Culture . 03/31/2008 12:27 PM . Jennifer Carden

I have always thought of myself as something of a closet feminist. Growing up in a home with three competitive brothers, it didn’t take long for me to adopt an “I can do anything better than you can” mindset. I participated in any game I could possibly win. “Because you’re a girl,” was never an acceptable negative answer, and I continually attempted to prove I was just as capable as everyone else. Gender was not an obstacle. I considered myself to be equal to everyone I came in contact with, and for the most part, no one said otherwise.

Until recently, my philosophy had not changed. I thought of it as an asset. It pushed me to do my best, to reject the idea that competitiveness was for the boys, to defy the stereotype of the demure woman smiling at the thought of barefoot eternal pregnancy in the endless kitchen of life. I knew a woman’s role was much larger than that of a lifeless mannequin. I thought of myself as a strong woman with a strong personality. If these characteristics intimidated people —especially men—then they were weak, and did not have my evolved sense of gender.

I was not a jackboots-beret-and-goatee-wearing feminazi. Not at all. I believed in the Biblical idea of submission. I wanted to get married, have children, experience the American dream, etc. I simply knew that if I were to be in a relationship, I would want to be with a confident leader who was not intimidated by my personality or aptitude in particular areas. He would consider me his equal, and my strengths would be an asset to his own. He would be a man both I and my brothers would respect, and I would have no trouble defaulting to his leadership.

Yet, as I surveyed society, I didn’t see this kind of man held up as the ideal. Instead, society seemed to be pushing an effeminate, exfoliated man, chock full of emotion and sensitivity—the kind of guy who would cry on your shoulder and then compliment the pattern of your shirt. Not exactly the masculine ideal I had in mind.

Now, I fully recognize that some men will naturally be more manly than others. Not every man will sound like James Earl Jones or be built like Tarzan. Many men simply have a feminine build or mannerisms. But I believe that every man was created by God with the ability to be manly and to model masculine characteristics.

It was with this in mind, tired of the preponderance of the Kleenex-carrying “sensitive type” I found so unappealing, that I set out to write an article about the emasculation of the American male. It would be based on the conclusion that our society has a skewed idea of masculinity manifested in the appreciation for and preponderance of overly sensitive, feminine men. Excited at the opportunity to rail against the type of man I found so distasteful, I planned the article’s structure. First, I would bemoan the wave of “girly men” and their influence on culture. Then, after a sufficient amount of intellectual whining, I would prescribe the changes—“Men, be manly! Stop crying!“—necessary for both my comfort and society’s salvation. Somewhere in the past, men had made a terrible mistake. It was my job to provide correction.

I began researching. I sat down with my professors, discussing everything from Rosie the Riveter to the conception versus the concept of manliness. It was in those conversations my ideology first began to embark on a kind of odyssey

I took a long look at my desire to be considered “equal” to men. The desire for equality—exemplified in my simple “I will do everything you do” philosophy—is an outgrowth of the women’s liberation movement. It is a core concept of modern feminism. And, as I have begun to realize, it is at the root of the cultural lack of masculinity I find so problematic.

Contemporary feminists and the women they influence have essentially a single problem with masculinity: it excludes women. Betty Friedan’s feminist classic The Feminine Mystique is not an attack on manliness, but on femininity. It insists women should be strong and aggressive—like men. Yet we know that women are not like men. They have different strengths, weaknesses and characteristics. However, their difference does not make them lesser in value. Instead, it makes them distinct in quality; it makes them complementary to men.

As I studied the roots of the emasculation I wanted to correct, it soon became obvious that the problem I saw was not solely the responsibility of men. Women have undermined, if not destroyed, the counterpart to masculinity—femininity—and with it the basis on which half the population could be skeptical of the excess or lack of masculinity. Our society has adopted a practice of equality between the sexes never before known in human history. And, as Dr. Mitchell told me, “If equality is the highest value, then any difference will be offensive.”

It is with this philosophy that society reaps the girly men [ and manly women ] so unattractive to those with even a semi-balanced view of gender. Men do not want a woman whose aggressive nature overshadows their own. They want a woman whose ambitious nature spurs them to reach their own ambitious goals. Likewise, while women want men to be sensitive to their needs, they don’t necessarily want them to be sensitive in general. The “sensitive male” who mimics many female emotions and interests is primarily a creation of contemporary feminists irritated with the stereotypical “manly” male, whose very existence in society allegedly hampers the success of ambitious women.

Yet this newly sensitive creation is not what women want. There is a reason I would be attracted to the man I previously described. Attributes like leadership ability and confidence are universally attractive. That’s why the traditional manly male—who is protective of women, but a sorry flop when it comes to sensitivity—is far from a disappearing species. We see this man in the plots of romantic movies and novels and music. As Dr. Stacey pointed out, the romance novel, society’s highest selling form of literature, is full of this man. He’s the rebel in need of taming. He’s the diamond in the rough, only in need of a woman’s touch to reveal the emotionally honest, sensitive romantic underneath the bad boy exterior. Women want good qualities of the bad boy—the confidence, the leadership abilities, the strength, coupled with an appreciation for their femininity. We do not want fawning wilting flowers of the masculine variety. “It’s okay to show emotion,” is not code for, “It’s okay for to cry at anything and everything.” Such behavior does not convey the message, “I would be a great leader for your home,” but instead, “I would appreciate a great leader for my home.” We do not want men so feminine they make us look manly. Neither do we want emotionless tyrants. We want real, masculine men.

But how can we define masculinity? As Dr. Smith said, in many cultures, it would be perfectly permissible and definitively masculine for two men to greet each other with a kiss, while in American society, that action would be defined as homoerotic. We obviously have some conception of what is “manly” and what isn’t, but it is difficult to create a set of standards on that basis. We can not point to many specific characteristics and say, “This is solely relegated to masculine men.” However, there are many specific attributes we can almost universally ascribe to masculine men. For example, as Harvey Mansfield says, “Manly men defend their turf, just as other male mammals do. “ There is something ingrained in the masculine psyche that says, “This is mine, and I will protect it.” As the analogy to animals obviously suggests, there something animalistic about masculine behavior. But masculinity is specifically human as well. As Mansfield goes on to say ,“Manly men defend not just their turf but their country. An obvious demonstration of manliness is best shown in war, the defense of country at its most difficult and dangerous. In Greek, the word for manliness, andreia, is also the word for courage.”

We can easily say, “Masculine men are courageous.” However, courage is only one trait of a masculine man. It does not provide us a standard or definition for masculinity. Yet a definition has not always been necessary. It is not difficult, when looking back through history, to find times when men seemed to be manly. In those times, masculinity did not require a set standard; it was modeled. Each generation of boys drew upon the influence of the men that surrounded them. The fathers did not tell theirs sons how to be men; they showed them. However, somewhere along the way—I would point towards the time when mothers began serving as the primary or even sole caregiver of their sons—boys stopped learning to be masculine. And this is where we find ourselves today: in a culture where men have an ambiguous idea of what it means to be manly, and thus tip the testosterone scale all the way from excess to inadequacy.

So how do we turn the tide?

My answer to this question has changed. A few weeks ago, I would have argued that fathers, absent from the home for so long, should again begin to teach their sons to be manly. I would have termed this generation the “walking dead,” so to speak, with little chance of regaining a correct view of the masculine role. After all, masculinity cannot merely be taught. No list of “Ten Quick Steps to Masculinity” will solve the problem. Nothing will be accomplished if men must wake up and think, “Today, I will be manly.” Masculinity, said Dr. Mitchell, is a “habit one acquires by associating with other men who are habitually men.” It must be practiced, and it must be modeled.

Many of my prior conclusions were nearly correct, but I had limited all responsibility for change to men. Thus, my view of the “walking dead” without redemption was limited as well. I now believe that the problem of the emasculated male does not have one simple solution. However, I would argue women are the key to a return to true masculinity. If we do not attempt, under the pretense of “equality,” to make ourselves like men, then in our feminity, we create a standard for masculinity. Throwing off the idea that we are “like” men, we must embrace the idea of complementarity, in which men and women are equal in value, and distinct in purpose. We must create a need for real masculinity, instead of relegating it to a choice.

Dr. Mitchell explained the solution thus: “We must learn, once again, to love difference. To celebrate the true diversity of creation. We must resist the modern flaccid diversity that is actually an oppressive conformity.”

Our society’s focus on equality has not solely created negative repercussions. It has certainly helped extinguish the misogynistic-caveman stereotype, and empowered women to be more than the lifeless mannequins. My intent is not to stand in the way of this change – I still see myself as equal to men, although my understanding of the word has evolved. I don’t believe women should be herded back into the kitchen. Men should not return the unbalanced, “I find meat, you cook meat, we have children” philosophy I detest. Instead, women should resist society’s call for gender-blurring “equality” and aspire to be different—to be true, feminine women who appreciate and desire masculine men.

And men should simply be men— real men, characterized by what Dr. Hake calls “perfect strength under perfect control.”

Then and only then will girly men become a dying breed.

Jennifer Carden is the editor-in-chief of Kritik.



<