Empathy and Working on Alternative Masculinities

 Interesting read over at rosiesays, as a guy responds to her piece on street harassment.  He spells out how he has felt as the guy doing the harassing:

Here is something you should know about me. I intentionally hurt people sometimes to make myself feel better.    Being in the presence of a woman can be anguish. It’s loneliness (and sometimes horniness), and all that other Freudian bullshit rolled up into mundane moments. Just walking down the street can make me feel helpless when I pass a woman sometimes. I can’t shake it. If I could shake it, I would. Trust me. It’s no fun. But this is the hand I’m dealt, so I roll with it. 

I have a lot of empathy for men, in part because I have experienced the alienation that can come in a culture where traditional masculinity is so important.  I also think what I call the supply-and-demand model of dating is pretty broken, for all involved.  But I think striving against traditional masculinity is one of the ways that feminism can help men.

Despite my predilection toward empathy, it's difficult for me to respond with compassion for this guy. Even though he is suffering (and I think that he is--suffering within the shackles of bs masculinity), lines like "If I could shake it, I would. Trust me," just don't ring true for me. There's this thing called the internet.  Take a look around, search for alternative masculinities. Let me google that for you.

Yes, the masculinity we are given and trained in is bullshit. So let's create another one, rather than harass women.

Emily, like many feminist women, understands that traditional masculinity harms men, as well as women, and she expresses some empathy for this guy:

Without minimizing the overwhelming perfect storm of body hating, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, mixed messaging media bullshittery that women face on a daily basis, I do think there’s a void for young men about what modern masculinity really means. This is a conversation we’ve sorta kinda maybe a little bit started in this country, but for guys like this writer, already in their twenties, there are few role models of “manliness” that don’t involve killing the bad guy and getting the girl.

 Yes, men (and folks of all genders!) are having to reconstruct masculinity in a way that is hopefully not harmful. Yes, this task is difficult. Yes, men are alienated because of (in part) traditional masculinity. (As far as role models go, there are many to be found, if you look for them.) But I respectfully disagree with her when she notes that women should do something about this day-to-day: Be nicer:

And this is not unidirectional. Ladies (in this imaginary all-hetero world I’m writing in at the moment), don’t be jerks to guys that try to talk to you (assuming they are civil), whether you’re interested or not. You can politely move on without rolling your eyes, turning away, sighing in disgust, or being a generally uninterested pretentious douchface.   

People, be nice to each other. Niceness is a awesome. Niceness doesn’t mean I want to bone you, and it doesn’t mean you deserve a date or a drink or anything of the sort. It means that shit is hard out there, son, and a little kindness goes a long way.

Compassion and niceness is great, in general (of course!), but this line of thinking tends to ignore the lived experience of so many women--politely moving on is something that isn't "allowed" oftentimes, inasmuch as men so often respond to it with aggression and anger. The more empathy people can have toward men who are caught up in bogus masculinity, the better, but I think the onus is mostly upon men to do lots more work in this area before we can ask for or expect women to take on even more in this regard.

Complex Masculinity Policing

I've been aware of the not-so-suble policing of masculinity for quite a while now--from adolescence on, men (and women) are taught to police men's masculinity in myriad ways. This sort of policing of masculinity includes anything from being ridiculued for one's haircut by bullies (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney) to the looks and questions I get about my pink bike. Some of this policing is really overtly violent, either verbally or physically, or both, but much of it is more subtle. A glance, a snicker, folks staring when you don't match up with what they think masculinity should look like. And men are taught to police themselves in this regard almost constantly.

So it was kind of fascinating when I found myself having my masculinity policed in what was a fairly subtle, interesting way the other day. I was having dinner with my partner and some of her friends. Most of us at the table were cisgendered (look it up if you don't know what it means), but as is the case in my social circles recently, not everyone was cisgendered. An acquaintence of mine who is a transguy was there, and he was in a goofy mood; I found myself on the recieving end of some teasing by him--he was teasing me because my sideburns were mismatched. He, of course, had immaculate facial hair, including cute, well-matched sideburns. Little did he know that this version of policing masculinity was/is a button for me, and I wasn't able to play along and take it in the humorous way that I'm pretty sure he intended it. Of course, as with a lot of the more subtle forms of policing masculinity, "jokes" are often a way to make cruel statements socially acceptable, so the grey areas around such comments can be treacherous.

One of the reasons it really got to me, I think, was that I don't tend to hang out with guys who joke in this way--or, at least, I don't hang out with acquaintances who joke in this way. Close friends can tease me like this and it doesn't seem to affect me much, because they know me, know my complex relationship(s) to masculinity, and are often joking "ironically" with me in a way that actually makes me feel accepted. Acquaintances who make jokes about masculinity in this way just don't tend to stay acquaintances with me for long--the spaces I hang out in simply aren't full of men who police masculinity in this way. So when I ran into it, it hit me hard. On the one hand, I have a sort of flip emotional response to it, which can be summed up by something like, "Hey, man, you'll get bored with facial hair after 25 years, too." The same part of me that feels this flip response also wants to say, "Hey, way to go. You can now be recognized as having joined the ranks of men-who-police-other-men's-masculinity!" But I'm also just fascinated by the fact that, clearly, policing masculinity as a man is learned behavior--it's not something that we have to do, it's not something we do because it's "innate"; rather, it's something that we learn to do as we grow into men, just as my acquaintance has learned to do as he has grown into a man.

Red Without Blue

I haven't seen the whole film yet, but this documentary about a pair of twins, one of whom is a trans gal, is fascinating, including lots of good insight into issues of traditional masculinity. Here's the preview:

Watch more free documentaries

The film is available in full at snagfilms here.

Bunny Viking

I wish I lived in this world:


A world where there would be nothing wrong with the "manly" horns, but also nothing wrong with the cute bunny ears. Thank you, F-Minus.

Men's Story Project: Drain the Main Vein

I love this piece from the Men's Story Project, because it highlights the ridiculousness of one part of traditional masculinity while making one laugh:

bell hooks Monday: Blueprints for Change

bell says:

The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love is about our need to live in a world where women and men can belong together. Looking at the reasons patriarchy has maintained its power over men and their lives, I urge us to reclaim feminism for men, showing why feminist thinking and practice are the only way we can truly address the crisis of masculinity today. In these chapters I repeat many points so that each chapter alone will convey the most significant ideas of the whole. Men cannot change if there are no blueprints for change. Men cannot love if they re not taught the art of loving.

It is not true that men are unwilling to change. It is true that many men are afraid to change. It is true that masses of men have not even begun to look at the ways that patriarchy keeps them from knowing themselves, from being in touch with their feelings, from loving. To know love, men must be able to let go the will to dominate. They must be able to choose life over death. They must be willing to change.

--pp 17, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love.

I've been thinking a lot about what such blueprints would be like. So far all I've really come up with it a meta-blueprint: I think that people of all genders ought to take part in creating this new blueprint. Also, we ought to keep in mind that cultural blueprints, while not made out of nothing, are created--not found--by us: We don't have to live the lives we've lived in the past, to whatever degree we can change the blueprint.

How should men's blueprint be modified? And how ought we go about it. Well, the answers to those questions are works-in-progress, and part of what this blog is (or should be?) all about...

Comic Lessons in Masculinity

It's been almost a week since I posted about traditional masculinity and comic strips, so it's high time that I talk a bit about what's going on over in the strip Monty. This is an often funny little strip that started out as a strip called Robotman in the 80's. As with lots of different comic strips, the funny mostly comes from the inanity of the main character, Monty.

Currently, Monty has accidentally traveled very far forward in time. In this distant future, men have ceased to exist, and women rule the world (and live forever!)(as always, click to enlarge):
Leaving aside for the moment that the year is 6969, which is actually pretty funny in a way and surprising that it got through whatever censors are involved, let's just say that, yeah, the strip is written by a guy who has probably had that fantasy, too. So, we have some sexist stuff, with a little bit of self-deprecating humor thrown in (Monty is, after all, a sap in the strip, really) to make it seem more palatable. Or does it just make it seem creeeeeeepy?

Next up: More self-deprecating humor that reinforces traditional masculinity stereotypes!
Also disturbing is the fact that the poster looks vaguely like a young Ronald Reagan. Shudder.

Next up we have both a straw-feminist portrayal (I don't know any feminists, or anybody at all, who thinks that if men weren't in power that we would have an instant utopia--most of the positions around women gaining more power are more nuanced than typical utopian ideals) and some sexist stereotyping that women in the year 6969 are big freakin' nags, just like they are now!.
Hardy-har-har.

Next, some Universal Truths About Gender are provided for us:
Because (real) men don't drink wine spritzers! That's a girly thing! And no women like the Three Stooges! Because that's a guy thing!

And finally, some more self-deprecation combined with a reinforcement of traditional masculinity, this time enforced by the women of 6969:
Though the thing about doing something before he takes off his pants is funny, darn it.

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.

Mama's Boys

I've begun reading Peggy Drexler's Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men recently, and so far I'm enjoying it quite a bit. Full disclosure: I hardly am objective about the subject, being mostly raised by a single mother. Drexler's main research focuses on the effects of parenting when boys are raised without a male parent. She originally was studying lesbian couples who were raising boys, but expanded her research to include single mothers.

The thing that I like about the way Drexler begins the book is that she's basically examining some long-held stereotypes about the way boys become men; these stereotypes are so long-held to seem to be unassailable truths to lots of people. Even very liberal adoption agencies who like to place children with lesbian couples, for instance, have a policy of questioning what male influences the kid will have, though they don't have a similar policy of questioning what female influences a kid adopted by two men will have. The stereotypes that Drexler is examining are (again) pervasive in the extreme:

According to Freud and others who followed him, June alone could not have achieved everything required to bring up “the Beav” successfully. During the first 3 to 4 years of Beaver's life, he would have needed Ward to imitate, long for, and react to, in order to gain the prize of being like his father. This theory—that boys acquire masculinity only with an in-house male in the mother's bedroom—has prevailed to the detriment of both mothers and their sons. It presumes that the earliest relationship between infant and mother is simply a caretaking one. The assumption is that the mother is only a need provider for her son, while he in turn becomes physically and emotionally depending on her. Eventually, assuming there is a present father in the home, the mother must withdraw herself from the child if her son is to become independent of her and escape the dire fate of being a mama's boy.(pp ix)

And , and as it turns out, women get all of the blame and none of the praise for raising sons:
It's a double bind for moms because fathers seem to carry much less responsibility for the problems their sons may have, but in the political and popular culture of today, they are considered absolutely essential to raising good sons.

Dads get lots of the praise, but little of the blame. They are essential, but they can do little wrong, as long as they are around. This is also part of the devaluing of men, really, because they somehow exist to just be around, but there's nothing that they do, except be role models somehow.

And then we have custody fights. More and more when the father wants custody, he uses the successful mother's career as a strategy to get the children. Pamela McGee, who plays for the WNBA's Los Angeles Sparks, lost custody of her 4-year-old daughter while the court investigated whether McGee's work prevented her from being a good mother. In his motion for temporary sole custody, McGee's ex-husband, the Reverend Kevin E. Stafford, asserted that a career and motherhood are mutually exclusive. McGee's “level of achievement,” he argued, impaired her ability to parent their child. McGee was on the road 44 weeks a year. And the father said it tok away too much from the daughter. But the court did not investigate whether the father's travel schedule, which took him on the road 7 to 8 weeks a year, made him an unfit father.(pp 6)

I'll be getting more into Drexler's ideas the further I get into the book. She seems to have some wrong-ish ideas centering around gender essentialism (she seems to put a lot of weight on some sort of inherent boyishness that boys have regardless of their parents or anything else, which asserts itself), but I'm hoping that most of her points are like some of these first few--she has a bold voice which calls out wrongs which are so pervasive that they can be difficult to draw our attention to.