Log in

View Full Version : a manifesto for radical masculinity



bcbm
5th April 2010, 07:03
A Manifesto for Radical Masculinity
Sinclair Sexsmith

Remember back in the Spring of 2009 when two young boys committed suicide within a week of each other, both eleven years old? Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover (http://carnalnation.com/content/4943/10/bullying-drives-11-year-old-suicide) of Massachusetts and Jaheem Herrera (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/23/bullying.suicide/) of Georgia were both being subjected to unbearable anti-gay bullying at school. Whether or not these boys were actually gay, using homophobia to police masculinity is practically the oldest trick in the book. In the aftermath of these suicides, and in the discussions that ensued on the Web and in print, there was extensive lip service given to gender and the inevitable complaint that boys have it so hard, that feminism has stripped men of their manliness, that men don't know how to be men anymore, that we've got a Crisis In Masculinity.

That might seem like anti-feminist rhetoric, but I agree with it—at least in part. I agree that masculinity is changing, for some in dramatic, drastic ways. I have witnessed and observed cultural changes around the masculine and male gender roles which are shifting, yes, as a direct result of the recent feminist and other gendered social change movements.

This bipolar—I mean polarized binary—gender system is built for the masculine and feminine to be in sync with each other, built to be in friction, built to be in an elaborate dance of give and take. The ideal of the "American Dream" suburbia that we think of from the 1950s and early 1960s laid out precisely just how the masculine and the feminine are supposed to be dependent upon each other and interact. The problem is, that system is completely prescriptive, with exactly one option for everyone. We are used to hearing the oh-woe-is-my-gender tales from women and the feminist movements in the recent past, but it is rather new to begin to untangle the ways in which this system damages men and prescribes certain traits within masculine expression, too.

I know; my inner feminist starts rolling her eyes. Oh yeah, sure, men have it so hard. Running the world and being 485 of the top 500 CEOs (and hey, that's more than last year! that means women are on the rise! Women are now taking men's jobs (http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/04/20/fortune-500-ceos-women-on-the-rise/)!) and never having to worry whether their work shirt is cut too low to be 'appropriate.' I spent too many years examining the plights of women and the plights of queers and the plights of people of color and the plights of all sorts of other socio-economically degraded and marginalized groups—I was raised by feminist parents and majored in Women Studies, after all—it takes some work for me to be convinced that men have the short end of the stick in this system that has set up masculinity to be superior.

But I know there's something wrong with masculinity, and I know it's hard to express one's self as masculine without falling into the many, many harmful trappings of the limitations of a masculine gender, because I'm butch.

I did not grow up that girly, mostly more due to the rural mountainous landscape of my upbringing than a lack of interest. I climbed trees in my dresses, snuck my makeup to high school, studied femininity and feared myself a failure at it. Femininity was never encouraged by my parents—they still have trouble separating gender expression, celebration, or presentation from prescribed gender roles, therefore taking on an attitude that all gender is oppressive. When I came out easily into lesbian communities that value androgyny, it was easy and comfortable to don "fuck your fascist beauty standards" tee shirts and chop off my hair. It is a rite of lesbian passage, you know.

But coming into my own masculinity was harder and took much longer. I wanted to go further than androgyny; I knew I was drawn to and wanted to be butch, but I wasn't sure what that meant. Hell, I'm still not entirely sure what that means (http://www.sugarbutch.net/2009/09/definitions-of-butch-femme/) (but I do love trying to figure it out).

Not knowing what it meant to "be masculine" held up my adopting a butch identity for many years. As a feminist, as a lesbian, I was constantly asking myself, and my boi-ish friends: what is masculinity, if not misogyny? What is masculinity without misogyny? How can I be a feminist and be masculine? Does feminism devalue masculinity? Isn't that the same problem as devaluing femininity? And more personally, what does masculinity look like on me? I could recognize it on other people, but I couldn't quite figure out how it translated, or how to break it down into its individual components so I could play with presenting it myself.

As I began making a serious study out of learning masculinity, I started seeing more and more parallels in the oppressive gender roles, regardless of where individuals fall in the hierarchy. The prescriptive roles are limiting and restricting, and predetermine too much which I would now separate out and call personality. I don't believe hobbies and interests should ever be determined by your particular gender identity—if you're into fashion or ballet or football or baking or knitting or home repair or cars or video games, why should it matter what your gender is? Your hobbies might interact with your gender—they might tickle your gender in just the right ways, which may or may not align with the prescribed gender role, but they should never restrict or determine what you do or do not like.

continued (http://carnalnation.com/content/32993/44/manifesto-radical-masculinity?page=0,1)

khad
5th April 2010, 07:05
As Stan Goff wrote, "perfect masculinity is sociopathic." Quality article.

black magick hustla
5th April 2010, 09:43
the worst aspect of masculinity is that every men dreams about that. i mean, burn down civilization and climb fucking trees and shit. beat up your boss. muscle your way out of the world. what heterosexual man doesnt entertain those thoughts? perhaps we have to work harder.

bcbm
5th April 2010, 10:42
i think most masculine individuals have no desire to muscle their way out of this world, though. just a desire to muscle into a better position. if gender can be turned into another weapon against class society, then i think we're on to something.

Ravachol
5th April 2010, 13:40
I have never understood this whole binary division of sexuality based on charactertraits and 'looks'. Obviously there is a more or less biological division between masculine and feminine but I have always failed to understand concepts like 'masculinity' and 'femininity', both which seem to evolve over time. A prime example of this is, in my eyes, the so-called 'metrosexual', sometimes considered the pinacle of heterosexual masculinity by virtue of his attractiveness to the opposite sex, yet displaying lots of characteristics, both in manners and appearance that are normally considered 'feminine'. On the other hand, the stereotypical feminine 'sissy' image of homosexual men doesn't seem to fit either. Just taking a look at Amsterdam's yearly gay parade reveals pumped up, hypermuscular men with mustaches revelling in their masculinity, yet in a completely different way than the heterosexual 'muscleman'.

This whole idea of genders and fixed behavioral patterns is completely artificial. A good read regarding this topic is 'The history of Sexuality' by Michel Foucault.

Meridian
5th April 2010, 14:47
the worst aspect of masculinity is that every men dreams about that. i mean, burn down civilization and climb fucking trees and shit. beat up your boss. muscle your way out of the world. what heterosexual man doesnt entertain those thoughts? perhaps we have to work harder.
Speak for yourself...



I know; my inner feminist starts rolling her eyes. Oh yeah, sure, men have it so hard. Running the world and being 485 of the top 500 CEOs (and hey, that's more than last year! that means women are on the rise! Women are now taking men's jobs (http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/04/20/fortune-500-ceos-women-on-the-rise/)!) and never having to worry whether their work shirt is cut too low to be 'appropriate.'
This is a reactionary notion, complete avoidance of the class structure of society. Tell that to the 99% of men who are workers, exploited every day.


I don't believe hobbies and interests should ever be determined by your particular gender identity—if you're into fashion or ballet or football or baking or knitting or home repair or cars or video games, why should it matter what your gender is?
Gender roles or identity can not 'determine' anything.

cska
5th April 2010, 15:33
the worst aspect of masculinity is that every men dreams about that. i mean, burn down civilization and climb fucking trees and shit. beat up your boss. muscle your way out of the world. what heterosexual man doesnt entertain those thoughts? perhaps we have to work harder.

I don't. Really.

counterblast
6th April 2010, 21:33
the worst aspect of masculinity is that every men dreams about that. i mean, burn down civilization and climb fucking trees and shit. beat up your boss. muscle your way out of the world. what heterosexual man doesnt entertain those thoughts? perhaps we have to work harder.


As if climbing trees and entertaining thoughts of killing capitalists and being heterosexual were "masculine" things.

counterblast
6th April 2010, 21:41
This is a reactionary notion, complete avoidance of the class structure of society. Tell that to the 99% of men who are workers, exploited every day.

This is a reactionary notion, also, because it is a complete avoidance of the gendered structure of society.

Tell that to their wives/girlfriends who are patronized or domestically abused or abandoned with children or sexually assaulted or forced to raise children instead of working or have their bodies commodified or are paid less than the men in the working class.

Class, (like sex/gender) is but one of hundreds of interlocking oppressions.

iskrabronstein
6th April 2010, 21:55
No. Simply - no. Class oppression is not just "one of hundreds of interlocking oppressions". It is the root cause of all other forms of oppression. As Marx said - the ideas of every epoch are those of the ruling class. The solution to feminist ideals is not to argue against misogyny and push for greater representation of women in the capitalist power structure - it is to utterly extirpate and destroy the structures that allow one class to exercise dominance over another. The end of bourgeois rule necessarily means the end of the dominance of bourgeois ideas about gender, and the consequent problems that result from that dominance.

What is truly reactionary is arguing that the class struggle is just another in a long grocery list of oppressions to be stopped, rather than the means by which to stop them.

gorillafuck
6th April 2010, 21:57
The end of bourgeois rule necessarily means the end of the dominance of bourgeois ideas about gender, and the consequent problems that result from that dominance.
Why?

iskrabronstein
6th April 2010, 22:14
Because the social ideas embodied by bourgeois states derive from their class basis - the developing bourgeoisie in Victorian England sparked a cultural reaction against libertinist sexuality as exhibited by the aristocracy in the Edwardian [edit - Regency] period. They believed that equality of the sexes in social matters necessarily tended to denigrate femininity, to debase it by taking away the moral purity necessary for stable family life - which is commonly considered an indispensable part of middle-class identity.

A similar process occurred in the Augustan period of Roman history, e.g. the Julian moral laws restricting aristocrats from marrying commoners, and imposing fines on those in the ruling class who did not marry and have children.

I can understand your skepticism, if you are a non-Marxist, but I think frankly in this case the historical materialist interpretation holds true.

al8
7th April 2010, 05:55
This article is a muddled opinion piece. The article is abstract, low on examples, poses no concrete problem and no clear solution either. It was useless and I was none the wiser after reading it.

This is no problem at all. If your a male and someone says your doing something 'sissy'. The standard response should be; "I'm secure enough in my masculinity to do whatever I want." So there, problem solved. [edit: same goes for femininity]

Meridian
7th April 2010, 15:43
This is a reactionary notion, also, because it is a complete avoidance of the gendered structure of society.

Tell that to their wives/girlfriends who are patronized or domestically abused or abandoned with children or sexually assaulted or forced to raise children instead of working or have their bodies commodified or are paid less than the men in the working class.

Class, (like sex/gender) is but one of hundreds of interlocking oppressions.
I feel iskrabronstein answered this quite well.

However, if you see the context:

I know; my inner feminist starts rolling her eyes. Oh yeah, sure, men have it so hard. Running the world and being 485 of the top 500 CEOs (and hey, that's more than last year!"
This is absolute idiocy. Since when can you use the top 0,0001% wealthiest men as an example of all men? It is like saying "Oh, right, women have it so hard, look at the Loreal CEO" or whatever... The fact is that most men work their butts off every day in a job they do for someone else, all the while getting paid less than their effort's value. The same holds true for women. "Sexsmith" here just appeals to extremely reactionary notions of "sisterhood", "brotherhood", "women", "men", etc., that are out of touch with the system of organized exploitation that we call capitalism.

Dean
7th April 2010, 17:40
the worst aspect of masculinity is that every men dreams about that. i mean, burn down civilization and climb fucking trees and shit. beat up your boss. muscle your way out of the world. what heterosexual man doesnt entertain those thoughts? perhaps we have to work harder.

I don't. And I really disdain these kinds of characterizations.

There is certainly a tendency of masculinity to have those traits, but there is noting about male-ness that inherently proscribes them. If you were to take that position, you'd have to also say that femininity has certain traits, and I don't think many leftists are prepared to do that.

Kudos to the OP, I think it is a great look at the subject.

JoyDivision
7th April 2010, 18:55
Gather around children, listen closely. Masculinity and Femininity are practical aesthetic categories that are employed because of a common social identity, and they are nothing more. There is no reason for a particular person to be masculine or feminine, and there is no prescriptive statement to be made.

I find feminine women aesthetically pleasing more so than masculine women, he finds the opposite, and she doesn't care. That's the extent to which the categoriess are useful - distinguishing what individual people like, and what the people you like like. That's the End of this story, folks.

On the other hand, it has been commodified by consumerism such that we have been convinced that one category is better than another. I convince you that you want to be masculine, then I give you naturally unobtainable archetype, then you buy my product - you motherfuckers should know better.


Ohh I cussed, I'm so manly, emulate me now. Or have a personality of your own and be masculine, feminine, or a monster.

counterblast
7th April 2010, 21:40
No. Simply - no. Class oppression is not just "one of hundreds of interlocking oppressions". It is the root cause of all other forms of oppression. As Marx said - the ideas of every epoch are those of the ruling class. The solution to feminist ideals is not to argue against misogyny and push for greater representation of women in the capitalist power structure - it is to utterly extirpate and destroy the structures that allow one class to exercise dominance over another. The end of bourgeois rule necessarily means the end of the dominance of bourgeois ideas about gender, and the consequent problems that result from that dominance.

What is truly reactionary is arguing that the class struggle is just another in a long grocery list of oppressions to be stopped, rather than the means by which to stop them.


Oh well if Marx said it, it must be unequivocally true!

Dean
8th April 2010, 03:12
Oh well if Marx said it, it must be unequivocally true!

Citing Marx doesn't prove a point. But neither does pointing that out.

As it stands, iskrabronstein is making an argument and you're not.

Invincible Summer
8th April 2010, 03:18
Does this article have anything to do w/ the Men's Rights Movement?

iskrabronstein
8th April 2010, 04:09
I cited historical examples to demonstrate how a transition of power between classes catalyzes a shift in cultural orientation and structure.

Your snideness is quite convincing though.

bcbm
8th April 2010, 09:21
Does this article have anything to do w/ the Men's Rights Movement?

read it and find out.

Invincible Summer
8th April 2010, 11:03
read it and find out.

What I meant is that does this have any relationship to the Men's Rights movement? I did read it, and although it didn't explicitly state anything about MRM, it sounds similar to some of the rhetoric.

bcbm
8th April 2010, 16:17
i don't think an article advocating genderfucking has much to do with the men's rights movement.