Man up, sit down. Chin up, pipe down. Socks up, don’t cry. Drink up, just lie. Grow some balls, he said. Grow some balls… The mask of masculinity is a mask… that’s wearing me. The mask, the mask, the mask… This is why you never see your father cry. This is why you never see your father…
‘Samaritans’, by Idles
Far-right politics and hegemonic masculinity go hand in hand, and both are seemingly on the rise. Young men are turning to social media bigots such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson– the self-professedly misogynistic and homo/transphobic– for simple answers to the complicated issue of what it means to be a man in the twenty-first century. So, what is ‘masculinity’ and what is its relevance to pedagogy?
Scientific consensus maintains that masculinity is largely socially constructed and, as such, masculine archetypes change over time and differ between spaces. Angela Saini (2023) demonstrates the contingent and socio-political, often colonial, origins of patriarchal gender norms in their book, ‘The Patriarchs: How Men Came to Rule’. She documents scores of matrilineal cultures that have existed throughout history, many of which persist today. In these societies men play an ancillary role, suggesting that male/patriarchal dominance considered by some to be ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ is likely learnt rather than genetically hard-wired. Put otherwise, masculinity is best explained with reference to history rather than biology.
However, the mainstream contemporary notion of masculinity is associated with particular normativities, especially social and physical domination largely borne out of fear– a “fear of the feminine” (Jackson, 2003: 585), a fear of failure, social illegitimacy and isolation. McCormack (2011: 339) argues that “[t]he importance of heterosexuality to masculinity is so significant that the two are culturally conflated.” Accordingly, being emotionally vulnerable, empathetic, affectionate, creative, hard-working, or queer (which is all to say, being in any way perceivably ‘effeminate’) is undesirable. Rather, men should be immutable, courageous, strong, indefatigable, authoritative and virile. They should be straight, self-assured, self-sufficient and self-made.
Whilst none of these traits are necessarily problematic in-and-of-themselves, this narrow stereotype becomes culturally hegemonic when men, society or the media enforce and regulate it and denounce, ostracize or discriminate against other men who present as– and women for ostensibly being– otherwise. This can be seen in schools when
“discursive and physical regulation of other boys’ behaviours result in one archetype of masculinity being esteemed above all others. Boys who most closely embody this standard are accorded the most social capital, while those who behave in ways that conflict with this valorised form of masculinity are marginalised.”
(McCormack, 2011: 338)
Oftentimes this amounts to subtle prompts and gestures which functionally maintain social conformity to the narrow masculine construct. Phrases such as ‘man up’, ‘try-hard’, ‘firm it’, ‘alpha’, ‘don’t be a pussy’, ‘snowflake’, ‘don’t cry’, ‘don’t be such a bitch’, ‘geek’, ‘neek’ or ‘gay!’ work in just this way. Furthermore, “if boys [who are amenable to the hegemonic construct] want to avoid the verbal and physical abuse attached to being labeled as ‘feminine’, they must avoid academic work, or at least they must appear to avoid academic work” (Jackson, 2003: 584), since effortless achievement signals intellectual prowess; whilst underperformers can use their apparent lack of interest or effort to smokescreen their inabilities (594-5). For, incompetence and conscientiousness are also associated with femininity. Hence, being studious in English, Science or Maths might result in a boy being called a ‘geek’; whilst being creative or expressive in Art, Drama or Music could get them labeled a ‘queer’ or a ‘ponce’. For school girls, on the other hand, hegemonic masculinity manifests across a spectrum from casual every day sexism to rape culture. Schools, it seems, are to some significant extent training grounds for boys to learn how to perform masculinity (The Mask You Live In, 2015) and how to regulate it in others; and for their victims to internalize their presumed subservience.
The famous ‘toxic masculinity’ metaphor encapsulates the poisonous impact this can have upon the wellbeing of young men and the ensuing suffering incurred by others within their social sphere, particularly women and children. From an early age too many boys are presented with a choice, rarely but sometimes explicitly: to conform and in so doing to suppress their true identities and feelings; or to accept their fate as ‘betas’– ostracized and/or victimized non-conformists to an oppressive cultural order. By the time they are adults, many become alexithymic– incapable of understanding or processing their emotions– on account of having been socialized to emotionally detach from themselves and others.
It is little wonder that 75% of all suicides in the UK are male, or that suicide is the biggest killer of men under 40 (Pinkett, 2019: 63). Hegemonic masculinity makes us feel insufficient and invalid; and we are led to believe that only by internalizing the masculine playbook might we possibly find relief. This is the simple solution that Tate and Peterson et al are offering our children. Rather than encouraging young men and boys to courageously break loose from hegemonic notions of masculinity, they prescribe more of it, at a higher potency. In reality, however, their prescription is a pharmakon– both remedy and poison– and is, therefore, utterly incapable of providing an authentic resolution. When they fall into this trap, men become emotionally isolated from themselves and increasingly incapable of developing honest and mutually-enriching relationships with others, since much of what they do and say becomes facile, performative and reactionary.
One reason so many young men are turning to these online ultra-masculinity-espousing extremists is that it can be hard to imagine life outside the rigid confines of the traditionalist masculine imaginary and the patriarchal world order undergirding it. Indeed, much of the media we consume and the games we play both online and on the sports fields reinforce patriarchal gender assumptions. And it is quite a natural tendency for us to enjoy, ‘like’ and ‘subscribe’ to, things which we find self-affirming. Hence, when dispirited and lonely young men are told that they can resolve their neuroses simply by ‘manning up’, the alternative— confronting and deconstructing their ideas surrounding gender and sincerely reflecting up how those ideas have impacted upon their and others’ behaviors, identities and mental health— can seem off-putting to say the least. After all, practicing critical self-reflexivity is inherently self-exposing and at times quite discomforting, especially for those who are not used to it. Yet, that is precisely what makes it the braver and wiser option.
Schools, then, especially school leadership teams, have a social and moral responsibility to promote school cultures wherein staff embrace and model diverse and counter-hegemonic masculine modalities. For, when a respected male teacher exhibits empathy, ambition, flamboyance, curiosity, love, when they allow themselves to be publicly vulnerable, when they in any way subvert the masculine stereotype, they demonstrate and validate healthier, friendlier, more authentic and inclusive ways of being a man. Schools become safer spaces for all genders. This is the basis of an antialexithymic pedagogy— a pedagogy which recognises and validates gender diversity, which encourages young people to get emotionally in touch with themselves and others.
Encouragingly, the need for this pedagogy is already well-recognized. For example, the Government and Equalities Office (2021) report, ‘Engaging with men and boys about gender norms’, provides suggestions on how one might begin to reflect upon and engage their students and colleagues with issues surrounding masculinity and gender, and is here summarised:
- Reflect upon our own attitudes, values and behaviors and how they were more or less shaped by the masculine construct and how they impact upon others.
- Consider the messages we are giving to children and young people about what it means to be a man.
- Question unequal or stereotypically gendered divisions of labour within our family and work environments.
- Challenge the enforcement of gender norms among friends and within our peer groups.
- Take the emotions, vulnerabilities and difficulties experienced by men and boys seriously and provide support where possible.
- Speak out about violence against women and girls and challenge the gender norms and inequalities which underpin it.
- Act to make our workplaces inclusive and equitable environments in which gender segregation and stereotypes are challenged wherever possible.
With that said, many schools are completely off the ball with this. Yet, whilst umpteen teachers and school leaders remain unwilling or unable to prise themselves away from the quasi-comfort offered by the patriarchal gender norms they have been socialized to, perhaps the suggestions above can enable others to deconstruct normative notions of masculinity. Today, so many people (young and old) are being sedated and parasitized online by bigoted, prejudiced, and miseducated– or, rather, toxic– men who spread disinformation and pseudoscience about what it means to be masculine. Antialexithymic pedagogies respond to this new world by embracing the fact that all men are masculine, all men are men, regardless of their character, their values and their behaviors.
Tate, Peterson and their sympathizers would likely denigrate such a position and make an ad hominem attack on those who adopt it, referring to us as ‘woke snowflakes’ or worse. But this would amount to just another hegemonic attempt to enforce and regulate others’ masculinities; to maintain the patriarchal status quo. We would be wiser, braver, more dignified, and serve ourselves and our communities better, if we didn’t take the bait.
References
Government Equalities Office (2021) ‘Engaging with men and boys about gender norms: engagement toolkit’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-publications/engaging-with-men-and-boys-about-gender-norms-engagement-toolkit#what-are-gender-norms-why-do-they-matter.
Jackson, C. (2003) ‘Motives for “Laddishness” at School: Fear of Failure and Fear of the “Feminine”’, British Education Research Journal, 29(4), pp. 583–598. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000099388.
McCormack, M. (2011) ‘The declining significance of homohysteria for male students in three sixth forms in the south of England’, British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), pp. 337–353. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411921003653357.
Pinkett, M. and Roberts, M. (2019) Boys don’t try? rethinking masculinity in schools. Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY: Routledge.
Saini, A. (2023) The patriarchs: how men came to rule. London: 4th Estate.
The Mask You Live In (2015). Available at: https://tv.apple.com/gb/movie/the-mask-you-live-in/umc.cmc.4n7a3p7m8wigedkwmy4m1dek5.
Megapedagogy 
Leave a comment