Masculinity is a performance, Hugo Schwyzer writes, in which men differentiate themselves from boys.
Earlier this month, my column focused on modern-day “chivalry” and how men and women can negotiate gender-based courtesy in their romantic lives. In the piece, I pointed out something that feminists (starting with the hugely influential Judith Butler) have argued for years: gender is not what we “are” as much as it is something we “perform.” The give-away is the term “roles” that we use to describe what’s appropriate for men and women; in its most common usage, a role is a part played by an actor. And when it comes to gender, most of us—whether we’re conscious of it or not—are acting.
♦◊♦
Another helpful way to think about performance is to think about the distinction between the words “male” and “man.” The former is a biological term that applies to other species as well as our own. We are born male; unless we undergo sex-reassignment surgery, we don’t acquire maleness through a process. It is who we are.
A “man,” however, is something we’re expected to become through a process. And that process is more than biological. Drill sergeants and football coaches have long promised to make boys into men through the alchemy of discipline and danger and pain. It’s common to describe the loss of virginity as something that makes a boy a man. (Though the act of sex with a woman isn’t what does it—what makes a guy a “man” is when his buddies find out.) Manhood can also be lost even after it’s been gained; think of the unfortunate and un-ironic obsession so many twenty-something guys have with “Man Law Violations.”
It is other men who pressure us to perform “manhood” through feats of bravery, loyalty, and recklessness. The title “man” is something they can bestow—and just as quickly take away. We learn early what we can do to make us “men” in the eyes of our peers, and most of us learn early to avoid performing those things that will earn us ridicule. (It’s telling that the most hurtful way to put down a guy is, invariably, to imply that he is somehow feminized.)
But it would be unfair to suggest that there’s nothing more to performing manliness than playing the part of a high school sports hero or a drunken frat boy. Some of the ways that men act in order to feel more masculine are destructive (binge drinking, brawling, driving too fast, and other risk-taking behaviors); others are harmless, and still others are profoundly positive.
Part of the problem, however, with this notion of performing masculinity is the mistaken idea that in order for something to be genuinely manly it must be something women don’t do. And as women have been successful in moving into once all-male bastions, some men have felt the pressure to go to ever more violent and more extreme lengths to “play at manhood.” Within living memory, only men went into combat; within living memory, contact sports for women were non-existent. A man who went to war or played hockey was made more masculine by the role he took as a soldier or a forward. In a world where women go to war—and play hockey—men who believe that true manliness lies in doing what women can’t are forced to create ever more-violent activities from which females can still be excluded. (This explains the rising popularity of the most violent video games, as well as MMA.)
♦◊♦
But men who long for a vanished world of all-male preserves are making a fundamental mistake about masculinity. They think that the opposite of “man” is “woman” and that in order to prove oneself the former they must do (perform) things that no woman can. But it makes good sense to suggest that the better antonym of “man” is “boy.” To “perform masculinity” isn’t about doing what women don’t. It’s about doing what boys lack the will or the maturity to do.
So often, when someone makes a list of manly virtues (like courage, forthrightness, dependability, persistence), someone else rightly points out that women can also display all of these. That leaves many men floundering, wondering (as many writers here at The Good Men Project have wondered) what, if anything is uniquely good about masculinity? But the point is that performing manhood isn’t about differentiating oneself from what is female; after all, that’s a biological distinction that’s already in place. Rather, performing manhood is about deliberately choosing to do those things that are fundamentally adult rather than puerile.
|
But the point is that performing manhood isn’t about differentiating oneself from what is female; after all, that’s a biological distinction that’s already in place. Rather, performing manhood is about deliberately choosing to do those things that are fundamentally adult rather than puerile.
|
So when I choose to confront publicly a senior administrator at my college, the modest courage I display is about taking responsibility. It’s something a woman could do just as well, but when I do it (I’ve had occasion to do just this a few times in recent years), I feel like a man. Not in the sense that I feel infused with macho bravado, but in the sense that I feel as if I’ve done something that I couldn’t have done in my younger, more self-conscious years. And it feels good.
So is “performing manhood” just about being a responsible adult in a male body? Partly, yes. But there are other ways to do it as well.
♦◊♦
For example, clothing.
I live in hip West Los Angeles, where middle-aged fathers famously dress like teenage boys. I’m casual myself on the weekends and vacations, but when I go to teach or to an important meeting, I usually break out a Brooks Brothers suit or blazer. Growing up in my family, business attire from that famous flagship of preppiness was what symbolized adult masculinity. And while I’d like to think I’m a responsible adult whatever I’m wearing, I always feel more grown-up—and yes, more like a man—when I put on something just a bit more formal.
If we really are in a “man crisis” in America, I suspect it’s rooted as much as anything else in this fundamentally mistaken belief that manhood needs to be about rejecting anything that smacks of the feminine. With fewer and fewer all-male preserves left in our society, guys who cling to this outdated notion of what it means to perform masculinity will indeed feel themselves at a loss. But if we understand masculinity as something we choose to perform—and grasp that at its core, that performance is about distinguishing ourselves from immature boys rather than women—we can still find something pleasurable, meaningful, and redemptive in acting like “real men.”
♦◊♦
Lisa Hickey responds to this post:
If Gender Is a Performance, I’ll Take the Part of the Female, Please
—Photo JD Hancock/Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
Vocalyze
Masculinity is a mask that society places on boys and tells them that wearing it properly makes them men. The payment for this promotion is to be cut off from one’s emotions and to have one’s sexuality boxed in on all sides.
Masculinity is a myth, and it is a dangerous one.
“Masculinity is a myth, and it is a dangerous one.”
Misandry.
Eric, if you read Tomio’s response to Lisa’s article you’ll see he said the same thing about femininity. It isn’t misandry. He’s rejecting the whole concept and he’s got a good point.
I generally agree with Hugo’s premise. I sense in myself both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits. I choose to play with a variety of both. I revel in my ability and freedom to do so. My favorite boyfriends have also been unafraid of playing with both their ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits.
That said, I do think that there are differences between the sexes. I notice that in my own children. My son loves large muscle play (jumping, running, etc.). At 5 months, he was fascinated by the wheels of the truck on his shirt. My daughter can sit for hours doing crafts, quiet as can be. These kinds of differences do seem to play some sort of role but I cannot figure what those are.
In Lisa’s article, she indicates that the “oppositeness” of the sexes causes attraction. My view on that is both yes and no. As a bisexual woman, I do love the chest hair and muscles and maleness of men. I find that attractive. But I am also very attracted to women of all body types and sizes. Also, what I am often attracted to in another person may be traits I am seeking to find in myself but they are not necessarily ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ traits. Maybe it’s a certain confidence or joie de vivre or a tendency to challenge me to further growth.
Again, maybe being a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ is more about growing and developing ourselves rather than trying to perform in any particular way.
I agree with you, that there are definite differences between men and women (aside from the obvious). My mother once commented that women are like a river, where a man is a submarine in that river (not sure why she chose that over a boat)–one is free-flowing, focusing on many things at once, while the other is focused and driven to a single task. Both are powerful in their own right as well, but one is an enduring power while the other is comparatively stronger in a short moment.
As with most analogies, it’ll fall apart with a little scrutiny. There are definitely circumstances where the reverse would be true of either gender, or of the sub and water. The point, I felt, was that men and women aren’t exactly the same, but the differences are worth celebrating–in the same way I celebrate that I’m not an exact duplicate of any other human being alive.
I have no idea what the analogy is trying to demonstrate. The explanation makes me grit my teeth. It completely negates any sort of diversity within genders, one of the things that makes such social constructs destructive to individuals who are put under social pressure to conform.
More of the same, I fear. Find any given woman on earth, and (given time) I can find a man who displays the same attributes, positive or negative. The reverse is true as well. There is more diversity within gender groupings than there is between them.
I have twin sons. One loves trucks and footballs and laughs when he falls down. The other loves dress-up and magic wands and cries when he falls down. Despite some relatives saying the first is “all boy” I can find no evidence of any lack of boy-ness in his brother. He simply likes other things.
This is why I reject this dichotomy of social conformity. I will not allow either of my sons to be told that what they naturally enjoy is wrong when the truth is that it simply challenges failed assumptions about what it means to be a “man.’
Good point. This is definitely giving me something to contemplate.
And if they’re identical twins, they have the same DNA, so there goes the genes-are-destiny argument….
If that’s your honest opinion, then you are an idiot.
“Masculinity is a mask that society places on boys and tells them that wearing it properly makes them men. The payment for this promotion is to be cut off from one’s emotions and to have one’s sexuality boxed in on all sides.
Masculinity is a myth, and it is a dangerous one.”
Spoken like a true Privileged Westerner. The opposite of being a Man is being a Women. I’ll even take the analogy further and state that the absolute opposite of being a Man is being a Female.
Please take note of what they mean when they call you a Pussy or a Bitch. In Masculine society failing to live up to expectations is not only grounds to the forfeiture of your gender identity but failure also leads to the out and out revocation of your own Humanity.
Even at our most self loathing we know the term “Women” has too many positive connotations to be a suitable insult.
Why is this..?!
My friend let us look at Manhood in all it’s glory. Too many times we fear to define the obvious.
Masculinity is the act of being a Man
Being a Man is being in control
Of your emotions
Your Money
Your enemies
Your Women
and if you ‘re Lucky,
Your SOUL.
More importantly, being a man means that you engage in the willful devaluing of other men.
see (Rap Music & Mixed Martial Arts)
The battle to be recognized as a Man is fought with athletic competitions, violence , put downs, class warfare, earning potential, Murder and so on….
For the Most part women seem to be totally oblivious to this carnage. They don’t care how sausages are made they’ll just be happy to sit and wait to reward the most ruthless and prosperous of the winners.
That is how I differentiate between Men & Women.
I’m not sure what “being a Women” actually means, other than “I’m so busy trying to be smug that I can’t be bothered to actually write coherently.”
Oh. Wow. So THAT is what that means. Thanks for explaining it, because, you know, I’m too feeble to understand what “pussy” means.
Whether or not I measure up to someone else’s concept of “masculinity” – which is a social construct very poorly defined – I am no less a man, I am no less manly.
My soul belongs to my God. I don’t control it at all.
My “Women” – my life partner – is actually very purposefully in charge of our relationship.
As far as I’m aware, I have no enemies. If I did, I think it would be impossible to be “in control” of them unless I aim for total subjugation…which just seems like far too much work for me.
My money – is controlled by my life partner. I turn my paycheck over to her and I’m fine with it. She is simply a better manager of money than I am.
My emotions – I worked very hard not to be “in control” of my emotions and to experience them naturally and organically.
In sum – that’s a total load of bullshit you’re selling. That’s fine, because bullshit makes great fertilizer. But at least be honest of what you’re selling.
That is something I actively refuse to do.
Yes, I see how correct you are – there isn’t a woman on earth who engages in athletic competitions or put downs or violence or class warfare or even murder. Women have NEVER been engaged in social improvements or political action at any time in any place.
/snark
What a total load of crap.
@tomio Black aside from calling you a “Privileged Westerner”, no other analogies pertained specifically to you. The fact that you feel threatened does not remove the cultural prevalence of masculinity as I have described it.
I have a question though…During a Hypothetical home invasion will your wife care that you are a Male Feminist or a Man?
Feminists don’t believe in the gender role of the man as the automatic protector. Just because he’s a males doesn’t mean he should be the one to be the protector. A male feminists is just as likely to be the one hiding under the bed and pushing her out there to make sure he’s safe.
She will probably pick up her .38 (with custom pink hand grips) and defend herself. Thanks for playing “Let’s expose the hidden fallacy.”
Threatened? Dude, you are the best humorist I’ve come across all day. Please don’t confuse “explaining why you are wrong” with any kind of feeling.
You’re making yourself an unnecessary target. Try to understand that you not personally engaging in these masculine shaming tactics does not take away from the frequency or severity of their occurrence. In other words… THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU!
This is about Rap music, hip hop culture, violent video games MMA, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, Crime, Military life, High School Bullying, MTV, SPIKE TV, Social Stratification and anywhere else one man could have his boot on the neck of another man…
You know..Social Constructs that Make a boat load of money…….GUY STUFF.
My not participating in these tactics robs them of one more participant. Since “masculinity” is just a bullshit label, why put up with someone trying to spout nonsense. An unnecessary target? For what? Being adult enough to speak the truth?
Sorry, but you don’t get to address a comment directly to me and then claim it isn’t actually a comment directed at me.
Let the record show you have no majority to bolster your argument. All you seem to have is your wife and your children. I hope your little pocket of heaven gets bigger each day..(I truly do) but there is going to be a day when your personal manhood get’s challenged….Here’s to your health.
Huh? Budmin, I have no clue what you are talking about. As far as I can tell, at least as many folks agree with Tomio as they do with you.
the context is of this discussion is about asking what society rewards in men. No Nice guy crap just pure man on man misandry for women and power. This is not a Myth this is a sad fact of life.
Hmmmm…I am not sure I believe you on that one. What I do know with more certainty is that I am not attracted to men who play that game.
Hugo is helping to steer men away from the myth that the opposite of man is woman, and fighting through the misconceptions to get to the truth and heart of the matter. (The same truth applies for women: the opposite of women is girl).
The antonym of man is boy for all intents and purposes. When one proposes that the opposite of man is woman, not only is that perpetuating a lie, it is a dangerous lie with severe implications for the female gender and for society.
Using feminine degradation as a ploy to degrade and emasculate other men may provide a temporary panacea of masculinity for one, while the other feels utter shame; but in doing so, subconsciously men are suggesting women, and anything feminine, is not worthy. And therein lies the paradox. A dangerous Pandora Box paradox. Let’s show some real maturity guys; let’s stop using gender biases to shame other men, and that will go a lot to help stop gender inequality and make everyone feel good. Feeling good – that’s a great feeling! Spread it around!
“Masculinity is a performance” as stated in the byline is a half truth and silly in it’s half representation. Both masculinity and femininity are product offerings, monetized behaviors that imply quality of purchase. We wear them for no other reason than saleability and based on the rhetoric of the buyers we seem to be unwilling to accept cheap imitations.
The opposite of man for the buyer, (one who is shopping for context) is obviously no sale.As much as the opposite of woman is no sale.
It becomes abundantly obvious with terms such as “negotiate gender-based courtesy” and “The give-away is the term roles”. These are hilarious representations of entitled consumers.Unfortunately one gender has simply over priced themselves and are losing the marketability of their lost leader attraction. Sex.
The lack of or downturn in retail activity is a clear representation of false and misleading product promotion. Even affirmative action can’t seem to force the sale. In the competitive retail sector of western civilization, apparently one product is clearly reviewing their product offering.We are all excited for the product release, but the offering may be less than bargained for by his users.
If you are a man, women (not boys) ARE the opposite sex.
You’ve missed the point.
No, I showed his point to be w/o merit. Big difference between that and missing the point.
Although I agree with the premise of this post (gender [i.e. masculinity] is a performance), it’s still a bit tough to read. Said another way, since “gender” is not necessarily sex/bio-specific, the goal of adulthood should not solely be increased masculinity. Rather it should be the maturation of character, growth of integrity, etc.
Gender is also a competitive endeavor. Our collective society rewards “stereotypical” gender norms with the right to procreate. It’s not only the fact that you have to be a “Man”, you have to be a better man then your neighbor.
Which handily explains why I have a kid and make less than $30,000 annually and men who make twice as much can’t the time of day out of a lot of women.
admitting that gender is a performance, and admitting that the observation comes from feminists, is not enough to ground an argument in gender theory. you need to read more widely. butler goes further than this and deconstructs the idea of ‘biological sex’ as natural and pre-existing. gender shapes our understanding of biology, and even that understanding is part of the performance. if you don’t let butler’s whole point sink in, that gender shapes our entire world view, then any argument you make based on gender as performance will be incomplete.
this is why you miss the actual act that makes a man, exclusion. masculinity is about building hierarchies. you have tried to replace an outdated and unfashionable hierarchy, men over women, with another, men over boys. what doesn’t change is the privileging of something called ‘man’ over something else. the base point of masculinity in this article is still privilege and power.
if you hope to rescue the positive aspects of masculinity, a project i can’t support because it is always about trying to justify why being a ‘man’ is better than being something else (woman, gay, boy, animal, etc.), you need to show what aspects of masculinity are valuable in their own right. a good man can’t be defined by comparison, exclusion or abjection because then there will always be that ‘bad’ thing that isn’t a man and inequality will persist.
Well, you’ve made some interesting points.
I am wondering though if when you say masculinity is about hierarchy if you aren’t actually referring to patriarchy. It seems to me that there is a difference between the two.
Please explain further.
point taken but i think the concept of masculinity implies hierarchy. masculinity and femininity are two halves of a binary that mirrors many other binaries that form the way (at least western cultures) understand the world. these binaries work as analogies that make each other understandable. in other words, we read them through each other. for example, man/woman is related to mind/body, culture/nature. it makes particular sense for the social sides of gender: masculinity/femininity, strength/weakness, public/private, soldier/civilian, etc.
the point is that on half of the binary is always privileged over the other, and the privileged half is always aligned with masculinity. (there are of course exceptions and arguments about how the valued parts of femininity like caring could be the privileged half of certain binaries, but i think the point generally stands) so masculinity is defined by what is isn’t: not weak, not feminine, not … the article above just gives us a different ‘not’ using age.
think about this. in racist america and colonial africa, what was the most often used denigrating term for blacks in servitude: boy. as in ‘come here, boy’ or ‘don’t talk back, boy’. as long as we define masculinity by privileging it over something else, we allow these analogical binaries to perpetuate all kinds of inequality. this is the basis for patriarchy but the base is a privileged position for masculinity.
Okay, I think I understand. Here’s my next question: In pre-historic hunter-gather societies that (from what I hear) were egalitarian, do you think these same concepts of masculinity/hierarchy existed?
What I recall from taking anthropology is that hunter gather societies usually have very rigid gender roles, although women generally have higher status in those societies compared to agricultural societies. Day to day survival in a hunter gatherer society requires close teamwork of everyone in the group, and both men and women are seen as complementary and necessary for survival, whereas in agricultural societies, women are chattel property. Inuit people, for example, were pretty egalitarian but I vaguely recall that they had many taboos about male vs. female activities and behavior.
Thanks for the info Jill!
from my view, hunter-gatherer societies have nothing to do with anything. the article and my analysis of gender see it as changeable, shifting. if we don’t think we can change the way men and women interact, why bother talk about it? trying to learn about our world by looking at what we think pre-histroic humans did doesn’t help unless you think the way we act is hardwired into us. in which case, there’s no choice in the matter. i don’t believe that, and the absolutely massive diversity of human cultural practices seems to prove that we can act in any way we can imagine. so, to be blunt, the only people who care about what cavemen did are those trying to justify acting like troglodytes today.
James,
This was an intellectual exercise for me. I asked about hunter/gatherer societies because I wanted to explore (mentally) whether or not the gender stereotypes would exist under different circumstances. I am curious to know how much if any of our gender identity is hardwired into us.
Also, I don’t think hunter/gatherers necessarily acted as troglodytes. It seems to me that most evolutionary psychologists start their analysis at the advent of agriculture rather than beforehand.
james, youve not seen any hierarchy in feminist spaces?
do you really think that femininity is absent hierarchy?
.
even in a group of equals, there are always the prime movers and the opinion formers
hierarchy is human nature
appealing to human nature is ridiculous since human behaviour is nothing if not constantly changing. read my post again. i didn’t say anything about leaders or opinion formers. i talked about inequality. if you want to find a way to defend men’s privileged position in the world, there isn’t much of a conversation we can have. if you think the world is better when some people are unjustly given more power than others, i wonder what you would do if you weren’t one of the privileged? and for the sake of argument, since I know nothing about you, i always find it interesting when the oppressed defend their own debased position.
Please explain to black men in the ghetto how much more privileded they are than white suburban women, most of whom graduate from name brand colleges and get well paying jobs. Please explain to those black men how much more priviledged they are than those women. I’m sure you will convince them that they should feel guilty and apologize for their male priviledge.
The article peddles some of the usual stereotyping of males and females even while pretending to heroically break past stereotyping. Eg.
- It’s common to describe the loss of virginity as something that makes a boy a man. (Though the act of sex with a woman isn’t what does it—what makes a guy a “man” is when his buddies find out.)
[Problem: This is a stretched steretype, many boys don't boast of having sex to feel like a man, nor do they feel more a man for telling buddies they conquering women. Further, there are numerous positive stereotypes the author has avoided such as the more common behaviours of stoicism, or chivalry].
-It is other men who pressure us to perform “manhood” through feats of bravery, loyalty, and recklessness. The title “man” is something they can bestow.
[Problem: this is a reductionist statement and another stereotype. The fact is that women equally pressure men to perform feats of bravery, loyalty and recklessness by actively encouraging, rewarding or punishing. Women often refer to men as "wimps" for not standing up and fighting for her or for himself, and women frequently encourage men who do put themselves in danger- by offering her affection, praise, or attention.]
-…manhood needs to be about rejecting anything that smacks of the feminine.
[Peroblem: “the feminine” is a vacuous and amorphous term, and the author should consider it in the same category as gender. ie. it implies nothing more than a social construct and a stereotype, and on that basis it may indeed be something to avoid.
Apart from these major errors the article is actually very inspiring in it’s central message- that males and females are human beings first and that we need not subscribe to stereotypes. I recommend, in all politeness, that the author of this article consider working harder minimize his own tendencies for stereotyping of males and females.
breaking down stereotypes is exactly what he was attempting to do.
By referring to “the feminine” he reinforced a rediculous stereotype. He writes that men have the “mistaken belief that manhood needs to be about rejecting… the feminine”. It is rediculous to advocate that males reject the stereotypical notions of masculinity, and then suggesting these same men embrace the nonexistent stereotype of “the feminie”. If he wants to do away with the advocation of stereotypes then he needs to stop advocating the stereotype of “the feminine”.
Another stereotype he peddled was that only other males who pressure men to perferm “manhood”. This not only stereotypes all men as advocates of destructive masculinity, but deletes all women from thier participation in pressuring males to fit masculine stereotypes.
Whilst it is good that his above essay (well, half of his essay) attempts to break down stereotypes, I view his own stereotyping as typical of sanctimonius pro-feminist writers who fail to deconstruct thier own narratives and assumptions. It is no good pointing the finger at others when you are displaying the same flawed bigotry.
As mentioned above I do think the article has potential if it were cleansed of these flaws.
Being a man isn’t a performance. It is a part of who you are on a very deep, almost subconscious level.
Look at the films of 9-11. You have two groups of people, the ones who run AWAY from the burning towers because they are afraid, and the ones who run TOWARDS the danger because they know people in there need help. TITANIC has lots of stories like this. Men who put their wives and children into lifeboats and then quietly stood back and waived goodbye, even though they knew they would be dead in a few hours. Men who stuck to their posts in the engine room and the wireless shack to keep the power on and the radio going, so that others could have a chance of living. That sort of act isn’t “a performance”, it is a lot deeper than that. You don’t die at your post because you are trying to impress somebody, you stick to your job and die at your post because that’s who you are.
Modern Western society lacks any official “manhood rituals”, which is hard for modern boys. Society is all to happy to convince them that “becoming a man” involves a lifestyle that involves buying lots of stuff and hanging out at expensive clubs, usually in the company of what used to be called “loose women”. This lifestyle is popular, especially with the folks who make and sell expensive liquor, expensive shirts, expensive cars, and birth control devices. However it’s nothing more than being an irresponsible boy with more expensive toys.
For society to function it needs people who will take responsibility for their actions, and who will make sacrifices for others. Boys aren’t mature enough to do that, Men are.
So for you masculine/man = sacrifice and taking responsibilty for their actions. Wow. Like there’s always been men who did that. To me, that just makes a great human being. Not a man.
Also, You obviously know nothing about women and how they’ve been treated and what they’ve been forced to do over the centuries. The fact that women for centuries, and still in some parts of the world, were deemed nothing but property only, to be bought or sold. Couldn’t you see that the whole “Women and children first” rule has more to with the fact that it was always the women’s role to raise children. There’s no way a man would have ever stayed alive to take care of children. No way. Not back then anyway. that’s was woman’s work. For so long women have been viewed as sub-human. To be a woman was not to be a fully human.
Finally, the reason the word “performance” is used is because gendered behaviours are more arbitrary than not. And you’re right… these performances have long been indoctrinated into our behaviours so much so that we don’t even realize it. That’s what he means by “not knowing it.”
Not really sure how your talk about the oppression of women has anything to do with my point. You recite the standard version well, but I honestly don’t see how it is on topic.
Just so you know, the origin of “women and children first” goes back to the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead. Kipling refers to it as “The Birkenhead Drill” in one of his poems.
http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/WomenandChildrenFirst.htm While there may be a biological advantage to it, it no doubt predated Birkenhead (see the code of Chivalry) but its formalization is an outgrowth of that horrible Victorian culture that your Feminist studies classes no doubt taught you was the source of all evil, oppression, etc.
Yes, being a man does mean being a responsible adult and making sacrifices for others.
Notice however that this fact does not exclude women from being held to the same standard. The fact that being a Man requires responsibility and self sacrifice doesn’t mean that being a woman doesn’t too. Women make different sorts of sacrifices. Few women become combat fighter pilots, (though I’ve met some that are) but most all women will at one point or another stay up all night with a sick baby, or listen to their kids or husbands go on at great length about something they aren’t interested in , or clean up all sorts of things, or cook dinner when they are really tired, or buy school supplies instead of new shoes, or just keep peace amongst the rest of the family. That last one is a very underrated sacrifice, and very important.
As for indoctrinating behaviors… that’s called education. As for indoctrinating a sense of duty, self sacrifice and personal responsibility that’s called character. As for what happens to society when you stop doing that , that’s called the London riots.
Brendan, well said. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Judith Butler (Interview in Metropolis – June 2008)
“If we are referring to the various ways in which gender is understood as a form or a cultural interpretation of the body, I believe it is not appropriate to speak of good or bad genders: gender is extra-moral. Those who wish to establish the distinction between normal genders and pathological genders, or who set out to regulate gender are making a mistake. They are absolutely and universally wrong.”
Hugo, I have a problem when you write “And when it comes to gender, most of us—whether we’re conscious of it or not—are acting.
How do you know if someone is acting, or if that’s how they really are? It’s more than a little condescending to assume you know what people are doing better than they do. Sure, many guys peacock when it comes to women, cars, money, etc. But if the vast majority of men are behaving this way, maybe it’s not acting. Maybe it’s some kind of biological competitiveness that simply exists on a fundamental level.
I’m a Boston sports fanatic and I love beer. I also talk about women when I’m with my friends. But I’m not acting. I truly love sports, beer and admiring the physical beauty of certain members of the female population amongst my group of friends. Is this behavior stereotypically male? Yes. But it’s also just how we are. To be fair, we also talk about our kids, our relationships and—despite popular beliefs to the contrary—our feelings. However, I don’t view this as feminine. I don’t see it as masculine either. It’s just people talking to other people. I do not believe women have the market cornered on expressing themselves.
I think what he means is that so much of behaviour that is considered male or female is completely arbitrary.
The questions are…. why do you like sports? Is interest in sports a purely manly thing to do? Can’t women be interested in sports? And the women who aren’t, could it be because women have primarily been excluded from this all-male realm for so long, not just from participating with men, but from being fans? Is beer primarily a male thing? Can’t women also like beer? Can’t women admire male bodies too? Why do you think that your list is primarily masculine? I think Hugo is trying to say that we all benefit from questioning our strict adherence to gender “differences” and why one gender shouldn’t be seen as better than the other, or more acceptable than the other.
Maybe the most arbitrary roles of gender are the ones we are subjected to by expectation. Maybe reconfiguring expectations for one gender and not the other is another form of arbitrary gender expectation. Or we could use the word oppressed.
You misunderstand the definition of “performance” in this context. It does not suggest that what you are doing is contrived. It’s been a while since I’ve read Judith Butler, but the gist is that the behaviors (and indeed desires/interests) that we associate with a particular gender are created and codified within our culture. Thus, we are socialized to think and behave in certain ways that seem perfectly natural, but if our culture were different we would have different ideas about gender that would seem just as natural.
The flaw in that view is that cultures emphasize behaviors that are innate to either sex. One would need to be able to discern which behaviors are pure cultural invention and which are innate, which is difficult to do. For example, males do tend to be more physical and it is likely that the kinds of activities that appeal to them will also be physical. That may explain male interest in sports. However, various cultures place high value on men who play sports, so the male interest in sports may come from an attempt to conform, even if this attempt is limited to watching sports.
That said, I do agree with Hugo that to an extent people are simply giving a performance, although they do not view it as such. Much of the social cues are taught to people as small children, so by the time they become of aware of it, it is practically innate.
Feminists believe that gender is a social construct and not an expression of innate biological drives ( which it is) – until they meet a tranny. Then all of a sudden “gender roles” become innate again – and suddenly the tranny is a woman in a man’s body – so much so that surgery is the only solution and they are such “real women” that only leopard print micro minis can really express their irrepressible feminine identity.
Everything you want to change about society you deem a social construct – and everything you want to promote is innate. This is why masculinity just has to be socially constructed, but homosexuality just must be innate.
Homosexuality and masculinity are two different things. Homosexuality means that a person is attracted to someone with the same genitals. Masculinity is something that a homosexual person can perform. Masculinity is not something liimited to men. You’re obviously not a feminist, so don’t try to speak for one. It’s interesting that you’ve called yourself by “linguist.” The problem is that we are limited by the words and labels and the complex meanings associated with them. So when we say that a woman is trapped inside a man’s body, I think we can connect that to exactly what Hugo is trying to say. Our society says that genders are fixed. But then you have a man that doesn’t identify with so-called manly things. Since our society doesn’t really welcome a feminine male. Meaning a man isn’t a man if he wishes to have long hair, wear make-up, dresses and high-heeled shoes because those things have been relegated to the females. but it’s all completely arbitrary. I mean, we can have a look at history and fashion trends and come up with a whole of theories as to why it’s feminine to wear make-up when only a few hundred years ago, men wore make-up all the time.
The point is… it’s so much more complex a reason for a person to want to have a different body than the one they were born with.
“You’re obviously not a feminist, so don’t try to speak for one.”
Ha ha.. one of the oldest and cheapest tactics. I can’t say anything about a group I’m not a member of? I’m not speaking *for* them… I’m speaking *about* them.
Which has always made me wonder why women believe they have the right to speak for men.
Clear and beautifully articulated – Men and Women are different. Human beings are pretty much the same. Girls become women and boys become men by a process that’s unique to each but which each lead to mature human behavior – Thanks for a great post
I totally agree with you Hugo. Some of the comments have been interesting. Many people seem to want to hold on these differences between men and women. I like to identify myself as a human being first and foremost. And if we all did that, you’d see far more similarities than differences between men and women. The question is: what in our behaviours has been arbitrarily decided on over the centuries that have become “inherently” female and male? The only absolutely true difference between a man and a woman is their reproductive organs. But this ignores the fact that human beings can be born with both. This exception is what proves to me that there is no such thing as fixed genders. We are human beings and we are all capable of a multitude of behaviours and personality traits and interests and abilities. All of us are limited when we try to fix specific things to specific genders. I refuse to be reduced this way. And I think everyone should refuse it too.
The only true difference, I suppose, is that there is a version of human that can carry a child. The other version can fertilize an egg in the carrier of the egg. How the bodies manifest themselves is not always predictible.
Yes. Unfortunately, we tend to emphasize the differences between males and females (while ignoring anyone with a different gender identity).
I think the title is a little misleading, both as a statement of reality and as a reflection of what the article says. It’s a great attention grabber, but I didn’t get the sense from the article that you were making such simple dichotomies. I think the article is talking about distinctions, not opposites.
In reality, none of them are really opposites of any of the others.
One of the biggest culturally constructed assumptions about gender is that it’s an oppositional binary structure in the first place. It’s not logical or accurate to say that “male” and “female” are opposites. People talk about “the opposite sex,” but that’s oversimplifying a whole bunch of spectrums (spectra) that people fit into. (The idea of a spectrum is itself an imposed model, but I think it’s more accurate than the bipolar model.) There may be aspects that are opposite. For example, in one sense, maybe a penis and a vagina are opposites, but it makes more sense to say they are complementary than to say they are opposites. And a penis is clearly not the opposite of a clitoris. Not the same, but certainly not opposite either.
Maybe I’m just an Asperger-level literalist, but people use the word “opposite” way too loosely. Just because two things are very different does not mean they are opposites of each other. Even if two things are mutually exclusive of each other, that does not mean they are opposites of each other. Throw in the possibility of more than two genders and the fact that most people have “feminine” and “masculine” characteristics, and it’s hard to say that there’s such a thing as opposite genders.
Same with “adult” vs. “child.” If one thing is a developmental stage that the other goes through, then they are not technically opposites.
“We are born male; unless we undergo sex-reassignment surgery, we don’t acquire maleness through a process. It is who we are.”
The clause between the semicolon and the comma is unnecessary and not as trans friendly as I’m sure you intended it to be. If someone identifies as male, he’s male. He may or may not have a Y chromosome, and he may or may not change his body in any way related to his gender, but it’s not relevant whether he does so or not. If you want to talk about what he “acquires” or “becomes” via SRS, it belongs in the part of the post where you discuss the performance of manliness, not what you’re calling intrinsic maleness.
“Men need to take responsibility.” blah blah blah. Same Schwyzer propaganda, different presentation. In other words, men should abandon the freedom and self-determination of living for themselves, and “man up to feminism.” Oh, and while they’re at it, they can act like women as well. Bah!
Exactly. GMP’s basic message: “Good Men are women.”
It’s this kind of thinking/reasoning that causes 75% of women to reject feminism.
Like much of what is on this site, this article has a very positive, progressive message that is negatively impacted by an inability to see beyond one’s own primarily cisgender male perspective.
Please tell me exactly at what point in “sex-reassignment surgery” (you’re aware that there are many different transgender surgeries, correct?) that the “maleness” is created or injected or constructed. Female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals don’t “become male” when their breast tissue is removed or when a phallus is constructed from other bodily tissue. Most transsexual men have little to no genital surgery beyond an elective hysterectomy.
You oversimplify biological sex to a staggering degree, indicating a lack of familiarity with the relevant genetics, developmental biology, and neuroscience. Perhaps you might benefit from familiarizing yourself with intersex individuals — those who are biologically not within what we fairly arbitrarily establish as anatomical norms for male and female humans.
Furthermore, masculinity is not a necessary quality to be either male OR a man. Men can be varying degrees of masculine or feminine without it having a damn thing to do with their gender identity. Similarly, a masculine woman isn’t “more male” nor does she necessarily see herself as being “like a man.”
I’m a transsexual female. I’ve been on both sides of the gender fence. I’m a woman that knows what it’s like to be raised as a boy and subjected to those societal pressures, and my own gender transition — both physical and mental — has helped show me how little most people appreciate the broad spectrum of both males and females, as well as those who do not fit the binary in terms of biological sex or gender identity.
You make a good and convincing case against defining manhood as being in contrast to womanhood.
Still, why replace one false dichotomy with another one? Shortening the discussion to “The opposite of man is boy, not woman” seems to me like “The opposite of Paris is London, not Berlin” — you can more or less convincingly argue for any of these “opposites”, but you are always missing kind of missing the point…
What a fascinating idea! Wow, I’m familiar with Judith Butler’s work, but I had never considered this concept before. I think that if we could just get away from such a deeply rooted gender binary, this would quickly become evident. In particular, I loved this sentence:
“In a world where women go to war—and play hockey—men who believe that true manliness lies in doing what women can’t are forced to create ever more-violent activities from which females can still be excluded. (This explains the rising popularity of the most violent video games, as well as MMA.)”
Can’t at all agree Juliana – it’s one of those nonsense statements that people make (make-up), when they have an over abundance of words without a home. Seriously. They author is a prolific inventor of rootless ideas that tug at emotional rationality.
“The opposite of man is a boy” – what the fuck does this even mean? I can surely stretch it out enough to “wisdom is the opposite of naiveté”, but as the commenter above says – why not: “Paris is the opposite of London…”
That’s the problem with the Internetz – good writers have replaced good writing for good content/ideas – as long as it behaves lyrically and grammatically.
Boxing is a much more violent sport and has been around forever. MMA is civilized in comparison and very metrosexual….and its popularity has risen from the civilization of the sport.
And I am hesitant to use the word metrosexual on the internet, as it is being closely sniffed and monitored by a one-man militia known as Foucault’s Daughter.
Brendan, you didn’t mention that the act of pregnancy and bearing a child is a supreme act of adulthood, a supreme act of courage and sacrifice. I’m very offended. This shows once again how our culture privileges maleness above femaleness.
Anyone who doubts that gender is a performance should read books and websites on dating. They tell the men to act more masculine (read: in charge) and the women to act more feminine (read: submissive). John Gray, Annie Gleason and so many others seem to know that we’re putting on an act, but they stress that if we don’t “perform” the role, we’re going to sleep alone.
I’m really late to this conversation, but I’m excited to see all this questioning of what, if anything, “manliness” means. I absolutely agree that gender is performed. I hate to link-bomb the site, but I exhausted my gender ranting on my own blog a couple weeks ago in response to Matlack’s piece about the lost balls. Here’s the link in case anyone’s interested: http://butterbeanandcobra.blogspot.com/2011/07/last-word-on-manliness.html