#can't believe this kind of blew up on reddit and is still getting barely any notes on here

[halfstayed]

Some interesting comments from r/CuratedTumblr:

Oh, hey, this is similar to the misinterpretation people make about toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity isn't saying that men are inherently toxic, it's about pointing the specific ways that the expectations of masculinity cause toxic behavior. [u/ejdj1011]

One of my favorite historical trends is how men became less chummy in pictures because GAY. Basically if you look back at old photos (i’m talking like 1870s to WW1) men are very close to one another. Their legs are touching, they have their arms around each other etc. Then as you get into the 50s, 60s, and so on, you can see men noticeably begin drift apart in photos. The theory is because homosexuality, if not accepted, became more known as a thing. This isn’t to say that gay men didn’t exist before (I know it makes you all feel warm and fuzzy to think about cowboys all being flying mariposas), but it wasn’t a “thing” people could be. Having sex with the same sex was a thing you did in secret, it wasn’t a thing you were identified with. At least not to most people. People knew it happened but nobody talked about it, and certainly nobody understood it as an orientation. But as we get past the 30s being gay becomes more widely known as a thing someone can be. A man that is sexually attracted to men. As men understood this they didn’t want to be identified with it, so while they still took the fishing trip pictures they wouldn’t throw their arms around one another lest people think they were being a little too close. And even today that being gay is more widely accepted it’s still a problem if people think you’re being too close to your friends. Straight people still don’t want to be called gay. [u/DaKillaGorilla]

Whenever i talk in this subreddit about how patriarchy harms men, or how men do act differently due to the way that masculinity is taught in our culture, alot of men get extremely huffy because they're offended that what they see as "normal" is actually a learned behavior from a patriachial society. Alot off people on this subreddit do not want to acknowledge how masculinity, socially, is expected to be violently defended, and how this can lead to all-male social groups being violently homophobic and sexist spaces to be in. (Even online!) [u/Lunar_sims]

This is similar to the thesis of The Will to Change by bell hooks. She framed it as "mutilation", both imposed on oneself and on other men. She's controversial because she emphasized that women, even committed feminists, can and do perpetuate this violent notion of manhood by both demanding it remain in effect while simultaneously working to free women from sociopolitical constraints and also alienating themselves from men in their community on the grounds that them being men represents an implicit harm. She's critical of the tendency for feminists to associate all appearances and activities that are particular to men as toxic rather than focusing on patriarchal standards. Hooks believed that men need to be loved by others without compromising their before they can effectively love themselves, other men, and women without mutilation. She's a Christian with Buddhist characteristics and that adds to a lot of her negative reputation among radical feminists who either want the complete abolition of religion or its replacement with overtly feminist theology and spirituality. I recommend bell hooks' work since she's both a skilled theoretician but stays grounded in sanity, ethics, and practicality. If you're wondering what homo sacer means, it's almost definitely a reference to Homo Sacer by Giorgio Agamben. Without getting into a long rant, it's about a paradox in many legal systems of simultaneously excluding specific people from the protection of the law while demanding that those same "sacred people" are subject to legal authorities and also enjoy a bare minimum level of protection in the name of justifying the category. It's essentially about the divide between citizens and non-citizens. It helps to be familiar with legal philosophy, particularly Aristotle and Carl Schmitt, otherwise you might not get much from Agamben's work. [u/Blade_of_Boniface]

You know I was gonna kinda disagree with the statement that this is not a thing that happens to women but I think this did a good job explaining that it’s a sufficiently different phenomenon. A woman choosing a masculine career might get flack for her choice but in a way that will never let her forget that she is a woman and might even imply she’s trespassing into a space women don’t belong. A woman who is “unattractive” or “unavailable” (through relationship status, sexuality, choice) gets in trouble for not fulfilling her “resource” role as a woman but is still definitely a woman. You can get in trouble for not conforming but you’re getting in trouble for not conforming to “woman” bc you are “woman” and cannot escape it because it’s a life sentence. But “man” is a “privilege”, it comes with privilege (and yes definitely some more silent, insidious negatives) and so it can be revoked. Really interesting to think about [u/Daisy_Of_Doom]

I'm a little high so now is the perfect time to write shit.

TW: mention of violence and (briefly) of suicide

Today's shit is: Stop saying Fragile Masculinity unless you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I feel the boldface above is perhaps too aggressive, but whatever. Moving on.

The interwebs seem to think Fragile Masculinity means a man who is fragile. Or a guy who is a douchebag. Or something. IDK. What does it really mean?

Fragile Masculinity (a.k.a. Precarious Manhood) is an academic theory about the nature of "masculinity" in patriarchal societies. From here on out, I'm talking like the theory, so I don't have to say "according to..." 100 times.

Masculinity isn't an innate aspect of a person in this conception; it's a status or identity conferred on certain people (i.e., people who look like "men") by their culture or community.

Your culture gave you masculinity, and it can take it away. Easily. "Fragile Masculinity" means that masculinity, as a concept or identity or social status is hard to achieve and easy to lose. It's fragile, get it?

Femininity or Womanhood, by contrast, is not thought to work the same way, usually. The theory isn't really about women, but writers/theorists comment on the contrast, sometimes: Women in patriarchal societies aren't potential people in charge, or even particularly agentive; they're resources to be utilized. Those resources need to be available at any time, and how they feel about that, or what they've done in their lives to be good resources are less important than mere existence and availability. Women become women, generally, just by growing up and having the "right" biological bits. Even bad women are still women. Even women declared good for nothing but sexual or domestic use are still women. By contrast, men become men (i.e. masculine) by doing the right things, and not doing the wrong ones, and they stay masculine the same way. Masculinity can be lost easily.

How do you lose masculinity? You fuck up. You fail to do the things the culture thinks men should do. You fail to retaliate when another man insults you. Or compliments your girlfriend. Or makes out with your wife. You fail to commit the situation-specific violence your society requires of men. You fail ?o dominate others--especially men--in social interactions. You get dominated--much worse if by a woman. You show insufficient physical strength, or (worse) you show fear of being hurt.

I'll stop with that, now. I think you get the picture.

Or you do things the culture says men should not do: you listen to your gf or wife's thoughts a little too much. You play a sissy sport or no sport at all. You hang with gay people. You are gay people. You are (or seem to be) trans--and yes, the system seems to be rigged so that both MtF and FtM trans people will generally be seen as insufficiently manly.

Getting the picture? You don't become a man just because you get physically older; you have to do things, and you have to not do other things. Otherwise, you're not a man, not really.

And every damn day there will be at least one (and maybe a hundred) tests of your manhood. If you fail to meet any one of them, your "man" status can be damaged or revoked.

Why is that so bad? Because non-men have no place in patriarchal society. Men have a place, weak-ass men sort of have a place, women have a place (most of them, most of the time); non-men do not have a place. Non-men do not receive or deserve anyone's respect or even kindness. Non-men are homo sacer. Hurting them is a great pastime because it both harms someone who should should be ashamed to exist and gives you status points with your buddies (this includes both men and women). "Hurt the outsider" is one of the most reliable methods for bonding with your tribal group. It's even better if the outsider is a traitor, someone who used to be one of you. Outsiders can be hurt because they're outsiders. Traitors should be hurt because they have committed one of the worst possible moral wrongs: they were good group members and then they chose to not be. It's disloyalty to the group. Non-men are traitors so fuck 'em up.

What is a man to do who has been declared "non-man", or just lost some of his man status, or is just worried he might? Maybe he gets the most manly job ever: cop, soldier, WWE wrestler. Maybe he makes sure to commit some extra amounts of culture-sanctioned violence or domination. Maybe he kills himself.

I hope you're getting this. Fragile Masculinity is not a description of some men's insecurities or overcompensation (though it's not totally separate from that). It's a sociological/critical theory about the concept of masculinity itself, and how it works within patriarchal cultures. Masculinity in such a culture is fragile. It's hard to achieve and easy to lose. That has a lot of really bad consequences.