OPINION & EDITORIAL
Masculinity ideal in need of review
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andy Granias:
- Masculinity ideal in need of review (December 6, 2007)
- Legal prostitution: Logically sound, ultimately amoral (December 4, 2007)
- Merry 'Santa-mas' to you (November 29, 2007)
- Discovery highlights moral, scientific boundaries (November 27, 2007)
- Does race matter in sports world? (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Tackling Taboos (December 3, 2007)
- Pitching products at reality's expense (February 8, 2005)
- Gender stereotypes persist in U.S. (November 11, 2001)
- Open dialogue necessary (April 17, 2006)
- Men can be feminists too (September 30, 2002)
by Andy Granias
Thursday, December 6, 2007
This weekend, while flipping through the latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine, I came across a series of advertisements that proved to be a subtle reminder of a very interesting social phenomenon in American society: the dilemma of modern masculinity.
The first ad I encountered was for GAP sweaters and showed a smiling man wearing a purple hat and a tight-fitting sweater that had stripes of nearly every color of the rainbow running across it.
The ad on the very next page was for Canadian Club whiskey, with a picture of a man with an annoyed look on his face, sporting a crew cut and going fishing with two other men. It read: "YOUR DAD WAS NOT A METROSEXUAL. He didn't do pilates. Moisturize. Or drink pink cocktails. Your dad drank whisky cocktails."
And so I wondered to myself, quite naturally, was there ever a time when my own dad wore a rainbow-colored sweater while fishing and drinking Canadian whiskey all at the same time? Probably not.
The modern masculinity ideal is, to say the least, a study in contradiction. Quite simply, the prototypical heterosexual man is nowhere to be found — not in the media, not in our paternal images and certainly not in our academic studies. The result is a majority of American males left with a confusing dilemma between hyper-aggression and hyper-sensitivity — a constant decision to be the "beast" or the "gentleman" in absolute terms. Yet these standards are, inherently, nearly incapable of co-existence.
As it stands, media images and portrayals are certainly fueling the opposing extremes. One need only look at the evolution of the hyper-masculine business of professional wrestling as an example of the morphing ideal of masculinity.
In the early 1970s, when pro wrestling first took off as a large sports-entertainment industry, all the way up to the early 1990s, professional wrestlers looked, for the most part, like regular men. Even the most popular wrestlers, such as Hulk Hogan, were a little overweight and a little flabby in the arms. But now, you would be hard pressed to find a professional wrestler who isn't hopped up on steroids with abs you could grate cheese on and arms the size of tree trunks.
Likewise, male sexuality has been morphed to an extreme. The ease of access to pornography has distorted male sexuality into an almost barbaric portrait. With such a large portion of young males exposing themselves to this portrait, it is no wonder adolescent males have a disfigured ideal of masculine sexual expression.
Yet, the modern male is also expected to be sensitive and compassionate, and rightfully so. Unlike the prototypical male of previous generations, men are called on to be just as involved in family life as their female counterparts, are not able to engage in verbal or physical sexual harassment with the same social acceptance as only a few decades ago and are increasingly encouraged to outwardly express emotion. The idea of a masculine figure the likes of Tony Soprano seeing a weekly therapist to talk about his feelings would be a social impossibility only 30 years earlier.
Therefore, the modern masculinity ideal is left in limbo. As prominent feminist philosopher Susan Bordo notes in her book "The Male Body: A Look at Men in Public and Private," that this dilemma can even manifest itself in what were once the most uniform of masculine expression, such as the confusing decision of a young man to kiss a woman: Will he be viewed as masculine by kissing her, or will he be viewed as insensitive or possibly harassing?
Therefore, the modern male is supposed to be a series of impossible contradictions, with no model for dealing with that contradiction anywhere in sight.
Except one: women.
Without question, the feminine ideal has long been an ideal of impossible contradiction — one where women are expected to be submissive yet sexy, strong yet vulnerable, professional yet domestic — constantly adapting to satisfy a constantly changing paragon. The women's movement has been a consistent struggle with these often opposing standards and has been a movement toward an environment that accommodates a certain socially viable agreement in feminine expression. Certainly, this social agreement is far from realization, but the movement toward understanding it should be a model for the modern man.
In what is certainly still an androcentric world, the young male is in a constant state of confusion regarding the expression of his own masculinity. Yet a progressive movement toward realizing this paradigm is decidedly missing from our popular discourse — academic or otherwise.
If anything, it is high time the modern man explored a modern understanding of the ideals he has been exposed to.
Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 9:11am):
Andy, most of us heterosexual men are bombarded daily with demands, subtle or otherwise, of what kind of males we should be. For the most part, we ignore them and just be ourselves. Stop surrendering your identity to adverse influences and let the man within breathe for once!
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 11:40am):
Glad you address this--but part of the problem is that men see a "dilemma" where there is opportunity to explore the grey area. That is to say, the dilemma is false. Why should we have to choose between these two binaries?
Take the popular ideal of the strong male. Strength means nothing without emotional sensitivity, compassion and empathy.
Men should want to be strong yes; and so should women. Everyone should want to be strong. Who should want to be weak? I think we should all be suspicious of anyone who tells us that wanting to be strong is bad.
However, strength is not a virtue in its own right; neither is intelligence. Strength can only be virtuous when it is used in the service of others who are not as strong. What is strength used to the disadvantage of those weaker than one's self but tyranny and abuse? It is certainly not virtuous in any case.
Rather than contradictories, strength and emotional sensitivity must complement one another to be virtuous. For how can we understand the struggle of one who is not as strong unless we have felt that same way--weak and in need of someone smarter or stronger. All virtue must be understood as a thing that exists in human relationships. Emotional sensitivity + strength = opportunity to be virtuous!
It is my view that males are growing and becoming more whole. Rather than being stuck on one end of a binary we have move to consider the other.
Now it is time look at the grey area because life simply is not black and white. The "language" of gender expression is thankfully much more robust than ZEROS and ONES. This is not a dilemma but a liberation from it.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 11:51am):
As a male, I don't care about some stupid Gap sweater or drinking whiskey while drinking. Am I alone in believing that I can figure out who I am and how I should act based solely on my own personality?
The comparison at the end to women does make sense though, since many men probably are conflicted. We set these weird standards for women, but I just don't think the same can be said for the standards society sets on men. If a woman wants me to act a certain way (being strong and sensitive at the same time is an example I suppose), I don't really think about it much. I can only act as myself, which is sometimes strong and sometimes sensitive.
We all need to learn a "take it or leave it" mentality and realize no one's perfect.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 12:44pm):
Great article, Andy. I was worried you would finish writing completely ignoring women. I would've liked to see you address a bit more of the complications for LGBT folk, but otherwise solid.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 2:37pm):
Hey Poindexter, did you really think about anything before you started poppin' away at your keyboard?
"Therefore, the modern masculinity ideal is left in limbo."
Modern? Like our founding fathers wearing tights and powdered wigs?
Modern? Like Twisted Sister or various hair bands?
Modern? Like the blouse-like shirts and nut-huggers of Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever"?
It's not what men wear or drink that makes them men, it's what men DO that makes them men.
So take your masculinity "ideal" and... well, you're a man, you'll know what to DO with it.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 4:15pm):
I was hoping this article would be about how Andy IS the ideal form of masculinity, and how the rest of us can't compare to his sexiness. <3
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 10:09pm):
Being a man isn't what you wear, its who you are. It's knowing that a shake of a hand is all you need to have a binding contract. Its standing up for what you know to be right and willing to put your life on the line to defend it, yourself and your family. Its being able to be there to support and protect your wife and children. Its about knowing the time to be a gentlemen and the time to set that aside and fight. Being a man isn't being a neanderthal brute anymore then it is being a spineless wimp. It is knowing how to act when and where.
Simply put a real man isn't any more out of place giving a loving hug to his wife or child then he is standing up and fighting someone in defense of his family.
Go here for further explanation. If you think it is only talking about turning all men back "into neandrethals then I'd ask you to re-read it and really listen to what he is saying.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/41/
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 10:57pm):
Three things are for sure---
-
(1) men do need to re-invent the male--we need the "new" man.
-
(2) The new male should include more possibilities than only two polar opposites.
-
(3) And most of all, men should not look to women as a source or authority on the issue.
-
There are few things more sad and terminal than these poor lost men who look to women to find out what it means to be a man.
-
Hey if you think I am wrong just look at how millennia of men telling women what it means to be a woman has worked out.
-
Take it from a mother--if you leave it up to women fellas, to show you the way, your all gonna end up being exactly what I realized I was trying to raise for the first few adolescent years of my little boys life--the perfect little girl.
-
Buck up boys and realize that the old ideas (your ideas) of masculinity are dead and sinking.
-
And if your not up to the challenge of redefining yourselves then women will do it for you--and most likely the angry ones.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
