In a way, Martin's article is optimistic — she writes about young men getting together not to slam feminists or domestic violence victims, but rather to "share strategies for getting college men involved in gender-based activism" and say "no to toxic masculinity." But what does nontoxic masculinity look like? For young, feminist men — and yes, there are some — this is a difficult question. Martin writes that "we've certainly got plenty of pictures of men who are stubbornly clinging to the old paradigm of maleness," but relatively few examples of any new paradigm (the closest, she says, is Stephen Colbert). As a result, Martin explains,

Many young men, it seems, are stuck in stage one of gender consciousness. They want to prove that they are one of the "good ones" and separate themselves from all the gendered behaviors and beliefs that they now see as oppressive. That, or they wallow in guilt. (This is not unlike the stage many white kids get stuck in upon fully realizing their role in perpetuating racism.) At worst, this point of view is paralyzing. At best, it leads to burnout.

It's tempting to say that there are so many misogynist men in the world that we don't need to worry about the feminist ones. But men can be incredibly useful allies — a young Tucker Max fan might be more inclined to listen to a couple of right-thinking buddies than the women he's been conditioned not to respect. And men themselves could benefit from the removal of calcified standards of old masculinity. Martin writes:

Guys who reject traditional masculinity, for starters, have a greater chance of finding fulfilling work that isn't just a symbol of their provider status. They might explore the joy of relationships — being nurturing with their kids, real with their friends, open with their partners. They have the opportunity to shed their socialized skin and all the anxiety that comes with trying to be a "tough guy" and make a happy life defined, not by their paycheck or their size, but by their humanity.

If men weren't constricted by the expectation that they behave like emotionless dick-bots, they'd be a lot happier — and so would women, children, families, and society. But it's true that men currently have little to put in place of this expectation. I know several young men for whom feminism manifests itself as guilt, and this doesn't really help them or the feminist cause. As Martin says, men need to acknowledge their privilege and work around it, rather than being obsessed with it. Women can help by accepting men as allies and friends, and by not censoring ourselves in front of them — men can handle discussions of feminism, relationships, vaginas, and periods, and we can help them realize this by not treating these as women-only topics. Men can help by listening, and by offering women the same openness, rather than reserving some types of conversation for dudes.

But do men need, in addition, "a positive, masculine gender identity?" It's something of a strange concept — few feminists would ever say that women needed "a positive, feminine gender identity." While plenty of women take pride in being female, "femininity" is so loaded with patriarchal expectation that, for feminists, it's kind of a dirty word. This may not be a bad thing — in fact, I'd argue that "masculine" should go the same way.

Gender is incredibly complicated, and the ways in which we construct it for ourselves are myriad, fascinating, and worthy of celebration. As the "Men At Their Most Masculine" project shows, both cis- and trans-men have built identities that they see as "masculine," and these identities are satisfying for them. But the idea of a top-down "masculinity" for men to aspire to, of "models," as Martin puts it, just seems restrictive. Yes, young men need to see thoughtful, feminist men, especially if they're not yet truly comfortable with women. But said thoughtful, feminist men don't necessarily have to offer a new masculinity — rather, they can simply teach that how men understand their gender is up to them, and that they shouldn't feel the need to fit themselves into any particular mold. This might be difficult — young people, despite their protestations of rebellion, kind of like molds — but it would move us one step closer to a world in which gender was an opportunity for self-expression, not a cage of expectations. The lack of a new paradigm for masculinity may look like emptiness, but it's also freedom.

Image via Beard Revue.

What's The Alternative To Tucker Max? [The American Prospect]

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, and later discussing the article on NPR, Jonathan Zimmerman analyzes the appeal of the stoic masculine stereotype that's a staple of any contemporary 50s dramatization.

In a culture saturated by public displays of intimate information, there's something very seductive about a man who keeps everything bottled up inside. But there's more. Behind the cult of the '50s man lies the fallacy of progress: the idea that the present must always be more advanced, sophisticated, and insightful than the past. And that's the real seduction. By gazing backward at the repressed '50s men, we can congratulate ourselves at how far we have come. Only, we haven't. And here's how I know: A few years ago, I read my mother's love letters from the 1950s. It was a strange experience, to say the least, but it made me reconsider what I thought about '50s men. Other historians have been doing the same. Most recently, University of Maryland historian James Gilbert showed that men of the 1950s were much more complicated – and much more expressive – than our stereotypes would suggest.

The piece is very sweet, and from a personal perspective, I'm sure the exploration was a fascinating look into the author's past. Quotes like "I really want to just let myself go – and write what I feel – that's perhaps one of the hardest things to do in life," or "I sometimes think the word love is inadequate to express all the tender and stirring emotions I feel – it's the little things – the sound of your voice – the way you walk – your eyes. I can't stand being alone" are beautiful, but does it really take reading people's private letters to make us realize that people were always people, with emotions and feelings?

I remember once, years ago, asking what the 1950s were like. "They were like now!" he said. "People got up, we talked like normal people, we went places, we ate. If everything was seething with tension, I didn't feel it." Now, while it's true that as the child of Jewish progressives who worked in theatre he was probably somewhat insulated from what we think of as "the 50s" of men in gray-flannel-suits, I think he had a point: in some ways we're so inundated by the stereotype that we actually begin to believe people were less complicated. Were mores stricter? Were gender roles and the standards of masculinity more stringent? Of course. But because things were more private, less expressed, does not mean they didn't exist. I think it's important to remember that the accounts we have of any time tend to be the most dramatic, the most static. It's an era that lends itself to easy categorization - and in many ways that accurate - but where does it say that every cake a homemaker baked had to be an act of drudgery, whereas we, more enlightened, can take pleasure in the same tasks and skills (crucially, ironically!)? Should we really need historians to tell us that life was more nuanced than Smallville? I hope not - but it's also nice to be reminded of the lost art of letter-writing.

Touchy-Feely 'Mad Men' ? [Christian Science Monitor]

Loving The "Unlovable" Men Of The 1950s [NPR]

• Researchers have taken on the conventional wisdom that many dogs resemble their owners, but the results are mixed. Some found that dogs do show similar facial expressions as their owners, but others say the entire idea is bull. • The Sudanese woman charged with indecency for wearing pants has been banned from leaving the country, she said Tuesday. Lubna Hussein faces 40 lashes for being caught in loose-fitting trousers. • A new study found that middle-aged men who idealize masculinity are 50% less likely than other men to seek health care. "This research strongly suggests that deep-seated masculinity beliefs are one core cause of men's poor health, inasmuch as they reduce compliance with recommended preventative health services," said researcher Kristen W. Springer. • Researchers have linked the use of food stamps to weight gain among women. They found no signs of a similar trend among men. • According to the Wall Street Journal, many young couples are experiencing the fatigue of constant companionship that usually comes with retirement. Unemployed or recently laid off lovers are bugging each other about minor things, and apparently, this is a downer. • Cool lady-director Katheryn Bigelow has announced her next project: An adventure movie titled "Triple Frontier," set on the border of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. • Professor Catherine Lumby, an adviser to the Australian National Rugby League on women's issues says that intimate partner violence is an issue in the Australian Football League. "I hate to say (it) but it remains epidemic, sexual violence, physical violence," she said in an interview with ABC radio. • The International Olympic Committee is considering adding women's boxing to the lineup for the 2012 London Olympics. Also under consideration: Mixed doubles tennis and 50-meter sprints in swimming. • A researcher from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center found that only half the doctors in Texas are recommending the HPV vaccine to girls age 11-12. In 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that all girls 11-12 should be vaccinated for HPV, but many doctors remain reluctant to discuss the vaccine. • A report released today by UNAIDS states that 50 million women in Asia are at risk for contracting HIV from their boyfriends or husbands. More than 90% of Asian women with HIV/AIDS were exposed to the virus by their long-term partners. • Amateur tennis champ Nancy Griffin is suing the city of Raleigh for discrimination and emotional damages after a men's league, sponsored by the city, banned her from playing. •

The title of States's project initially gave me pause — modern meditations on masculinity often go the mountain-lion-wrestling route, and who needs yet another reinforcement of gender essentialism anyway? I'd be similarly skeptical of a photo series titled "Women At Their Most Feminine." But States's photographs are interesting and often sweet, and his interview in The Morning News is thoughtful and smart (watch out: the opening page of the interview is fine, but if you click through the slideshow you will see some dick). First of all, he's not necessarily a gender essentialist. Of the Craigslist ad he used to solicit subjects, he says,

I intentionally leave it gender-neutral so males, females and transpeople feel free to respond. Most of the respondents are men, but a few are female and a few are trans. I posted to a bunch of different categories to cast as wide a net as possible.

One woman, Liz, appears in the interview's accompanying slideshow. The caption of her photo reads, "When I wear men's clothes I feel comfortable and confident in how I look on the outside which now matches the inside." States decouples masculinity not only from birth-sex, but also from sexual orientation. Mike stands confidently, wearing a Speedo, and his caption reads, "I want to show that, despite stereotypes, gay men can be masculine too."

Not all the subjects have encouraging definitions of masculinity. Luke (NSFW!) says, "I am masculine because I abandon women after taking their love. Because when you study Freud, you don't let him study you. Because I study philosophy, not literature." And a few are kind of silly (what is Michael doing in his attic, wearing a wrestling mask and carrying a wrench?). But taken together, States's photos (there are more on his website) constitute a complicated exploration of how men — and women — feel about their manliness. Take Dennis, who appears blind in his photo. He says, "I feel masculine when I am home, I can take care of myself. I often feel emasculated when I leave my apartment though, with everyone asking me if I need help. I don't need any help." Should "needing help" be emasculating? Maybe not, but what emerges from the photographs is a picture of masculinity as a sense of pride and inner strength — and except in Luke's case, this sense doesn't seem to be achieved at the expense of women. Describing self-reliance as a masculine quality might seem to exclude women, but there's really no reason masculinity and femininity can't overlap, and no reason why a man's pride in his gender has to imply a rejection of other gender identities.

States says,

One thing I did notice through the project was that masculinity was mostly seen as an innate characteristic, something the subject possessed regardless of outward appearance. Like Dwight says, "it is an attitude." I imagine that femininity is seen as more of an outward construct (long hair, clothes).

The idea that masculinity comes from within but femininity comes from a salon is sort of a dark spot in an otherwise insightful interview. Does this reveal simply a poor understanding of all the different ways women and men understand their femininity? Or is it proof that, despite the complexities revealed in States's photographs, femininity and masculinity are outdated concepts? Does calling a good quality "masculine" automatically denigrate women? And how, if at all, do you see your femininity — and masculinity?

Image via chadstates.com.

Men at Their Most Masculine [The Morning News]
Chad States [Official Site]

In response to criticisms that the group "feeds an already strong sense of entitlement among men," 25-year-old male blogger Chris tells NPR's Backtalk,

I have never felt this entitlement these critics speak of [...] Why can't I be a stay-at-home dad? Not many men talk about these issues because, well, we're men. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

First of all, perpetuating the idea that men don't talk about their problems because, well, they're men, might not be the best way to start a dialogue about men's role in society (although it's a step that Chris thinks they should speak out). Second, it's not so odd that a 25-year-old man has never actually perceived his own sense of entitlement. Privilege is often invisible to the privileged, especially when the privileged are pretty young. As for why Chris can't be a stay-at-home dad, it's absolutely true that some people in society still look down on men without careers outside the home. This sucks. But solving this problem also means looking at why women are expected to be the caregivers — it's hardly an exclusively male issue.

Chris, though, is a mere Little Man in Power compared to Frank Miniter, author of The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide. His interview with the National Review actually starts out pretty palatable. He says,

[I]t's revealing to note that every culture successful enough to support an upper class produced sissies. For example French kings, such as King Louis XIV, once wore high-heeled shoes, silk stockings, and long, curly wigs made from women's hair. In Victorian England, men in the upper class (those away from the farm and toil) wore frock coats with fitted waists and matching vests, silk top hats and stockings, and cravats, and practiced strutting with walking sticks with polished brass knobs. Yet those were both two of the most patriarchal societies this world has ever seen.

Is he making an interesting point about malleable gender roles and the fact that embracing certain "feminine" characteristics doesn't mean a society is good for women? Actually, no. What he's really saying is this:

So then, what dandified those men? Just like urban America today, a complete lack of connection with their roots in the natural world is what is shrank their gonads. Just travel to any Third World country where men still have to till the earth with their hands and hunt to fill the pot, and look around to see if you can find a "girly-man" wishing he had a fuller-bodied shampoo.

Here Miniter manages to both fetishize poverty and promote a limiting and reductive definition of masculinity. Because men are obviously either hands-on hunter-gatherers or preening losers with small dicks.

"Yes," Miniter continues, "men can survive without this book, but they need all this knowledge regardless, and getting it in a lively, pithy way in this book is better than having to learn it all the hard way." Isn't getting knowledge from a book rather than the sweat of your balls kind of, well, sissy? Not to Miniter. He thinks men need his guide to help them with important manliness tasks like fending off mountain lions — I know I've rejected many a man because he choked when a puma tried to maul me — and rescuing other, lesser men from the wilderness. He tells a particularly charming anecdote about saving a man and his son who had become lost in an upstate New York forest. After he "led them out," he says,

The father's tone went from fear to regret as he realized he'd put his son's life in danger. The son's eyes told me he'd lost respect for his father.

Clearly one of the best things about being a man is proving you're better than other men — in front of their own kids. But it's not all fun and games. Guys have moral responsibilities as well. Miniter says,

Men need to stand up to today's moral relativism and belch.

Apparently this how real men respond to abstract concepts. Should they also stand up to today's lack of personal responsibility and fart? Miniter's interview contains a lot more gems, including his use of the word "feminazis" with no irony, but the real piece de resistance is his opinion of the kind of man women want. According to his interviews with that other, less mountain-lion-defying sex, he says,

Women quite rightly realize they're better off with Crocodile Dundee than with Ryan Seacrest.

These are my choices? Fuck.

Male, Female Listeners Defend 'Men's Empowerment' Group [NPR]
Oh, Man [National Review]

Earlier: "Men In Power": A Student Group Combats "Reverse Sexism"

On Feministe, blogger Lauren has a post in which she links to Martin Schoeller's amazing photographs of female bodybuilders. She writes:

Women are so deeply conditioned to seeing feminine beauty as something fragile that doesn’t take up space, which is why I love seeing representations of femininity that isn’t that of a delicate orchid. It’s interesting to me that many female body builders who work on attaining what are considered masculine traits play up their feminine characteristics, perhaps to counteract the kind of physique that is usually culturally marked male, sometimes to an extreme that appears to be a conscious genderfuck.

It is interesting to see how these women — the bodybuilders — have bikini tops, earrings, lipstick, eyeshadow — all the trappings of "femininity," yet none of them are what the average person would think of feminine.


The truth is, although the Photoshopped images and the bodybuilder photos are extreme examples of muscle development, the human body is capable of such things, whether it be male or female. (And yes, perhaps steroids were involved.) But still: We don't believe that "female" is equivalent to "weak." So why do we think that muscles are "masculine"? These ladies certainly don't think so.

Celebrity Steroids [Worth 1000, via Yeeeah]
Beauty And Power [Feministe]
Женский бодибилдинг в книге Мартина Шоллера \ Photography (Martin Schoeller's Femal Bodybuilders) [eToday]

Ms. Bierly points out that Ms. Thompson thinks some actors are "seasoning well" (Will Smith, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, George Clooney) but the studios still "outsource" "rugged" roles. But a post over at Sugarbutch Chronicles questions the American vision of "masculinity" itself. Does being "male" mean "strength" and "brawn"?

Just as we would probably dispute any argument which equates femininity with softness or weakness, shouldn't we also pause before believing that a "real" man is brawny and tough? Sugarbutch blog has a video by Sanjay Newton (posted below) examining masculinity in Disney films. These are movies that kids watch over and over; and the "real" men have huge biceps, aren't afraid to fight, and dominate their opponents easily. Male characters who are fat or skinny (and not the brawny ideal) are comic outcasts; male characters who refuse to fight are pathetic.

So instead of wondering where all the "manly" men are, shouldn't we just accept that what it means to be "masculine" is changing? Do you think American actors aren't "macho" enough? Would you rather see rugged, square-jawed imports like Clive Owen instead? (I think I already know the answer to that!)

This Just In: American Actors Not Manly Enough [EW]
U.S. Short On Tough Guy Actors [Variety]
Masculinity Depictions In Disney Films [Sugarbutch Chronicles]
Sexism, Strength and Dominance: Masculinity in Disney Films [You Tube]

Image via Tonterias.