“Boys don’t cry” stereotypes harm masculinity

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2014-02-05 15:49

Article here. Excerpt:

“Man up” is a phrase some men, and even some women, have heard in their lifetime.
The Baylor Lariat sat down with Dr. Mark Morman, director of graduate studies, who researches male/male friendships to identify how masculinity affects men and women.
...
Q: How are boys forced to prove their masculinity in today’s society?

A: The obvious is control your emotions, don’t be seen as emotional, don’t be seen as open, vulnerable, keep it under control. Again, I think it goes back to the activities and jobs we pursue as men as a way to reinforce and identity with those kind of masculine things. I’m doing a study of firefighters right now, and 98 percent of firefighters in America are men. So, “I want to show my manhood, there’s an occupation that will prove it to everyone.” What’s more manly then these firefighter guys that go into burning buildings and save people and rescue and do CPR and it’s an incredibly manly, masculine sort of job. That’s how people are forced, or I would say allowed.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

(I had been on travel for one month: oil rig, NY, California, now back in Norway. hello again.)

Moving on...

I have read a lot along the lines that "masculinity is a social construct." I have read the work of Judith Halberstam "Masculinity Without Men" (where she argues that dykes can "perform" masculinity better than men).

Both are feminist arguments that point to masculinity being a performance. I am no longer so sure I agree. I am not very comfortable with the statements I am about to give... they are still forming... but I will try (so excuse me if I go off the deep end). I will get explicit for a moment now, but bear with me.

When asked, a woman might point to the areas of her reproductive organs -- ovaries -- and say "they are inside me, somewhere about here". She might say "my clitoris is here, inside, look hard... My G-spot is somewhere in here... When I am aroused, I am moist and red, generally. When I have an orgasm, it makes me feel like a wave overcomes my body. It extends in time..."

The entire nature of the female orgasm and reproduction -- the gender -- is steeped in uncertainty (perhaps ambiguity) (this is not a judgement call: I think it is beautiful).

Now if you ask a man, he will speak along these lines (and with bluntness)... "These two ovals are my reproductive organs. They are right here. You can see them, touch them, hold them. When this penis is stiff, I am aroused. When a white fluid is ejected, I am having an orgasm. It last five seconds.

So, yes, these are generalizations, but this is by and large how it often seems to me.

It seems that all these arguments about masculinity being a performance stems from a mindset of feminist controlled thought which elevates ambiguity and uncertainty as a defining characteristic of gender. And while this may be true for women (in a good way), it is not necessarily true for men.

I am a little concerned about all this talk that states masculinity is a performance or a social construction. Such arguments are, I think, essentially feminist (deriving from feminist focussed schools of thought). And as feminism starts to turn its attention to men (i.e. Kimmel), it is doing so equipped with a set of tools that does not necessarily apply to men.

I see men everyday... good men: my son, my brothers, engineers, construction workers, mathematicians, ballet dancers, gay men, straight men. And I rarely see them as consciously "performing" their lives.

I wish I could say this better... I know I am not doing such a great job. I suppose I am trying to say that all this feminist tripe about masculinity being a veil, an act, a performance, a construction could be detrimental to men. And might do more damage to men and masculinity.

I would certainly welcome any disagreements as I try to state this better (or abandon it as nonsense from jet lag).

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Thu, 2014-02-06 14:04

This is the old 'nature vs nurture' argument. For centuries humans have been trying to decipher what part of their behavior is nature (or biological) and what part of their behavior is nurture (or learned due to social construct). Being adopted, this has always intrigued me as my mom attributes any good characteristic she sees in me as a result of her good nurturing, and any bad characteristics as "genetic". Myself and my 3 siblings are all adopted, however, my brother is my biological brother which gives me an additional perspective.

Most all researchers on the matter agree that our social behaviors form from a mixture of nature and nurture, but exactly where the line is drawn has always been debated. I think it is impossible to separate and therefor measure, so any so-called results on the issue will never hold up to scrutiny.

Just like this author, feminists are known for giving too much credit for nurture, they nearly completely ignore biology. They think gender roles are just learned behaviors that we can and should "unlearn". However, they overlook the fact that as roles and behaviors change, families seem to suffer, that women need too much "help" in the form of government handouts and government regulations like quotas. They also forget that in order to get their results they need birth control and abortion, so they are actually altering their natural female state before they even begin to measure the effects of social construct. And how does one explain animal mating behavior, did the animals just learn this and then kept repeating it or is in innate?

Keep in mind there has never been a successful single gender society. I think feminist tried once in the '60's but it eventually faded out after about 6 years and they often forgot to mention that the woman traveled outside of the society for work and other necessities.

Anyway, this is a subject that interests me and I always like these types of articles and discussions.

PS- welcome back Thomas!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Thu, 2014-02-06 23:26