A Working Theory of Masculinity
A person close to me often asks my opinion on masculinity. She sends me thought provoking articles and podcasts. Some of it resonates, some of it bothers me, most of it teaches me something important.
I’ve never really formulated a viewpoint. It didn’t seem all that important. I have a strong sense of the versions of masculinity I don’t like; they were on full display last week on the White House lawn. I also reject the notion that masculinity is inherently bad or predatory. Labeling it as toxic is unhelpful.
Both the UFC and the SJW frames are zero-sum versions of masculinity, meaning they require any gain to have an equivalent, offsetting loss. Most sporting contests are zero-sum. Outside of sports and other competitions, zero-sum thinking generally reflects a lack of creativity and an obsession with power.
Positive-sum thinking, alternatively, considers the possibility of expanding the pie along with how the pie is divided. It envisions a world where self-interest and other-interest can exist without conflict.
Masculinity should embrace positive sum. And so here is my working theory of masculinity. I hope you can help me refine it.
Men have operated from a position of power for much of human history.
Some of this power is arbitrary, some is socially constructed, and some is based on biological characteristics.
Whatever the source, this power has been abused and all too often is used to violate and suppress women (and others). There are also important examples of it being used for good.
The greater your power to influence the lives of others, the greater your responsibility to create conditions in which more people can flourish.
Given all this, men are obligated to create positive-sum outcomes for as many people as possible, especially those with less power.
Or put in a single sentence: Masculinity is the commitment to positive sum outcomes, especially for anyone less fortunate.
Okay. That sounds nice, but it’s pretty abstract. What should it look like in practice?
Here are three examples from familiar contexts:
At the bar…
You are hanging out with friends at a bar. You notice an acquaintance making unwanted advances toward a woman who is clearly trying to disengage. Rather than staying silent or doing something performative, you quietly pull him aside and say, “Hey, I don’t think she’s interested; let me buy you a beer.” Because the message comes from a peer and is delivered without threat, it can be persuasive. You use your power within the group to influence a peer and help someone stuck in a bad spot, and give your male acquaintance a graceful way out with the drink offer.
With your son…
You notice your son parroting derogatory comments about girls’ appearance that he’s likely picked up online. Instead of simply punishing him, you explain why comments like that are harmful, look for chances to model respectful engagement with women, and demonstrate what accountability looks like whenever you make mistakes yourself. Identifying a teachable moment is positive sum.
At work…
You notice a junior woman on your team is routinely interrupted in meetings. Her ideas gain recognition only after others repeat them. Rather than staying silent, you redirect the conversation back to her contributions and later ensure her ideas are fairly attributed during promotion discussions. You don’t simply use your power to speak for her, but you create a culture in which good ideas—and the people behind them—are more likely to be recognized.
These examples are common, but that’s the point. Embracing positive sum can be mundane and routine.
There are many flavors of masculinity and I appreciate the folks trying to figure this out in public. What’s your version? What’s missing in the theory I presented here? Whatever version feels right to you, can positive-sum thinking exist within it?