Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

29 comments

  • At the risk of coming across as argumentative - I can't reconcile the idea that every group except boys benefit from positive role models that help young people see their potential. I've known too many people who've benefitted from seeing POC or genderqueer people represented positively to believe otherwise, and I've seen it in my nieces when they find out that women are professionals in a field that interests them and they don't have to give it up because "it's a boy job".

    Breaking down unhealthy gender stereotypes is an important job we all have to pitch in with, but

    Young men do not need a vision of positive masculinity

    feels like ceding all interpretations of masculinity to those who promote the kind of Gender Equity Reactionary Masculinity that came about in the later part of the 19th century which we now know as toxic masculinity. (Seriously though, it's behaviors and attitudes that have been promoted for barely over a century that eschewed actual traditionally masculine things like flower arranging, social sensitivity, and generally not being boorish.) If we're not willing or able to define positive masculinity for the next generations, we're likely to see more instances of the negative variety while possessing fewer tools to help offramp people from toxic behaviors to prosocial ones.

    I mean, I'm a cis het white guy who enjoys wearing clothes that are cut for women. I do flower arrangements, and whenever I'm gardening somewhere public hand cut flowers to little girls and little boys and children who might not self identify along that paradigm. I wear flowers in my hair, or weave them into my hats. I am unafraid to use my dude voice or stature/build in defense of others. I will tell you I'm living my best life as a disney princess when I'm carrying baby animals around. All of these things help to define my masculinity rather than dilute it, and that's not to say that others might do the same things and have it reinforce their identity as feminine, or androgynous, or however they identify.

    • I can’t reconcile the idea that every group except boys benefit from positive role models that help young people see their potential.

      The article isn't arguing against having role models; it's questioning why they have to be masculine specifically when desirable characteristics among people are largely gender neutral. To quote a relevant portion:

      To which I’d answer: why the hell do you need specifically masculine role models? My personal “role models” (to the extent I have any, which I actually try not to) are Emma Goldman (whom I’ve been told I resemble), Thomas Paine, Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Murray Bookchin, Hubert Harrison, Eugene Debs, Vera Brittain, A. Philip Randolph, Rose Pesotta, Dorothy Day, Paul Robeson, Aneurin Bevan, Shirley Chisholm, George Orwell, Martin Luther King Jr., Ursula K. Le Guin, and Ella Baker. These people all share traits I respect: courage, moral integrity, perceptiveness, commitment, strength in the face of hostility. Brittain was a pacifist horrified by war who nevertheless devoted herself in World War I to tending to men gruesomely wounded on the battlefield. Bevan rose from working in Welsh coal mines to become Minister of Health in the postwar British Labour government, where he started the National Health Service. This week I’ve been admiring Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian-American congresswoman who had the guts to stand up against most of the members of her party and tell the truth about the apartheid in Palestine. Emba and Reeves worry that young boys don’t have good examples of people they should try to be like. I say let them admire Rashida.

      I just can’t imagine thinking about masculinity or femininity in deciding whom to look up to. What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly? Why do stereotypically male traits matter in the slightest? Some of the people on my list might be more “masculine,” others more “feminine.” When we try to organize people this way, we quickly run into confusion. Paul Robeson was a football player, but he also performed musical theater. Is the former “masculine” and the latter not? (Robeson was also a Stalinist. People are complicated, and it’s best not to admire anyone uncritically!)

      And the author is correct. Especially as we gain more success in destigmatizing men doing traditionally feminine activities, qualifiers such as masculine and feminine make less sense. After all, if every gender wears makeup, then why is it feminine? If every gender likes sports, then why is it masculine? Because that's how it was traditionally? We changed the tradition because it sucked, so we don't need to continue being beholden to it.

      • it's questioning why they have to be masculine specifically when desirable characteristics among people are largely gender neutral.

        Because young men exist, and study after study has shown that positive role models who look like the group in question have an outsized effect as compared to those from a different group. It's a matter of how easily a young person can imagine themselves as that other person.

        I don't mean to argue against the degenderization of stereotypical behaviors and traits, and I've had plenty of role models who run the gamut of identities. But where is the inherent value in dismissing an identifier? We come to know ourselves through the similarities and differences we observe - what is gained if we think of one as inherently toxic? How much is lost if we abdicate our responsibility and allow regressive voices to offer the only definitions?

        It's perfectly fine to be a feminine man. Young men do not need a vision of positive masculinity.

        This is where my beef is. It's active dismissal of people for whom "masculine" is an identifier. This is an argument that there is no space for positive masculinity in social equity. If the goal is to destigmatize people being who they are, why are we choosing to stigmatize a subset of those people?

        What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly?

        I was hit for having emotions as a child. When my grandmother died, I was terrified of showing how sad I was because it would have meant a beating. I was terrified of acknowledging my female role models, terrified of the fact that I had them. I'd have loved to have a positive male role model! One who embodied the kinds of prosocial gender neutral behaviors that would have let me know I wasn't a complete outsider.

        • Because young men exist, and study after study has shown that positive role models who look like the group in question have an outsized effect as compared to those from a different group. It’s a matter of how easily a young person can imagine themselves as that other person.

          Right, and no one's arguing that they can't have men as role models.

          I don’t mean to argue against the degenderization of stereotypical behaviors and traits, and I’ve had plenty of role models who run the gamut of identities. But where is the inherent value in dismissing an identifier?

          The first statement leads to the second because again, if we degenderize stereotypical behaviors, then the label doesn't actually make sense.

          We come to know ourselves through the similarities and differences we observe - what is gained if we think of one as inherently toxic?

          No one here is labeling masculinity as inherently toxic. Just that it's a label defined by arbitrary cultural norms that are subject to change with a bunch of characteristics that are actually gender neutral (this is also the case for femininity).

          How much is lost if we abdicate our responsibility and allow regressive voices to offer the only definitions?

          I would say that if we have the cultural presence to project this kind of influence, that we should instead strive to move people away from this kind of thinking due to the above.

          This is where my beef is. It’s active dismissal of people for whom “masculine” is an identifier. This is an argument that there is no space for positive masculinity in social equity. If the goal is to destigmatize people being who they are, why are we choosing to stigmatize a subset of those people?

          I wouldn't say that this is stigmatizing anyone for being what is typically called positive masculine, nor does it exclude such men. It just calls for a small change in identity to one that makes more sense.

          I was hit for having emotions as a child. When my grandmother died, I was terrified of showing how sad I was because it would have meant a beating. I was terrified of acknowledging my female role models, terrified of the fact that I had them.

          I'm sorry to hear that your childhood was abusive and I'm glad to see that you've since been able to embrace your true self; it can be a very difficult journey and I'm always happy to see people overcome their hardships for the better.

          I’d have loved to have a positive male role model! One who embodied the kinds of prosocial gender neutral behaviors that would have let me know I wasn’t a complete outsider.

          Men like Terry Crews (whom I would consider a positive male role model) don't stop existing just because we laud them for their courage, bravery, and strength instead of their masculinity.

          • I'm sorry to hear that your childhood was abusive and I'm glad to see that you've since been able to embrace your true self; it can be a very difficult journey and I'm always happy to see people overcome their hardships for the better.

            Thank you. I was feeling some ways yesterday thinking we were talking past each other (unintentionally, I'm sure) but I really do appreciate it.

    • I actually found your point of view a good way to think about this.. To me, it suggests that masculinity needs to be redefined or the dichotomy "masculine versus feminine" needs to be forgotten about. In different cultures that have a dichotomy of masculine versus feminine, the definitions or, if you will, characteristics that define them are different, often radically so. Why can't it be manly to play with flower arrangements and hand out flowers to children? Sounds perfectly fine to me. Humans give meaning to body parts and behaviors with language. Depending on the society they live in, those meanings vary and evolve over time. Fashion trends in the Western world is possibly a way to understand this. Historically, the clothes that men and women wear that is "fashionable" changes over time. Sometimes prints are OK for men, sometimes they aren't. Maybe everything needs to be considered OK for everybody.

      • I appreciate you commenting, and I'm glad you found it useful as a prompt! I agree that "masculinity" needs an overhaul as a concept, and that the false dichotomy of masc vs fem should go by the wayside (as they pertain to stereotypes in society, not as facets of an individual's sense of self).

    • At the risk of coming across as argumentative - I can’t reconcile the idea that every group except boys benefit from positive role models that help young people see their potential.

      I think this is a good point that there should needs to be more positive male roles models. However, I think the article shows that we really need positive role models that are define beyond masculine and feminine traits. I think the reason that there is such difficulty is defining either of these terms was that they were defined as opposites of each other. So there is difficulty in getting valid definitions since all people have combinations of both of these traits together regardless of gender. We really should focus on universal value sets that are valid regardless of gender. I think this article could have better identified that there shouldn't be any gendered values such as these

      • I agree, more role modeling of universal Good Person™ traits is fundamentally necessary in breaking down gender stereotypes.

        But like, tell me that there's little value in a young man seeing another older man treat another person equitably and respectfully and having it explained as "the manly thing to do" and I'm gonna check out. Sometimes we have to tailor our language to meet the needs of the learner and we're not gonna get there giving regressive folks full reins of what words mean.

        • I agree. I think there should be a better definition. I would suggest up Terry Crews as my definition of positive male role model.

        • After thinking about this I think a lot of the traditional masculine values can be positive if defined the correct way. I'm sure any traditionally conservative men would say that Self Sufficiency is a valuable trait. But defining it as being able to cook, clean, change a diaper, etc it would be a more positive. Same with as a defender but define it as protecting minorities and those less fortunate instead of being able to kill a threat. These should be done and used

          • Totally agreed here. Paraphrasing a conversation my wife watched a video of a while back:

            Traditionalist: "men should be supporting their family. If you're a stay at home dad, you're not a real man"

            Guy being attacked: "I support my wife's professional aspirations, I support my kids' educations by being there to get them ready for school, by helping with homework, and by providing them with healthy home cooked food to support their physical and mental needs. I support them when they're sad, I support them when they're angry. I support their confidence by telling them how amazing they are. All you're doing is bringing home money, and that's a weak show of support"

29 comments