The following New York Times article titled “We Can Do Better than ‘Positive Masculinity’” by Ruth Whippman was published on October 9, 2024. Whippman is also the author of the book, REIMAGINING BOYHOOD IN THE AGE OF IMPOSSIBLE MASCULINITIES. Whippman’s New York Times article grabbed my attention.
Decades ago while taking undergraduate courses in the discipline that was then called Women’s Studies (now known as Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies), most of the authors I remember reading insisted that both masculinity and femininity (human ways of being in the world) were cultural constructs, not something innate in humans we refer to as women and men. Throughout the world, societies have shown a lot of variety in ways that women and men express themselves and are expected to behave.
It’s no surprise to me that we (culturally speaking) have not yet accepted straying very far from behaviors associated with (and scripted for) our particular sex. In some ways, society puts more pressure on boys and men to stay within narrowly defined parameters. It’s as though boys and men need to take huge precautions to not be thought of as weak—something attributed to girls and women (feminine).
The phrase “positive masculinity” is not new. It’s a way of pushing back against the phrase “toxic masculinity.” Whippman notes that toxic masculinity in today’s political climate is associated with Donald Trump, “the vein-popping, furious, felon model of the right.” On the left we have Tim Walz, a model “offering us a more morally upstanding and expansive ‘positive masculinity.’” Instead of “the insecure posturing of the shirt-ripping strongmen, this [positive masculinity] is in fact ‘real’ manhood.” That’s what’s being said.
Positive masculinity still nestles in nicely with “the old trappings and anxieties of traditional manliness,” looking for that elusive thing dubbed “real manhood.” Tim Walz, the model on the left, still must show his masculine credentials by “presenting as a man’s man and a veteran who loads his speech with sports metaphors and gun references.” Once cradled in that particular rhetoric, he earns enough social leeway to express his more feminist sensibilities. “…only a real man is secure enough to fight for tampons in the grade school bathrooms.”
One of Whippman’s greatest points: “…when it comes to truly shifting cultural norms for the next generation of boys and allowing them to embrace their full humanity without shame we might do better to ditch the masculinity rhetoric altogether.” A positive masculinity framework, instead of challenging gender stereotypes, actually reinforces them. “…we still see masculinity as something innate and immovable, rather than a limiting social construct.” There is no such thing as a “real man” or, for that matter, a “real woman.” There are humans with a wide array of behaviors. Cultures and societies constrict people (albeit in different ways) who have been assigned the nomenclature of male and female.
Just as an aside: I recall having a silly argument with my spouse shortly after we were married. He’s not Italian, but nonetheless, he wanted me to learn to cook “authentic, Italian cuisine.” I surprised myself by immediately responding that there was no such thing as authentic anything. He insisted there was. I was just as insistent there was not. Who gets to say what’s authentic or “real?” Seems to me that necessity and experience shape and color what authentic food is just like necessity and experience shape and color what an authentic (real) man or an authentic (real) woman is.
Another of Whippman’s points I found extremely valuable: “There is a lurking sexism in the whole positive masculinity conceit. If we have to attach the label ‘masculine’ to a behavior before it can have value to men, then we are subtly communicating that embracing anything associated with women is a demotion, even an indignity.” Positive masculinity reinforces “the idea that masculinity itself is sacrosanct, so fundamental to male worth that boys must never abandon it altogether.” Again, there is no such thing as a “real man” just as there is no such thing as “authentic” Italian food.
Failing to meet rigid gender expectations has negative consequences for both men and women. Whippman believes there is evidence suggesting that all kinds of violence (assault, including sexual) is a direct result of boys and men feeling they don’t meet society’s expectations for being a man with the implication that men don’t get pushed around and are above (better than) women. “…the idea that boys must use masculinity as a constant reference point for their own value is restrictive and harmful” to everybody.
Whippman brings up the possibility of giving up on the idea of a “new model of masculinity.” What boys need, she declares, is to be free from all masculine paradigms. “All humans, regardless of gender, have the capacity and the need for toughness and fallibility, gentleness and emotionality, wild courage and tender nurture.” We categorize certain characteristics, though, as male and others as female, ascribing certain ones to women, others to men.
Assigning particular characteristics to boys (or girls) doesn’t help us move forward positively in the world. Boys and men are loath to give up those characteristics of strength, stoicism, and leadership, given to them. Our patriarchal social system values those qualities in men. Patriarchy (the social system) gives men power that it denies to women. Many men hold onto that power for dear life. Our Congress is full of those kinds of men.
I would love to see the day when one’s sex/gender doesn’t dictate how people find fulfillment and meaning in their lives. Our humanity ought not to be constrained by gender roles.
Discover more from Feminism and Religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Feminism and Religion 
Such an important post, Esther! I just finished reading about how young men, 18-29, are pushing this election toward Trump because of the image of masculinity he promotes. And you are so right about how in this election the image being touted of Tim Walz has emphasized his military experience, his gun ownership, and himself as a hunter, as well as his experience as a football coach. None of this has been emphasized in Minnesota (where I live) during his gubernatorial runs — only his background as a teacher and a Congressperson. But on the national stage, these seem to be the only things that are important about him. The same is true of Harris who has to present herself with what Susan Griffin has called “civic masculinity” — hence her touting of the US having a “lethal” fighting force and of herself as a gun owner. But that has not been enough to overcome the misogyny that seems to be playing so hugely in the refusal of young men of all races and ethnicities to vote for her. Sorry — didn’t mean to be getting on my own soapbox — this is only to say what you are saying is so very important, and as the mother of son who has come into his full humanity I greatly appreciate it. Thank you for raising it here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Beth. I remember reading Susan Griffin, but don’t recall the phrase “civic masculinity.” It’s quite apt! I’m happy you DID get on your soapbox. We need to speak out as you just did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s in her “The Eros of Everyday Life.”
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
You are so right about Harris/Walz – they are playing the boy game just like the rest i=of our country – at first when Harris got in I felt a spark of hope – but it’s always the same old story for the good old US. MOST MEN WANT POWER because it’s all they know – Money and Power are our american gods….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Esther, I really like this essay – just yesterday I was talking to my closet friend who happens to be a gifted doctor who now practices only holistically after 40 plus years as a veterinary specialist. He told me that he had just had a client who asked him if he was a shaman – his response was No, “I simply do what I do” – we got talking about labeling and how it restricts a person to a particular role or way of being in the world and how he struggled as a boy who wasn’t a “man’s man”, how it damaged him and today how much he dislikes labels… of course this is a man who has been in touch with his feeling/intuition/senses all his life weaving a brilliant intellect through the whole – so he is unusual in that respect – but the story is the same – he struggled because he couldn’t fit himself into the macho man mold -his safe place was with animals….my sense is that those relationships supported him while his parents and the culture did not…For any of us who are ‘different’ developing relationships with some aspect of nature can help a person find his/her way. I think it’s frightening that BOTH women and men seem to gravitate towards the “man’s man”. I never did because I needed an emotional connection more than anything else – and this remains true for me today. My feminism continues to evolve but the one stable pattern that I see over a period of 40 plus years circles around having emotional relationships with women and men as well as the rest of nature. It’s really important to unpack labels -I use myself as an example here. I resist ‘new age’ philosophies because so many of them refuse to acknowledge the danger inherent in a refusal to acknowledge the dark. Of course this attitude is hardly restricted to new age folks but is evident throughout out our culture… but it’s so easy to slap a label on a group of people -ugh – we all do it – and the important thing is to recognize when we do this and ask why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment, Sara. It’s so true that nature helps us find our way. I do agree with you about the “new age” philosophies remembering a time during my nursing education when breast cancer patients were discouraged by “new age people” to give into grief or any kind of what was called “negativity” as they were in treatment and attempting to heal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
very scary people new agers with their refusal (inability) to emphasize and their insistence upon positivity in the face of horrific grief – I see this as another form of patriarchal denial – hidden under the rubric of spirituality – if you peruse FB it’s horrifying to see how many know it alls are out there talking about transformation through crystals full moons – god the list is endless. And by the way some animals transform like butterflies or frogs – THEY CHANGE FORMS – humans do not – they die in their original skins.
LikeLike
Speaking as a man, my Dad thought being a man was more important than being a full human being. Combine that with all the bullies at school who attacked me because I was considered a “beta male” (I hate that word) my life was a living hell. That’s why I barely visit him. And why I don’t bother with school reunions. Who wants to visit their abusers?
LikeLike
I certainly understand, MiamiMagus, about the reluctance to attend any function or visit people who were abusive to you. Thanks for reading and commenting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this Señora Esther, it was an enlightening read. I love reading this blog because it covers so many vast angles of ideas and things most people don’t bother to look at.
LikeLiked by 2 people
no one!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen, when I found this blog, I knew I had found something special.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this insightful, well thought out, and inspiring post! I sometimes wonder what my life would have been like if I had been brought up in a society that recognized and encouraged everyone’s individual gifts. As I’ve gotten older,I can see in so many life-changing decisions the gender assumptions that influenced and limited me without my realizing it even though my family did their best to teach me and my sister that we could be and do whatever we chose. I also see how traditional ideas of what men and women should be and do limited the lives of my parents and grandparents much more than mine, keeping them from fulfilling both their dreams and potential. But I also see, at last among my son and his friends, that his generation is more gender- limitation free than mine or my parents or grandparents – progress! Posts like yours bring a world where gender ideals no longer exist closer to reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Carolyn. The life I was pushed into didn’t fit me well at all! I agree with you that the new generation is much more “limitation – free” regarding sex/gender than those preceding them. I see it with my grandchildren and their friends. It is quite refreshing.
LikeLike
Like you, Carolyn, I’ve often wondered what my life would have been like if all of my gifts had been encouraged. My strongest academic subjects were science and math, but at the time, these were discouraged in women so I didn’t pursue them beyond high school. Our household chores were very gendered. My toys and the hobbies that were encouraged were very gendered, even though most of in my outdoor play I would have been considered a “tomboy.” So much of my life. It’s wonderful to see my nephews encouraging every aspect of their daughters’ lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said!
LikeLiked by 1 person