This is the third installment of a three-part review of Michael Kimmel’s Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Part one is here, and part two is here.
In the first two parts, I looked at Kimmel’s concerns about young men in America, noting his insights into the “Guy Code”, homosociality, and the recurrent theme of escape in boys’ lives. Kimmel is as good as any in identifying the problem, and making a compelling case that there are some immensely troublesome aspects to the way in which our culture helps (or doesn’t) boys transition into adulthood. But it’s axiomatic that diagnosis is always easier to write than remedy; most of us see the wrong more clearly than we see the right. And in the end, the most valuable contribution that any of us in the gender studies field can make is to prescribe workable solutions to the problems we are usually so good at identifying.
Many writers of similar books spend the first four-fifths of the text laying out the case that something needs to change, usually with copious anecdotes designed to illustrate just how bad things have gotten. The suggestions for change and transformation, if they have any, usually only appear in the conclusion. Too often in recent years, I’ve read books about “youth in crisis” in which practical solutions appear almost as a rushed afterthought. It’s as if the author never meant to include them at all, and only did so, grudgingly, at the firm insistence of an editor. I am happy to say that Michael Kimmel weaves his vision for an alternative “guyhood” into every chapter of his book. Though the bulk of his strategy for change appears towards the end of Guyland, the whole text is shot through with thoughtful and compelling suggestions for how things can be different.
First off, we need to acknowledge that there is much that is good in our young men. One of the classic slurs that anti-feminist men’s rights activists (MRAs) throw at the likes of Michael Kimmel (or Jackson Katz, Robert Jensen, Michael Flood, and — if I may be so bold –myself) is that we are filled with masculine self-loathing. We then apparently project our own self-hatred onto other men, longing (apparently) to change “real men” into women. This charge has as much credence as the suggestion that Barack Obama runs an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, but like those whispers, the spurious charge of misandry has proven surprisingly resilient. Kimmel does what all of us do, though we get too little attention for it: he honors the worth and dignity of the young men about whom he writes, and he honors them as men.
In his most recent book, Robert Jensen (like John Stoltenberg before him) made the suggestion that the ultimate solution to the crisis is to work to eradicate socially-conditioned categories like “masculinity” and “femininity”. Kimmel doesn’t disagree, but he’s more willing than Jensen to work within the confines of these categories, exhorting young men towards the redemptive, courageous, and nurturing aspects of the masculine:
While some might suggest that the entire ideology of masculinity must be discarded, many elements of masculinity are enormously valuable; indeed, qualities such as honor, respect, integrity, doing the right thing despite the costs — these are the qualities of a real man. (And, I might add, a real woman. There is nothing inherently masculine about honor and integrity.)
Rather than pick apart the ideology, though, our task is more immediate: We need to encourage emotional resilience in guys — in our sons, our friends, our brothers — teach them to develop and hold fast to an ethical core that cannot be shaken from its foundation. (Bold in the original).
That’s a nearly universal position, of course: writers on the religious right (such as the lamentable John Eldredge) are also interested in developing a strong “ethical core” inside young men. They want to use very traditional gender roles, with a healthy dollop of evangelical muscular Christianity, to build that core. What makes Kimmel’s more egalitarian vision different?
Kimmel correctly roots the solution in the developing of ethical relationships. He’s a strong advocate of encouraging “platonic” friendships with the opposite sex. The received wisdom from the “When Harry Met Sally” generation is that men and women can never be friends without sexual desire on the part of one or both people in the friendship ruining everything. Kimmel notes that young people today (many of whom were born after the iconic Billy Crystal/Meg Ryan film came out in 1989) are much more comfortable being “just friends” with the other sex than their elders were at their age. Kimmel notes that boys who have close female friends are much less likely to exhibit the worst and most destructive tendencies of the Guy Code. After all, the “guy code” is wrapped up in the notion that approval from other men (specifically, homosocial validation of one’s masculinity) is the most precious commodity a young man can pursue. Even heterosexual conquest is, ultimately, a means of gaining approval from the guys. Young men who have friends of both sexes are less likely to be held hostage to solely masculine approval; they can receive non-sexual validation from their female friends — and that validation is less likely to be connected to the brutal “sturdy oak” ethos of the Guy Code.
Parents and teachers can play a role in encouraging opposite sex friendships. Far too many parents, coaches, and teachers tease boys who have female friends, suggesting (or assuming) that there one or both of the kids in the friendship must have a romantic or sexual agenda. Boys need to see adult men who can relate to women as friends, as complete human beings. Boys whose parents subscribe to a rigid “separate spheres” ideology in which “men are men” and “women are women” and the twain never mix except in ritualized, sexualized encounters are the ones most at risk of falling prey to the worst aspects of Guy Culture. Encouraging opposite-sex platonic friendships characterized by warmth and trust and non-sexual intimacy is one of the best strategies adults can employ to build empathy within young men.
Guys also need, as Kimmel points out, “charismatic adults.” So many adults of both sexes are intimidated by the young men of Guyland. Guys between 16 and 26 can seem opaque and uncommunicative one day, sullenly aggressive the next. As is so often the case, the passions of one generation seem bizarre and wasteful to the previous one; many adults my age find “gaming” culture to be more than passing strange! But while the Guy Code means that young men can never display any need for attention or mentoring, adults cannot mistake an outer veneer of uninterest for self-sufficiency. Time and again in his interviews and research, Kimmel noted that the most fortunate and well-adjusted of guys were those who had strong, involved, caring role models.
Kimmel rejects the Robert Bly thesis. Bly suggested, over and over again, that only men can make men. Boys, the mythopoetic guru suggested, need men — and men only — to initiate them into manhood. Kimmel has little time for Bly, and rightly so. (It is Kimmel who came up with the splendid remark that the world needed fewer Iron Johns – the title of Bly’s most famous book — and more ironing Johns!) It does little good, Kimmel remarks, for older men to insist that young fellas have much to learn from them when those older men have so often demonstrated so little interest in children. Writing of the Mankind Project/Robert Bly/Sam Keen ageing baby boomer crowd, Kimmel notes:
Instead of criticizing their own abdication of responsibility, as they rushed from careers to affairs to divorces, many of these mythopoetic men seemed angry at the boys themselves for failing to seek their guidance and request their mentorship. The retreats were populated by hundreds of mentors, but with few young men to whom they could impart their wisdom.
Word. Having been to more than one of those retreats, and being the youngest man present whilst well into my thirties, I can attest to the essentially self-congratulatory and decidedly unpractical quality of much of what passes for men’s work. It has its place, of course, but drum circles with their fathers are of little interest to most young men.
Young men need adults who will meet them where they are, who will seek them out and do the initially difficult work of building rapport with guys who are struggling to develop a humanity that is so often retarded by the Code. This is work for women as well as for men; Kimmel shares several stories about the role of older women (by no means always mothers or other family members) in helping guys develop. The fact that half my readers will smirk as their eyes go across that sentence, thinking at once of “cougars” and the likes of Mary Kay Letourneau, is indicative of how distrustful we are of any adult, of either sex, who takes a keen interest in our young men. We need more safe adults, men and women alike, with good boundaries who are not put off either by cultural anxiety about sexual abuse or by the illusion of self-sufficiency that many of these lads try so hard to project.
Sports coaches can play a part as well: indeed, the athlete/coach relationship is one of the few intergenerational relationships between men that is celebrated and honored in our culture. Of course, not all boys are interested in sports, which means that the benefit of that inter-generational mentoring is primarily given to a gifted few. I know plenty of young men who signed up for sports in high school less out of a real interest in playing the game and more out of a longing for validation from peers and consistent attention from adults. Sadly, many coaches of boys’ sports reinforce the worst aspects of the Guy Code, often relying upon a language of feminizing, even raping, one’s opponents. On the other hand, there are some wondeful coaches, even in the violent game of football. Joe Ehrmann is much celebrated for his victories and for his pro-feminist mentoring. And the immensely successful Pete Carroll, now head football coach at USC, is singled out for praise by Kimmel for his work in pioneering sexual assault prevention training for all of his athlete and coaches.
So young men need friends of both sexes. They need adults too, of both sexes — parents, of course, but others as well. It is in relationship with other human beings, relationship characterized by candor and trust and communication, that young men can receive that precious “inoculation against cruelty” (as Leonard Doob, whom Kimmel quotes, so perfectly puts it.)
We often assume that guys do not want our help Kimmel writes; I believe they are desperate for it. Most guys are desperate for permission to do the right thing, rather than swallow their complicity with the wrong thing. We must create an enviroment that sustains them at their best.
We create that environment by taking a passionate interest in the emotional well-being of our guys. Love is not a zero-sum game; there is no call for reducing the vital work we are doing and still need to do to empower our daughters. But we sometimes see the pain in our girls’ faces more clearly than we do in our sons. Young women have been given at least a small degree of permission to articulate their fears and anxieties, to reach out for help when they feel overwhelmed. But boys are no better equipped for the trials of the transition to adulthood; indeed, the Guy Code serves to undermine the development of vital life skills that can help these lads become successful, thoughtful, bold and empathetic men. We’ve got to be brave enough to push our way in, if need be. And that we is all of us.
Also see here: my male transformation series.
Comments on a selection of thoughts:
are the qualities of a real man. (And, I might add, a real woman. There is nothing inherently masculine about honor and integrity.)
That echoes something I’ve always felt. What makes a man a “real” or “strong” man in my eyes is the same thing that makes a woman a “real” or “strong” woman. I can’t really tell from the excerpts you chose, Hugo, but why is Kimmel holding onto keeping the ideas of masculinity and femininity, if he feels the positive aspects of masculinity apply to women too? Why not just say, “These are good qualities for people to have”?
re: having friends of the opposite gender –
Amen to that. I have several very good male friends, and it drives me crazy when people insist that there must be something else there, or ask why we’re not dating. I knew someone in college whose on-campus Christian youth group pounded into him that men must only be friends with men, and women with women, and the basic philosophy behind it boiled everyone down to these untrustworthy people with no self-control who walk around on the verge of having sex with everyone in their sight. It seemed so limiting, sad, and negative.
As is so often the case, the passions of one generation seem bizarre and wasteful to the previous one; many adults my age find “gaming†culture to be more than passing strange!
As a link to the reach-out-and-mentor theme of this post, an adult who has a gamer in his or her life might try asking the gamer to share some favorite games rather than just treating it as “passing strange.” Most gamers I know enjoy talking about and showing off their favorites, and quite a few of the male gamers I know who are in their mid-to-late-20s warmly talk about sharing them with their future kids.
Hugo,
“First off, we need to acknowledge that there is much that is good in our young men. One of the classic slurs that anti-feminist men’s rights activists (MRAs) throw at the likes of Michael Kimmel (or Jackson Katz, Robert Jensen, Michael Flood, and — if I may be so bold –myself) is that we are filled with masculine self-loathing.”
See, Hugo, if you wouldn’t start such a paragraph by acknowledging something (that there is much good in our young men) and thus making clear how much this is not the premise upon which your arguments are built, I think the perception that you’re not exactly happy with your masculinity (to not say afraid of it, to a degree, which is my personal impression) or at least what you seem to think it was in the past, wouldn’t be so resilient. And, with all due respect, it’s not possible for you to decide how much credence such a claim has or has not, that’s up to your readers, isn’t it?
“While some might suggest that the entire ideology of masculinity must be discarded, many elements of masculinity are enormously valuable; indeed, qualities such as honor, respect, integrity, doing the right thing despite the costs — these are the qualities of a real man. (And, I might add, a real woman. There is nothing inherently masculine about honor and integrity.)
This is actually something I agree on. These are the qualities of a good human being.
And that’s the point? Why has the notion of “a good man” become so popular and not the “good woman”? Simple? Because masculinity has always been viewed as slightly problematic. Dominant and socially necessary, for sure, but necessary in the way that weapons are generally regarded to be necessary despite the possibility of being killed by “friendly” fire. A good man was thus one who was able to wield power for the good, one who has not given into his alleged dard side.
To reinforce the notion of “the good man” is defining the “not good man” as the male default condition. That’s a rather sexist feminist tendency.
In face, what “masculinity” and “feminity” should be outside the sexual realm, I don’t know. To the extent that sexuality/sexual attraction is a part of every humans life that can not be switched off (not even in what you call non-sexualised interactions, where actions are, can and should be controlled but not the unconscious) they will always be around as long as there is human sexuality. Whether you believe they’re essential or socialized.
“We often assume that guys do not want our help Kimmel writes; I believe they are desperate for it.”
I agree with this. But they need help from people who accept them for what they are, and not the helper’s projection of what they could become.
“See, Hugo, if you wouldn’t start such a paragraph by acknowledging something (that there is much good in our young men) and thus making clear how much this is not the premise upon which your arguments are built, I think the perception that you’re not exactly happy with your masculinity (to not say afraid of it, to a degree, which is my personal impression) or at least what you seem to think it was in the past, wouldn’t be so resilient.”
Funny. I read it as exactly the opposite. I read that paragraph as saying “hey, the boys have good qualities but they also have some negative qualities”. These negative qualities need to be addressed. Most discussions around gender studies tend to focus on the things that need to be changed, not what needs to stay the same. That’s largely the purpose of gender studies.
“Because masculinity has always been viewed as slightly problematic.”
Both masculinity and femininity have been viewed as problematic. Hence the reason so many people, myself included, largely believe the terms need to go the way of the dodo.
“are the qualities of a real man. (And, I might add, a real woman. There is nothing inherently masculine about honor and integrity.)”
I personally find the term “real man” ridiculous. Saying that someone is a “real man” implies that men who do not fall into that category…are what, fake men? A real man to me is an adult individual who was born with a penis and testicles. To me, all the other stuff is ultimately a matter of defining him as a person, not as a man.
“First off, we need to acknowledge that there is much that is good in our young men.”
I’m having a little trouble connecting with this statement–is there supposedly something wrong with young men as an entire group? I agree that there are specific subgroups of young men that are deeply troubled, but…I don’t know; the way this is phrased puts me off and puzzles me in a negative way. As a woman myself, if another woman stated to me, “First off, we need to acknowledge that there is much that is good in our young women!” my immediate response would be, “Are you trying to suggest that your perception is that they’re so awful as a group generally that we need to make this special effort?”
“We create that environment by taking a passionate interest in the emotional well-being of our guys. Love is not a zero-sum game; there is no call for reducing the vital work we are doing and still need to do to empower our daughters. But we sometimes see the pain in our girls’ faces more clearly than we do in our sons. Young women have been given at least a small degree of permission to articulate their fears and anxieties, to reach out for help when they feel overwhelmed. But boys are no better equipped for the trials of the transition to adulthood; indeed, the Guy Code serves to undermine the development of vital life skills that can help these lads become successful, thoughtful, bold and empathetic men.”
I’ve thought on this issue before, many times. It’s a really unfortunate cultural artifact. Women are given persmission to openly express all negative emotions except anger, yet this expression is used to undercut them as fully functioning and responsible adults. So we then say to young men, “You too should be able to express all those negative emotions besides anger! because of course we know you HAVE them,” but with young men having the glaring example of how women doing so undercuts them in terms of societal success and universal respect and admiration, why the heck would they want to? I don’t think young men en masse are ever gonna go for that expression until they clearly see that doing so isn’t going to dump them directly into a female’s social and societal status, no matter how much mentoring they receive. Society as a whole is going to have to change how it reacts first.
Society changes through the actions of the few, Lisa — the many change as a consequence. Society can’t change on its own; as Margaret Thatcher observed (and she was at least in part right), there is no such thing as society. Society is an aggregate of individuals, and those individuals do not forfeit their responsibilities by submerging themselves into an indistinguishable mass.
Christ, I sound like Hayek.
As for the “much that is good” remark, note the preposition. “In”, not “about”. Most young men in our society have something toxic within them, not intrinsic to their maleness but something absorbed early in the form of the Guy Code. Helping them fight back against this toxic foreign invader means harnessing the good that is also within these young men.
I agree that society is an aggregate of individuals, but I strongly disagree that it changes through the actions of the few, unless the few in question have the majority of power and money in that society. Otherwise, it only changes through the actions of the many. So, the “mentors” that must inculcate the message that young men can and should express negative emotions other than anger either need to a a few rich, powerful men, or lots and lots of the more standard variety of men. (No woman is ever going to be successful at pushing this message, in my opinion. Some messages, yes, but not this one.) How will you (not you specifically–more “you” being “men who are interested in propagating this change) convince either a few rich powerful men or lots and lots of less rich powerful men to develop an interest in mentoring younger men in this direction?
I haven’t really noticed “toxicity” in younger men. “Heedlessness,” yeah, but not any more so than I’ve noticed it in young women. I HAVE noticed a general toxicity in older men, which I too doubt is intrinsic simply to their biological manhood but which certainly expresses itself much more heavily and thoroughly among men of a certain age than it does women. Perhaps it’s just a flowering of the seeds sown young, though.
I have two boys, and they seem happy and healthy and relaxed, but then I only really see them at home. Maybe they aren’t in their daily school-and-friends lives, where I see them much less. I admit to feeling more nervousness now, after reading your series of posts, than I did before. They don’t have any problems sharing their emotions of all types with me, but is there something more I should be doing for them? (Anybody else who wants to chime in with relevant experience/advice, that would be totally welcome too.)
Sam, I’ve long wondered why we have to try and live up to being as gendered as possible. I would say that a woman who bears children is more womanly than one who does not, but expressing the differences between gender to their greatest possible extent is what it is, and not a more authentic expression of humanity than being honest/strong/kind.
I sit here in a skirt and tank top, with freshly-shaved legs, but I’ve never felt like an especially-gendered person. I *am* a woman, and there are plenty of performative aspects of femaleness that I embrace, not to mention the effect the experience of having a woman’s body has had on my personality.
I’ve recently come to understand that I would like to have children some day, but I would like my life’s accomplishments to be understood and celebrated as human ones. Surely I’d like to be a good mother, but the motheriness of my mothering needn’t be the way in which it is measured.
Qualifying a person’s accomplishments by how gendered they are doesn’t feel very different to me than saying, “You’re pretty good at x, for a girl.”
Sara Andersen,
“and not a more authentic expression of humanity than being honest/strong/kind.”
Of course not. I couldn’t agree more with what you say. That sounds like I have not been too clear or you completely misread what I tred to say for some other reason. I thought I expressed pretty much exactly what you said – there will be performative aspects of gender around as long as there is sexual procreation. And it doesn’t really matter whether these differences are essential or not. They will always be there as people will try to “celebrate the difference” for sexual reasons. But that certainly does not amount to a more authentic expression of humantiy and it is, if anything, an addition to everything that makes a great human being. I don’t think we disagree on this in any way.
Faith,
“A real man to me is an adult individual who was born with a penis and testicles. To me, all the other stuff is ultimately a matter of defining him as a person, not as a man.”
yes, and that’s – to me – not just a part of the solution, but also a part of the problem: I never felt like a real man until I became as successful with women as I am now. But I know that I would not just want to be considered a “good person” instead of a “good man”. Bein a man is too important a part of my identity. But what could be that thing that makes men real if there is really nothing left but sexual attractiviy to females?
sam, i guess i don’t know why there has to be some trait to admire or some way to identify that is exclusively male. do you think that such a thing exists for women?
as an aside, i agree with the part of your last post about how some form of gender performance will probably always be around and that it really doesn’t have any bearing on what kind of human being one is, or at least it shouldn’t.
I’ve read the first 50 pages of Guyland and really like how it’s touched on privilege, power, and identity.
I really liked both the book and movie of Into the Wild, so it’s brought me to look at Chris McCandless through the lens of the “guy code”–he was very independent of societal codes, to a fault (I’m reminded of when he was at a farm in SD and he committed the horrible crime of showing emotion, and thinking about society and “hypocrites, politicians, parents” and Vince Vaughn tells him to not get caught up in it, in a setting where he’s expected to follow the “guy code” the most.) Yet in other ways, he fit the “man’s man” image pretty well (one of the best runners in the DC area in high school, academically strong without letting his stress show it, etc.) But his distant relationship with his parents (who had severe failings of their own) led him to avoid societal “codes” in a way that hurt his family and eventually himself, and he didn’t help it with the way he ran off from all the people he met and ignored their advice to contact his family. It’s interesting to note that he rarely pursued dating or relationships seriously, which touches on a lot of the themes discussed here, too.
I don’t consider McCandless a “tragic hero” or any sort of hero–there is nothing heroic about his actions toward his family or self–but I have to say I identify with his intellectual curiosity and free-spiritedness.
“Bein a man is too important a part of my identity. But what could be that thing that makes men real if there is really nothing left but sexual attractiviy to females?”
I understand that “being a man” is an important part of identity for most men. I don’t really understand why this is so important beyond the social programming boys/men receive that constantly tells them that their worth is determined by whether or not they are “real men”, not whether or not they are good people. I personally don’t feel any need to be a “good woman” or “real woman”. Culturally speaking, I’m quite far from being either of those things. I’m a low-income single mother who has never married and will never marry. I’m also bisexual and not only have partners of both sexes, I’m quite unapologetic about the fact that I’m bisexual (I’m also considering changing my status to lesbian at some point in the distant future). I’m also a college student who is 3/4 of the way towards obtaining her first degree. I flat-out refuse to be submissive to men in virtually all areas of life. I do cook and clean but I do those things because they are a necessity for life, not because I am female. All of these things traditionally make me a complete loser as a woman and boggles the brains of most of the people that know me. To see a woman who is not married, and honestly has no desire to marry, who embraces her sexuality and owns it unapologetically, and who is pretty damn intelligent and unapologetic about her intelligence, is something of an anomaly to a lot of people who encounter me.
I can tell you this tho. If you are a “good man” (and I’m only even using such a term because it seems important to you), you will not need to prove it or worry too much about it. People will see that you are and respond accordingly. As for feeling that you were not much of a man until you achieved sexual success with women, I can certainly understand why you would feel this way given the pressure of the current culture. However, I don’t believe sexual attractiveness to women has anything at all to do with the worth or value of a man anymore than sexual attractiveness to men has anything at all to do with the worth or value of a woman. I believe that the real measure of a -person- is in their own inner being and in the confidence of their own inner being. One of the greatest men on the planet, to me, actually happens to be a virgin (as far as anyone knows).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama
As to your comment about Hugo’s possibly not being confident in his own masculinity, I don’t know much about Hugo other than what I’ve read here on his blog. I can tell you (from my point of view), however, that he appears to me to be one of the few men I’ve ever encountered (albeit only online) who actually seems to have some genuine confidence in himself as a man and as a person. I worry very little about men who question “masculinity” and call other men out on their poor behavior. It’s the men who cling to “masculinity” and measure other men according to whether or not they “measure up” accordingly who are almost always the problem, i.e. guilty of abuse and violence against women and children, etc. etc.
It’s takes some serious balls for a man to do what Hugo does.
Faith,
“As for feeling that you were not much of a man until you achieved sexual success with women, I can certainly understand why you would feel this way given the pressure of the current culture. However, I don’t believe sexual attractiveness to women has anything at all to do with the worth or value of a man anymore than sexual attractiveness to men has anything at all to do with the worth or value of a woman. I believe that the real measure of a -person- is in their own inner being and in the confidence of their own inner being. One of the greatest men on the planet, to me, actually happens to be a virgin (as far as anyone knows).”
That’s precisely the thing – as you say: the real measure of a PERSON is their own inner being. The Dalai Lama may be one of the greatest persons on the planet, who happens to be MALE. You can be a great MALE while being a virgin. But can you be a great MAN?
These are three distinct layers of identiy – PERSON – MALE – MAN
So what is it that makes a MALE PERSON a MAN? Of course, sexual success with women is just one arbitrary measure. But what other criterion could be used? It’s easier for women as they have the advantage of a more important natural role in reproduction that gives them I think this is a fundamental question for social organisation, as is, for example, outlined in this great post at a (of all places) radical feminist blog -
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=251
this is quoted from the comments -
(26/44) As a Modern Educated Man, I live in an industrial society whose functioning depends on more than just children, even though children are crucial. … The complexity of civilizations allows one to find a centrality that is indirectly related to children. (BUT, there’s nothing I do that a woman can’t do…)
But. But (and you know there was one coming), it’s still subtly discombobulating, the sneaking suspicion that this is on the sufference of women, and that one is, to put it most charitably, a luxury good. That males are somehow, in this, fundamentally deficient and expendable, in that they require close association with a woman and her body in order to experience the full range of humanity.
… (87)
The fear of many men is that when feminists tell women that they don’t need no man is that, despite the social power and the economic advantages and the exemption from the discomfort of childbearing that men have, men have no special position as men that women cannot also fulfill, but women obviously do. Except generating sticky impregnating goop. And thus there is the fear, in these gender-unsettled times, that men will be more likely to be…set adrift from family life, since there isn’t a special place for them there. As the Countess pointed out, this is reflected explicitly in MRA/FRA discourse.
…
That’s the unsettled gender question of our era, and probably the biggest generator of backlash.”
As for Hugo needing balls to do what he does, sure. But the balls it needs to do what he does wasn’t the point I was making, it was about his reasons to do so. Like you, I only know what I’ve read here, but based on that, I still think he’s afraid of his masculinity. It’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours, obviously. I don’t claim to know this, it’s simply my impression.
Sam, I’ve reread both your posts twice and I still can’t figure it out. What does it mean to be “afraid of your masculinity?” and just out of curiosity, is it possible for a woman to be “afraid of her femininity” and what would that entail? (deeply confused, sorry)
“You can be a great MALE while being a virgin. But can you be a great MAN?”
Oh, bloody hell, Sam. YES, a MAN can be a GREAT MAN and be a VIRGIN. That’s even what i said. I did not say he was a great male, I said he is a great MAN.
“These are three distinct layers of identiy – PERSON – MALE – MAN”
This is patently absurd. These layers of identity exist in your mind and your mind only.
“It’s easier for women as they have the advantage of a more important natural role in reproduction that gives them I think this is a fundamental question for social organisation,”
Uh, reproduction is not something that gives women an advantage. It in fact tends to be a disadvantage for women. I had my tubes tied because I believed it to be such a disadvantage.
A person’s worth – male or female – is not dependent on being able to do something that the other sex can not do. This seems to be the primary disconnect to which you are suffering.
“I still think he’s afraid of his masculinity.”
And based on what I’ve read, I believe it’s you who is the one afraid and insecure…not your blog host.
SamSeaborn,
Regarding the excerpt you quoted that starts with, “The fear of many men is that when feminists tell women that they don’t need no man is that…”
Women don’t need men. And guess what? Men don’t need women. But we all want someone there with us. I’m just fine on my own without a man, and I don’t see getting married and having babies as something I NEED to do. If I never date again, I’ve got a pretty full life that I’ll be just fine. But I’d like to have a man with me through my life. I’d like to find a great relationship that brings all the benefits of having a partner. I think you (and quite a few men I’ve dated) need to stop worry about being needed and start focusing on being a man that someone wants in her life. Maybe then you’ll be able to move away from the desperate need to have a gendered importance.
“I think you (and quite a few men I’ve dated) need to stop worry about being needed and start focusing on being a man that someone wants in her life”
Amen to that. Not specifically to Sam, but sound advice for any man to take to heart.
“But we all want someone there with us. I’m just fine on my own without a man, and I don’t see getting married and having babies as something I NEED to do.”
I’m happy that you do not feel the need to have a man. I do not agree that all people want someone there. Some people clearly do not, otherwise we wouldn’t have monks, nuns, bachelors, and “spinsters”. It’s perfectly ok to not only not need someone, but to not want someone as well. I personally have a man in my life right now. I don’t know that I’ll want that man in my life in the distant future (or even have him there even if I do). I may decide I want a female partner. I may also decide that I want no partner at all.
We don’t all want to be partnered with someone.
Faith, fair enough. I was generalizing to make a point to SamSeaborn. I wouldn’t agree, though, that monks and nuns don’t “want” someone – they willingly sacrifice that in order to fulfill another role. I know a nun who every few years goes to a retreat with other nuns where they talk about what that sacrifice means and how to cope when they wonder if they made the right decision.
Faith,
“These are three distinct layers of identiy – PERSON – MALE – MANâ€
This is patently absurd. These layers of identity exist in your mind and your mind only.
Ahem. That’s not exactly correct… See eg. Sally Haslanger, “Gender and Social Construction: Who? What? When? Where? How?” in “Theorizing Feminisms – A Reader – Edited by Elizabeth Hackett and Sally Haslanger” (http://www.oupcanada.com/catalog/9780195150094.html)
“A person’s worth – male or female – is not dependent on being able to do something that the other sex can not do. This seems to be the primary disconnect to which you are suffering.”
You don’t seem to understand what I’m trying to say. I’ve said about 100 times now that “a person’s worth – male or female or whatever the person’s sex may be – is not dependent on something the other/any other sex cannot do. But that’s not what I was talking about. Maybe we’re just not able to understand each other irrespective of the effort we put into it.
“I still think he’s afraid of his masculinity.â€
And based on what I’ve read, I believe it’s you who is the one afraid and insecure…not your blog host.
See ad hominem charges only work when the charged person has a problem with the charge… There definitely was a time when that was very much the case – with respect to my masculinity – and in fact I’ve always said so when it was relevant to the understanding of my positions. You yourself have used that before to claim that my positions are weaker because of my personal involvement (try telling that to a feminist as a guy for once…). I’m sure that it’s a part of the reason why I’m interested in this topic. Definitely. But I also think that’s a part of the reason for Hugo. So, let’s just keep it at – we disagree about this – and we’ll never know for sure.
B,
did you have a look at the linked conversation?
“I think you (and quite a few men I’ve dated) need to stop worry about being needed and start focusing on being a man that someone wants in her life. Maybe then you’ll be able to move away from the desperate need to have a gendered importance.”
Again, I have – no longer – any problems with having women who want me in their lives. I’d say that – and I’m talking about the social level – the way human reproduction works, with females having the scarce reproductive resource, females need men much less than males need females. Polygyny is the standard we have to work from when we’re trying to understand human social organisation from the outset – mating and procreation. One male is technically sufficient to impregnate the world’s entire female population. That’s a pretty important asymmetry we have to deal with socially. And it seems rather straight-forward to me that this asymmetry will inform whichever cultural layers of identity (MAN/WOMAN/etc) are developing on top of the biological core. This is probably a more important question regarding anthropology than what “masculinity” can be today, but I think it is still important to see that women are needed much more than men. Males are still – as always – the expendable sex.
It may be hard to understand from a feminist point of view that only sees men as socially privileged that social privileges may have developed to offset precisely this asymmetry in “neededness”. From that point of view, patriarchy and primitive society’s male rituals that keep the universe from collapsing seem to spring from the same origin – to balance the “natural advantages” women have.
Sure, as these natural advantages become less important in a technological society, the need to offsett them becomes equally less important. This is, I’d say what we’re talking about here. But the asymmetry is still there, and so is the male need to feel equally important as women – to not be the more expendable sex.
That’s why I think being needed is still important, socially, regardless of being wanted, individually.
Our Identity – “As Men” – is important to many of us Men. It is Easy both to be: 1.) Constrained by Gender Roles (“not be a Fag, Girl….”) – defending “our Honor” (as upper-class men – with our supposed intellects – as poor-Boys – through physically fighting/killing), not dealing with our feelings in helpful ways etc. and 2.) Not Aware – of What We Miss in life as “normal men” – missing the nuances, many of the beauties around us, etc.
It is Easy as Men to be similar to us as “White People” – who have no awareness of our Class Dominance – saying that Racism is only a Minor Issue, etc. As Men however we die younger and often are unhappy – as well as hurting others we might love (or love better) – in “our maleness”.
Kimmel – is excellent – in building upon positives as well as seeing our Weaknesses.
Thanks!
“Ahem. That’s not exactly correct… ”
I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that anyone who accepts that level of identification as valid isn’t suffering from illusion.
“Again, I have – no longer – any problems with having women who want me in their lives. I’d say that – and I’m talking about the social level – the way human reproduction works, with females having the scarce reproductive resource, females need men much less than males need females. Polygyny is the standard we have to work from when we’re trying to understand human social organisation from the outset – mating and procreation. One male is technically sufficient to impregnate the world’s entire female population. That’s a pretty important asymmetry we have to deal with socially. And it seems rather straight-forward to me that this asymmetry will inform whichever cultural layers of identity (MAN/WOMAN/etc) are developing on top of the biological core. This is probably a more important question regarding anthropology than what “masculinity†can be today, but I think it is still important to see that women are needed much more than men. Males are still – as always – the expendable sex.”
It seems to me that if perhaps you, and men who think like you, would stop reducing people to their reproductive functions, and instead would see people as HUMAN..as fully HUMAN and living breathing gorgeous sentient beings, you’d all be quite a lot happier. You are not expendable as a HUMAN or as a MAN simply because you never reproduce.
You are operating from a very base view of humanity if you believe that people are in any way valuable beyond purely evolutionary factors based on their ability to reproduce.
I could give a fiddlers fart if a person – man or woman – reproduces. I could give a fiddlers fart if a person – man or woman – even has sex. I actually view PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS…as mind, body, AND spirit, not baby factories or sperm producers.
Faith,
the strange thing is that I believe we actually have a very similiar view yet very different ways to express them.
“Ahem. That’s not exactly correct… â€
I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that anyone who accepts that level of identification as valid isn’t suffering from illusion.
I don’t understand what you’re talking about here. It’s a standard distinction in gender theory to use MALE for SEX and MAN for GENDER. “Masculinity” is the cultural aspects that make MALES men while “maleness” would be the biological aspects.
“You are not expendable as a HUMAN or as a MAN simply because you never reproduce.”
Wether individuals are expendable or not has nothing to so with the fact that human males are less valuable than human females from an evolutionary point of view. That’s basic maths, you can’t argue with basic maths, sorry. You can try, sure, but you will fail if you do. Reproduction may be irrelevant from an individual’s point of view, but I doubt you’ll be able to argue that it’s not the ultimate behavioral drive for humanity, as for all other living beings.
And the whole point I was trying to get across (and with this I try one more time) is that “masculinity” (or male joo-joo or whatever) is a cultural instrument to give males the feeling of equal expendability/importance. Now what could that be if we have already decided that we can’t find any good human quality that is exclusive to either man or woman? What could masculinity be in these circumstances?
Hugo wrote:
A few years ago when I posted about my apprehension about getting married and I spoke about my unwanted childhood sexual experiences you chose to mock me and those experiences rather than approach me as someone deserving of dignity or honor. You would not address to me at all regardless of how polite and genuine I was in asking you questions. So I am curious how you, Kimmel or any of the male feminists you mentioned can view young men such as myself as deserving of worth, dignity or honor when you outright rejected the opportunity to talk to one young man who was willing to listen despite completely disagreeing with your political views.
I agree that it is a strategy, but I disagree that it is a good one, let alone one of the best. The reason is because telling boys to befriend girls simply reinforces the very stereotypes you bemoan above. The implication is that males are incapable of empathizing on their own and it is only through contact with women that males can ever hope to learn how to empathize and sympathize with others, which seems highly doubtful. The issue is not that boys and young men do not have enough female friends, but that boys and young men have trouble expressing their feelings and fear having the feelings they do express being invalidated, like you did to me. It seems to me that the best way for young men to learn the value of empathy, sympathy and expressing one’s feelings would be having older men show boys and young men that they are integral parts of being a man. However, I do not think one can do that by demonizing masculinity or trying to force political agendas onto young men and boys.
“Now what could that be if we have already decided that we can’t find any good human quality that is exclusive to either man or woman? What could masculinity be in these circumstances?”
Beyond pure biological structure – as in basically you have a penis and testicles – I don’t know of anything that can be defined as strictly masculine. Same as for females; beyond our vaginas, wombs, and breasts, I don’t know of anything else that defines our so-called femininity. This is why I largely reject the labels “femininity” and “masculinity”.
I do actually believe in male and female energies that each individual gender possesses (think yin and yang; but I have some issues with traditional interpretation of yin and yang so I don’t really use that language either unless speaking with someone who does believe in yin and yang). But even that is strictly biological and I still refer to it as “male” energy or “female” energy. Not “masculine” or “feminine”.
Hugo, as long as you don’t apologize for your sneer about “over medicated hyperactives” and various sneers over the past few years about other non-NT young men, you can talk all you want about mentoring. The young men who most need guidance and support from older men (and women) will still not benefit at all from the great books you read and recommend.
Johm, how many young men do you mentor? I do it imperfectly, and I know it. But I’ve dedicated my professional and avocational life to working with young people, and to helping both boys and girls transition into adulthood. I’ve worked with hundreds of young men, and some of these I have stayed close to for years and years.
It’s true that boys and girls with special needs may need to seek out special kinds of mentors. But it’s possible to mentor very well by doing two things: affirming the young person for who they are, and challenging them to be something more. The latter doesn’t cancel out the former, not if it’s done right.
One male is technically sufficient to impregnate the world’s entire female population. That’s a pretty important asymmetry we have to deal with socially
*blink*
You do realise that that implies having sex once every ninety seconds from age fifteen to age eighty? That is, assuming you never paused to eat, sleep or anything else, and a pregnancy resulted every time.
Men may be able to have children more often than women, but that doesn’t mean redundancy isn’t necessary.
Especially since inbreeding is going to be a serious problem if an entire generation is fathered by one man.
I do apologise – I did my maths slightly wrong there. Impregnating the entire female population of the world would actually require having sex every 0.68 seconds.
Froth,
ok, didn’t do the math. You’re probably right if you used a calculator, even though you clearly wanted to not get my point. Except for invitro fertilisation, in which case one male would be technically enough, take, say 1,000,000 men for 3.5bn women (3,500 per male) – you’d have time to sleep and eat between two acts of impregnation. “Redundancy” is necessary for genetic variety. Sure. But control for all those factors and you’ll still get an enormous amount of asymmetry that is a) an indicator for polygyny in humans and b) makes the man the expendable sex. Losing a man isn’t as costly from a group’s reproductive point of view as losing a woman. Simple maths.
Of course, if one guy actually impregnanted all the women in the world, all the children would be related, and I’m guessing that there might be juuuuust a coupla’ genetic issues when half siblings are all over the place getting busy.
Wilt Chamberlain, call your office.
SamSeaborn, I’m not trying to be petulant here, but I still cannot understand WHY, in today’s society, anyone would even think in these terms. WHO goes around, and thinks, “Ha ha, men are worthless, we need fewer of them to reproduce.”
Just like we (a general feminist “we” here) reject the idea that a young woman’s worth is her imagined fertility (check any of Hugo’s posts on older men and younger women where the topic almost always pops up), I just can’t imagine anyone actually devaluing men in their minds because you need fewer men than women to populate the planet. Do men REALLY stay awake in bed at night thinking, “Half of us could disappear and the population wouldn’t suffer!”?
Although our very distant ancestors might have, we no longer pick our partners or value people based on purely biological instincts. When it’s brought up in regards to women (ie – men being attracted to only young women because they’re fertile), I call bullshit, and I call bullshit here, too.
Yargh. This has gone on long enough.
Men = not more expendable than women from a genetic or reproductive point of view. Not even clooooose. Please study biology, especially reproductive biology in terms of the evolution of genetic diversity and social animal behavior and rethink your stance, those of you who genuinely believe this is not the case.
Instead of formulating strange cultural concepts which end up damaging us as a social unit to artificially inoculate men against feelings of mass inferiority based upon a total lack of comprehension about the above science topics, how ’bout we just use our brains instead and base building men’s self-esteem as a group on all the real, actual reasons why men are just as genetically and reproductively valuable as women?
SamSeaborn: Men are not ‘more expendable’ by virtue of being able to have more children. In a situation where travel outside the immediate area is dangerous, difficult and rarely attempted, healthy genetic mixing requires an abundance of men. And survival of the group requires healthy genetic mixing.
And the whole point I was trying to get across (and with this I try one more time) is that “masculinity†(or male joo-joo or whatever) is a cultural instrument to give males the feeling of equal expendability/importance.
If it’s a purely cultural phenomenon that serves no useful purpose in a society where polygyny is not the norm, why do we need it?
I’m perfect willing to accept that this is how the idea of ‘masculinity’ arose, but I fail to see how it makes it important now.
Froth, Lisa, B,
well, we’re all related to, I think, 8 tracable females, according to research of matochondrial DNA (that is only inherited by females). Very interesting stuff, by the way. So yes, in a very distant way, we’re indeed all family.
SamSeaborn, I’m not trying to be petulant here, but I still cannot understand WHY, in today’s society, anyone would even think in these terms. WHO goes around, and thinks, “Ha ha, men are worthless, we need fewer of them to reproduce.â€
I haven’t said that men are worthless, I was merely stating that the asymmetry in reproductive value (FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL, Lisa) is an important factor for social organisation.
“In a situation where travel outside the immediate area is dangerous, difficult and rarely attempted, healthy genetic mixing requires an abundance of men. And survival of the group requires healthy genetic mixing.”
This is just a reformulation of what I said: Because men die because of the things men do, men need to be more expendable for a genetic equilibrium.
“I’m perfect willing to accept that this is how the idea of ‘masculinity’ arose, but I fail to see how it makes it important now.”
Polygyny IS still the biological norm. It’s modest, and it has always been modest among humans, apparently, but even today, about 10% of all children aren’t their legal father’s genetic offspring. So you’re reformulating the very question I’m asking – I have a serious problem imagining what a male joo-joo could be in a disenchanted world. But to not have it logically means requiring men to accept being the real “second sex”. And I have a hunch they/we will keep looking for a joo-joo until we find one – and that’s what “masculinity” would/will be comprised of.
Sam, please…I don’t know what your professional specialty is, and whatever it is I am sure you are great at it, but it is very, very clear that it is not biology of any description whatsoever. I would strongly recommended ceasing to attempt to base any subsequent arguments on biology until or unless you study it. Because you are not making any sense to the point where it is almost impossible to answer you. I am really, sincerely not trying to be obnoxious or insulting here. But what you’re saying makes so little sense that it’s even hard to answer it.
Stating that we are all descended from the same “eight women” makes no sense, as it not only provides no information whatseover about what men we are descended from, it seems to require that these eight women spontaneously emerged from the earth, rather like the Genesis creation story. Not only is the point dubious, it doesn’t appear to have any relation to the idea of genetic expendability period, much less that based on gender.
Polygyny is not a “biological norm;,” most certainly not across all species and not even in homo sapiens; there actually is no “biological norm” that supercedes cultural conditioning of any particular subgroup of humans other than the most basic one of our species being one that reproduces sexually rather than asexually. Also, polygyny has nothing to do with how many human children are or are not the genetic offspring of the person named in the purely social construct of a “legal document” as their male progenitor–I can’t even begin to imagine how you’re linking the tendency of a species’ primary social unit to consist of one male and several females to whether or not the one male has actually fathered the offspring of the females.
Lisa,
you’re right that I am not a biologist – most people in this discussion aren’t. I am an interested observer and occasional reader of both sociological gender research, anthropology, and biology.
My information about the 8 females relates to this very interesting book, The Seven Daughters of Eve, by Bryan Sykes – my quoting from memory was imprecise though, as the Wikipedia page will explain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve
No, that information wasn’t directly relevant to the previous topic, it was more of a tongue-in-cheek reply to the apparent need for male genetic diversity that was mentioned in the replies to my previous comment. So your observation that
“Not only is the point dubious, it doesn’t appear to have any relation to the idea of genetic expendability period, much less that based on gender.”
is correct, in a way.
As for
Polygyny is not a “biological norm;,†most certainly not across all species and not even in homo sapiens; there actually is no “biological norm†that supercedes cultural conditioning of any particular subgroup of humans other than the most basic one of our species being one that reproduces sexually rather than asexually. Also, polygyny has nothing to do with how many human children are or are not the genetic offspring of the person named in the purely social construct of a “legal document†as their male progenitor–I can’t even begin to imagine how you’re linking the tendency of a species’ primary social unit to consist of one male and several females to whether or not the one male has actually fathered the offspring of females.
These are a couple of things lumped into one, in my impression -
I wasn’t referring to Bonobos, as should be rather obvious. When I refer to “polygyny” here, I want to denote the fact that there is a tendency for some males to father more children as well as a tendency for others to father none. This is partly a mathematical requirement given the expendability of males and partly a consequence of sexual choice. There are, according to what I have read about evolutionary biology, numerous indicators in the human body (including, apparently, the modest size difference of males and females) that lead to the assumption that there was in fact always a modest competition between men for opportunities to reproduce. I am, and I am willing to admit that, not an expert in these matters, but it seems rather plausible as an assumption to work from.
Whether or not there is a legal construct marriage that then creats another social construct “adultery” is actually not important for the simple fact – there is no natural pair structure in human mating. I do in fact believe that genetic fatherhood has a certain importance for the origin of social coordination. There are numerous examples of stepfathers killing the previous offspring of a mate – in the “animal kingdom” and in human “civilisation”. I don’t see any reason to suspect that this tendency is not an important factor in the organisation of the smallest social unit. I do feel that early societies had an important need to bind those men to the society who weren’t actually genetically contributing to the next generation.
Of course, much of this is speculation, albeit interesting speculation. I am the last person who wants to go back to the days when supposed male aggression was socially controlled by socially mediated access to female sexuality and procreation. But believing that one approach to a problem was the wrong one, doesn’t take the problem away. And I very much believe that the issue of the distribution of a) sexual contacts and b) genetic procreation are at least as important for human coordination as third party enforcement of contracts between individuals is for a peaceful society (that’s Hobbes, not me).
I read various DNA research that indicates that about 40% of all men and about 80% of all woman that have ever lived have decendants today. Which indicates that there has been significant amount of polygamy throughout history. Mostly parallel polygamy in the past, and mostly serial polygamy in the West today.
For those who had not seen the term “serial polygamy” before:
Serial polygamy
Serial polygamy is a form of marriage in which participants have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime (hence polygamy), but not at the same time (hence serial). It was coined as a counterpart of polygamy, which traditionally refers to having more than one partner at the same time (in parallel). Within Western culture, this form of polygamy is considerably more prevalent than monogamy (i.e. having only one partner in an entire life, hence monogamy), although the latter is still generally viewed as an ideal or even as a social norm. The term polygamy (many marriages in late Greek) is used in related ways in social anthropology and sociobiology and sociology. Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate during a period of time.
More generally, any animals (including humans) that do not mate with one partner for life can be considered “serially polygamous”, this including those who mate with another only upon the death of a spouse. In more common usage, sometimes derogatorily, serial polygamy tends to refer to a more unstable marriage/divorce series in a person’s lifetime.
Although used as a popular synonym for “serial polygamy”, the expression “serial monogamy” is inaccurate, as the serial/parallel opposition is centered around the term “polygamy” (there is no such thing as “parallel monogamy” contrasting “serial monogamy”; essentially, neither qualifies as “monogamy”). In addition, attributes like “serial” and “parallel” make sense only when describing multiple relationships, so they cannot logically refer to “monogamy”, which implies only one relationship.