the masculine mystique (thoughts on the feminine mystique, part 3 of 3) — published ~spring 2012

a post from my 2012 blog: exact publication date unknown

thoughts on the feminine mystique: part 3 of 3

Betty Friedan alludes in The Feminine Mystique to a concept she refers to as the “masculine mystique.” Before talking about what the hell that is, it’s best to finally define what Friedan means by the “feminine mystique” to begin with. Really, it’s just a term she uses to define the identity that American society has tried to force upon American women – the housewife career, the glory of being nothing beyond a mother, the mystique of it all.

The masculine mystique, then, is simply the identity society tries to force upon men. To be sure, what this does to men isn’t even quite comparable really with anything that’s been done to women throughout human history, because, in this paradigm when at its extreme, the traditional political power structure is still male-dominated, economic wealth and the means of production are controlled nearly exclusively by men, and a man is in theory still allowed to develop freely, finding his own interests, shaping his own goals, determining his destiny in society.

But how free, under the masculine mystique, is he really to shape his personal destiny, to follow his own interests, and to grow into his own, unique personality?

Not that free, because he needs to stay manly. The “masculine mystique” is an ideal many of us have about men, an identity we expect our sons and brothers and other men to fall into and adhere to. And, as such, it is oppressive, because it hinders the free development of a human being as a person rather than as a man or as a woman.

I thought about the ideals of “being a man” after I finished The Feminine Mystique, and I thought about the way in which many actors and circumstances in society promote such astonishingly ubiquitous manliness. I’ve never been a part of this cult of the man, and I definitely think the fact so many people mistake me for a homosexual has something to do with my slightly more “feminine” tastes. It’s hard to relate to “the boys” when your favorite motives include The Notebook and Love Actually. But the fact I’m not a part of the cult of the man, and the fact I can’t relate really to it on almost any level at all, often leaves me feeling awkward when surrounded by those who are wrapped up in the whole thing. Yet at the same time I feel somewhat satisfied and grateful that I am never handicapped by a need to constantly prove, reaffirm, and demonstrate my brute, heterosexual power. I enjoy being able to like what I like, act how I want to act, say what I want to say, and all of this while completely free from worrying whether it’s “feminine” or “masculine.”

Still I get the impression that the “masculine mystique” tends to dominate the lives of many other men. It’s hard to say and impossible to assess really seriously in a short blog entry just how much it dictates their behavior, but it seems to work its magic on many of them anyway.

The masculine mystique is sometimes innocuous and other times dangerous. It really just depends on the degree, on the circumstance, on the particular man. But let’s just say we have, for example, the imperative of lifting weights at the gym, the importance of expressing disdain for chick flicks, the mandate to never cry in front of other people, the need to show at least some interest in guns or swords or bombs, the willingness to make nonchalant jokes about people being killed in wars, the proclivity to be proud not only of promiscuity but also of blatant womanizing. I think nearly all men are pushed at times at least a little bit in these directions – by their fathers depending on the father or by sexist advertising or by socialization in male-dominated sports teams or by being in the military.

And, of course, it can also happen through locker room talk with “the boys” in at least some locker rooms, through at least some cultures in at least some fraternities, through more than a couple pornography videos which are more than slightly degrading to women (we’ve all seen at least a few of those).

To be sure, not all aspects of the “masculine mystique” are bad for society or even dangerous at all (for example, when men are expected to like sports).

But something really bothers me about the idea that anyone is expected to fall into a role – to like certain things and dislike other things, to be interested in this but not in that – simply because of his sex. It’s troublesome to me that a man is called a “pussy” or at least can be somewhat disrespected for crying, but a woman is just being a woman. The reality is that both are actually just being human beings and they’re crying. Get over it, couldn’t you?

I think this is changing very fast, though, because fewer people seem to care about proving their glorious manliness in the public arena, and it’s extremely rare that I am openly judged by anyone for my so-called “feminine” tastes. But it’s good to remember that you have the freedom as a human being to shape your own identity. It’s good to say “fuck off” to all societal pressure, to all messages in advertising and social get-togethers and anywhere else, that would have you step into a confined gender role just because of your biological sex. It’s good to remember how silly it is to derogatively call a man “girly” or “feminine” or anything else because he likes romantic novels or romantic comedies, or because he cries or because he just doesn’t care about lifting weights.

So I’m ending my third and final entry on The Feminine Mystique the same as I ended my first entry. Shape your own identity. Be your own person, not the person others might expect you to be.