What is Masculinity?

Most of us here probably have a vague idea of what we believe masculinity is, but since I started coming to this sub a while back, I have wondered why it is so easy to agree on the general feeling of what masculinity is with other men - "status", "alpha-ness", "power", "dominance", "attractiveness" - but not an actual definition, nitty-gritty details and all.

To illustrate, a possible conversation on thise subject between Buddy and his dawgs:

-"Masculinity is being good at fighting."

-"Nah dawg. Masculinity is being good at fighting, but choosing not to."

-"Nah dawg. Masculinity is knowing that if you're not going to fight anyway, you're better off spending your time being an investment banker and becoming a millionaire who can pay others to fight for him."

-"Nah dawg. You can enjoy money, but you can't take money with you; therefore masculinity is being a really good surfer and enjoying the zen of some toatawlly good waves."

-"Nah dawg."

-"Yeah, fuck that."

-"You dawgs are all wrong. Masculinity is being a really great novelist."

-"Nah dawg. Masculinity is banging lots and lots of beautiful women."

-"Actually..."

-"Yeah..."

-"Yeah, that's a pretty good point."

-"But still, nah dawg..."

And it continues ad nauseum. Because all of these behaviors are in some context masculine. They can be described as masculine, but they cannot describe masculinity - at least, not completely.

After giving this much thought, I want to propose that masculinity is not a single behavior, set of behaviors, or even a categorical kind of behavior; it is an imperative. To slice that overly pedantic statement into edible chunks using Occam's Razor, what I mean is this:

Masculinity is simply the word we use to describe a man's ability to get what is in his own best interest.

This is why one man can be a champion Muay Thai fighter who is dumb as bricks, and another a brilliant, highly-paid concert Cellist who has never won a fight in his life, and yet both can be described as masculine despite the fact that they are completely opposite physically, mentally, and emotionally, and each would probably consider the other to be a useless asshole.

How do we define "a man's best interest?" We do not. We cannot. A man must create this definition for himself, with the way he lives his life; his choices, his beliefs, and his external creations.

But it is extremely likely one's "best interest" falls into one or more of the following categories:

  • Reproduction/Sexual Power (players, rock stars, male models, Don Draper, and your sleazy Italian best friend who bangs eights on the regular despite having no discernible muscle mass, go here)

  • Resources/Physical Power (kings, presidents, investment bankers, CEOs, generals, and Muay Thai fighters go here)

  • Legacy (actors, artists, great writers, patriarchal grandfathers with six kids, Les Schwab, and Ernest Hemingway go here)

  • Spiritual Contentment/Happiness (philosophers, religious ascetics, wise men, and Bob Marley go here).

To be sure there is probably an infinite number of ways these categories overlap, and indeed to be truly masculine, a man should strive for proficiency in all of the above, while striving for mastery in at least one. Again:

Masculinity is what we call a man's ability to get what is in his own best interest.

I think this definition easily captures masculine behaviors that are both traditional and emergent. And it also refutes a very destructive, emasculating feminist attack on masculine behaviors: the idea of toxic masculinity. Because essentially what you are saying when you call certain masculine behaviors "toxic" is that a man should not act in his own best interest, but in someone else's.

Oh, so boys shouldn't fight? Who does that benefit - the one who wins the fights, or the one who loses?

Oh, so young men shouldn't approach men women who they are attracted to, even if that approach makes the girl or woman feel slightly uncomfortable? Who does that benefit, the one who loses the experience of the approach, or the one who is spared a moment's unease?

Oh, so men shouldn't tell each other to man up? Men shouldn't listen and accept their own weak or effeminate behavior when other men tell them to man up and do to/change about one's self what is necessary? Who does that benefit?

The claim that there are toxic forms of masculinity is the claim that at some point, a man being too good at getting what is in his own best interest becomes wrong.

Toxic masculinity is the claim that a man owes X amount of his ability to other people's interests rather than his own: namely, to women, to children, and to weaker men. It is the claim that a man, by simply existing, owes some part of himself, his sexual power, his resources, his legacy, and his peace and happiness, to those below him; a claim which is not only ethically bankrupt, but slanderous, suicidal, and destructive to his biological imperatives.

Living for others' interests before one's own, especially when that condition is imposed on you and not made on your own terms, is not only weakening and emasculating; it is ultimately impossible, and therefore at some point becomes self-destruction. Yet society demands this condition of men today, and shames, imprisons, or kills them when they do not follow it, because modern first world civilization thrives on it - women and weak men, in particular. This is why hostility to masculinity is so prevalent in the highly feminized cultures of the first world.

Thoughts and debate welcome.