[QUOTE=Frédérique;2343475][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="black"]Way back in 1972, a gentleman named Mark Gerzon wrote an article titled A Choice of Heroes: The Changing Face of American Manhood. In this article, Mr, Gerzon sought to replace five old “archetypes of masculinity” with five new “emerging masculinities.” Keep in mind this was in the early 70’s, a time when gender roles were being questioned and examined in a less-polarized atmosphere than today...
According to the author, the five old archetypes of masculinity are: the Frontiersman, the Soldier, the Expert, the Breadwinner, and the Lord.
The new archetypes of masculinity include: the Healer, the Companion, the Mediator, the Colleague, and the Nurturer. The author says that, “The human qualities they symbolize transcend sexual identity. To heal, nurture, or mediate is neither a masculine nor a feminine role, so that unlike the old archetypes, which were for men only, the emerging masculinities are not.” He goes on to say that, “Spirituality in a man does not require denial of the feminine. On the contrary, it is an affirmation of femininity as an essential part of ourselves.” OK, if these new masculinities were “emerging” back in 1972, what happened to them? Back in the day, it was OK (briefly) for a man to heal, to communicate, to befriend, to collaborate, to foster, and to cherish. Nowadays, IMHO, the five old archetypes have made a successful comeback, and males are allowed, encouraged, and even expected to be masculine again. Personally, I’m confused, which apparently is not a “manly” attribute at all...
E]
Hi Frederique, As usual, another think piece. Thanks. They are always insightful and mentally stimulating. Sadly I'm not always up to the task.
I was just about to cut off the head of my christmas turkey when this popped up on screen, and as a result, I thought I would let my femininie wiles take over and so the turkey has been spared. He thanks you from the bottom of his heart. But seriously,
My favorite quote is from Mel Brooks: It's good to be the king".! It was good 2000 years ago and it is still--for many--true. Like much of what we understand from history, "maleness" is nothing more than looking back and extracting qualities that men have demonstrated in recorded history, making up a list, and calleing it "male qualities". As long as we live in a male-centric culture, it is what we will continue to do, but I don't think for a moment, that men throughout time have not demonstrated qualities that were feminine (compasionate, among others)--it is just that they were never really noted by the men making the lists. Had women compiled the 5 manly qualities, we might indeed be different today.
Mother's lost their sons to battle since battles first started, so what mother might not have wanted her son to be less manly and stay home. That would be cowardly (or feminine perhaps in male terms) so off he went to be killed. So men who are killed in battles become heroes and eveybody likes and wants to be a hero.
The frontiersman could have originally been a soldier that survived, is now the breadwinner, but in times past, with all the slaughter of men in battle, the women were actually the breadwinners, the fathers , and perhaps the frontierswomen all combined into one person.
The British women after WWI were in fact all of those things as nearly 2 million young men were killed needlessly, dare I say. So, a whole generation of young British women were the "men" of their generation.
In reading about Civil War history, there were numerous incidents where the troops on both sides would call a day's halt to war to be civil, share the river to bathe, and perhaps rations for an evening meal before calling off their informal truce and resume the slaughter the following day. Wouldn't you say that might be a "feminine" quality exhibited in the soldier stereotype? The same is true of the officer corps during WWI. You fight to kill your enemy but you do it with civilty and grace because you fight for your country, you don't fight to just KILL.
Sarah Palin is popular today because she can go out and kill and gut a deer just like a man!!!!!!!!!!!! Certainly she is popular with the women.
Some societies approve wearing skirt-like clothing--the Scots, the Irish, the Greeks and probably many more-- but in a specific context. As a military uniform. It is not seen as a piece of women's clothing, so there is no SISSY stigma attached. In fact, just the opposite I would imagine. If you're in the Black Watch (they didn't wear panties) there was no question of manliness. Otherwise, as I understand it, wearing a skirt in public is not anymore accepted there than here.
We have an accumulation of 2000 years of what it is to be a man, and by all accounts that means what it is to be a success (I think). It is not going away any time soon, and the more our society grinds down to a lower lever in intellect and education, the more that those values will rise because men will not be able to see beyond their nose and discern a new day of human-ness.
Also now, we have what seems to be a movement away from femininity in that more and more women are crossdressing (god forbid) and looking more and more like ---MEN!!! They drive trucks, they skate on skateboards, they have short hair, they wear no makeup, in short, they are more masculine than every before. Why is that? Is there a reward to be manly and male? Yes, is our culture, there is. We have been masculinizing women since the end of WWII, partly as a result of war work where dress codes were relaxed and partly as a result of 500000+ men getting killed and countless hundreds of thousands disabled. Women again becoming "MEN" out of necessity (read war here). During the 70's and female liberation, the days of bra-burning wasn;t necessarily to get rid of a man's confining contraption, but to masculinize women--men wear no bras , of course (ha, ha, ha, ha,) (That is not a standard take on the women's lib movement, but power-suited women weren't far behind, the glass ceiling also let men get a look-up, and all things that have allowed women to progress in out manly society may have been to just bring them up to speed--e,.g be a man. And what about the women who want to be MANLY? (and not just the butch lesbian as an example).THis is just an off the cuff idea and probably doesn't hold a real drop of .......????).
Women in Paris, on the other are still prohibited from wearing pants by law , still in place, but officials have turned a blind eye to women wearing pants---for now. different times may call for different attitudes.
There is a lot in your post to comment on, but I don't want to hog the show here..