Who's the Man (or Woman)? And Who Says?
Of late I've been reading a lot of sociological and psychological writing about male behavior and cultural norms, and came across an interesting quote attributed to the sociologist Michael Kimmel:
"In large part, it's other men who are important to American men; (they) define their masculinity, not as much in relation to women, but in relation to each other. Masculinity is largely a homosocial enactment." *
What this (and other studies I've been reading) means: men (or at least American men) from adolescence (or even earlier) measure their "manliness" based primarily on male feedback--NOT on female feedback. As in, it doesn't prove anything if their girlfriends or wives think they're manly--other men have to think they're manly or it "doesn't count."
On the flip side (and this is based solely on observation, not on a study I've read), it seems that women don't base their measure of how "feminine" they are on other female opinion. They base it on male feedback.
So essentially, both genders are looking only to men to define what makes the masculine AND feminine ideal for our species.
And beyond that, I think that it's quite possible that women quite often choose to define "manliness" by the male opinion as well, rather than creating their own gender norm for what that means. Sure you hear women saying they wish all men could be "nice guys," but when you ask most women to conjure up a mental image of a "nice guy" and then conjure up a mental image of a "manly guy," I suspect most wouldn't necessarily see the same guy in their mind's eye.
Something about all this is so incredibly disturbing and imbalanced. I don't understand why a woman's opinion matters less to both genders. Why wouldn't, for instance, a straight male who wants to "mate" care more the female's perception of manliness than the males? Or why wouldn't we both want some kind of gender-balanced norm? And why are we so intent on having a cultural norm for these concepts, anyway? What good has it ever done us?
Don't you think it's time for a new definition of what makes us "masculine" and "feminine?" If so, what do you think that definition should be?
Or do you think it's time for no definition at all, beyond what we've got between our legs?
*I'm not certain of this, because the article I was reading attributed poorly, but based on some quick research, it appears the quote is taken from Kimmel's book Manhood in America: A Cultural History. Read Salon's review about the book here, if you're interested.
Comments (6)
This is a pretty complicated subject. There is the production of the dominant view of feminity, and then there is the maintenance of it.
The dominant view of feminity has been produced by imbalanced power relations within society; however, in terms of "enforcing" these norms, I'd say that men and women share equally in this. I'm reminded of the old truism regarding proper feminine appearance (hair, makeup, clothes, fashion, etc) -- women dress style themselves for other women, not men. Straight men don't notice these things, the wisdom goes. And then evolutionary psychology (which I hate) tells us why: all straight men care about is the .7 waist to hip ratio. Plus symmetrical features and clear skin.
As far as behavior goes, I think that women play just as an active role in reinforcing norms as men. It's not just men calling women sluts, fat, dykes, whatever.
1. Posted by Hiromi on March 20, 2007
H: The question I'm actually more fascinated with here is why to a man, another man's opinion of his masculinity matters more than a woman's opinion does.
If we're talking about heterosexuals and linking it to animal behavior and mating, it would make sense that women would try to base femininity on what males find attractive. But it doesnt' make sense why men are not doing the same in reverse.
As far as behavior goes, I think that women play just as an active role in reinforcing norms as men.
Yeah, that's what I was saying above. Women may be reinforcing it, but they're reinformcing MALE definition of femininity, rather than defining femininity for other women, the way men are doing for each other.
2. Posted by Miss Syl on March 20, 2007
Gender stuff fascinates and confuses me.
The thing is, as a Big Nerd, I missed all of the learning about this stuff that I was supposed to be indoctrinated with when I was young, and by the time I noticed it was there I was such a Big Nerd that I spent the whole time going, "But why is it that way?"
I suspect that one of the reasons that I'm only interested in geeky boys is because they're not likely to play by those wacko rules either, for the same reason.
3. Posted by Darkhawk on March 20, 2007
Actually the reasons for this are quite simple and yet complicated all at the same time. My reading on this subject isn't fresh, but the subject is one I am well-read in and experienced with. (I'll have to stop there.)
There are always multiple levels to our behaviour, the why and the how and the what, so anyone that offers a simple reason for anything we do as a species is probably selling a book. But in its simplest terms the male is a pack animal, way back in our reptile brain, the deep seated portion. We used to have a heirarchial system to male dominance and many of those "systems" still drive us, this is true for man and woman, but let's focus on men. We are primed to look at our brethren for our position within the heirarchy, where do we fit in, how strong is the guy next to me, and how can I position myself for maximum benefit. So judging ourslevs by those around us, our friends, those we see on tv, allows us to feel part of the "pack" and yet at the same time gauge our individuality.
If you doubt the power of this drive, watch young male teens in the mall. They cluster in packs of like dress, attitudes, social behaviours, etc. The funny thing about this is that each of these "packs" tends to strive to be different from the others, geeks, punks, squares, call them whatever you want, but within the "pack" they are all the same. Again, this is their group. They are the same, so they fit in, and yet they strive for individuality so that they stand out... slightly. Not enough to incur the wrath of the "pack", but yet just enough to attract a mate.
Obviously in this modern world, the subtlies and complexity of these systems has grown, but the primal needs are still apparent.
The same is true on the female side, only for different reasons. The female goal, as a species, is to attract a male to the detrement of other females, they are in competition for sperm to carry on the DNA they carry. It matters not if other females think they are sexy, only if males believe so.
There is a lot more to it all of course, but those are the basics. In the end, it is really just my learned opinion. But I have always found it fascinating.
4. Posted by ArtfulDodger on March 20, 2007
I... I... I gotta say I'm prepared to accept that at least in societies where not being "manly" enough can get you a thumping by homophobes men look to other men for definitions of manliness. (With the side-effect of paranoid trending towards hypermasculinity.)
But I'm with Hiromi on whether and how men or women define what's feminine.
In a high-level/formal sense you could say that men define what's feminine by *responding.* But responding isn't at all the same thing as *defining.*
And to the extent we exist in a patriarchal matrix then you would expect women who've traditionally been dependent on male support to focus intently on provoking those responses. So perhaps to that extent men "define" femininity.
Given that I've been raised in that matrix I could just be totally fooling myself. But it just doesn't ring true for me. And a "wind at my back" model oughtn't explain Hiromi's take either.
Anyway, it's also very possible that I'm confusing "feminine" with "fashion and decorum." When it comes to that cross-dressing men (straight and gay) seem to express a strongly-developed, male-based image of hyper-femininity. But even those images tend represent a pretty narrow subset of all the ways men regard women.
I'm not saying I disagree, Syl, I'm just saying I'm not ready to agree with you either.
figleaf
5. Posted by figleaf on March 21, 2007
"Or do you think it's time for no definition at all, beyond what we've got between our legs?"
Myself, I wouldn't even use that as a definition of what's "masculine" or "feminine."
6. Posted by Mu Ling on March 22, 2007