"Real Manhood"

Feel free to scroll through this one. It's a longie.

In my post on prostitution yesterday, I wrote:

Real men never exploit other human beings for their own pleasure. Real manhood -- not puerilty -- is accompanied by a mature sexuality that doesn't wound.

Amp at Alas, a Blog (with whom I find myself in agreement about 95% of the time) takes issue with the phrase "real manhood":

Implicit in Hugo's writing is the idea that "real manhood" and "masculinity" can be positive constructs. To Hugo, masculinity is a vessel. The problem is that the vessel has been filled with bad ideas, such as "to be a man, get laid a lot" or "to be a man, you better be able to physically beat down fags and women, at the very least." If the "masculinity" vessel were to be instead filled with positive ideas, then the conception of "real manhood" would become a tool for progressive, pro-feminist change.

I disagree. No matter what you try to fill it with, talking about who is and isn't demonstrating "real manhood" is implicitly setting up a hierarchy of "real men" and "non-men." And when boys are told they aren't "real men," they learn to hate themselves; and meanwhile, other boys who are desperate to remain "real men" will do almost anything to defend their manhood

It's clearly time for some defining of terms! I hope I've made it clear what "real manhood" isn't. It isn't violent, abusive, taciturn, puerile, homophobic or posturing. Our culture is filled with caricatures of manhood, and has been for centuries. American culture has rigid rules for what does and does not constitute a "real man". In the 1970s, sociologists Deborah David and Robert Brannon memorably identified the four rules of American manhood. Real men must:

1. Not engage in "sissy stuff."
2. Be "big wheels", always proving their superiority to other men and to all women
3. Be "sturdy oaks", hiding most emotions except for anger
4. "Give 'em hell", meaning exhibit a healthy defiance for authority and rules, especially those associated with their mothers and wives.

Most American men have experienced the frustration of trying to live up to those rules, even if they were never able to articulate precisely what those rules were! Boys who deviate from any of these, especially the first, are subject to cruel and often violent torments at the hands of others. It's understandable that when most contemporary Americans hear the phrase "real manhood", some variation on these four widely understood but unspoken rules comes to mind.

Obviously, I'm arguing for a different vision of what it means to be a man! My own work in this area has been influenced by three strands of the men's movement. First and foremost, by the pro-feminist men's movement, which grew out of the women's rights struggle and is keen on revisioning masculinity. (Again, see NOMAS or XYONLINE). Second, the Christian men's movement (best exemplified by Promise Keepers), and third, the mythopoetic movement of Robert Bly and the Mankind Project. These three strands of the movement have often had a tense and combative relationship with one another, but I have found that all three have much to offer contemporary American men struggling to revision and rebuild themselves as men. All three groups have offered me much, though I confess I have learned the most from the pro-feminist wing of the movement, and that is doubtless reflected in my writing.

Okay, so what do I mean when I use the term a "real man"? I intend it to mean several things. The first thing about authentic manhood is that it does not define itself in opposition to women. A real man is not someone who simply isn't girly, who is not a "sissy." The opposite of a real man is not a woman, it's a boy. On a basic level, a real man is a man who has, with the help and guidance of other men, successfully transitioned from being a puer aeternus (an immature boy forever) to a full and complete adult man. This transition is NOT automatic, nor is it a function of chronology. We all know plenty of men who live as puer aeterni into their thirties, forties, and beyond. In either their public or private behavior, these men have not left childhood or adolescence fully behind. So the first part of a definition of a "real man" is rooted in maturity.

But what is so uniquely "manly" about that? Women obviously go through a similar transition. Why not just use a lovely gender neutral term like "adulthood"? After all, it is hardly controversial to suggest that people shouldn't stay teenagers forever! More maturity is good for everyone, male and female alike, right?

Here's where the controversy comes. I do think our biology and our very natures do make men and women profoundly different. (Red flag! Red flag!) Very few feminists believe any longer that sex differences are purely a matter of culture. Tipper Gore remarked a few years ago that she had always believed that sex differences were purely cultural until she had daughters and a son. Before the boy was even two, she said, he behaved far more aggressively than his sisters. Countless parents have come to the same insight. These differences, whatever they are rooted in, are real and profound -- and they are not necessarily frightening. (Before I go any further, I know there are plenty of exceptions to every generalization! Pace, those of you who were aggressive little girls and gentle little boys. Your own unique and special circumstances do not gender theory make!)

In traditional households, women are the primary caregivers. Daughters thus are much more likely to be regularly exposed to a same-sex role model than sons are. When sent off to school, the vast majority of teachers in the primary grades will also be women, and thus little boys will continue to be cut off from the same degree of same-gender nurturing and role modeling as their sisters. Let me make this clear: this is not the fault of mothers and female teachers. If we're going to assign blame, it's the fault of men who don't spend enough time with their kids and men who look down on teaching elementary education as "women's work". Boys thus get their images of what men are supposed to be from their absent fathers, their peers, and the popular media. They have precious little vision of true masculinity.

This situation is exacerbated when boys hit adolescence. Whatever sex differences existed before are now increased exponentially. Boys at this age are desperate to know one thing: how can I become a man? What does it mean to live as a human being with these raging hormones? Who can show me how to reconcile having a penis and a brain? (I'm being facetious, but you get the point.) NO WOMAN CAN SHOW A TEENAGE BOY HOW TO LIVE INCARNATE AS A MAN! She may be sympathetic, but she cannot be empathetic. I accept the feminist principle that because I will never be pregnant, my own ability to weigh in on reproductive issues is limited. I ask for the same courtesy in return! Those who don't have a Y chromosome cannot serve as role models for those who do. Young boys need the love and guidance of women in their lives, of course. But as they transition out of boyhood, they require a man's presence in their lives to show them how this is done.

As I've written before, men are scared of each other. I wrote this a few months ago:

I've become convinced that only other men can make men grow. Relationships with women can provide us with healthy challenges. They can inspire us to want to change, but they can't show us how to do it. Our wives, mothers, girlfriends and other women can only share with us what kind of man they would like us to be -- they cannot "role model" that for us. As Robert Bly puts it (and I know he raises some feminist hackles): Women can change the embryo to a boy, but only men can change the boy into a man.

Teaching young men to embrace their manhood does not have to involve denigrating women. I can tell my boys in youth group that "real men have courage", all the while making it clear that that doesn't have to mean that real women don't! But just as both sexes have reproductive organs (albeit different ones), both sexes can have profound courage (just expressed, perhaps, in different ways.)

Many folks of both sexes are scared of the "exuberant aggression" of young men. We see the damage that male violence has wreaked upon our world. The traditional answers for channeling that aggression have been insufficient. We send boys into violent sports and the military, hoping that those experiences will make them men. (The Marines promise that that will be the inevitable result). I know full well that sports and military service have been wonderful experiences for some men, but for far too many others they were profoundly unsatisfying and often humiliating. Any coach or drill instructor who goads his players and recruits by accusing them of being feminine is not helping to build authentic men -- and alas, too many coaches and drill sergeants (happily, not all) rely on the "no sissy stuff" rule above all else.

Positive manhood embraces testosterone. It embraces exuberant aggression. As seen in the work of the Mankind Project, it redefines traditional male archetypes like that of the warrior:

Men have been warriors since the beginning of time and every man has his warrior side. But social forces pressure many to repress this part of themselves. They unconsciously substitute a distorted shadow for the healthy warrior energy so essential to sustaining individual and communal balance.

The New Warrior is a man who has confronted this destructive "shadow" and has achieved hard-won ownership of the highly focused, aggressive energy that empowers and shapes the inner masculine self. Sustained by this new energy, the New Warrior is at once tough and loving, wild and gentle, fierce and tolerant. He lives passionately and compassionately, because he has learned to face his own shadow and to live his mission with integrity and without apology.

For those of you turned off by the whole Jungian archetype business, or repulsed by the word "warrior", substitute in a more neutral phrase in the above passage. Stick in "mature human male" for warrior every time. How the heck can't you agree with the idea that we ought to "be tough and loving, wild and gentle, fierce and tolerant"? Who opposes living "passionately and compassionately"?

Can women do this? Of course! They already often do! But the fact that men and women are both called to compassion, integrity, and yes, wildness, doesn't mean that we are called to manifest those splendid characteristics in the same way. Equality need not equal sameness. Egalitarianism and an acknowledgement of difference can and should coexist.

Look, there's no way I can do justice to the idea of "real manhood" in one post. But this is a start.

Comments

[La Lubu]

Hugo, I'm not denying difference, I'm just questioning its importance.

I see your point about teenage boys...they are very invested in this difference, mainly (I think) because of the warped way this society presents "manhood" to them. But...

I think we approach this with different views because of our different experiences as man and woman. The real or imagined differences between the sexes has been used in a very real, concrete way to limit women's choices and our agency. It limits men's choices too, of course, but usually in a more subtle way...I'm thinking "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" here, example: woman not getting a job, or not getting an opportunity or promotion because of views on what a 'real woman' should or should not do, and thus has less (or no) money coming in to meet physical needs---contrast this with a man who has self-esteem issues because some obnoxious twerp at work doesn't think he's "butch" enough. Both problems, but one is more immediate, no?

See, I think we should be raising our children to bust myths about the so-called differences. We're at heart more alike than different. I'd like to see teenage boys have the same space for open-mindedness about gender that I see quite a bit of in men that both you and I would agree are "real men", Hugo!

[Hugo]

I don't think open-mindedness, LL, means not getting these boys in touch with their own maleness. There isn't just one way to be a real man -- there's a whole bleepin' spectrum.

[La Lubu]

Agreed. But the fact that we have so much confusion over definitions says a lot. That terms like 'real' when added before 'man' or 'woman' changes the whole meaning says a lot!

That the young men in your youth groups would not or do not feel comfortable talking about gender in the same way that the men responding in this post do, says a lot. IMHE, young women don't have this same difficulty---and I think it's because there has been much latitude kicked into the idea of what is "feminine"...and we feminists are the ones who produced this change!

Am I wrong, or is there not this type of latitude in society's general perception of what is masculine? I mean, isn't that what the mythopoeic men's movement is addressing, or no?

[NancyP]

Seems to me that the mythopoetic and the Christian and the psychologists' mens' movements all seem to emphasize one thing - men are physically competent, powerful, and those physically powerful men are able to express their sexuality.

What does this mean for boys with muscular dystrophy, young men who become paraplegic, diabetics who go blind? A lot of "regular" folks think that differently-abled folks don't have urges and don't figure out how to have sex! A lot of "regular" folks think that differently abled folks are permanent pre-teens, to be cared for or ignored.

It seems that the XY specific portion of the mentoring could be tailored to the individual (straight for straight, gay for gay, movement-handicap for movement-handicap), and address sexuality and relationships. Much of the rest of the "becoming adult" script could be handled by adults of either gender, depending on circumstances.

[Hugo]

Nancy, I assure you that the men's movement is much broader than that! Indeed, the mythopoetic movement explicitly rejects the association of masculinity with physical strength.

No question, we can all benefit from role models of both sexes for countless aspects of coming of age; there are a few areas, however, where same-gender folks are indispensable.

[Tara]

If all living as a man means is being a mensch in a male body, and the male body part requires no work at all, you just are one, then I don't see why a woman could not teach a boy how to be a mensch. I think it happens all the time.

[La Lubu]

I'm leaning toward Stentor's idea that the reason male (or female, or fill-in-the blank with whatever differentiation) are needed is because of exterior reasons.

[Fred]

Hugo just keeps evading the central question. He says that women can also exhibit the characteristics he associates with "real manhood" ( being "tough and loving," "wild and gentle," "fierce and tolerant," etc.), but that men and women "manifest" these "splendid characteristics" in different ways.

Okay, so what is the male way of manifesting these characteristics? How does it differ from the female way of manifesting them? Why can't women manifest them in the men's way and vice versa? Why can't women who possess these characteristics be effective mentors and role models for boys, and men who possess them for girls?

You just keep dancing around the question of what "real manhood" or "being a real man" is supposed to mean by failing to explain how it differs from "being a real woman" or simply being a "real" adult human being.

[Charles]

Hugo,

I am really not trying to deny difference. I am trying (along with many others) to point out that the range of difference doesn't map onto sex difference. I am trying (along with so many others who are doing it so much better than I am) to point out that we each manifest maturity differently, that we are all a mix of supposedly masculine and feminine characteristics, with some people being more masculine, some more feminine, some more masculine and feminine, and some less masculine and feminine. If perhaps the median masculinity score for men is higher than the median for women, and vice versa for femininity score (or perhaps it is the mode, or the mean, or perhaps it is the extrema, who knows) who cares. Surely, there is more alike about very masculine people, and more alike about very feminine people, than there is about very masculine and very non-masculine people (at least along that one axis).

I feel like most of what I learned about being a man I learned from society at large, a lot of it I learned from my parents, some of it I learned from my father. After I had learned all that, I drew off of the seeds of knowledge I had gained from my lesbian feminist first through third grade teacher, my eighth grade feminist science teacher, and many others, both women and men, and slowly worked my way towards my own understanding of being myself. That understanding includes myself as a man, but mostly because I was already taught what it was to be a man, and that I was one.

And I totally agree with La Lubu that women are more able to talk about this because feminists broke open the topic. I am more able to talk about it because feminists broke open the topic. Hugo, I applaud you for talking about it, I just don't see why you (and the Men's movement in general) seem to feel the need to emphasize the sex difference in talking about gender issues.

I totally agree that it might have been helpful to me to have had a male role model who could have told me clearly, "No, look, what they tell you a man is, is a very limited thing. If you make yourself into a man by their instrucitons, you will hurt yourself badly, and you will spend decades trying to find your way back out to be a full human being. The only thing that makes you a man is your body. What makes you a human being is both your body and your mind." And of course, it would have been better if he could simply have modelled that.

On the other hand, it was women who told me that most clearly, and if they could have been clearer, I probably would have listened in the first place. Nobody was very clear about explaining this sort of thing to children and teens in the late seventies and eighties, at least not where I lived, but at least I was lucky enough to encounter it at all.

If that is what you are doing, if that is what you are advocating, then all my wishes and hopes go with you in your work. But if that is what you are doing, then I don't undertand why you care if women are different than men. Men are different enough from men. Surely that difference (what I am comfortable being, what you are comfortable being, what Amp is comfortable being) is the important one in working with men, whether you are trying to get people to find their comfort or to break out of their comfort. Isn't it infinitely more important to say "Some men are this, others are this," than to say "Men are this, women are this other?"

Do you mentor only aggressive, hyper-masculinized teens? Or do you need to mentor introverted, bookish teens as well?

[Hestia]

What Fred and Charles said.

And I'm going to go ahead and challenge your assertation, Hugo, that women can't teach boys how to be men. It makes no sense. Are you trying to say that boys raised by single mothers aren't "real men"--in fact haven't learned to be men at all? or that their maleness is somehow inferior to other males' maleness? or that they're exceptions, somehow?

Nobody gets raised in a vacuum. Everyone has access to both men and women in the world, particularly through media like movies and TV and basic cultural expectations that are exposed in everything from impromptu conversations to books written specifically about gender issues. Assuming that men can learn to be men from some source, I don't see why their primary role model must be male.

I still believe, aside from the anatomy, I'd make an excellent "real man." I'm still confused about why you don't agree.

[Hugo]

Post coming up. I promise.

[Eric]

Hestia said: "And I'm going to go ahead and challenge your assertation, Hugo, that women can't teach boys how to be men. It makes no sense. Are you trying to say that boys raised by single mothers aren't "real men"--in fact haven't learned to be men at all?

Problem is, that when controlled for poverty, income, and race, the number one indicator of men tending to criminal activity is having an absent father. Not an absent mother, or being a single parent (regardless of gender) but an absent father. The data shows that single mothers aren't as effective at showing their boys to how be men as a mother and father.

Frankly, I don't like the definitions of "real men" and "boys". I choose to define them as "Men" and "Males". A "man" is able to control his instinctive tendencies towards aggressive animal violence, and treating women as sexual objects. A "male" does not or chooses not to.

The hubbub over using the word "real" is a side show over semantics.

[mythago]

the number one indicator of men tending to criminal activity is having an absent father

Funnily, having an absent father tends to correlate with poverty and income. And it's false that it's "not an absent mother," by the way; single fathers tend to have similarly problematic outcomes. It's just that there are a lot more single mothers than single fathers. (I'm told that it's also more common for single dads to go find a replacement mommy to hand off the childrearing chores than for single moms to go meal-ticket shopping, but I have no data to back this up.)

It also makes more sense when you consider that there just aren't many studies of, say, intentional two-mother families compared to mother-and-father families. Absent fathers tend to be absent because of a divorce, because they abandoned the mother, because one or both parents has some problem that precludes a stable union--all factors that themselves lead to worse outcomes for kids--and single parenthood means less resources.

By the way, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's seminal article "Dan Quayle Was Right" found that children of stepfamilies (i.e. there was a father in the household) reported statistically higher rates of depression than children in single-parent households.

[Amanda]

I also have problems with the term "absent" fathers. What does this mean? My dad had a weird work schedule when were growing up that meant that he picked us up from school and spent the afternoons with us more often than not pretty much until my parents divorced when I was 9. And then he kept up his regular visitations and usually even more. I probably had more time with my dad than most kids whose dads hand all childcare duties over to their wives but live with the family until the kids are 18. But I'll bet my family would be classified as "single mother" and therefore "absent dad" on those surveys. And of course, that I am 27, unmarried and childless would then be used as evidence that no dad=bad kids.

[mythago]

I also have problems with the term "absent" fathers. What does this mean?

Absent as in not married to the mother. Married fathers who are absent because they work 100-hour weeks or are stationed overseas for extended periods aren't counted as "absent."

[Eric]

Uh, absent means absent. They don't even live in the household. It seems to me you are trying to be contrary to think this applies to you if your father actually lived with you but was away often for work. According to the statisticians and census takers who tally this, absent means "not living there."

Besides, for heavens sake, you do not a trend make. ;) A predictor is a predictor, not a guarantee. I mean, really... ;) And at that, your unique case is irrelevent to the post I made. I was talking about predictors of boys towards criminal activity. Going by your name, "Amanda" generally isn't a boy's name. ;)

And we're talking about one sex here, not both. My comment to hestia was with regard to the widely acknowledge predictors of criminal activity among males, not general negative effects amongst both sexes of children. Why? Because the thread and original post has been about "real men", as Hugo put it, and "men-vs.-males" as I do. Also, criminal activity amonst males is a direct measure of an inability to control their distinct male aggressive tendency to violence.

Absent mothers are predictors of different negative factors amongst their children. So, yes, mythago, absent fathers are the single greatest predictor of criminal activity amongst boys.

Of course, there has been a study in JAMA of over 12,000 children that showed that even with parents who don't live in the home, if they are present in the child's life at key points in the day, the child will most likely grow up well-adjusted. This is harder for single custodial-parents, and harder still for single noncustodial-parents. I said, "harder", not impossible.

[mythago]

According to the statisticians and census takers who tally this, absent means "not living there."

You sure about that? Actual studies tend to be very specific (if they're any good). By the standard you give, a married, loving father who is stationed for an indeterminate time in Iraq is "absent"--he isn't living with his family. I don't believe the studies would count him as such.

And we're talking about one sex here, not both.

Who's 'we'?

How you get to the absence of a father, which is itself due to a number of problematic factors, to "women can't raise boys" is beyond me. Care to fill in the logical chain there?

[Amanda]

Sorry, Eric. I know that what happens to girls isn't really considered all that important by the people who worryingly collect these statistics about the all-importance of mom being married to dad, no matter how dad treats mom.

But consider that I was born an all-important boy. I imagine in that case, they would still count me as a criminally minded son of an absent father, even though I would have just as likely spent just as much time with my dad who, as I mentioned, was good about visits and worked a schedule that gave him lots of time with his kids. My point is that the word "absent" means whether or not a father lives with the mother, not whether or not he pays attention to his kids.

[Eric]

How you get to the absence of a father, which is itself due to a number of problematic factors, to "women can't raise boys" is beyond me.

And how you get this is from what I typed is beyond me. I didn't say "can't raise. Care to explain this logical leap?

I imagine in that case, they would still count me as a criminally minded son of an absent father, even though I would have just as likely spent just as much time with my dad who, as I mentioned, was good about visits and worked a schedule that gave him lots of time with his kids.

You are under some serious misunderstandings. They don't count you as a criminally minded anything. Studies in the subject of broken households and studies of crime, certain factors predict a likelihood of behavior. Just like smoking predicts a likelihood of lung cancer. A college education predicts a likelihood of a higher income.

I know that what happens to girls isn't really considered all that important by the people who worryingly collect these statistics about the all-importance of mom being married to dad, no matter how dad treats mom.

You know this, huh? You must be the one collecting these statistics to know this. Or is it just because I haven't cited them?

[Amanda]

Sarcasm is hard to type, Eric, but sometimes can be detected if you examine certain statements closely for hyperbole.

[Eric]

So, hyperbole never deserves response?

Nice.

I should have been using sarcasm in everything I said!

[Amanda]

Hyperbole can be responded to, but mostly just by saying, "Quit using hyperbole." Substituting a critique of my style for a critique of my point isn't going to get you far. But then again, my point was a bit obtuse, so I'll spell it out.

That the studies about "absent" fathers tend to focus on the ill effects on boys over girls is telling and demonstrates the sexist underpinnings of such studies.

[Eric]

That the studies about "absent" fathers tend to focus on the ill effects on boys over girls is telling and demonstrates the sexist underpinnings of such studies.

You need to read more studies. Otherwise this comment is laughable.

There have been enough studies of absent parents that show that an absent father predicts a large increase in risky sexual behaviors among girls over the norm. Thus my comment about me not citing them, I did respond to your obtuse point.

The ill-effect opon boy are trumpeted more because, arguably, understanding why there is a burgeoning criminal class is a more pressing issue to the public-at-large. The studies often start out looking at why young black men are so much more likely to end up in prison than other races. Nearly all have pointed to the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births amongst African-Americans as the primary factor, and they have fore decades. Former Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan had made this public since the mid sixties.

http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

That's sexism?