What Should a Feminist Man Look Like?

The attribution of toxic qualities to masculinity is a demonstration of the general inability to conceptualize our physical selves and the societal roles we are assigned.

There is no role for men to play in American society today. There is nothing around which to conceptualize masculinity.

The football game on the in the den is the only expression of masculinity left. Is it any wonder that boys think of caricutures when they try to define masculinity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well-reasoned and sympathetic article. I liked it.

But...

So, we have this population thing, where our numbers keep going up. And we have resource constraints, as in, they aren't infinite. Plus we have climate change which is going to upset a lot of apple carts. Not to mention the ongoing conversion of the world's oceans into sewers devoid of edible fish.

Put it all together, and the future looks violent.

We are what we are: violent apes. We have railed against that part of our nature, regretted it, attempted to rein it in, channel it, but we have never come close to defeating it. History consists of an endless series of bloody wars in which various groups have attempted to profit at other groups' expense. War itself is not something to romanticize; it's a traumatic and horrible thing. Yet we keep indulging in it. Those who do so without qualms tend to do it better.

20th Century wars, as terrible as they were, may have been merely the prelude to something unimaginably worse in this century. Because we have not even begun to conquer that aspect of ourselves - and because all of the factors which propel us into violence and war are on the rise.

I disagree with none of the author's points. I wish for a future in which men have purged the worst excesses of their violent heritage, and I wish for peace. But I have this nagging feeling that nature doesn't care what the author wants or what I want.

Never forget that humans are not divorced from the processes of natural selection. A group's ability to commit violence factors into its prospects for controlling resources and social/genetic successes. I don't see this changing. In fact, it may be that in this new Century, violence will sort out winners from losers as never before in human history. All of the conditions which lead to desperation and violence and wars are on the rise.

I think feminists are on the wrong track. They are bitterly opposed to any measure which limits reproductive freedoms. Yet unrestricted population growth will be the engine of destruction of all of their hopes and dreams - and my own.

If you want to quiet the beast in men, you must dial down the factors which bring it to the fore. Otherwise we're just wringing our hands and whistling in the dark.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've had this discussion with colleagues at work, what is the model for modern masculinity?

After reading this article, I don't feel any closer to the answer.

I think one way to start is to not demonize masculine traits. Being aggressive toward other people is bad, but aggressively pursuing social justice is good. Part of the answer, I think, is in finding healthy expressions of masculine traits that have traditionally been expressed in less healthy ways.

I think this is a very important discussion to have -- I would love to see better role models for men in our culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want to tell you a story about ego' money, And health-Angels-and even demons. Each one I named is something some of us believe in. Even if is just one if you say you don't believe in money then why are you selling your junk. If you say you don't believe in demons why are you watching there movies, And if your not why are you afraid of them.If your a priest why are you exorcising them'
If your a prophet why are you prophesying them. If you say you don't have and ego' then why are you firing people you don't like? Why did you ban them from your store? Is it what they said or how bad things really are that made you angry. Ego defined by a ingenious is this someone holding a authoritative job where others work under them and they have another person fire someone else because they feel to guilty to do it themselves even if they are right. So the big question is why did they get mad? they didn't wake up angry and if they did it's probably because it was Monday and they got stuck in traffic knowing they had to end up at a job they already hated. Then the question really is why do they hate there job? Maybe there doing something wrong ' Or there boss isn't doing something right.
Then isn't this and ego centric society where where all wrong and all wright. It is and we must Chang that before the invisible angel part I mentioned at the top does it for us.
I am a part of something greater we all can be by looking threw the glasses of love before we even set down to judge' Anyone because threw those magic glasses we see us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the FACT that I, as a man, do NOT need to change anything about me and do NOT attempt to change anything about those who neurotically hate all things male.
Those who hate all things male are included in the audiences of the story.
This is ABSOLUTELY nothing more than that attack.

If I would meet a woman and ACCEPT her for how/who she is WITHOUT attempt to react in an ignorantly neurotic manner, I would be treating her with respect as a human being.
This is diametrically OPPOSITE to how those in the story are limited.

Perhaps they also believe in miracles.

I do not choose to be insulted by this article.
Rather, I see them for what they are, frightened self haters who are clearly lacking in self confidence.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a WOMAN or a MAN.

The story and all those who have been conned by it are tripe and the tripe eaters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bad boys were out getting laid. The reason men act the way the do is because women respond to it sexually. Traditional masculinity is associated with good genetics, and an increased ability to produce viable offspring. If these traits were not sexually selected for they would have disappeared long ago. Darwin Rules.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I strongly agree that we have to focus on what we want...what other kind of gendered worlds can we imagine. But we need to start with what is...that is, the whole spectrum of how men and women think and feel about this stuff. The range of comments to this article suggests a large diversity.

So here's a crazy idea: anyone who is hot to open up this can of worms in a very genuine way can pull together a group of like-minded people and use the book "Self-Made Man" as the basis for a year-long conversation that could open up a lot of possibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SINCE YOU ASKED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the male human is an animal of no restraint. he is a hedonist. he must be controlled and he cannot do that himself.
as soon as a male reaches puberty he should be placed in chastity. weekly supervised milkings will keep him docile. when he is married, his wife is given the key and is placed in total control of his sex life. In this way he serveS the true superior gender and be faithful. The homosexual male will be subject to the same rules as the heterosexual male. no more divorce, no more rapes, no more adultery. Proper training from birth of the male human will result in a violence free world.
WOMAN POWER FOR EVER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Problems with gender identity are very economic at the root regarding both genders and, they long have been since ancient Babylon and Egypt forward. For example, growing up in the 1950's and 60's, men were taught it is "manly" to leave home after high school, get a good union job, buy their own house, start their own family, stand on their own two feet. Women were taught a similar mirrored gender role of going along with the raising a family program, leaving home, starting their own family, raising their own kids, etc. Regarding men, it was considered "strange" if one hadn't married by the age of 25 or so, while with women, it was considered imperative that they have offspring in order to have "made it" as a female among their peers.

This represents a self-centered modern society with roots far deeper than capitalism that human greed has built in the United States, but which capitalism greatly encourages. As our nation as a whole has moved away from labor oriented more towards service oriented jobs, things have only slightly changed now in a cosmetic "feminist" backlash sort of way. One can still observe average folks at the mall and both men and women are still all caught up in the "I, me, mine" fundamental nature of our modern Western society, tracing back into the mists of civilization time.

There is a lot of money to be made by a lot of people in keeping and enhancing the self-centered, self-serving model of modern society. There's a lot of money in clothes, jewelry and cosmetics, new homes and stuff to fill them with, gas-guzzling cars to parade around in, an endless parade of new gadgets that one supposedly "needs" to keep up with their peers, etc. And, there's a lot of war, other violence, poverty, pain and suffering that invariably goes along with this price for so-called human "progress".

Contrast this to the New Testament lifestyle, of sharing all things in common, women not concerned with time-consuming, expensive and self-serving outward appearance, giving one's excess to the poor, striving to love our neighbor as ourself, viewing marriage and pro-creation as a cumbersome "vice" in the way of social activism and, forsaking the fundamental idea of "I, me, mine" in favor of "what is fair, equitable and just for all". It is "manly" and "lady-like" to treat other people as we would like them to treat us and, to otherwise care about humanity and our children's future.

This is what is not taught by modern liberal feminists any more than it is taught by conservative supply-side capitalists and, this is why Judas sits in America's capitol tower while Lazarus weeps at the gates.

WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Within the constraints of the law, and so long as he or she isn't harming anyone, folks should do and behave as they damn well please. Oh, and you shouldn't use the power of the state to force your neighbor to subsidize your choices...but aside from that, enjoy life in a free and liberal society, whydoancha'?

What's the nonsense with trying to tell folks how they ought to live? Sinners! The lot of us, lol.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the whining feminazis need to do is learn how to EARN respect as a human being by ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Here is someone who has actually WORKED to be respected by her ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

I DARE you to look at this woman without your typical anger, resentments and JEALOUSY~~

A REAL WOMAN WHO WORKED FOR IT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing we all need to do is stop making generalizations towards gender. There are many different types of men, many different types of women. As a man, I can see a spectrum of inherent "machismo" in other guys. Some, they are aggressive and competitive naturally. Others simply wish to be quiet and completely non-confrontational. And of course, there is everyone in between.

And there is a spectrum of women's character, too. You cannot make generalization to the effect of "Women are like this..." or "All men are like this..."

I meet hyper-aggressive males who I cannot stand to be around. I used to live with one. By the same token, I sometimes come across women who like to identify themselves as feminists who seem to have a deep hatred of men.

There are other factors at work here. When men want to impress women, they do so by demonstrating confidence and a high social status, traits associated with masculinity. It's a double standard, asking guys to be exciting, confident, and sensitive at the same time.

I should say that do know men and women that have a very balanced view of gender, but they are few and far between.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I proudly consider myself a 100% heterosexual, less-than-100%-masculine man. It's possible.

And sure, it helps that I don't care about having sex as much as I used to, since women seem to respond most to "masculine" men (as men seem to respond most to "feminine" women, as someone else's earlier comment stated).
But, that said, some of the best traits adored by women in men -- such as intelligence and humor -- are not considered to be necessarily masculine traits.

If a man is concerned with equality and fairness in our society, he will likely be a "feminist". There is no proper pigeon-hole for men who are feminists to be placed into. I hope the article isn't trying to do that. All men, as all women, are unique. My answer to what kind of man is feminist: Whatever kind of man that man wants to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ushered in by the NWO/globalists via the United Nations or other "world body"!!!

The so-called "European Union" was a big step in this direction!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My wife never finished 10th grade.
I have a B.A. and plan to earn an M.A.

My wife doesn't drive, nor does she have a license.
I've been driving since age 16, and have a car.

My wife cooks meals all the time.
I can't cook.

My wife isn't registered to vote.
I've been registered since I was 18.

My wife doesn't work.
I am the sole breadwinner.

My wife has no intention of ever having children.
And neither do I.

Life is simple for us because I don't treat her like the housewife figure. We both bring things to the relationship, and that's what makes us equals. I bring the money (what little I can), and she brings in the "woman's touch" for decor, food, etc (all reasonably priced, of course).

Although I've encouraged her to get a job and a licence and a GED, and she's declined, I have no problem with her position, because I love her, and since I work as a substitute teacher, we get weekends and holidays off, to spend together.

My wife is my best friend. Not my subservient. I can see our relationship working in the opposite way as well: a guy who stays at home and cooks and cleans and a woman who earns the money. Gender roles mean nothing to us. It's just the way our relationship happened to turned out.

I don't see her as a slave, or even the opposite of that, a mooch. She's my wife, and she brings things into my life that I'm grateful for: a nice, cooked meal with organic, locally grown foods, instead of mac and cheese and frozen pizza every night. Someone to keep the house clean (even though I do the occasional vacuuming). And most important of all, someone to talk to, so I don't feel lonely. And someone with whom to discuss the world and everything in it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are real men..period. When a woman is in need of help, serious life saving help, like that of protecting the family, asserting himself to ward off unwanted advances from other men, to provide when SHE either can't do or won't do it, despite what a lot of sexually confused women and men also; say out their mouths, SHE WANTS A REAL MAN. What needs to be addressed in these so called gender wars, is the fact that men and woman are not equal; they are different and difference doesn't mean equal. Some woman are stronger than some men and some men are more effeminite than some women. Some men cook better than other men and women. Equality does not exist. Society expects much more from men than it does women. For example Men, not super hyper-uber super androdrynous men hating feminoids, are expected to fight and die in wars-period. this is not to suggest that women are any less deadly. Has anyone ever heard of the expression 'woman up'? I've heard of 'man up' or 'nut up' but never 'woman up'

FTW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does all discussions about male behavior have to end up,with some idiot,bringing sex into the picture? I'm a stereotypical masculine individual, I played high school football, was on the wrestling team, am taking up boxing, and enjoy watching sports,playing videogames, I look like the stereotypical Scary Black Man, but at the end of the day I'm hardly sexually promiscous. Its not because I'm a "nice guy", its because,despite what is popularly believed,NOT ALL MEN DESIRE SEX ALL THE TIME. Not to mention, that I have some bi-curious. The promiscuity rates between women and men are not that different, there are just as many "playettes" as "players". I don't want to fuck some shallow bitch I just met because it's stereotypically masculine, I'm alot more complex than I look, and so are many other men and women that wish to transcend gender roles.

The reason men act the way they do is because social engineering tells them to not genetics,and refusal to see this shows we have a long way to go. Observe the ancient Greeks and Romans, fathers of Western society, that had the exact opposite view of sexuality, were it was believed that men were chaste and women sexually uncontrollable.

Why is it when articles like these are posted, that question masculinity, people always bring sex into the picture,when it has nothing to do with it? The article didn't say anything about how they acted on a date or how they get girls, it said they simple wished to have respect for women, to pursue life goals that aren't stereotypically masculine. And, get this, their not being feminist because they want to get laid, their being feminist because they believe in treating human beings with respect! They believe in stopping domestic violence and child abuse,they believe in stopping rape and date rape, they believe in stopping honor killings and other injustices. As a egalitarian for gender parity, I don't expect feminist women to want to fuck me, I don't care, I'm doing it because its right. Thats all that matters, leaving the world a better place, not arm candy or rolexes or income.

But no, people like the idiots on this board refuses to see that and think thats the only reason men become social justice advocates is to get laid. Yep thats it, to get laid, thats all human existance is, no higher purpose. Thats all human existance is.Fucking and Fucking. Or spreading genes, the pseudoscientist evopsychologist says. Humans never want to accomplish anything beyond that. Frankly, this world view is disgusting, as it has a low opinion of humans in particular and existance in general.

Also I would like to talk about these false binaries "nice guy/bad boy" and "maddona/whore" is the fact they don't exist in real life and are just a way to police people that don't conform to gender roles. The "nice guy/badboy" thing is just a way to abuse and punish men,especially homosexual men, for not being stereotypes, for being intellectual, for daring to question "natural order". Same with women who dare to be sexually promiscuous,because knowing what you want isn't ladylike. There are men that prefer women that aren't feminine, and women that prefer men that aren't masculine, and men that prefer men, and women that prefer women. Seriously this is the only good article released in the gender roles section in loooong time and most of the responses disgust me. I though alternet was progressive,but some of the responsees are straight out of a right wing rag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who recognize that the kind of masculinity they are describing is toxic for men, too

Who says it's toxic? It can be toxic to some at some times. Are all examples of masculinity toxic to all parties at all times? Nonsense. Unhealthy, unhelpful nonsense.

Why are so many articles written that pretend as if men and women's basic animal nature does not exist? That we don't act the way we do because of our instinct to mate, to reproduce. Mating, teritorialism, hunger, all mixed into a modern, urbanized, language-infused social mush. Repressing our base nature is probably what leads to many of our unhealthy behaviors; repression is religion's mainstay, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael Chabon has a new book out: Manhood for Amateurs: The Pleasures and Regrets of a Husband, Father, and Son. He's my idea of a feminist man, and he talks about that some.

He knows that you don't find a feminist man in a workshop. You find him washing the dishes, cooking the meals, washing the clothes, fathering his kids, but most of all, engaging in an equal partnership with a woman.

The rest is baloney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please select an AlterNet approved stereotype from the drop down menu above. Once you fit the RIGHT stereotype you will be just fine.

Just make sure you are not yourself. Individualistic thinking and acting will not be tolerated. If you need further explanation we will get a pompous-windbag to over-intelectualize a topic that need not be, and then write an article about it, passing it off as something that should be taken seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FYI, moderate masculinity and moderate femininity aren't so bad as their extreme versions. Besides, I'm still called a stud for wearing pantyhose under my shorts in public. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should we replace patriarchal masculinity with a new "universal" script for what it means to be a man? Why should we bother with scripts at all?

Nothing is true.
Everything is permissible.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Group marriages without dominance, territoriality and possessiveness might work. Besides, the financial burden is getting too much for the toxic nuclear family of over-consumption and over-work. Sharing finances and homekeeping responsibility and fewer children shared by many are a good fit for the 21st century of eco-economic stress plus it allows for relationship biodiversity and less financial and emotional threat of abandonment and more help in times of economic hardship.

It would be a bucky ball world of resistance to excess stress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be who you want to be. Do what you want to do, so long as you don't hurt anyone else outside of self-defense.

Problem solved. Now while the rest of you were busy arguing about this red herring yet more war crimes have been committed against humanity. Yet more money has been stolen by the Federal Reserve and its cartel of banks. Yet more lives have been lost in Pipelinestan aka Af-Pak and Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As I read the post I quickly realized that what was being asked was NOT how a "feminist man looks" but how a "feminist man BEHAVES". O'Reilly and his ilk behave in a certain way, contrary to feminism, and espouse social/political views contrary to same. They don't LOOK like "feminist men" however.

How should a man look? Feminist or not, the fact is men and women are different and the difference should be embraced rather than rejected. A man should LOOK like a man, even while holding feminist social and political views. A man has a heavier/stronger skeletal structure to go along with being more heavily muscled and stronger. Thus, this aspect should be embraced and fed. A man should have a six pack (or equivalent given physical quirks), strong arms, and strong legs. A man should NOT have a six pack of beer gut, all soft and squishy.

Embracing the physical difference between man and woman has practical benefit too. You will not be fucked with nearly as often if you are physically intimidating because of your size/musculature. It is practical in work. Around the ranch I am fully capable of carrying railroad ties all by myself, and planting them into post holes all by myself for special fencing needs. I am quite capable of lifting concrete footers out of the ground by myself using a chain. I can carry lots of lumber, tools, feed bags, hay bales without collapsing in an exhausted heap at the end. Practical functionality derived from the natural physical difference from women that comes with being a male of the species. EMBRACE THAT.

I've embraced it for over 20 years and yet am fully able to cry at a domestic violence memorial or protest, at a funeral, at a love story, at a happy ending. I am fully capable of being PHYSICALLY a male while not seeking the subjugation of women.

What a "feminist male" looks like is a MAN, different than a woman. Stronger, heavier, than a woman, a lover of women, and enjoying the real differences rather than seeking to do away with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other animals have some ideas of us, but are not equipped to express them so they are always either laughing at our antics or running as fast as they can to get away from us. This is because we do not observe their rules of conduct; rarely do other animals fight to the death of one another. Only men and ants do that.

Pismires’! Men are two legged pismires. They have invaded their own society with a compulsory sexual morality that is killing them and they do not even take note of it! At first and early in human history it may have been necessary to ensure the controlled growth of the species to have a compulsory behaviour pattern built into the race.

Now however, it has become the worst of stumbling blocks! Humans are by and large polymorphous perverse. Insensitively put, they will fornicate anything that attracts their attention. The Bonobo Ape is another species similar to humans who also practice this trait. Try telling that to a religion addict!

Religions are possibly the first and may be the only groups that can instill a compulsory sexual morality effectively. The State cannot do it except through legislation. That is why some legislated laws sound insane: it is a sexual crime to urinate in public, for instance. If you do it in a bladder emergency you will be charged as a sex offender.

Feminism? Masculinity? You have GOT to be kidding; humans don’t even remember what the original sexual behaviors were like let alone how to define them. Since before the current written histories humans have been severely messed up and now someone’s of us are going to attempt to bamboozle others into thinking that THEY have a NEW answer. Equine manure!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Discussions of what maturity (either masculine or feminine) looks like are worth the effort. We are not likely to have examples portrayed for us, because what sells is the fantasy of traditional heroism--the conqueror, either masculine or feminine.

Love relationships, whether gay or straight, are currently problematic. Maybe that's because love, as we have come to expect it to be, is a fantasy. Sure the "feel good" of falling in love is as pleasant a delerium as we know. But making love last is just plain old hard work.

(P.S. If a male attempted to report on a feminist conference, he'd be beseiged. So, just the facts, ma'am. What makes you think you know what you are talking about when it comes to masculinity?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...the first thing that springs to mind is an image of Mr. Garrison on SOUTH PARK after the operation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What should a feminist WOMAN look like?

You realize Sarah Palin is a good example? There she is, running for Vice President while her husband works in the oil fields. That's equality plus - too bad about all the baggage. (No, I'm not a fan, I just enjoy a good irony.) So does that make the First Dude an exemplar of Feminist Man?

I guess my point is that it HAS to be defined negatively, because we don't know how people will turn out when freed from their stereotypes.

Besides which, it's women who will decide what "feminist men look like", because let's face it, we'll do whatever we think it takes, within our limited abilities.

So I think you should ask some feminist women what they're looking for. THAT would be a useful article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as there are social constructions of gender that relate to perceptions and expectations about biological sex, the problems and complexities this article presents will continue. If there needs to be a "feminist masculinity" does there need to be a "masculine femininity" as well? All dualistic thinking is inherently incorrect.

I suggest those interested in this issue revisit Sandra Bem's work on androgyny. No, I'm not talking about David Bowie here. I'm talking about androgyny in the sense of disconnecting biological sex from ways of interacting, solving problems, being aggressive or assertive, nuturing or compromising. I'm talking about being human across a full spectrum of ways of being that are now labeled as "masculine" or "feminine".

Those who insist on limiting their behaviors and ways of thinking and seeing to align with social expectations of their biological sex are only half human. Those who can operate across a full range of "masculine to feminine" ways of being are likely to be far more capable, far more fun, far more happy, and far more human.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That Would Be the Day We Let a WOMAN Define What Men Should Be.


you're overstepping your DELUDED self annointed self appointed supremacist "entitlement" by about ....ohhhhhhhhhh ......A MILLION LIGHT YEARS!!!



GO BACK TO THE IDIOT VILLE WHERE YOU CAME FROM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We cannot be merely what we dislike. We have to envision a healthy self. If others require a genderized version, we can cough that up too.

Being a hypo-masculine male I've learned much from feminism, but I've also learned about the male side of myself from male essentialists (both what they offer and their bullshit). Where I come down in my own vision of what a healthy male looks/acts like is from what I see the best of those versions and whatever among those that I myself can live up to and become.

But that is going to look different from male to male and women would be wise to stop trying to see a monocultural or monolithic image of a "man," be he feminist or not. We males fall all along a spiraling continuum one coil strand being hetero and another being homo. Within each strand we fall along the coil from hypo masculine hetero/homo to hyper-masculine hetero/homo. That's just how it is. It's the same with females too. And those spirals are interconnected with the intersex and transgendered among all of us.

A hypo-masculine "feminist" male is going to look different from a hyper-masculine "feminist" male anyway. And still I suspect some women (and men) will never be sated until all are fully female (or hyper-masculine male). That's not going to fly for anyone else.

What is feminist masculinity anyway? I'm sure it looks different to women, and that's largely irrelevant. Women need balanced healthy male partners in righting the injustices the unbalanced have wrought. But ultimately it's up to men to define ourselves and NOT women. If we're not partnerable and incapable of alliances with women all this is moot.

As my grandfather used to ask my gramma, "What do you need from me? Say it, and I'm there." (other times he'd ask the reverse, what don't you need from me?) He asked and declared that, however, from a place of fully knowing himself (as an ever-developing, open-ended human being who happened to have a penis) and offering his partnership, and not from a milquetoast place of "who the hell am I?" or some hypothetical structural model concocted in a lab. I'm all for lab-work but if there's not social experimentation the lab is a pathetic short-circuit to academic myopia.

That's the gateway to "stage two."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should we identify first with gender, either masculine or feminine? It seems to me that identifying first as a human being is the best way to avoid the trap of gender stereotypes. All human possibilities are open. Who cares if someone else (some "authority") says that a particular action is "feminine" or "masculine" or appropriate or inappropriate to one's gender. I care only if it is appropriate for a good and decent human being.

If you like sports, enjoy that. If you enjoy taking care of others, enjoy that. It is human activities.

I admit it might be easier for me, as a gay man. I don't have to pretend I am "masculine" in ways I am not. I do have to deal with the gay male identity which is just as stupid and destructive. I like sports, even though it is "not gay". Tough.

Being human can be difficult. One must be strong to stand up for one's individual identity. One must explore without preconceptions. It is harder than accepting the pre-defined box someone else made for me. Not having a comfortable identity group requires one to acknowledge individuality, and to think and feel as an individual. It is worth it! Life is authentic and fulfilling only when we are true to ourselves.

We do not need models. Being one's self does not require "trying on" roles or identities as if they are clothing. We need only to express our own inner nature, and explore and accept who we each are, as unique and valuable beings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First off, talking about sex is tantamount in our society to a pickup line. That's why our culture prohibits mothers talking to their own sons about sex. Fathers talking to sons about sex is only slightly less taboo, as in theory it might have gay connotations. As a matter of fact, almost any communication of any kind, except when teen boys egg each other on in the locker room or over beers, is taboo.

We become lonely hormonal animals, lying to our parents, lying to our lovers to get that first kiss or to third base. To a man, college guys say that they do not want chilren. However, most guys want to come as close as humanly possible to child creation (hopefully without crossing over that line, while dead drunk of course).

Zero communication equals a high percentage of failures. Doesn't this fact of life make considerable sense to everyone?

Men are opposing women precisely from lack of good communication. If you want to see a feminist man,

A. communicate with him. There is only one shared truth.

B. Don't necessarily wall him off as the enemy. As a rule of nonviolent strategy, you need deserters from the enemy camp.

C. Work with the complex emotions of love. Both men and women have all sorts of hangups, feelings of shame about urges, feelings of complete stupidity in love, desires to ignore all common sense and push farther,... Individual men usually have rational minds and senses of fair play, you just have to connect with that part of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am very glad to see this article. It's only the start of a conversation, but I believe it's a very good one. If you believe from the start that people deserve respect, dignity, and happiness, a lot of what we see from the old patriarchal masculinity is completely shot. This old system hands the tough guy the reins simply because of his gender, not because of actual merit or contribution.

That's what the core problem is here: de facto inequality. I've come to see this as tied into many of our biggest problems. I don't hold out much hope for solving problems requiring large-scale social cooperation when the patriarchy would have us butting heads, shooting things out, making empires. That empire starts in the home when we abuse a boy's heart and make him see the world as a mean place that he's got to fight against and dominate to be safe in. That's how you betray the concepts of human dignity, and make men who'd rather bomb than build. Where men automatically domineer and women are turned to passive-aggressive wiles, everyone is debased. I both pity and mistrust people who give up their self-determination and dignity for that farce.

I think every person deserves to feel accepted for their tough and their nurturing sides, and I like all of those qualities in my friends regardless of their label. I want society based on merit and dignity, not gender constructs.

If we can relegate the stereotypical aesthetics of men and women to stylistic choices, and honor life whether it resembles us and our chosen lifestyle or not, we're on the journey to being good human beings and assets to our world. Let's tackle that first and foremost, and not risk it on trying to fight one stereotype versus another. I'm certain that if we focus on being good people above all, the chips of gender roles will fall freely and naturally and without oppression.

Those are the ideals I aspire to as a feminist male.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seriously? They consider (and I quote) ""Machismo!" "Violent!" and "Homophobic!" to be masculine qualities?

What kind of sexist garbage do they teach in Women's Studies?

And for the record, men's rights groups are NOT about "reclaiming traditional manhood". It is about attempting to protect men from the systemic discrimination by the family courts and justice system.

It is about trying to equalize a father's ability to spend time with his children after their mother decides she'd rather live with some other wealthier or younger man.

It is about ending legally enforced involuntary servitude.

It is about ending "presumed guilty by virtue of accusation alone" male defendendents.

None of these are the "right-wing traditional values" that this author claims they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being a feminist means realizing the advantages our society will have, once women are freed from the constraints of their gender-typed upbringing. We could evolve a less frantic and accusing politics, with more talking and agreeing, than zero-sum debates and buttressed ideological camps. Action would likely be slower on the political stage, but also would likely work steadily toward long-term solutions that support everyone, rather than what we now have; a system strangled on the chronic combat between ever-more-apart positions.

(Most) women are more tuned in to the hidden agreements in conversations, than to using what they hear to further frame their own arguments. It's an exagerration, but think of woman-centric politics as a dialog between mental health professionals. This concept will doubtless be ridiculed by those invested in patriarchical systems (religion as we know it, for one), but I think the advatages are numerous and obvious.

I think conferences like this are a good first step -- long overdue, in my estimation. The men involved, because of their patriarchical upbringing, can see only so much of the promising good of opening up social channels to women's input; and they are currently -- and I think rightly -- focussed on the so-far negative influence of male attitudes on that dynamic.

BTW, being a feminist does not in any fashion mean that a feminist man takes on feminine qualities (unless looking for common ground can only be considered feminine). It means being FOR the improvement and appreciation of a woman's role in society. Remember, the proper name of NOW is the National Organization FOR Women, not OF women.

BTW2, once women do have a more central role and respect in our society, we'll likely see a vast diminution of women using their feminine wiles to manipulate men -- a true zero-sum game for them, because when it works, they end up with less respect than they started with. As it is, that's one of the few cards they can play. Give them respect for who they are and what they do, and they won't have to resort to tickling men's willies for their own personal power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're having trouble defining the feminist male because you are not talking about people. You, and apparently the people at this conference, define men by stereotypes caricatures and then look for a new stereotype you'd rather we become.

Your article impliedly defines men as: violent, homophobic, sexual/domestic abusers who don't experience the joys of relationships or nurture their children; who aren't "real" with their friends or "open" with their partners. Apparently, drinking beer or watching sports is a tell-tale sign that someone is this "typical male" you imagine.

Your feminist male is a non-violent, non-homophobic, non-rapist who enjoys his relationships with his friends and family. Congratulations, that's at least 50% of American males.

Why, then, are you having trouble finding a role model? Because you tack on all of these benign behaviors onto the model of an undesirable chauvinist male. I mean, really? Beer-drinking and sports? I hate to be the one to shatter your views on gender roles, but...some women enjoy beer! ...and football! I know, they're setting women back, it's sad.

A feminist male does not have to be a feminine male. Gender equality does not require gender neutrality, males and females do not need to become indistinguishable from one another. And equality certainly does not, as you imply, require that males abandon male-hood and adopt female gender roles. As long as you continue to look for a male Martha Stewart to serve as your ideal male, you'll continue to come up empty. Instead, I suggest you devote serious effort into parsing out the traits that actually pertain to gender equality. When you do, I think you'll be surprised to see your ideal man is not that far from reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was thinking Michael Jackson, Gene Simmons maybe? How about John McCain?? LOL

Jess
Online Privacy when it Counts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it wonderful that feminism removed the shackles from women so they can express their femininity in whatever way they desire, then they turn around and tell MEN that they MAY NOT express their masculinity in whatever way THEY desire. Men must conform to some model of behavior of a feminist creation.

It is posts such as this that engender disrepute of, and that marginalize, the feminist movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that what is really harmful to men (and to women) is the knee-jerk denial of the 'bad' characteristics - and the vilification of the dangerous 'other'. (I AM a GOOD man, not one of those BAD men) (Glenn Beck, Rush, O'Reilly, Spitzer, Jim Baker on and on) It sets up a culture where we are constantly projecting the negative aspects of ourselves outward and blaming others for the crap in our own heads.

I am a pro-feminist. AND I have quit trying to deny that the dangerous, violent, misogynist aspects of masculinity are all 'out there' in 'those' men and not right here in my head. In my opinion, the mature man (OR woman) learns to integrate the multiplicity into a personality that deals with the REALITY rather than the FANTASY of male and female roles. It's a pragmatic, rather than dogmatic, stance. When men stop trying to hide from, repress and deny the really damaging aspects of their thoughts and actions ... they can change their choices and start living outside ANY of the stereotypes. In my opinion and experience it takes men working with other men in a highly conscious and focused way to create this 'new' man. A mature masculine that doesn't hide from himself or hide from the women in his life - and who can stand up for what WORKS rather than what PLEASES or APPEASES the people around him. Want some of that? The ManKind Project is the best thing going for men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...Everything masculine has practically been outlawed when displayed by males, yet celebrated when displayed by females.

Masculinity, of the approved form, in America these days is all about men denying their needs and being totally deferential to the needs of women.

This is pretty much the way it's been throughout human history in all societies, which is why all the hand-wringing over "patriarchy" displayed by feminists is so misplaced. Patriarchy was just a better system for fulfilling women's needs than the more primitive matriarchies it surpassed. To assert without argument that men somehow benefit (also) from feminism and a devolution back to a matriarchal system is just empty hype.

Anyway, it's only on college campuses that anyone is concerned about "masculinity". Out in the regular world nobody gives it even a first thought, much less a second one, though one does hear lots of women bemoaning the lack of any "real" men, men with "balls" as they put it.

The view that there is a crisis of masculinity is often associated with a discourse that demonizes men, especially young men, as pathological. This discourse reinforces the case for greater social control and state intervention. Perhaps more importantly, at the level of cultural values, such characteristics as self-assertiveness, independence, even objectivity, are cast as problematic, 'masculine values'. Any oppositional attitudes are characterized as evidence of pathological male behavior. Instead, men are called upon to act the part of the victim, by mourning their loss of power, and getting in touch with their emotional side. This is an attitude that welcomes passivity but criminalizes resistance.
- James Heartfield

There are three very direct threats to masculinity in American/Western European society:

1) Emotional masculinity has been devalued.

John Wayne thought nothing of socking someone in the jaw who deserved it, and he wasn't an animal, but a hero. Back in the day, men taught their boys to box, to keep a stiff upper lip, to fight for justice and what was right, and to get the damn job done. The first salvo against this was to make violence unacceptable in any shape or form, demonize competition and competence, all under the guise of acceptance and feelings. Feminism has always harbored a resentment of greatness.

2) Physical masculinity has been devalued.

Feminist Studies courses indoctrinate their charges to believe that men are the root of all evil. "Testosterone poisoning" to a man in a bad mood is an acceptable insult. Can't get away with referring to a woman in a bad mood as PMSing, though, can we?

3) Being male is now cause for prejudice, and therefore something to be ashamed of.

Divorce courts abound with horror stories of caring, decent men whose wives have abandoned them on a whim -- and the judge awarded HER custody, and then made him pay her for her having destroyed his family.

Anti-male sentiment is the only -ism that is now permitted. It's also the only arena in which rank double standards are not only allowed to exist, but are staunchly defended -- especially by women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who says identity must be constructed?

Everyone has a genetic, instinctive kind of masculinity or femininity. All it needs is permission to exist, without being framed as something it's not.

Toxic masculinity is a socially constructed act, and no other act, however "enlightened" will compensate for it. Only by liberating who people really are in their natural bodies will change anything.

That means there may not be any one form of "feminist masculinity". Just various kinds of masculinity, free of baggage. That requires that both men and women stop framing the male and female instincts as "bad" or "selfish".

Women need to stop judging natural masculinity (which is less faithful, but more fun than "domesticated masculinity", which is largely an act). Men need to stop judging natural femininity (often judged as "teasing" or manipulative). If it's natural, let it be what it is, or people will never be themselves and will always feel superior in some kind of falseness. Just be yourself, whatever that is. It's not going to be identical to anyone else's self, because nature likes variety and your genetic makeup is as unique as your fingerprints.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rather than attempting to define a "new masculinity" which is merely a continuation of false polarities or, in the least, unhelpful ones, it is better for women, men and anyone whose personal physical gender is difficult to determine to finally focus far more on defining what it is to be decent human beings regardless of one's specific plumbing. If you commit yourself to being the best your particular chosen or unchosen gender can be, you are still falling far short of the fullest best human you can be. It's true, there are "masculine" qualities and "feminine" qualities in human beings, however, these have far more to do with overly simple-minded human invention than actual polarities. A "man" can, if he's willing, indulge in behaviors both masculine, feminine and anything in between. A woman who's willing can also choose her own mix of so-called masculine and feminine qualities and any quality in between. This has always been true because human beings are far more complex and dynamic than they generally given themselves credit. Will you continue to let a limited gender or gender identity define you OR will you decide to discover and/or create a definition for yourself from the full spectrum of all of your available human qualities? A man CAN be as feminine if not more so than most women. A woman CAN be as masculine if not more so than most men. Those whose physical gender is difficult to determine CAN choose not to polarize themselves in one direction or the other. Still, as long as an individual polarizes their own personality and behavior and, at least in their own mind, polarizes the personalities and behaviors of others, they blind themselves to all that they genuinely are and can be AND blind themselves to the fullest genuine truth of others.

As I say in many forums, stop trying to be the best "man" or best "woman" you can be, stop being the best "republican" or "democrat", the best "christian", "jew", or "muslim", stop trying to be the best "black woman" or "irish american" or "white englishman", stop trying to be a polarity, a limited definition, a limited predefined prescribed category, and try being the fullest human being you are able. THAT is what you owe to yourself and that mindset is what humanity in general owes to its future.

Merely redefining the masculine and the feminine is a focus on and perhaps a glorification of partial humanity. That's a tragedy. Instead, try to discover how you can become your best empathic, compassionate, respectful, passionate, curious, rational creative human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Fighting against the world that we don't want is a critical first step, but fighting for the world that we do want is where liberation truly begins."

Thus ends this article, a wholesome liberatory one at that!

But what should a male feminist look like? What indeed does a female one look like, pray tell? Why ought a political, economic and cultural position taken "look like" anything at all?

Contained within that liberatory ending to the article are several critical questions which, precisely, are the questions we all must confront in any effort to liberation in the "world" of politics, economics, culture, in the whole field of our social relations!

Who is to be included or excluded from this "we"?

Can feminism encompass the whole of our efforts at liberation from the chains that bind us to this really existing world, much less a real existing world we would like to bring about? After all, humans have been fighting for a "world we don't want" since the dawn of time and our social developmenst since then, and still we go on. There can be no doubt that at differing historical periods and epochs that "world we didn't want" has changed into a world more like that "world we do want". At no time has it ever been agreed-upon as to just exactly and precisely and "rationally" that 'new' world consisted of, especially at the same time that it was being brought about.

What any particular individual in one position or another "looked like" wasn't especially the factor which has brought us to our current epoch. It is always an on-going struggle, and that is why the significance of dialog, reasoning and our very different ways of addressing and confronting this Object which we call "world" that we are living in is so paramount. It is also what impels democratic debates. Such ways of governing and controlling our social relations as Patriarchy will not be solved simply and solely by women or females; for such ways always include both.

I've yet to grasp just what precisely is "envisioned" to replace a really existing organization of our social relations is wanted by this or that feminist, for all ground is covered from the Radical Right to the Radical Left, from the Radical Top to the Radical Bottom, and all within those bounds.

It seems better to focus, whether man or woman, whether male or female, on just what and who is the Oppressor which so many of us in gathering numbers are finding ruling every single aspect of our lives. Perhaps then we can all liberate ourselves and bring about a much more desirable level of social relations than the current one we find ourselves in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]