Jump to content
clyde

Masculinity

Recommended Posts

I think this song is an enlightening expression of masculinity.

 

 

I don't think that masculinity is fully comprised of confused jealousy, but I find myself thinking that the way the jealousy is expressed in this song is masculine .

I figured this would be a good opportunity to discuss what we think masculinity is.  Sometimes it seems that masculinity is only brought up as something in opposition to feminity and I'm interested in developing a more full understanding of the gender that I most identify with.

I'm hoping that we can talk about it honestly, both its positives and concerning aspects. 

Gender confuses the shit out of me largely because I'm resistant to forcing generalities on folks, but feminism seems to suggest that a lot of good can come from identifying with gender(?). So let's talk about this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spent some time thinking on talking about masculinity while I was studying for my master's degree (in music, so it's a bit more relevant). I'm trying to recall ideas from years ago, so I may get some things wrong or be outdated by now but I'll offer it up anyway. I'm also far from an expert and am probably going to make a bigger mess!

 

It's a relatively common thought now, but the first thing to note is that there is a difference between biological sex and gender. People are born with male or female (or intersex). That's biological or anatomical or purely physical. Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct. What this mostly means is that there are social norms that people are expected to follow that conforms with their biology. For instance, boys generally have short hair and girls have long hair. But these things are flexible and can change over time and across different cultures. In the 19th century, baby boys were clothed in pink and girls in blue. Sometime in the early 20th century, it flipped.

 

I remember I wrote an essay about Chopin and Georges Sand, their relationship, and how their sex and genders were considered in 19th century Paris. Chopin was biologically male, but was sickly and considered to have feminine qualities. In contemporaneous accounts, he was considered an androgyne and this was a positive aspect. The term was "angelic." Georges Sand was a woman, a proto-feminist that wore trousers around mostly-liberal Paris (and therefore having masculine qualities). She was considered in the accounts as a hermaphrodite, and this was a bad thing. But that's a big digression.

 

We were taught that masculinity and femininity are terms for referring to aspects of the male and female bodies respectively. The obvious examples are male and female genitals. We might also say that a man's deeper-pitched voice is masculine, and a woman's voice feminine. Or that men generally grow a little bit taller than women, or that women have wider hips. But you might know tall women/short men, or men with high voices and women with deep voices, and that's where it all becomes socially constructed or socially mediated. Likewise with personality traits, like men being aggressive and labelling that as a masculine quality; there is no reference to male bodies in it. It is totally socially constructed and reinforced through culture and cultural artefacts. BUT! Just because it is socially constructed and and without any real tangible biological evidence for does not make it less real. Masculinity and femininity are as real as language! It's easy to dismiss gender issues in any regard as being without grounding but millennia of human culture is that grounding.

 

PS. The example we were given of masculinity in women is in PJ Harvey's "Man-Size." But gender performativity is a whole other kettle of fish!

 

 

---

 

So clyde, that song you linked. I'm not sure if your definition of masculinity lines up with mine, but here's my thoughts on it. You wrote that the emotion expressed in the song is somehow a masculine jealousy. I'm not 100% on what that means. For me, there's very little in the text of the song that supports that reading. The only part is in the performance of the song, using a man's voice (or I should say a masculine voice), but I don't think that the emotion is especially masculine. But then again, we (probably) live in different countries, come from different cultures, have different understandings of those cultures, and masculinity could be considered differently.

 

(I'm very tired rn so if none of this makes sense, let me know and I will try to clarify)

 

(PS gender is confusing and nebulous and I am still learning a lot about it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the primer on the difference between sex and gender Atlantic, that's a helpful clarification.

 

Here are the lyrics for Blood Embrace to make instances of masculinity more accessible for possible discussion:

Quote

 


Oh God, would I give her up to him
If she told me he was better
And that I didn't have the chance
That he did to impress her?

Does she test me, does she know
That I would sooner turn and go
And find another
If that is what she'd have me do?

Would she stop and hold me near
If she could see the future here
Would hold me if she held me
To her too?

Would not fight with hands or words
Another man, no, that's absurd
Or would I, and would victory
Betray me?

Or is that what she's waiting on
A pounding down one standing man?
To kiss her in the blood embrace
Of victory

To kiss her in a blood embrace
Of victory
To kiss her in a blood embrace
Of victory (victory)
To kiss her in a blood embrace
Of victory
To kiss her in a blood embrace
Of victory
 

 

 

I'm a little bit concerned that the aspects that the performance adds and enhances are removed from the lyrics in written form, but I'm making an omlette! (So I have to break some eggs)

 

The basic premise of the song is that the character's romantic relationship has become an issue of insecurity, in some part due to a third party that the protagonist feels the need to compete with. That in itself doesn't strike me as masculine, but the particular considered actions and personal reflections on how those potential actions would change the meaning of the existing romantic relationship between him and "Her".

In the song, his reaction to this threat to the romantic relationship is to speculate on what She expects of him. He explains to himself that her motive for having these expectations as a "test" for him. Based on my conception of feminity as it has been expressed around me throughout my life-experiences in various areas of the United States, I would think that the test a man might put upon a woman would be something like an expectation to be faithful to him sexually. This could be something as nefarious as an orchestration where one of his male friends comes onto the female subject in order to see if she remains faithful (for an easily identifiable example). Forcing that scenario on a romantic partner as a response to one's own insecurities about their pairing doesn't feel gendered to me interestingly. But the scenario that the character in Blood Embrace lays out where she may be flirting with or moving on to a second man (in what I imagine is) in a way visible to the character to see how he reacts, does seem particularly masculine concern to me. He asks himself if She wants him to fight as a performance of his commitment to Her, but seems to be resistant to becoming muscle for someone willing to manipulate him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Atlantic said:

Likewise with personality traits, like men being aggressive and labelling that as a masculine quality; there is no reference to male bodies in it. It is totally socially constructed and reinforced through culture and cultural artefacts. BUT! Just because it is socially constructed and and without any real tangible biological evidence for does not make it less real. Masculinity and femininity are as real as language! It's easy to dismiss gender issues in any regard as being without grounding but millennia of human culture is that grounding.

 

For the record, this isn't a great example because aggression actually does have a number of biological links to sex. It's not quite as simple as "testosterone makes you aggressive" (although there is a correlation), but there are a number of interactions between gonadal hormones and sex chromosomes that relate to the control of aggression.  As an example, it's hypothesised as contributing to the unusually high number of prisoners who have a sex chromosome XYY trisomy.

 

However, behavioural science is complex, and there's a lot we still don't know about why people do things. Neurochemistry is a part of it, but the influence of cultural and social pressures are undeniable. I don't point out the biology to take away from your point, but rather to reinforce the idea that sex and gender and the many connotations they evoke are complicated, multifaceted concepts. Some of it is purely physiological, some of it is purely cultural, but actually there's a whole mess of stuff in the middle that is a bit of both. Which is to say:

 

Quote

(PS gender is confusing and nebulous and I am still learning a lot about it)

 

is a pretty reasonable place to be with the whole thing, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gwardinen said:

 

For the record, this isn't a great example because aggression actually does have a number of biological links to sex. It's not quite as simple as "testosterone makes you aggressive" (although there is a correlation), but there are a number of interactions between gonadal hormones and sex chromosomes that relate to the control of aggression.  As an example, it's hypothesised as contributing to the unusually high number of prisoners who have a sex chromosome XYY trisomy.

 

Given my information may be out of date, but it was my understanding that the XYY chromosome as being linked to a sort of "super male" genetic archetype has been lately debunked.  Not only do individuals with this chromosomal anomaly exhibit similar testosterone levels than XY males, but in general relative concentration of testosterone hasn't been linked to aggression in the way one would expect.  On the other hand, fluctuations in T levels have been shown to result in mood swings, which are most common in anabolic steroid users.  As people use these hormones their own bodies produce less, and when they go off their bodies they have an abnormally low T level (for the individual) which has been linked to aggressive response.

 

In general though, testosterone is most strongly linked to seconds sex characteristics such as facial hair, body odor, musculature, and so on.  It might be that aggression is typically associated with these aspects (as it has strong ties to mating behavior in all mammal species) which is typically something males of the species do.  Also touching on the point of behavioral science, it is important to note that individual behaviors are the result of specific motivations more so than biological processes.  The reason I bring this up is that there is a tendency to ascribe behaviors to biological processes and ultimately marginalize the effect of stimuli on those responses.

Share this post


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

 

Given my information may be out of date, but it was my understanding that the XYY chromosome as being linked to a sort of "super male" genetic archetype has been lately debunked.  Not only do individuals with this chromosomal anomaly exhibit similar testosterone levels than XY males, but in general relative concentration of testosterone hasn't been linked to aggression in the way one would expect.

 

I haven't looked into this much myself, it was just a tangent a genetics professor of mine went off on, but the XYY trisomy and the hypothesis being (I think) that people with it suffered from impulse control issues didn't really relate to testosterone. I don't know how much about that research, but the higher prisoner numbers thing is true as of last time I heard it. You're right that testosterone ≠ aggression, which I gestured to in my post, but as I said, gonadal hormones and sex chromosomes do appear to contribute to aggressive/non-aggressive responses in many mammals, including us. I'm nowhere near qualified to explain how (even if there is scientific consensus, and I'm not sure there is), but my point was simply that aggression has biological components that can relate to male/female physiology, as well as cultural components that can relate to gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Gwardinen and @itsamoose for a a few clarifications. I don't have much of a background in science and definitely come from a cultural studies angle instead, which has to do with things like ideas about how gender is performed rather than hard statistical data. I'm going to read some of my old notes and see if I can't contribute something more substantial.

Share this post


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

I don't have much of a background in science and definitely come from a cultural studies angle instead, which has to do with things like ideas about how gender is performed rather than hard statistical data. I'm going to read some of my old notes and see if I can't contribute something more substantial.

 

This is usually something I find is a weird dynamic in any conversation about gender, and something I've been thinking about lately, mainly in the difference between scientific gender and cultural gender (for lack of better terms).  In essence, the scientific definition of gender exists for the purpose of objectivity in experimentation-- for the purposes of any experiment a "male" is an organism with an XY sex chromosome, and a "female" is one with an XX chromosome.  That's not to say that any differences must or will exist based on that distinction, but that that distinction is a useful and ultimately necessary tool for biological experimentation.  I think that this hard lined definition, which exists for a distinct purpose alone, and explicitly for the purpose of discrimination in biology, for many people then becomes the basis by which social concepts associated with biological genders are also defined.  In that case, again in the course of experimentation, different discrimination can and would apply to the various subject groups.  This is why every serious scientific study will start with a definition of terms just like a legal document, in order to preserve objectivity in the methodology.

 

I don't want to get too far afield here, since this is sort of a different topic than masculinity, but I think it's the primary failure of most discussions I've had on topics like this that the thing itself isn't defined.  For example, from the first couple of posts here it seems like Clyde views masculinity as a thing that is, or is done, whereas your view seems to be that masculinity is a perspective of a thing (assuming I'm not reading too far into the posts) which is a discussion worth having.  That's not to say that one of those is right and the other isn't but rather that an agreement of the definition (or at least the parameters of the discussion) is warranted before the discussion can be had in a way that can be expounded upon.  Then again my background is in the sciences, as is my manner of thinking, so perhaps this sort of exercise would ultimately unnecessarily limit the discussion to a particular viewpoint or create that same undesirable scenario where one thing is right and the other isn't.

Share this post


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

I don't want to get too far afield here, since this is sort of a different topic than masculinity, but I think it's the primary failure of most discussions I've had on topics like this that the thing itself isn't defined.  For example, from the first couple of posts here it seems like Clyde views masculinity as a thing that is, or is done, whereas your view seems to be that masculinity is a perspective of a thing (assuming I'm not reading too far into the posts) which is a discussion worth having.  That's not to say that one of those is right and the other isn't but rather that an agreement of the definition (or at least the parameters of the discussion) is warranted before the discussion can be had in a way that can be expounded upon.  Then again my background is in the sciences, as is my manner of thinking, so perhaps this sort of exercise would ultimately unnecessarily limit the discussion to a particular viewpoint or create that same undesirable scenario where one thing is right and the other isn't.

 

I'd say that the perspective (masculinity/femininity) has become so entrenched, that it is a massively powerful symbol by which we explain the ourselves and the world in many cases. Maybe gender is a religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@itsamoose There is definitely something to the idea between "scientific" biological sex and cultural gender. It's something I tried to get at in my earlier post, but there's always more to say. A science education and a liberal arts/humanities education in my experience have very little overlap. For instance, I have read a handful of books and articles on gender performativity, but couldn't tell you what a chromosome actually *is,* while there are definitely people who are the reverse of me. And that's where some of the tensions about biological sex and gender come from in "debates" across forums/twitter/youtube, in that we are separated by a common language. We both say "males and females" or "men and women" but have different definitions for each of those terms, but are talking, arguing, shouting past one another with those same terms.

 

But then again, you say that these terms are used to keep some sort of objectivity in experimentation. I was taught to effectively throw objectivity out the window and instead to critically think on subjectivity, or subjectivities (plural!). This also reminds me that masculinity is not singular, and that there are masculinities (plural!) further complicating everything. The point is that a scientific argument seeks to continuously clarify, and a liberal arts/humanities argument seeks to continuously question and be happy in ambiguity, and ambiguity is a much more difficult thing to leave sitting in the back of your mind (which I suppose is part of the reason that I got burned out on academia).

 

Obviously I used evidence in my essays for different things, but I wonder now if there shouldn't be more science in the humanities, and humanities in the sciences. WHO KNOWS.

 

I'm glad you brought the difference up, because like how defining terms at the beginning of a paper, maybe a rule-of-thumb for an internet discussion is to clarify your own viewpoint... ?

 

Incidentally, a youtuber that I like called ContraPoints recently did a video titled "What is Gender?" that seems appropriate to link right here right now, pls watch:

 

 

--

 

@clyde Maybe gender is a religion. Maybe that statement was intended to be flippant and silly, but I think you have a point. Religion is something that is ingrained in children often before the development of language. I was baptised as a Roman Catholic before I developed the ability to form memories, or even before I knew my own name, and only in my teens and early twenties did I question these things. Same goes for gender. I was told that boys wear blue and girls wear pink and that's that.

 

As for me, I'm biologically male and I started wearing nail polish just a few months ago. Am I a man? Am I tentatively gender non-conforming? What I actually think is that I am a nebulous, moving point on some loosely defined gender spectrum, with some parts masculine, some parts feminine, and that all of this is likely to change with time. What this means for the song that Clyde linked in the OP is that you read it as having a masculine traits, which I don't hear. Doesn't mean it's not there, it just means that we have different feelings/understandings/interpretations. Maybe it held some sort of masculinity in 2005 when it was originally released (I googled it), but for me in 2017 that masculinity is much vaguer and more obscured through my admittedly unsure lens, but I've made that point a few times now.

 

I just want to note how civil this thread has been thus far and I am extremely thankful of that. This community is Very Good. :tup:

Share this post


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

I just want to note how civil this thread has been thus far and I am extremely thankful of that. This community is Very Good. :tup:

 

seconded. the community is extremely good.

 

 

 

editing to prevent a double post - i feel a weird as a representative of someone who lives in that tiny overlap you refer to. I have a BA in Mathematics because I went to a liberal arts institution that requires you take a variety of courses ending up as a well rounded student. I have a degree in mathematics but my most influential class that i took was an intro to Urban Studies course.

 

also i love contrapoints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about Clyde's religion analogy, and I think that is a fantastic way of approaching the subject, or at least thinking about it.  Much like religion, gender exists across various cultures and times, with a basis in the natural world with perhaps similar themes throughout but the dogma being inconsistent and tendencies being parallel.  Also Gender it seems, much like religion, is more a matter of will than a matter of fact and it's expression subject to the whims of the day.  For example singing and dancing were once seen as gentlemanly and masculine in the US, but are now seen as effeminate.  Also it might explain my aversion or malaise in regards to the topic, but that is more of a personal thing.  I have nothing more to add at this time, I just wanted to mention I really like that insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm sure a lot of you have heard, Nick Robinson is being called out for sexually harassing folks. This thread gives a good summary of this recent instant of events.

 

One of the topics that has come up and feels relevant to this thread is that of the 'softboy.' Reyturner linked this article describing the behavior of a softboy, but for those who don't know, a softboy is a man who presents a non-threatening masculinity by way of thoughtfulness, kindness, and vulnerability that is disingenuous. There's a lot of good, nuanced conversation about softness and softboys that I spotted on Twitter that I'll link here for y'all to think about.

 

This one defends the value of 'softness' for men.

 

Zolani also brought up how the idea of 'softness' intersects with race.

 

This aspect of the broader discussion is the one that has made me reflect the most because I'm someone who was been called 'soft'- both as an insult and a compliment- but this is absolutely a conversation about abuse and how men take advantage of various systems (the inclination to not believe woman victims, the threat of losing careers) to hurt others. I'm glad Polygon seems to recognize that Nick used the position they gave him as a tool for abuse and hopefully this leads to a just and productive resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a big long thing but ultimately I'm not invested enough to actually engage it all so I'll just say I found that "softboy" article way more confusing than clarifying, especially in how it connects to anything regarding Nick Robinson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SgtWhistlebotom said:

One of the topics that has come up and feels relevant to this thread is that of the 'softboy.' Reyturner linked this article describing the behavior of a softboy, but for those who don't know, a softboy is a man who presents a non-threatening masculinity by way of thoughtfulness, kindness, and vulnerability that is disingenuous. There's a lot of good, nuanced conversation about softness and softboys that I spotted on Twitter that I'll link here for y'all to think about.

 

This one defends the value of 'softness' for men.

 

 

Specifically with regards to discussions of the value of softness, I do sense a little schadenfreude-tinged glee in the people who are denouncing a straight, cis-gender male who presented himself as nice, sweet, shy, awkward, goofy, and harmless as a predatory figure, just as toxic as the bros and the nerds to which he's supposed to be the better alternative. Though it's distasteful, it's not like they aren't butting up against the real lesson here, which is that there's no mode of masculinity that's magically toxicity-free. A nailpolish-wearing, feels-having dude is just as caught up in male privilege, male entitlement, and rape culture as any other kind of dude, and maybe more so if the nailpolish and the feels are used to deny those things when navigating female-coded spaces.

 

I've got lots of thoughts, but this is all very depressing for me to deal with, so I'm going to take it slow.

Share this post


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

I think it's a good idea to read a few of the tweets from @innesmck from right before the quoted ones:

 

Yeah, it's a good thread with a lot of points worth restating. I wish I could find a few that the slack put up, about dealing with problematic faves, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The softboy article reminds me of an NPR story I heard about "Lumbersexuals". I get nervous when some fashion trends or behaviors I ascribe to get lumped into a genre of person because I see myself in pretty much everything but then I'm like "Oh well, I'm typical in some ways." and then relax about shit and just make decisions to buy floral baseball caps from Target or hang my keys off my belt-loop from a carabiner that no climber would use (because it seems like a good idea). I actually get a little but of a rush from these moments of aspects of my styles being summarized and generalized.

That Nick Robinson stuff sucks. Please continue to fight toxic masculinity and demonstrate a plurality of creative masculinities that fight for compassion and justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take some issue with the have you encountered the softboy article. A lot of those behaviors described read as "I'm 23 years old and I'm a fucking idiot", rather than a systematized subculture that creates predatory behavior. That doesn't excuse shit behavior or mean you shouldn't think or talk about how both embracing or rejecting traditional masculinity still leads down paths that can create bad patterns, but it has very definitely obfuscated the concept that The Softboy is a thing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it seems like Innes is defining "soft boy" not as disingenuous but sincere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "softboy" is like "fuckboy" where it's fine as a humorous term to express a specific frustration with male tendencies but is ultimately so vague and subjective that it means nothing to talk about "softboy culture".

 

Then again I'm a dude who doesn't date straight dudes, so maybe I just haven't dealt with it. But both articles about "softboys" I read seem like a list of specific grievances of bad romantic partners that 

a) aren't the same as each other

B) don't have anything to do with sexual harassment?

Share this post


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

I think "softboy" is like "fuckboy" where it's fine as a humorous term to express a specific frustration with male tendencies but is ultimately so vague and subjective that it means nothing to talk about "softboy culture".

 

Then again I'm a dude who doesn't date straight dudes, so maybe I just haven't dealt with it. But both articles about "softboys" I read seem like a list of specific grievances of bad romantic partners that 

a) aren't the same as each other

B) don't have anything to do with sexual harassment?

 

I have more than a few female friends for whom the popularization of the concept of "softboy" was a revelatory moment, connecting a pattern of emotional-availability-as-emotional-abuse with a lot of former partners and dates, especially the kind of guy who makes an effort to become a really close friend and always be there for you unless you want honesty, intimacy, or commitment on your own terms. It seemed to speak to them?

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

×