Are We Not Men?
Reading Eye Weekly I came across this article about the disappearance of manliness. It appears to have been spawned by a film based on the exploits of a loutish sort of blogger named Tucker Max who freely admits that he is an irresponsible, mocking drunk whose sexual habits are a recipe for STIs. Writer Edward Keenan points out that Tucker Max is a hero to a cadre of young men and that is a symptom of, “the slow, steady disappearance of manliness — and with it a popularly accepted, socially worthwhile role for men — in North American culture.”
Now being written in an alt-weekly, you know that this article is not going to be a simple pining for the “good old days” of yore. Keenan recognizes (rightly, in my opinion) that the old-time patriarchy had plenty wrong with it as well. I commend to you Mad Men or the UK version of Life on Mars if you start getting nostalgic for a time when women “knew their place” and so on. What happened though is that as women broke out their old roles confined to homemaking and child-rearing, men have sort of given up. Says Keenan:
“[M]en in increasing numbers have just decided to kind of drop out of the whole battle of the sexes thing and play videogames (or beer pong, or fantasy football, or Dungeons and Dragons, or just their iPods) instead. When women decided to stop taking orders from The Man, men decided to stop being The Man and focus on being The Dude. As women have realized that with great freedom comes even greater and more frustrating responsibility, men have increasingly realized that they can chase their bliss and reach self-actualization without owning up to any responsibilities at all.”
Keenan goes on to suggest that this isn’t because men have stopped being men, they’ve just continued to be men but in a more useless way:
“It’s not as if men have dropped many of the old annoying characteristics of manhood. They are as competitive as ever, they are as lustful as ever, they still shun emotionalism and embrace codes and statistics and structures. It’s just that all the socially redeeming things that used to accompany those easy-to-spot external characteristics — things like a sense of honour and a feeling of responsibility to something greater than oneself, be it family or society at large — have been shrugged off like so much paternalistic baggage.”
This is true in virtually every expression of 21st C. North American masculinity – video games along could be a case study: There’s competition, gratuitous cleavage, dispassionate killing, and of course any good first-person shooter game will break down the numbers after each round – how many kills with each type of weapon, how many head shots, accuracy and so on. Blogs, ahem, aren’t much better, WordPress, like any good blogging platform has all manner of statistics, many of which can be published to the actual home page of one’s blog so that one might boast about them.
It might be worth noting at this juncture that Keenan is careful to point out that these are of course tendencies and not universal truths, but that tendencies, like how men tend to be taller than women are not to be overlooked. There are of course slacker women and career-climbing men out there, but increasingly it seems like both of these are exceptional cases. Keenan has numbers: Women are more likely to attend university, more likely to graduate, and more likely to go into professional schools like law or medicine.
Keenan argues that we have our definitions wrong, that when we today speak of masculinity, we think of “shallow displays of toughness and vulgarity, of an obsession with balls (of various kinds) and breasts and booze and brawn” while earlier generations would have probably associated masculinity with responsibility to their families and communities. Moreover, one should not contrast masculinity and femininity: “Men haven’t avoided manliness to become more like women — if they had, we’d have no problem, really. They’ve avoided it to become more like children.”
Some Theses About All This:
- We cannot go back – even if we would want to. Young women – even many of those who I encounter in evangelical church settings often have solid careers that I do not see them forsaking for 1950s family roles. Moreover, there’s a reason I put Don Draper up at the top of this post – there was lots to dislike about the “good old days” and certainly lots of men were reprehensible cads. No nostalgia, please.
- Traditionally masculine values such as courage or responsibility have been subject to all kinds of abuse. My great-grandfather returned from Passchendaele physically (and likely psychologically) wounded – and for what? To protect the lands of Belgium’s monarchy? To stop Germany from threatening British naval hegemony? World War I was a complete waste of blood and treasure at the behest of incompetent upper class twits like Douglas Haig. Men were often just as exploited by the old patriarchy as women. If I had to choose, I’d rather my generation of men and our sons grow up as video gamers than as imperial cannon fodder.
- The recent past is not the whole history of gender relations: for most of human history most men and women worked side-by-side in predominantly agrarian societies. That is not to say that gender didn’t serve as a means for the division of labour, but it would have been incoherent to say that one sex “stayed home” and the other “went off to work.” Even with the advent of industrialization, many women worked in factories (mainly in textiles). As the nature of work continues to change it is anachronistic to suggest that there are fixed gender roles regarding work. Who does what work is always up for negotiation.
- Men dropping out and women picking up the slack goes a long way in explaining the so-called happiness gap. I am referring to the fact that since the 1960s women have reported being less and less happy with their lives while men’s happiness has generally increased. Obviously if men are focused video games/bands/the internet while women work on their careers while still doing the bulk of the household chores/child-rearing it’s no secret who will, in the short term at least, be happier.
- The cohort of boys born in the late ’70s and onward and who had grown up in North America probably had, on average, the best material childhood and adolescence in human history. We enjoyed the best toys, games, and gadgets ever. Boys playing with the tin or wooden toys of yesteryear had mediocre simulations of real trucks or real soldiers or whatever. We had Nintendo, we had toy cars that became robots, we had, in short, playthings that were better than “real life.” It’s no wonder we don’t like the idea of growing up, it’s a downgrade from childhood. Girls meanwhile were still being exposed to the intense pressure to be physically attractive while simultaneously being expected to run for student council, play sports, and get into a good university. For girls growing up didn’t remove those pressures, but at least it afforded them a sense of autonomy.
- If men are afraid to compete with women when women are on an equal footing, well, it should be obvious which is the weaker sex. Men were not defeated or victimized by feminism, rather we appear to have unilaterally surrendered – you can have the perfect kids and the great career – but we just unlocked the bonus level on this game. Is it any wonder, given the way we behave, that women want daughters more than sons? While some cultural conservatives want to depict men and boys as victims of feminists or something, my generation – men now in their 20s and 30s – did this to ourselves.



Dan: This is an very interesting post and as a late baby-boomer I am pretty sure these trends affects my generation far less than yours. I wonder to what degree you yourself identify with all this. You speak in first person, “my generation” etc.
“…we just unlocked the bonus level on this game.” Excellent observation. It appears that women have lost out as a result of feminism. Ivan Illich observes some similar things in his book Gender, i.e., that women aren’t happier. Often in traditional agrarian cultures the division of labor is stacked against women, 2-3 hours more work per day. Plus ça change …
I don’t know if I would say that women “lost” a result of feminism – I think we are in a better place now than when my mother worked outside the home before I was born and made less than some of the men in her office despite having greater responsibilities than them. I mean in one sense there is now a greater choice of how women can live their life – they do more work but at least they have agency in deciding to do more. What is curious to me at least is that men have given up even trying. Go into a high school classroom and you will find it remarkable how the girls are far more likely to have dreams and plans for the future where the boys tend to be aimless.
As far as how I see these phenomena in my generation and myself – and I definitely do – it varies from person to person, but there are continual examples. One I can think of off the top of my head: My wife’s job involves doing a lot of hiring – particularly of younger people – and I once observed that she seemed to hire way more women than men, and she told me that she just found it difficult to find men who took work seriously. Now if you read the original article Keenan makes the point that it’s not a universal thing where all men are one way and all women are another way. I offered up the theses that I did in part as possible reasons for why things are the way they are based on my own observations. I do not think that there’s any simple explanation – e.g.: I don’t buy the theory that we had bad TV role models in Homer Simpson or Al Bundy since bumbling men have been a cultural staple since the Honeymooners or perhaps even The Three Stooges.
But if women were happier before than they did lose even if they can make more money. I for one am not happy with the way that our culture promotes women and gives them vision for the future, while removing the kinds of things that drive men, such as competition. I don’t know what the solution is to what you are saying, but I think one step would be to stop promoting women through affirmative action. That is hardly even necessary today. Perhaps another would be to insist on male-only pastors in the church.
But one reason that male employees made more is generally they are more consistent and therefore could be counted upon. I know something about this. No man in our company has ever taken maternity leave. My mother was a dermatologist who worked on 3.5 days a week, compared to my dad, likewise a physician, who worked about 6 days a week.
I took a maternity leave (although the proper term for a male taking such a leave is a ‘parental’ leave).
With regards to happiness, men’s happiness has been increasing in the past decades – more-so than women’s happiness has declined – so in one sense if we count how people respond to questions about how happy they are, than men should just keep on doing what they’re doing, no change needed.
As far as competition as a motivator for men, if that was what was needed, then how are we to explain the greater percentages of women in law and medicine programs? These are extremely competitive programs.