Oooh, this looks interesting. You'll have to let us know when it comes out.

I've long been of the opinion that the "need" for sexism would be lessened if we could provide masculinity and what we consider "masculine" with a specific definition of its own. It seems like a lot of the time, "masculine" is defined simply as "not feminine," so men are presented not with a concept of what they should be, but rather with a concept of what they should not be. (Don't be a sissy, don't be a fag, boys don't cry, etc.) When you can only define yourself by what you are NOT, what you are not becomes what you must avoid, scorn, and distance yourself from, otherwise your identity dissolves. The "not" is a threat to who you are. It is something you should fear.

I think this is a big chunk of why misogynistic men (MRAs and the like) find feminism and women who don't adhere to traditional "feminine" gender roles so threatening--because as we broaden the definition of what is considered acceptably "feminine", the definition of what is "masculine" becomes correspondingly narrower. Naturally, they view this as an attack on their very identity, resent that the fine line they walk is getting even finer, and blame us for making it happen.

Best of luck to your friend. I wish him an abundance of success.

Vervain, have you read Nancy Chodorow's work? She supports a lot of what you say, especially in her essay "Family Structure and Feminine Personality." What she says is that because overwhelmingly children are raised by women, and in our culture until recently men have not had an active role in spending time with their kids, boys develop a discontinuous sense of self--at some point, normatively, they have to give up identifying with their mothers and identify themselves as masculine. But because they usually don't have a present male model taking an active hand in their day-to-day lives, they develop a negative sense of identity--not meaning that they develop a bad one, but that they end up defining masculinity by defining it as being not feminine/womanly/like their mothers, and in order to emphasize that difference, they adopt scorn for that which is feminine.

Anyway, sorry to rehash it, but it sounds so much like what you were saying that I thought you might be into it.

Yes, since your friend's project is for "queer male writers to step up", what's really great about this, is that we will be able to use this to tell straight men how they should behave, think, and act.

It's perfect, and just what the matriarchy needs!

Oh man, Vervain, I agree with you so very much. For those reasons, I would *love* for some (more) gender-studies-type attention to be paid to what masculinity has been and is (especially since that field seems to be currently dominated by Harvey Mansfield types, ergh).

I think an worthwhile intellectual exploration would be to see how the relative lack of definition of "masculinity" and of "whiteness" pair up. To the extent that a plain-language discussion of masculinity (or of whiteness) can be distilled down from theoretical terms of art (e.g. hegemonic, "the other", etc.) to more concrete practical terms, it may have great relevance particularly as we see the likelihood of either a black man or a white woman emerging in 18 months as the next President of the United States.

Actually, EG, I haven't read her work, but since it's a topic that interests me, I definitely will have to check it out. Thanks for the recommendation!

It's kind of nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks about this stuff. ;)

Me three! I just took and aced a comprehensive exam about this so maybe I don't want to talk about it right now. Just kidding. Yeah. Deconstructing masculinity for white men, men of color, all men, all women, is one of my things.

I for one can vouch for Trevor. What he's doing is fantastic. He's taking part in helping bridging the gap between activism, general public and academia.

Please contribute if you haven't already!

Ok, I realize that we are all subject to pressure from the world around us. But, why do we need to define something as broad as masculinity. Shouldn't it mean something different to every person?

For some men, it can be defined as the ability to shoot a deer at 100 yards. For others, it can be defined as achieving a happy house, home, and family. For some, it can be defined as how well you can fight in a bar. It all depends on what is important to you.

Dave, deconstructing it is important because it's causing problems for men and women. Masculinity has been pretty standard over time:

1. No Sissy Stuff: anything that even remotely hints of femininity is prohibited. A real man must avoid any behavior or characteristic associated with women. 2. Be a Big Wheel: masculinity is measured by success, power, and the admiration of others. One must possess wealth, fame, and status to be considered manly. 3. Be a Sturdy Oak: manliness requires rationality, toughness, and self-reliance. A man must remain calm in any situation, show no emotion, and admit no weakness. 4. Give 'em Hell: men must exude an aura of daring and aggression, and must be willing to take risks, to "go for it" even when reason and fear suggest otherwise.

Not to contradict your fancy book learning Donna ;) but I'm not sure that I agree with the big wheel criteria. Some(if not most) of the "manliest" characters are the underdog, the unknown, the grunts.

Clint Eastwood is perhaps the best example. I can't think of any role where he's been any higher on the fame list than a common grunt, but no one would say his characters weren't masculine.

;P Coast, I don't watch Eastwood films but doesn't he "win" out in the end? The pillars of masculinity are reserved for a tiny minority and men strive to attain all four. In the end of this movies, he probably does (manly, successful, unemotional, takes risks).

So just out of curiosity, why IS this limited to queer/trans/bi/gay men? Speaking as a "straight" male , I think there's a need to expand that to explore the masculinities available to us too...I don't want to be stuck in some dumb macho stereotype of what it means to be a man, yet this project seems to suggest that the only way to escape or move beyond traditional masculinity is through sexual orientation.

I disagree with the above comments that masculinity is usually defined in a negative way--I think DonnaDarko is more right on that there are a number of key positive (not in the sense of good, but in the sense of active) traits traditionally identified with manliness, and as your perhaps prototypical scrawny nerd don't (want to be forced to) fit any one of them.

Just a guess, Ethan:

But I think any man who has relatinships with women, even if he doesn't view /himself/ as macho per se, may be embodying certain aspects of the stereotypical "masculine role". (I don't know you, of course, but I was with a guy who might have been similar to you. He was constantly complaining about gender stereotypes and obviously didn't see himself as masculine (but of course, he was comparing with other straight men). I never told him, but I definitely thought he acted in certain stereotypically masculine ways in relationship to me).

I think with a queer guy, there's less chance their gender is going to be defined in anyway relative to female partners. And then of course, queer men are still biologically men, so they will have things to say that could apply to straight men, as well.

No doubt. That's sort of why it's important to get straight men in on the conversation. I don't deny that I absolutely have internalized traditional masculine gender roles etc. and would love to help contribute to thoughts about how to overcome it, and how to construct a positive masculinity that can rid itself of that baggage.

And honestly, I'm not particularly bothered personally by associating non-traditional masculinity with queerness, as this project seems to do, I just think that a lot of men might be. Or not bothered, but just turned off--if my choices are being a traditional man or being queer, well, I know I'm not queer so I must be a traditional man.

Ethan, if you read the four rules carefully, traditional masculinity is about the exclusion of women, gays, minorities, the poor, the powerless and those of low status. It's also about blocking out emotions, aggression and irrational action.

"In the end of this movies, he probably does (manly, successful, unemotional, takes risks)."

There's plenty of manly characters that don't wind up with success in the end. The fact that most do is most likely to do with the fact that the good guy winning is a recurring theme in all of our stories. It doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.

There's also plenty of very masculine characters that don't win in the end. See: Shane or any war movie.