Charles Blow asks whether masculinity has been shaved down to an unrealistic definition that only few can fit in.
In The New York Times this morning, Charles Blow writes about “Real Men and Pink Suits”:
And it’s about understanding that masculinity is wide enough and deep enough for all of us to fit in it. But society in general, and male culture in particular, is constantly working to render it narrow and shallow. We have shaved the idea of manhood down to an unrealistic definition that few can fit it in with the whole of who they are, not without severe constriction or self-denial.
The man that we mythologize in the backs of our minds is a cultural concoction, an unattainable ideal, a perfect specimen of muscles and fearlessness and daring. Square-jawed and well-rounded. Potent and passionate. Sensitive but not sentimental. And, above all else, unwaveringly heterosexual and without even a hint of softness.
A vast majority of men will never be able to be all these things all the time, but they shouldn’t be made to feel less than a man because of it.
And, later, Charles looks at how we judge what is good:
Start with this fact: The truest measure of a man, indeed of a person, is not whom he lies down with but what he stands up for. If we must be judged, let it be in this way. And when we fall short, as we sometimes will, because humanity is fallible, let us greet each other with compassion and encouragement rather than ridicule and resentment.
—
photo: misserion / flickr
I think Charles Blow is out of touch. I work for a large company on the east coast. Men wear pink shirts and ties all the time, including me. It’s no big deal. Our customers include every federal agency, state, the most of the Fortune 2000. They all seem okay with our sales guy’s occasional pink shirts and ties. He may need to get out into the business community where millions of us regular, masculine men don’t give his concerns a second thought,
I think it all depends on where you are. In the UK, for example, not only do guys wear pink, they seem to be relatively comfortable with platonic physical contact. Or at least that’s what I’ve observed.
In my rural hometown in California, though, men are definitely not wearing pink, or even purple. The “real” men play sports, and the real “real” men smoke cigars and chew tobacco. And anyone who doesn’t want to get ostracised is wearing earth tones.
For some places it might be out of touch….for for some I think it’s spot on.
Rural residing tobacco chewers are only representative of rural residing tobacco chewers, not the average man.
This may be spot on for rural residing tobacco chewers but not urban or suburban men, and certainly not non-tobacco chewers who live on the east or west coast.
lol. No I just meant, it’s all relative. What’s normal for urban men isn’t always normal for suburban men. And what’s normal for urban men in the US isn’t going to be normal for urban men in the UK, necessarily.
And it’s not just about the ‘pink’ shirts. I mean I figure you realize that…but I know guys who have gotten over the whole wearing pink thing, but are sticking to traditional ideas of what it means to be a ‘man’ in other ways. So I think Blow’s article is valid…it just may have been more valid 20 years ago.
I agree that urban and suburban culture isn’t exactly the same; however, my point is that the stereotypes he paints as common are truly decades-old-dated in both urban and suburban communities.
Ah, yup. I just thought you were trying to extrapolate urban and suburban cultures to rural cultures.
i understood the point he was trying to make…but shouldn’t there be a … dareisay, a ‘higher standard” into the definition of a man?
or essentially, is a ‘man’ just a human being with a p*nis?