My "Men, Masculinities, and the American Tradition" course met for the first time a few hours ago. It’s taught as a "Humanities 1" course. At PCC, Humanities courses are designed to be absurdly broad; here’s our catalog description:
How present-day ideas, beliefs, values and practices are grounded in the artistic, literary, philosophical and religious contributions to modern living from the most creative epochs and individuals of various cultures; an interdisciplinary course.
In other words, Humanities 1 can be anything the instructor wants it to be. One of my colleagues teaches Hum 1 as a course on science fiction in literature and film; I teach it as Men and Masculinities. Of course, we don’t ever seem to get around to printing the specifics of our courses in the schedule of classes. Thus, students show up utterly unaware of what the subject is to be. This makes the first day particularly interesting!
If past experience is a guide, a few students will be scared off, either by the topic or by the workload. They will be replaced by others, who will come this week and next having heard about the course from their friends. The final group will be somewhat different that what I start with, and it will be filled — I hope — with those who are genuinely interested in the subject.
I’ve been teaching women’s history here for over a decade. In those classes, women are 85-95% of the students. In the two years that I’ve been teaching Men and Masculinities, I find that women are still the solid majority, averaging around 65%-70% of those enrolled. On one level, this is frustrating. While I am happy to have so many wonderful women students, I do wish I had more male voices in the classroom, especially when men’s issues are in the forefront.
But for so many young men, "studying masculinity" is inherently problematic. After all, as one young man put it to me last year, "The fact that I have to take a course on manhood implies I’m not really masculine, right? I feel like I should just ‘know’ this stuff." The other problem is the sense of homosocial betrayal. Courses like this one ask young men to talk about their fears and their anxieties in a mixed-sex context. For some, it seems that fear of other men’s judgment holds them back — for others, "revealing male secrets" to a majority-female audience does indeed seem like a betrayal of one’s peers.
And yet, great male dialogue does happen in these classes. One thing I’ve learned to do is identify the alpha male in the class. (The older I get, the easier he is to spot!) If other boys perceive that the "alpha male" — and there really is always one present — is willing to open up, they will follow much more rapidly. I learned this working with youth many years ago. As any one who works with young boys knows, the best way to control the "problem boys" is to give them leadership responsibilities. Co-opt all that energy, and you’re in business. In some ways, recruiting the alpha male is dangerous. It reinforces hierarchies with which most boys/men are all too familiar, and that is problematic. I’m careful never to hand any one fellow too much power, and I’m equally careful not to be discouraged if I don’t get his "buy-in."
We often play a game in this class that I learned at a Men Can Stop Rape retreat; it’s called "Who’s da Man?" It involves showing two photographs of two different men simultaneously. One might pair Bill Clinton and John Kerry, or Kobe Bryant and Eminem, or Bill Gates and Prince Charles. All the men have to be famous enough for the majority to recognize them, beyond that, who you pick doesn’t matter. It’s remarkable how rapidly a multi-ethnic classroom of men can come to consensus on which one of any given two males I show them is "da Man." Often, my female students come to very different conclusions, but the guys are remarkable quick to reach agreement. (You can try this at home, folks — it’s far more interesting and provocative than it sounds, especially when you ask the guys to explain their choices.)
My own masculinity is obviously an unspoken issue in the classroom. In my student years, I would never have been the "alpha male"; I was far too "geeky" and awkward for that. I’m not unaware that today, as I teach,I am being evaluated and judged. Young men in particular are confused as to my motives for teaching such a class; many of them, I think, would prefer it if I were openly gay because then they would better understand my willingness to deconstruct masculinity so openly. Frankly, this is an area where a knowledge of sports carries me a long way. Having a genuine love for football (and a passing familiarity with everything from NASCAR to the X Games) has really helped me overcome the suspiciousness of many a young man in my classes. But I am careful never to affect the demeanor of a "hail fellow well met" high school coach — because in doing so, I would reinforce a whole host of unpleasant masculine stereotypes that might alienate a number of my other male students, the sort who are eager to see a different vision of masculinity.
Honestly, it isn’t easy. Then again, it’s a whole buncha fun.
I’m not surprised that women are more open to studying masculinity than men. The very idea of it for men means having to think of themselves as a Gender, which is something we are only comfortable in regards to women.
I think TeeHee is trying to insult you but I can’t be sure because it’s not all that coherent.
I have a bit of problem with pushing this ‘masculinity must be changed’ barrow. Why? and most particularly, why you?
Now I don’t mean to be insulting with the latter bit, but judging by what you’ve written about a wide variety of things and also supported by your Myers Briggs profile, you aren’t all that representative of masculinity. Note I said masculinity, not virility. I think there’s enough empirical evidence that your thinking processes are closer to a feminine average than a masculine one, and therefore I respectfully suggest that you cease foisting a minority view onto the majority as a desirable way to be. It is, in its way, breath-takingly arrogant.
You really should read Baron Cohen’s ‘The Essential Difference’.
You’re a natural empathiser,along with 80% of women. For you, it’s as natural as breathing to be nurturing (as opposed to protective) and to examine feelings in a way that would not be natural or even desirable for other men. As a good friend of mine likes to say:
“Feelings aren’t necessarily sacred and
unquestionable, and they don’t always lead to the right conclusions”
Anyway, I enjoy this blog of yours. Not too surprising really, given that our theologies would be very similar even if everything else isn’t.
BTW, on your quest for a lifestyle coherent with your convictions (not mine I’m afraid – I’m an omnivore with the teeth to prove it:)but have you read Richard Foster’s “The Freedom of Simplicity”. It’s at least 15 years since I last read it, but it’s a wonderful book.
I’m a man,
I can change,
If I have to,
I guess.
*sheesh*
Alyric, you are misrepresenting the MBTI to say that any male, no matter what his Type is, is “not all that representative of masculinity.” Surely if a man has certain characteristics or qualities, they are, by definition, part of “masculinity”; same thing with women, and femininity in my view. And before you ask, I’m a female INTP. Does that make me “less feminine”? Hell no.
Hugo, you rock. I’d take your class, if I lived in your area.
Alyric, I do love Richard Foster, especially his “Celebration of Discipline”. Thanks for the thoughtful comments…
I have a question, and I am asking it sincerely. (I’m not a troll, haha.) Is the purpose of your class to try to “deconstruct masculinity”? I ask this because I think rigid gender roles for men are harmful to them. You know, the whole “real man” bit that a lot of men don’t fit. However, I believe some people are “alpha” by nature and that isn’t a bad thing. I consider myself an alpha female. If I didn’t have alpha males to hang out with, I wouldn’t have any friends.
The very fact that it’s CALLED a course on masculinity is counter-productive; I thought most here were trying to avoid distinctions between men and women and masculinity and femininity. If I ever have kids, I won’t sweat it at all if my son plays with dolls and by daughter plays with toy trucks. I don’t care in the least if a man cries a lot or if a woman joins a construction crew.
I mean, I don’t know if I’d be considered masculine or feminine by society at all. I don’t fish or hunt (f), I love sports (m), I don’t eat meat or smoke cigars (f), I’m an MRA (m)…where any of this puts me on the “scale” I have no idea, and really don’t care all that much…
Hey, bg–you just deconstructed “masculinity”. By saying that it’s a concept, one isn’t necessarily saying that it’s an inborn trait. In fact, usually the opposite.
I can relate to your male students, or lack of them, but then I’m a INTP and have sometimes have trouble understanding people who understand things primarily through feelings. It’s only as I get older, that I’ve come to develop that side more and be more comfortable with dialog along those lines. Though I still get frustrated when people use the word feel when ‘think’ is more accurate. For example my fiance asked me why I feel I cannot swim very well. I replied, I THINK I cannot swim very well. How I FEEL is unsafe in the water. That’s classic thinker mode, I try not to be ass, really.
People sometimes expect me to be a Alpha. Probably because I have a masculine appearance and am relatively smart and opinionated, but I figure why bother? I’m really not that into controlling other people or bossing them around or anything like that.
Y’know, supposedly INTJ and INTP are the rarest personality types, but half the folks on the Internet seem to have them. I think I’m an INTX — meaning I’m straddling the line between J(udging) and P(erceiving). I used to be on an email list for INTPs, but I found a lot of the discussion assumed commonalities that didn’t apply to me, and I thought there was some idea of these being essential personality types — the way they talked about the four bodily humors in the Renaissance.
Oh, and on having a class on “masculinity” — you need to identify the problem before you can resolve it. So I think Hugo’s doing the right thing.
FoolishOwl, good point. Sometimes I test as a INFP, though I think some of that is learned compensation. I still sometimes hear “Earth to Ron” (after the Xth time.)
I regularly test as an INXP on the Myers-Briggs test, which is interesting because the T/F dichotomy is supposed to be the (only) one which correlates with gender.
Personally, I think that dichotomy is flawed because it conflates the following axes:
(1) The degree to which one trusts one’s reasoning ability – this is a function of both reasoning ability (you’re not going to default to logical reasoning if you don’t trust in your abilities) and socialization (you’re not going to default to logical reasoning if your reasoning doesn’t get taken seriously.)
(2) The Myers-Briggs material I’ve read equates a “Feeling” temperament with a personality that wants to please people. I see little indication that this is necessarily the case; one can be both irrational and “heartless.”
Let’s look at two hypothetical people – Person A, who makes decisions based on emotion rather than logic but is not interested in pleasing people; and Person B, who makes decisions based on logic rather than emotion but is interested in pleasing people. Based on the version of the test I was looking at, with questions like “you readily help people while asking nothing in return” and “you value justice higher than mercy”, Person A scores as slightly thinking and person B scores as slightly feeling, even though as the temperaments are described they should be the other way around. When you factor in both biased questions like “you feel involved when watching TV soaps” and socialization pressures toward women to please the people around them, it’s no wonder there’s a correlation.
Hugo,
Have you discussed this Alpha Male thing before? I’ve never really heard of it, (other than with dogs) but you all seem to know all about it. I’m really curious about how the whole idea works. How do you locate the Alpha, and what are the practical ramifications of his presence?
If I may, Lisa, an alpha male is simply the guy most of the other males “look up to.†Essentially, he’s the cool guy in the group. Hugo will correct will correct me if I’m but, but I think the term “alpha male†is misleading. The same thing happens with females, it’s simply not as obvious.
But with males, people tend to think of the alpha male as a jock when technically that isn’t mostly the case. It’s usually the guy with the most outspoken personality who takes charge or presents his ideas upfront. Basically, he’s the most assertive.
Now I’m not sure if Hugo views these guys as “bad†people for fitting into that role. Technically, men like JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, FDR, Jesus Christ and even Gandhi were alpha males. It depends on whether it is deemed negative or positive to be an alpha male.
At any rate, I would be interested in taking Hugo’s course, just to see what’s taught, and how it’s taught.
Dear Hugo, I struggle to teach 6th and 7th grade boys in 2 coed settings, but boys are the majority. One evening class to tutor struggling students. One daytime summer school enrichment class teaching Spanish. I am VERY interested in any suggestions you have for enlisting the alpha male to curb problem behavior in class, because what I see is a lot of jockeying for position with inappropriate name-calling, speaking out of turn, being extremely physical, loud boasting, loud fidgeting, etc. I like your idea of making that person a problem-solver. Any other suggestions? I am female, if that makes a difference. Anybody else with proven strategies? Thank you.