I found this

[toranokaze]

John Stoltenberg's why I stopped trying to be a real man

[DanaC]

Really interesting Tora. Thanks for that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

All I get is feminista.com is for sale.

[regular.joe]

OK. sheesh. Wow. What ever.


All my life I felt different from other guys. There always were guys who had more manhood than me. Then I read a feminist book that changed my life. It said, basically, "There's no such thing as 'real men' and 'real women.' Gender is a social fiction." Th at's when I stopped feeling so anxious about whether I measured up against the manhood standard. And that's when I discovered a new kind of personal strength.

Yea, and if my aunt had a dick she wouldn't be my aunt.

[footfootfoot]

John Stoltenberg

All my life I felt different from other guys. There always were guys who had more manhood than me. Then I read a feminist book that changed my life. It said, basically, "There's no such thing as 'real men' and 'real women.' Gender is a social fiction." Th at's when I stopped feeling so anxious about whether I measured up against the manhood standard. And that's when I discovered a new kind of personal strength.
Over many years that strength grew as I talked to many guys who had also been raised to believe in manhood and so they were trying with all their might to be a "real man." Everyone I talked to thought there were other men who had more manhood, more than they could ever hope to have.

So I got to thinking: If everyone trying to be a "real man" thinks there's someone else out there who has more manhood, then either some guy has more manhood than anybody--and he's got so much manhood he never has to prove it and it's never ever in doubt--or else manhood doesn't exist. It's just a sham and a delusion.

As I watched guys trying to prove their fantasy of manhood--by doing dirt to women, making fun of queers, putting down people of other religions and races--I realized they were doing something really negative to me too, because their fear and hatre d of everything "nonmanly" was killing off something in me that I valued.

That's why I feel a connection to feminism. I want a humanity that is not measured against the cult of masculinity. I want a selfhood that does not reject fine parts of myself just because they are not "manly." I want courage to confront the things men ha ve done in the world that are damaging to women and that are also leaving no safe space for the self I hope to be.

The kind of sexual connection that I always wanted with someone was about fairness and justice. I always thought that was the sexiest part of sex--the deepest possible feeling between two people. I thought sex and fairness should intrinsically be united, even before I knew the word "feminism."

When I began to see how pornography makes dominance and subordination feel "sexy"--the very opposite of fairness--that affected me in a very personal way too. I had always been taught that dominance was the way "real men" were supposed to have sex; domina nce was what I was supposed to be able to do in sex. Men had to be the conqueror, the powerful fucker. Well, I never got very good at that, and I always felt sort of a failure.

When I started hearing from women friends who had been battered, from women who had been raped, it was very upsetting--and it still is. I understand from the inside some of what men do to women--and some of it is not part of me at all. But just because se xualized hatred is not a big part of me doesn't mean it's not real in the world. A lot of men's sexuality gets twisted into a very hostile shape; animosity is like a precondition for sexual feelings, and violence is like foreplay. That's totally alien to me--not what I could imagine doing at all--but I know I have to take seriously that it happens, and that many men do it because it makes them feel like a "real man."

When I am feeling really centered, it's as if my selfhood doesn't have a gender. In the world I'm perceived as a man, of course; I live with the benefits and privileges of the social meaning of my anatomy. But my life path is really about refusing to be a man. I don't believe that manhood even exists. The only way to prove one's manhood is to win a fight or put someone down--which is just too dumb for words. And anyone who tries to get in touch with "deep masculinity" through myth is bound t o be disappointed--because manhood is the biggest myth of all.

My life today is about trying to choose to do the right thing, the best I can. I might fuck up--but I must always stay connected to the consequences of my choice, always know as much as possible about who will be affected by my choice, and stay attentive to that. I experience my authentic selfhood only in the history of my choice making, in action, in how I actually do things, and in the responsibility I take for having acted or for not having acted. I discovered that the key is not to make choices accord ing to "Will this make me more of a man?" Instead I make my choices because they seem like the fairest thing to do--the most caring of everyone's selfhood (including my own).

John originally wrote this at the invitation of Consolidated for the fanzine that came out in connection with their album Business of Punishment.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

OK. sheesh. Wow. What ever.


All my life I felt different from other guys. There always were guys who had more manhood than me. Then I read a feminist book that changed my life. It said, basically, "There's no such thing as 'real men' and 'real women.' Gender is a social fiction." Th at's when I stopped feeling so anxious about whether I measured up against the manhood standard. And that's when I discovered a new kind of personal strength.

Yea, and if my aunt had a dick she wouldn't be my aunt.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

[Undertoad]

But if gender is a social fiction, why does it linger across almost all societies, even those largely disconnected from the world? Did they all make it up, or are their actual biological differences that lead to a different psychology which is then mined over generations? If it's a fiction, who wrote it and enforced it for century after century until it became rote?

And Joe, here's one for ya: why feel particularly anxious about not meeting this social standard, and not others? Why was this of critical importance to your psychology?

And mine. I was raised an only child, by a single parent mom, who's a feminist. I have always felt totally awkward about my role in masculinity.

Well it's totally OK to be me and you. We now know biology produces male and females with vastly different levels of various hormones, from vastly different genetics. Male and female psychology is different well before society gets to them. We're born with it.

Psychological sexual differences are the reason for the survival of all species on earth. Why would we imagine we don't have them?

And establishing dominance in a social structure happens with almost all living creatures. What we call "machismo", in other animals, leads them to maim and kill each other.

We think we're above all this, because we can reason and we've come up with a culture to lay over our reptile brains. The fact is we're pretty much chimps, and chimps are disgusting assholes, and we need to spend all our time remembering to not be like that. Overcoming this shit is the height of humanity. Guys like you should be rewarded.

[regular.joe]

Toad, I don't feel anxious about not meeting a social standard. I'm just making the point that women and men are different, I tried to quote this guys write up from his web page. I don't agree with this guys assessment of things.

[Undertoad]

S'ok this was also blowback from a previous gender discussion that happened a few weeks ago!

[sexobon]

The author is a self centered piece of crap. He has identified varying degrees of manhood and labeled anything surpassing his own as either villainous; or, fictitious. His ability to define what a real man is has no redeeming quality whatsoever.

Just thought I'd contribute a cheery note to this thread.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But if gender is a social fiction, why does it linger across almost all societies, even those largely disconnected from the world? Did they all make it up, or are their actual biological differences that lead to a different psychology which is then mined over generations? If it's a fiction, who wrote it and enforced it for century after century until it became rote?

And Joe, here's one for ya: why feel particularly anxious about not meeting this social standard, and not others? Why was this of critical importance to your psychology?

And mine. I was raised an only child, by a single parent mom, who's a feminist. I have always felt totally awkward about my role in masculinity.

Well it's totally OK to be me and you. We now know biology produces male and females with vastly different levels of various hormones, from vastly different genetics. Male and female psychology is different well before society gets to them. We're born with it.

Psychological sexual differences are the reason for the survival of all species on earth. Why would we imagine we don't have them?

And establishing dominance in a social structure happens with almost all living creatures. What we call "machismo", in other animals, leads them to maim and kill each other.

We think we're above all this, because we can reason and we've come up with a culture to lay over our reptile brains. The fact is we're pretty much chimps, and chimps are disgusting assholes, and we need to spend all our time remembering to not be like that. Overcoming this shit is the height of humanity. Guys like you should be rewarded.

How gender has been delineated is not uniform across the world, nor has it followed a straight path through history. Understandings of gender and expressions of that within society have been through many shifts and turns and continue to do so.

The eighteenth century understood gender very differently to today, and also very differently to the fifteenth and sixteenth century, who in turn understood it very differently to earlier and later centuries.

The notion of the workplace as a male preserve and the home as a female one, for instance, which still underpins much of our current gender norms, was a relatively recent development in western culture. The idea that women are emotional and men are rational can be traced to the enlightenment. Prior to that the belief was actually the opposite in some ways: men were seen as 'hot' and emotional, passionate etc. Women were seen as 'cold' and comsumptive.

How we have lived as men and women in the world has been ever-changing. Nor is it a straight line in one direction. We have had looser and tighter definitions of gender as responses to social and cultural factors throughout.

It is an immensely complex subject once you start delving into it, and quite aside from modern understandings of hormones and brain chemistry, history and anthropology both show gender to be a far more fluid and contextual affair than you might think.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How gender has been delineated is not uniform across the world, nor has it followed a straight path through history. Understandings of gender and expressions of that within society have been through many shifts and turns and continue to do so.

But it has always acknowledged a difference.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It is an immensely complex subject once you start delving into it, and quite aside from modern understandings of hormones and brain chemistry, history and anthropology both show gender to be a far more fluid and contextual affair than you might think.

Yes. Our current society, and any historic society after moving on from our hunter-gatherer stage, is a much different environment than the one we evolved into. If we want to determine any "true" (true probably should be taken with a huge grain of salt) biological gender roles, we would need to look at what it meant to be a man or woman in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer society.

I'm guessing this means that both manhood and womanhood meant having strong traits that led to the survival of the clan, but just in different ways. Also, I'm going to guess that prehistoric hunter-gatherer gender roles are not the stereotypical ones we think of today.

[piercehawkeye45]

This got me thinking so I want to add a few more thoughts.

Going off the evolved thought, another way of determining what traits could be biologically defined as manly would be looking at what traits that women find attractive in men. There are certain traits that both men and women evolved to find attractive, and these traits should be the ones that describe the "fittest" men and women. The traits that will lead to the most successful offspring.

For men, what I've noticed is that women tend to find men with confidence, social status (how this person is viewed within a group), and personal drive extremely attractive. This can take many different forms and these traits match up well with someone who would lead a hunter-gatherer society. I would consider these biological traits of manliness.

Other forms of manliness, being able to throw a spiral with a football for example, is purely sociological. This will change depending on the society.