kimcraig
ANTH144a: The Anthropology of Gender
Dr. Sarah Lamb
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
INTRODUCTION
In an undergraduate group discussion about trans-identity the question was posed: Why is it that we see more cross-cultural examples of transfemininity than we do transmasculinity? A thoughtful student responded with a very provocative answer that I have been dwelling on ever since. She said, “Maybe the reason we have more transfeminine identities is because the entry into manhood is more demanding and requires more trials and tests than femininity does. It’s therefore easier to become a woman than it is to become a man.” This idea stuck with me as much of my research interests lie in masculinity, specifically in emerging forms of Chinese masculinity. The trials and tests she spoke of made sense as a theoretical framing of how patriarchal standards are maintained by ensuring a device which I am calling a “threshold to masculinity”. These tests of manhood are not only required of transmen but men who are assigned male at birth (AMAB) as well. The equivalent threshold didn’t seem to exist for women in such a secretive and rigorous way, thereby creating categories of “men” and “non-men.”
The student’s comment is backed by a wealth of evidence ranging from ethnographic studies on gender highlighting masculine trials in the form of ritual and coming of age processes to public discourse on what it takes to “Be a man” which will be explored in this essay. I assert that the tests of manhood often position women (non-men) as either objects of protection or conquest. In exploring the most common thresholds of masculinity, I will focus on the trials that involve women in order to probe whether or not the tests only exist to uphold patriarchal standards. Later, I will also speculate what masculinity might look like if their relationship to women were taken out of the equation.
THEORY
While my interests are not in trans-identities specifically, but masculinity more generally, I found the student’s comment curious: in a world that is built upon patriarchal norms, wouldn’t it be more appealing to transition to a position of power, than away from it. Like the story of the Star-Bellied Sneetches (Dr. Seuss, 1953), a perfect visual metaphor for social constructs in relation to value: if it is more beneficial to have a star (read: penis), why would a person NOT want to have a star upon their belly (Figure 1)? Instead, we have a wealth of ethnographies where the opposite is true. While there is much written about the Brazilian Travesti (Kulick 1998), Indian hijras (Saria 2021), Thai ladyboys (Totman 2004), and Samoan fa'afafine (Abboud 2013) much less has been written on AFABs (persons "assigned female at birth") joining the realms of men (Blackwood, 2010). I speculate that the reasoning for this mostly unidirectional transition, might have something to do with an imagined “threshold of masculinity” and the trials it requires in order to earn the title of “man”.
Figure 1 - Star Bellied Sneetches. Illustration from Book by Dr. Seuss
In her 1974 essay, “Woman, Culture, and Society: a Theoretical Overview”, Michelle Rosaldo attempts to challenge the socially accepted ideology that manhood is taught, whereas women develop naturally (1974: 25). This argument builds off of Rosaldo’s contemporary and collaborator, Sherry Ortner, who writes that in most societies, men are seen as members of the public/cultural world, whereas women, because they produce and raise children, are more connected to nature (1972: 71-83). In other words, where girls are inherently feminine by nature, and will grow into women without training, boys need to go off to learn to become men in the act of semi-secretive rituals (Rosaldo 1974: 26). In this regard men are only produced through exercises of education, endurance, and sacrifice. We see this in Sambian society, where men are taken from their mothers at age seven to begin their education into the ranks of men and are taught to stay away from women who would otherwise pollute their manhood (Herdt 1994). Any framework of seclusion, secrecy and sacrifice is a useful social construction to perpetuate one demographic’s dominance. If manhood is created by exclusivity and tested in ritual from which women are excluded, it gives the illusion of power, supporting hegemonic masculinity.
The same kind of framework has been exercised to enforce white dominance for centuries. Social facts like the One Drop Rule, maintain barriers of exclusionary power, just like the blue stars of Dr. Seuss' sneetches (1953) (Figure 1). Similarly, with masculinity, if there is any reason to believe a person is not “a man” for reasons of anatomy, mannerisms, stature, speech, behavior, or interests, they will be relegated to the less-valuable umbrella category of “non-man” (Figure 2) until they can prove otherwise. Such rigid barriers to claim manhood are one of the many systems in place to keep what Raewyn Connell refers to as hegemonic masculinity, where men are valued above women, thereby legitimizing men’s dominant position (Connell, & Messerschmidt 2005).
Figure 2 - Threshold of Masculinity Model. Design by author, kimcraig.
Examples of hegemonic masculinity exist in most societies across the world. Below is a visual representation (Figure 2) that I have created to build on Raewyn Connelly’s notion of hegemonic masculinity by focusing on the point of separation between (A) those in power and (B) those who support those in power. I have named this point of separation “the threshold of masculinity”. If it is in the interest of those elite few in power to maintain their position, it makes sense that they would create an imaginary barrier to keep the majority away from sharing their power. You can see from the visual aid that I have differentiated “man” not from “woman”, but “non-man”. “Non-man” leaves room for a range of categories to exist: women, children, boys on the cusp of becoming men, and transpeople of all varieties. The “non-men” supports the dominant class of “men” who are expected to protect and provide for their dependent subjects.
METHOD
With the threshold of masculinity framework in place, I began to explore the different thresholds that exist cross-culturally. What tests are required to enter the realm of men? For this I used a variety of sources:
Because manhood looks different across the world, I started with ethnographic accounts focusing on gender, paying special attention to male coming-of-age rituals and gendered cultural expectations.
To supplement these canonical texts, I also interviewed several male friends about becoming men. Using a variety of techniques, I interviewed roughly fifteen men, ages 20-40 from a number of different countries. Four men were interviewed using semi-structured questions regarding their experiences coming into manhood. The others were interviewed via text message.
I also performed an environmental scan of masculinity online, looking at Tik Tok, Reddit, and the top trending online articles and films about what it means to be a man.
Lastly, I will salvage the memories of my own experiences of witnessing trials of masculinity as a cisgendered AFAB.
Sorting through the data, I found a prominent theme of men’s relationship to women present in the tests of masculinity. I have divided these trials into three categories based on the role the men play in their relationship to the (objectified) women. These roles will be discussed in the following sections, where I will explore the three most common types of trials: Man as ___ (1) Provider, (2) Protector, and (3) Penetrator. These roles will be accompanied by a brief section on examples of a few trials I found that do not involve women.
MAN AS PROVIDER
The most common theme I found to define manhood was that he should be able to provide for his family. This understanding of masculinity is deeply ingrained cross-culturally and the basis of which is rooted in patriarchal ideals. The notion that men provide and women caretake was challenged by the aforementioned, Sherry Ortner (1972), and her collaborator, Michelle Rosaldo (1974). Both women critiqued the common belief that gender roles exist as they do because of biological determinism which makes women more or less victims of their own bodies (Ortner 1972; Rosaldo 1974). According to the narrative of biological gender roles, women are bound to the domestic sphere where they can tend to their delicate pregnant bodies and/or breast-feeding children, leaving men to go out collecting, hunting and bringing supplies back to provide for his family. While out collecting resources men inadvertently created a social world. According to Ortner: ‘[a] woman's body seems to doom her to mere reproduction of life; the male, in contrast, lacking natural creative functions, must (or has the opportunity to) assert his creativity externally, "artificially,'' through the medium of technology and symbols” (Ortner 1972: 75). This construction of gender difference asserts that women create human life marking them as belonging to the natural world, while men create objects, ideas, and anything associated with “culture” thereby elevating men’s status above nonmen.
An example of a society operating under this “traditional” division of sexes based on biology and labor can be seen in Margorie Shostak’s ethnography, Nisa, which documents the life story of a !Kung woman who grew up in a community of modern-day hunters and gatherers in southwest Africa (1981). Early in the book, Shostak notes that even though women do leave their huts (domestic sphere) to forage the bulk of their community's sustenance (1981:11), they are to do so with their infants strapped to their backs (1981:41). Meanwhile the !Kung men are expected to leave the village for days at a time in order to hunt large game to provide for their immediate families (Shostak 1981: 12). Although both sexes are technically providing, the men’s provisions of meat are more highly valued (Shostak 1981: 12). Based on this gendered value system I argue that within !Kung society the collection of meat is used as a test that marks the passage over the threshold of masculinity. Further proof to trial is that Shostak documents boys on the cusp of manhood leaving the village with the older men in order to learn the secrets of hunting (Shostak 1981:53), while nonmen are not allowed to touch the weapons for fear that their menstrual blood would curse the tool (Shostak 1981: 215), further perpetuating the hegemonic women-must-stay-home-while-men-go-out-to-provide mythology.
Similarly, in Ancient China, women were sequestered away from the public eye bound to the domestic sphere, while men would to go out in public and work, socialize, and bring back resources for their families (Ebrey 1993: 2-43). The wealthier the family, the less likely women were ever to be seen by the public (Ebrey 1993: 25). Only peasant women whose masculine head of house couldn’t provide for her would ever be seen in the social realm (Ebrey 1993: 25). Without a good male provider (father or husband), she could not afford NOT to work, less she starved. This masculine provider standard still persists today in China. Sinophile, Susan Greenhalgh, explains that Chinese masculinity is heavily rooted in family systems and providing; in order to be a good Chinese man, he should not only provide for his wife and children, but also his parents (Greenhalgh 2012: 133). The notion of “being a good father” as an essential element to Chinese masculinity (Greenhalgh 2012: 133) and what it means to be a “good man” in hegemonic masculinity more generally (Sandberg 2022, 242). In an interview conducted with a 20-year-old international student, Yichen, he revealed to me that his main focus in becoming a “man” were finding a good job that paid well, and purchasing an apartment for his future family, setting himself up for providership and therefore future manhood.
While there is nothing inherently wrong (or sexist) about men and women performing certain duties, the issue is that it becomes problematic when the lines between roles become so rigid that overstepping them becomes taboo and deserving of ridicule. The contempt for such missteps, similar to the trends in transgender becoming, is oftentimes unilateral because of the patriarchal notion that men are better than women. If a woman acts masculinely, she might be corrected and disciplined, but the more egregious of errors is for men to perform femininity. This can be seen in the overcorrection of certain performances or behaviors of boys more than girls. Put in conversation with the threshold of masculinity, if a man attempts to take on a task that is assigned to the class of non-man, he risks losing his status as “man”, and will have to retest to reenter the realm of men. It’s under this system that masculinity becomes toxic, where men often resort to violence to reclaim their manhood (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005, 840).
Toxic masculinity often manifests when men are ridiculed for taking on caretaking roles. Under this construct a man seen performing non-man labor, especially by other men, is supposed to be a great source of shame. According to a TikTok account under the username @Bostonbeaman (2022) a real man “never hold[s] a baby” (See Figure 3). The popular account features a 60-something-year-old Bostonian man who satirically ridicules toxic masculinity in the format of ten second videos. Each video is the same: a set up scenario, followed by the appropriate toxic-masculine response to the situation, and ends with the creator standing in front of a green screen instructing viewers to “Be a Man”. Each sketch ends with a roar of laughter from the team of comedy creators behind the camera and usually escalates to the 60-something-year-old mascot on screen breaking character. The finale of laughs signals to the viewer that this is, in fact, a parody and the creators do not agree with the rules of masculinity being portrayed.
Figure 3 - Screenshots from “Don’t Do It” Be A Man
(via TikToker @Bostonbeaman)
The message being satirized is that while men need to provide for their children, they should never show physical affection or partake in child rearing. To operate otherwise may result in a drop in status to nonman. My own father is guilty of this internalized misogyny. He often boasts to his male friends that he has never changed a single diaper for either of his children.
However, it’s not just children for which men are expected to provide. Across the globe, in Suriname, Gloria Wekker documented the relationships of low income mati-workers and their gentleman callers (2006). Although her book mainly focuses on the lives of the Surinamese women, we do see glimpses into how gender is structured in the interactions with men whom her interlocutors maintain long-term sexual relationships. It’s clear that most of the matis preferred sex with other women (Wekker 2006: 1), but all of her informants sustained sexual ties with men in addition to their female lovers in order to access the money that was almost exclusively controlled by the men. As Wekker’s main interlocutor, Juliette, described “You need a man, to give you some money, to help you pay the rent, to buy you a dress. I did not really like men, but since he was helping me out, i.e., giving me money, I had to give him some.” (2006: 29). Surinamese hegemonic masculinity upholds male providership by systematically making women sexual beholden to at least one man’s sexual whims in order to access the flows of capital. The rigidity of gender roles within Surinamese society requires men to provide material goods (money) and women to care for the (sexual) needs of the men. Though it wasn’t discussed in the text, I would imagine Surinamese men would report their masculine trials as having something to do with acquiring a certain amount of wealth, thereby allowing them to provide (and giving them sexual access) to more women.
Providing financially is one of the most ubiquitous forms of male providership. In the US there are endless examples of this in men’s magazines. An Esquire article on “How to be a Man” begins with the line: “A man carries cash” (Chiarella 2015) and goes on in a surprisingly poetic format to list all the things that men who buy into toxic manhood should do. This sentiment aligns with some of the responses I heard in my interview, where men cited financial related milestones with becoming men: “...when I was able to move my wife and I into our own apartment”. Talking about the importance of money in masculinity with one of my interlocutors, we agreed that the need for cash is not only to provide for the women they are attempting to woo, but also to impress the other men they are competing against. Being rich allows men to provide more and to more nonmen, thereby making them even more manly.
MAN AS PROTECTOR
Man is not only to give; he must also shield. The same Esquire article mentioned in the previous section goes on to say, “...A man looks out for those around him, women, friends…A man looks out for children. Makes them stand behind him” (Chiarella 2015). Not only do men need to be rich, they also need to have a physical capacity to protect the non-men in their life. We see this reflected in the form of size and muscles. These attributes are not only desired by men, but are reinforced by non-men especially in heterosexual relationships. In a survey with French women two thirds “explicitly rejected the idea of a husband shorter than themselves” (Bourdieu 2004: 340). Men are expected to be bigger, taller, and older than their nonmen partners.
Along with size and stature, men are similarly expected to be emotionally tough. Their toughness is usually policed and enforced by other men. We see this in the language sports coaches use in training young men in order to push them past disappointment, exhaustion, or even physical pain: “Don’t be a pussy”, “Walk it off”, “You’re fine”. Getting through something distressing without crying is one of the recurring trials of masculinity. In the documentary film, The Mask You Live In, NFL coach, Joe Erhman, opens the film with a memory of an early test of his manhood at age eight (Siebel-Newsom 2015). His father was teaching him how to throw punches when he “first heard those three words: ‘BE A MAN. Stop with the tears, stop with the emotions. If you’re gonna be a man in this world you better learn how to dominate and control people and spaces.’ That was my biggest source of shame. I left that room with tears rolling down my eyes thinking I was not quite man enough” (Siebel-Newsom 2015: 0:00:30). The illusion of toughness by not showing vulnerability is a central component to learning how to protect yourself and others.
As a person raised “non-man”, I was never taught how to fight, but I do remember my own father teaching my older brother. He even went as far to install a punching bag in our basement so my brother could practice. I would imitate their actions when no one was looking and was overcome with embarrassment if I was ever caught punching the bag as I knew that I was performing outside of my prescribed role. I was never ridiculed or even asked to stop, but I was also never encouraged, or offered instruction. My own self-policing was enough to get me to correct my own behavior. The test of fighting was not mine to pass. Being a non-man, I would never be expected to know how to protect other non-men in the same way my brother would.
Looking at public discourse on masculinity from within my own society, it’s clear that men are not only supposed to protect their non-men’s physical well-being but also their social standing. Protecting family from verbal insults is one of the topics of another one of @Bostonbeaman’s one-minute sketch. Titled “Protect the Fam” the mascot proclaims: “Always talk shit about your family. But if someone else does, fight ‘em. Be a man” (Figure 4). The corresponding images include markers that align with white Bostonian ideals of manhood while reiterating that social fact of man as protector. In the first, an older man who appears to be in good health is denoted by his laughing with every single one of his perfect teeth exposed. The image reinforces the idea of man as protector as something that is a life-long mission, and one must stay in good health. The second image is of a chiseled young man with his head lowered, and gaze fixed on what is directly ahead of him, not unlike a lion that is hunting. The expression is clearly of a man ready to battle. The third image is of Brad Pitt’s character, Tyler Durden, from the movie Fight Club. Shirtless without an ounce of body fat, a drop of blood runs down his flexed torso. His eye is swollen, he has clearly taken some blows, but his stance tells us that he has doubtlessly already won this fight.
Figure 4 - Screenshots from “Protect the Fam” Be A Man
(via TikToker @Bostonbeaman)
While the creator is making fun of White Bostonian masculinity, it is only funny because it touches on a hint of truth to our own social scripts. By making fun of the idea that a man must defend his family’s honor, @Bostonbeaman is actually proliferating the very social rule it mocks. Like any message, the intended meaning isn’t always what is interpreted. Despite the fact that the creator’s intention is to make fun of men’s shortcomings, some viewers replied agreeing that men should use violence to protect their families. Comments like “Not even a joke just straight fax”, “naw thats not a joke thats how it is”, and “this ones for real tho” littered the page. Instead of attempting to undo male toxicity, misunderstanding the humor reinforced the satirized message. One commenter posted, “Is there actual people laughing in the background[?]” which either is a comment on the format of the video or a statement of disbelief that anyone would laugh at such a true statement.
Using defense and protection as a measuring stick of masculinity prizes a lack of empathy, aggression, and dominance. Such trades can become problematic when the same men are later attempting to interact with non-men in intimate ways as we will see in the next section.
MAN AS PENETRATOR
When asked how and when my interlocutors became men, the third most common response I received had something to do with having sex with a woman for the first time. For some,, the first time they had sex corresponded with their wedding day. One interlocutor, Oliver, who was raised Mormon, remarked “...that day I was told I was a man by multiple male family members. To them I was a man, but I didn’t feel any different.”. For Oliver, it was a relationship to a woman that allowed other men to recognize him as a man. The threshold of masculinity for his Mormon community was his new found ability to father children, now that the taboo on sex had been lifted for him. Another interviewee, Jay, also recounted the first time he had sex as the day he crossed the threshold into manhood. Jay’s experience wasn’t so publicly recognized, he was thirteen and the woman was a nineteen-year-old neighbor. He remarked that because she was “a fully-grown woman” that desired him in an adult way, it made him feel like a man. Because of their drastic age difference and the illegal nature of their interaction, the sex was kept secret, and no one hailed Jay as a man that day.
Men penetrating women as a means to signal their masculinity isn’t always so consensual.. In Peggy Sanday’s ethnographic account of fraternal gang rape on college campuses, she documents the use of alcohol used to remove women’s agency during group sex with frat brothers (2007: 4). She found that the men dehumanize the young women to the status of objects in order to take turns penetrating (read: raping) them as a form of male bonding (Sanday 2007:7). I would argue these gang rapes functioned as a test of masculinity in fraternity settings. The men risk being rejected by their peers for not being “man enough” if they do not perform (read: penetrate intoxicated women) in front of their peers (Sanday 2007:106). Sanday cites porn as one of sources of that the brothers used to justify their non-consenual sex. One frat brother thought that gang rape was normal because of the pornography he and his brothers had watched together at their frat house (Sanday 2007:62). The author noted that these frat-house rapes were also being normalized in the stories about group sex and “trains” that frat communities would exchange (Sanday 2007: 91). Such violent, dominating, and uncompassionate forms of male bonding are not so different from the secret enculturation rituals of protection and providing we saw in the examples above. If fathers and sports coaches are training young men to be tough, emotionless warriors that are better than the weak non-men, are we surprised that men rape?
Returning to ancient China, where it is no secret that men have more social value than non-men, women were sequestered for this very reason (Ebrey 1993: 2-43). In ancient times, it was thought that being housebound keep women safe from the the guanggun, or the groups of bandits with no familial connections who were said to rape women (Sommer 1997:145). The basis of this fear was something of a biological assumption: “that’s what men do… all they care about it sex, and if they don’t have consenting partners, they rape” more than being rooted in actual accounts of rape (Sommer, 2015, p. 39). Truth or fiction it would make sense that without nonwomen to protect or provide for, the guanggun needed alternative ways to prove their masculinity. Penetration was one means to manhood, the threat of which affected how male providers allowed their non-men to socialize. The fear of the bachelors was so strong, and the idea of virginity so valued, that young girls were even instructed to kill themselves before allowing someone to rape them (Sommer 2000: 66-113). In the Ming dynasty, the government began to canonize "‘chastely martyred wives and daughters’ (zhen lie fu nii) who died by homicide or suicide while resisting rape” creating a almost cult-like honoring to “a woman's willingness to die rather than suffer pollution through sexual contact with someone other than her one husband” (Sommer 2000: 69).
According to Esquire magazine, the ancient Chinese weren’t wrong, to assume that men always have sex on the mind. The 2015 article on “How to be a Man” states, “A man loves the human body, the revelation of nakedness. He loves the sight of the pale breast, the physics of the human skeleton, the alternating current of the flesh. He is thrilled by the snatch, by the wrist, the sight of a bare shoulder. He likes the crease of a bent knee. When his woman bends to pick up her underwear, he feels that thrum that only a man can feel” (Chiarella 2015). If men’s magazine’s offer us anything into the male psyche, it tells us that men’s urge to penetrate is always present in the presence of women (non-men) and that sexual desire is a part of masculinity.
Don Kulick (1998)’s work with transfeminine sexworkers known as travestis in Brazil, it’s not only desire, but penetration specifically that determines masculinity. In fact, his research suggests that his interlocutors understand penetration is the central factor in determining men vs nonmen (Kulick 1998). For the travesti who have no interest in removing their penises, but otherwise perform femininity, and their partners, genitalia does not determine gender. What matters more is who is topping (penetrating) whom (Kulick 1998: 130). To the travesti “penetration can change their gender” (Kulick 1998: 165). Most of Kulick’s informants might enter a session as woman and then allow her male clients to perform oral sex on her, making her the man because her penis is in his mouth. However, in order to reaffirm gender identity in their personal lives travestis are unlikely allow their actual boyfriend to perform oral sex on them or “give me his ass” because that would make her partner “not a man” (Kulick 1998:122). To the travesti, the threshold to masculinity is tested in the entirety of one’s sexual experiences: “if one only penetrates, one is a ‘man’, - if one gets penetrated, one is something other than a man” (Kulick 1998: 227). From this perspective, most travesti do not understand their relationships with their boyfriends as homosexual, because as long as the boyfriend is a man who only penetrates, she is a woman. Most travesti credit their moments they realized they were to become women (nonmen) to when they were first anally penetrated (many aggressively so) by older men during prepubescence (Kulick 1998: 54-57). For the older men, penetrating a nonman was a way of reaffirming their masculinity. As for the budding travesti, it was the moment they realized that they would never cross the threshold to masculinity.
The equating of penetration with masculinity goes deep and its internalization is evident in the way we talk about gender differences in biology. Emily Martin’s article on how sexual reproduction was portrayed in college level medical textbooks used at John’s Hopkins University during the 1980s perfectly exemplifies these hegemonic ideas (1991). “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Role”, notes how even at the cellular level, we associate men with highly active penetrators in the verbs we used to discuss conception (Martin 1991). Martin documented the sperm described as perpetually active: they "deliver their genes to the egg… activate the developmental program of the egg… propel…into the deepest recesses of the vagina… burrow through the egg coat… and penetrate it” (Martin 1991:489). In perfect contrast the egg is described as “large and passive. It does not move or journey, but passively ‘is transported’, ‘is swept’, or even ‘drifts’ along the fallopian tube” (Martin 1991: 489). Another article even makes an analogy to the fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty where the egg is likened to “a dormant bride awaiting her mates magic kiss” (Schatten 1983: 28). The language selected conjures images of the egg (nonman) as a damsel in distress whereas the sperm is described highlighting their athleticism and the feats they must overcome in order to rescue the egg princess (Figure 5). Figure 5 below depicts this exact type of anthropomorphic relationship between male and female sex cells. I would argue that even on a cellular level, a man's trial of masculinity is complete when his sperm successfully penetrates the egg.
Figure 5 - Illustration by Joshua Oroc (via article by Lara Antebi)
Protector, Provider, Penetrator, the “Romance of the Egg and Sperm” has the male cell accomplishing all the feats of manhood we have described thus far. In the next section we will briefly discuss alternative attributes and roles that may also be linked to the entrance into masculinity.
OUTLIERS
There were a handful of responses that strayed from the three themes listed above, some of them having nothing to do with women at all. I feel it is important to mention these examples if we are to move away from a toxic version of masculinity that diminishes women to mere objects to be conquered or protected. The sentiment of a reframing to a threshold of adulthood, rather than masculinity was actually presented to me by several of my interlocutors. The few participants told me that they did not (or “still don’t”) consider themselves to be “men” and specified that they felt more like “an adult male” than a “man”. These participants attributed their threshold-crossings to adulthood could just as easily apply to womanhood as it could to manhood. A number of interlocutors had answers related to money. A few said they felt like men when they had “financial independence” or “bought a house” or “paid off their student loans”. An argument could be made that these are early steps to becoming a provider, similar to Yichen, who wanted a house for his future family, but not everyone mentioned anything about the house being for anyone else other than themselves.
Other examples unrelated to above categories included becoming a man after a parent passed and “growing a beard” (Katzenpower 2016), none of which were necessarily dependent upon a relationship to a non-woman. One Reddit comment really struck me as an important factor to consider in the passing of a threshold into manhood: The user noted that they felt like a man when a stranger hailed them as “Sir” (Katzenpower 2016), which made me wonder who decides if the test of manhood was successfully passed?
DISCUSSION
GATEKEEPERS
When considering who the gatekeepers to the realm of masculinity were, it seemed there were two primary judges: other men, or oneself. You either needed to be hailed as a man, or decided that you now feel like a man. Being hailed as a man comes externally, where men’s “success or failure is judged in terms of male hierarchies” (Rosaldo 1974: 26). In my series of interviews a few Jewish interlocutors cited their bar mitzvah as the first time they were called men. When asked if they felt like men that day, one interlocutor replied, “Absolutely not, I was a 13-year-old kid.”. The social designation of masculinity is often used as a way to pressure boys on the verge of manhood to perform in certain ways or lure them into masculine traps. As a friend of mine, Matt, stated: “[it] seems [to be] the bread and butter of army recruiters and high school football coaches”. How else might be get young men to sign themselves up for suicide missions or push passed their own physical limits without dangling the hope of crossing the imaginary threshold before them. He went on to say “This [path to masculinity] has always seemed pernicious to me because it is always dangled as a sort of permanent achievement, but then is nevertheless instantly revoked as soon as you are required to prove yourself again.” The impermanence and required retesting often leave men doubting their manhood and a worry about not being manly enough.
The other way to achieve manhood was through an internal sense of becoming. This route seemed to come with more of a satisfied sense of masculinity. Matt described the difference in terms of “permanence. If you get your job as a lawyer or whatever, you have 'made it', but if you win the wrestling match, there is no real achievement because you have to prove it all again next time.” While a self-designated type of threshold crossing may not be socially recognized, sometimes it is. One interlocutor mentioned moving into his first apartment as the first time he felt like a man because he was no longer provided for by his parents. I asked him if anyone else started to hail him as a man at that point, he mentioned starting to receive mail that referred to him as Mr [Insert Last Name]. This begs the question who determines manhood: one’s self or one’s community? Do both need to be aligned for the threshold to truly be crossed? Does acceptance in one affect the other?
MEN WITHOUT NON-MEN?
Having seen that the majority of trials of masculinity can only be achieved through relationships to women, I’m curious how men are created when women are not available? Are there other ways for men to achieve masculinity that don’t objectify women as the gateway to manhood? Are women the tattoo gun that dawns the sneetches with a star upon their belly? My dissertation research with rural Chinese bachelors may be perfectly positioned to investigate this question.
The aforementioned guanggun of ancient Chinese nightmares are not an extinct species, though their connotations are a bit outdated. Once associated with organized crime and rape sprees (Greenhalgh 2012: 138), the men who are now referred to as guanggun, are less threatening, but much of the unsavoriness remains (Greenhalgh 2012: 138). The sudden explosion in the population of unmarried men in their 30s and 40s are the result of a gender balance created by China’s infamous One Child Policy which created somewhere between 22-40 million more men than women (Greenhalgh 2014: 367). Most of the remaining bachelors are uneducated, impoverished men living in rural villages (Greenhalgh 2012: 360). Speaking with Chinese interlocutors about their attitudes toward the bachelors, I noted that most pitied the men due to their lack of opportunity to get married or have children, they assumed the bachelors had a miserable life and would never be capable of obtaining full manhood (Also see Greenhalgh 2012:133). However, my research proposes that what is considered their misfortune could possibly be the very key to rethinking new models of masculine futures.
During my upcoming twelve-month ethnographic research in a bachelor village in rural Yunnan, I intend to explore how the bachelors are defining their masculinity outside of relationships to women. Their approaches could be the key to undoing some of the damage that toxic and hegemonic masculinity has done. One interlocutor I interviewed noted the irony that we all recognize the problem with toxic masculinity but don’t seem to do anything about it. Citing a previously mentioned masculine film, he stated: “I think a lot about the movie Fight Club; the idea that nothing matters in a neoliberal future and we all admit that it's pointless but we perform masculinity anyway instead of rejecting it and trying to build something different.” The guanggun may be doing just that: trying something different and performing masculinity better.
Without women to be the caretaker/nurturers are the men growing softer and more empathetic? Do they need to be as aggressive and competitive if there are not women to fight for? Do they still attribute penetration to manhood? Without women (nonmen) around, can men exist?
CONCLUSION
Until we live in a world where nonmen are just as valued as men, there will always be trials for men to perform in order to make it into the favored category of MAN. Anything that would require a person to need to be provided for, need protection from, or threat of being penetrated puts them in the category of non-men. There are plenty of cross-cultural examples of the patriarchal myth that tells us women are limited by their own biology which contributes to the need for men to prove to themselves (and others) that they are capable fathers, husbands, soldiers, and dominating penetrators. The testing keeps the myth alive.
Perhaps having a threshold to masculinity at all is toxic. Not necessarily in the ways in which they are obtained, for instance I don’t think that “getting a job” is by any means problematic, but the fact that men are required to prove themselves at all, is. The barrier separates those who hold power from those who do not. Why should power be gendered? If women are not obligated to the same trials to enter the realm of adulthood, perhaps we could relinquish the requirements of the boys?
WORK CITED
Abboud, P. [director]. (2013). Fa'afafine: Samoan Boys Raised As Girls. SBS2: The Feed. Accessed via https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/faafafine-the-boys-raised-to-be-girls/5tmlnxjaj
Antebi, L. (2014 Nov 22). Fertilization Miss-Understood. SPACE: Science Participating with Arts and Culture. Accessed via https://space.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/explorations/article/fertilization_miss_understood#
Blackwood, E. (2010). Falling into the Lesbi World: Desire and Difference in Indonesia: University of Hawaii Press.
Bostonbeaman [username]. (April 21, 2022) Be a Man: Protect the Fam. Tik Tok. https://www.tiktok.com/@bostonbeaman/video/7089136458300214574?_t=8SCQzMs3KGp&_r=1
Bostonbeaman [username]. (April 30, 2022). Be a Man: Don’t Do it. TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@bostonbeaman/video/7092485274021973294
Bourdieu, p. (2004). Gender and Symbolic Violence. In Editors Scheper-Hughes, & Bourgois, P. I. (Ed.). Violence in War and Peace. Blackwell: 339-342.
Chiarella, T. (2015 Mar 1). How to be a Man? Esquire Magazine. Accessed via https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a22462/what-is-a-man-0509/
Connell, & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Dr. Seuss. (1953). The Sneetches and Other Stories: Random House.
Durkheim, E. (1982). What is a Social Fact. The Rules of Sociological Method: 74.
Ebrey, P. (1993). The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Song Period: University of California Press. Chapter 1: Separating the Sexes, pp. 2-43.
Greenhalgh, S. (2012). Patriarchal Demographics? China’s Sex Ratio Reconsidered. Population and Development 38 (Supplement), 130–149.
Greenhalgh, S. (2014). “Bare Sticks” and Other Dangers to the Social Body: Assembling Fatherhood in China. In M. C. Inhorn, et al. (Ed.) Globalized Fatherhood (pp. 359-381): Berghan Books.
Herdt, G. [director] (1994). Guardians of the Flutes [motion picture]: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
Katzenpower [username]. (2016 Feb 6). /r/ Ask Men: When Did You Really Start Feeling Like a Man? Reddit. Accessed via https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/44hamu/when_did_you_really_start_feeling_like_a_man/
Kulick, D. (1998). Travesti: Sex, Gender, and Culture Among Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martin, E. (1991). The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles. The University of Chicago Press: Signs, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Spring, 1991), pp. 485–501.
Ortner, S. B. (1972). Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture? Feminist Studies, 1(2), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177638
Rosaldo, M. (1974). Women, Culture and Society: A Theoretical Overview Women, Culture and Society: Stanford University Press.
Sanday, P. (2007) Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood and Privilege on Campus: New York University Press.
Sandberg, S. (2020). Stories of the ‘Good Father’: The Role of Fatherhood among Incarcerated Men in Mexico. Punishment & Society, 24:2. 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520969822.
Saria, V. (2002) Hijras, Lovers, Brothers: Surviving Sex and Poverty in Rural India: Fordham University Press.
Schatten, G. & Schatten, H. (1983). The Energetic Egg. The Sciences (New York), 23(5), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1983.tb02646.x
Siebel-Newsom, J.[director]. (2015). The Mask You Live In [motion picture]: Sundance Film Festival. Accessed via https://media.andover.edu/media/t/1_sojnoe4u/31860481
Sommer, M. (1997). The Penetrated Male in Late Imperial China: Judicial Construction and Social Stigma. Modern China 23(2), 140-180.
Sommer, M. (2000). Chapter 3: The Evolution of Rape Law - Female Chastity and the Threat of the Outside Male. Sex, Law, and Society in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press: 66-113.
Sommer, M. (2015). Polyandry and Wife-Selling in Qing Dynasty China: Survival Strategies and Judicial Interventions. University of California Press.
Shostak, M. (1981). Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman: Harvard Press.
Totman, R. (2004). The Third Sex: Kathoey: Thailand's Ladyboys: Souvenir Press.
Wekker, G. (2006). The Politics of Passion: Women’s Sexual Culture in the Afro-Surinamese Diaspora: Columbia University Press.
Comments