One of my mixed fortunes was being brought up by my mum. Solo motherhood is a hard row, and I had two younger brothers she had to keep an eye on as well. But, it meant that I was able to chose my own male role models. Naturally this included my uncles and my grandfather, but also included blokes off TV, out of books, and in bands.
It’s a strange thing trying to define yourself, but I guess it’s something we all do. It’s just that some of us have more clearly defined markers, aeh?
So, masculinity. What seems to be a common mistake is defining femininity and masculinity as roles, or in the doing. Consequently calls are made for men to be more masculine by not being afraid to do childcare, or perform domestic duties.
I’ve never really understood that though, because what you do and who you are two entirely separate things. Yes women were traditionally relegated to particular roles and activities, but I’m not certain that they actually defined femininity itself. Certainly these roles were used to restrict women, but I can’t see having men performing some of these tasks would or could change masculinity or femininity.
Put another way, men doing domestic chores doesn’t make them feminine, so why is it assumed that performing domestic chores makes women feminine? My answer would be that it does not. There is without doubt a strong relation between the “domestic space” and “femininity”, but it is only a relation, not a dependency. The real question is, “to what extent does domesticity contribute to femininity?”
And I’d have to assume that for some women the answer is, “not at all.”
Now, you can flip that question over and ask to what extent traditional male roles like ‘providing’ define masculinity. And again, for some men the answer is negative. It seems that the doing isn’t what masculinity is all about.
What my lack of predefined male role-model allowed me to realise is that masculinity is about the being. Men don’t do things to make themselves masculine, they just are. Masculinity is something you can learn and imitate, but the essence of being a man is not an activity, it just is. And it is also an individual essence, ineffable.
Perhaps Austin Powers is so funny because everyone recognised ‘the mojo’ for what it is!
Putting aside cheesy stereotypes, masculinity is an acquired essence that grows and/or changes as a man matures. Moreover, like many ineffable things it is better defined by what it is not. It is not independent of femininity for example, but is enhanced by it.
My own opinion is that freeing up masculinity from the doing is liberating for both genders. Because we can start to see it as a essence, or an attribute, it can vary and amend itself to its circumstances. Moreover, my masculinity doesn’t undermine or boost yours, we’re each able to define ourselves.
This probably needs teasing out, especially to prevent the introduction of dogmatic or stereotyped masculinity of the sort I mentioned in the last post on the concept (fundamentalism). Would like to hear from anyone about it.
27 August, 2008 at 1:33 am
Che, I resonate with your desire to distance gender identity from a kind of “dogmatism of action,” in which a man somehow loses his mojo by participating in any forbidden activities. There is no need to polarize sex roles and the activities commensurate with them. One’s masculine quotient (if we may call it that) isn’t contingent on acting non-domestically or breadwinningly at every turn.
At the same time I am not convinced that divorcing being from action is a good idea either. How can I separate who I am from what I do? Would it make sense to say, “Mother Theresa was a beautiful example of compassion in her life – but she could have been a scoundrel at her core, despite any action” or, more fittingly here, “Richard Simmons prances around like a little nymph, but deep inside he possesses solid masculinity.” That kind of dichotomy makes for serious problems. If masculinity is an essence to the exclusion of behaviors, then we’re well on the road to cutting off all our abilities to speak scientifically (that is, observationally). And just think about what it does to ethics.
But let me push you towards a distinction. How is a man’s “masculine essence” different than his physical features (balls, hormones, genetic code, etc.)?
http://mensstudies.wordpress.com
27 August, 2008 at 10:54 am
I would agree with @Hitchcock and go a little further. The reality of a person for others can only based upon their behaviour as no-one else can see “inside”.
And so “being masculine” for me is both how I feel/am PLUS how I act. There are those incogruent times that come along when what I think/feel and how I act aren’t aligned – it normally sucks for everyone incl. me
27 August, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Okay, I get this, it resonates with me. I’m a woman in a very traditionally female role, but who isn’t very feminine. The fact that I’m a primary caregiver, or that I don’t mind wearing skirts, does not make people identify me as traditionally feminine, nor does it apparently stop people from telling me I have a very ‘masculine energy’, whatever tf that means. The way I do the things I do is perhaps more important than the things I do.
So… masculinity and femininity are internalised, and cannot be diminished or increased by doing a particular activity?
27 August, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Good stuff. I agree that for men, Masculinity is intrinsic to who we are, but due to various factors, many of us feel disconnected from our identity and thus lose confidence & the sense of being a “real man”. The solution, I submit, is to learn to enjoy who you are and seek the company of people who appreciate you and affirm the “inner man”.
27 August, 2008 at 5:22 pm
my main background to this thinking is actually the study of identity politics, and the emphasis is very similar.
what you do is part of who you are, but it doesn’t define it. if you use roles exclusively it’s too easy to fall into characterising individuals with stereotypes.
so, not all new zealanders enjoy rugby. but, watching rugby is a part of what it is to be a new zealaner (because the group identity is bigger than the indvidual parts).
what i’m wary of though is reducing masculinity to a set of cheesy ‘essences’ or practices. consequently i’m wary of recent moves to try to reintroduce initiation to western societies. frankly, i’ve got better things to do that sit about in a forest with my wanger out and playing drums…
what we might need to do is recognise the actions that we undertake that are life-changing events for manhood. events like becoming a parent, losing your virginity, completing a full education or… god-forgive the banality, getting a driver’s licence.
it’s a tough one.
28 August, 2008 at 1:04 am
It is how a man meets his challenges and carries his experiences that makes him a genuine man. This said, this is true for all individuals. The Genuine Men Project (www.thegenuinemen.com) is a photo-documentary sharing the stories of thirty five men ranging in age from twelve through ninety – these men show us that to be a man means to go beyond the appearances and stereotypes set for men. They are role models for us all, showing that we can all learn from the story of men.