The New Masculinity by Alex Manley
What does it mean to be a man?
Things have changed.
There were no blaring sirens or flashing beacons to herald the change, nor were there thunderous drums or resounding trumpets to announce it, yet a discernable shift has indeed occurred.
Traditional notion of masculinity is no longer celebrated.
Men now find themselves operating within progressively narrower boundaries.
It is now inappropriate to overtly appreciate naked bodies—unless the subject is a man.
Boasting about dismissing a one-night stand from your dwelling is frowned upon—unless the ejected one is a man. Making sexist jokes is no longer socially acceptable—unless the butt of the joke is a man. Comedians now walk on eggshells making fun of any social group—unless the target is straight man.
The rise of feminism has propelled women’s causes and meticulously influenced societal paradigms for well over a century, leaving an indelible mark on homes, schools, and workplaces. Ubiquitous terms like “mansplaining”, “male privilege”, “manspreading” have permeated the cultural lexicon, accompanied by rallying slogans like “The Future is Female”.
Meanwhile, society hasn’t exactly been that friendly towards men. Men, are now facing widespread criticism, ensconced in a nuanced environment, grappling with the tension between traditional masculinity being labelled as toxic and a society in flux.
Society looks at statistics, and ask “What is man?”
Then data tell us, they’re a section of the population that commits the overwhelming majority of rapes. The overwhelming majority of murders. The overwhelming majority of arson. The overwhelming majority of violent crime. As a group, men are dangerous. If men were any other group a race, a religion, a linguistic group, a nationality and acted like this, it’s hard to not fear them. But if you’re a man, as you are reading what was written, you’re probably wondering “What the hell did I do to get lumped in with those morons? I’m just living my normal life.”
If you’re a man, the repetitiveness of this criticism and confusing landscape might understandably evoke a sense of weariness. If I was a man, I’d be confused and angry. There is relentless criticism on the toxicity of masculinity, but no proposed solution or clearly defined suggestions. “What then should masculinity look like in the 21st century?”
Ok before we get into the book. I just want to say that I have mixed feelings about this read, I don’t agree with, not the accuracy of information, rather the way information is conveyed in this book, and I will elaborate later, I though, however, still find the value in sharing this book.
The New Masculinity is a book that serves as a nuanced guide, facilitating the liberation from the confines of toxic masculinity. It invites a deliberate process of re-evaluating ingrained stereotypes about manhood, while encouraging a transformative stance against the harmful aspects that masculinity can perpetuate—favoring benevolence over harm and healing over hurt. The author’s intention is to articulate a path leading towards a future self-characterized not by rigid notions of manliness or masculinity but defined by qualities of responsiveness, sincere investment, and compassionate engagement.
With a background of seven and half years in writing for AskMen.com, the author intimately observes the anger, fear, confusion, and loneliness experienced by men, coupled with their sense of entrenchment in a pervasive culture ar. As a result, the author, Manley, decided to unfold the book through a tapestry of lighthearted anecdotes and hilarious essays, seamlessly blend cultural critique with creative non-fiction. While urging men to fundamentally reassess conventional perspectives, each chapter delves into activities historically eschewed by men, such as wearing makeup, crying in front of friends, walking away from a fight, being friend zoned, seeking therapy, or play with one’s butthole.
I appreciate the author’s reminder that there was a historical era when “manly” and “masculine” did not share synonymous connotations, they coexisted in distinct realms. Nowadays, these two seems to be viewed interchangeably in people’s lexical imaginations. Historian Gail Bederman elucidates that people at the 20th century were under no such confusion. During that era, “manly” and “masculine” denoted vastly different traits and, as a corollary, vastly different men.
To be “manly” connoted nobility—self control, responsibility, character, integrity and familial care. To be “masculine”, however portrayed a more primitive image—an animalistic essence characterized by brute force, toughness, machismo, height, muscle, and physical prowess.
So, what is masculinity? Is it more manly or more masculine? Can we or should we redefine masculinity in a contemporary context?
Overall, it was intended to be a lighthearted read, yet the author did remind the readers that this is not the time to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism, this is an urgent, pressing matter. The angry men….the massive shooters, were also once infants, tiny, cherished adored beings, brimming with promise as they explored life. Over time, the promises unraveled, a gradual disintegration that ultimately culminated in the emergence of individuals who became capable of violence. If we don’t heal this wound that the whole society is responsible of causing, the present and future awaiting us will be men confused about their role in society going forward, angry to the point of cruelty, and society splintered into factions.
Time to talk about what I dislike about this book. I really don’t want to do this as this book is well-intentioned and ambitious….but I have to do this. I have issues with the way information is being conveyed. With the men blaming tones, this book is certainly a lot more palatable to the female audience despite claiming the aim is to reach male readers. The tone mostly tries to negate what men has been taught so far solely because of men, and how men need to treat women better. Something is lacking. If we are claiming that women also take part in pushing forward civilization, then this massive reflection should also involve women. Have we also been too harsh to men? Have we demanded equality meanwhile still place unfair financial expectations on men? Have we explicitly said that we love men to express themselves but when they start sharing their trauma, we find them being too sentimental? Have we said that men need to find us beautiful regardless of our shape and form, but they have to be 6 ft tall?
I concur with the author’s observation of the prevalent anger among men; it is however imperative to recognize that some women, too, experience their share of frustration while men don’t reflect stereotypical traits of toxic masculinity. Questions such as “Why men don’t try anymore?” “Shouldn’t a man be blah blah?” “Man are not like man anymore!” It would be beneficial if the book places more emphasis on engaging with women, shedding light on how they could have also inadvertently pushed toxic masculine expectations on men. If the objective is to guide young boys in treating women with greater respect, instead of a lot of singular aim of finger pointing at men, it is equally important to incorporate sections to guide young girls on fostering improved interactions with men. Because we have to admit that, a lot of the times men behave the way they do have a lot to do with how they want to be perceived and accepted by not just society, but by women.
Overall, as a female reader, I still find this book readable. The intention is admirable, personal stories I find amusing. It certainly opens up my interest in reading more gender study related books. Read at your own discretion.
