In the first post regarding the pillars of masculinity, I explained the five features that fit into R.W. Connell’s definition of masculinity (heterosexuality, frontiersmanship, familial patriarchy, physical strength, and professional achievement). Throughout the excruciatingly boring academic literature discussing men and masculinity, these features are utilized in a way that indicates men are attracted to them to maintain male power at the expense of women.
While the way the discussion explains such power dynamics is valid to varying degrees by juxtaposing the five features with hegemonic masculinity, the tilt of the literature is a bit problematic. Although academics in the fields of communication, gender studies, and cultural studies deny it, the articles and books pumped out by neurotic tenure-seeking faculty paint men as a group of dastardly, mustache-twirling miscreants. Through terrific linguistic contortionism, the arguments can be convincing. In some cases, I agree with them. Many men can be jerks, especially in groups.
However, when complete bodies of work paint roughly half of the members of society negatively based on the possession of a sexual organ, I have to pump the brakes a bit. It sort of has a eugenics appeal. The “unintentionality” of the way men take advantage of a “patriarchy” acts as an escape hatch for some academics accused of misandry. What I do here is present the first of four features of masculinity that I feel are ignored because they are either somewhat desirable or do not place women as a primary victim. The feature I begin with is loyalty.
Loyalty
As our society becomes increasingly transient, there is something I have noticed on social media and in meeting people from different parts of the country, men and women seem to view the move to a new place differently. The difference lies in the extent to which experiences are transported with the individual to a new place or abandoned for new experiences. This is particularly true when discussing sports. When a woman moves to a new city or state, they tend to adopt the local team more often or quickly. Men, on the other hand, seem to maintain (sometimes even strengthen) the connection to their home team.
Perhaps the taking on of a new team can viewed as women being more adaptable to a new environment. It may be something to consider, but that is the opposite side of the coin of this situation.
The thought of changing allegiance from one sports team to another is as close to heresy as it gets for many men. When it is done for the sake of supporting a winner, the term “bandwagon jumper” is bestowed on the guilty party as if they are a turncoat from the American Revolution. Low status indeed.
A similar dynamic exists in music. Many rock bands have credited a largely male following for their long-term relevance. Following a band for decades is a badge of honor that is explained and compared in pre-concert beer and souvenir lines in every city.
When it comes to sports and music, there are ups and downs in the success of the team or band one chooses to follow. Sure, some have more ups than others, but all experience some bad seasons or albums (or are they just single downloads now?). Heck, there is even more to be said for fans who stick with the bad teams. Who does not respect Cleveland Browns fans? Losing actually becomes part of the identity of the fan base as a way to establish a sense of resiliency.
The music equivalent is to reminisce of the times before the band “sold out” to make more money. It is like a “Hey, I remember when this band was like the Cleveland Browns” type of thing.
In these cases, the feature of loyalty is an endearing one. To obstinately stick with something is somewhat andro-centric. In some cases, that can be maddening.
On a personal level, men are generally thought to have more long-term and resilient friendships than women. It is often a joke in relationships how the guy acts so differently around his friends. Typically, this brings out the worst in men. Not surprisingly, articles have been written about how such tight-knit groups reproduce oppressive narratives, particularly regarding the marginalization of women. Individually, men may not agree with what is being said, but in repeated cases of group think, they go along with it. This is the downside of loyalty, to not speak up in fear of upsetting old ties to friends.
Despite the stereotypical image of a circle of dunderhead friends getting together at the corner bar, it may not be as much of the norm as presented. Norah Vincent, a lesbian journalist who went undercover as a man and took part in all-male activities, explains in her book Self-Made Man that men are not as crass as presented and emphasizes the need for understanding the unique conditions males face. She notes the extreme importance of bonds men form with each other to cope with problems. The loyal man, it turns out, is essential for all men.
What I state here is a rather generalized blanket depiction of men and women I will always caution against. We can all identify cases of loyalty among women and disloyalty among men. With this being a blog post and not a full-blown article, I choose to be terse. All I seek to do here is to provide a quick case for including loyalty among the pillars of masculinity.
