Masculinity - Blog Posts

Still trying to figure out why I like this look so much…

Would you be willing to talk about how standards of masculinity and femininity in Asia differ from those in Europe/North America? I know, it's a ridiculously broad question but I think you mentioned it in passing previously and I would be really interested in your answer especially in the context of the music industry and idols. I (European) sometimes see male Asian idols as quite feminine (in appearance, maybe?) even if they publicly talk about typically masculine hobbies of theirs.

Hi Anon,

Sorry that it took me over a month to get to this question, but the sheer volume of research that is necessary to actually answer this is significant, as there is an enormous body of work in gender studies. There are academics who have staked their entire careers in this field of research, much of which isn’t actually transnational, being that regional gender studies alone is already an incredibly enormous field.

As such, in no way can I say that I’ve been able to delve into even 1% of all the research that is out there to properly address this question. While I can talk about gender issues in the United States, and gender issues that deal with Asian American identity, I am not an expert in transnational gender studies between Asia and Europe. That being said, I’ll do my best to answer what I can. 

When we consider the concept of “masculinity” and “femininity,” we must first begin with the fundamental understanding that gender is both a construct and a performance. The myth of gender essentialism and of gender as a binary is a product of patriarchy and compulsory heterosexuality in each culture where it emerges.

What you must remember when you talk about gendered concepts such as “masculinity” and “femininity” is that there is no universal idea of “masculinity” or “femininity” that speaks across time and nation and culture. Even within specific regions, such as Asia, not only does each country have its own understanding of gender and national signifiers and norms that defines “femininity” or “masculinity,” but even within the borders of the nation-state itself, we can find significantly different discourses on femininity and masculinity that sometimes are in direct opposition with one another. 

If we talk about the United States, for example, can we really say that there is a universal American idea of “masculinity” or “femininity”? How do we define a man, if what we understand to be a man is just a body that performs gender? What kind of signifiers are needed for such a performance? Is it Chris Evan’s Captain America? Or is it Chris Hemsworth’s Thor? What about Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark? Do these characters form a single, cohesive idea of masculinity? 

What about Ezra Miller’s Barry Allen? Miller is nonbinary - does their superhero status make them more masculine? Or are they less “masculine” because they are nonbinary? 

Judith Butler tells us in Gender Trouble (1990) and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (1993) that what we call gender is inherently a discursive performance of specific signifiers and behaviors that were assigned to the gender binary and enforced by compulsory heterosexuality. She writes:

Insofar as heterosexual gender norms produce inapproximate ideals, heterosexuality can be said to operate through the regulated production of hyperbolic versions of “man” and “woman.” These are for the most part compulsory performances, ones which none of us choose, but which each of us is forced to negotiate. (1993: 237)

Because gender norms vary regionally, there are no stable norms that coalesce into the idea of a single, universal American “masculinity.” What I mean by this is that your idea of what reads as “masculine” might not be what I personally consider to be “masculine,” as someone who grew up in a very left-leaning liberal cosmopolitan area of the United States. 

What I am saying is this: Anon, I think you should consider challenging your idea of gender, because it sounds to me like you have a very regionally locked conception of the gender binary that informs your understanding of “masculinity” and femininity” - an understanding that simply does not exist in Asia, where there is not one,  but many different forms of masculinity. 

China, Japan, and South Korea all have significant cultural differences and understandings of gender, which has a direct relationship with one’s national and cultural identity. 

Japan, for example, might consider an idol who has long, layered hair and a thin body to be the ideal for idol masculinity, but would not consider an idol to be representative of “real” Japanese masculinity, which is epitomized by the Japanese salaryman. 

South Korea, however, has a very specific idea of what idol masculinity must look like -  simultaneously hypermasculine (i.e. extremely muscular, chiseled body) and “feminine” (i.e. makeup and dyed hair, extravagant clothing with a soft, beautiful face.) But South Korea also presents us with a more “standardized” idea of masculinity that offers an alternative to the “flowerboy” masculinity performed by idols, when we consider actors such as Hyun Bin and Lee Min-ho. 

China is a little more complex. In order to understand Chinese masculinity, we must first understand that prior to the Hallyu wave, the idea of the perfect Chinese man was defined by three qualities: 高富帅 (gaofushuai) tall, moneyed, and handsome - largely due to the emergence of the Chinese metrosexual. 

According to Kam Louie:

[The] Chinese metrosexual, though urbanized, is quite different from his Western counterpart. There are several translations of the term in Chinese, two of the most common and standard being “bailing li'nan” 白领丽男 and “dushili'nan” 都市丽男，literally “white-collar beautiful man” and “city beautiful man.” The notion of “beautiful man” (li-nan) refers to one who looks after his appearance and has healthy habits and all of the qualities usually attributed to the metrosexual; these are also the attributes of the reconstituted “cool” salaryman in Japan, men who have abandoned the “salaryman warrior” image and imbibed recent transnational corporate ideologies and practices. 

[...]

In fact, the concept of the metrosexual by its very nature defines a masculinity ideal that can only be attained by the moneyed classes. While it can be said to be a “softer” image than the macho male, it nevertheless encompasses a very “hard” and competitive core, one that is more aligned with the traditional “wen” part of the wen-wu dyad that I put forward as a conventional Chinese ideal and the “salaryman warrior” icon in Japan. Unsurprisingly, both metrosexuality and wen-wu masculinity are created and embraced by men who are “winners” in the patriarchal framework. 

The wen-wu 文武 (cultural attainment – martial valor) dyad that Louie refers to is the idea that Chinese masculinity was traditionally shaped by “a dichotomy between cultural and martial accomplishments” and is not only an ideal that has defined Chinese masculinity throughout history, but is also a uniquely Chinese phenomenon.

When the Hallyu wave swept through China, in an effort to capture and maximize success in the Chinese market, South Korean idol companies recruited Chinese idols and mixed them into their groups. Idols such as Kris Wu, Han Geng, Jackson Wang, and Wang Yibo are just a few such idols whose masculinities were redefined by the Kpop idol ideal. 

Once that crossover occurred, China’s idol image shifted towards the example South Korea set, with one caveat: such an example can only exist on stage, in music videos, and other “idol” products. Indeed, if we look at any brand campaigns featuring Wang Yibo, his image is decisively more metrosexual than idol; he is usually shot bare-faced and clean-cut, without the “idol” aesthetics that dominate his identity as Idol Wang Yibo. But, this meterosexual image, despite being the epitome of Chinese idealized masculinity, would still be viewed as more “feminine” when viewed by a North American gaze. (It is important to note that this gaze is uniquely North American, because meterosexual masculinity is actually also a European ideal!)

The North American gaze has been trained to view alternate forms of masculinity as non-masculine. We are inundated by countless images of hypermasculinity and hypersexual femininity in the media, which shapes our cultural consciousness and understanding of gender and sexuality and unattainable ideals. 

It is important to be aware that these ideals are culturally and regionally codified and are not universal. It is also important to challenge these ideals, as you must ask yourself: why is it an ideal? Why must masculinity be defined in such a way in North America? Why does the North American gaze view an Asian male idol and immediately read femininity in his bodily performance? What does that say about your North American cultural consciousness and understanding of gender? 

I encourage you to challenge these ideas, Anon.  

“Always already a cultural sign, the body sets limits to the imaginary meanings that it occasions, but is never free of imaginary construction.” - Judith Butler 

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. New York, NY, Routledge, 1990. Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York, NY, Routledge, 1993. Flowerboys and the appeal of 'soft masculinity' in South Korea. BBC, 2018,  Louie, Kam. “Popular Culture and Masculinity Ideals in East Asia, with Special Reference to China.” The Journal of Asian Studies, Volume 71, Issue 4, November 2012 , pp. 929 - 943 Louie, Kam. Chinese, Japanese, and Global Masculine Identities. New York, NY, Routledge, 2003. 

maturing in my masculinity has led me to realize that my little pony: friendship is magic was absolute fire and i will die on this hill

Article is based on a UN study surveying North African men.

moreover, i'd like to briefly add - in an admittedly more unstructured addition - that this issue surrounding how we conceptualise masculinity as inherently malevolent also hurts queer people as well.

even if we choose to decide that we have no concerns about how this can - and does - hurt men (which, personally, is not something i can agree with), it cannot be ignored how this affects queer people by proxy.

when we assert masculinity is inherently toxic, we therefore, whether intentionally or not, implicitly assert that those who are connected to masculinity in any way are similarly toxic - or are at least, by nature of their proximity masculinity, inherently more 'dangerous.'

this is the type of essentialist logic that paints transgender women as predatory or inexorably socialised as male for no reason other than having committed the 'original sin' of being born a boy; this is the same type of essentialist logic that asserts that transgender men are, by nature of identifying with masculinity, somehow 'dangerous' to women (please, i encourage you to read the many posts discussing this transandrophobia); this is the essentialist logic that leads to bisexual women being seen as 'dirty' through this puritan lens of evaluating their attraction and love of men as somehow 'tainting' them; this is the essentialist logic that presumes butches are, by their masculine nature, 'aggressive' or 'rougher' than femmes.

it's easy to fall victim to these ideas - and it doesn't inherently make you a bad person - but it's important to critically examine and sit with our conceptualisations of masculinity, gender, and gender essentialism so that we can grow beyond them.

i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.

Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.

Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.

Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.

Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.

Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.

In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.

Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.

Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?

Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.

For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.

Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.

I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?

Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.

This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.

Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.

In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:

“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”

i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.

Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.

Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.

Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.

Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.

Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.

In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.

Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.

Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?

Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.

For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.

Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.

I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?

Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.

This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.

Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.

In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:

“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”

Can you elaborate on this masculinity isn’t a prison concept? In my experience as a cis man masculinity is just a violence men do to other men in order to try and limit the violence done to them by other men.

I was raised by a theatre guy so to me masculinity also includes putting on weird outfits and singing while doing a funny little dance. Open your horizons, dude. Do gender on purpose instead of just what your dad or the bullies at school told you to do. It’s beautiful in here.