This comment of the day was by Philip on the post 5 reasons I don’t Say “Man Up”.
—
I have a lot of problems with mainstream definitions of manliness, some outlined in this article.
First and foremost, the definition of this and allied terms depend on who you ask, making it practically impossible to have a meaningful discussion about it. However, the predominate view seems to equate it with what I call “Social Dominance” (power, control, domination of tough situations and people, etc) first and foremost, with what I call the “Civility / Humanitarian” traits being an afterthought. When the chips are down, most people will put the latter ahead of the former, at least temporarily. Then so many will forget their lesson and go right back to glorifying a man’s Social Dominance over his Civility and Humanitarianism. In short, “manly” and allied terms are usually incoherent, if not self-contradictory.
*It is based on a macho ideal of masculinity, as implied above; often treats any other positive quality in a man more as a consolation prize than as a trait with intrinsic value is equal to, even greater than, Social Dominance. This dismisses “soft traits” that are ultimately more important for prosperity and security than are the Social Dominance traits alone.
*Confuses Utopias being impossible with accepting prevailing “human nature as it is”, especially the uglier aspects of human behavior.
*It is often highly selective in its facts from science, history, etc.. Playing up facts that support the macho ideal but dismissing other facts from those same fields that go against their ideal
*Based in Social Darwinism. See Richard Dawkins’ video “Survival of the Nicest” and J. Wes Ulm’s “What Darwin Did Not Mean” for more. Every major evolutionary biologist calls SD oversimple at best.
*Over-glorifies strength and bravery, as if blind to the fact that strength and bravery can be used just as readily for evil acts as well as good ones.
*It is hypocritical. Condemns weak and timid men when overcome with a problem they can’t handle, yet forgiving stronger and braver people when overcome by challenges just as far beyond their own ability to handle as were the weak and timid man’s problems.
Now to the opposites of “manly”, by implication.
*The opposite terms (“unmanly”, “emo”, “pussy”, etc) are inherently victim-blaming and counterproductive. Not only do expressing such contempt toward the weak and timid do nothing to solve the problem (at least not ‘soon enough’), it holds him responsible for situations beyond his control, even if only temporarily.
*Makes weakness, timidity, fragility, etc. into what they are not – traits that are more destructive to other’s well-being and dignity than are truly destructive uses of courage and strength – brutality, abuse, degradation, and just plain dehumanizing of others. Instead of blaming the weak and timid for their faults, blame is more properly assigned to the strong and brave who do commit bad acts.
*Both the immediate above attitudes are inescapably anti-progressive, bigoted at middling, and – if carried far enough – outright fascist.
This is not an exhaustive explanation, but I have hit the highlights.
______
Photo credit: Alejandro Juárez/flickr
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (at the risk of boring regular readers of GMP): The macho “ideal” disregards moral courage, which has often been a force of good in human history. For example, in this country the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s was driven by moral courage. You won’t see those who promote machismo even recognize the great courage of men and women whose moral convictions drove them to risk their lives for others. Don’t expect to ever see an article about Sakharov or Wallenberg in Esquire magazine. Philip, you’re absolutely right. Our… Read more »