Men can be oppressed too, I wrote about that in University

Feb. 26

I studied Psychology and Gender Studies in University and I often chose topics specific to men and men’s overlooked oppression. I have always had a love and respect for men and I am empathetic to their unique challenges and oppression they experience under patriarchy and societal cultural conditioning. Below are two such papers.

Power at a Price - How Masculinity is Oppressive to men

Written by TorontoUnicorn in 2005

In our patriarchal society there is no question that men dominate in terms of power. What is less obvious is that the power men benefit from comes at a very high price. Our societal ideals of what constitutes “masculinity” can actually be oppressive to men who are confined by, and internalize these ideals yet fail to maintain or achieve a masculine persona. Men who internalize and accept societal notions of “masculinity”, I argue, are oppressed by this “masculinity”: because they can never live up to the masculine ideals, it confines men into emotional isolation from the outside world, it causes extreme penis size anxiety and fear in men, and men feel pressure to prove their masculinity in dangerous and unsafe ways.

It is for these reasons that I argue that feminism’s effort to bring to an end to patriarchy can actually be beneficial to men in our society, as well as to women. It is important that we are able to emphasize with men, even though we collectively challenge the patriarchal structure of our society which grants men more power than women.

There is no one universal masculine ideal. The ideals of masculinity vary “sharply from society-to-society, from era to era, and these days, almost from moment to moment” (Kaufman 61); they also vary according to race, age, class, religion, sexual orientation as well as other factors. Hierarchies of power also exist within the “masculinities” of our society; the more a man reflects the ideals of masculinity, the higher up on the hierarchy he is. Not all men, not even most, ever achieve the top ranks of the masculine hierarchy. It is in this sense that I feel “masculinity” can be, and is, oppressive to men; not specifically to men who reject the dominant ideals of masculinity, but to the men who internalize the ideals of masculinity and never feel like they measure up. It is men’s confinement within these ideals that is the cause of their oppression.

There is a stereotypical idea in Western society that men should be powerful, strong, aggressive, tough, rational minded, non-emotional, economically independent, etc. I argue that most men, beyond outward appearances, never truly measure up to this ideal. Failure to completely conform to society’s expectations of masculinity, I’m sure, causes severe anxiety and fear to every man that tries to achieve a strong sense of manhood but never fully accomplishes the task. This fear and anxiety about not appearing “manly” plays a major role in how a man presents himself to others. For example, men who lose a loved one may feel extreme emotional conflict: experiencing extreme sadness, yet trying to maintain an emotion-free appearance. Even though the intense emotions that usually accompany the death of a loved one are dominating, many men fight continually to hold back any emotion, because the ideals of masculinity in our society, dictate that “men don’t cry.”

There are many ways that this “failure” to achieve true masculinity, and the strong emotions that accompany this feeling, can be observed; Michael Kaufman illustrates this point in his article entitled Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences of Power by saying “I think of the man who feels powerlessness who beats his wife in uncontrolled rage.” (Kaufman 66) This quote may help to explain the actions of a man who feels insecure about his “manhood” and consequently physically abuses his wife if only “to experience a momentary sense of mastery.” (Kaufman 66) As this example suggests, it is not only men’s reputation that is important, but also their internal sense of “manhood” that is a driving force in their lives. Unfortunately for men, the high expectations of being “masculine” in our society leave much room for failure. Another example of how a man can fail to meet the ideals of masculinity is a man who, economically, cannot provide adequately for his family. This “lack of control” (control over economic resources) is inconsistent with our society’s definition of masculinity, and so men who feel this pressure may persistently feel like “less of a man.”

I find it interesting that many men in our society explore and enjoy “contradictory masculine behaviour” but only behind closed doors. For example, in an S&M subculture, it is interesting to note that many men prefer the “submissive” role, instead of the “dominant” role. (Weinberg) Although this example could be explained in other ways, I argue that men who engage in sadomasochism in the “submissive” role are stepping outside of their masculinity and are gaining true enjoyment and pleasure from being outside their “natural” role. This leads me to think that not all men want to dominate, and therefore, the societal conditioning and societal expectations that men should be dominant and controlling are oppressive to men who do not naturally possess, or desire to possess, these “dominating and controlling” characteristics.

Men in our society are told (verbally and non-verbally) practically from the moment they learn to communicate that they should not show emotion as expressing emotions is deemed to be “inconsistent with manhood.” (Kaufman 65). This includes avoiding emotional attachments to everyone, including other men. According to Michael Kaufman in his article mentioned earlier, the needs and feelings that men deeply suppress such as empathy, compassion, and nurturing because of their association with femininity (and are therefore deemed un-masculine), do not disappear but rather become the source, whether unconscious or conscious, of extreme fear. (Kaufman 65) Michael Kaufman equates emotional isolation with alienation; and this alienation and emotional isolation “increases [their] lonely pursuit of power and [their] belief that power requires an ability to be detached and distant.” (Kaufman 67) This emotional isolation, which can be considered a male norm in our society, also hinders the quality of relationship a father has with his children, and likewise, the relationship that children have with their fathers. Instead of being nurturing and emotionally supportive parents, men in our society are expected to maintain an emotional barrier from everyone, including their own children. Personally speaking, I have never seen my father cry, or show any emotion other than anger… but I never doubted the fact that he still experienced the same emotions as I. Also, personally speaking, my relationship with my father is on a factual basis only, what I am doing with my life, who I am dating, etc…. not anything that has to do with emotions, such as: how I feel about life, how I feel about my partner, etc. I have to say, I often feel sorry for my father and for myself, because I assume that my father feels that he cannot maintain an emotionally rich relationship with me, his daughter, because of his “masculinity”. It is because of this masculine ideal that my father is missing out on the emotional and important aspects of my life.

The suppressed and often unrealized emotions experienced by men do not disappear but rather become a dominating force in their lives. These emotions often spill out “into [their] lives at work, on the road, in a bar, or at home.” (Kaufman 66) Kaufman stated an interesting and common observation in his article: “I walk into a bar and see two men hugging each other in a drunken embrace, the two of them able to express their affection for each other only when plastered.” (Kaufman 66) I think it is sad that most men in our society only fully express their emotions to other men comfortably while being completely intoxicated. It seems to be the only time when their emotional attachments seep out and into their blurry consciousness. This observation also points out that men do indeed experience such emotions, but they usually remain hidden.

Many men alternatively turn their fear and pain (two common emotions experienced by men) inward into forms of self-hate, addictions, insecurity, and physical illness. (Kaufman 66). Many rapists are extreme examples of this inward turned hate. “Interviews with rapists and batterers often show not only contempt for women, but often an even-deeper hatred and contempt for oneself.” (Kaufman 66) It is interesting to think of a male rapist, who commits his crime of domination and control, not as embodying true domination and control, which seem to be strongly associated with masculinity, but as a man who lacks domination and control in his everyday life and the fear of this acknowledgement is too great to bear so he will go to whatever lengths to finally achieve the recognition that he is “masculine.”

Kaufman makes an interesting argument that I agree with; the “suit of armour” that men wear, which includes their emotional isolation, is the key to preserving patriarchy, and the oppressive norms associated with masculinity. According to Kaufman, “this is important because in isolation, most men continue to accept as reality the uncontested assumptions about what it means to be a man.” (Kaufman 79) It seems as though men are afraid to voice their opinions about the oppressive nature of masculinity because they fear it would be viewed as a confession of not being masculine, and that only they experience these things, that only they don’t measure up; after all, for a majority of men, “it is the definition of masculinity by other men that matters more than anything.” (Kaufman 78) If men ever hope to enjoy freedom outside the confinements of masculinity, they need to voice their opinion out loud so that others can realize that many men see the ideals of masculinity as not only unattainable, but undesirable as well. However, taking this progressive step requires men to break their normative emotional isolation, which seems to be a prerequisite for being a “normal” man in our society.

There is no doubt that men in Western society privilege a large penis over a small one. The importance of the penis is thought to stem from what the penis symbolizes, patriarchal power. Because of the symbolic nature of the penis in our society, having a small penis would undoubtedly cause extreme anxiety for men who may feel that they hold less patriarchal power than other men. Because of the limited visibility of the penis, many men who have small penises can masquerade as though they have large ones. This masquerade is not necessarily about penis size, but as representing the presence of patriarchal power.

Because of the importance of the penis, a men’s locker room, for example, can be a source of great fear for many men. Minus the small percentage of men for whom this penis anxiety is not an issue, most men are oppressed by our unrealistic ideal of masculinity because they continually and persistently doubt their own true masculinity based on the size of a body organ.

Men, I argue, also feel the need to continually prove their masculinity in dangerous, fearful, and unsafe ways. According to Kaufman, “the very definitions of ruling forms of masculinity – we are always strong, we don’t feel pain, we are never scared, etc, - mean that by definition it is terrifying for men to seriously look at issues of our own heath and safety. (Kaufman 76) The desire to prove their masculinity to oneself and everyone around them, men may find it extremely difficult to think or act in any way that seems to contradict their masculinity. Think of how many men work in dangerous workplaces who constantly put their health and safety at risk because to reject such work would be to express weakness and fear; these traits are inconsistent with the ideals of “masculinity”. It is sad how many men, afraid of a negative self-image and reputation, will willingly participate in terrifying and physically abusing activities just for the sake of their “masculinity”. Think of how many men have fought in wars because it was the “manly” thing to do; all the while they may have been completely terrified of the idea of being in a war but felt unable to resist.

I have argued that our societal ideals of masculinity are oppressive to men who accept and internalize these ideals: who never live up to the masculine ideals, who are confined to emotional isolation from everyone, who experience extreme anxiety and fear due to the ideals of penis size, and because men are constantly trying to prove their masculinity in dangerous and terrifying situations such as war that require a man to possess the stereotypical ideals of being strong, fearless, and immune to pain. It is becoming clearer that “masculinity” is not natural, or fixed, but it is actually socially constructed and fragile. Due to feminism’s increasing progress in attaining equal power for women, the steadily declining “masculine” power for men does not seem to be worth the price; the price of pain and oppression that accompanies man’s power. It is in this sense that feminism’s quest to dismantle patriarchy will not only be liberating to women, but to men as well. In deconstructing and revising our society’s devaluation of “femininity”, the power associated with “masculinity” will undoubtedly decline. Without the privileging of one sex over the other, men and women together may finally be freed from the oppressing nature, if not chains, of patriarchy.

Sarah (aka TorontoUnicorn)

Music Review: PINK FLOYD – THE WALL

Witten by TorontoUnicorn in 2006

COMFORTABLY NUMB

I have chosen to do my critical music review on Pink Floyd’s album The Wall, specifically the song Comfortably Numb. Pink Floyd originated as a rock group in 1965. Their music is Psychedelic, Progressive, and British Rock (Wikipedia). It is Psychedelic in that it is inspired by and/or imitating the mind-altering experience of many drugs including “cannabis, psilocybin, mescaline, and especially LSD” (Wikipedia). Pink Floyd’s music is Progressive Rock because it does not confine itself to the mainstream forms of rock music but branches off into new forms. Pink Floyd’s music is also British Rock, a form of rock inspired by a combination of the United States’ rock and roll and rhythm and blues (Wikipedia). Throughout this paper I will show that Pink Floyd’s song Comfortably Numb corresponds with my working definition of masculinity in how it articulates specific characteristics of masculinity, namely emotional withdrawal and/or isolation. I will avoid an analysis of race, sexuality, and class as they are not directly relevant to my discussion of masculinity.

My current working definition of masculinity, first introduced in my paper on Lord of the Flies, consists of a variety of personality characteristics most commonly associated and assigned with the male body; such traits are also commonly expected from individuals with a male body. Such characteristics include: aggression, rationality, strength, being active (rather than passive), dominating and superior, and being emotionally withdrawn. Masculinity is also multiple, and hierarchically structured above femininity and other “inferior” forms of masculinity. Masculinity is socially and culturally constructed. Many of the personality characteristics previously mentioned, I would argue, are not “natural” to males but can be seen as acquired traits which act as prerequisites to the achievement of masculinity in a male’s life-long grueling initiation into manhood. Anne Fausto-Sterling reinforces this idea in her article How to Build a Man by stating and explaining that “men are made, not born” (Fausto-Sterling, 127). It is the accomplishment and display of such masculine traits that Michael S. Kimmel argues in his article Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity are “symbols that denote manhood, signs that he has in fact achieved it.” (Kimmel, 184) This definition means that to be considered masculine in our society one needs to possess (at least outwardly) many of the characteristics deemed masculine such as strength, and emotional withdrawal (two of the personality characteristics involved in my analysis of Comfortably Numb). Men are expected to swallow their feelings, hide their pain, and act like this process is natural.

I feel as though my working definition of masculinity works well with Pink Floyd’s song Comfortably Numb and it aids my analysis of their representation of masculinity. Pink Floyd reiterates what it is like on the inside of an arguably unpleasant form of masculinity, and thus will help me work through the troubling aspects of my working definition of masculinity. I strongly argue that the emotional withdrawal experienced by men in attempts to achieve masculinity are painful and troubling, an assertion that coincides with the lyrics to Comfortably Numb.

Specifically in Comfortably Numb I argue that Pink Floyd expresses how troubling and torturous the emotionally isolated characteristic of masculinity can be. As the title of the song suggests, men are expected to, and arguably often become, comfortably numb to their emotions. There are two specific verses in the song that assert this emotional numbing aspect of masculinity.

There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying.

This verse illustrates beautifully how very intense emotions are not only experienced but are pushed back so far in many men’s minds that they arguably become unrecognizable and distant. There is no pain you are receding, a distant ship, smoke on the horizon can be interpreted as an illustration of how the authors emotions are becoming very distant from consciousness. These lyrics suggest that not only is the repression of emotions seen by many as necessary for masculinity to be accomplished, but also that it is a difficult process. Once their emotions become like a distant ship with smoke on the horizon they will be much closer to ideal masculinity, being emotionally and comfortably numb. You are only coming through in waves. Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying. This verse suggest that men experience very painful emotions without the perceived social capacity to be straight-forward and outwardly expressive of such emotions. I feel this artist speaks to the undesirable but yet “required” state that is attained through embracing such a definition of masculinity.

Pink Floyd conveys masculinity in Comfortably Numb to be socially constructed.

When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.

These lyrics mean that only as a child are the costs of masculinity unrealized. The Child is grown, the dream is gone, I have become comfortably numb means that as a child, before the intense societal pressures enforce “proper” socialization into masculinity, boys are free from the constraints of being assimilated into our socially and culturally constructed form of masculinity. This verse in Comfortably Numb supports my argument that masculinity is a social construction.

I feel my working definition of masculinity worked well with this musical artist. Although the lyrics of Comfortably Numb addressed only a few aspects of my definition, I feel it represented those specific aspects in a similar manner. I recognize some limitations to my definition of masculinity as well. Emotional withdrawal and isolation, as I have suggested in this paper, are not always at the forefront of the problematic limitations of masculinity. It is certainly possible that other aspects of masculinity, such as different “masculine” traits, may be more problematic and troubling than the emotional withdrawal that Pink Floyd, and I, suggest. My definition of masculinity is very broad, whereas Pink Floyd’s representation of masculinity in Comfortably Numb is specific to certain personality traits suggested in my definition. In other words, my working definition of masculinity works well with, yet goes beyond, this song’s representation of masculinity.

As a final thought I wonder whether or not musical artists like Pink Floyd would have been so popular had their message about masculinity been straight forward and clear, so that no other interpretations would be possible. What kind of a reaction could be expected to a song written by men about the painful experiences of masculinity? Musical songs are great vehicles to get a message out that the dominant forms of masculinity are not natural, pleasant, or desired. The realm of music is a safe arena to critique masculinity, as all musical lyrics are open to interpretation. For instance, the lyrics to Comfortably Numb can also easily be interpreted as a song about the effects of heroin use. I strongly feel that music is one of the only safe emotional outlets for men who have a desire to break their silence about the painful experiences of masculinity.

If our problematic definition and ideals of masculinity are not confronted directly, instead of in somewhat disguised ways, how can we expect our societal and/or personal definitions of masculinity to change, and, as a result liberate men from socially and culturally constructed forms of masculinity so that they no longer feel the need to live comfortably numb?