I would also like to echo (I think) David G’s comment, by saying that it seems to me that, if we’re going to go the route of “redefining” masculinity, the fundamental place to begin is to note that anything that is traditionally masculine–good or bad–isn’t the exclusive domain of cisgendered men, any more than anything that is feminine is the exclusive domain of cisgendered women. If we start there, then we can redefine ‘em all we want, and I’ll be happy.

couldn’t have said it better myself Gwenyth. Thanks for giving such awesome insight!

@Patrick: I think your comment illustrates for me, very well, the point of this article. Your comment describes one man’s perspective on what it means to be a feminist man, and then generalizes what masculinity, and with it, femininity, mean.

I have to disagree with these generalizations. I know many women of action. And most every man I’ve known well has become quite into self-expression and communication as soon as other men leave the room. And from what I understand, many men can be quite emotionally open and ‘adjective-ish’ in private company with men they trust.

The difficulty with any definition of either masculinity or femininity remains in the restrictions it sets, for those who do not identify with that particular definition.

I feel that Courtney Martin does make a very good point at the end of her article though. She mentions a possibility of placing higher emphasis on some of the advantages, some of the positive aspects of being a feminist man. These bear repeating. If sole emphasis is placed on what not to do, it may not have as much impact. Enlightened self interest beats privilege guilt every time.

The point of any definition of masculinity or femininity is simply to place some form of peer pressure on others to conform; Susan Brownmiller’s line “all women are female impersonators” holds true for men as well (i.e. “all men are male impersonators”). With men, there is a huge amount of importance in avoiding losing face to other men, and this is policed quite heavily (though how depends on social class, local culture etc) and conforming to “masculinity” is how one achieves this. here’s a copy-paste from a post I did a while back that mentioned this phenomenon and how I think it works:

A good description of how this works can be found in Richard P. Feynman’s “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!” when he writes about students in Brazil, and how they reinforce one another’s fear of being seen as less intelligent, if they ask questions:

One other thing I could never get them to do was to ask questions. Finally, a student explained it to me: “If I ask you a question during the lecture, afterwards everybody will be telling me, ‘What are you wasting our time for in the class? We’re trying to learn something. And you’re stopping him by asking a question.’”

It was a kind of one-upmanship, where nobody knows what’s going on, and they’d all put each other down as if they did know. They all fake that they know, and if one student admits for a moment that something is confusing by asking a question, the others take a high-handed attitude, acting like it’s not confusing at all, telling him he’s wasting their time.

This, in a nutshell, is what happens a lot with men as the students, and masculinity in general. The event described by the student only needs to happen to you once or twice (indeed, you only need to see it happen to someone else once or twice) and you learn not to do it again, and you learn also to be the one doing it to the next guys, because “it’s the only way you’ll learn”, and the only way they’ll learn to do it to the guys after them. In Norah Vincent’s book, Self-Made Man, we see a description of this happening and how these systems work in practice, which is one reason why in my review of the book I was so enthusiastic about it being a core text in understanding gender politics.

I think that what the men discussed in the OP are doing is learning to stop policing traditional masculinity, although there’s a tendency to want to police it into something else instead (which is where the idea of finding a “new definition of masculinity” comes from). But if we understand first the role that male policing of masculinity plays in upholding inequality and negative consequences for both genders, then I think it’s easier to avoid doing it without looking for something else to say “be like this instead”.

the point I want to make is that these spaces are important. Although feminist men and women (whatever those categories end up meaning to each person) must join together in solidarity, it is equally vital to maintain safe spaces for particular conversations. I don’t know what happened during that thirty minutes in the women’s group. Quite frankly, it’s not any of my business. All I know is that when we joined back together, every single person was a little more conscious & a little more liberated.

Don’t get me wrong, I love feminist men. Heck – I’m married to one. But sometimes it needs to be women only.

I agree because individuals need to be recognized as individuals. To judge people based on unfounded or unattainable stereotypes denies that person the opportunity to utilize his/her gifts and talents.

On the other hand, to say that masculinity and feminity cannot be defined simply shirks the challenge of self-realization and of reality.

Men need to concern themselves with what being male means. Masculinity needs quit running from social challenges; men need to quit conceding that testosterone is bad; men need to quit pretending like men and women are exactly alike.

Masculinity is defined by action.

To speak in stereotypes, women are generally better suited to self-identify through adjectives. Men use verbs.

Modern life requires more expression and communication than it does action: writing memos, describing products, organizing meetings, etc. So men often feel ungrounded and un utilized. Because of these societal shifts men have been unable to define their gender.

If men want to define themselves and find something to be for, men need to take action: raise money for prostate cancer through Movember, go to a poker game, landscape the yard, begin a workout routine. Men are identified and unified through action.

It doesn’t matter how you conceive of ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ — it’s the false dichotomy between them in culture that creates this problem. Changing their definitions, as has been done several major times historically, doesn’t solve the problem.

AFAICS there are only two options in this specific arena which don’t constrain your ability to let yourself be a whole human being : identifying as {both feminine and masculine, that is, inalienably and fully both}, or identifying as {neither}. I’m currently moving towards the former.

In my observation, there are two kinds of ‘male privilege’
talked + written about by feminists: the privilege to behave badly (insult others, provoke them into fights, apply subtle or overt coercion, generally behave as if you are the only one that matters, etc), and the privilege of prioritization/coming first. The first category covers behavioral flaws that I’d hope you’d aim to correct anyway; the second covers things that are not your direct responsibility and you don’t really have reason to feel guilty about.

So I think in prescribing careful self-examination, AJ is not prescribing guilt in any way except the guilt of looking back and realizing, ‘yeah, that was an assholish, inconsiderate thing to do, and !I did it!’. I think that’s a good thing to do as long as you move on and don’t dwell on it.