Great Moments in American Masculinity

Standard

Why are men always trying to prove their masculinity? At least some of theblame may date back to 1832, when Senator Henry Clay declared the United States “a nation of self-made men.” That seemingly innocuous statement of national pride has some profound psychological implications, contends Michael Kimmel, Ph.D., a sociologist at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. If men are self-made, “it means that you can always be unmade. You have to continually prove your masculinity. You watch Jack Palance doing his one-armed pushups at age 77 and you think, When does it end? When do men get to stop proving it?”

In his book, Manhood in America: A Cultural History (Free Press), Kimmel traces the evolution of manhood from its original conception–as simply a stage of life, the opposite of childhood, something all men possessed–to what it is today: a term fraught with insecurity, emotional baggage, and gender politics. Among the revelations he uncovers along the way: around the time of World War I, pink was a boy color and blue was for girls. (It’s not clear exactly why, after years of debate in magazines, parents flip-flopped.)

In an interview with PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, Kimmel singled out some key moments in American manhood:

1820: Henpecked husband Rip Van Winkle awakes from a 20-year nap and learns his wife has died, “When he finds out,” notes Kimmel, “a smile creeps across his face and he lives happily ever after, hanging out in front of the saloon.”

1832: Henry Clay’s declaration that “we are a nation of self-made men.”

1840: During the presidential election campaign, challenger William Henry Harrison plays the “wimp card,” portraying himself as a manly man–born in a log cabin and fond of hard cider–while casting aspersions on incumbent Martin Van Buren for his ruffled shirts and for installing indoor plumbing in the White House. Harrison wins,but in an ironic coda catches pneumonia on the day of his inauguration when he manfully braves the weather sans overcoat despite record cold temperatures. He dies a month later.

1845: Henry David Thoreau ventures into Walden Woods and does his own Robert Bly initiation ceremonies. Thoreau dunks himself in Walden Pond and barely contains his urge to devour raw woodchuck. ‘If he could have,” Kimmel quips, “he would have gone into a sweat lodge.”

1848: The first women’s rights convention draws 30 male supporters, including abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who is subsequently denounced by newspapers as an “Aunt Nancy Man.”

1860: The Civil War, with a manly metaphor–“brother fighting brother.” The message: Events are experienced through masculinity. Shortly before the war’s end, Confederate leader Jefferson Davis allegedly escapes from Richmond, which is surrounded by Union troops, by dressing as a woman.

1897: The Golden Age of Fraternity. Nearly 1 in 3 men belong to fraternal orders like the Freemasons.

1902: Birth of the cowboy myth: The first Western novel, The Virginian, is published.

1910: The Boy Scouts is founded “to rescue boys from the feminizing clutches of mothers and Sunday School teachers, and to get them out into the woods to learn how to be men.”

1905-1915: Fed up with wimpy ministers and a bland Savior, the Muscular Christian movement reinvents Jesus as ‘a kind of religious Rambo.” The movement emphasizes the Son of God’s carpentry background and such macho Bible tales as Jesus kicking the Honey changer out of the temple.

1929: The Depression throws an entire generation of men out of work, depriving them of one of the key arenas in which to prove their manhood.

1930: A Hollywood producer recommends that a budding actor named Marion Michael Morrison change his name to something less feminine. Morrison later becomes an icon under a macho, monosyllabic moniker: “John Wayne.”

1936: Legendary social psychologist Lewis Terman invents the “M-F” scale, a behavioral checklist that alerts parents if their boys aren’t turning out okay (i.e., heterosexual). Among the “danger” signs: boys who keep a diary or like to take baths.

1953: First issue of Playboy.

1965: President Lyndon Johnson opts not to withdraw the American troops that JFK had sent to Vietnam, lest he be thought “less of a man than Kennedy.”

1967: The hippie movement rejects the traditional view of masculinity, embracing long, flowing hair and clothing. Hit song: “Are You a Boy or Are You a Gid?

1982: Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche hits the best. seller list. Some men don’t get the joke and mistake the book for a manifesto.

1991: Robert Bly’s Iron John inspires thousands of men to head into the woods to rediscover their wild, “warrior selves.”

1992: Bill Clinton becomes the first president with a dual-career marriage–and is promptly wimp-baited for having a successful, ambitious wife.

1995: The Million Man March on Washington, D.C., brings attention to issues of black masculinity and male responsibility.

Continue reading

Football injuries by the numbers

Standard

Football and Brain Damage, or How American Masculinity Ravages Men’s Bodies

Standard

From TheSocietyPages.org, 2012

Men police one another’s gender performance on the field (Vaccaro, 2011; White, Young, and McTeer, 1995): men who don’t run fast enough are said to “run like a girl” or those whose passes don’t fly far enough “throw like a girl”; those who sit out after being tackled are “pussies” who “can’t take it”. Players must demonstrate their manliness by rejecting any semblance of feminine behavior, even those behaviors that work as self-preservation. As Don Sabo explains, the players all adhere to the “pain principle,” a philosophy that “prioritize[s] pain over pleasure” (White et al, 1995). Pain in sport is normalized—players expect it, and learn to cope in various ways. Some hide it from themselves and others, some downplay it; even those who must acknowledge it and seek treatment usually return to the sport that harmed them (White et al, 1995). Ironically, men must break their bodies in order to prove that they are unbreakable (Messner, 1990; White et al, 1995).

Something has to give. Up to this point, the only give has been in players’ bodies—the bones that break, skin that bruises, brains that bounce around inside skulls. But I think that these bodies can give no more. I think we need to make some changes. We need to make ourselves aware of the demands we make on our boys and men, and the demands they enforce on each other. If we are going to ask them to demonstrate physical prowess through aggressive and competitive sports, then we cannot also demand that they suffer in silence. There must be room for men to acknowledge their pain, and seek treatment and therapy. We should probably also consider age restrictions on these dangerous sports (football, hockey, and wrestling, for example, are all guided by the “pain principle” and lead to negative health outcomes); should we teach our 8 and 10 year olds to play a game that may, by the time they reach college, leave them with brain damage comparable to that in elderly dementia patients? Finally, we need to find a new national pastime. Maybe one that doesn’t promote gladiator-like brutality and abuse, not to mention drug abuse and homophobia.

Interview with Andrew Hinderaker, Playwright

Standard

What was your inspiration for the play? First, on the most personal level, there’s somebody who is very close to me who was a former athlete and is currently dealing with a spinal condition. The question of this play, which follows a young man, a former star football player and former dancer who is now navigating a new physical reality in the wake of his spinal injury–it very directly corresponds with this person, so it has a personal resonance.

On a larger scale, I am a huge football fan. I grew up in Madison, WI, which is gigantic college town and college football town. I think it’s astonishingly theatrical and exciting and visceral. But of course, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate the ways in which it’s also problematic, [certainly] from a physical standpoint in terms of what it does to the player’s bodies. There’s been a lot of publicity obviously over the past few years on concussions and also the general violence these players endure. And then I’m interested in what it’s psychologically and structurally teaching young men to become. I think that football is maybe our most prevalent paradigm of masculinity. Football’s the most popular thing that we’ve got in this country. It really lifts up a specific vision of masculinity that I think at times is really exciting and at times is really troubling, and this ambivalence that I have for football, this sense of being in awe of it and being troubled by it, is for me a really great place to begin a play. Continue reading

Hyper-masculinity at the finish line

Link

An article published for The Huffington Post, by Michael Kaufman

Organized sport has had a number of terrible outcomes for boys and men. Yes, it can help boys learn to overcome hardships, but it also teaches boys to hide vulnerabilities and show a stoic indifference to injury.

It celebrates a hypermasculinity where manhood is measured in muscles. The chiseled body and the winning performance become the gold standard of masculinity — unobtainable to all but a few and thus a very bad model for 99.9 percent of men.

Because it teaches youth to ignore nature’s great warning sign, that is, pain, and because of the glorification of self-sacrifice, extreme risk-taking, and the ever-increasing strength and size of athletes, sport is now a place of ever-increasing injuries, well beyond the inevitable bruises and broken bones that accompany physical activity.

Sport has been a platform for homophobia, a place where most gay and bisexual athletes dare not come out — which is no surprise because few athletes have not heard homophobic taunts from coaches or other players. Humiliation for not being tough enough or a “real man” awaits any boy or man who can’t make the grade.

Sport instills a winner-take-all definition of manhood. The hundredth of a second difference between a “winner” and a “loser” casts long shadows not only over the vast majority who fail to ever win, but across the culture as a whole. It’s no surprise that as social inequality increases so do the rewards to elite athletes and the budgets for the Olympics: sport is a template for a world where one percent are winners while the rest of us must remain content to watch spectacles.

Out on the edge

Link

BY DANELLE HARRIS, FOR ESPN MAGAZINE, MAY 29, 2013

KWAME HARRIS walked toward the showers the first day of freshman football camp at Stanford anxious and intimidated. He’d never showered with his high school team. Except for his brothers, he’d never seen another man naked, and he was about to be surrounded by them. He didn’t know where to look, how to look, how long to let his gaze linger. He was 18 years old. A breeze could give him a hard-on. If that happened, he’d have to flee.

He approached the crowded tiled room with columns housing several showerheads where men clustered soaping down. “They looked like Greek statues,” he recalls. “I think everybody was looking at everybody else’s penis, but it was more curiosity. Like that’s a medium-size penis, that’s a small one, that one looks like mine.”

A player paused beside him. Kwame was 6-foot-7, 320 pounds, and the teammate, blue-eyed and blond, was about the same height but had a sexual swagger Kwame envied. “Dude, this would be a gay guy’s dream,” the teammate said. “Imagine how much fun you could have here.”

“Sure, dude,” Kwame said. But he really was thinking: If he only knew.

Continue reading

The Danger of Football by Gregg Doyel

Standard

For me, it comes down to choice — and football players have a choice whether to play or not. It’s not a blind choice, either. This isn’t the 1960s, when Colts tight end John Mackey had no idea what the violent collisions were doing to his brain. The greatest tight end of his generation was showing signs of dementia in his 50s, in an assisted-living center at age 65, dead at 69. Mackey never knew the risks, but today’s players know. Playing football is like smoking a cigarette: This isn’t the 1960s; everyone knows the risks. . . . Football isn’t dog fighting, where mistreated animals take it out on each other in a cage. Those dogs have no choice. NFL players do. And let’s be honest: The lifestyle of an NFL player is incredible. Even if it ultimately shaves years off their lifespan — and lessens the quality of those remaining years — there’s an argument to be made that it’s worth it. The fortune, the fame. The thrill of the crowd. That’s a lifestyle they can’t get anywhere else. Live like a king at 30, hobbled at 50, dead at 65? Not sure I’d take it, but many would. And do.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/18982249/nfl-players-know-risks-and-choose-to-play-so-choosing-to-watch-isnt-our-fault