Boys DO Cry (or should!)

Naturally, I skimmed the assigned masculinity readings and couldn't resist reading Valenti's first...I already know that I've spoiled myself as far as reading and comprehending the rest of the assignments. But she's just SO easy to read...it's more like having a conversation than reading a chapter.

Anyway.

I basically learned from Boys Do Cry that the guys need help from us (women)! It's not news to me that our patriarchal society's gendered prescriptions hurt men, too. But I was thinking, and the definitions of "man" that damage both men and women isn't reversible. Ugh, that's confusing. What I mean is that what it means to be a "woman" doesn't damage both sexes (at least not physically). I suppose it promotes the popularly unfair stereotypes of men and women, which is harmful, but I think men rarely experience physical harm like women do from men. Does that make any sense? It seems obvious enough to me that not all (or not any) men are born to be tough, violent, emotionally-void creatures, but act like this (i.e. put on the "tough guise") because that's what society says they have to do to be seriously considered "manly." And that's where the harm comes from; women are raped, beaten, and exploited by men who're trapped in the "man" box because they (the men) grow up thinking it's the only way to act. Any way you slice it, defeating the patriarchal definitions of "man" and "woman," which is what most feminists desire and advocate, would reap benefits for both men and women...whoever said feminism was anti-male was seriously mistaken.

If a man finds his way out of this box, we all know what he's called: woman, girl, pussy, pansy, etc., because masculinity is defined by whatever isn't feminine. Valenti claims that the only way men can survive this crazy definition of masculinity is if they're 1.) open to feminism and help from women and 2.) if women, particularly radical/revolutionary feminists, have enough trust and faith to let men in on their battle against patriarchy. If change is to come about, younger boys and young adult men need older, wiser mentors who are able to see through the fog of patriarchy's "man" and have broken free from the box.


Another bottom-line: masculinity is a performance! Males properly embody "men" if and only if they act un-girly. It's like they're constantly actors in a play...isn't that tiring?? What really got me about this reading is the discussion about men acting like boys and the resurgence of boyhood as "cool." Since it's no longer cool to be a family man or take on any adult responsibilities, women are screwed. If men stay "boys," their girlfriends and wives become the "mother" figures whose job it is to nag their "boys" and suck the fun out of everything. It's annoying that this is the most recent trend...while women take on the double load of being wife/mother and professional careerist all at the same time, men/"boys" act like children in an adult world (they make money and have sex and personal freedom, but have little if any adult responsibilities). Annoying.

I think that Robert Jensen (whom Valenti quotes on page 196) says it best: "[the system] keeps us from the rich connections with others...that make life meaningful but require vulnerability."