<\/a>Conan felt at ease in the
office.<\/p><\/div>\n
Following on from Sarah
C’s blogpost yesterday<\/a>, I wanted to ask: who
decides what it is to “be a man”? And why is the
answer vital to improving things for women?<\/p>\n
This is not just about Alpha Males, but our entire definition
of masculinity (and therefore what we’re telling boys
and men they should aim to be). We can talk about being a
responsible adult, but how is that different from
‘manly’? <\/p>\n
We haven’t moved on very much from celebrating men as
muscle-bound warriors, from equating manliness with
physical<\/em> strength. Nerds are not manly. Thin,
‘weak’ guys are not manly. The efficient office
worker is not ‘manly’. The patient father is not
praised with “What a man!” Anyone with the wrong
body shape can never qualify.<\/p>\n
Manliness also requires independence: you’re not a
successful man if you live in your Mother’s
basement, but men who own motorbikes or fast cars are
sexy. It goes beyond this, though. You’re not manly
if you’re ruled primarily by tender emotions, or
“under the thumb” of a woman, or
–<\/p>\n
Sorry, I just can’t keep this up. It’s such
utter, utter bullshit. The short answer seems to be:
you’re not a man unless you control your own
destiny. If others are in charge of you, or you submit to
them, then they are above you on the Manliness
Scale.<\/p>\n
And we wonder why the entire planet is in danger.<\/p>\n
It’s as though the capability to fight and take
– and therefore provide – is still the only
measure of what makes a man. Male aggression is not
popular in modern society (outside of sports, boardrooms
and the army) but Sarah C referred to some websites
yesterday which celebrate a particularly horrible version
of poisonous alpha male tropes. Their vision consists of
controlling your women (multiple), being in command, being
admired for being powerful, and taking it easy while your
slaves do the work because you’re the big
man.<\/p>\n
It’s pretty strange to see that this still exists in
an allegedly modern country. These men seem to think they
can be less powerless in life if they take imagined power
from women around them. A big part of it lies in
succeeding specifically
because<\/em> you have lowered a woman’s power
from a perceived higher place. Femininity is seen as
making men weak, and women are assumed to be always less
powerful (making any example of them EVER overruling the
alpha an unacceptable demonstration of the alpha’s
weakness.)<\/p>\n
So why is this commanding behaviour not only
acceptable, respected, sought-after, but the
definition of masculine prowess?<\/p>\n
Some sources believe it’s because fighting
is the one thing you can’t fake.<\/a> It’s
also the action which overrules all others: it
doesn’t matter how deserving, wise or honourable
you are, someone with a bigger gun can take it all
away. So maybe it’s about security, and
therefore defence of loved ones, rather than the more
pessimistic approach of valuing someone primarily for
their ability to attack.<\/p>\n
What’s interesting is that this Conan image
comes more from the media and movies than reality. A
quick poll of some female friends found that they
mainly think “manly” means having
Values, Character, Responsibility<\/em>…
behaviours which suggest you are not just a boy in
adult clothes. The change is from a child to an
adult, not to being more
male<\/em> than before.<\/p>\n
But the images and lessons boys receive from TV
and cinema simply cannot equate maturity with
manliness unless the man can also kick the ass
of everyone onscreen. And be totally 100%
heterosexual, of course. (In the same poll, one
woman said she’d think less of a man if he
wasn’t physically stronger than her, so
it’s not all one-sided.) Even here,
‘feminine’ qualities are seen as
taking away from a man’s masculinity. And
since ‘feminine’ is deemed
inseparable from a woman’s perfect role of
being a (usually married) mother, that means men
are deemed less manly if they show any nurturing
behaviour towards kids, are emotionally
sensitive, etc etc oh god this is
depressing.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, masculinity is bound up with
individual<\/em> heroism instead of having to
rely on others, and that’s a dangerous
place to be.<\/p>\n
It’s a sad trend for feminism that men
are judged on what they
do<\/strong>, and women are judged on how
they
look<\/strong>, but the male side of
that is not as enabling as it appears.
The target for masculinity has to
include muscle, mastery and money. A
man\u2019s worth (as a
“successful” male and
especially as relationship material) is
very closely linked to his money. Not
just the prestige of the job, but how
far up the status ladder of it he is.
Success and potential future success are
what are really being measured, in
whatever field. And it IS about wealth;
that’s why status
symbols<\/em> work. They represent
the money, and therefore the power, or
his capability and drive to get
power.<\/p>\n
Who are the male role models on TV?
Bling-laden hard men rappers
surrounded by girls, secret agents
who win every fight, footballers and
movie stars. All of whom are alpha
males who get the girls and status
(and money). Individual parents
might offer better role models
linked to how to be manly, but
“society” doesn’t.
Even the “lad’s
mags” of the 1990s like
FHM<\/strong> and
Loaded<\/strong> aren’t
connecting with what men feel is
right for their
lives<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Despite all this, the problem
is nothing compared to what
women face when society tells
them what it thinks
‘feminine’ is.
That still must include sexual
issues in a way that
‘masculine’
doesn’t, as well as
passivity\/submission. And for
all the harm that men feeling
unneeded may bring, reclaiming
feminism from its Bad Rep is a
more urgent issue –
but it’s not
unrelated<\/strong>. We need
ways for men to behave
better towards women without
feeling less masculine. The
strict mandate to never
appear as ‘weak’
as a woman is a
foundation of male
violence<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The message needs to
change. We need to be
saying that a man is
valued if he behaves
well<\/em>, with
compassion and thought
and honour. The only
medium that counts in
bringing messages like
this to the public is
television, and
that’s why pop
culture is so crucial.
Less ‘lone white
male avenger’
shows, more balanced,
nuanced depictions of
heroism. We won’t
get it from retail
advertisers (who want
you to believe you need
money, items and to be
having constant fun or
you are a failure). We
need it to come from pop
culture, and to reach
children and young
adults in ways which
seem natural and
obvious.<\/p>\n
There is hope. As well
as the attitudes of
real individuals in
the surveys I
mentioned earlier,
some websites and
magazines are also
looking at the
problem. One very
interesting example is
The
Good Men Project<\/a>,
which launched
recently. They seem to
be asking precisely
the same question I
have: what’s the
difference between
“being a
man” and
“being a GOOD
man”? And why is
there such a huge
potential difference
at all? (Also:
high-five to that site
for genuinely
exploring how to get
comfortable with
masculinity in a way
which benefits the
individual and
society, and so far
not setting up
feminism as any kind
of block to that.)