Weeks: WS601-a
Feminisms: The (Un)Becoming of Man?
WS601 Midterm Paper, October 2, 2012
That our lives are performatively constituted and socially constructed should cause alarm, since patriarchal and aggression-laden linguistic markers both describe and construct men and masculinity. Taking seriously the numerous claims made by authors we've read forces the question; if men are violent and condescending, could it be that they are being told (directly and indirectly) that to be men, for better or for worse, is to be aggressive and arrogant? I argue that associating men/masculinities most frequently with vices imprisons them to the very evils condemned, by maintaining the socially constructed & unjust reality. Many authors fail to suggest or even explore masculine paradigms that are not hegemonic, domineering, or aggressive, all while continuing to assume that such traits are inherently masculine. In doing so, they leave these things as they are, reinforcing a 'these things happen' mentality that men simply are statistically and/or socially [fill in derogatory adjective here]. In this brief paper, I will begin by outlining some of the methodological resources that our texts have given us for understanding how language and categorizations work upon gender. Then I will explore how men or masculinity are referenced in passing; what words are used and to what purpose they are leveraged. Finally, I will suggest that a double standard exists and the effect it has on men (and, by extension, women).
Risman, for one, describes how language is a "social structure"[1] that 'both constrains and creates' behavior.[2] Men and women become men and women by speech acts that produce the very thing named. Talking about men or women in certain terms crystallizes expectations of gender performance. Fausto-Sterling is more direct, arguing "the way we conceptualize gender and sexual identity narrows life's possibilities while perpetuating gender inequality."[3] Society watches the way men act en masse, which is indeed poorly. Then we describe them in those unkind ways, and lament that they are the way they are; "these things happen" we might say. On the other hand, feminist authors we have read challenge this 'natural law' approach, that what we see is the way things ultimately are. If reality is indeed socially constructed,[4] it stands to reason that the way we talk about masculinity should come under scrutiny for the reality our language constructs.[5] For example, if you repeatedly impress upon a child that they are angry and volatile, can you get upset when the (prophetic) reality you've constructed for them self-fulfills? Even in the process of negative reinforcement, one must identify the trait that is good and separate it from the bad.
It is not enough to merely categorize or observe, as those acts are never as benign as we would like to think. From the readings so far, there have not been many (if any) articulations of what positive male gender performance might look like. In the vacuum this creates, the only identifiable social structure being created is defined by the negative attributes men supposedly possess. Fausto-Sterling is right; this way of conceptualizing gender narrows possibilities and masculinity becomes not a thing unto itself (as patriarchy suggests), but a non-thing. In gender studies conversations, men become known merely by the thing they are not; either by not being women or not being constituted by characteristics such as violence or arrogance. The tables have turned; men have become merely non-women. However, both women and men should be autonomous and inter-dependent beings working together for a more just and equitable world. Anything less leaves real human bodies nothing by which to pattern their lives, no social structure to regulate gender.
Men and women alike, advocates for and opponents of feminism(s), maintain a linguistic structure that reinforces injustice. Far from blaming the proverbial victim, I am trying to take a fundamental concept of our readings at its word. If reality is indeed socially constructed, then we need to begin constructing a reality that gives men an escape from the violent and patriarchal gender roles by which they are socially imprisoned. The most glaring example here is in Risman, who alludes to masculinity in malevolent terms like "domineering." Recognizing the point she makes does not preempt making static the very "gender structure" she claims is dynamic. Words have power. Language bestows meaning. Hearing themselves framed exclusively in negative terms, directly or indirectly, has severely restricted the narrative options available for men.
Williams, whose treatise I found very helpful, claimed it is indisputable that a "locus of traditional masculine pride and self identity" is "physical combat and its modern equivalents."[6] That 17 veterans every day commit suicide,[7] most of whom (if not all) are men, quite viscerally challenges her unexamined assumption. If war is indeed a source of pride, how does one explain the troubling statistic? For suicide to be so common among individuals whose primary commonality is military and combat service suggests not pride at all, but a deep sense of shame and guilt. After all, people do not end their own lives for having high self-esteem. Williams' suggestion is indefensibly off the mark, as it would be for society at large to assume that war or physical combat is (or should be) a mark of virtue or pride. While Williams does identify male aggression as a "stereotype,"[8] she fails to recognize that it is a stereotype she herself has relied upon and reinforced simply by repeating it without substantive challenge. Such challenges must be in place prior to treating men and masculinity with the kind of casualness it has been in these readings; one must identify and critique particular forms to avoid making pejorative the whole. That there are benevolent and appropriate forms of masculinity must be assumed in discourse, and it has not been seen in our readings thus far. When men are misdiagnosed as wearing the proverbial shoe – ill fit by the reality created from the very social structure built by our descriptive language – everyone suffers.
We have heard enough about what masculinities should not be by repeated references to its worst characteristics; what is it that masculinities are, how might masculinities be more properly understood?[9] Many of the texts leave much to be desired here, though Williams does more than others in suggesting that father-infant bonding is underexplored. I need feminisms as a man in the same way that women need masculinities; defined not by their lack, but what they should be. Anything short of that is not far from the ignorant cop-out that Lorde laments. Lorde must surely recognize that she needed the very white women who invited her out of a lack of understanding, especially for their "women's exhibitions," "feminist publications" and "reading lists."[10] Her identification of this problem of ignorance is as true of her as it is of the subjects she criticizes. Her failure is that she assumes the need does not stretch across the "necessary polarity" of gender; sometimes men really do need women, not just to identify lack but to recognize and affirm virtuous gender performance, beyond merely indicting performative vices. The more we go on and on about the failures and foibles of some men as indicative of masculinity itself, the more we do ourselves a disservice. By writing about any gender through the lens of vices like arrogance and violence, theorists necessarily write such vices into that gender.[11] If "hegemonic masculinity" is reprehensible masculinity, then what does a more just and equitable masculinity look like, and why aren't we talking about that?
If the "necessary polarities" Lorde alludes to do exist, it might not be incredibly unwise to appropriate the language used before us. The symbols for male and female derive from the Roman gods Mars and Venus. Each god had their virtues and their vices. Mars is not just the god of war, but also the god of justice. Mars Hill in Greece, the areopagus, is the seat of the Greek Supreme Court. Venus was not just a mother, but she could be vain. She had nuance and complexity that can guide conversations in gender, if not absolutely dictate them. That something is corrupted implies that the thing exists primarily in an uncorrupt state. We need to search our language and social histories for the things that constitute not just benevolent femininities, but masculinities as well. The superficial treatment that the texts give men and masculinity is far from being inaccurate, it simply implies that "men will be men." But men are the way they are because we have failed to narrate their lives any differently. This attitude belies the very theses we have encountered time and again; the social construction of reality is a double-edged sword. Instead of merely describing what we see, we must cultivate a linguistic and social structure in which men and women alike are affirmed for the abundance of their virtues, not the other way around. How we describe genders matters because our descriptions write our observations therein. Men are not the sum of their weaknesses. The beautiful irony in all this is that we have feminisms to thank for this revelation.
Footnotes
[1] Risman, 83
[2] Risman, 83 (paraphrase)
[3] Fausto-Sterling, 8
[4] Risman, 84
[5] Risman, 83
[6] Williams, 75
[7] cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml To be fair, Williams piece was written a decade before the study was complete, but the assumption was in place in 2007, when the CBS study was conducted, and persists even today. I hear it frequently myself as a combat veteran, this assumption that my service evokes gratitude instead of lament, congratulations instead of contemplation. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
[8] Williams, 76
[9] I do not attempt answers to this question in this paper because it would require more space than I have, though I think the question is no less important to consider.
[10] Lorde, 100
[11] I have appropriated this logic from Oyewumi, O. cited in Fausto-Sterling, (20, n.92, p.268). The sentence originally reads; "…by writing about any society through a gendered perspective, scholars necessarily write gender into that society." Fausto-Sterling takes the statement thematically throughout the chapters we read of her work, and I find it to be reliable, and wondered if the same is true of writing vice into gender by speaking of it in those terms.
