There's a fascinating article over
here* about how there are no good positive models of masculinity. It goes deep into the various issues caused by letting awful people sell people the answers to "How should men be?", and is very clear about lots of the awful toxicity caused by there being a big hole. But completely falls apart at the end when the author fails to actually then come up with anything more concrete than "
In my ideal, the mainstream could embrace a model that acknowledges male particularity and difference but doesn’t denigrate women to do so."
And, having read it through, my main feeling is that there is no such thing, and nor should there be. That *any* model of masculinity you create is going to be caught up with the issue of "What makes this specifically
masculine?" and any answer to that is necessarily going to take you back to Mars/Venus nonsense that gives you exactly what the author says they don't want, "
a masculinity defined solely in opposition to women". There is no model of "This is a man" which isn't also implicitly saying "And therefore not a woman". And the second you set up that opposition you invite in the toxicity, the side-taking, the insults, negative generalising, and all of the awfulness that comes with it.**
I am totally comfortable with the idea that more men than women will have a preference for certain types of roles. That there are themes, such as the ones raised in the article (protector, provider, etc.) which appeal more to men than women***. But the idea that there is a maleness about these roles/themes - that there is something that cuts through them all making them more or less masculine or feminine just feels silly to me. If I decided to give someone a hug or talk about my feelings or go for a nap then that doesn't make me any less or more of a man.If more men than women like the colour green then that doesn't imbue the colour green with masculinity, and liking it doesn't make you more manly, or connect you to the ineffable source of maleness. There is no such thing, and adopting the idea that there is as a starting point is, once again, inviting in the toxicity.
What I believe we need - if we want to allow people to be themselves, in ways which work for them, are positive models of
adulthood. And specifically not just one model, but a variety of them. Numerous ways of being that work for different people by giving them guidelines and advice on how to be mentally, physically, and socially healthy - that have nothing to do with gender. That allow someone to say that they are a good man because they are a good person who happens to be a man, rather than because they're doing things that are specifically manly****.
* With a very stupid title. The article in no way provides a map.
** Which isn't to say that you won't get a ton of that anyway. But let's not take it as our starting point.
*** Or not - I'd want some decent research done on that front.
**** And, obviously, a good woman, or a good non-binary person.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
