A few months ago, I went to an ace unconference–an unconference being an event where attendees create sessions on the spot, rather than planning sessions in advance. I’ve been to quite a few of these, and I usually end up attending a discussion on ace men, because men are a minority within ace communities, and that’s worth talking about.
However, something was different this time. This discussion was framed around ace masculinity, rather than ace men. I relate much more to one than the other.
Several attendees were interested in the question of how to maintain their masculinity while being ace. A lot of masculinity is associated with being sexually aggressive, so ace men are perceived as less masculine. However, they were still invested in following some form of masculinity, either because it was gender affirming, or because they wanted a certain presentation as they approached dating, or because they just liked it. So they were talking about stuff like clubbing and going to the gym.
I don’t deny the value of the discussion, but my reaction was “oh god, I hate masculinity so much.” I said: being ace isn’t a challenge to my masculinity, it’s an opportunity to escape it. I talked about how much I liked growing my hair long despite initially feeling that it wasn’t very gender affirming. I talked about preferring Zumba instead of gym workouts. Several other attendees voiced similar feelings (noticeably, the ones with longer hair).
When it comes to masculinity, a lot of discussion centers around toxic masculinity. There’s this idea that to get rid of toxic masculinity, we need to find a better substitute, a positive masculine ideal for men to follow.
So, in reference to my anecdote, why do I have this negative reaction to masculinity? Is it because of toxic masculinity? No, not at all. There’s nothing inherently toxic about going to the gym. I just really don’t like gyms. Even if you found a “positive” masculinity, I probably still wouldn’t like it. Positive masculinity is not for me, and it’s not for me to propose what a positive masculinity should look like.
However, I got an opinion about that.
When people imagine a replacement for toxic masculinity, they envision the polar opposite, a virtuous masculinity. But we’re ignoring the middle ground, what I’ve called a harmless masculinity.
If masculinity is conceived as a set of virtues, where does that leave someone like me, who prefers to reject masculinity? If I reject masculinity, would I therefore be a villain? Perhaps the gay-coded mustache-twirling type? For that matter, if masculinity is a set of virtues, where does leave women? If a woman does the right thing, should that ever be coded as masculine? If it is truly a virtue, then why should it only be a virtue for men?
Besides, we already have a virtuous masculinity. “Hegemonic masculinity” refers to the cultural ideal of masculinity, the masculinity expressed by the archetypical male hero protagonist. Hegemonic masculinity is not a description of men in the real world, but rather a prescription of what men are supposed to live up to–and fail to live up to. It’s a carrot held cruelly over our heads, and our lot in life is to crawl over one another to reach for it, in vain.
When people propose a positive masculinity, what they’re really proposing is a refurbishment of hegemonic masculinity. They want to excise the masculine “virtues” that aren’t really virtues at all. They want to make the masculine ideal more realistically attainable, without putting down other men in the process.
But what I want, is for masculinity to be “take it or leave it”. Like a fashion choice, something we are free to enjoy or ignore. And that precludes envisioning masculinity as a set of virtues.
If masculinity is conceived as a set of virtues, where does that leave someone like me, who prefers to reject masculinity? If I reject masculinity, would I therefore be a villain?
Don’t tie masculinity to virtues (in spite of the origin of the word “virtue”) simply be virtuous on one axis and whatever degree of masculine you wish on the other. The whole problem with toxic masculinity, in my opinion, is the connection to virtue: if someone wrongs you, avenge yourself, Charles Bronson-style. This is manliness, how? It is simply violent thuggery and, as history and our media teach us, it is well within the capability of men and women of various degrees of virility (e.g.: Bernie Goetz was possibly reenacting a Charles Bronson movie in his mind’s eye). The issue is confused by class consciousness and social status but in ancient Japan, a great samurai warrior could be meticulous about his appearance, write poetry, and fight nobly on a battlefield. The word “nobly” even does work there, because things like Bronson-style revenge were not considered virtuous, though peer-to-peer revenge was (i.e.: two equals might fight a duel and everyone would appreciate it, but an armed expert soldier cutting down unarmed people who begged for money Bernie Goetz style would be shunned) What I am getting at, here, is that it is our society that is weak and sick and does not understand masculinity and its relationship to virtue. Even ancient Romans would not encounter a warrior setting out to murder beggars. What I think we are seeing is a very distorted view of masculinity coupled with cultural and political dominance from the US. We keep making these movies extolling sick weak-ass punks like “Dirty Harry” who use superior skill and social status to murder people with a quip. The problem is US. There is something seriously wrong with us.
The deeper question, of course, is “what is it that is wrong” and I’d point toward christianity on one hand, and the psychological distortions resulting from slave ownership and the genocide of first peoples. It is impossible to grow up brave and honorable under such conditions, so we have established a sort of weird blustery, violent cowardice.