do something “real” with it, but I’ve gotten rather immersed in my work here in Africa — and I’ve been having some trouble keeping up with America, due to irregular Internet access. Today, I managed to catch up with some of my blogroll and saw that Audacia Ray recently posted some thoughts about masculinity, including excellent links to various new frontiers in the masculinity conversation. Looks like the topic is really heating up — finally! I’ve been obsessing about it off and on for years, and it’s exciting to think that people might finally talk to me about it.
So, rather than letting my masculinity piece languish under a rug — since I’ll probably never be able to do anything official with it before the conversation moves on, anyway — I’m just going to serialize it here. (I’d post the whole thing at once, but I don’t want to inflict 3500 words on everyone’s blog reader!)
Questions I Want To Ask Entitled Cis Het Men, Part 1: Who Cares?
Why do I care about masculinity?
I’m rather perverted, but not enormously queer. I present as femme, and — although I’ve been known to tease my sensitive (frequently long-haired) lovers for being “unmasculine” — I fall in love with men. At heart, I love knowing that I’m fucking a man.
However, because I’m cis and straight, I feel profoundly at a loss when trying to articulate problems of (for lack of a better phrase) “Men’s Empowerment”. The issues don’t feel “native” to me; I’ve intersected with these questions mainly through the lens of lovers and friends. Watching their struggle is demoralizing, but trying to imagine how I can give them feedback is more demoralizing.
A male friend once wrote to me, “I think you personally find expressions of masculinity hot, but you also have no patience with sexism. You’ve caught on that it’s tricky for men to figure out how to deliver both of these things you need, that you don’t have a lot of good direction to give to fellas about it, and that neither does anyone else.”
So:
How men can be supportive and non-oppressive while remaining overtly masculine?
On top of my limited perspective, there’s been an echoing lack of discourse — that is, very little mainstream acknowledgement of the problems of masculinity. The primary factor in that silence is that normative cis men themselves tend to be flatly unwilling to discuss gender/sex issues. Often, their first objection is that the discussion is neither important nor relevant. This is true even within subcultures centered around sexual analysis, like the BDSM world — I once met a cis male BDSMer who said, “Why bother talking about male sexuality? It’s the norm. Fish don’t have a word for water.”
But if masculine sexuality is water and we’re fish, why doesn’t that motivate us to examine it more — not less?
Don’t get me wrong: I agree that America’s sexual conceptions are centered around stereotypical male sexuality, and I agree that this is damaging and problematic. Believe me, I’m furious that it took me many years to reconceive “actual” sex around acts other than good ole penis-in-vagina penetration! But if American stereotypes and ideas of sexuality are male-centered, then surely that makes it more useful for us to be thinking about male sexuality — not less.
And those male-centered ideas of sexuality aren’t centered around all men — just stereotypical men. LGBTQ men are obvious examples whose sexuality falls outside the norm; fortunately for them, they’ve created some spaces to discuss that. But there are lots of other non-normative guys who aren’t gay or queer, yet feel very similar sexual alienation — and because there’s so little discourse about masculinity outside LGBTQ circles, they usually just don’t talk about it.
What does it mean to be a cis het man whose sexuality isn’t normative? Which straight cis guys don’t fit — and hence, feel alienated from — our current overarching sexual stereotypes?
Guys who identify as straight BDSM submissives are one fabulous example of non-normative men who are frequently alienated from mainstream masculine sexuality, but who often don’t have a forum. Men with small penises are a second. There are lots of others. In the words of sex blogger and essayist Thomas Millar: “The common understanding of male sexuality is a stereotype, an ultra-narrow group of desires and activities oriented around PIV [penis-in-vagina], anal intercourse and blowjobs; oriented around cissexual women partners having certain very narrow groups of physical characteristics.”
Still, that doesn’t mean that straight, dominant, big-dicked dudes who love boning thin chicks feel totally okay about the current state of affairs. It just means they tend to have less immediate motivation to question it. They also have less of an eye for spotting gender oppression, because — though they’ve got their own boxes hemming them in — they’re still more privileged than the rest of us, and the nature of privilege is to blind the privileged class to its existence.
A male submissive once told me, “Lots of heteronormative men know something is wrong with the way we think about sex and gender. I can see them struggling with it when we talk. They can’t put their finger on it; they have a hard time engaging it. But I engage it all the time; I have to, because my sexuality opposes it.”
When is it to a man’s advantage to examine and question masculinity and stereotypes of male sexuality? Which men are motivated to do so?
It’s tempting to assert that men whose desires fit neatly (or at least mostly) within the stereotype have it made — after all, their sexuality works within the norm so many of us struggle to escape. But I’ve had this assumption corrected several times, usually by smart “stereotypical” men themselves. At one point, while developing a sexuality workshop, I sent the outline to a bunch of friends. The original draft contained this paragraph: “Our sexual scripts favor a certain stereotype of men and male sexual pleasure, which makes it hard for women to figure out what we really want and what we really enjoy, and also makes it harder for non-stereotypical men to figure that out.” One friend sent that paragraph back, having quietly appended: “… as well as for stereotypical men to discover or explore new desires beyond the stereotypical script.”
When we discuss the limitations around sexuality from a non-normative perspective, how do we exclude normative people who might develop themselves in new directions if they had the chance? What do normative men stand to gain by thinking outside the box about masculinity and sexuality?
A male friend once wrote to me, “I think you personally find expressions of masculinity hot, but you also have no patience with sexism. . . .” The primary factor in that silence is that normative cis men themselves tend to be flatly unwilling to discuss gender/sex issues.
A lot will depend upon your own working definition of “masculine,” of course, but it might not be unreasonable for the definition to include “unwillingness to discuss gender/ sex issues.” If your goal is inherently oxymoronic, then I’m not even sure what the point is. If a bunch of men are sitting around discussing gender/ sex issues, they may not be the most “masculine” by definition.
Either that, or you are stuck inside of an early 1990s Dockers commercial.
Short answer: Straight cis men don’t really have anything to gain by questioning the perception of masculinity. Therefore, they won’t question it. Why should they?
Rich said:
Isn’t “fearlessness” a common adjective used to describe traditional ideals of masculinity? How can a group of men, who are afraid to discuss sexuality, qualify as “masculine”? Why would anyone be fearful of an intelligent conversation about sexuality, for that matter?
And yes, it would be very unreasonable.
This is a very interesting article, and I would like to add that, as a heterosexual female with a non-mainstream attitude about sex, I get a lot of grief from the “normal” people. On the internet, I am often accused of being a gay man, because it’s (apparently) just so inconceivable that a woman could ever think the way I do. It seems like I’m always battling stereotypes; everything from the old “Women aren’t visual” (biggest LIE ever), to “Women like money better than sex”.
So, I can really relate to what some of the “non-normative” men are going through. I personally am tired of seeing men bully other men who choose to make themselves look more attractive for women. The whole “You’re gay” crap is nothing a jealousy-motivated manipulation tactic. That being said, I always make sure to compliment an attractive man; it’s about time they got some attention for their efforts.
I don’t mean to bring this up as a way of undermining the credibility of the writer, but that statement caught my eye and, after reading a few more passages, drew me back to it. It reads oddly like a statement of privilege–in that certain groups are perceived to have more rights to tease other groups about things we might otherwise say are “not funny.”
I’m not saying that to suggest we should all be humorless. As a gay cis man, I enjoy a reduced level of scrutiny when it comes to certain types of teasing. Just thought it was interesting.
I’m not sure if we can make the assumption that unwillingness=fear, though I’m sure it’s possible that it often does.
Apropos of this post, people might be interested in the first two posts of a series I started some time ago that has, unfortunately, languished while other work got in the way: Thinking About Condoms For The First Time In A Long Time 1 and 2.
@Politicalguineapig
I disagree – cis-gendered straight men do have a great deal to gain by questioning masculininity. PHMT. However, the problem is that individually, questioning masculinity reduces their perceived masculinity, which diminishes them in the eyes of most men and women.
It’s a similar catch-22 (although with different magnitudes, history, and consequences) to the way that feminism isn’t feminine. There is automatic pressure against escaping your role.
A man is unacceptably weak if he examines his own gender role, just as a woman is unacceptably strong if she fights against hers.
Isn’t “fearlessness” a common adjective used to describe traditional ideals of masculinity? How can a group of men, who are afraid to discuss sexuality, qualify as “masculine”?
Fearlessness in action is a sign of masculinity. Protecting the small and weak and otherwise non-masculine. The “masculine” response to a request to converse about gender roles is not “I am afraid to do that,” but rather, “This is a stupid waste of my time. Sitting down and talking about emotions is a stereotypically feminine thing to do. Masculine and feminine are opposites. You are trying to define masculine in such a way that it is the same as feminine. Now, if you will excuse me, hunting season is beginning and I must now shoot a deer.”
I would say that straight cis men who, whether for religious, moral, or philosophical reasons, don’t want to have sex until they’re married, or even until they’re in a committed relationship, would count as non-normative. I’ve felt immense amounts of pressure to “pick-up” or “hook up with” girls from most of my male friends.
Of course that might just be my peer group, but I think thinking of sex as something special and sacred is definately considered a very “unmasculine” attitude by society at large.
Politicalguineapig:
Short answer: Straight cis men don’t really have anything to gain by questioning the perception of masculinity. Therefore, they won’t question it. Why should they?
I have to disagree just as Foo did. Just because someone may not recognize the benefits of something doesn’t mean said benefits are not there. Just as any other walk of life has, straight cis men have been conditioned to not question their role in the system (because if anyone questions their role in the system, even those at the top, the system runs the risk of collapsing).
Nathan:
Of course that might just be my peer group, but I think thinking of sex as something special and sacred is definately considered a very “unmasculine” attitude by society at large.
I have had similar experiences as well. Just it is considered “unladylike” to have an active sex life before marriage it is considered “unmanly” to not have an active sex life before marriage. As men we are told that sex is not supposed to matter beyons our own orgasm. To think about our partner, or worse to not even have a strong desire to have sex as often as possible despite the risks, is just taboo.
I didn’t say that they couldn’t recognize the benefits of being on top. Too many of them do. I said, it won’t occur to most of them to question it. Rich’s example is a perfect description- men, by and large, are not interested in dismantling their privilege. And humans won’t do anything that doesn’t benefit them.
@Politicalguineapig
Again, I disagree.
I think Rich’s example wasn’t legitimately about how men feel, but how men are _supposed_ to feel. That’s what “manliness” is supposed to sound like. “Self-examination is for pussies”. Whether or not they actually feel like that, they know they will be seen as “weak” and thus “unmanly” in view of the men and women around them.
Whether a man legitimately doesn’t care about the issue, the point is that it is not manly to care about the issue.
It’s a prisoner’s dilemma – if all men and women sat down and admitted that this great pissing contest of masculinity is bullshiat, then men would be the better for it… but if an individual guy does that, he just looks like a loser, so he’ll play along and grunt with the rest of us.
“Fish don’t have a word for water.”
Hm. I bet they’re wrong. Turbidity, color, taste, temperature, various kinds of detectable mineral content, flow states – I bet a sentient fish would have lots of words for different kinds of water, much as the Inuit have numerous words for different kinds of snow.
The point being that people should (and to greater or lesser degrees, do) have self-awareness of their own physical, mental and emotional state. I think, then, that this kind of statement is false. Why, then, would someone think this? Maybe it stems from a lack of understanding how people interact with their environment. Maybe it’s a way to avoid self-awareness, or at least to avoid acknowledging what awareness they may have and to avoid developing more self-awareness. Perhaps because they’re afraid of what they might find out. Or, perhaps it’s simply how they were trained and raised, that this is not something that is desirable for people to do.
“The point is that it’s not manly to care about the issue.”
So how do people make it manly then? Or do we have to degender the concept altogether?
So how do people make it manly then? Or do we have to degender the concept altogether?
It seems like that’s going to vary from man to man. For men that try to mold themselves to fit the image of manliness they would need to believe that caring about said issue is manly. For men that aren’t trying to live up to some image of manliness they need to realize that said issue is important and worth caring about.
I think degendering, while sounding like a good idea, would cause a bit of fallout of lost women and men confused (or at least the ones who had an image of womanliness/manliness). Not saying said confusion is justification for not degendering, just saying I think it would happen.
Because that’s manifestly untrue. Virtually *nobody*, not even straight cis men, completely meets the standard of masculinity, and untold (literally) anxiety stems from having to police one’s own actions and attempt to eschew or conceal one’s “unmanly” aspects.
Whereas us ugly folks are just lazy in our choice of genetics.
RonF: That’s a myth. The Inuit have less words for snow than the English. Still, absolutely agree about the fish. After all, we have a word for “air.”
I like this article. I think that straight, cis-gendered, non-sub men have everything to gain from questioning male sexuality. I mean, it doesn’t take much to be outside of acceptable male sexuality. Let me make a short list of just the attraction bits:
1) Attraction to a woman older than you.
2) Attraction to a woman with prominent hips.
3) Attraction to a woman with small or barely-present breasts.
4) Attraction to a woman who is black.
5) Attraction to a woman who has a not-entirely-flat belly.
All are so horribly abnormal that they get ridiculed, not just by fellow men, but also by women, including some women who are supposedly on the side of deconstructing gender norms. (yadda yadda feminism but you can’t possibly like my hips, you’re just saying that to get me into bed.)
I mean, that’s pretty mild stuff. And we’re not even getting into actual sex acts like enjoying giving oral sex.
A lot of women report that their husbands lose interest in sex relatively quickly. This alone is a sign of a diseased male sexual norm. Saying all men don’t question sexuality because they have nothing to gain is ridiculous. They have everything to gain. They’re just terrified because they’ve been taught that if they question anything, they’ll lose everything. Just like everyone else.
yrs–
–Ben
So how do people make it manly then? Or do we have to degender the concept altogether?
It seems like that’s going to vary from man to man. For men that try to mold themselves to fit the image of manliness they would need to believe that caring about said issue is manly.
I think you are conflating two things. One is men who are “naturally masculine” — however that is defined. The other is men who are trying to fit the image of manliness, despite the fact that they would prefer to be another way (or simply have not thought about whether they would or not.)
A man who is trying to “fit in” may be convinced to go talk about his gender issues, or would be amenable to fitting into a “new” definition of masculinity, were one to develop. A man who is “inherently masculine” likely will have no interest in it — they are masculine because it is “who they are.”
I mean, you could try to change the definition of “gay man” so that it includes lots of sex with women, but I don’t think you’re going to get many takers. A campaign for “It’s manly to talk about your feelings regarding gender roles” will likely have a comparable impact.
Rich:
I think you are conflating two things. One is men who are “naturally masculine” — however that is defined. The other is men who are trying to fit the image of manliness, despite the fact that they would prefer to be another way (or simply have not thought about whether they would or not.)
Perhaps. I was trying to speak of men who try to fit the image and men who are simply being who they are regardless of whether they are “naturally masculine” or not (i.e. they don’t care if they are considered “natually masculine” they just do what they do).
I seem to be having trouble breaking down the different walks of men.
Lots of meta-discussion going on here; lots of abstractions about men, manliness, masculinity; but there seems to be very little of the kind of discourse the absence of which the post is actually about.
Richard: I think that’s because the author is actually dealing with abstractions, and we’re trying to pin it down.
Ben: I think the “disinterest in sex” is actually due to the monotony of settling down” and all the other stresses of the paired life rather than a “diseased male sezual norm.”
Politicalguineapig: I guess I read the questions she asks very differently, then, because I don’t see how you answer them, or at least how you answer them in a way that takes them on as having real consequences in the real lives of real cisgender heterosexual men, without talking in specific and concrete detail about the real lives of real cisgender heterosexual men. How do you answer this, for example:
without discussing an actual situation in which it was to a man’s benefit to ask these questions? How do you unpack and respond to the ideas in this very good question:
without having a discussion by/among/about specific normative men and their desires? Otherwise, how do you start to see the patterns, the commonalities, the differences? Sure you have to define normative, but if all you do is get caught up in definitions, you’re not moving anything anywhere.
I was rereading this thread yesterday when I posted my comment about abstractions and definitions and I decided not to link again to the two posts I linked to in comment 6 because I did not want to sound like I was trying to toot my own horn, but I am going to link to them again here. Not because I think they are necessarily such great posts or because what I have to say is so enormously enlightening, but because they were my attempt to begin to answer at least some of the questions asked in this post in terms of my own life experience:
Thinking About Condoms for the First Time in a Very Long Time – 1
Thinking About Condoms for the First Time in a Very Long Time – 2
I can’t imagine that my stories are unique; my guess is that most “normative” men have similar stories. Seems to me a lot more productive to locate the abstractions in those stories, to let the definitions emerge from the telling of them.
Sorry that’s a “diseased male sexual norm.” My kingdom for spellcheck.
Richard: I can’t think of any situations, but that might be because I’m not male.
I read the essays, and they make sense. I’ve met many men who don’t fit into those tidy little male boxes. But it still seems to me like fish questioning water. And then again, I’m not the one swimming in it.
Wow, it’s really exciting to see all these comments. Thanks, guys!
I think I addressed a lot of these comments in Parts 2 and 3. I’ll look forward to seeing the comments on those.
@Phil:
My intent with the beginning paragraphs was merely to explain (partly) where my interest in masculinity comes from, and what my context is. That said, I do think there are interesting social permissions granted to groups “known” to have “less privilege”, in mocking groups that are “known” to have “more privilege”.
When I originally posted this series to my own blog, I noted in the comments for Part 1 that in my old age (ha) I’ve started feeling guilty about having teased so many of my lovers about their masculinity. I guess for a long time it just didn’t occur to me that it would make them feel bad, partly because women don’t usually get the same anxiety about gender status that men do (more on this in Part 2).
I’m confused about why your point would undermine my credibility.
@Nathan — Re: pressure to hook up, I think you’d like a series of pieces I’m about to publish. Working title: Sex-Positive in Southern Africa; the first one is about abstinence. Right now I’m trying to find an online venue outside my own blog for the series, so it may not go up for a while … but if I find a good place, I’ll be sure to post about it. And if I can’t sell the pieces, I’ll just post them to my blog. So either way you might be interested in tracking my posts.
@Richard Jeffrey Waxman — Thanks for the links; I will read them for sure. I agree with both you and Politicalguineapig here … it’s true that this whole essay is written mostly in abstract terms — and maybe that’s a mistake, because I think it did set the tone, but what we really want now is discussion of applicable tactics and example situations. Maybe my concrete focus gets clearer in Parts 2 and 3 … that’s where I start asking questions like, “How do I create an environment where these conversations happen?”
I love Ben Lehman’s comment because it starts doing exactly what I want Part 1 to do: describing people who could be allies in the hunt for a “new masculinity”. The next step for me is, How can we bring all these guys together?
Clarisse: That’s the hard part. I think that men have everything to gain from deconstructing the present male sexuality, including additional “manliness.” But the state of male sexuality is a state of fear. Straight, cis- men are afraid of sex, afraid of real women, afraid of porn and masturbation, afraid of not masturbating, and most especially being unmanly.
Getting past the fear is a hard thing. How do feminists get past women’s fears about being “unwomanly?”
If this seems like the exact opposite of manliness, which is rooted in self-reliance and courage, that’s because it is. Which is why I call male sexuality “diseased:” the modern form of it is fucked from the get-go.
Ta-Nehisi Coates had a couple of great essays about this recently, using Prince and Michael Jackson as a starting point:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/all_of_my_purple_life.php
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/the_funk_of_forty_thousand_years.php
I’m really not sure how to sell it. I think it might be as simple as presenting alternative sexuality confidently and with courage, with the expectation of acceptance, and a view towards “this will get you laid” rather than “this will help you express your feelings.” In reality, of course, both are true: having a healthy sexuality gets you laid, makes sex better, and involves expressing your feelings more.
yrs–
–Ben
Clarisse,
Just to say: My last name is Newman, not Waxman, though I have known some very fine Waxmans (Waxmen?). ;)
Wax men, definitely.
Hah! I like especially that they are updating Michael Jackson for his 51st birthday.
Clarisse,
Sorry to post yet another comment, but it occurs to me that you might also find interesting the whole “My Daughter’s Vagina” series that I posted here a while back. Part one is here. (Because I never finished the series, which means I never got to the part that justified the title–or earned it, in the writerly sense of that word–I’d like to just to say that the title was intended to refer to the fact that, in patriarchy, one of the primary relationships in a father’s life is the one he has not merely with his daughter, but with his daughter’s vagina–as owner, as gatekeeper, etc.)
Did I say anything about genetics? That’s your strawman, not mine.
It was clearly stated that I was speaking of men who take care of themselves; those who don’t subscribe to the ludicrous notion that good hygiene & grooming = girlie stuff. Taking care of yourself (in every sense of the word) is not “feminine”; that’s the point I was making. If a guy looks like he doesn’t care about himself, then why should I care about him? No matter how “ugly” somebody may or may not be (which is a matter of personal opinion, not some carved in stone ideal), that is not an excuse to let themselves go. Slobishness sends a very specific message, and that message is “I’m not looking to hook-up with anyone”. Now, that’s fine & dandy if they really aren’t interested in attracting someone … but if they are, there’s no better way to shoot themselves in the foot.
Once you stop worrying about what other people think, everything else falls into place. It’s important to question why you’re afraid; what is the worst thing that could happen if you choose to behave in a fashion that mainstream society perceives to be “unmasculine”? Probably not much other than critical commentary from close-minded fools. So, what you’re really afraid of is words, and fear gives power to those words and the people who speak them. Stop caring … and you eliminate the fear, thereby stripping your critics of their power.
I would not want this conversation to imply that there aren’t social penalties for gender nonconformity. There are, and those penalties can be very severe.
“Stop caring” is not always good advice.
Of course, many things depend on the extremity of the situation, and on context. A man who drinks a pink drink in public may lose some of his masculinity points in the eyes of other men, but is unlikely to be in the same situation as a man who is – say – wearing a frilly skirt. Both are safer if they’re college age in Santa Cruz than if they’re in their thirties in Indiana.
But I worry about minimizing real threats.
Placebo:
I want to second what Mandolin said. Depending on when and where and with and in front of whom you behave this way, you could be killed for it. But think also about the boys who are beaten because they cry. (My mother and stepfather’s favorite saying was, “Why are you crying? If you want to cry, I will give you something to cry about?”) Think also about the kinds of things that certainly used to, and probably still do happen to members of fraternities, and even the armed forces, to men who for whatever reasons do not “measure up” in terms of masculinity. And there are smaller, less violent, though no less important consequences as well.
Many years ago, I was in love with a woman from another country; she, in fact, left her country to come live with me here in the States. For reasons that are not germane to this conversation, I was very nervous about whether or not I could support her financially–which I would have had to do while she was in school learning English and until she found a job. I had never lived with someone, had never had to worry about supporting a two person household on my own; she, on the other hand, had been married, had managed the finances of a household.
So I told her I was nervous about this, that I would need her help in learning how to do it. Well, it turns out that confessing my nervousness about finances, expressing doubts about my financial ability was, in her culture, one of the most unmanly things I could possibly say, and while this was not ultimately the reason that she left me, it did cause her to lose a tremendous amount of respect for me. And that loss of respect made her leaving me more inevitable than it had to be.
Granted that part of what was going on here was about cultural difference. Still, had I been from her country, I would have felt the taboo against admitting my insecurity about finances very, very strongly; I would have known what the consequences to our relationship of admitting them might possibly be; and I might very well have chosen not to act in such an “unmanly” way.
Placebo,
“It’s important to question why you’re afraid; what is the worst thing that could happen if you choose to behave in a fashion that mainstream society perceives to be “unmasculine”? Probably not much other than critical commentary from close-minded fools.”
Critical commentary? That’s not even the worst that could happen to someone who people think is female who isn’t feminine enough. Awfully optimistic there, and in my experience men are generally more physical in their dislike, although I’ve gotten similar treatment from women. Close minded fools are everybody, in some way or another, especially when dealing with gender expectations and in groups.
I wouldn’t be surprised it “tallness” was one of those uncontrollable features that correlates with “manliness” – big, tall men are seen as manlier than short ones. That part is entirely supposition – I’m just guessing there.
However, we do know that tall men are better paid.
I would not be surprised to learn that manly men are as well. The Patriarchy is self-perpetuating.
And Richard highlights another issue – we look to men to fix the problems of masculinity, but when women face problems with the concepts of femininity, it is obvious that men contribute tremendously to the problem. Many of the destructive cultural expectations of women exist to cater to the needs of men. The reverse is also true – the masculine pissing-contest is supported by both men and women. To me, this is a real place where feminism helps fight PHMT- by expecting women to stand up and reject the idea that they should have a big, strong man to protect them, it reduces the appeal of the big, strong manly man.
Still, how many tired, redundant articles do we hear from women lamenting how there are no manly men anymore? As nasty as it is, I can’t help but feel sympathy for the misogynist reactions I usually see to those articles – generally, something to the effect of “shut up and get back into the kitchen”.
I don’t know why you attribute feminism’s role in “attacking PHMT” to something indirect, there. Feminism also rejects the lauding of manly-manness as the best thing a man can be.
@Mandolin
Because as this thread highlights, telling men they don’t have to be manly is the same as telling women they don’t have to be sexy – it’s pointless, pat advice. The ones who want to stop still know they don’t really have a choice, and the ones who are happy to be so don’t feel the need to stop. Reducing the pressure to conform is accomplished by going after the source of the pressure, not the target.
Re: What’s the worst thing that could happen. In order of badness, I think:
Murder.
Rape.
Other violence.
Shunning and scorn, including loss of job and friends.
But that’s dodging the question. My question wasn’t “how does one get past one’s own fears” but “how do feminists get past the fears of other women who they are trying to convince to act in a new way?”
It’s not like there are *no* theories of masculinity in feminism and gender studies. There aren’t as many as theories on femininity, and they get less play in the blogosphere, but that shouldn’t be confused with academic silence on the subject.
In addition to the academic theories, there are real-life feminist spaces which deprioritize manly-manness. Environments where gender variance is tolerated will tolerate this variance as well. Hang out with a bunch of feminists and queer people sometime. In my experience, small groups where people are both feminist and queer or queer-accepting create environments that reduce or eliminate the pressures we’re discussing. Both ideologies feed an environment where men can be feminine, no matter their sexual orientation.
The bar for what feminism has to do to “help men” sometimes seems very odd. It spins theories about how men do not need to embody a stereotype of manliness to be men, and theories on how there’s more value to women than their sexiness. Of course men still struggle with that. You really think women don’t struggle with the idea that their primary worth is sexual? But it’s not *absent*.
As an artist and writer, playing with feminine men and masculine women and other gender variance is one of my primary projects. That’s part of what makes my writing feminist.
But if creating spaces, theories, and models doesn’t count as working directly against the concept of manly men, then no, I — and other feminists — don’t do anything direct. If that’s the case, though, I also don’t think the terms directly and indirectly have any bearing.
Silenced Is Foo:
This is patently untrue. Of course we have a choice; we just also have to know that the choice has consequences and be willing to live with what those consequences are.
“how do feminists get past the fears of other women who they are trying to convince to act in a new way?”
Often, you don’t.
Challenging femininity is extremely difficult. It’s true that an unfeminine woman does not usually lose her status as female (because most people don’t see a viable category to demote her to, although this can be where transphobia comes into play — see all the portrayals of Coulter as trans), but she does become a failed woman. I wear dresses and makeup, partially because I am unfeminine in other ways, and I need to conform in some, just to get along in society. Wearing dresses and makeup is more agreeable to me than not having opinions or wearing heels, and more possible for me than losing enough weight to successfully play white femininity.
Young feminists don’t tend — in my experience — to challenge femininity head-on at all. Certainly, if I were talking to a clueless young woman about taking up feminism, it isn’t femininity that I’d start talking about. You *start* talking about other things. Rape culture. Wages. Discrimination in the workplace. Sexual harassment that they’ve probably experienced. Reproductive justice.
There are a lot of concrete facts that one can present that don’t challenge people’s identity. Most everyone will agree that workplace discrimination is wrong. That’s something they can agree to without entering uncomfortable territory. Later, as they see that the system that props up workplace discrimination is the same system as the one that mandates femininity, as they see the correlation between submission and femininity, between creating learned helplessness and feminity… later, their opinions may start to shift. But that’s a personal process.
And it’s *still* explosive. Writing to criticize high heels or makeup or the creation of femininity as a capitalist endeavor which means that femininity is created by products… and you tend to scare the crap out of people. This happens no matter how strenuously one notes that the social trends which create these things as mandates and exclusively feminine are the main problems, not the individuals who consume the femininity objects. People get really mad. They get really defensive.
Some women come into the fold of feminism because they already don’t fit the gender roles, or because they have harbored deep suspicions about such things all along. But many don’t, and may come to critiques of femininity late or not at all. So I guess I’d say the major feminist strategy — or at least the one I perceive and agree with — is to provide critique of feminism as one part of a holistic theoretical analysis, some parts of which are more or less frightening to some people.
@Mandolin
My post wasn’t intended to be an attack on feminism. I simply meant it was a point where far more than advice and writings are offered – feminism is the driving force behind the independence and liberation of women. Independent women are free to have interests in men beyond their function as a protector/provider.
This, to me, is far more a “direct” solution to the problem than all the writing and theory in the world.
@Richard
Yeah, that was hyperbolic, I suppose. Either way, I think my point is highlighted above – talk is cheap. Real progress on the issues of the male role comes primarily from the empowerment of women.
I think the issue for gender-variant men isn’t that feminist women like yourself don’t create a comfortable space for them; quite obviously you do in your personal and professional spheres, even beyond the point of reasonable social accommodation. I don’t see any grounds to criticize feminist women or spaces here.
I think instead the issue is that you haven’t successfully converted all the other women, so that in the larger social picture, it is still very detrimental to a man in his relations with women (as a class) to appear gender-variant. It’s hardly fair to blame feminists for that; I think at the very most it is reasonable to critique feminists for expecting men to act as though feminism had already won.
One of the main fears that men have is that other men will judge them negatively for their gender expression. This is a real fear, not a neurotic obsession with “what other people think” – I care far less about what other people think than most people I’ve known, but I’m aware that the reason I don’t wear a tutu to the baseball game isn’t that I worry about the other guys thinking I’m a pansy, it’s that I worry about the other guys beating the shit out of me. (And also tutus make my ass look fat.)
In reflecting on my own experiences, I do notice one interesting pattern: men who are indeed very manly, who express gender masculinity effortlessly and naturally, don’t usually seem to be the guys who spend a lot of time policing the other men, or who feel threatened by a non-traditional gender expression in either sex. It’s the people for whom it is a stretch, who really have to work at it, that fag-bash and obsess over the “decline of manhood”.
I recall an exchange in college where one guy (very manly) was planning to do some kind of drag outfit for a Halloween event, and a rather less manly guy was giving him shit about it. Manly Man said “I’m secure in my masculinity, so I can wear the skirt. If you don’t feel secure in yours, I understand your fear.” And the gender policeman went away.
Nobody wants to be the first penguin off the iceberg, so in that respect I suppose I agree with Robert. Or you can also phrase it in the same individual/group incentive problem of a tragedy of the commons: men as a whole would probably benefit from reducing some of the gender constraints on men, but an individual man may not see a benefit and may indeed be harmed, so he has little incentive to change.
In certain respects, the solution is to target “masculine-appearing enough not to give a shit” men, often later on in their lives. To use a personal example: I’m older; I have a decent job; I have kids; I’m married for many years and actively in love with my wife and she with me. I’m reasonably tall and large.
When I talk about feminism and how it affects my girls it may get me funny looks; when I am not-bothered by my son wearing his sisters’ dresses, likewise. But it’s not as if anyone thinks I’m “not a man:” I have already hit enough of the benchmarks to qualify handily.
Yet although I can tell you that I am far past giving a shit about whether someone thinks I’m “manly enough,” I’m not sure if that isn’t subconsciously linked to the fact that I know my masculinity isn’t really susceptible to challenge at this point, or that I know that (being mated, employed, professionally respected, and friended already) it wouldn’t matter much anyway. I can’t say for sure, but I strongly doubt I would have felt this self confident as a single person, or when i was younger.
I have often thought that an incredibly good target for feminism converts would be “male parents of young girls,” more specifically those who are secure enough in their lives to bend a bit without fear of falling over.
I have often thought that an incredibly good target for feminism converts would be “male parents of young girls,” more specifically those who are secure enough in their lives to bend a bit without fear of falling over.
Oh HELL yes. I am 200% more open to feminist argument than I was fifteen years ago. Having a little girl really brings a lot of stuff home. (My oldest is 13.)
Yesterday my 7-yo climbed into my lap sad and upset because the girls at her school tell her that she’s fat and that they are normal. (She is not a sylph but she’s a perfectly ordinary child in her physique.) A feminism that teaches men how to deal with that type of situation is a feminism that could get traction.
(Because I’m pretty sure my inborn reaction of “tell me these girls’ names, so that I can beat them all up” isn’t the right choice.)
Last Sunday, I was at a birthday party with my wife and children. I was sitting on the couch watching the football game and drinking a beer with some other men. I was a stereotype of American Male Masculinity. My wife was chatting in the other room with some other women. My children were in the basement with some other children.
I heard a scream from the basement, put down my beer, and walked down to investigate. It turned out to be a scream of pleasure and nothing was wrong. My youngest child was playing dress-up, and upon seeing me, said, “Put this on, Daddy!” and stuck a Disney-Princess Tiara on my head.
I then, went back upstairs, sat down on the couch, picked up my beer, and returned to watching the football game. Everyone stared at the tiara. And the teasing commenced. And I’m thinking, “Jeez, I’m sitting on the couch, drinking a beer and watching football with a bunch of men, while you know that my wife and three sexually produced children and in the next room, and you’re going to start in on the gay jokes just because I’ve got a diamond tiara on my head?”
As I had no reason that I needed the approval of these particular men, I left the tiara on. But it was incredible obvious that, in terms of questioning masculinity, it doesn’t take much.
That is quite true. I’ve noticed the same thing.
—————————————
@ Everyone who was displeased with my post:
In no way was I suggesting that there cannot be serious ramifications for straying too far from gender norms. I wasn’t really thinking in terms of “wearing tutus to ballgames” (something that would be considered odd behavior for both men and women, because it’s not situation appropriate). I think it’s important to remember that people who react violently to non-conformist behavior are victims too; they have the same conformist crap pounded into their head, from childhood and onward. It’s also very likely that they themselves possess certain characteristics that aren’t exactly mainstream-friendly (of which they are ashamed of), and seeing others who openly display similar “flaws” makes them uncomfortable; it’s like looking into a mirror and being reminded of that part of themselves of which they intensely loathe. Such people are in desperate need of intelligent, compassionate dialogue, so that they can learn to accept themselves … which leads to acceptance of others.
Also, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that men who behave in a way that is viewed as “unmanly” get more grief than women who act “unfeminine”. I’m not a fan of the Oppression Olympics, nor am I a participant. Both genders have it bad, but in different ways. However, since men are pretty much in charge of everything, I think it’s up to them to fix this mess. One particularly annoying downfall of being female, is that your opinion is worth less than that of a man. I can talk all day long about how things should be, but in the end, I’m just another “bitch” who should be seen and not heard. So, yeah, it’s all up to you, guys.
Oh, one more thing: For the record, I’m opposed to changing people who are comfortable with traditional ideals of “gender normalcy”. I am also opposed to dictating what others should find attractive. Personally, I’ve always been fond of muscular men with a somewhat “feminine” personality; that is my choice. I don’t tolerate finger-wagging & shaming tactics from men who think I should just jump in their lap, despite the fact that they are not my type. Attraction is a two-way street; it should always be mutual.
Oh, and one very last thing (I promise LOL): I’ve always been the “Tom Boy” type; that comes with lots of assumptions about my sexuality. I find that strange, because I see quite a few “girlie girls” kissing one another, these days. You couldn’t pay me to do that because, as far as I’m concerned, men are the sexier gender. And, if I may be so blunt, I’ve got a lot of love for the penis. *grin*
Re: challenging femininity:
I think that in my generation (I’m 25) there are a lot fewer fears about appearing unfeminine by being feminist. A lot of this is probably due to icons of obviously feminine feminism that have preceded us, the “This Is What A Feminist Looks Like” campaigns, etc.
Still, this thread has made me think more deeply about something I have tended to gloss over, mentally — that is, the fact that my gender presentation probably makes it considerably easier for me to be saying stuff like this. I’m femme — I don’t wear makeup or shave my legs/armpits, but I do have extremely long hair and wear skirts a lot, and in addition I’m tall/thin and white. And all that gives me a lot more space to say things like, “Men are the oppressive class,” than I would have if I weren’t — say — thin or long-haired.
As a feminist focused on the whole sex-positive thing, I also find that one of the best ways to point out why feminism is awesome to other women is to start talking about social boxes around our sexuality and how feminists are having better sex because we’re rejecting said boxes. That’ll recruit ’em. :grin:
Pingback: Response to an Entitled Feminist (NoH) | Feminist Critics
Pingback: Response to Clarisse Part 2 (NoH) | Feminist Critics
That actually kinda works on men – well, some men anyway. Believe it or not, a lot of guys would be happy to see more women taking initiative in romantic/sexual situations, which usually involves getting out of those boxes. And as we’ve established, men have their won sexual boxes which bar them from any number of experiences they might find enjoyable, especially the idea of seeing sex as a partnership rather than a competition.
This might be off-topic, but the tutus at ball games got me thinking – I can’t think of any situation where a woman wearing men’s clothing would be met with anything like the kind of scorn a man in women’s clothing is*. In fact, I’m not even sure there is any “male” clothing that’s off-limits to women the way long skirts and heels are to guys. Now, heels are impractical and uncomfortable, but long skirts are actually kind of nice. I would like to be able to wear them without calling my masculinity into question.
*Note: I’m talking about my culure, aka the United States in the midwest. I realize women in other countires would face very real consequences for dressing like men.
Pingback: Manliness and Feminism: the followup « Clarisse Thorn
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Manliness and Feminism: the followup