What is masculinity?
It is a strange time to be male. Are people who identify as male (such as myself) under threat from emasculating policies? Or, conversely, are people who are born male and continue to endorse maleness given privileges no one else has, inheriting unearned power over everyone else? Both? Neither?
What I will not do in this essay
I will not dive into political issues, in this essay or my blog in general. But even so, it’s hard to ignore that politicians have regularly been bringing masculinity to national attention.
I will also not be taking a stand on what masculinity should be. Though there’s certainly a lot to say about that. And, psychological science has important information to bring into such discussions.
Instead, I’m going to focus my attention on just one word: “traditional.” Well, traditional, as applied to masculinity. That’s it.
It’s a word that I’ve seen used quite loosely, from everyone involved: Republicans and Democrats, psychologists and people without psychological training.
Some recent examples: “Traditional masculine norms expect men to be tough, self-controlled, restrictive in emotional expression, and self-reliant (Owen, 2011)” as quoted in Xu et al, 2024. American Psychological Association’s Division 51 recently wrote a public-facing article, entitled, What is Traditional Masculine Ideology. They further cited anti-femininity, homophobia, and achievement-orientation as characteristics. Last year, an article in Salon suggested that “men and boys are in crisis” and that “traditional masculinity won’t help.” The article never mentions “traditional masculinity” again, instead using “toxic masculinity.” As if they are synonyms.
In general, the viewpoint is that features of toughness, emotional suppression, and independence are male traditions. There might be disagreement, often caught up in political motivations, as to whether these features are “toxic” (the use of the word toxic is perhaps a whole other discussion), but no one seems to question what masculine traits are “traditional.” These are just assumed as truths.
“Traditional” masculinity is in fact modern
Masculinity used to be all-encompassing
I read a lot of literature. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I love exploring perspectives and experiences of people from all sorts of times and places. While I also include more modern writers, I often read writers who are long gone. From the 19th and early 20th century. These have given me a glimpse into gender expectations from this bygone era of men. What do you think I’ve seen there? Rampant displays of strength? Emotional stolidness? Men who can’t ask for directions and would rather repeatedly bang their heads against the wall than ask for help?
Well: yes. All of that is there. These characteristics are most definitely represented. Look at Rochester’s swooping entrance in Jane Eyre, or Raskolinkov’s ubermensch ideology in Crime and Punishment that leads him to murder. Masculinity was these things, yes. But: also so much more. The sensitivity and expression of a Chopin or a Monet – also masculine. In Silas Marner, poor aloof Silas is a voluntary social pariah until taking care of a baby girl helps him reconnect and open up to others. Every style of masculinity is represented aboard the Pequod in Moby Dick. A bit further back in time, Camões’s Os Lusíadas shows da Gama as the epitome of masculinity. Throughout, Camões depicts his bravery through his generosity, caring, trust, brotherhood, and emotional expression.
In these traditions, men were expected to be strong, yes. Men were also expected to pull from all the virtues.
Men are hot, women are cold
In the 20th Century, male and female emotional expression flipped. Previously, in a more humoral (not funny; referring rather to the four humors, which were believed to be substances flowing through us that affect our disposition)- and element-based concept of gender, men were viewed as running hot. Instead of the current notion that male aggression bursts out of lengthy repression and not being allowed to show how they feel, people believed much the opposite. Men were aggressive because feelings were very much on the surface and men expressed it all with honesty and openness. Characters like Felix Holt (Felix Holt, Radical), Dmitri Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), and Gerald Crich (Women in Love) become violent out of free flowing, sensual passion. In Felix Holt’s effort to prevent the selfish economic interests of the powerful few from destroying his community, he was provoked by others’ violence into violence of his own.
Women, on the other hand, were cold. Repressed. Their emotions perhaps carried away to wherever their uterus had moved to (an actually debated idea in the 19th century). See, for example, so much of Freud’s early work, which was mostly in working with middle-class, white women. Evolutionary theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw evolutionary science as demonstrating women as inferior to men: not just lower in physical prowess, but also intellectually and emotionally inferior. Scientists like Galton and Binet developed tests, diagnostic criteria, and theories to show evidence to support their perspective. By centering data on the individual, and ignoring context, they came up with plenty of confirming data. Eugenic theories were popular, and their supporters founded many institutions that remain prominent today, such as the American Psychological Association and Planned Parenthood.
Women Overcome and Masculinity is Redefined
Unsurprisingly, women were not content to be designated as inferior. Contrary to the above beliefs, women both had the intelligence and emotional strength to unite and tackle these ideas head-on. Across multiple waves of feminism, women have fought for equal rights and shown capacity to be leaders in all fields. Ada Lovelace, George Eliot, Marie Curie, Mary Cover Jones, Rosa Parks, Katherine Johnson, Billie Jean King, Marsha Linehan, Bessie Smith and Beyoncé, are just a few examples of women who have made it clear that 19th century notions of masculine superiority are nonsense. These are fields that, in the 19th century, women would have had to pretend to be men to be taken seriously in. As in, George Eliot is not her real name (it is rather, Mary Ann Evans).
As women have gained rights and expanded what it means to be feminine, there was not a parallel positive shift in masculinity. When seen as an opposition (as it is even in many psychological tools, such as the masculinity-femininity scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (aka, MMPI)), the more ground went to femininity, the less ground left for masculinity. The situation became the direct opposite of the previous norm, where femininity was left with very little room.
Creating “Traditional” Masculinity
And so, out of this growing constriction on what is masculine was born the concept of “traditional” masculinity. Traditions endure, right? If characteristics like toughness, emotional suppression, and independence, and perspectives like anti-femininity, homophobia, and achievement-orientation, are all that “real” men have left, then those must be the core traditions.
Our competitive culture is a tough place for diversity in identity. Immigrants, and particularly children of immigrants, are often pulled between worlds. Indigenous American communities have had to fight tooth and nail to hold onto their core traditions. African American communities have had to rebuild, over and over, a sense of cultural traditions. Perhaps American men, if there is such a community, face a similar struggle?
If so, we will not get through the challenges by defining ourselves, nor our history, so narrowly. “Traditional masculinity” may contain what is said about it, but it also means so much more. Masculinity has to be so much more.
Other Factors in “Traditional” Masculinity
I’ve left out some pretty important factors in my discussion so far. Whose “traditions” are they? All of the above research and people come out of a European or United States perspective. This has described the journey of many western, white men, along with non-white men who have joined into this culture, particularly in America. It does not address “traditional” masculinity for someone from Senegal, or Paraguay, or Pakistan, or Indonesia. Even within America, it does not address the complex intersections for immigrants and the next generation or two after, or for communities who have intertwined separate traditions themselves, such as Black Americans, Asian Americans, Latine Americans, Jewish and Muslim Americans, etc. Nor, of course, Indigenous Americans. I am gradually educating myself on the wide diversity in how various Indigenous American groups understand gender.
Then, there’s class. 19th century rich men were able to be all of the wonderful diverse traits described above. Not so for working class men, who needed a laser focus on earning enough for their family to survive. Femininity also was different for working class women than women of wealthy families. These distinctions remain true today. Gender roles take on very different meanings when you have the freedoms to shape it how you want, than when you need to scrape and save to survive.
Finally, there’s gender diversity. Underlying the term “traditional masculinity” is an assumption of masculinity, male-hood, as a thing. It assumes a gender dyad. Stepping back and recognizing gender more fluidly and complexly (just like almost everything in evolution), “traditional masculinity” stops being one thing. It is, instead, many things.
Summary: Misinformation about Masculinity
When I hear people debating “traditional masculinity,” what it means and whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ I often believe people are debating the wrong questions. These questions are wrong, because they assume beliefs about history, gender, and culture, that are narrow at best.
Instead, we should be looking at our values. If you are a man (cis or otherwise), you might ask, “What is important to me in how I express myself as a man?” or “What have I seen from men in my culture(s) that has contributed positively to me and others?” If you are not a man, you might ask, “What do I want to recognize in the men around me that makes them positive for me and our community?”
In doing so, I think you may find traditions of maleness that are as beautiful and diverse as the hills of the Earth. And foster men who make our society compassionate and strong.