Photo by Flickr user amyj67074. Used under a Creative Commons license.
To bleg: “A blog entry consisting of a request to the readers, such as for information or contributions. A portmanteau of ‘blog’ and ‘beg’. Also called ‘Lazyweb.’” This post includes a request for information from readers, preceded by an explanation of why I’m interested. —fl]
So… Y’know, one of the areas of “men’s studies” I’m trying to get a grip on is something Sulamith Firestone mentions a couple of times, though only obliquely, in Dialectics of Sex. She implies strongly that pretty much everything we think of as “masculine” was… sort of made up by guys like Norman Mailer, Earnest Hemmingway, maybe Dashell Hammet and Ian Flemming. (If so then I might throw in John Wayne, John Ford, and couple of other Hollywood personalities as inventing “manliness” as well.)
It’s certainly the case that you don’t see so much discussion what is or isn’t masculine in the 18th or 19th Century. And when we do it’s often got a lot to do with the ordinary seven-deadly-sin sort of vices than the sort of highly circumscribed behavior (can’t do this, don’t do that, don’t be caught dead near a quiche) stuff that started showing up in the 20th Century. Not to mention that while there was misogyny out the wazoo before the Mailer/Hemmingway/Ford set cranked up, it seemed more wary and way less horny. (For instance until, say, World War One most literate American and English men believed that ejaculating “as many as” ten times a year would lead to a depletion of precious bodily fluids and thus insanity and and early grave! And that meant ejaculation during heterosexual sex, masturbation was supposed to be infinitely worse.)
Anyway I could be just totally extrapolating that from Firestone’s work where she never intended to put it in. But I’d love to hear more about it if it’s true. And, of course, if it’s true then it would be pretty critical for developing men’s consciousness to know. Examination of “femininity” as an affectation seem pretty productive in feminism. I’m pretty sure discussions of “masculinity” would be productive as well.
Here’s a sort-of example of sort of what I’m talking about: There’s a reference in, I think, Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff to NASA publicity flacks running classes for first-generation astronauts who were, almost by definition, about as manly as it gets in America. The lessons? How not to drink, cuss, spit, or ogle babes? A little. But also… how to lower their voices, how if they had to put their hands on their hips at all to put them thumbs back like a cowboy instead of thumbs forward like women in kitchen appliance ads. In other words they were taking already brave, accomplished, and already exceptional men and applying this veneer of “masculinity” over them because, it was felt, it wasn’t enough for them to be heros, they had to pretend to be even bigger ones. Know what I mean?
Anyway, here’s where the begging comes in. Can anyone better versed in gender studies help me with links, clues, or other further readings into anything about this idea that masculinity as we know it has been more invented recently than inherited from time immemorial? I’d appreciate it.
[Final note: this post was triggered in part by yet another post by Hugo Schwyzer who was in turn inspired by the recent death of arch-masculinist Norman Mailer. —fl]
Submitted by 1749 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-11-14 20:38.
Manhood In America, Michael Kimmel. Indispensable for answering exactly these questions.
[Excellent. I'll start there. Thank you, Hugo! --fl]
Submitted by 1749 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-11-14 21:45.
That cowboy doll has crazy looking eyes.
A note on Norman Mailer: he stabbed one of his wives, so he may not be the best model for his self-proclaimed masculinity.
My perception is that there is a lot of work on femininity as a construct and on gender as a construct, but not specifically on masculinity as a construct. I don't know if there are some anthropological studies showing cross-cultural differences or opposing differences in what's considered masculine, but that would be helpful. Certainly the powdered wigs, heeled shoes, or skirt-like garments of some groups (historically or in different cultures) would be seen as unconscionable by many men today, as would be the long dresses worn by many American boys until they toilet trained sometime into the early 20th century. You could also consider the ways in which men have expressed affection within friendships in ways many masculinists now consider unacceptable.
More helpful is what contemporary, strong men are doing with their lives that openly defies what society has stereotypically considered masculine: participating fully in child care, cooking, volunteering, taking greater responsibility in household chores, without going against their "nature" (i.e., they still take part in "masculine" roles, too, when or as they wish).
Of course, people like Robert Bly (or even Promise Keepers) make their own argument that masculinity is a construct since wild men drumming in the forest and reclaiming their lost manhood seems to have no connection to any innate qualities except fear.
[Yeah, and didn't one of Mailer's wives shoot him too? The idea of all these straight men feeling like they had to do something more to pass for... um... even more straight men is just so weird! And self and socially destructive. And surely unnecessary since it was proving... what? My experience of Robert Bly is such that he actually accurately assessed what was going *wrong* for men -- we were alternately supposed to act out the way Mailer or Hefner did but also never lose sight of women's approval -- but pretty openly felt at a loss for what could be done about it. Drumming and running in the woods didn't turn out so great but it *was* enough "none of the above" to break the plane. I know he was always bitter than everyone kept trying to follow him (since he *really* felt he had no answers) instead of looking further/elsewhere. Mailer? He seemed more like "well, this worked when I did it a little so I'm going to do it a lot. And if a lot doesn't work it mean's I have to do it even more... and more." Not so hot. Thanks, B. --fl]
Submitted by 1749 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-11-14 22:20.
I second the recommendation of Kimmel. He's accessible, smart, and critical without being self-flagellating (if you know what I mean - no offense to those who would *enjoy* self-flagellation ...).
There's lots of other good stuff out there on masculinity, which has become a surprisingly big field of study. I've got several interesting and readable articles in .pdf format; e-mail me if you'd like me to send them.
Probably the best way to get at the *newness* of our notions of masculinity would be to look at what the historians have to say. Most of their stuff is pretty specialized studies, though, and I can't think offhand of one that'd be great to start with.
*Defenses* of hegemonic masculinity (in the Norman Mailer vein) only really appear in great volume once feminism gets underway - earlier men certainly helped construct dominant ideas about masculinity but they didn't often refer to "masculinity" or "manhood" so explicitly. (One exception I can think of would be the dude who coined the term "momism" - Philip Wylie - whose *Generation of Vipers" came out in 1949, I think.)
I'd probably find more to say about this, but I just spent the past three hours (along with my dh, four neighbors, and two city utility workers) dealing with a major sewage backup - five inches of the stuff in my basement - and am both exhausted and almost pathetically grateful for a certain kind of traditional, practical masculinity. ;-)
So we can continue this conversation later, if you don't mind.
Oh, and I just *love* the term "bleg." Seems like one you'll find more uses for.
[Yikes! Sorry to hear about your sewer problems, Sungold! And actually I know what you mean about being suprised that masculinity would be big but the key for me is that once people began distinguishing "femininity" from "being female" it makes sense that people would eventually take interest in "masculinity" vs. "being a man." With the big, big caveat that Norman Mailer was sort of a pioneer of mapping that difference... which is sort of part of the problem! Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1749 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-11-15 03:50.
Figleaf:
The Men's Bibliography has a section entitled Histories of Masculinity which may be helpful. The Men's Bibliography is described as a comprehensive bibliography of writing on men, masculinities, gender, and sexualities, compiled by Michael Flood. 16th edition, 2007.)
What I think you will find when examining ideals of masculinity in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is that classism toned down any exaggerated masculine characteristics. The depiction of male aristocrats in the erotic art of this time span is feminized: pale skin, small feet and hands. The bodies of these noblemen could be slender or fleshy, but there is no pronounced musculature. Beefy forearms and hairy chests would be used to depict a laborer or sailor, not a duke or member of the bourgeoisie. This is not true for all art of this time span, certainly not for Monet or Delacroix. But these feminized men are what I remember from collections of erotic art produced during this time.
[Thanks for the link, Kochanie. And yeah, I remember reading about the rise, decline, decline, and then finally rise of the tan among the well to do. (For most of Western Civ. a tan was a dead mark of a laborer or, worse by those standards, a farmer. It wasn't till the movie industry moved to California and stars had the leisure to sunbathe that tanning caught on for good.) Great call on the collapse of historic classes and the rise of uncertainty about gendered behavior. Thanks again! --fl]
Submitted by 1749 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-11-15 13:15.
You might check out Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Gender, by Judith Butler. Given the nature of this blog, it's quite possible you've already had discussion about this, and if so, please forgive my repetition.
Gender Trouble is an older book (1990) grounded in a post-structuralist feminist view point which, though many might poo-poo these days, I for one think is still valid - at least for the purposes of personal rumination.
This book is not overtly about masculinity as a theme, but very insightful concerning the idea of gender as performance.
I'll be wildly paraphrasing here, but one of the core ideas contained in this book postulates that since gender is largely a construct (the post-structuralist view), in order for the idea or construct of heterosexuality to exist, especially socially, the construct of homosexuality must also be present.
And that, as individuals, we are deeply coerced by all manner of forces, personally and socially, into "performances" which support the construct of heterosexuality - or whatever collection of masculine/feminine polarities needs to exist at the time in order to support the currently acceptable idea of gender.[end of paraphrase]
...which ties right into what Kochanie points out above. It does seem that acceptable expressions or performances of gender (what masculine and feminine are "supposed" to look like) are not at all based on some ancient law, but are largely formed (and regulated by) the needs of the prevailing society to stabilize its own reality and purpose. And oh, isn't that a whole other discursive can o' worms!
Basically, I'm with Judith and Shakespeare: it does seem that the whole world really is merely a stage. However, I'm afraid that we as actors of gender are not as free to improvise as we like to believe nowadays.
Blegging... I like that :)
[I'm actually more sanguine about innate heterosexuality and/or homosexuality than a lot of post-structuralists might be but I totally get that "straight" and "gay," not to mention "masculine" and "feminine" are constructed out the wazoo. Thanks, Elizavetta. Thanks for the reference, too! --fl]
Submitted by 1749 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-11-16 00:15.
No reading recommendations, but a hypothesis on why you don't see many discussions of masculinity pre-20th century: It was effectively before feminism. Not that there was *no* feminism before then, but that it took world wars and their aftermath to really get women out into the work force and the public sphere. I imagine that, before the more extensive presence of women in the public sphere, "masculinity" was probably just what was normal -- in other words, it didn't really exist without femininity being present as a counter or a challenge to it, but was probably perceived as simply proper social behavior.
[Or another possibility I've heard discussed is that there were also all these *other* roles you had to fulfill depending on your particular stations that the simple fact of being a "man" or "woman" wasn't even the most significant thing about a person. The only real comparison I can think of today are folks like the old auto workers who, 20 years after the factories shut down still think of themselves as auto workers first. That's not to say I don't know what you're suggesting, I do. It's just that *I'm* suggesting that as those other largely class- location- and career-based identities have slipped away we've tended to overload the remaining identities we (imagine) we have left. The next step, though, isn't to *dig in harder* to those last things but to discard them too. Thanks, Schwa. --fl]