Jump to content
clyde

Masculinity

Recommended Posts

Those articles just did a bad job of conveying that, then, because the one linked doesn't describe emotional abuse at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick R said:

Those articles just did a bad job of conveying that, then, because the one linked doesn't describe emotional abuse at all.

 

It's peddled softly (hah) but I think it's there.

 

Quote

The Fuckboy, in his current form, aims for the night, aims for the break, goals to ghost. The Softboy strings you along under loftier auspices.
...
The Fuckboy is perplexed that you were upset when he forgot to text you for three days then sent “what are you up to” at last call. The Softboy knows this behavior is selfish and cruel, though his desire to get laid can trump this. He feels shame. He does it again.
...
He wants to know if you’re mad at him. He already knows.
...
He is emotionally intelligent but does nothing with this knowledge. He is artistic. He is aware. He is still a dick.
...
The Softboy is an Underdog. He has a hurricane sulk.
...
The Softboy wields guilt like a floral knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't think this thread needs to necessarily turn into me picking apart this article (which is honestly more of a short piece of creative writing than an actual article) as I don't really have a problem with it on it's own, just in the context of a discussion about Nick Robinson sexually harassing people. But I disagree that it actually describes emotional abuse in any way specific enough to be meaningful.

 

Your anecdote about your female friends is all I need to hear to know the term has meaning, even if my attempts to discern that meaning by Googling "softboy" and "softboy culture" left me way more confused than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patrick R said:

Yeah, I don't think this thread needs to necessarily turn into me picking apart this article (which is honestly more of a short piece of creative writing than an actual article) as I don't really have a problem with it on it's own, just in the context of a discussion about Nick Robinson sexually harassing people. But I disagree that it actually describes emotional abuse in any way specific enough to be meaningful.

 

Your anecdote about your female friends is all I need to hear to know the term has meaning, even if my attempts to discern that meaning by Googling "softboy" and "softboy culture" left me way more confused than anything.

 

Fair enough. I think the internet has produced an odd hybrid of opinions about the "softboy" anyway: for years, I'd only ever heard it used negatively, to refer to the kind of guy who is emotionally sensitive and uses that sensitivity to be emotionally unavailable or emotionally present at the moments most beneficial to whatever he wants from other people, especially women, but then I started listening and watching to the McElroys and their adjacent projects, and that fandom uses "softboy" very positively, to describe a sweet nice good good boy who loves all the stuff you love and will never ever hurt you. It's also used in the internet at large as a broad and clumsy descriptor of male-coded anti-masculine behavior, and that's often the medium connecting the version that exists to hurt you with the one that promises never to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gormongous said:

 

 describe a sweet nice good good boy

Yeah I thought it was pretty exclusive to this universe of Polygon/McElroy dudes. It seems weird that now it's suddenly a new catchphrase to describe a set of bad people, like Milkshake Duck. But I guess it doesn't matter, the term as an endearing one is forever ruined because of Nick anyway.

 

And I was so looking forward to him talking about Sonic Mania when it came out. What a fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm seeing, the softboy/fuckboy thing seems to highlight a failure of the dating and communication process more so than an aspect of masculinity.  Certainly in my life, and this seems to be true with my conversations with others, sex or any physical aspects of a relationship are simply unacceptable goals in a romantic endeavor.  Not only is this the case, but seeking these things directly is seen as a manipulation or subversion of the process.  To this end sex has become a sort of currency in the process rather than a part of it.  Particularly in the poem quoted above, the exchange appears to be seen as though between a con artist and their mark.  I'm not sure how this ties to masculinity directly, aside from perhaps the experiences of the courting process for certain individuals, but it does appear clear that masculinity is the frame through which these sorts of communications are perceived.  Of course there are those who would directly relate such tactics as dominant or manly, but I'm hesitant to accept any conclusions from such people for the obvious reasons.

 

So far in this thread I've noticed much discussion of masculinity, perhaps in totality, as a bad thing or as a thing misused by the deceitful.  I'd be curious to know, what would you say masculinity is?  Not what is it used for, or where it might exist, or who might exhibit it, or what version of it is best, but what is it exactly?  As someone who has had a quite positive experience in my life with (my) idea of masculinity I'm curious to know what you all think of the concept in its own context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's weird is that the most visible concepts of masculinity to me are toxic aspects. Dominance in a bad light, a lack of empathy or emotional intelligence and a focus on competition over collaboration in many areas (including sex as a conquest).


I don't think masculinity is inherently toxic or wholly bad, but I really don't have a big picture of what good or pure masculinity is. I don't feel as though this is a crisis, I don't have a strong urge to distance myself from it or find a definition that feels good. But it is a strange thing to feel like I don't have a roadmap for what a good man should be, I mostly just try to think in terms of what a good person should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question I ask myself while trying to figure out what masculinity is, is:

"If an act or characteristic is done by a woman, does that disclude the act or characteristic from being a masculine act or characteristic?" I'd say no, so that kinda implies that masculinity is a context rather than an act or characteristic.

Like "spooky" or "cute" maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, itsamoose said:

From what I'm seeing, the softboy/fuckboy thing seems to highlight a failure of the dating and communication process more so than an aspect of masculinity.  Certainly in my life, and this seems to be true with my conversations with others, sex or any physical aspects of a relationship are simply unacceptable goals in a romantic endeavor.  Not only is this the case, but seeking these things directly is seen as a manipulation or subversion of the process.  To this end sex has become a sort of currency in the process rather than a part of it.

If you're looking for a fuck, say you're looking for a fuck. There are a lot of websites out there for this explicit purpose. It's disingenuous to say you're looking for something else rather than a fuck if all you want is a fuck. So there's a baseline miscommunication/deceit which is itself not intrinsically masculine, but then masculinity is weaponized towards this deceitful goal. Also, what drives that deceit is the toxic masculine behavior of 'scoring' or seeing women as prizes to be won.

 

11 hours ago, itsamoose said:

So far in this thread I've noticed much discussion of masculinity, perhaps in totality, as a bad thing or as a thing misused by the deceitful.  I'd be curious to know, what would you say masculinity is?  Not what is it used for, or where it might exist, or who might exhibit it, or what version of it is best, but what is it exactly?  As someone who has had a quite positive experience in my life with (my) idea of masculinity I'm curious to know what you all think of the concept in its own context.

Positive masculine values are generally along the lines of dadliness -- self-reliance and a desire to protect and provide for another. These aren't exclusively male traits obviously, but are traditionally considered masculine, as opposed to the more feminine equivalents of community-building and desire to care for and nurture another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Problem Machine said:

 

Positive masculine values are generally along the lines of dadliness -- self-reliance and a desire to protect and provide for another. These aren't exclusively male traits obviously, but are traditionally considered masculine, as opposed to the more feminine equivalents of community-building and desire to care for and nurture another.

 

This sounds like a cultural non-description that circumvents any useful observations about the masculine/feminine spectrum. Self-reliance isn't associated more with masculinity than feminity; the word "self-reliance" itself might be, but not the actual concept. Same with "nurture". We might not use the word "nurture" when describing masculinity, but we say "teach", "provide for", "protect" which are all the same things. It's just that the words themselves have gender associations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Those aren't the same things except in a very vague sense, 2) The words we choose to describe things still matter, 3) Self-reliance is absolutely 100% more associated with masculinity????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On point 2 I agree, I'm saying that the only relevant aspect of those words is how they've been gendered though.

I disagree with points 1 and 3 so strongly that I'm not sure we are talking about the same things. It might be helpful to narrow what we are talking down. I don't know how to explain my position on point 1 any more clearly than I already did so I guess we just disagree there. I mean think about how infamous mothers are in how they will defend their children. Is that not "protecting" them? And that's assumed in the generality that feminity nurtures.

On point 3, are you talking about "self-reliance" like if you get stuck in the woods alone and have to hunt and make shelter men are more expected to be capable of surviving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A week ago in the class I was teaching (it just ended) we were talking about gender and I had the students list various stereotypical traits of men and women. "Self-reliance" was one they listed for men (and not one they listed for women). The class (30+ people) was in general agreement about the lists we ended up coming up with. So @clyde, you're differing rather strongly from a fairly widely-shared view, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "mother bear" scenario is not considered typical gender behavior though, the way that scenario is usually presented is that a mother's caring nature is so overpowering that it overcomes her typical feminine inclination towards non-violence and peaceful resolution. Like, the entire reason it's A Thing at all is because men are the ones who are stereotypically supposed to be the defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TychoCelchuuu said:

A week ago in the class I was teaching (it just ended) we were talking about gender and I had the students list various stereotypical traits of men and women. "Self-reliance" was one they listed for men (and not one they listed for women). The class (30+ people) was in general agreement about the lists we ended up coming up with. So @clyde, you're differing rather strongly from a fairly widely-shared view, I think.

 

But that isn't at all what I'm diverging from. The word "self-reliance" is gendered male. The concept is not. The question I have is what the students had in mind when they said "self-reliance" is masculine besides a picture of a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Problem Machine said:

The "mother bear" scenario is not considered typical gender behavior though, the way that scenario is usually presented is that a mother's caring nature is so overpowering that it overcomes her typical feminine inclination towards non-violence and peaceful resolution. Like, the entire reason it's A Thing at all is because men are the ones who are stereotypically supposed to be the defenders.

 

I appreciate you clarifying your point. I strongly disagree but I don't have evidence or anything. I just have the impression from personal experience and perspectives of those around me that the mama-bear thing is very much part of femininity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely agree that self-reliance is coded as a masculine trait. Not just as a sign of physical ability, but also as an economic one. It is 'feminine' to rely on a male provider, which is why things like women entering the workforce decades ago and becoming the primary earner today are seen to be so emasculating. It's why women would live with their families until a suitor was able to prove that he could provide for her so that she could leave to become his property instead of her father's. The man is the farmer and the woman is the farmer's wife.  The farmer can exists on his own but the farmer's wife cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jennegatron said:

I would absolutely agree that self-reliance is coded as a masculine trait. Not just as a sign of physical ability, but also as an economic one. It is 'feminine' to rely on a male provider, which is why things like women entering the workforce decades ago and becoming the primary earner today are seen to be so emasculating. It's why women would live with their families until a suitor was able to prove that he could provide for her so that she could leave to become his property instead of her father's. The man is the farmer and the woman is the farmer's wife.  The farmer can exists on his own but the farmer's wife cannot.

 

That clarifies a lot. I guess that I'm thinking of the perception now rather than the historical one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perception now is still the same, just with different contexts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so interesting to see how pervasive this perception is among y'all. If you said you know someone who lives alone, my first image would be of a woman.

 

I'm not trying to prove anything with this search result, but I thought it was interesting what the first google results on an image search for "diy" is.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=971&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=diy&oq=diy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.5507.5982.0.6080.3.3.0.0.0.0.154.154.0j1.1.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..2.1.154.ZQbRvWaaBS4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no particular gender associations with someone living alone.

What's maybe more interesting about that image search is how different the results are if you search for "do it yourself" instead of the acronym

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Problem Machine said:

Positive masculine values are generally along the lines of dadliness -- self-reliance and a desire to protect and provide for another. These aren't exclusively male traits obviously, but are traditionally considered masculine, as opposed to the more feminine equivalents of community-building and desire to care for and nurture another.

 

Not to harp on this point, but this observation and others like it are the sort that I think is contributing to that misunderstanding described earlier.  To view Masculinity as having a "good" and "bad" version is to conflate the idea and it's proponents.  The desire for self reliance is not an inherently positive characteristic, and could be turned to either end.  If I use a hammer to build a house for habitat for humanity, the hammer doesn't become imbued with benevolent traits any more than it would become imbued with malevolent ones if it was used to commit a murder.  It is still just a hammer.  If we associate a trait with masculinity, we must recognize that it is the application of this trait that determines it's worth, and not relegate it to either promotion of subversion.

 

The idea of the masculine/feminine spectrum is one I find ultimately unsatisfactory.  I can see why it is believed, but it seems to naturally lend toward a few fallacious conclusions:

 

1.) The ideas must stand in opposition to each other

2.) Either one is wholly good and the other wholly bad, or each has it's own distinct positive and negative version.  This assigns agency to the idea rather than the agent, and is a mode of thinking that leads to, for example, the idea that sex is a conquest because sex is viewed as an inherent good.

3.) Traits that cannot be placed squarely in one camp or the other are worth less.  not "worthless" but in fact, worth less than traits which are starkly feminine/masculine.  This is a corollary to point 2, in that by making a value judgement of the concepts primarily in opposition to one another we relate their important to our perceptions more so than their results.

4.) We have conclusions drawn for us.  For example, let's take the idea of self-reliance.  By placing this on the masculine end of the spectrum we force ourselves to see it is beneficial to men, and antithetical to women.  We see a woman's independence as a subversion of her character and not an expression of it.

 

There are a few other minor points I have with the categorization, but these are the big ones.  I'm not saying doing this is "wrong" necessarily, only that to do create an opposition where one need not exist.  It allows us to see the ideas only as a matter of contrast, of good and evil in themselves, rather than something that could be used to either end.  I contend that the sort of masculinity that leads to bullying is the exact sort that leads to dadliness.  Both actions require the exertion of dominance, it is only the target of that dominance which has changed.  We can't decide if an action is masculine or not, or by extension good or not, on it's own merits if we've already decided it's place on the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my personal stance is that masculinity and femininity are stupid cultural ideas, but that building communities, developing self-reliance, caring for and protecting and nurturing providing for others are all desirable traits that overall benefit society and aren't really in conflict with each other. However, regardless of whether these ideas are stupid they still exist, and certain traits, positive and negative, are coded as masc or femme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, itsamoose said:

The idea of the masculine/feminine spectrum is one I find ultimately unsatisfactory.  I can see why it is believed, but it seems to naturally lend toward a few fallacious conclusions:

1.) The ideas must stand in opposition to each other

2.) Either one is wholly good and the other wholly bad, or each has it's own distinct positive and negative version.  This assigns agency to the idea rather than the agent, and is a mode of thinking that leads to, for example, the idea that sex is a conquest because sex is viewed as an inherent good.

3.) Traits that cannot be placed squarely in one camp or the other are worth less.  not "worthless" but in fact, worth less than traits which are starkly feminine/masculine.  This is a corollary to point 2, in that by making a value judgement of the concepts primarily in opposition to one another we relate their important to our perceptions more so than their results.

4.) We have conclusions drawn for us.  For example, let's take the idea of self-reliance.  By placing this on the masculine end of the spectrum we force ourselves to see it is beneficial to men, and antithetical to women.  We see a woman's independence as a subversion of her character and not an expression of it.

I love your whole post. When really thinking about it I see why ultimately I have been uneasy with a lot of the articles and ideas I've read on feminism in the last four years as games press, bloggers, and regular media outfits have made it more prominent in the public conscious. Sometimes stuff just feels extreme. I don't really feel like I ever hear masculinity as a good thing anymore unless it's coming from alt-right types. It's always toxic or abusive or someone is insecure with it. I think a lot of guys who want to be respectful and not come off as a creep have just managed this by just avoiding behaviors that could be seen as masculine. Personally it makes me feel as if I'm doing something wrong at almost all times. Are you being too mean? Are you dominating others? Are you creepy towards women? Are you infringing on the rights of others?

 

But then when we come to the idea of masculinity and sex it's so hairy. Like if I weren't in a committed relationship for over a decade I wouldn't know what I would do trying to date. There's all this debate over consent, checking women out, approaching a woman because you think she is pretty. So many ways to do this wrong and if you screw up you become an awful person. Personally I wouldn't know how to navigate any of that without doing a bad job because I'm not awesome and I would probably just avoid any behaviors towards women at all. However one thing is, in my real life group of friends and people I've known before, they aren't really that into a lot of these left social politics and don't get into it much in their day to day. While  I think in general the female population in the United States wants to be self reliant and independent, I think they often like a man to take charge whether it's with sex or getting chores or adult responsibilities done. Maybe it's just something that will go away within a generation but I don't know. I know when my wife says she expects some of these things of me, she's also sort of apologizing for imposing that gender role on me. I don't care I guess but I feel like the rest of the world that I read about on the internet does.

 

And I have no answers itsamoose, but I like that you brought up so many things that give me a lot of food for thought.

 

Also to go back to the Nick Robinson thing, since there's not much in the way of "proof" I actually only really think he's a bad guy because everyone close to him has suddenly denounced him, the Waypoint podcast says there's more to it, he was probably cheating on his then girlfriend, and one suggestion was thrown out by someone that he was hitting on an underage teen. The thing is, I get that we shouldn't be asking everyone to throw up proof on their personal life, but at this point I've seen a lot of speculation and some of this speculation also becoming fact, which maybe isn't fair to publicly ruin someone, depending on what actually happened. I know I'm hitting touchy ground here, so I'll try to explain my feelings more.

 

This is a worthwhile summary:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CoolGamesInc/comments/6slo69 Th/what_were_all_the_things_that_nick_did/dldobcj/

I've been trying to see every day if this investigation has ended to see the conclusion, because if the dude is just hitting on female fans he thinks are pretty with DMs AND he wasn't in a committed relationship at the time I can't say that really bothers me. I mean if he's just SEND NUDES PLS, that's awful, but so far the only thing I have seen is a chat log of him acting very cringeworthy, but not in a gross way. But then we all have had cringe moments when talking to the opposite sex and will the rest of our lives. So I personally would need to know how these conversations went before he was asking for nude pictures because that in and of itself isn't really what I think bad people do. If people close to him were not publicly condemning him, I would wonder if in this day and age we were all saying he is continuously sexual harassing women based on how clumsy he is at flirting or if he's just flirting with too many women at the same time. And even still I wonder if this is what he is only actually being condemned for. I think at this point I will wait for the conclusion of those close to him and his employer to finally decide how I feel. I guess Patrick Klepek said he was writing an article about Nick before this went down so maybe that will still come out.

 

As far as this power structure thing that has been thrown around, that you shouldn't flirt with fans or get sexually involved, I also am not sure I am bothered. I can think of more than a few famous or semifamous men who have married or dated or had flings with with their fans. I don't think it is wrong and we don't generally condemn it until it gets really gross and out of hand with stuff like rock stars and groupies. But hey David Bowie apparently would routinely sleep with many underage groupies in his heyday, gross but the expose on it claims no parties feel guilty or taken advantage of, and we will all still love him forever and his public persona will never been damaged. But I think a lot of established musicians tend to end up dating or marrying fans and that's how it works out. Having something that makes you loved by a group of people and publicly adored is also good fodder for finding someone to date I'm sure. Why not use it? It just kind of comes with the territory of fame no matter how small. Why should this be a big deal? Also I notice pretty much when it's a famous person dating or married to another famous person, it becames tabloid drama and we never hear the end of it because it's two powerful people probably also somewhat of in a competition with eachother. When a famous person doesn't seem to have a famous spouse it definitely seems more stable.

 

So as far as Patrick Klepek making this a thing, https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/894685720278904836. I am not sure this is something to be worried about. His idea of checking himself is ultimately empty because he's not in the dating game and also it's not clear what he is people are even supposed to do outside of never speak romantically or sexually someone who is a fan of you or you should feel guilty. But perhaps the clarity also depends on what actual information against Nick is there. I've seen people take this as Nick harassing coworkers, colleagues, and women in game development. Or suggested that he offered women jobs in the games industry in exchange for sexual favors. These are sometimes just dumb Youtube comments or people misinformed on reddit, but I am not sure that is what happened here. In fact I think it's worse based on the personal condemnation, but then that's me also speculating. I guess the thing that makes me really confused and plus pertaining to masculinity and chasing the opposite sex is that one of the women Nick was flirting with or engaging in sexual acts with (?) said she felt that she had to keep this up or he would stop talking to her. And that is an example of a power dynamic. But is it really? He may be famous but it's incredibly common for males or females to stop talking to a potential mate if they aren't going to had sex. Since when is that a bad thing? You've gotta read the conversation on whether or not someone wants to be friends or sexual partners or in a relationship, that's just more of the clumsiness of navigating the dating game.

 

This fucking post is a mess, I am having to think really hard about what I think and feel. I have considered deleting this multiple times upon writing it. Please understand this is just how I feel about masculinity and Nick Robinson and I could be dead wrong. I might also eat all words when the Nick investigation is over.

 

EDIT: I realized the TL;DR version of this is:

Is Leisure Suit Larry a sexist game or one about forever attempting to reclaim your masculinity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the Nick situation is pretty simple: When a bunch of women independently say a dude has harassed them, you can either believe that A: A bunch of people tied together only by their gender decided to make up rumors about a guy for reasons or B: he's a creeper. One of those is hugely misogynist, so I do the other one. Beyond that, the specifics aren't particularly relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×