I recently read a fascinating article – so interesting I’m still thinking about it nearly a month later. It was by Louis Staples for GQ, and it discussed why men want to play devil’s advocate. The primary thesis was that to be a ‘debater of ideas’ was a vital part of displaying middle-/upper-class masculinity.

Here’s an extract:

Florêncio, who is Portuguese, has noticed a “British form of dominant masculinity” pervading through public life and institutions, where men of a similar class background are heard speaking on most issues. “Speaking out” becomes a way for elite men to underline their spot top of the food chain, but also for middle- and working-class men to live out their aspirations of joining them up there…“Historically, men have been associated with reason, and women with emotions,” he says. “There’s a long history of men feeling that, as a man, you can engage with everything. And that you can engage with it objectively.” But when marginalised groups speak from their own standpoint, it’s a very different way of approaching things. This poses a challenge, Florêncio thinks, to a masculinity that has historically been assumed to be a “default perspective” that has been allowed to masquerade as having no individual position. “Men have historically had the job of speaking on behalf of everybody, so they have never needed to centre themselves. The authority to speak on everything comes from a perception that they’re not speaking from their own experience or perspective, but just the facts of the world.” – Louis Staples for GQ

And this fits into a trend I’ve been spotting recently.

“There’s something wonderful about a man chasing a woman. There’s a traditional approach to that, which is nice. I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I’m old-fashioned for thinking that. It’s very difficult to do that if there are certain rules in place. Because then it’s like: ‘Well, I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to called a rapist or something…Now you really can’t pursue someone further than, ‘No’. It’s like, ‘OK, cool’. But then there’s the ‘Oh why’d you give up?’ and it’s like ‘Well, because I didn’t want to go to jail?’” – Henry Cavill, quoted in GQ Australia

What seems to be happening, is that men were brought up in a society that told them that being a man was one thing, and then changed what that thing was; the definition of what it is to be a good man has shifted. In the GQ article, men are required to move from their traditional ‘speaking for everybody’ role; Henry Cavill was being asked to acknowledge that so much of traditional wooing behaviour was only a small step from harassment. And some men appear to be finding this change of role hard.

You will be confronted with the new and different every day for the rest of your life if you choose to live in a major city anywhere in the world. If you cannot handle the pace of change, head inland, become a farmer, live and die on the seasonally changing land’s pace… If you live where the world is being transformed by technology, the only mindset which works is the adaptive one. Adaptive thinking allows you to be a nurturer on Monday, a warrior on Tuesday, a manager of your home on Wednesday, a parent on Thursday, and a caregiver to an aging loved one on Friday. – Thaddeus Howze for the Good Men Project

“Another thing is even approaching [women]. Ask on Reddit about it, every single possible venue has its detractors. “Don’t ask me at the store, I’m just there to shop.” “Don’t ask me at class, I’m there to learn.” “Don’t ask me at salsa lessons, I’m there to dance salsa, and I’d be uncomfortable dancing with guys who ask me.” “Don’t ask me at the coffee shop, I’m there to read/work.” “Don’t ask me at the bar, I’m just there to drink with friends.” “Don’t ask me at the club, I’m just there to dance with friends.” It would be one thing if these were just framed as personal preference, but these always carry the implication that any guy who would do this is probably predatory. And God help you if you DARE ask any follow-up questions about any of these. If you do, it’s obviously because you want to invalidate her opinion or you think you’re entitled to women’s time.” – Writer to Dr Nerdlove

This is compounded by the fact a lot of the discourse around masculinity is very binary:

The then-CEO of men’s mental health charity CALM Jane Powell…said: “There is no give because there is no permission for give. Either you’re a proper man or you’re not. So things like shame, embarrassment, guilt – failure to be a proper man is the ultimate disgrace for them.” –Poorna Bell for Joe

That masculinity is conditional on behaviour:

In my conversations with men, this particular role came up a lot – and it seemed to hit a nerve. Mike got the memo loud and clear: “Earn money, or be independently wealthy. In ‘standard’ society, a woman should be beautiful, and a man should be rich.” As did Michael: “To be a man,” he learned, “you must have money and material possessions”… Craig agreed: “My parents disapproved of my major choice (German linguistics) because it didn’t have enough earning potential – especially for a man who has to provide for a large Mormon family. My dad is a doctor, so he chose a good, manly profession, unlike the liberal arts.” – Greta Christina for AlterNet

“A man is only loved on the condition that he provides something.” – Chris Rock, in ‘Tamborine’

And that the standard performance of masculinity requires sacrifice:

Joel Wong, who led the research team at Indiana University Bloomington, said: “In general, individuals who conformed strongly to masculine norms tended to have poorer mental health and less favourable attitudes toward seeking psychological help, although the results differed depending on specific types of masculine norms. – Sarah Marsh for The Guardian

‘Misfits’ and poor recruits, for example, were still thought to break down more easily under stress and neurosis continued to be associated implicitly with weakness and lack of will…throughout the second half of the 20th century, social drinking increasingly became a primary cultural symbol of ‘manliness’… Heavy drinking symbolised greater masculinity than lighter drinking, and the more a man tolerated his alcohol, the more manly he was deemed. – Ali Haggett for The Psychologist

Society is changing. Definitions of gender roles are changing. Many men have been taught that masculinity is something that they must achieve or be a failure, that masculinity is something they do rather than something they are; the performance of masculinity comes at a cost to mental, emotional and physical health, but men are taught either that this is a cost that is worth paying, or that there is no cost at all. From that framing, is it at all surprising that those who sacrificed, those who performed, and those who now have found the world has shifted, are angry and confused?

This brings up many big questions, but let’s pick one for this post: Why aren’t women finding this hard? Have societal expectations for women not shifted as much, or are women reacting differently? And I’m not interested in any answers to these that paint men as being less in charge of their destiny, or less capable of change, or in any other way lesser – they aren’t.

I have a few hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Change is hard, but women have had to learn the skills to be better at it. For example, in the 80s, women were told they should be strong and tall, and in the 90s tiny and waif-like. Perhaps the fact that women have been expected to change with the whims of society and men haven’t – or at least, haven’t as much – may be related to this in some way. Women are used to society saying ‘how you look/behave isn’t acceptable any longer’ and then we all say ‘ok’ and change.

Hypothesis 2: Women are, men do. It should go without saying that having your worth focussed on your appearance or innate character is deeply harmful, but having your entire value focussed on your actions is harmful in a different way. This parallels my main problem with the American Dream: that declaring anyone can be president has an unspoken opposite, which is that if you don’t become president, that’s your failure rather than anything in society holding you back. Female discourse is very clear that not every woman could look like Rihanna even she wanted to ¹ , and it should be equally clear that the limitations on ‘do’ are just as firm as the limitations on ‘be’. This is slightly compounded by the fact that, since most narrative in society is written by men, ugly women don’t exist, but unsuccessful men do. We don’t see the consequences to women of being ‘ugly’², but the consequences of being unsuccessful are painted very large.

Hypothesis 3: The change to the male role means giving up power in some form, very possibly because aspects of the new role occupied by men is more ‘female’ and therefore less valuable in society. Caitlin Moran makes this argument very convincingly in her book More Than a Woman:

…female things are, still, seen as lesser. It was understood why women want the men’s things – they are the things of power…but if men wanted to take women’s things – crying, and hugging, and flowers, beautiful textiles, and looking sexy – they would be seen to be taking the soft things. The ‘losing’ things.³

Hypothesis 4: Something about the nature of male roles makes change harder. Is there something in the standard definition of a man that says he has to stand up against change, or remain the advocate of ‘truth’ even if he’s the only advocate? Does this take us full circle, back to debate as a key definer of masculinity?

Hypothesis 5: Women are finding change as hard as men are, but their voices are heard less often.

So what do you, imaginary reader, think? Has ‘what it means to be a man’ shifted? Do any of these hypotheses resonate? I’m not here to provide an answer – that should come from men, who should understand their position best – and I don’t have a conclusion to my thoughts. Luckily, as the reason for this blog is to stimulate my thinking rather than to reach a conclusion, I don’t need to.

So I’ll stop here.