Being a Man in the 21st Century (Part 2)

Lisa Gates says on October 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am

Dustin, such great thinking and writing and talking goin’ on here!

As a feminist (yes, we are all feminists) and a mother to a 13-year-old boy, the biggest challenge is for all of us to become conscious about what we ingest from our culture.

For example, we all know that housework is anyone’s work. And yet I’ve assumed complete responsibility for all those tasks without even a thought of having a conversation with my husband. I also assume that my husband will handle the car stuff.

The good news is that I also assume that he would never objectify or belittle me, or expect me to be less capable, or tell me what I can or cannot do. Those things don’t even occur to either of us, thanks not only to the feminist movement, but to the many examples in our families of accomplished, driven men and women.

Despite how groovy we are, I overheard my son telling a raunchy sexual joke, basically a sexual put down of a woman. The joke was actually way beyond his years, his experience and his understanding. I pulled him aside and had a conversation about being a real man. Upshot was that a real man never objectifies or belittles another to make himself look better. It comes off as smarmy and weak. I asked him to take a stand for himself, his friends and his future girlfriends. If his deer-in-headlights expression is any indication, he got it.

If my examples can be extrapolated to the larger culture, it seems that we’re standing in the middle of a bridge between where we were and where we’re going. We’ve come a long way, but we have a long way to go.

Brad C says on October 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am

These posts have been great. It is amazing how many people still think certain jobs or qualities are on acceptable by a single sex. Slowly things are emerging, especially in the workplace and that is likely because of the anti-discrimination laws that are in place. Hopefully as time goes on people will continue to be more open minded about being individuals and not based on ones gender.

Regardless, these posts have been awesome! I would be interested to hear more on the subject.

Heather says on October 30th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Alas! Part 2 has arrived! I can once again be nourished by your wisdom! Ahhh – Tastes Brilliant!

When I look back on the evolution of gender relations, advancements and accomplishments I feel an overwhelming sense of pride. With time has come the importance and action to address the issues between us and how in turn it will impact our lives and future.

I really liked the spotlight you placed on parenting. Personally I am able to see the significance of having a male role model in a child’s life (whether the child is male or female). I feel the representations of males and females that we were exposed to throughout the duration of our upbringing directly impact how we relate and conduct ourselves in relations with those of the same and opposite sex as adults.

In terms of sexuality, development and exploration have been constant and the degree to which expression has evolved is superior. More and more men have rejected labels, stereotypes and confinement in terms of being honest and connecting with their sexuality and that of their partner. It is exciting and intensely liberating to be able to share yourself with another on an intimate level without the confines of rules or fears (At least once trust has been established).

By cutting the proverbial rope that has hog tied our potential as men and women, it is now clear to see that what the human body, heart and mind have the capacity to feel, experience and achieve are indefinite and when you achieve that level of peace and freedom then you are really experiencing the miracle of being alive.

Beside every great man is a great woman!

Belinda Munoz says on October 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Dustin, great post, as always.

On the idea that “We are all feminists now”, I really want to believe this, though my observations tell me we have more evolution to do in this regard…

Eighty-fourth in the world — that’s where the United States ranks for women in elected office, behind Mexico, China and Pakistan. Even after the most recent 2008 election, women make up just 17% of the U.S. Congress.

As for the rest of the world, when mass rape of women takes place in the Congo today, when many more girl babies in China are dying because they are not getting the care that their boy counterparts get today, I struggle believing that we are all feminists now…

Mike says on October 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Oh, Dustin, I wish you would grow a pair.

Why does being a man in the 21st century have so much to do with feminism? Why does it have so much to do with women in general? Who did you write this article for, Dustin? Men? It doesn’t sound like it.

“The 21st century offers men a real opportunity to live up to the ideal of being our own men, though.”

This ideal you speak of… It’s been generated for you by feminists.

This is really a sad article. Rather than empowering men to be men, you’ve tucked tail and said everything you were supposed to say. Congradulations!

Dustin Wax says on October 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Mike: Maaculinity has *always* had “so much to do with women” — my contention is that the more equality we have for women, the more *all* of us can focus on developing our own skills and talents instead of trying to fit into the box society has laid before us.

Since I am a feminist, I guess that means this idea has been generated for me by… myself! And that’s the potential I wish for all men. Yay!

Cath says on October 30th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

I think the most amazing part of all this is the possibility that men and women have to choose what they want to be.

As a man you don’t have to stay at home, but you can choose to do it if you want to, same goes for women. The way the ideas about manhood and womanhood are changing gives freedom to women, but also gives men the chance to live free from the traditional expectations of what a man should be.

Sadly, somehow this makes some men (and even some women) feel threatened.

Mike says on October 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Dustin, I don’t think being masculine or being a man has anything to do with women. Masculinity, by definition, is the antithesis of femininity… A yin and yang sort of thing, don’t you think?

To be honest, being masculine in the 21st century means biting your tongue. It means giving other people an unfair advantage because of their gender. It means watching what you say, look at, or imply around co-workers. It means saying no to progress at times because it will hurt someone’s feelings.

This is truly a miserable time to be a man. If you’re willing to castrate yourself and act like a eunuch, than you might make out OK.

This is a joke.

Dustin Wax says on October 30th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Mike: You’re getting the details, just not the point. Maculinity only means the “antithesis” of women in a society that hates women. We are moving beyond that, and have an opportunity to define ourselves as something other than the “opposite” of women (whatever that might mean — what, we grow our hair on the inside?). ow are you going to define yourself as the “antithesis” of the woman police officer, marine, or backhoe operator? Of the woman CEO, surgeon, or (one day) President? By beating stuff up? There must be *something* left to men other than physical brawn — especially as, with so many women in the gym, there’s a good chance that they can outlift, outrun, and outlast you and me.

It’s not a miserable time to be a man — it’s a miserable time to be a man without inagination.

Dustin Wax says on October 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

BElinda: This is a forward-looking post, and I’ll admit that there are places where present-day circumstance blends into wishful thinhing. I think we have to *admit* that feminism has created huge changes, mostly positive, in our society, and that if we’re honest with ourselves we can see that any misgivings we historically had about women in any capacity have been proven wrong again and again. That said, there is a lot of resistance to that; my point is that this resistance is misguided and that it hurts both women *and* men.

Rob says on October 30th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Flawed, flawed, flawed arguments all. You presume men stay at home and do the household chores because they want to without regard to the increase in women going to work. You assume the women at work want to be there rather than at home. And the women responders say this is wonderful because…they read in a magazine somewhere it’s supposed to be wonderful so it must be. Yet, in a poll shown on the national news last week, half of all men and women wish the women could stay home.

So where are those numbers, hearts and minds coming from if, according to your article, the opposite must be normal? The opposite of your article is how men and women have behaved since dawn of life!

Heather says on October 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Mike, PLEASE don’t encourage castration…It is the kind of liberal thinking and modern mind set that make women need men like Dustin for procreation so that we can introduce a generation of boys to be men into the world who will be confident and uphold the true definition of a man and achieve their destiny!

I feel the introduction of women into a “man’s world” did impact men because it redefined their masculinity. Alleviating the responsibilities and showing a man what a “little feminine flower” can do proved to them that women can (figuratively) have balls too. I think it was inevitable that men would acknowledge and embrace their feminine side and through that redefine who they were.

Let’s take a look at metro sexuality. If that isn’t proof of masculinity infused with feminity I don’t know what is. Some people question whether metro sexuality is in reality an offspring of homosexuality. I personally don’t feel it is. Homosexuality is clearly defined by 1 factor – sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. We don’t need to go into the extremes of eyebrow plucking and using tea cozies, but by man opening himself up to experiences that in past were an unheard of practice based on his gender(such as an interest in activities and products that will maintain an attractive and healthy body, exposing himself to the passion and beauty derived from nature, music and art), he has improved his quality of life, connected on a more significant level with his partner and gained more freedom because he also could now express his emotions. He could allow himself to be vulnerable and face the truth that he needs help sometimes too. That even the rock that is man can crumble. None of these things make a man any less of a man, if anything they make him more.

If we are to truly embrace equality amongst the sexes, there should not be gender advantage and no, you should NOT have to make any adjustments to your conduct unless you are guilty of being inappropriate or offensive. Heterosexual men can launch complaints in the work place if they are offended by the words or action of another MAN or WOMAN. The only one who hinders you is yourself. If you lack confidence, or are intimidated by women or feel that you had to adjust yourself to be any less of a man in order to maintain tranquility in the 21st century then you need to come out from under that umbrella and get in the rain!

Bill Pier says on October 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

I can appreciate the question(s) you pose with regards to what it means to be man in our current times; but, what about looking deeper than just at the surface of how we as men ‘have’ acted over the last few generations?
Though I didn’t pay much attention at the time, the mytho-poetic movement of the 70’s and 80’s started to ask similar questions of men and what it means to be a man. From that time has sprung several efforts to allow men to recreate themselves anew from their upbringing and socialization. One effort in particular that has helped me is the Mankind Project, a non-profit born in the 90’s that has evolved for just this purpose for men. Quite simply, it’s an org. that run of, by and for men to help other men become ‘better’ men. Some of it’s processes and practices are based on the concepts based on the book, “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover”, by Moore/Gillette, which reintroduces the Jungian male archetypal concepts. Contrary to some info on the web, the org. is not a cult and is simply a tool in my life for looking honestly at myself as a man and allow other men to help me hold myself accountable to behavior that fits with the man I want to be. Further, the man I want to be is far different from man my upbringing was fashioning!

book review: http://www.menweb.org/kingwarr.htm

oyun says on October 30th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

I would like to say that this article is pointing out the development we have gained in the recent years in terms of social and culturel aspects.

Clark Kent's Lunchbox says on October 30th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

One of thing I’ll throw in as part of the discussion is that in stepping out of a traditional male role a man also steps away from the relative safety that role provides in maintaining his masculine image. For example, working construction is typically considered a masculine profession. I’m not saying women can’t; that’s not my point. But when a guys says he works construction we don’t think to questions his masculinity. He might not either , yet take him out of that role and how does he view his masculinity then?

Let me frame this in another context. I once was an Infantry officer and later a corporate executive – pretty manly stuff by traditional standards. Then I lost my job and by default ended up being a stay-at-home dad. This was a double whammy because not being “good enough” for a company to keep me and then losing my role as the family’s provider were direct threats to my masculinity.

Over time I came to realize that masculinity is not contingent on my title, but rather in what I bring to the table in any given situation. It takes a different (and more authentic) type of confidence to embrace the masculinity that comes internally from accepting yourself rather than the masculinity that comes externally from traditional roles.

Timothy Wright says on October 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

Hi,

I have not read part 1. But some comments:

Being a man is about honoring the unique differences between men and women. Men and women are equal but not the same. Ask any boy who grew up without a loving & nurturing Father or Mother and they will agree. A Father is the one who calls out the man in a boy. A mother can not do this. She may be a fantastic Mother, but what ever she imparts it will not be the masculine that a boy needs.

To the daughter the father nurtures and calls out the feminine. He expresses kindness, gentleness,tenderness in cherishing the feminine in his daughter.

A man is faithful to his wife and the children live under the umbrella of the commitment to the marriage. This may sound very sentimental to many people, but read all the evidence out there that says: children who live with married parents do better in life than those who come from broken homes.

85% of youth in prison grew up in Fatherless homes.

http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml

I have two daughters 13 & 12 and I believe that they are capable & gifted of doing the great majority of jobs that any man can do. The ones they would not be able to do as well as a man would have to do with their physical strength, not their mental capacity.

Tim

Kristoffer Grønnegaard says on October 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

I would really like to agree. But i simply can’t believe all women want and expect the same from men. As i see it the classic “masculine” features has certain types of work as part of the manifestation. But the nature of the work really does not matter as long as the outcome is money and power. Most women are turned on by power and money, whether or not they react to it is decided by their mental aptitude. Most men are turned on by women who confirm them in their position of power by some form of submission. I believe this behavior is primal, and the society we see today is moderation of this primal behavior by intense cultural programming. I don’t associate femininity with “feminism”, actually i see them as two poles where feminism is some kind of hyper-masculin counter-reaction to an inefficient model of society. Im not sure what i want to say here except the terminology confuses me a bit. A feminist is like a modern socialist, nobody know what it really means. But everyone has a theory. Pardon my English, its not my first language.

casey says on October 30th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Dustin,

You teach women’s studies? Now I understand where you are coming from. Although I find the article insightful, I’m disappointed in the perspective you took. Masculinity should be looked at on it’s own terms. Any good social constructivist/postmodernist knows that. And if you are going to take the feminist perspective, at least bring up some of the negative impacts feminism has had on masculinity: Normal little boy behavior now labeled as undesirable. The percentage of little boys diagnosed with ADHD. The ban on competitive play during recess in our public education system.

“It’s becoming harder and harder to take people who rant about the difference between men and women seriously. For every generalization, we can point to a thousand exceptions – men who love shopping and women who hate it, women who whoop and holler over their football team’s victory and men who couldn’t tell you if the Cleveland Browns play in the American League or the National League*.”

Of course there are thousands of exceptions to stereotypical gender roles. This isn’t the 1950’s. But what I have always found frustrating about this debate is how social scientists constantly ignore the fact that biological and neurological differences in men and women lead to, not only physical differences, but inherent behavioral differences. Our brains are wired differently. Our bodies produce different levels of different hormones. These differences have even been observed in other primates. I swear, the only time social scientists ever accept findings of biological and neurological studies is on the debate of whether or not homosexuality is a choice. And that’s only because it fits with their sociopolitical beliefs.

And if your going bring up gender differences in the work place, let me share some stats: Men account for 93% of work related deaths. http://bit.ly/1jZNVH The unemployment rate for men is 10.3%, and only 7.8% for women. http://bit.ly/1tFtVK

So to say “The idea that certain kinds of work are “feminine” or “masculine” is dead in the water.” is jumping the gun a little.

Dan says on October 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm

I’m wary of Belinda’s citation of statistics on women in elected office as a measure of progress (or lack thereof). Not that I hold dear a belief that women are intrinsically incapable of serving in such a position, but it seems like an arbitrary standard that ignores circumstances. The question is NOT, “Do we want women in public office?” The obvious answer is “Sure!” The question is, “What are we willing to sacrifice to make that a reality?” I think it requires more than meets the eye. Assuming that women don’t have some super-advantage in getting elected (some would argue the opposite), equal numbers of women would have to run for office as men. Hopefully they’d be equally qualified in terms of education, career experience, and track record in other positions. Some problems arise, though, when you consider statistics on the careers of married men vs. unmarried men. The effect is NOT the same for women. So to make the numbers fit, cultural norms on stay-at-home moms/dads would have to change. This is quite a ways from equal positioning in public office! I like to think that I find certain policies no less meritorious (or ridiculous) dependent on the gender of the one proposing them—though I could be wrong, of course. But in any case, I doubt that we will EVER see an equal number of women in elected office as men, and I’m completely comfortable with that—just the existence of pregnancy stacks the deck against it ever happening.

I’d also like to point out that “Embrace Difference” can be taken a number of different ways. My mother quit her job the day before I was born and has never worked (for pay!) since. Barring unforeseen tragedy, I’ll likely work for decades in the marketplace to support my children—very differently from my mother. Telling men that “being a stay-at-home dad is ok” while telling women that “being a stay-at-home mom is a hindrance to your full potential” is disingenuous.

Dustin Wax says on October 31st, 2009 at 12:58 am

A couple quick comments:

1) I have no problem with women (or men) choosing to stay at home and raise children, except a) it’s not at all clear in most cases that this is a choice, rather than the playing out of old-fashioned gender roles, and b) women are punished in the workforce far more than men for taking time out to raise children — in fact, many women find their careers stalled after motherhood even if they *don’t* take time off.

2) Men and women simple y are *not* wired differently. There is practically no well-supported scientific evidence that there are any inherent neurological differences between males and females.There are differences that emerge in response to different socializing practices, but that’s sort of beside the point. What *isn’t* beside the point is that there are literally thousands of journalists willing to jump on the latest piece of research that shows some kind of innate difference, even when a) nobody can replicate the results, b) dozens and even hundreds of other studies show no such difference, or c) even the authors of the piece disagree that their research shows such differences. This is a tough nut to swallow, I know, but it’s true — there are very few innate differences that are supported by actual evidence, and what few there are tend to be exceedingly small. Sorry.

Tim says on October 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm

I don’t know about neurological differences between men and women or anything like that, but I am concerned with the idea of men and women being treated the SAME. I’m all for equality of the sexes, because I believe they naturally are equal. What concerns me is society’s treatment of men and women (and especially boys and girls) as the same socially.

What masculinity means seems to be at the center of this for me. Masculinity is free to be defined in a multitude of ways and it changes with time. But masculinity or manhood, whatever the definition, still needs to be at the heart of men. I see masculinity as, among other things, confidence, bravery, toughness, and caring for and protecting others. Timothy Wright’s comment basically hits the nail on the head for me.

Being the college kid that I am, I very frequently think about manhood in the context of relationships and girls. I’m a fan of (culturally reasonable) chivalry because I feel it respects women and communicates and establishes my manhood. For those reasons I don’t know why so many knock these gestures. But I feel like the feminization of society has the negative affects of creating gender neutrality. Why do women complain about not being able to find “real men”? Well, if the feminine and masculine attract, and if society is doing away with the things that make men “men”, what do you expect?

Basically, genders need to be equal but not the same.

I feel like I disagree with you in several places, Dustin, but thank you providing this forum. It’s a complicated subject to wrap your head around.

Dustin Wax says on October 31st, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Tim: It *is* a complicated subject to deal with, and I appreciate that most of the people who have objected, including yourself, have done so respectfully. I posted it less thinking “I’m right, everyone must bow down to my rightness” but in the spirit of provoking a discussion that’s slightly different from the usual “blame men, no blame feminists, no blame aliens, no blame [whoever]” debate, and I’m glad to see people disagree.

As for the issue of “neutrality”, I’m not sure we’re there yet or will ever be there, but I’m not that concerned about that aspect. My feeling is that we can (and should) still appreciate the differences between us, but they’ll be the differences between two *people*, not between men and women (which simply aren’t that large, especially as both men and women are socialized into the same workplace). Talents and personalities don’t seem to hew very close to gender lines.

Christo says on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 am

Balderdash!

It is incredible how whimpy and psychologically castrated modern man really is, and all for the supposed “empowerment” of women. It is sad to see how many intelligent women fall for this huge psy-op. It shows how weak people are; how self-indulgent. Many of you, who buy into the Great Game, are dupes who haven’t done your homework. Look it up: Feminism (via its top authors and more) was funded by the CIA… Why? For double the taxes. Why else?

It has never been about Women’s Rights, or Men’s Rights, or Gay Rights, or the rights of any other demographic. It IS and always will be about: HUMAN RIGHTS; honoring the potential of each person, whatever and whoever they may be. The real man knows this, and is ready to defend those rights.

The powers that now rule don’t want you to know these simple, powerful facts. Instead, they muddy and taint the waters. ‘Divide to Conquer’ is their M.O…

When they come marching down the streets, many of you will regret not having exercised those human rights, now, when it counts. Instead, you were too busy stroking the egos of those who also enjoyed the Koolaid you guzzle. When the time comes (sooner than you can imagine), to defend what is truly precious to you (freedom), you will go running, looking for real men—but none will be found. Those that will be discovered will be found hiding, like shivering children, behind the pants of disillusioned feminists.

Ken says on November 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Any sort of discussion on masculinity and femininity is inextricably tied with gender roles but I’m afraid the tenor and point of view espoused here leads to a very unsatisfying relativism, where everyone is right therefore no one is right.

Gender roles play an important role in culture and the socializing of future generations. While many believe the old patriarchal and chauvanistic model is outdated not enough criticism is given to the “progressive” model. What effect does ambiguous gender roles have on society? Well a positive aspect might be that there is freedom to decide your outcome and that one isn’t caste into a role for life. A negative might be that there is such a lack of clarity in roles (when do men lead or not? or open doors for women?) that we devolve into our basic selfish natures and leave responsibility to others. I think if you really want to make it work you need to have an honest critique of where we are going and not simply being happy with not being where you have been. Some wise person said that history repeats itself. I’m not sure we’re in wholly uncovered territory.

That being said I think this article may point more towards maturity as opposed to masculinity or feminity. Maturity in the sense of being fully developed and capable of taking on responsibilities as adults. The clearest model of maturity is sexual maturity, the ability to procreate. In modern society we now have emotional maturity and intellectual maturity. In the end it points to our ability to be responsible in our positions in life; to take care of ourselves, our families, and manage our relationships.

American society has institutionalized adolescence by prolonging it through college and reinforcing it through pop culture with the undying need to be young forever and live carefree while not being responsible for the messes we make (ever increasing credit card debt, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, unhealthy lifestyles). And it amazes me that we spend so much effort atoning for our excesses (read: sins) by recycling because we overuse, working out because we are fat, reducing carbon emissions because we drive to much, government bailouts because we weren’t careful or were greedy.

In short if you want to be a real man or a woman, grow up! Do everything in your power to exercise responsibility for what you were given. Understand consequences of your actions. A little prudence goes a long way. If you need to be a stay-at-home dad be the best stay at home dad! If you have to work that 12 hour day and be the sole provider for your family, do it without compromise! If you are on your own be responsible for yourself, your profession and relationships. There is nothing that will improve your standing in the world than that. And everyone should be held to that standard, man or woman, according to their lot.

As an aside I believe women have more influence than some care to admit. Every man was born of a woman and men are shaped by them. Every success of a man can in no small part be contributable to women. I can’t even really fathom separating it. And that is the beauty of God’s order, that we are made to be complimentary in all ways, equal yet different.

In the end you have to realize it’s really not about you. But if it is about you then that’s all you have.

Isi says on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm

This is an interesting topic. I can agree and disagree with many of the comments made so far. I agree that there is something missing to being a man today. There is something that has been taken away. I say something because I cannot put a word to it.

The stuff that makes a Man a Man! just seems to be missing – or depressed. The process that allows a boy to become a man seems to have been altered and sissified. Being tough doesn’t have to be cool – hurting someone never is – but tough is more than fighting – it is adventuring into the woods, playing in a creek, riding bikes out of sight, throwing rocks, building forts, wrestling with buddies, launching rockets, digging holes, etc…. Now you just get in trouble for doing these things. Gone are the days where boys can *grow* into men and we – the men – can guide them. Nowadays things don’t get fixed they get replaced. Broken bike chain – take it somewhere for repair vs. get greasy and fix it….etc…

Gone to are the days of just being a gentleman for the sake of being a gentleman – there always has to be a reason. Should I open the door for the lady in front of me, or will I just get a look – that look that says either “I can get the door for myself, thank you very much” or that other look that says “He must want in my pants, men don’t open doors anymore – don’t you dare touch me creep”. The day of chivalry, pulling out chairs, opening doors, standing when a lady comes or goes from a table, tipping of the hat, offering genuine non-sexual comments, all seem to be gone – or fading.

Several of the comments touch on dads assuming more of a role around the lives of their kids. This is great. I don’t want to work 8-8 and never get to be around. I want to cheer at football, or karate, or dance, etc…I want to help with homework, or cook dinner, do the dishes, manage the yard, grow a garden – who doesn’t. But the idea that this is somehow derived from the modernization of man just seems weird. I bet a large majority of men – and women – want these things but they are not always attainable. Someone has to pay the bills. Daycare alone – assuming you have kids – is ridiculously expensive – check out the atlanta area (~400$ a week per kid at an average daycare) – someone has to stay home in most cases (or at least in my case).

Good article and conversation. I still think that being a man has changed, and maybe feminism is driving that change – i don’t really know – whatever it is though I don’t think it is for the better – I think the world will wake up one day and realize that all the bits that were, by design, different than women – mannerisms, strengths, weaknesses, etc…were that way for a reason be it evolutionary or social – forget about jobs and the work place – but the concept of a man and what a man stands for (including the bits about being your own man) are less today – or more blurred – than they were in the past.

Being a man, or identifying as one today is hard.

Amanda Pingel says on November 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm

Dustin: Awesome discussion; thanks for bringing up forum for exploration rather than regurgitating preexisting opinions. And THANK YOU for mentioning how much BS and how little fact goes into the “Men and Women are Wired Differently” claims.

I totally agree with Tim and Isi that men are missing opportunities to become tough, strong, independent, brave, and so on. What they miss is that women are too. I think one downside of the feminism movement (for which I am overall extremely grateful) is that we have to a certain extent defined the “traditionally masculine” traits as bad, and cut out all the opportunities for skinned knees and frank discussion (which as a plainspoken woman, drives me CRAZY!)

It’s true that men and women are not the same, and I’m obviously not proposing equal rights to pregnancy or sperm-donership. But what we need to do, and Dustin has started here, is really LOOKING at what gender roles should be, and what differences should be taken into account, rather than defaulting to what we’ve always done whether we like it or not.

And yes, it does mean that we no longer have preset roles that we can just implement mindlessly — we have to actually think about it and define our own roles. But those of us in the US have been doing that for decades, coming up on centuries. When you marry someone, they’re coming from a different national background, often a different religion, and you both have a whole bunch of different traditions and expectations. One of the things you do in the first 5 years of marriage is experiment and explore to decide which traditions you’re going to keep, discard, or modify in YOUR marriage. So why not gender roles?

My boyfriend and I are starting that process. A few of the decisions we’ve made:
– He does dishes (I HATE doing dishes)
– He cooks, I bake (I dislike variables in my activities, he dislikes fixed requirements)
– I handle the finances (he doesn’t have the patience for creating and managing financial statements, nor the discipline to ensure that bills are paid on time)
– Whoever gets to the door first holds it open for the other person. This is never a reflection on one’s opinion of the other’s capability.

I think the biggest benefit of the feminist movement is not to eliminate gender roles, but to allow everyone to choose the role they want, that fits them best.

Steve says on November 4th, 2009 at 2:08 am

I feel that people read too much into gender roles in modern society. Now Dustin, I’m not knocking your profession, I’m sure there’s some validity in it though its far from a hard science. There aren’t any constraints inherent to women today. Anything holding one back has more to do with socioeconomic class. More women go to college than men.

Here’s an example of traditional “gender barriers” within a profession: women only make up around 10% of the architects and engineers in the U.S.- nobody is stopping them from going to school for these professions. Nor should anyone force them to. People argue that women are discouraged from going into these fields(engineering especially due to all the math/science). However I think that’s a sexist idea, its basically calling intelligent women weak minded. So I’m still not convinced that men and women’s minds work exactly the same.(I suppose you could take 100 boys and 100 girls at birth and create a 100% controlled social experiment, void of any societal norms on how boys and girls act, but I digress). There’s a difference between striving for gender equality and holding oneself back to make everything seem “equal”.

Dustin Wax says on November 4th, 2009 at 3:43 am

Steve: I address some of the ways that women are catching up to or even surpassing men in Part ! — I think a lot of the comments on this post would be different if the commenters had read both parts. For example, it is not only true that women outnumber men in college, but in every field but computer science the percentage of women in any given field of graduate study is growing too, with women outnumbering men even in some fields of math and science (traditionally considered “male” domains).

There are complicating factors, of course. One big one is that much of the advance of women relative to men has come not from an increase in women’s pay or opportunities but from a *decrease* in men’s pay and opportunities. There just aren’t many of those traditionally male-dominated factory, farming, and construction jobs around any more. Also, women pay a much greater price for leaving the workforce for parenting than men do — but that will have to change. Most other industrial countries offer both maternity and paternity leave, with pay, while the US is hampered by the weak short-term leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. If we’re going to keep our most talented workers productive — female *and* male — we’re going to have to address parenting.

Dustin Wax says on November 4th, 2009 at 3:51 am

Amanda: There are a lot of tough, skinned-knee types in the Feminist movement, so I doubt they’re against traditional masculinity 100%. The general consensus, if there is one, seems to be that traditional roles limit both men and women from experiencing and expressing the entire range of what it means to be human. Some aspects of masculinity as currently defines are derided, yes — the fact that a whopping majority of violent crime in our country is performed by men (we’re talking 90%+) isn’t something we should be cheering about, for example. But here’s the funny thing — a lot of “traditional” masculinity, as it’s understood today, wouldn’t be all that familiar to our great-grandfathers, who might well end up siding with the feminists on a lot of this. Heck, a lot of our *fathers* look at us and shake their heads, recognizing in our ultra-tough exteriors more fear than manhood.

I think you sum it up perfectly when you say it’s about allowing people to fill the role that suits them best. We should have the strongest people, male and female, where strength is required, the most agile people, male and female, where agility is required, and the most nurturing people, male and female, where nurturing is required.

hrdo says on November 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

There may be many problems with the identification of “modern” gender roles. This has not grown out of feminism in a good way – this is one of the downsides to it. Institutionalized learning dominated by teachers with the “correct ideas” has changed the perception of what the norm of one’s gender is. Being a man today is not necessarily more difficult than it was in the 1960’s. Manliness, as I see it, it its true incarnation, is still the same. Being the sole breadwinner isn’t necesary – but knowing that one could if one had to is probably necessary for a lot of men to feel good about themselves. Still – what defines manliness? The ability to take action when needed, to not steer away from difficult tasks when they need to be done, comradeship over a beer of two at the pub, and the ability to act as a gentleman toward’s women. They do still like it, you know, if you hold a door or let them choose the table at the café…. I still think James Bond in Sean Connery’s incarnation is a pretty good image of what manlines is. Cheers people, I’m off for a beer at the pub. And, btw, tomorrow is the wife’s turn, and, yes, she is making more money than me. But that’s quite allright, people, I am still the man of the house :-)

Chris in A2 says on November 4th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

People are raising really good points and it is great to see such a lively conversation.

Dustin, I think that as an academic you have moved away from the dualistic either/or thinking about gender and are suggesting a more inclusive both/and type of thinking – both men and women are in the work force, both men and women are sometimes dissatisfied with the roles assigned to them, etc. (I realize we’re not even touching on the topic of transgender in this conversation.)

I am not always sure people are ready to give up their familiar (and therefore safe) labels, even when those labels no longer provide a satisfactory description of their lived reality. (In case you are familiar with the work, I’m thinking of Kegan’s “durable categories” here.) When traditional male roles are no longer exclusively male, either/or thinking translates the change into a loss for men, while both/and thinking can provide a more neutral interpretation (e.g., hurray, I don’t have to bust my ass working two jobs to make ends meet!).

I consider myself a feminist and have a strong appreciation for the women who have and who continue to shape my thinking about who I am in the world. At the same time, I take great pride and satisfaction in creating things with my hands, using tools, etc. Being a man and enjoying “manly activities” doesn’t mean I can’t also support the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work or to simply be treated like something more than a doormat. Put another way, I can be both a feminist and a man without having my masculinity diminished in any way.

I’ve really oversimplified a lot of this, but I hope people can see my meaning.

Dustin, keep being a prophet in the wilderness!

Dustin Wax says on November 5th, 2009 at 1:33 am

Chris: Thanks. I specifically leave out transgender and intersex issues, as well as (for the most part) questions about sexuality, simply because it would unnecessarily complicate the issues presented here. My intention was to provide a list of things that we men (however we arrive by the gender) should be thinking about as we move deeper into the 21st century. I might slot GLBTIQ issues under “Embrace difference”, since at root the issue is that here are a lot of ways to be a man these days, and the kind of diversity that gives rise to innovative solutions to business, environmental, political, and social problems goes hand in hand with diversity of manhoods.

Simon says on November 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

I think the article should have been titled “Being a Human in the 21st Century”, as it treats mostly the subject of personal identification and not necessarily that of men.

On the subject of manliness – it was already said: men and women are equal but not the same!!! From that on, everyone should be able to tell why not the same, what are the differences, and so on.

I wanted to share one of my favourite movie quotes:

The Big Lebowski: What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski?
The Dude: Dude.
The Big Lebowski: Huh?
The Dude: Uhh… I don’t know sir.
The Big Lebowski: Is it being prepared to do the right thing, whatever the cost? Isn’t that what makes a man?
The Dude: Hmmm… Sure, that and a pair of testicles.

Riley says on November 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Well, I followed these comments and the articles eagerly. While I agree there are many ways to be a man (by way of Dustin’s comment re: GLBTIQ), I think it could be fascinating to not necessarily talk ABOUT transgender but rather talk TO transgender people. That said, as a transgender man myself, I’ll talk at ya. ;)

Here’s what I know from my personal experience:

There is something to be said for the role brain chemistry plays in aspects of gendered behavior. In my post-transition self, the testosterone I take has changed my brain chemistry, anatomy, physiology, PH, damn near everything. Those who have been with me for the long haul can see it and I can see and feel it in myself in my behavior, my emotions, my body – all of it.

There is also a lot to be said about the role of environment and social patterning. When I was first transitioning, there was a (largely-b.s. imho) guide to enacting a male presence through behavior, positioning and the like. If I had followed it to the letter, I would have turned out somewhat like your traditional frat boy dressed in Abercrombie and Fitch.

But in truth, the way I learned to be a man wasn’t in any of this. It wasn’t in the books I read by Robert Bly etc. It wasn’t by having some paternal trans figure (though I did have them). I learned to be a man through picking and choosing what worked for me and what didn’t. I took a lot of the blueprints from my own father but expanded on it in terms of social responsibility, being progressive, and exchanged his religion for my Buddhist spirituality. For the most part, I figured it out on my own by doing self inventories about the sort of man I’d fashion myself to be with no object (no monetary demands, etc.) stopping me. Most of all, I’ve grown into my manhood by flying by the seat of my pants balls to the wall, taking action when I exhaust all of the armchair research and there’s nothing left to do but leap.

I’ve been told by some feminists that I can no longer be feminist since I’m supposedly upholding the patriarchy by choosing to take steps to feel right in my own skin. I’ve been told by some men that I can never be a man because I wasn’t born one. Yet, I persist in both regards.

Dustin Wax says on November 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Riley: Thanks for sharing your experiences here. Of course, there are lots of way to be a transman, as well! Not sure which feminists you’re hanging out with, but until they put together a national certification board, I don’t think I’d worry about whether some thought you had “disqualified” yourself or not.

Zoe Brain says on November 7th, 2009 at 11:28 am

“Men and women simple y are *not* wired differently. There is practically no well-supported scientific evidence that there are any inherent neurological differences between males and females.There are differences that emerge in response to different socializing practices, but that’s sort of beside the point. What *isn’t* beside the point is that there are literally thousands of journalists willing to jump on the latest piece of research that shows some kind of innate difference, even when a) nobody can replicate the results, b) dozens and even hundreds of other studies show no such difference, or c) even the authors of the piece disagree that their research shows such differences. This is a tough nut to swallow, I know, but it’s true — there are very few innate differences that are supported by actual evidence, and what few there are tend to be exceedingly small.”

Umm… actually… there’s rather a lot of evidence now. Now there *is* overlap, and people should be treated on their individual merits. If we say “80% of males have characteristic X, vs only 30% of females, so this is a male characteristic”, it’s kinda true – but inaccurate for 20% of men and 30% of women.

It’s also incontestible that journalists have over-sensationalised most of the very iffy preliminary studies, while ignoring the less spectacular but well-founded and replicated ones. “Findings of 1996 and 2000 confirmed once again in latest test in 2009″ doesn’t have the cachet that sells papers.

Most of the really interesting comparisons use “Nature’s experiments” – Intersexed and Transsexed people, which I know you don’t want to talk about.

Nonetheless, the stereotypical “men are from mars, women are from venus” does have a neurological basis. Just as saying “men are taller than women” has a biological basis. It’s true – but only in aggregate: a well-nourished woman from 3 well-nourished generations of parents will usually be taller than a male from 3 generations of malnutrition. But she’s likely to be shorter than men of her cohort.

Excluding a talented woman from a “male profession” because “women are neurologically unusited for it” makes as much sense as a basketball coach hiring a 4′11″ swede rather than a 6′9″ Japanese, because “swedes are taller than japanese”.

Saying that there’s no difference in height between swedes and japanese contradicts obvious reality though.

Chris says on November 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Speak for yourself. We certainly are not all feminists now; and feeble attempts to represent your preferred brand of organised bigotry as anything other than its true nature will fail, in the long term.

Truth will out.

Zoe Brain says on November 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

Riley – you’re a guy. So whatever you choose to do, however you choose to behave, is masculine by definition.
I’m convinced of the neurological basis of transsexuality. It’s gone beyond the “if” and we’re now examining exact mechanisms, which parts of the lymbic nucleus, frontal gyrus etc are involved, and what the effects are of different configurations.

As Dr Sidney Ecker wrote to me:
“Yes, we gave our presentation to 60 plus psychiatrists from the US, AU, FR, IT, EU, UK, Holland etc.

We spoke for 2 1/2 hours on why cross gender identity was a normal inherited variation of humans. We showed how Transgender Brains think, smell, and hear like the opposite sex.
…
My greatest personal compliment came from Frank Kruijver, from Holland, whose research of the human brain in TSs started it all. He thought we have taken his work very far in our understanding of the human brain.”

That wasw in regards to the American Psychiatric Assocn annual meeting seminar s10 -
S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism
1. Brain Gender Identity Sidney W. Ecker, M.D.
2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Milton Diamond, Ph.D.

Basically neuro-anatomists, urologists, endocrinologists etc etc giving the results of experiments on animals, and objective measurements (autopsies, fMRI scans etc) of humans. Not a lot on behaviour as such, only insincts and hard-wired capabilities that (we think) cause gender identity formation.

Basically, rather than “men are from mars”, it’s more like “all martians are men”.

Those who wish to enforce some stereotyped male gender role pattern on someone who’s trans don’t get it: he’s a guy, let him do what he feels right for him, as standard factory model males do.

Jimmy says on November 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am

@ Christo, I agree with you. There are no more men because it is no longer “politically correct” to be a real man. Women are made to look graceful and always in control while men are made to look dumb and uncoordinated.

Dustin Wax says on November 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Jimmy: “Women are made to look graceful and always in control while men are made to look dumb and uncoordinated.”

I’m trying to think of where this might be true. Certainly not in action movies — at least for “uncoordinated”. The clearest example of men looking “dumb” is sitcoms — interestingly in sitcoms featuring male comedians like Tim Allen, Ray Romano, etc (all the way back to Cosby), developed by men and largely directed and produced by men, showing men looking “dumb” and “uncoordinated” IN THE HOME. That’s not new — men have been claiming their ineptness at diapering for a century, at least.

Your post reminded me most of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, two boys who hate book learning, church clothes, and domestic duties, who are “tamed” by the overbearing adult women presences in their lives. That’s a common theme in most Westerns and adventure stories, too. (Think “Outlaw Josey Wales”.)

The other thing I thought of while reading aboutmen being “made” to look dumb is that men are avoiding books and learning, dropping out of school, and ignoring university at an unprecedented rate. As much as I hear about the feminization” of schooling, I’ve yet to hear anything all that compelling — mostly I hear stereotypes about boys that insist they’re “different” without much backup. CLearly we’re failing boys in the educational system, but I think it has more to do with the perpetuation of those stereotypes than anything else — I think we let boys believe that learning is “sissy stuff”, and we let them live with that fear of “sissy stuff” their whole lives.

Milo says on November 10th, 2009 at 6:26 am

I read both article twice since theyve been posted and I seriously dont understand what the the author is trying to say. That men are more free to be themselves now, but at the same time women get more opportunities too. I cant find the point in them.

You know great, change, but that kinda stuff happens. Nothing new. They could have written the same thing in 1920 compared to the 19th century. Actually more women would seek a job to make some money for the household during that period due to increased luxury by electrification and industrialization of society.

I seriously doubt that whatever you say is different AMONG the people compared to 20th century, back to the beginning of our modern society. Which is a society of fast changing trends, not just now, always has been. It definitely is different in the media but with the revolution in information technology of the past 15-20 years it isnt a surprise were more informed about the world beyond our own city and national newspapers and TV.

Its easier to be cause its easier to identify even of you dont know them personally but only through the media. Its not harder now, its easier.

But in 15 years well be looking back at these years and think we were oldfashioned and traditional back then. There is no point in this, just be, period. If anything try to be inspired by the past not discuss how were changing away from it.

It popped my mind what bothers me about these articles, even though it discusses graying out between being feminine and masculine its all based in stereotypical perspective on how men and women are which I think I false. its just that were more aware of different kind of values to which to live now. But theyve always been there, (free) media just opened them up for us.

mike says on November 18th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

dustin raises some good points about men but misses the boat by a longshot on men’s current roles, expectations and social standards….

to wit: that men with ponytails or convertibles don’t have a clue when it comes to parenting…

wake-up-dude! you’re still stuck!

bacaman