The Challenge of Defining Masculinity

 Another post on the crisis in masculinity, inspired by this article. The article talks about how men are falling behind in terms of professional achievements, rising deaths of despair among men, the rise of toxic role models like Andrew Tate, all of which is familiar territory by now. But, the focus of the article was on the difficulty of defining a masculinity that isn't toxic to serve as a guide for young men. There are some who believe that it is impossible to do so without sliding into essentialism--defining certain traits as masculine and others feminine, which brings you full circle to all the problems of patriarchy. But, the author argues that men are different from women, and not just that they have reproductive organs but also in character and personality, even if there is no one way to be either a man or a woman. She says  we need "a model (of masculinity) that acknowledges male particularity and difference but doesn't denigrate women to do so. Its a vision of gender that's not androgynous but still equal, and relies on character, not just biology. And it acknowledges that certain themes--protector, provider, even procreator--still resonate with many men and should be worked with, not against." I agree even if I, as a man, don't identify with all the themes she has mentioned, especially the last one. We can replay the nature-nurture debate about whether men are born with these traits or socialized into them till the cows come home (although there is , according to the article, a reasonable consensus that the distinctiveness arises from testosterone). Men--even the woke feminist ones--are distinct from women (obviously to different degrees) and an androgynous society would not appeal to most people. This does nothing to answer the question of how to define a masculinity that could serve as a code of rules for young men. But, at least, its an acknowledgement that we do need a code.