Masculinity is Just Fine. People in General? Not So Much
In the landscape of online activism spilling out in the flesh and blood of society, one of the most ridiculous questions being tossed out as a gotcha is both so loaded and so simple as to boggle the mind: What is a woman? The question is facetious because few asking it are actually seeking an answer—they already have one and the act of asking the question is to back up those queried into an ideological corner from which they have to fight their way out.
The question almost never asked is What is a man? I imagine no one asks this question because the definition has been codified into a series of behaviors rather than physical characteristics now labeled toxic. According to VeryWellMind.com "Toxic masculinity refers to the notion that some people’s idea of “manliness” perpetuates domination, homophobia, and aggression." That sounds reasonable except for that some people thing that Fox News does, positioning the ideas as common without specifying exactly who identifies "manliness" with domination, homophobia, and aggression. In fact, all three (with homophobia being the only truly overall poisonous behavior on this short list) are as easily directed at women as they are men.
In preparation for recording an episode of the I Like to Watch podcast, I sat down and viewed 1989's The Dead Poet's Society. Without too much interrogation, the film demonstrates an example of an authentic provocateur in the face of that very toxicity. It struck me (and perhaps it did so because I'm quite a bit older than I was when I first saw the film) that attaching the four pillars of the fictional school—Tradition, Honor, Discipline, and Excellence—to the bedrock of frowned upon masculinity is a mistake.
These four ideals are not entwined with domination, homophobia, or aggression. None of these four pillars present examples of misogyny, racism, or a built-in notion of any kind of supremacy. None of the four are masculine and certainly there are women in the world who value them in their daily lives as well.
Toxic.
It seems that those behaviors which we label toxic are nondenominational. Nether masculine nor feminine, these tactics are used by people in power. A woman in power is just as likely as a man to be overly competitive, disproportionally aggressive, greedy, sexually possessive, and on and on. It isn't the person. It's the person's proximity and hold to power that defines the level of toxicity.
Kurtwood Smith in The Dead Poet's Society exhibits toxicity in his overbearing parenting not because he's a man but because he has power over Neil. It ain't his hanging chad that motivates his behavior but his perceived perception in society and his fragile hold upon his own reputation. The same for the headmaster of the school. His actions are toxic but not definably male.
Back to that dirty little rhetorical trick of some people. Some people benefit from linking attitudes rightly seen as toxic to that which is masculine so the narrative is pushed that to be masculine is by default to be toxic. This is as false and unhelpful as calling blacks and Asians who skew conservative as white adjacent with the notion that conservative values are de facto white supremicist. It's as reductive as labeling all believers in BLM as race grifters because a few of the leadership used donations to pay their relatives big bucks and buy party houses. As myopic as deciding that femininity is most ably demonstrated by traditional girly pursuits like make-up and brunch.
Take, for instance, a couple. Married. Partner A is demeaning about Partner B's weight, age, libido. Partner A is all about domination, judgment, being in charge of every move the couple makes, allows Partner B to set the family budget but guards expenses with an iron hand. Partner A is found to lie about their whereabouts and routinely has sex with multiple others behind Partner B's back for years.
"That dog,' you say. "Typical man."
Partner A is a poster child for toxic behavior in a relationship. Partner A is my ex-wife. Nothing masculine about her, just a lot of toxic behavior.
The trouble with the identity tribalism at play at this specific moment in history is that none of the whittled down definitions of groups really works in most cases. For every man (defined for the purposes of this article as someone with a penis, either biological or surgically tacked on) who is cutthroat, assholish, hyper-competitive, overbearing, who uses his power and position for sex and financial gain at the expense of others there is a woman (again, someone with a vagina, either biological or surgically carved out) exhibiting exactly the same qualities. For every black or brown American looking to defund the police there are five others who would like an increased police presence in their neighborhoods. For each Republican election denier there is a Democrat who said the exact same thing about Trump's 2016 win.
Is being on time an aspect of white supremacy or just common courtesy?
Is being required to understand complex math for a job using complex math a sign of systemic racism or just common sense?
Is requiring someone substantially larger in weight than the average person to purchase two seats on a plane fat shaming or merely holding everyone to the same standard of baggage?
Rather than pretzel twist our ideologies into categorical falsehood, why not call it the way it is?
Tradition. Honor. Discipline. Excellence.
Punctuality. Study. Adherence to science. Honesty.
Emotionally vulnerable. Rational. Humble. Thick-skinned.
All behaviors of non-toxic people with no regard to race or gender.
Domination-driven. Inappropriately aggressive. Homophobic.
Dishonest. Greedy. Self centered. Thin-skinned.
Vindictive. Cruel. Petty.
All behaviors of toxic people with no regard to race or gender.
The common denominator of toxic people is not their chosen tribe or the identity assigned by the folks that love that sort of thing. The common element is power—either the possession of it or the overwhelming desire to acquire it. Money, status, popularity, influence. Wealthy women are as likely to be monsters in effort to gain more wealth and keep the wealth they have as wealthy men. White people with power are just as likely to be grifters and scumbags as black people with the same.
Our differences are minimal with two exceptions: economic class and political influence. Everything else boils down to cultural costumes and religious belief.
Ibram X. Kendi suggests that "past discrimination requires present discrimination" which is just an academic way of stating "an eye for an eye" is the road to systemic change. I think that's a petulant approach as well as one that guarantees that the power will always remain in the hands of despots and dickheads.
Recognize how similar we each on us are and build upon those aspects of universal human commonality. It's always better to create something than to destroy something (even if it's more cathartic to burn shit down).
