Bill Weintraub

Re: Heterosexism's encroachment on masculinity

1-9-2007

Thank you Redd.

That's really terrific.

"the males' identity is wrapped in their relationship with women, but the females' identity isn't wrapped in their relationship with men."

What we need to understand is that there's been a 180 degree turn-around here.

In a very brief space of time.

Fifty years ago, in 1957, my sister was 16.

In 1957, the identity of most 16-year-old girls was bound up in their boyfriends -- in their relationship with men.

And my sister was typical in that regard.

Boys and thoughts of boys dominated her mid-teen years.

She did go to an all-female college.

But she dated extensively while in college -- fortunately, from her point of view, there was an army base nearby -- and her attitudes were pretty retro by today's standards.

For example, she told me, many years later, that if she went out on a date with a guy she believed she had an obligation to have sex with him.

And that's what she did.

She had sex with a lot of guys.

That's part of how she defined herself.

She married in her mid twenties, took her husband's last name, and though she did work part-time throughout her life, her husband's identity and her identity as a married woman was what mattered to her.

That is to say that she didn't define herself through her work.

She defined herself as someone's wife.

So she derived a lot of her identity from her relationship with men and with a man.

For most women today, as we've seen in the gender-gap series from the New York Times, that's no longer true.

As Redd put it, "the females' identity isn't wrapped in their relationship with men."

But "the males' identity is wrapped in their relationship with women."

And that is creating enormous problems.

Further, as Redd points out,

the males think that opposing same gendered schools flaunts masculinity. They feel threatened by same gendered schools because they've been taught to think of masculinity, man2man, as gay, as sissy. They've been taught to define their masculinity by their relationship with women.

Right.

Masculinity has come to be defined as "heterosexual."

But as my foreign friend pointed out in The Power of the Masculine, traditionally that has not been the case.

Sexual orientation did not define masculinity.

Masculinity defined masculinity.

Indeed, in many cultures -- perhaps all -- men who spent too much time with women were regarded as "soft" or effeminate.

Whereas being constantly in the company of other men, it was believed, made you "hard" and masculine.

Here are two illustrations of that idea.

The first is a Greek vase painting ca 530 BC.

The figure in black is the hero Tydeus, who's about to kill the woman, Ismene, on the bed.

Her skin is depicted in white.

On the far left there's a man who's running away.

He's Ismene's boyfriend, and as you can see, his skin too is white, and his pecs look almost like breasts.

He's running away because he's afraid of Tydeus -- everyone was afraid of Tydeus.

But he's depicted as having been effeminized through his relationship with Ismene.

This next picture is a 19th century academic painting of Hector, Helen, and her lover Paris.

Hector and Paris are brothers.

But they look very different.

Hector is tall, muscular, and his skin has been tanned and darkened by being on the battlefield.

Paris, by contrast, has been passing his time in amorous pursuits with Helen.

And you can see on an altar in back of Helen a statue of Aphrodite, the goddess of heterosexual love.

Paris has been effeminized through his womanizing.

His skin, though darker than Helen's, is lighter than Hector's, he's significantly less muscular, and his abdomen looks soft.

Paris is no warrior.

In both pictures, then, we see men who "womanize" -- that is, put too much time and energy into the pursuit and company of women -- depicted as soft and effeminate.

And contrasted with Warriors, who spend most of their time in all-male environments which have made them Masculine and hard.

That's the traditional view: that Masculinity is derived from association with Men.

Under heterosexualization, all that has changed.

And, like I said, the change has been sudden and very great.

In an email to me, Redd referred to "heterosexism's control over masculinity through homophobia."

That's exactly right.

Through the creation of the analist ghetto, and through the medicalization of same-sex affection, heterosexism denies males the ability to be Men.

Redd:

[Men]'ve been taught to define their masculinity by their relationship with women. The man2man that they know, like gangs, carry negative connotations. Sports figures don't mean man2man as they depict man2concubine, man2bitches, man2money-to-buy-my-mom-a-house.

"The man2man that they know, like gangs, carry negative connotations."

Exactly.

And one of the reasons there's so much confusion about this is that feminists have painted women as innately morally superior to men.

Men are violent we're told, while women are nurturing.

And of course women have tended to take that idea - and run with it.

There's little recognition of the fact that we're one species, and that people in general, whether male or female, seek power.

Women are seen as altruistic -- not power-seeking.

But they do seek power.

Arguably, and ironically, the truest and purist altruism is found in Warrior bands, which traditionally are male.

Males willingly give their lives to save the lives of their fellow Warriors.

In the popular mind, women are associated with nurturance and caring for children.

But that's not, strictly speaking, altruism.

Women usually are caring for their OWN children, in whom they have a very large and personal genetic stake.

Warriors by contrast are caring about other men to whom they're not necessarily related.

(Presumably the first Warrior bands, like wolk packs, were made up of relatives.

Which no doubt is part of the reason that Men commonly refer to their fellow Warriors as "brothers."

But most Warriors have not been genetically brothers -- for millenia.)

So Warrior Altruism is actually the purest and truest form of altruism.

And it is distinctly male.

Yes, women can be warriors and can show altruism in combat situations.

But, so far as we know, warrior altruism evolved as a male trait.

Whether that means warrior altruism is instinctive in men and learned in women -- I don't know.

The point is not that men are more altruistic than women -- both sexes display altruism -- but that feminist claims of moral superiority for women are misplaced.

Again, we're one species: morally, the sexes should be equal.

Yes, men seek power.

But as we've seen as the gender-gap has become reality, women too and all too readily seek power and hegemony.

And that needs to be recognized.

Redd:

Boys and men rarely, if ever, hear anything about traditional, natural, historical masculinity that was defined by its relationship with men, that had specific rites of passage.

Yes -- and that's a terrific problem.

And a very important statement.

Masculinity used to be defined by its relationship with Men.

Gilgamesh is defined by his relationship with Enkidu.

In the Iliad, Achilles is angry at Agamemnon for depriving him of a slave-girl.

But Achilles is not defined by his relationship with the slave-girl.

He's defined by his relationship with Patroclus.

And it's the death of Patroclus which leads to the most emotionally searing moments in the epic.

Just as the death of Enkidu leads to the most emotionally searing moments in Gilgamesh.

Same with Cuchulainn and Ferdia in the Celtic Tain.

As Redd says, "traditional, natural, historical" Masculinity has been limned and defined by the interaction of Man with Man.

And so it must be again.

Thank you Redd.

You're a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.