Yours truly has been working on some other projects lately, but I have been thinking a lot about healthy models of masculinity. I talk a lot here about unhealthy patterns of masculinity, particularly in queer spaces, and I would like to turn that conversation around to healthy patterns of masculinity. I like to think my masculinity is in a mostly healthy place, though it certainly took me a while to get here, but, however, I am definitely my own individual person and am in no way wanting to be or trying to be a guide post or model for everyone else, so, going from my post on ableism here and radfems on masculinity here, what do we all think healthy models of masculinity include?
I'll start us off by stating that I think health masculinity includes (and none of these traits are exclusive to masculinity): an understanding of the ways that society privileges masculinity, regardless of the degree of privilege the person in question gets for that masculinity; respect and acceptance of others; the ability to admit to flaws and ask for help; providing help when able to; compassion for others; and seeing oneself as interconnected to the people around oneself.
Any other ideas? Additions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'd add in, "an understanding that 'masculinity' is fluid."
I'd say they include a lot of the traditional picture, but also include basic respect for others and lack of entitlement.
Like, back when I took that first women's studies class and it was all "men are seen as AGENTIC" there was this... weird way that the prof made being agentic sound bad. Which is part of why I never felt comfortable in that class. It was like "wow, I show up as really masculine here" where that seemed like an insult, or like an accusation about what genders I did or didn't identify with. Although I do identify a lot more with masculinity and I do consider my gender more complex than "female-assigned woman", and did then, too... it felt like this weird insult, and I disavowed it because, hey wait, I'm not THAT.
And, no, being a confident agent isn't bad. Nor is being an individual. But these things, when they're turned into caricatures and looked at as things other people can't or shouldn't have, THAT's bad.
And being agentic, or whatever else, requires some of its opposite to make any sense. We're all individuals; we're all interconnected. It's not about what's true of each of us -- it's about where our focus and our comfort is. And I think losing that means coming out with a fearful and aggressive masculinity. Like an insecure dog who is snapping all the time because it's desperate for the respect it doesn't give itself.
crap, I talked so fast I lost my own thread.
That was supposed to say "I identify a lot more with masculinity NOW."
I had really just gone back to wondering about gender and me, and where I fit, and questioned how I felt in my body and my social role. But I wasn't really ready to see myself not fit in a class where... well, the point was SUPPOSED to be that no one fits, but for whatever reason it made me feel less like "these standards are ridiculous" and more like "wait, is this CALLING me a man? what about MY input into that matter? who am I allowed to be?"
Which, well, yeah, again given the point of the class, I was missing it. But it still just made me really worry: Oh shit, people will KNOW I wonder. People will KNOW I don't quite see myself in the way people say a woman should. People will KNOW I sometimes really would like to be my gay best friend's boyfriend -- and that I'm not entirely sure that the only reason I wonder what that would be like is because it's the only way he'd like me too. Fuck, what do I DO now?
(And, well, I'd never heard the whole "wanting male privilege" theory, but if I'd heard it then I might well have just exploded. No, I don't think I've ever wanted that.)
There's a definite danger when we point out all the harm cause by the traditional model of masculinity, to just assume all its qualities are harmful, as you point out. And like you mentioned, it tends to silence the more masculine people in the discussion, and it's when those qualities are extreme and total that they become caricatures.
And you've hit the nail right on the head that a lot of of aggression comes out of fear and insecurity - an insecure masculinity tends to cause its possessor to puff hirself up with aggressive displays.
And I think for trans/genderqueer/gender variant folk who aren't out, when discussions ignore those people, or vilify qualities that the class they share traits with possess, it does tend to lead to that paranoia (I've certainly had more than my fair share of awkward conversations at women's centers).
I'd like to think none of us want the negative, harming others aspects of any privilege - but the positive aspects - with male privilege, the aspects that one of the end goals of feminism should be to give to everyone - who wouldn't want those? But I don't think anyone thinks of that as wanting male privilege, I think we think of that as wanting to be treated like a human being.
I am totally giving you a Brilliante Weblog badge. Ignore the chainmail aspect of it if you want to.
So, are there any aspects of healthy masculinity that ARE exclusive to masculinity?
If there aren't, what's the point of talking about masculinity at all?
If there are, who gets to label them as exclusive to masculinity?
Caleesa: answers a little out of order, (my answers will make more sense that way).
There are people who are labeled and/or self-identify with a masculine identity. Also, certain traits and behaviors are labeled as masculine within society. People who are labeled as masculine have certain expectations on traits they are supposed to have and how they are supposed to perform gender. So, the point about talking about healthy models (and why we talk about masculine traits), is not that these traits are exclusive to masculine people or are exclusively labeled masculine (similarly, traits that are labeled feminine are not exclusive) but to talk about how they interact with people labeled as or who self-identify as masculine. When I do something or present myself a certain way, generally, it's either seen as masculine and accordance with my perceived identity, or to be in conflict with my identity, and thus something to be punished or that delegitimizes my masculinity (if I do something that society perceives as feminine).
So, the point of talking about masculinity is that people are going to be labeled that way, and we need to find healthy, feminist ways that they can embody and perform that masculinity that does not contribute to patriarchal gender structure. And I think the responsibility for that is on masculine people, with us, individually and as a group, recognizing the various gender privileges and oppressions that various masculine genders and embodiments get.
Personally, I have a strong internal sense of myself as a butch; it just makes sense to me. What I want, as an activist, is a society without gender coercion, that only recognizes two genders, or that values one set of gender expression over another, not a society without gender (as I'm not androgynous, and expectation to perform gender that way would be just as oppressive as my being expected to be feminine because of how society labels my body).
Short version: No; see above; not relevant because of the answer to the first question, but when things are labeled masculine, masculine people should take responsibility for dealing with how they're valued in kyriarchy.
Gauge, thanks for your response. My question was not really a good one (obviously, the exclusivity of individual traits is not required for masculinity/femininity to be a coherent idea). Maybe I can better express what I'm thinking based on your response.
"... What I want, as an activist, is a society without gender coercion, that only recognizes two genders, or that values one set of gender expression over another, not a society without gender (as I'm not androgynous, and expectation to perform gender that way would be just as oppressive as my being expected to be feminine because of how society labels my body)."
So, just to kind of clarify where I'm at on this: Masculinity and femininity are cultural expressions, which are based on perceived attributes of people of a certain sex, but which can be expressed and claimed by anyone. An androgynous person is someone who appears to freely express both masculinity and femininity, but who is not seen as fully expressing either. A genderless society (which you are against) does not recognize these cultures as entities, essentially making everyone androgynous. The way one expresses hirself is thus attributed to hir individuality, or to some other culture or group. Instead, you want a society that recognizes the full range of possibilities for gender (nearly infinite), does not value one over another, and does not push one into expressing masculinity or femininity based on physical attributes. Is this anywhere near your take on it?
I think I can go along with that. Where I struggle is with coercion and valuation. All cultures are coerced, and nearly all human interactions involve attributing value.
What coercion is ok, if not based on physical makeup or appearance? That is, if masculinity is a valid kind of expression, what is a valid way for someone to come to express it? What activism is not coercion?
How can someone, within a society, express their gender without valuing it? How is valuation of gender different from valuation of other cultural expressions, if at all?
Calessa,
I'm not Gauge, so please don't take this to be what ze would say.
For me, I've never been truly dissuaded that some of this stuff is biological, and has to do with things like prenatal hormone baths, current hormone balances, and the like.
I don't know how to convincingly explain exactly why I think this is the case with me without going into details of my life that I'm not comfortable sharing. But let me sum it up by saying that I didn't just notice that I didn't like frilly things and "reject" the gender system. Instead I discovered I fit into it somewhere that society says females don't go.
Another interesting discussion -
I am absolutely certain that biologically determined aspects are at least partly responsible for the behavioral tendencies that at some point were labeled 'masculine' and then institutionalised. That said, as a male born, male identified person I can't really find anything that is currently considered positive about masculinity alone. To the contrary. Masculinity may be more effective because it is considered to be assertive, if not aggressive to a degree, but these aren't socially valued attributes anymore. They are, however, in general, sexually valued by individual female identified persons who are heterosexual (sorry, not usually using this terminology, hope it's correct) even if these women are politcally sceptical of "masculinity" and denounce it as some kind of synonym for violence and even jingoism.
The worst thing is though, in my opinion, that the sexual success of "masculine" behaviour is not compatible with displays of collective weakness. Thus, defending masculinity as such from these alligations will be individually detrimental to a male persons sexual success as it is displaying weakness that is, whil politically called for, individually unattractive in males, apparently.
This, it seems to me, is an impossible equation to solve collectively.
I'd really like to know what's good about masculinity from a feminist point of view. I can't see anything, I don't even see how masculinity can be considered healthy from that point of view.
just been following this conversation and i've recently started a blog to look at healthy masculinity:
http://www.mascmag.com
thanks for this post
Post a Comment