"The women of Bikini Kill let guitarist Billy Karren be in their feminist punk band, but only if he's willing to just "do some shit." Being a feminist dude is like that. We may ask you to "do some shit" for the band, but you don't get to be Kathleen Hannah."--@heatherurehere


Monday, May 07, 2007

Feminist Masculinities

Sara over at F-Words had something interesting to say recently regarding the fact that Andrew Sullivan thinks our modern culture is a"male loathing" culture. Sara's main point here is this:
Are there really enough - and influential enough - feminists who dismiss "maleness as such" that they have created a whole male-loathing culture?
I tend to agree with Sara here, and I think her question speaks volumes as to where Sullivan gets things wrong. More specifically, I think Sullivan is laying the blame for complex and changing conceptions of masculinity at the feet of feminists. It's understandable on some levels as to why he would do this: Feminist critique is one of the central ways in which we all started to question traditional male masculinity. Implicit in Sullivan's line of thinking, though, is the idea that, because feminists helped to start the ball rolling, they are responsible for giving us some 'positive' conceptions of masculinity as well. He says:
The point I was trying to make is that some feminists have tried to problematize maleness as such, without making the significant distinctions my reader rightly highlights. The choice is not "real men" or "metrosexuals." It's more complicated and interesting than that.


And, of course, it is more complicated and interesting than that, oftentimes. But that doesn't draw away from Sara's criticism (that saying "some feminists" is question-begging); nor does it dissuade me from wanting to ask: Who should be redefining masculinity, and how should it be gone about?

Who Should Define Masculinity?
In some ways, this question in something of a non sequitur, or something of a category mistake. What masculinity means is defined, implicitly and explicitly, by all of us, all of the time. This is part of the fallout of what I think is a very strong force in feminism: The dissolution of essentialist perspectives. That is, we don't find masculinity here in the world--we create it. (Actually, it's a combination of both finding and creating, with the caveat that there was no original point at which we found masculinity before we also acted on the concept. The point still stands that any one take on masculinity isn't The Essential Masculinity.) Perhaps more directly to the point, the fact that Sullivan has to talk about what masculinity is at all is in part a result of feminist critique around whether or not it makes sense to think of facets of identity like 'feminine' and 'masculine' as somehow essentially defined, or whether it makes better sense to see these facets of identity as constructed, though pervasive.

Even though feminists may have been instrumental in getting people to understand that traditional masculinity wasn't writ on high, foreverandeveramen, that doesn't mean that feminists alone are responsible for coming up with alternative masculinities. It seems reasonable that feminists could and would have some good things to contribute to a discussion of alternative masculinities (and, it turns out, they sure do!), but there's no reason to believe that it's up to them alone.

That said, I do think that men who identify as feminists have a responsibility to investigate and create alternative masculinities. I don't think they can do it alone, and I don't think they ought to try. Still, from a practical perspective, it makes sense for men to think deeply about traditional masculinity, and to come up with possible alternatives to it (among which might be something like and abandonment of the concept). Given that masculinity isn't just for men, people of all genders will have something important to say about masculinity: But that doesn't leave men off the hook.

Do We Need Alternative Masculinities?
Still, I think that Sullivan stumbles onto something that does need to be addressed, something which has been addressed here on Feminist Allies and other places: Given the critique of traditional masculinities--and given one's own acceptance of that critique as justified in various ways--what are we to look toward as alternatives? Sullivan says:
Masculinity comes in many forms; and it's a sign of our culture's weakness that we tend to see it only in terms of violence, machismo, homophobia, disrespect for women, and so on.
Now, while I certainly don't by any BS about "our culture's weakness", I do think that we need to make alternative masculinities more explicit, and that we have to address the fact that a lot of men who come to dig feminism find themselves struggling with the concept of masculinity, and with their changing feelings of self-worth. In the comments on Sara's original post, Amanda Marcotte notes that only male feminists struggling with their own internalized misogyny have negative things to say about traditional conceptions of maleness:
The only feminists I know who tend to deride maleness are male feminists who are uncomfortable with their own internalized misogyny. I don't think that's "maleness", but it can feel like maleness if you are the trained male in question.
And while I think that Amanda has a point that misogyny can feel equated with maleness when you first start thinking about this stuff, I think that more needs to be said about it. One of the reasons that it can feel like maleness=misogyny is because of a lack of talk about what masculinity ought to be. There's lots of talk about what it shouldn't be, of course, but less about what it should be. Also, I think it's important that when men first do start to recognize their internalized misogyny, if they find feminism to be something worthwhile, they are going to feel uncomfortable with their own internalized misogyny. They had better, at least at first, or they're probably not understanding at least the facets of feminism that reveal misogyny. And, without some positive nontraditional masculinities to learn, feminist men can come to be stuck with feelings of self-loathing, and the sort of misunderstanding about what it means to be a man that Sullivan is trying to point out. So, even if Amanda's implicit point that it's mostly feminist men who are responsible for equating 'maleness' with 'misogyny', we can see where feminist men might come to do this, and why. And again, the reasons point to the fact that feminist men (and other feminists) have some work to do to create alternative masculinities.

14 comments:

Sassywho said...

Great post Jeff, I have several thoughts on this and have been kicking around several for a few days.

Would you mind shooting me an email? It's on my profile, thanks.

geo said...

Jeff.

You bring up a number of excellent points!

I think that men, not "feminist men", have a responsibility in helping to create a new "maleness" which isn't based upon men being warriors as well as not being "the breadwinner".

As "feminist men" I think that logically we should be dealing with the issues above and perhaps doing more. One key area is ending the misnomer of the man as "the head of the household" - which in my mind at least is tantamount to "the boss".

We do need to confront homophobia and how it divides men and helps keep us apart from each other. We also need to help change our roles within our families in a variety of ways including not only the "division of labor" as fathers, but also our roles as "sons" with our aging parents.

As "feminist men" we have a responsibility to take on whatever we can whenever we can.

Perhaps we should be working within religious bodies helping change them and other religious groups through talking with the men there.

This, however, may only work with those of us who have organized religion in our lives.

We do, however, need to learn from women in particular how to be supportive allies and helping in issues which don't necessarily directly help ourselves in our current lives.

Het men need to connect with Gay and Bi and Transgendered men. Men who are upper-middle class and White need to reach out in supportive loving ways to other less priviliged men.

In saying all this, I make little mention of women deliberately. It is hard for us to be true allies with women, absent doing work with other men.

Dividing men in our minds (and lives) into "the good guys" - e.g. us and "the bad guys" - most other men is little different than saying that we are different from others such as "Muslims" and not reaching out to them when we see the oppressiveness many face - because of who they are or who others think that they are.

We should be the allies of women and children. To do that requires more than working with individual women and supporting some women in our lives.

We do have a responsibility to not leave things - related to sexism in particular for the women to take care of (as has been done generally over the past 40+ years as well as before then).

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

"Still, from a practical perspective, it makes sense for men to think deeply about traditional masculinity, and to come up with possible alternatives to it (among which might be something like and [sic] abandonment of the concept)."

I'm going to argue for abandonment. I take it that by masculinity we understand something like "that which is common to men generally but not women generally." That being so, why should a man find masculinity per se (viz., being like other men generally are) at all desirable, unless he also holds conformity per se to be a value? If things like bravery and strength are held to be virtues--fine. Why not leave it at that?--bravery and strength are positive traits, whomever they appear in. Why drag men generally into it?

If the definition of masculinity I have proposed above is rejected--as Jeff seems to do--if it is said that we will have a plethora of alternative masculinities that women will be free to partake in as well--then I must ask in what meaningful sense we are still talking about masculinity.

Even assuming it can be done easily, I don't think the concept should be reclaimed. Social conservatives write treatises in favor of sex roles; they cite evolutionary psychologists who write of why they think women and men are and must be the way they are. I'm not going to fight these people for the concept masculinity. (I'm going to fight them, full stop.) The concept masculinity presupposes at least a rough unity among men, and as such rightfully belongs to the collectivists. I, would rather judge individuals as individuals, have no use for it.

I don't want an alternative masculinity to define myself with respect to. I am simply not masculine.

Dave said...

ZM, you make a great point, but I don't think eliminating the concept of masculinity altogether is necessarily the only solution. Rather, I think eliminating the social pressure to conform to gender roles should be our goal.

First, I will change the working definition of masculinity from "that which is common to men generally but not women generally" to "that which is expected of men generally but not women generally." The thing with masculinity and femininity is not that they are descriptive of the way men and women are, but that they are societal guidelines for how men and women ought to be. Very few people fit their gender roles entirely, and it is the pressure to do so that causes so much strife.

However, gender identity is an important part of many people's identities. Just as a lot of female feminists embrace the idea of femininity and redefine it to exclude all the servile, submissive, demure, domestic and other lousy parts, I think it is perfectly reasonable for a male feminist to keep his maleness as part of his identity and simply redefine masculinity to exclude all the violent, domineering and other lousy parts.

Jeff Pollet said...

geo--thanks for your input. I think your last sentiment really rings true with me: One reason I like to consider myself feminist (vs. pro-feminist) is that I think 'feminist' puts more of the responsibility on me, where it belongs, and some interpretations of 'pro-feminist' have connotations of leaving the majority of the work to the women...

Jeff Pollet said...

z.m.
I'm undecided on the abandonment issue, but I mentioned it in the original post because I've been thinking along the same lines that you are. After reading Halberstam's Female Masculinity, I found myself constantly asking the same questions you're putting forth here. So I'm not rejecting your definition, at least not yet.

Still, the 'practical' side of me thinks that maybe abandonment will come as a gradual change (if it comes); first step on the path to abandonment is getting everybody to recognize that traditionally 'masculine' traits aren't the purview of men alone--and though you and I might recognize this, there's still a lot of work to be done to get others to. Second step might be something along the lines of criticizing some traditionally masculine aspects of people no matter who embodies them (i.e. strength through violence). So I think there's room to redefine with an eye toward possibly abandoning the concept altogether.

Jeff Pollet said...

Dave--
I like your take on this. Thing is, once I start coming up with the 'positive' masculine traits I'd like to keep as part of my identity, I come to find out that they don't have anything to do with my gender, so I'm at a loss. Take, for instance, 'strength'. That can be a great attribute. But of course people of all genders can be strong in various ways. I just haven't been able to come up with a coherent idea about what 'maleness' would amount to. I'd be curious to know what you think it amounts to, or what it amounts to for you...

geo said...

When one becomes a father of a boy, "masculinity" becomes an issue which one can not ignore. "Masculinity" relates to one's son, who was not allowed "guns", using a stick as a gun outside. The worlds of TV, video games, childcare with other children, sports teams, arts activities and many other things bring in gender as issues often.

When my son turned 2, a neighbor gave him a huge plastic bat and a ball. My (first) wife thanked the woman and said: "That's a nice gift, but I don't think he knows what to do with it." B - promptly picked up the bat and hit the ball - he'd seen other kids playing baseball and knew a lot more than we gave him credit for.

"Masculinity" isn't bad any more than "Feminity" isn't "good" or "bad". It has a history with some very bad stuff, yes. IF it isn't "remade" over time, we live with the residue of its history.

Thanks!

saraeanderson said...

I think part of the solution is decoupling genderhood from personhood - or at least making it so that maximal genderedness (I'll be making up a few words here, so excuse me if I get confusing) is not a prerequisite of humanity. For instance, I've seen a lot of feminist indignation about the idea that childbearing is the ultimate expression of femininity, but I would have to agree that it is; it's the thing that women can do that most clearly differentiates them from men. A person's actualization shouldn't hinge on their ability or desire to maximize sexual dimorphism, though. That people can express their humanity, that people can express their own unique personalities and talents - that's what is important, and it may be linked to their physical or spiritual or mental gender, but it shouldn't be necessary that it is for it to be an accomplishment. I understand the need for positive models of masculinity, and I understand the good that can come from gendered culture (ie mothers share a bond that mothers and fathers cannot), but I don't think that it's constructive to demand a set of characteristics and responsibilities of a person because of their physical manifestation.

Dave said...

Jeff:

First, I'd like to draw a distinction between maleness and masculinity. Although sex and gender tend to parallel one another, it is bad to conflate them.

What I said in response to ZM was regarding men who consider gender an important part of their identity. I do not. I'm in the process of trying to shed the things that make up my genderedness, so I have no interest in defining a new masculinity for my own use. I do appreciate that others would, though, which is why I do not advocate getting rid of the notion of masculinity altogether.

As for picking out the positive traits of masculinity and reappropriating them, it's not enough to just say "strength" is a trait you want to keep; it's how that strength is manifested that is masculine or not. If it's a "nothing can affect me" or "I push back in the face of adversity" kind of strength, that's part of traditional masculinity. If it's an "I'm the emotional rock my friends can depend on for support" kind of strength, it's not. In fact, that may even be part of traditional femininity.

Jeff Pollet said...

Dave--
I think that our positions aren't very different, in the end, actually. But I do have some comments for clarification.
First, I'd like to draw a distinction between maleness and masculinity. Although sex and gender tend to parallel one another, it is bad to conflate them.
I agree that maleness does not equal masculinity, but I think it's important to recognize that they aren't simply 'parallel'--they're inextricably intertwined. Well, maybe not *inextricably*, but very intertwined in current cultures. And I think it's the relationship between them that I'm talking about when I ask (along with z.m.) just what it means for a trait (any trait) to be *masculine*, anyway?

Which is why I brought up strength--for exactly the reason you point out that 'strength' in and of itself isn't masculine or feminine. I haven't yet run into a trait that I consider masculine or feminine in a way that isn't flexible, which is why I lean toward abandoning masculinity almost as much as z.m. does. What I'm trying to understand about your position is this: If you're cool with others defining a new masculinity for their own uses, what sorts of 'masculine traits' would you recognize as ok? Strength can't be one for exactly the reasons you've given. And I haven't run into one yet.

That said, I think that somehow shedding one's genderedness may be the sort of lofty goal that, say, abandoning capitalism would be to a Marxist, or abandoning religion would be to a staunch athiest--in some ways these are laudable goals, but they're not practical as of yet.

On a similar note, I think it can be dangerous to shed parts of our identity, even if those parts are 'forced' onto us as social constructions--and my concerns are along the lines of concerns I have with people saying we ought to be 'color blind' as regards race. Sure, racial categories are social constructions (and so is gender), but they're still real in the sense that everybody lives by some version of them. Does that mean that they will always? No. But it does mean that our solutions need to incorporate the prevalence of gender in our society.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't struggle against negative social constructions--clearly I think we should--but it does mean that there are many pitfalls (as I'm sure you're aware) to shedding genderedness.

Actually, I'd love to hear more about your experiences along those lines...

Jeff Pollet said...

Geo--
If I understand you correctly, I think I agree with part of what you're saying, but disagree with part of what you're saying. Your point that we all sort of swim in a sea of culture wherein we learn masculinity and femininity whether we want to or not (a boy using a stick as a gun because you've seen lots of men use guns on TV--which begs the question:what happens when we see lots of women using guns on tv?) is right on, I think, and part of my concern for abandoning masculinity altogether, all at once.

I also agree that it's not necessary that either 'femininity' or 'masculinity' be bad per se, and that we might be able to come up with alternate conceptions of them that make them positive. My concern, though, comes in when I try to actually *do* that--anything I come up with as a positive masculine trait doesn't seem 'masculine' at all. What sorts of traits do you think are positive masculine traits?

I would also point out that, while hitting a ball with a bat is a traditionally masculine sort of thing, it's not inherently masculine, right, any more than shooting a stick-gun?

Jeff Pollet said...

sara--
I think I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, and the decoupling genderhood from personhood makes sense to me too, as far as one can given cultural constraints (which will change over time).

I would also agree that demanding a set of characteristics around gender isn't a good idea, especially if that set of characteristics is seen as some unchanging, writ in stone set of characteristics.

At the same time, men are bombarded constantly by messages to 'be a man'--and while I think resisting this strain in cultural pressure by raising voices and saying that there really isn't any such thing as 'being a man' in any meaningful way (and thus tossing out the set of characteristics altogether, to put it in some of the terms you provided) is one good way of doing things, I don't see that it can be the only way, because we do swim in a culture that is constantly providing reinforcements along gendered lines.

So, maybe the first step is to start reclaiming 'masculine' along different lines (i.e. alternative masculinities), even if the final goal is to sort of divest ourselves of the 'set of characteristics' along gender lines...?

But I may have misunderstood you. This stuff gets really complex really quickly (for me at least).

geo said...

I googled under: "masculine traits" - and one source mentioned masculine traits including: being independent, liking math & science, being active, being direct, being adventurous, being self-confident along with traits like - being loud, never crying, being sloppy, etc.

On the "feminine side": being dependent, crying easily and being religious contrast with being nurturing for example.

I would agree - that "being masculine" vs. "being feminine" isn't something we should push towards.

Before my son was born I was all for androgyny and thought that biology didn't enter into things hardly at all.

Biology is important. Boys in general may be more aggressive than girls not simply because of how they are treated. Sure, some girls are more agressive than some boys.

It is important that we confront the stereotypes and pressures with both boys and girls because of how sexism helps perpetrate domestic violence, rape and many other areas.

It is also important that we work towards change to allow ourselves as men to become "whole people" - which we aren't when we're stuck in vestiges of gender stereotyping and sexism.

Thanks!

Thanks!