Socialism

it's questioning why they have to be masculine specifically when desirable characteristics among people are largely gender neutral.

Because young men exist, and study after study has shown that positive role models who look like the group in question have an outsized effect as compared to those from a different group. It's a matter of how easily a young person can imagine themselves as that other person.

I don't mean to argue against the degenderization of stereotypical behaviors and traits, and I've had plenty of role models who run the gamut of identities. But where is the inherent value in dismissing an identifier? We come to know ourselves through the similarities and differences we observe - what is gained if we think of one as inherently toxic? How much is lost if we abdicate our responsibility and allow regressive voices to offer the only definitions?

It's perfectly fine to be a feminine man. Young men do not need a vision of positive masculinity.

This is where my beef is. It's active dismissal of people for whom "masculine" is an identifier. This is an argument that there is no space for positive masculinity in social equity. If the goal is to destigmatize people being who they are, why are we choosing to stigmatize a subset of those people?

What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly?

I was hit for having emotions as a child. When my grandmother died, I was terrified of showing how sad I was because it would have meant a beating. I was terrified of acknowledging my female role models, terrified of the fact that I had them. I'd have loved to have a positive male role model! One who embodied the kinds of prosocial gender neutral behaviors that would have let me know I wasn't a complete outsider.

I appreciate you commenting, and I'm glad you found it useful as a prompt! I agree that "masculinity" needs an overhaul as a concept, and that the false dichotomy of masc vs fem should go by the wayside (as they pertain to stereotypes in society, not as facets of an individual's sense of self).

I agree, more role modeling of universal Good Person™ traits is fundamentally necessary in breaking down gender stereotypes.

But like, tell me that there's little value in a young man seeing another older man treat another person equitably and respectfully and having it explained as "the manly thing to do" and I'm gonna check out. Sometimes we have to tailor our language to meet the needs of the learner and we're not gonna get there giving regressive folks full reins of what words mean.

Thank you my friend. It certainly wasn't easy. But I was in therapy for other stuff already and that gave me a safe space to explore it.

Yeah I can still remember years ago my daughter getting really upset because she wanted a robot but it was in with the boys toys.

It's not the easiest thing to explain to a child when the stereotypes are forced down their throat by TV and older family members.

Luckily the media (some elements anyway) are getting much better and breaking that divide now.

@OneRedFox @Lmaydev I hope so, I really hated those terms. Those terms strip out individuality for the sake to conform to stereotypes.

I think to many, these terms have lost their meaning already. I personally never really used them, nor do most of the people I know. People are just people. The only place I see this distinction so strongly made is in media, and only certain kinds of media. I'm sure though that this doesn't represent everyone's experience, or every location, I just wanted to share that I think in some places this is already fairly well accepted.

I've had some great role models as a kid who were both biologically female and male, but the things they taught had nothing to do with gender. We have "they", but I wish we had a better singular gender neutral pronoun in English. "They" can be confused with plural and "it" can sound very rude. I guess distinguishing between singular and plural isn't critical... I just wish we had the ability to invent a new useful word and have it be widely accepted. So much of our society runs on precident and momentum sadly.

I think the generally accepted rule of thumb is: if it's bad, it's male generated. If it's good, it's only human and could have an origin in any gender (but mostly female). So, no...only negative masculinity can be attributed to males. Positive masculinity is just another thing that got under the umbrella of "females can have that too".

I was going with an /s but decided no to use it, because somehow this is the insane state of affairs in 2023, the 21st century.

I think it’s less to do with the traits themselves and more to do with the person and how they’re perceived. As other people have said - people get more of a significant impact from role models they can identify with or look like them. There’s so much room for role models of all types, but if we’re thinking about masculinity specifically, so many young men and boys only have masculine folk in their lives who, for example, don’t share their emotions - and this pattern affirms the idea that it’s not ‘manly’ to be vulnerable.

More people who express themselves in a ‘masculine’ way modeling these positive traits show other people with similar identities and expressions that it’s possible (and good) for them to do it, too.

Traditionally male masculinity is the protector role, the provider. Now these roles are dual gendered. I at least, trying to not speak for all men, find my value as a man when the family is protected, warm, eating well, and wants for little to nothing, and I see it as my responsibility to make that happen the most.