Wednesday, May 11, 2005
I read this rather lengthy essay by a professor Robert Jenson of the University of Texas, about the implications of the abusive nature of American pornography on the collective psycho-sexuality of heterosexual males in this culture. In the article, Jenson starts with a (very graphic, I must warn you) description of the contents of mainstream American pornography, ranging from the coarsest porno flicks to the more "high quality" hardcore entertainment. Noting that both extremes "represent a single pornographic mindset, in which male pleasure defines sex and female pleasure is a derivate of male pleasure," and pointing out that both extremes glorify an abusive and dominating sexual attitude towards females by males, he goes on to ask the natural question: what does that say about this culture's conception of masculinity?
In the process of answering his own question, Jenson generalizes his critique of pornography to a critique of masculinity at large. He claims that "the traditional traits associated with masculinity in this culture are control, domination, toughness, hyper-competitiveness, emotional repression, aggressiveness, and violence... pornography reflects that conception of masculinity; men generally are trained to view sex as a realm of life in which men are naturally dominant and women's sexuality should conform to men's needs." To prevent farther harm to those on the receiving end of this violent machismo and sexual objectification, Jenson suggests that the current concept of heterosexual masculinity must not be salvaged, but abandoned altogether. The basic notion of assigning gender-based roles in society is fundamentally flawed, he claims, and to replace the currently accepted view of masculinity, men should instead be instilled with a sense of humanity towards others. "Real men, in this sense, would be like real women. We would all be real people," he concludes.
Jenson's proposed alternative to masculinity sounds a bit vague, and you'll have to read the article for a more concrete explanation. What I find amusing here, is that in searching for a less violent replacement for this culture's concept of masculinity, Jenson has reinvented what I have always been taught is Asian masculinity, as I wrote in a July 22, 2004 blog entry:
I remember being impressed upon that to be considered masculine was to act responsibly, honorably, and respectful towards others. Not that these traits were not expected of women: I think that those were the expectations put upon all mature, grown-up individuals in Korea... Which is not to say that there are no prescribed gender roles that people face in Korean society, but the standards of attractive character that people aspire to live up to there are not so dependent on gender. Mature is sexy, if that makes any sense.
What professor Jenson could not realize, however, is that his proposed (and my accepted) view of true masculinity is untenable, given the cultural structure upon which the currently accepted view of masculinity perpetuates itself. For it is not only men who pressure themselves to conform to the accepted view of manhood, it is everybody in this culture. It is simply unattractive for a man not to act in a tough, aggressive, and somewhat arrogant manner in this society, and the price that I have paid for adhering to what I was taught is masculinity is to always have been considered, by men and women alike in this society, as emasculate, feminine, and gay. Each male in this culture feels a tremendous pressure, from women as well as other men, to comply with the accepted norms for male gender roles, and there are very practical reasons why in such a culture, men would never choose to be Jenson's version of the "true man": men would rather be shallow than be alone. After all, in the final analysis Jenson's version of the "true man" could never become a father in this culture, to teach his concept of masculinity to his sons.
So, I would conclude that Jenson has made a valid objection to the violent and domineering machismo which characterizes the currently accepted view of masculinity in this culture. However, I would add that his proposed alternative is an over-idealistic product of Jenson's self-professed "white male privilege". From my experience, I have no choice but to conclude that his position is hopelessly naive, and although I will continue to be myself, his proposal certainly does not represent a solution for the problem of masculinity.
There are real penalties associated with not conforming to social norms, whether willingly or unwillingly.
In the process of answering his own question, Jenson generalizes his critique of pornography to a critique of masculinity at large. He claims that "the traditional traits associated with masculinity in this culture are control, domination, toughness, hyper-competitiveness, emotional repression, aggressiveness, and violence... pornography reflects that conception of masculinity; men generally are trained to view sex as a realm of life in which men are naturally dominant and women's sexuality should conform to men's needs." To prevent farther harm to those on the receiving end of this violent machismo and sexual objectification, Jenson suggests that the current concept of heterosexual masculinity must not be salvaged, but abandoned altogether. The basic notion of assigning gender-based roles in society is fundamentally flawed, he claims, and to replace the currently accepted view of masculinity, men should instead be instilled with a sense of humanity towards others. "Real men, in this sense, would be like real women. We would all be real people," he concludes.
Jenson's proposed alternative to masculinity sounds a bit vague, and you'll have to read the article for a more concrete explanation. What I find amusing here, is that in searching for a less violent replacement for this culture's concept of masculinity, Jenson has reinvented what I have always been taught is Asian masculinity, as I wrote in a July 22, 2004 blog entry:
I remember being impressed upon that to be considered masculine was to act responsibly, honorably, and respectful towards others. Not that these traits were not expected of women: I think that those were the expectations put upon all mature, grown-up individuals in Korea... Which is not to say that there are no prescribed gender roles that people face in Korean society, but the standards of attractive character that people aspire to live up to there are not so dependent on gender. Mature is sexy, if that makes any sense.
What professor Jenson could not realize, however, is that his proposed (and my accepted) view of true masculinity is untenable, given the cultural structure upon which the currently accepted view of masculinity perpetuates itself. For it is not only men who pressure themselves to conform to the accepted view of manhood, it is everybody in this culture. It is simply unattractive for a man not to act in a tough, aggressive, and somewhat arrogant manner in this society, and the price that I have paid for adhering to what I was taught is masculinity is to always have been considered, by men and women alike in this society, as emasculate, feminine, and gay. Each male in this culture feels a tremendous pressure, from women as well as other men, to comply with the accepted norms for male gender roles, and there are very practical reasons why in such a culture, men would never choose to be Jenson's version of the "true man": men would rather be shallow than be alone. After all, in the final analysis Jenson's version of the "true man" could never become a father in this culture, to teach his concept of masculinity to his sons.
So, I would conclude that Jenson has made a valid objection to the violent and domineering machismo which characterizes the currently accepted view of masculinity in this culture. However, I would add that his proposed alternative is an over-idealistic product of Jenson's self-professed "white male privilege". From my experience, I have no choice but to conclude that his position is hopelessly naive, and although I will continue to be myself, his proposal certainly does not represent a solution for the problem of masculinity.
There are real penalties associated with not conforming to social norms, whether willingly or unwillingly.
