To understand masculinity, you have to look everywhere.
I. Happy Hunting, Happy Haunting
In the last two decades, scholars in the fields of gender and sexuality studies—along with genderqueer pop stars, increasingly mainstream gay films, and even the latest brand of “no homo” advertising—have challenged the notion that masculinity either is, or at least should be, only the purview of straight, cisgender men. For the most part, these discourses arose in the 1990s from the integration of men’s studies into the broader field of gender studies, a newly burgeoning field which—for those of us just joining the class—was largely the result of feminism’s far-reaching impact on the academic playing field.
As Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble bothered the seemingly inviolable (if inevitably failing) logics equating one’s sex with one’s gender, and one’s gender with one’s sexuality, the assumptions about identity which sustained the political discourses of the time gave way to the realization that no, not all boys grow up to be the Marlboro Man, and not all girls grow up to be Betty Draper. Quite to the contrary, some women end up with a gender styling more akin to the former, and some men (though, quite frankly, not enough of us) the latter. Accordingly, academic trailblazers like Judith Halberstam questioned the conspicuous absence of dialogues about masculine-identified women, transfolks, and gay men in courses and anthologies of essays on masculinity studies.
♦◊♦
The idea for my own course last fall, then, was to take these developments in the field of masculinity studies as the starting point for my students’ inquiries into masculinity. This seemed advantageous for a few reasons. First and foremost, it became clear to me early in my thinking about the course that there were a number of lines of investigation that would not contribute to intellectually constructive (or even pleasant) discussion.
As Sally Robinson argues in her illuminating essay “Pedagogy of the Opaque,” a number of paradigms have come to govern contemporary discourses about masculinity. Chief among these is the “oppressor/oppressed” paradigm, whereby either women are the victims of ongoing patriarchal power structures from which men inevitably (ambivalently?) profit, or men are the castrated and condescended victims of an aggressive feminist uprising from which women inevitably (ambivalently?) profit.[1] While this sort of thinking makes for catchy sloganeering (what the kids these days call “trolling,” I believe), it’s nothing if not reductive. Moreover, as Robinson points out, “The oppressor/oppressed paradigm limits what can be learned about masculinity because it sets up a binary relation between the empowered and the disempowered that reproduces the same narrative regardless of historical or cultural context.”
Playing into easy narratives of men in crisis, feminisms that have lingered on past their use-by dates, and even tried-and-still-untrue bullshit about Mars and Venus at cosmic war, these old approaches don’t leave much room for telling (or reading) other stories about masculinity.
|
Similarly, Robinson finds problems with a simplified (if more pluralistic) model of studying “alternative” (read: “good”) models of masculinity set against “traditional” (read: “bad”) masculinities. While this second paradigm acknowledges that there are as many types of masculinity as there are masculine subjects—or simply performances of masculinity, identities be damned—it nevertheless leads to an “attack/applaud” mode of thought that is both prescriptive and simply doesn’t push things far enough; so, it still maintains a binary of either/or masculinities.
For Robinson, as for me, the problem with both of these ways of thinking and teaching masculinity is that they lead to a pedagogical experience in which
students come to feel that, for feminism, the only way to reconstruct masculinity is to destroy it altogether. Understanding that masculinity is in some sense a “problem” to be studied, students imagine that such a course might offer a cure for what ails men, but as anyone who attends to the growing American concern with the problem of masculinity can attest, there is a great deal of disagreement about whether feminism is the cure or part of the disease.
Such frameworks thus both misrepresent the richness of thought—feminist, queer, or otherwise—on masculinity, and fail to offer a way to consider it apart from knee-jerk political reactions and identity claims. Playing into easy narratives of men in crisis, feminisms that have lingered on past their use-by dates, and even tried-and-still-untrue bullshit about Mars and Venus at cosmic war, these old approaches don’t leave much room for telling (or reading) other stories about masculinity. And so, I found some new ones. I went hunting.
For stories, that is. It turns out that maybe the “cure for what ails” modern masculinity isn’t simply to throw out or demonize old stories about masculinity—many of which are as compelling and sympathetic as they are reprehensible—but simply to tell more stories, about more kinds of people who gives us more ways to think about masculinity, and who find it worth incorporating into their own understandings of how best their gender might be rendered. That some of these “more kinds of people” are women, transfolks, and gay men—people who have, as the historical story goes, been at odds with the sorts of power and privilege which masculinity usually confers—goes a long way toward disrupting not only the assumptions we make about who is masculine, but also about why and how masculinity is such a persistent, historically flexible, and sometimes even downright attractive cultural phenomena—not just in spite of its flaws, but also sometimes for them.
♦◊♦
Accordingly, my working thesis for my course—though not necessarily my students’—might go something like this: Despite its usual associations with subjects whom we might crassly and easily group together as “men,” masculinity is in fact most apparent from its margins[2]; when it is embodied, practiced, and desired by subjects whose relationship to masculinity mark their performances of it as intriguing, troubling, irrelevant, hyper-stylized, unconvincing, more-than-real, counter-intuitive, or any other emotional shorthand for “mixed up.” What this means, I think, is that masculinity might be best described not in the cultural venues where is thought most glamorously to “succeed”—Super Bowls, cozy family sitcoms, Wall Street bankers in pin-striped suits—but in those instances when it is made culturally legible by those subjects whose performances of masculinity are not spectacular, but spectral; those moments which uneasily and beautifully haunt the means by which we come to recognize masculinity as a cultural form in the first place.
In other words, if masculinity was ever conceived as the unproblematic purview of the “manly man”—indeed, if such a “manly man” ever existed outside the nostalgic mode, which seems to be the preferred frame of vision for American culture’s latest bout of willful amnesia—then the last two decades of work on masculinity have thoroughly killed the relevance of such a notion. My course would be about masculinity’s surprisingly rich afterlife.
Needless to say, perhaps, the grand narrative of my course was one of mixed emotions.
Wow, you find this article complicated and hard to read…?
@Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette,
It all hinges on whether you treat life as a lived experience or as an abstract intellectual exercise.
I thought you were being sarcastic … until I read your previous comments.
It’s obviously both. And, just as obviously, the author realizes that. Kaelin’s pretty clear about how this experience effects him, personally, as lived.
“It’s obviously both” really? Life is a lived experience, abstract intellectual exercises are activities we do while living, they are not life itself.
There was little clear in that article, it reads like stream-of-consciousness post modern drivel. I would really like a translation, maybe using concise and accessible language would help? Seriously, Kaelin probably has something worthwhile to say, he just didn’t deliver in this article.
Dude, Kaelin’s talking about how trying to teach modern gender theory in even a supposedly liberal institution such as the university makes him piss his pants in fear of being called a “preeeeeevert” and “sexshual maniac”. It doesn’t get more “lived experience” than that, my man. And it’s unworthy of you to belittle another man’s lived experience just because it doesn’t personally connect to yours. As for the article’s “inaccessible language”, what esoteric words are tripping you up, exactly? “Trailblazers” and “demonize”? How about this: point to a direct quote of Kaelin’s that you find impenetrable. Just because you are… Read more »
Thaddeus G. Blanchette
You said,
“Kaelin’s talking about how trying to teach modern gender theory in even a supposedly liberal institution such as the university makes him piss his pants in fear of being called a “preeeeeevert” and “sexshual maniac”.”
So that’s why he wrote in code? Seriously, I understood all the words, but the writing is unnecessarily complicated.
Thanks for the translation.
“Any professor who says they aren’t terrified when walking in to meet students on their first day teaching a new class is either lying or tenured—probably both… At any rate, I was more than slightly nervous walking into a classroom last fall to teach a First-Year Writing Seminar at Cornell University. And, along with the usual beginning-of-the-semester uncertainties, I also found my mind wandering to far more imposing worries. After all, this wasn’t just any class; for the first time in my career it was wholly my course, from conception to execution. This wasn’t a Freshman Comp rubric I was… Read more »
Or possibly I’m a tired, busy person reading a lot disappointing articles on a crap website that keeps refreshing and came across an article completely out of place. Now if I had the time and was reading that piece, sitting in a comfortable lounge chair in a library somewhere or possibly in a study with a glass of sherry handy, I would have given it time. Yes, the second page is more readable than the first, yes he makes some good points and to be fair, he probably didn’t write it for this publication. I agree, his ideas are good… Read more »
Omigosh, this is one of those pieces that just screams, “I’m so very smart that I can spend a whole bunch of time writing about something of which I know little, with parametrical remarks to obfuscate the subject matter, so I an impress those that don’t understand what I’m writing.”
Give it a rest buddy.
Masculinity is much like sausage, you just don’t wanna know what it is, but you know it when you see it and most likely will like it when you do.
Kaelin’s piece gets my vote for best article published re: MRAs in this issue of the GMP.
It’s a very good piece.
my, what a lot of invective for a piece that was trying to do some good along the lines of gender, masculinity, neo-feminism. what a lot of people forgetting this course was offered and played out within the context of cornell university’s critical community, where queer studies are already established, and where people who disagreed with kaelin’s approaches and theoretical groundwork were perfectly free to . . . drop the course. for my part, i’m glad you’re fighting the good fight, kaelin, getting people to see the performance aspects of gender, to realize it’s narrow either-or’s that oppress us and… Read more »
Although erudite in execution, there are gremlins lurking in the flowerbed and hiding behind the flowers. “Part of the risk we run whenever we undertake the onerous task of finding and exposing the misogynistic, misandrist, or otherwise “bad” underpinnings of a cultural artifact is that what we end up finding—the “wrongness” of it—might be painfully obvious, and also might not be the whole story.” There is no risk whatsoever, when our sensibilities are contained and reside in consumerism. We simply migrate the inventory for a better fit. As is the case in this culture and particularly with the shopping class.Well… Read more »
I never had a problem with feminine men being feminine and masculine women being women. If that is their nature then go for it, but what feminism tries to do is make men to be feminine and women to be masculine. It’s just as bad for a naturally masculine men, which is the majority of males biologically, to be castrated, which is what feminism does, it pulls them back, tells them they are wrong to have urges and makes parents think they need to be on drugs for ADD. And tells women that they should not be nurses or stay… Read more »
I don’t like the words masculine and feminine anyway because there really are no definitions for what they are. Plus, they imply a type of superiority and inferiority complex as well. Masculine has always been seen as superior , and femininity has always been seen as inferior. For example: if a guy acts feminine, whatever that is, he’s construed as gay, a pussy (which is a degrading term, not only to men, but to women as well, and most people don’t even realize it), a wimp, a sissy boy. Yet, if a woman acts masculine, she is often seen as… Read more »
Have you considered dropping the “Y” from your name? What’s great about masculine women is for allot of men it means one less person to take care of. I think it’s great if you realize that femininity limits your potential hey, get rid of it. Many men are just sick and tired of women back seat driving their masculinity. Get your own car or walk. Unfortunately feminism for many means surrendering your individuality to some homogenized expression of equality that you don’t get to define. Which is like being walked on.
“what feminism tries to do is make men to be feminine and women to be masculine” Indeed. I truly believe feminism started because some women were jealous of men and wanted to be them, but they could never take men’s place unless they destroyed men as masculine first. Feminists are angry because they were not born men and they believe femininity is inferior. That’s why they tell women that a career is more important than a family. This hurts men and women alike. Feminism is pure hate. Feminists hate men, they hate women, they hate themselves, and they damn well… Read more »
Keith: “What’s great about masculine women is for allot of men it means one less person to take care of. ” I always looked at relationships as a means that you support and take care of each other, possibly in different ways. I ideally know my best relationships are with men that are different from me because we each have our hidden talents we bring to the table. THis doesn’t make me less of a person or woman. Keith: “I think it’s great if you realize that femininity limits your potential hey, get rid of it. ” Does your masculinity… Read more »
Erin: interestingly, so do I, unfortunately I never found it to be reciprocal, it is a nice ideal and at times less than ideal is disappointing but not disheartening. Having a partner or friend for that matter that can appreciate your uniqueness regardless of gender, but in context to your sensitivity to a relationship is a gift to enjoy. I have learned a great deal from women, in fact in my younger years I made it a strong focus to learn from women. I spent three years of my life as an apprentice to women. I worked as a housekeeper… Read more »
The example of Angelina and Johnny Depp is another example of how the pay gap is more about performance than discrimination. Another example, a couple of years ago I had a couple of spare tickets to the Men’s and Women’s Australian Open Tennis finals. The men’s tickets were sold out months before and I could give them back, after several hour effort I sold the womens tickets for just over half price. I watched both finals, the womens final was good, the mens was better. The top women just can’t play tennis at the same standard as the top men.… Read more »
You’ve completely mischaracterized feminism and thus attack a straw man.
Feminism does not force women to have careers. It defends the unpaid labor of being a stay at home mom if that is what woman wants to do… and it works to make the world more accepting of stay at home dads by peeling away these strict gender rules.
Henry, the gender gap feminists say that women should be in equal numbers in top jobs. If women choose to stay at home and look after children they are ineligible for top jobs. Quotas for politicians, boards and top executives assume that women will participate in the workforce at roughly the same rate as men. By implication it is saying that women should get out and be equal in the workforce and it is prescribing quotas. Housework is NOT unpaid. It is untaxed. My wife is currently a stay at home housewife. She drives a Mercedes-Benz, plays tennis 3 times… Read more »
At the same time, we need to acknowledge, finally, that “masculinity” as a cultural style was never properly even “ours” to begin with. I think that depends on how one defines masculinity. I think masculinity belongs to men in the same way that Japanese culture belongs to the Japanese. It is defined by the attributes of the people to created and largely perpetuate it. Is it possible for someone outside of a culture to adopt the mannerisms and seemingly become a part of it? Yes, but that would not make American otaku Japanese anymore than it makes Japanese kids obsessed… Read more »
First of all, culture is not property in the same way that language is not property. Culture and language are forms of symbol manipulation, not objects which can be owned. So nothing cultural “belongs” to anyone in particular. Either you know French and speak it or you don’t. You don’t have to get the French government’s permission to speak it and you don’t have to pay royalties to do so. Likewise, masculinity is a series of styles and attitudes, behaviors and positionings. It doesn’t “belong” to men. Anyone who can pull it off is masculine. I know some incredibly masculine… Read more »
Knowing French would not make one French. Behaving in manners that are common in French society would not make one French either. That is what I meant by culture belonging to a group. It is the same a person’s style or manner of speaking. Most of the pop musicians imitate Michael Jackson’s style and music, but they are not him, even those doing their best to literally sound like him. The issue is not whether women can engage in the same behaviors that men do. Of course they can. The point is about how we distinguish masculinity from femininity. If… Read more »
Actually, and I say this reluctantly, the liberal position on masculinity is mainly incorrect. The sociobiological constraints on gender behavior are fairly compelling, although I admit there’s culture variation that’s epiphenomenal. NB I’m not the other Henry on here, if anyone’s confused.
I read this article three times in an effort to translate it into English. Near as I can tell, the author is saying there are many stories of manhood. Yes?
Wrong. The author is saying there are many storis of manhood, and he is the only one who can tell them.
Isn’t that really the mandate of this site, to tell you and me what our stories are.
Why don’t you leave the site then?
Oooo… someone stepped on a nerve.
most of the articles go above my head too, and I thought this was a site for men, plain simple, not convoluted insane rubbish. I think I read an article about a woman wanting the guy to have a sex change and then dying in a tent, or something, insane shit… this whole site is full of weird people writing their insanity and having it being published
I kinda think if someone’s going to accuse a piece of being a “hate-rant,” he should at least support that accusation with arguments and evidence.
Or, hey, maybe he thinks everyone will just take his word for it.
Color me unimpressed with some of these MRAs who are showing up to defend their movement.
Are you serious?
The author rants for two pages about how male characteristics are evil, wrong, twisted, yada yada yada. Then he proposes that all men adopt a new identity based on what he says. The English major and ultimate authority on who men should be. Of course, he did not come up with any of it. Both his “malignant man” diagnosis and his”benevolent woman” cure are straight from the feminist play book.
At first Antz, I didn’t feel right with your position, rereading the last paragraph it became clear and I have to agree with you. I simply replaced the view from masculine to feminine and realized that it’s bullshit. Femininity and it’s definition now belongs to women, Feminism has removed the discussion of cultural style of the feminine. Apparently masculinity (me) should be available to every estrogen contortion imaginable. Screw that!
Antz, did you even bother to read the piece? Where does Kaelin situate masculinity as “malignant” and women as “benevolent”? The entire thrust of his argument is that this sort of simplistic and reductionist dichotmoy should be rejected.
My point exactly, it’s too hard to understand. Life is too short.
What about those of us who only bathe in their blood because we’re kinda bored on a Tuesday night? If only they programmed something good on TV then for me…
I’m a sociologist who has made his peace with biological takes on sex/gender. Yes, there’s huge variation, but gender more or less centers itself on sex. I get a kick out of reading postmodern approaches at times, but I think that they unfortunately lead us away from truths we don’t want to face. I read Judith Butler, and believe that she mainly writes drivel, however. What should make us suspicious is that it’s English departments coming up with this stuff. They have no commitment to anything empirical, and no relationship these days to any cogent theory.
I agree with what you are saying, and I apologize in advance BUT … When it comes to “empirical” reasoning, why is peer review failing in Sociology? I avoid Humanities research as much as I can. However, I recently had unavoidable contact with two very deeply flawed papers, both in a journal called “Sex Roles”. Here is one of them. The paper attempts to establish hiring bias by white males using a sample size of 80. The authors had to include 5 self-selected “non-earnest” participants in order to reach a ridiculously thin X2 certainty of 96% (why even have a… Read more »
Sociology can very frequently be called the “Church of Sociology,” because journals are procrustrian in what they publish, and ideological. (By the way, I’m not going to be impressed by your field unless I know what it is, and maybe not then…) You’re generalizing, which you know of course. The study you cite, even if true, is not generalizable in any way, so it’s not science in any way. It MIGHT be program evaluation, which isn’t science but does tell programs what they’re doing. By the way, I don’t know of any sociologists who leave questionaries out by the cafeteria.… Read more »
“I’m not going to be impressed by your field unless I know what it is” I am not impressed by my field either. Biology. Usual publication limit is 99.99% or better certainty, which is far from adequate. Better than Sociology though. “The study you cite, even if true, is not generalizable in any way, so it’s not science in any way.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, Vol. 87, No. 6, 817–831. I agree, it is not science, it is junk. But they think it is science. “I don’t know of any sociologists who leave questionaries out by the… Read more »
Sociology is more stochastic, probabalistic. When done well. When not done well, it’s bs, of course. Snowball sampling isn’t scientific, at all.
I’m a jerk at times too.
Ha! Has to be the same Henry Vandenberg: “Snowball sampling is meaningless…”
I remember that well from discussion group.
Henry, snowball sampling is meaningless IF one presumes to build a statistical argument. If one intends to build a descriptive picture, a Weberian ideal type, it’s not a horribly unscientific methdology
And I’d be more impressed with YOU if you spelled my named right. I doubt if Weber would have snowball sampled. Not his thing. What discussion group?
Just a quick personal question: are you the same Henry Vandenberg who was a grad student in the UW Madison sociology department back in the mid 1980s?
No, I’m a 66 year old University of Texas PhD (1996). Got it late in life. I have a masters from UC Irvine from 1982.
Men’s studies follows ideological feminism and is a sub-group of women’s studies.
Hopefully, male studies will correct this ideological bias.
Wonderful piece. I minored in Queer Studies and it was the best choice I ever made!