Before setting off on this post and subsequent series of which this is part, let me take a moment to knock any guy reading this who is too high on themselves down a rung or two of their perceived hierarchy of manliness: You are not a true “alpha” male nor are you a hegemonic model of masculinity.
That is the bad news, if you care to obtain such status.
The good news is that almost nobody fits the ideal mold.
Navigating all that is required to be a paragon of manliness is not well-defined enough to achieve and is, quite frankly, an unrealistic standard. If a man is to ever hopelessly set off on this quest, it must be asked, what is the standard? Is it Arnold Schwarzenegger? He is, you know, jacked and successful in several professions. Is it Jeff Bezos? Bezos is kind of rich according to Forbes. Is it Donald Trump (please say ‘no”)? Trump is certainly capable of garnering a following, oh, and he is kind of rich as well. Is it Leonardo DiCaprio? He is successful, rich, and manages to get involved in plenty of short-term relationships with an ever-growing list of younger women relative to his age (some “masculinity coaches” seem to covet and boast of a similar ability).
The point is that masculinity is far more complex than we think. Sure, many out there claim that being a man can be reduced to a few identifiable behaviors and looks, but nothing is ever that easy. If it was, what would I have to write about? In my quest to complicate things, it is only appropriate I turn to the dreaded “academic literature.”
When speaking of masculinity, it is imperative to start with the work of R.W. Connell. This is sort of ironic in that Connell has transitioned and now identifies as a woman, but that does not take away from her work. Besides, it is all performative in the eyes of a constructionist, right? As Connell views it, the pillars of masculinity are not found by way of traits or characteristics, but rather believe that masculinity “is not necessarily what powerful men are, but what sustains their power and what large numbers of men are motivated to support.”
This definition Connell provides sets up the gender wars we are now embedded in. The move from “traits or characteristics” to “what sustains their power” shifted the discussion from the clearly observable to the purely conceptual. Conflating masculinity and social power allows for a simplistic oppressor/oppressed (false?) dichotomy.
The last part of Connell’s definition of masculinity, “what large numbers of men are motivated to support,” is really sneaky. What this twist does is place the majority of men in a position of complacency meant to heap guilt upon the unsuspecting for their oppression of women.
So, what the hell do men support? Well, powerful men, of course. And when you think of powerful men, you undoubtedly thought of a baseball player, right? Well, that is exactly what Nick Trujillo references when identifying the prototypical man. That man is Nolan Ryan. And, according to Trujillo, Ryan exemplifies key features of masculinity that are broadly discussed among academics. These include:
Physical power or force – The establishment of the male body as a model of power that distinguishes itself from other men and women. Those who possess strength, speed, and control naturalize male superiority.
Occupational achievement – Establishing dominance in the workplace where capitalist power structures differentiate the types of work being done based on sex.
Familial patriarchy – The positioning of men as the head of the home by being the “protector” and “breadwinner.”
Frontiersmanship – Here, being an outdoors man who possesses “working class values” is celebrated.
Heterosexuality – Not appearing effeminate and having successful sexual relationships with women.
Now, Ryan is not the only athlete who represents the Western masculine ideal. Numerous articles have illustrated how athletes in other sports, particularly football, do the same. We can surely look elsewhere for suitable subjects as well. This example is provided only for the sake of brevity.
What I always found disturbing is how these features of masculinity are used to define who men are. Based on Connell’s definition of masculinity, the features associated with it must contribute to the desire to act as an oppressor. There seems to be a fine line between the conceptual construction of the being and the pragmatic embodiment of the being. I get the sense the line is crossed, sometimes for narrative convenience, to drive ideological proclivities. Doing so typically results in men being portrayed as knuckle-dragging simpletons (in some cases, this is accurate).
Must this be the case? Is masculinity inherently insidious? I suggest that it is not. In the upcoming posts, I plan to add to the features of masculinity that I feel have been overlooked or omitted. By no means am I suggesting that this is not done by others, but I want to provide a fresh perspective.
