Why I won’t tell my sons to “be a man” or to “be a gentleman”

  – by Amanda Barnes Cook, PhD

 

Jennifer Siebel Newsom of Miss Representation fame has released a trailer for her new project on masculinity, The Mask You Live In.  The trailer prompts viewers to think about what it means to boys to be told things like “Be a man” from a small age. Christina Hoff Sommers, author of The War Against Boys, responded with a criticism of Newsom’s trailer.  Sommers’s argument boils down to the claim that Newsom is ignoring the parts of boys’ natures that are “distinctively good.”  Sommers, again, claims that feminists are attacking manhood and that Newsom wants to “re-engineer masculinity.”

Sommers sets out to debunk Newsom by showing that boys like to play with trucks, are more utilitarian, and don’t find talking valuable in solving problems.  Putting aside for a moment the obvious methodological problems with these findings, these differences do nothing to disprove Newsom’s contention that our culture’s ideas of masculinity are, in many ways, harmful for boys and men.  It merely shows that (some) behavioral sex differences (probably) exist.  What Sommers wants to claim is that the existence of sex differences means that there is a portion of masculinity—the part that is related to real sex difference—that is good and necessary. She thinks this proves that there is a core of masculinity that should be preserved and that Newsom is mistakenly ignoring.  Sommers agrees that there are harmful parts of masculinity (she says that “telling a boy to ‘man up’ can be harsh and degrading”), but she wants to isolate the good part and raise it on a pedestal.

The reality, though, is that all of this is not so clear.  Studies that set out to prove that sex differences are biological are fraught with methodological problems.  It is very difficult to separate the effect of pure biology in human subjects who are the result of social upbringing.  In the study Sommers cites about boys not seeing a value in problem talk, for example, surveyed boys reported dislike of talking about problems and said that talking is “weird.”  From this, we can make conclusions about existing children, but not about what our biology says outside of the influence of culture.  One study on parents’ interactions with children found that parents talk much more to girls than to boys.  One might read that study and conclude that culture, not genes, is what causes boys’ dislike of talk.  There is simply no way to look at boys’ reported dislike of problem talk and make robust assumptions about what it means universally to be a man.  It is exceedingly easy to find scientific “evidence” of biological sex difference and use that evidence to justify unequal treatment of and expectations of boys and girls.  If I thought that boys, biologically, do not value problem talk, I might talk to my son even less, and fail to teach him skills that would serve him for life.  When we act on incorrect evidence about which sex differences are innate, we perpetuate inequality—failing both our boys and our girls.

I believe there probably are some behavioral sex differences that do not stem from culture, even if we do not know with any certainty what those differences are.  If it turns out that boys on average like to play more with trucks and girls on average like to play more with dolls, then great.  But what should the implications of that difference be?  That we should buy our boys only trucks and our girls only dolls?  If we do that, we are setting social expectations on their play and limiting their creativity.  If we do that, we are needlessly circumscribing their freedom to be whole human beings.  If boys and girls are both raised in environments with different types of toys, including traditionally-male, traditionally-female, and gender-neutral toys, and parents grant their children the gift of unstructured, child-led play, then each child can make meaningful personal choices.  In that context, all children, including children who deviate from gender norms, are treated respectfully and all children avoid external manipulation of their wants and needs.

The society I just described is what feminists and queer theorists sometimes call “genderless,” though I dislike that term for the bad reaction it inevitably evokes.  Note that the children in this society are free from social expectations of what they will be and do based on their biology.  There are still boys, there are still girls.  There are still boys playing with traditionally-male toys and girls playing with traditionally-female toys.  There are still some differences between the sexes.  But these outcomes are freely chosen.  It’s about freedom, authenticity, and trusting and honoring your child.  Your child as an individual, not as a member of a sex.

I think that respectful parenting and, indeed, a respectful world, must be one in which all people are free of arbitrary social expectations based on their sex.  This is what “masculinity” and “femininity” are: the social expectations placed on a human due to their biological sex. Sommers wants to protect “good” masculinity and get rid of “bad” masculinity.  By my argument, all social expectations of masculinity and femininity are bad.  Sure, there will be people who make traditionally-male and those who make traditionally-female choices.  But if those choices are no longer made on the basis of social expectation, it’s no longer “masculinity” or “femininity” as such.

Let’s look briefly in more detail at the part of masculinity that Sommers wants to save and, truly, exalt.  She defines the laudable aspects of masculinity as including the fact that men are utilitarian, objective, unsentimental and tough-minded, that they like to build, they like to protect and defend vulnerable people, and are good at problem-solving.  She defines acquiring “skills,” developing “strengths” and achieving “self-mastery” as masculine traits.

Do women not acquire skills, strengths, and self-mastery?  Do women not stand up for vulnerable people? Are women incapable of being logical?  The so-called “masculine” traits that she identifies as being good, in fact, when presented as gendered, serve only to define in the negative what it means to be a woman.  “Of course,” she might say, “there are women who acquire skills.”  Then what, pray tell, makes acquiring skills or acting in a utilitarian manner “masculine” traits?

So when Sommers says that teaching boys to “be a gentleman” is the “tried-and-true way to bring out the best in males,” I say, let’s teach our children to be good people.  To be considerate.  To be kind.  To be thoughtful.  To be respectful.  To be loving. To stand up for themselves and for others.  That is the tried-and-true way to bring out the best in human beings.  These are universal, human values that have nothing to do with sex difference.

So do some behavioral sex differences exist?  Yeah, probably.  Does it matter that my boys choose their trucks more often than their dolls?  Not at all.  But it certainly does matter that they are raised in a context in which their own choices and not regressive gender roles dictate their play.  It certainly does matter that our current culture pathologizes and is disrespectful of (and often violent to) gender queer children.  And it certainly does matter that our children know that their parents love them unconditionally and will always do our part in helping them to meet their needs, whether those needs are gender-normative or not.  Okay, I’m off to play trucks.  VROOOOM!