Chapter 2

Society’s Reason

Before launching into this topic, we cannot ignore that there is a societal need to discover or recover a template of masculine identity. The “Me-Too” movement, ambiguous gender constructs, changing roles of caregivers and wage earners have thrown our understanding of masculine identity into a tailspin. Society has searched without much consensus. As a matter of fact, one Google inquiry on the question of masculinity resulted in about 10,300,000 hits in 0.53 seconds. That was at the time when I was writing this manuscript, now it is 26 300 000 hits in 0.54 seconds.

Society’s focus on males has highlighted what is being understood as toxic masculinity. From climate change to the abuse of women, this particular term has indicted ‘socially accepted’ bad behaviour of males and their consequenced negative outcomes. Whether this nomenclature is unfair labelling or an accurate accusation is not the point; it has inspired much discussion and debates and morphed into a cultural touch-point.

The cultural stereotypes of masculinity are stifling. Who is considered to be a real man? The Rolling Stone top 100 best television show of all times list the Sopranos as number one.[i]

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

[i] http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-of-all-time-w439520/the-wire-w439640

(Whether you agree or not is not the point.) However, it made me wonder if those writers were making observations or creating definitions of masculinity. On all accounts, despite depicting Tony Soprano as a noble anti-hero, it is certainly not a patternable masculine description one might want to emulate.

The problem with looking towards cultural masculine identities is that culture is quicksand, and cultural is not a good place to build a “masculine house” or look for a foundational definition. However, we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we could embrace some cultural norms which may help us (in part) to see an image of masculinity. A cultural framework does matter, but it is important to realize that it not the essential matter.

Television and movies have had an undeniable impact on a social masculine identity. Roger Ebert, a famous film critic, commented that role models like James Dean, Elvis Presley, and Marlon Brando “decisively altered the way young men could be seen in popular culture showing they could be more feminine, sexier, more confused, more ambiguous.”[i]

With the many less than flattering reoccurring depictions of male characters in media, well…it’s up to men to deny the power of those negative stereotypes. For example, there is the “strong silent type”, “the romantic stalker”, “the unsuitable suitor”, “the bad boy loner”, and perhaps the most distasteful of all the “sitcom husband”.[ii]

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

[i]https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-rebel-without-a-cause-1955

[ii] https://goodmenproject.com/arts/six-male-stereotypes-hollywood-needs-to-let-go-of/

In the latter, “he’s dumb, he’s crude, he’s filthy, he’s horny, he has the interpersonal skills of a child and the emotional depth of a staph infection. And yet he’s married to a woman so much more attractive than him that if you met this couple in real life, you’d do a double take…”[ii]

Before men get overly offended, it’s worth noting that women have long experienced and continue to endure negative media stereotypes.

To the observer though, it seems that the understanding of masculine identity hovers between the fringes, or the extremes. It’s either crass or limp and it’s hard to locate a moderate ground. Through entertainment and pop cultural depictions, masculinity can be hard to understand. What then do the scholars say?

The American Psychological Association (APA) “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” (August 2018) had much to communicate on masculinity, with focused criticism of “Traditional Masculinity”. Initially it defined this term to encapsulate qualities such as “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression”.[i] However, reading further into the document it added elements such as homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance, promiscuity and risky sexual behaviour[ii].

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

[i] (page 11)

[ii] https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

Also attached to the definition were “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and [embracing] adventure, risk and violence.” In addition, there were many labels of masculinity such as: “diverse, dominant, traditional, contextual, expressive, and rigid”.[i] The problem with these social descriptions is that they appear to be merely adjectives that don’t seem to set down any particular masculine foundation or identity.

Among other things, according to the Guideline, boys and men need help to “navigate restrictive definitions of masculinity and create their own concepts of what it means to be male.”[ii] For boys and young men, masculinity is supposedly defined “in the context of their life”[iii], which to me seemed like a hit and miss approach.

Again, it was stressed that boys and men needed help to “navigate restrictive definitions of masculinity and create their own concepts of what it means to be a man…” and we are not to “police masculine expression”[iv]. The tone of the article leans towards the notion that shaping (and maybe even defining) masculinity was a bad thing.

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

[i] Page 8

[ii] https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (p8)

[iii] https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (p7)

[iv] Page 7

There was also an assumption that the male gender and masculinity does not overlap and could be understood as separate concepts. Psychologist tasked with counselling boys and men are encouraged to examine their own “binary notions of gender identity tied to biology.”[i] In other words, maleness and femaleness are not necessarily linked exclusively to masculinity and femininity. The document used language and ideas describing “traditional masculinity” with words such as “rigid adherence”, “restrictive” and “policing of masculine expression”[ii].

In article “Proof that Traditional Masculinity May Actually be Dangerous” it states:

The pressure to be traditionally masculine can cause men to overcompensate when their masculinity is threatened. But what does that overcompensation look like? Previous research has suggested that men who are stressed about their masculine identities may be more likely to commit violence within intimate or sexual relationships, while other research linked that pressure with poor health outcomes and risky sexual behavior.
In a new study, researchers from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the University of Georgia looked into other ways gender role threats may cause men to act out. They wanted to know: Will men who are undergoing psychological stress because of masculinity threats be more likely to engage in substance abuse and commit violent assaults?
A good place to begin progress, according to the researchers, is to focus on how boys and men are socialized and try to construct less rigid gender norms so that they don’t stress out about not measuring up to traditional masculine ideals. Unfortunately, the study doesn’t offer any tangible ways to do this, stating it’s too early to make recommendations about specific prevention strategies.[i]

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

[i] https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (p11)

[ii] https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

Is this a fair characterization of “traditional masculinity”, and is there a bias in the promotion of “less rigid norms”?

Society has interpreted their understanding of gender in many ways. Not to belabour the point, allow me to share another example of an Ontario couple who would not divulge the sex of their baby to family and friends. They didn’t want their offspring to be labeled with gender stereotypes. The parents sought to allow the child to explore and find its own gender. Below are some excerpts from the Toronto Star article:

When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place? …)”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.
The grandparents were supportive but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.
Witterick and Stocker (psychologist) believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females.[i]

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

^{[i] https:}^{//www.thestar.com/life/parent/2011/05/21/parents_keep_childs_gender_secret.html}

However, not all agree, in an April 2018 opinion article, another journalist responded in this way:

But we also need to admit that human beings are also profoundly shaped by their genes. Gender is far more influential than many people are willing to acknowledge. Men and women exhibit significant behavioural differences not (or not only) because they’re socialized differently, but because they’re wired differently. Give a girl a pot and she’ll play house. Give a boy a pot and he’ll beat it like a drum. And forget about the gender “spectrum.” Although there are lots of tender boys and lots of aggressive girls, more than 99 per cent of people identify with their birth sex. Large-scale studies show that men and women differ not only in size and strength but also in personality traits.
Across dozens of diverse cultures, women consistently rate themselves as warmer, friendlier, more anxious, and more sensitive to feelings than men. Men rate themselves as more assertive and more open to new ideas.
For most of human evolution – when the differentiation in gender roles was extreme – these differences made sense. (They also help explain the dominance of men in the corridors of power, although you’re not supposed to say that.)
I do feel a bit uneasy for children such as Storm (who, for the record, is now identifying as a girl). Most kids like a bit of structure in their lives, especially, I imagine, on the existential question of whether they’re a boy or a girl. It seems like a lot to ask them to sort it out for themselves. Is it really fair to make your kid the subject of a social experiment, no matter how righteous you think it is? And do you really think they’ll thank you for it? I have my doubts.^[i]

In our society, the social context and construct of gender is a dizzying disorientation as it relates to sexuality and (by default) also masculinity. Culture preaches a mantra of gender fluidity. One can choose to be male or female, masculine or feminine because the lines are so blurry.

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Links

^{[i] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-brave-new-age-of-gender-neutral-kids/}

Some think that the “church” is too archaic and needs to be more progressive and accepting because there are many different ways an individual can choose to go, but then again some believe that there is no choice to the matter. Regardless of how anyone feels about the matter, one must agree that there is much perplexity surrounding masculinity and femininity.

Explaining My Reasons

Although I am speaking to boys, young men, men and senior men, this book is by no means intended to be exclusive. You don’t get to tune out because you are not of masculine gender, but realize that moms, sisters and wives all have males in their lives and can find much application from this work.

It is worth stating that although this book focuses on defining masculine identity, it is not about “Men’s Rights”. It is not about male empowerment, revolution, or attempting to make men feel better about themselves in spite of the negative image portrayed in television, movies and the media. This is not about highlighting a perceived sense of victimization of men who are trying to elevate the plight of the male. (I overheard a male Caucasian student talking about how his demographic “gets the least number of breaks” and how they bear the forefront of the criticism for the exploitation of women and minorities.) Whatever you believe, that’s not the direction of this work.

_{^{Table of Contents}}

Also, for clarity, this book does not define women “by default”. To put it simply, I am not defining women by defining men. If I were to say, “Men are strong”, I am not saying that “Women are weak.”

Why would I bring this point to the discussion? On one hand, society has this understanding that men and women are opposites. Perhaps this is the ammunition for the cold war of the sexes that has been going on since the beginning of time. It’s this thinking that makes us hear “default definitions.” However, men and women are not at their core opposite. There are strong men and strong women. At the risk of sounding a bit like “Captain Obvious”, both men and women are human beings. In Genesis 1:27, the Bible does say that both male and female were created in the “image of God”; therefore, we cannot be polar opposites.

On the other hand, there are those who would have you believe that men and women are exactly the same. In an effort to strive for gender equality (which is a just and good thing), they say that men and women must be the same. The focus on “sameness” exerts a societal pressure to blur the gender lines (with the end goal of gender fluidity – I suppose). There seems to be a rebellion against gender distinction. The voices of dissent sound something like this:

“There’s something wrong with the world if we teach our boys to play with cars and our girls to play with dolls. There is something wrong when we dress baby boys in blue and girls in pink…”

Difference is not a dirty word! Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that children should be forced to play with gender specific toys, or that colour must be allocated to a particular gender. What I am suggesting is that the lack of gender definitions contributes towards today’s overall gender confusion. The balance can be found in avoiding the binary choice that men are exactly the same or the opposite. Yes, we have similarities, but we are also different. John Gray wrote the book Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus (opposite directions in our solar system), but I would like to state for the record that they are both from Earth. God has designed a wonderful balance of similarities and differences.

_{^{Table of Contents}}

So really, what is masculine identity? Additionally, depending on the culture, there have been a variety of masculine descriptions such as long hair, short hair, baggy jeans, tight jeans, or Roman togas -at one point or another they were all pictures of masculinity. With this motley crew, what is really a good definition of manhood and identity? Labels such as traditional, diverse, contextual, expressive, and rigid masculinities all lead us in the wrong direction.

Being masculine (or a man, depending on one’s age) is being male. Is that an oversimplified lowest common denominator, or perhaps the pinnacle of a very practical observation? A man is a man. If we could naturally and heartily accept that, would there not be less confusion and self-doubt in the hearts of our boys and emerging men? Nevertheless, I believe this would not necessarily make for a better world because the real question has been obscured. Despite cultural leanings, masculine stereotypes, historical and traditional frameworks, the real question is about the quality or kind of man one aspires to be.

The reason for this book is a response to the general, overall confusion and vagueness of the masculine identity. Cultural definitions of masculinity may help to place some guidance to whom and what are males, but they are usually shifting, unstable standards that run the risk and danger of stereotyping. We can find some direction in the Genesis Man, but what do I actually mean by the 3 R’s?

Stay tuned! The next chapter uploads will happen in August.

Feel free to purchase the book

My Canadian friends and family, click below…

Amazon.ca
http://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08CTGRH39

My American friends and family, click below…

Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CTGRH39

My International friends and family, click below…

Amazon.co.uk
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08CTGRH39

_{^{Table of Contents}}

I invite you to reflect on some of the following questions that relates to this chapter (“Talk” tab – page 2)

Before you leave please take a moment and give us some feedback

2 thoughts on “Chapter 2”

Angela Malcolm says:

July 30, 2020 at 4:35 am

Very thought provoking

LikeLike

1. iharriott says:
  
  July 30, 2020 at 8:49 am
  
  Yes, I certainly hope so. I know that it’s not just me, I think we all try to understand ourselves and the opposite gender. Often that understanding or misunderstanding fuels our behaviours. Was there any particular point or idea from the chapter that struck you?
  
  LikeLike

Society’s Reason

Share this:

Related

2 thoughts on “Chapter 2”

Leave a comment Cancel reply