I was thrown out of a rooming group in college for not being feminine enough. I believe it’s caused me problems at work, too.
Yesterday, I was reading about a 55 year old man from Utah who died while descending Mt. Everest. Read the first line of this article:
This sentence reveals so much about the high value we assign quintessential masculine pursuits. It’s almost as if the loss of life is treated as an acceptable and unavoidable piece of collateral damage, a nobel sacrifice rather than the completely unnecessary tragedy that it was.
When you analyze this man’s dreams, you see how…frivolous they are. Climbing the world’s highest peaks is certainly something that is difficult and rare. But other than bragging rights, what good is it? How does climbing Mt. Everest—which at this point is becoming a cliched stunt—do anything positive for anyone other than the climber’s ego and the sherpas paid to risk their life for them? And why do we continue to venerate men who forfeit their lives chasing such dreams? We do so because it’s routinely normalized, as shown by this article.
When “feminine” dreams cause women to risk their lives, we can more easily recognize see this as a problem. As I type, some woman somewhere is getting industrial grade silicon pumped into her buttocks so that she looks like Kim Kardashian. This woman will later get sick and either die or lose her legs following infection. Universally, we will see this outcome as a product of vanity, selfishness, and low self-esteem, and we will condemn her and the society that created her. But a man who singled-mindedly pursues an equally dangerous and equally frivolous dream will get praised.
It is in these disparities that we are taught what it means to be a man. It’s not explicit teachings; it’s mostly subtext. Being a man means chasing your dreams right until the end, no matter what those dreams are.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes. Maybe I should have said arrogance instead.
As far as who gets ahead at work, in my 30 years in the workplace, the braggarts are the ones who typically don’t. They either get fired because nobody wants to work with an asshole or they leave in a flounce because, well nobody wants to work with an asshole. There is a difference between listing accomplishments on a resumé or putting certificates on a wall or talking about them if the topic comes up in conversation. The braggart just comes across as either insecure, or he’s an asshole who isn’t really as good as he wants people to think he is.
Oops that was supposed to say difference between listing etc and proclaiming how great you are to everyone at every opportunity…or something like that
Yesterday I was talking to a friend with an adult son, who related that one day when he was twelve he was crying, and when she asked him why he said, “I cried at school!”
That is, he had committed an ultimate sin and had been appropriately humiliated for it.
She also mentioned that her ex husband was in therapy, the main subject being “what are you feeling right now?” He told her that he’d never done more difficult work. He never was aware of what he was feeling. Her ex, whom I’ve known for forty years or so, is an excitable, emotional guy with some really destructive lack of impulse control (which his son inherited in spades) – I wouldn’t have picked him for someone who was totally out of contact with his real feelings.
To me, this “no feeling your feelings” rule for men is one of the most destructive aspects of masculinity as practiced pretty universally in this culture anyway. Whether you are raised in stoic New England or the braggadocio South, the rule is at bottom the same.
I think masculinity is about trying to be the calm one, acting like you have the answers, controlling one’s feelings and trying to be more logical than emotional. Bill Burr summarized one aspect of it pretty well in this story about a guy freaking out over airplane turbulence: Bill Burr Airplane Turbulence - YouTube
I think the very concept of “masculinity” starts with a problem. Why should any trait that can also be possessed by someone who doesn’t consider ēmself masculine be part of the definition?
Logically, masculinity should be limited to those traits that no non-masculine person cannot possibly have.
So what that leaves us with is that the only reasonable definition of “masculine” includes only those traits that literally only a male human can have. So “masculine” and “maleness” and “the state of being a male human” are all exactly equivalent.
So, what is the point of even talking about “masculinity” as something existing on its own? Whom does it serve?
Do you agree with what Bill Burr says in the clip? Obviously, he’s a comedian, so he’s making this funny, but is this what you think is masculinity?
So I take it you don’t think that masculinity is an idea that should be imposed on men?
I agree completely. I think what happens is that this neutral, objective definition of masculine gets attached, however strongly or weakly, to a set behavioral traits that are human in nature and not gender-distinct. It is culture that makes those artbitrary distinctions, there is nothing innate or biological to the pervading concepts of masculinity or femininity. Nothing, of course, except those literal biological differences that you note in your post.
Right, the unavoidable questions are:
(1) If X trait is masculine, then what are you saying to a someone who lacks that trait but wants to be treated as masculine?
(2) If X trait is masculine, then what are you saying to someone who has that trait but doesn’t consider emself masculine?
(3) If X, Y, Z positive traits are masculine, and they are associated with things like, for example, leadership and decision-making, etc., then you are creating a social barrier against non-masculine people.
And how are the social and economic positions and their potential being affected by these standards?
And really if you look at these questions carefully, what you should see is that the very concept of masculinity is the root of a lot of our social and cultural problems.
On top of that add the fact that certain masculine-defined traits turn out not to be beneficial to individuals or society.
What exactly are we trying to accomplish with the concept of masculinity?
What it seems to me is that what we accomplish is giving unfair advantages to certain people and unfairly disadvantaging others.
You have to die of something eventually. Might as well be on Everest.
Until relatively recently in history, women weren’t permitted to have “dreams”. At least not beyond getting married and raising a family. These days, dreams like career, family, climbing Everest, or whatever aren’t restricted to masculine or feminine.
I believe the correct answer is “man up”.
I think that’s a bit of a tautology (I think). If you are saying leadership and decision-making are positive traits then you are creating a social barrier against people who do not display those traits (at least with respect to leadership roles). Whether they are “masculine” is irrelevant, unless you are assuming that the display of other traditionally “masculine” traits is an indication of leadership and decision-making.
Interestingly, I was reading an article the other day comparing various female super hero characters and how they are presented in terms of femininity.
Ripley from the Aliens films is largely regarded as one of the first female action heroes. To do so, she adopted what are largely regarded as “masculine” qualities (particularly for 80s action heroes) - tough talking, laconic, carries a gigantic gun. What the article doesn’t mention is that Ripley also display very “matronly” qualities, such as protecting her surrogate “daughter” Newt or caring for Hicks when he’s injured.
Wonder Woman is and has always been the embodiment of super-femininity. She’s tall, attractive, charming, dresses well, but also kicks ass.
Carol Danvers AKA Capt Marvel (at least her current incarnation) is described as a sort of “modern woman” superhero. She doesn’t display the overt femininity of Wonder Woman, nor does she adopt the masculine qualities of Ripley. She’s sort of androgynous, wearing what looks like a motor cross jump suit as a superhero and pant suits during her down time. Her superpower is “puckiness”. An ability to persevere past the various annoying and condescending men in her life who try to hold her back.
Anyhow, the point being is that I don’t think “masculine” should be considered a negative, nor should certain traits or behaviors be considered purely masculine or feminine. Since women and men pretty much do everything these days, I would characterize masculine and feminine as more “stylistic” choices.
I know that if me, a mother of two, lost her life climbing down a mountain, my friends and family wouldn’t take solace in the idea that I “chased my dreams to the very end”. They would be crying, wondering what possessed me to be so fixated on such a goal to the exclusion of the goal of seeing my girls grow up.
Of course if I, father of four, lost his life doing some challenge for the sake of doing the challenge, because it’s there, my friends and family would also find no solace in my having been chasing my dreams, even though I’ve already lived to see my kids into some semblance of adulthood. (Hey, we are all still works in progress!)
And women who have accomplished those sorts of “dreams” have been celebrated - from open water swimmers like Julie Bradshaw, Alison Streeter, and many more, to solo sailing circumnavigators like Emily Richmond, to, yes, those who climbed Everest. These women are not considered masculine, they are held up as strong determined women.
The Carol Danvers female superhero embodies the appropriate claim of “grit” and determination as female ideals as much as they are male ones. That was key scene, when she, in hold of the Supreme Intelligence, remembers that after each memory of her fails, in the face of those who told her she could not, she got back up and tried again and again, until she succeeded.To be fair it is the hero trope that applies to heroes of both genders, just filtered through a lens that places sexist expectations and messaging as part of what needs to be persevered past, not just an opponent who seems to have you beat.
An interesting part of that filter was that part of what Danvers needed to reject with perseverance was accepting that being a female hero meant accepting the masculinity baggage, specifically and explicitly the idea that being “emotional” was a negative. A woman with grit is not taking on masculine ideals; they can reject masculine ideals that do not fit who they are, like suppressing emotions. They are claiming grit as a womanly ideal.
Yes, it would be best if the concepts of masculinity and femininity went into the dustbin with acceptance that the same traits are attractive, sexy, valuable, and heroic ideals for both genders, and that other traits can be positive or negative in either as well.
Not too likely to happen though. Best we can hope for is to aware of our implicit biases of what makes someone a “real” man or woman and try to not further them.
Do you have examples of women who died doing these things? And are they eulogized the same way men are, even when they leave behind grieving family?
I’m gonna need you to understand my point here: it’s not that women aren’t celebrated for climbing mountains and other feats. It’s that, when it comes to men killing themselves doing “masculine” stunts, it doesn’t very widely register as a senseless tragedy. We tolerate it because masculinity is about “chasing the dream of <insert accomplishing inconsequential dangerous thing> to the very end”.
Of course the deaths are not hard to find.
The media reaction in the '90s to Alison Hargreaves’s death during a climb perhaps makes your point some.
But it is worth noting how she is eulogized now compared to the media comments twenty years ago. And her family said those things about her all along … the media just gave more play to those others who were criticizing her than they would have a man.
This article supports my point. Did you see how the takehome message emphasizes tragedy over accomplishment?
See these quotes:
Now go back and read the article on the Utah man for a nice compare and contrast. His demise was oddly portrayed as an affirmation that nothing is impossible. Not an “absolute tragedy” like Taylor’s was.
I would guess that “feminine” is to “girly” as “masculine” is to “macho”, at least in contemporary English usage.
Yes, I can see your point: reporting of men dying in these circumstances is more likely to validate the cartoonish male caricature of the brave adventurer on his quest, less tragic, and reporting of women’s deaths are more likely to recognize the tragedy of it, even as it is still called “valiant”.
Not sure though if that translates to how families and friends respond …
How much of that, do you think, is the ease of referencing male caricature, and how much because we value the woman’s life more as the one who must be there for her family roles than we do the man’s? (So her loss is considered of more impact on those left behind?)
To be a man is to be strong, fearless, and powerful. You don’t want to insult your dead father’s memory by reacting to his death as if he was a weakling who bit off more than he could chew. So you gamely spin it as a man fulfilling his great destiny, conquering his dreams no matter how ambitious, refusing to go down without a fight, carpe diem, yolo, etc.
This has nothing to do with mourning a loss more, in my opinion. The article for Taylor mentioned no spouse or children, so I can’t imagine her loss would be any more impactful than a man who left behind a widow and adult kids.
In case it’s not clear, I think the way we respond to women’s deaths is how we should be reacting for everyone’s deaths of similar nature. When people die, it’s tragic. “At least he died doing something he loves doing” doesn’t fly when you’re talking about a guy who decided to create and be responsible for a family. Does “being a man” mean it’s okay to risk your life chasing after dreams of glory? If so, then maybe we need to throw this out of the “being a man” thing, because it is of questionable value.