Is Masculinity In Crisis?
By Troy L Parrish
Is masculinity in crisis? Most certainly masculinity is in a period of flux, with the definition of what a man in and how he is to behave being uncertain. Some would argue that masculinity as we have known it for the last several centuries is under attack. Book such as Iron John by Robert Bly and Wild at Heart by John Eldredge suggest that some men are struggling to find what it is to be a man. The "men's Movement" of the 1990s is further evidence of the searching to define what it is to be a man and what masculinity should look like. Is there a need to define masculinity? Does masculinity need to be reshaped to work within our current culture? To what degree do these changes represent an attempt to alter what is a natural part of a male? And most importantly, what implications do these changes have for the way we raise our sons?
Looking at the way our society is reacting to aggression in boys, it would seem that the common belief is that boys are trained to be stoic in their behavior and to suppress their emotions. They are trained to little men, who do not cry and are tough. In his book Real Boys suggests that there is a "boy code" that encourages boys not to be emotionally expressive. This suppression of emotion then results in acting out of emotion that culminates in a physical expression of the those emotions. The horrible incidents of school shootings, the most notable of late being the shooting at Virginia Tech creates certainly a sense of panic as well as a desire to understand what is going on with these shooters and what makes them behave the way they do. The fact that these shooter happen to all be male leads many to the conclusion that the problem is that we have not been sufficiently training our boys to manage their emotions, to be expressive of their feelings in order to cope with what is going on in their lives in a less lethal fashion. The solution then becomes one of learning to spot the subtle ways in which we encourage these stoic, suppressive behaviors in boys and modify them. We need to learn to encourage our boys to express themselves verbally, to learn to talk about their feelings in order to provide an outlet for these horrible emotions. We need to learn to encourage the softer, more nurturing side of boys so that they will not be prone to aggression.
This theory supposes that boys and girls are innately alike in terms of how they relate to one another and how boys and girls express their feelings and that it is only through socialization that the sexes begin to be different in terms of how they manage emotions. It also supposes that a boys tendency to express his feelings through actions is problematic, a product of socialization that has been harmful to boys and as a result predisposes them to be harmful to themselves and potentially those around them. This theory supposes that if we can only catch our own bias we can effectively create an environment where boys are permitted to be more nurturing and expressive, or in reality, more like girls are. But is this really an accurate way of viewing children? There is an abundance of evidence that boys and girls are different in more ways than simply there anatomy. There are significant differences in terms of their hormone levels as well as differences in brain structure and functioning. There are typically differences in terms of the abilities of boys and girls display as they develop. While the degree to which these differences influence behavior and likes and dislikes of children remains uncertain, it appears intuitive to assume that these differences have some influence on the differences we see in boys and girls. A chief difference is the degree to which each sex is able to use verbal skills in order to express themselves. It is well known that girls are far better at verbal expression than boys. It is also known that boys are better at visual spatial and gross motor activities. It would stand to reason that girls would be more prone to express their feelings through verbalization and that boys when really frustrated may use physical expression of their emotions. A study at Vanderbilt university showed that indeed young boys had a tendency to display their frustrations in peer relationships through physical aggression. As the boys matured, they had a tendency to move away from physical aggression and move towards social aggression. Other pieces of research have shown that girls will use social aggression as well, but are not prone to the physical aggression like boys are. Yes indeed, there are innate differences. To think otherwise is to risk missing the mark in terms of raising our sons.
Do we really need to redefine masculinity? Is there a need to learn a new and "better" way to raise boys? Is it really true that the old definition of masculinity is outmoded and harmful to boys? The prevailing wisdom seems to indicate that there is harm being done in terms of shaping our boys with notions that are associated with traditional masculinity. Pollack's book Real Boys suggests that there is harm being done to them in terms of the "boy code" and teaching our sons unhealthy ways of dealing with their emotions. The notion is that the old form of being masculine is to repress one's emotions, to be strong and stoic. But is this really the case?
I would argue that the old form of being masculine is to learn to manage one's emotions and to have mastery over them. I believe that the old form of being masculine would allow a man to be strong when it was required and be gentle when he needed to be, a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. History reveals men who could be the paragons of masculinity yet be tender and loving husbands and fathers. George Washington was viewed by his contemporaries as a "man's man" yet he was also known to be very sensitive to criticism as well as being very tender towards his stepchildren and had a loving relationship with his wife. He clearly had a love for his soldiers and even formed a very warm bond with Lafayette. Watching old movies will reveal men who could be strong and courageous but yet very much aware of their feelings and capable of expressing those feelings and even putting them into action. The example in Casa Blanca in which Humphry Bogart is very aware of his emotions for the Lauren Bacall character and is willing to be self sacrificial because of his love. The friendship between Bogart's character and the character portrayed by Claude Raines displays men who could be courageous, strong and yet sympathetic and caring. I would suggest that such individuals would not need to be reprogrammed in order to be viewed as healthy. I would go further and suggest that most men and even women would admire men who could balance the feat of being fully masculine in the old sense of the word and yet be caring and loving when the situation required it. Of course, my speculation on what it was like to be man in the past is just that, a speculation, but so is the speculations of others who would have us believe that men were trained to be emotional stones.
So is the old model of masculinity outdated? I don't believe so, if fact I strongly believe that we need to return to that masculine identity. I believe that training boys to manage their emotions is absolutely essential. That to do any less is indeed a disservice to them. James (Continues on page 2)