Rethinking Masculinity - Philosophical Explorations in Light of Feminism

Introduction

This is an anthology of philosophical essays on various issues on masculinity and thus this article will be separated by the corresponding issues.

Sex and Social Roles: How to Deal with Data

This essay argues that sex differences from research should not inform social roles. This is due to data showing already cultural changes between the sexes and shows nothing as to concluding certain social roles. Furthermore, even if there were biological differences, why use armchair speculation to say a certain characteristic is for a certain role or that a task requires 1 characteristic and not a multitude of others or what does it mean if there’s a statistical difference between the sexes (do all men have a higher characteristic than all women?). Another criticism is that the pursuit of an egalitarian society is unrealistic BUT NOT ETHICALLY UNDESIRABLE.

Behavior, Biology, and the Brain: Addressing Feminist Worries about Research into Sex Differences

This essay contends the opposite of the previous one where research into sex differences should be conducted. Gender is defined as social, cultural, pschological aspects linked to males and females through particular social contexts. His arguments are the data doesn’t have to be misled (women as college professors not phone operators due to better verbal ability), truly egalitarian society would be horrible since equal opportunity and equal ability would mean using a lottery for certain roles, and biological factors can be tempered by hormonal/psychological therapy rather than being sanctioned (not an endorsement of determinism).

The Enduring Appeals of Battle

The three secret attractions of war are seeing (“lust of the eye” - Bible; escapes monotony, beauty in battlefield), comradeship (due to common goal and danger, small organised group stronger than larger unorganised group e.g. few guards escorting hundreds of prisoners), and love of destruction (references Freud’s Eros and Thanatos instincts). Each of these reasons lead to an ecstatic character which leads to being outside the self which is the major reason for liking war.

Masculinity and Violence

Males are usually violent due to having to always be aware and vigilant of the threat of physical violence, treat their bodies as efficient and unfeeling machines, and not in touch with their feelings from the patriarchy.

Male Friendship and Intimacy

The book was published in 1996, even back then men had a lack of intimate relationships. Comrades were not necessarily friends as they only had respect for the other person abstractly or as a generalised other such as a fellow solider or coworker. Intimate friendships can only come about through caring receptivity, being comfortable, and a mutual trust based on shared experience. To be able to make friends, self-disclosure through speech is necessary rather than self-disclosure through action as we don’t live in such a tight-knit community where this is realistic. Aristotle similarly presented friendship based on 3 things: utility, pleasure, and complete friendships.

Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and Threatened Identities

This essay is about how masculinity or ‘male’ gendered identity leads to homophobia. Homophobia is set amidst the background of heterosexism or the privileging of heterosexuality which leads to homophobia (violence and abuse). The threat to manhood then, is a threat to personal identity. A “gender traitor” is anyone who violates “rules” of gender identity or performance. This is espcially true for homosexual men and can be attributed to a non-exhaustive list: Repression Hypothesis (hypocrisy/virtue signalling where repressed gay men attack out gay men - “Methinks, thou doth protest too much”), Irrationality/Ignorance Hypothesis (Learned from family or uneducated and incentivised socially), and Political Response Hypothesis (queers have political agenda to eliminate heterosexual priviledge which sparks outrage). An example of homophobic violence was the Paul Broussard Incident and I also have to think about how most men are heterosexist not homophobic, including me. There was a time I joked around with 2 of my friends at a GoodLife after two men kissed each other next to me on the chest fly machine. I realised if this was just a hetero couple then I would not have really cared.

Real Men

This asks how men who reject the stereotypical male-female roles should relate with women romantically? Men’s trust being institutionalised and impersonal is easy for them (banks, money) but a sort of vulnerable trust is difficult as men cannot be seen as weak and vulnerable. The relationship needs to minimise the effects of social conditioning in the relationship. For example, men should carry their share of housework without it being seen as “supporting my mate” but rather being the bare minimum. Equity is the result not the goal of a close relationship and do not think about relationships in terms of rights/justice (makes it transactional). For example, a man finishes college while woman works vice versa. However, the man will have a headstart in his career and has more leverage in moving and other financial decisions. A solution to this could be working part-time and not furthering his career while she gets to a similar level. Another example is trying to help a woman get rid of sexist ideas in a relationship.

Do Black Men have a Moral Duty to Marry Black Women?

The arguments FOR this: racial purification, racial caution, racial solidarity, racial demographics (more black men in jail and dead leaving lots of black women), burden on the children (being mixed-race), and questionable motives (sexual eroticism - forbidden fruit or taboo, racial revenge - which sees women’s body as a conquest, racially-differentiated aesthetic attraction - Eurocentric beauty standards, and racial status-seeking and personhood by proxy).

Bioethics and Fatherhood

Motherhood is talked almost exclusively in bioethics but not fatherhood. Fatherhood is seen as a contractual relationship. Argues that artificial insemination is wronge since it came about since couples couldn’t conceive a child through disease but that responsibility was given to some anonymous doner rather than curing the disease. This promotoes male irresponsibility where biological father has no consequences in creating life. Furthermore, feminism saying that men don’t have a right to information about abortion minimises the importance of fatherhood.

The Facts of Fatherhood

Proposes a labor theory on parenthood where emotional work counts. Baby M incident where surrogate mother kidnaps child instead of returning it to couple. An exploitation of the bodies of lower class for the birth of upper class. Ideas in the past were seen as superior such as the poet’s ideas rather than the actions or the design plans rather than actual construction which is analogous to the “idea” of fatherhood versus the “fact” of motherhood. The “idea” of fatherhood can be referenced to the Hebrew God.

Fatherhood and Nurturance

These are reflections on equal parenting roles and being a father in terms of nurturance. The old ideals are the father as a ruler which originated from the industrial revolution where it was normalised for men to go out and work meaning little interaction with the children or as educators to create “sociable men”. The new ideal presented here is the nurturer. Nurturers have 3 qualities:

• Display caring behaviour for an extended period of time
• Intellectual commitment to the caring
• Identify oneself as a nurturing person

Nurturing is not the same as caring where nurturing fulfills a responsibility, involving a commitment for some period of time to an end state (adulthood/health) whereas being caring doesn’t have this. Nurturance is also a better ideal than intimacy where intimacy requires reciprocity whereas nurturance doesn’t. A sign of a man want to be fully equal parents is wanting a female first offspring.

About Losing It: The Fear of Impotence

Argue that the male fear of impotence is based on their identity to dominate women. References made to Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Hemingway’s The Sun also Rises. Men panic as this is seen as a basic instinct (analogous to fear of death or shock from sudden loud noises) but fortunately, instincts can be overcome. Men also think of sexuality as a performance rather than a relationship to another person.

Pornography and the Alienation of Male Sexuality

This examines pornography’s model of male sexuality. This has a negative impact on male sexuality since an aspect of patriarchy operates to the disadvantage of the group it privileges even though the overall system is to men’s advantage. Hence, the dominant group is “alienated”. The alienated pornography male sexuality has two qualities: the objectification of body (restricts sensuality for performance, the basic male sex organ is the skin not penis, unrealistic image of women who’s always willing and man always ready, mechanistic) and loss of subjectivity (men not free of demands of emotional intimacy where female sexuality accepts this for themselves but men repress this creating an unfulfilled void). There is a crisis of masculinity and patriarchy since men have collective power over women but individually dominated under patriarchal power.

Erogenous Zones and Ambiguity: Sexuality and the Bodies of Women and Men

Condemns homosexuality between men but is acceptable by women in media? This is due to women’s erogenous zones - breasts and vaginal passage - having both a sexual and life-based purpose. Men’s main erogenous zones have no life-based function and so there is no ambiguity. Women can be ambiguous whether they are experiencing arousal but men cannot (erection) and so if they witness a homoerotic scene it can easily be gathered of their state and why they don’t readily show physical affection to each other.

Honor, Emasculation, and Empowerment

I got tired.

Are Men Oppressed?

The discarded theories of oppression are psychological, inequality, and limitation theories. The Dehumanisation Theory of Oppression is used which is defined as “oppression is systematic dehumanisation of an identifiable target group.” As to whether men are oppressed, the socialisation (restricted gender role) argument and cost argument (men more likely to commit suicide, die younger, be homeless, alcoholic, etc.) are theories of limitation which were discarded. The expendability argument (violence against men is acceptable, men are drafted) is based on the dehumanisation theory but has no merit since women and children are the greater casualties and women not being in the military is due to women being values less not men. Hence, the author argues that men are not oppressed.