I've been thinking about "manhood" and what it means--or what we think it means--to be a man. I am not a psychologist or a sociologist or any other kind of -ologist qualified to say anything with authority. I’m just a guy, thinking out loud. I'm a guy who has been a man for his whole life, and a father of two men for nearly 23 years. But that's all I am, so...caveat lector.
What I keep thinking about is: what is normal? Statistically (I’m not a statistician), normal
is not a single thing; normal is a distribution around a mean. We’ve all seen
the “bell curve.” To be formal about it, according to this
statistics website:
“The normal distribution is a
continuous probability distribution that is symmetrical around its mean, most
of the observations cluster around the central peak, and the probabilities for
values further away from the mean taper off equally in both directions.”
A “continuous probability distribution” feels very quantum-physics-y
to me in its suggestion that reality is less concrete and fixed that we perceive
it to be—more wave than point, more probability than certainty. (I’m not a physicist—these
are all just the ramblings of a dilettante reader.)
Todd Rose tells some amusing anecdotes, in The End of Average, about times when we have sought an actual individual to
represent the “average” of a set of qualities representing manhood or womanhood.
In both cases, the search came up empty. There was no single person who
represented the mean of all manly or womanly qualities; the pure middle was an
empty set.
Qualities exist across a continuum, and they bunch and
gather around the mean. Imagine a normal distribution of masculine traits and
behaviors, with what we call the very feminine at the left-hand tail and what
we think of as the hyper-macho at the right hand-tail. I’m making this up. Most
of us would bunch and gather around the mean as aggregates of behavior, but if
you isolated particular behaviors, or attitudes, or affects, our individual
scores might be all over the place. That’s what makes us individuals.
That’s what makes us individuals, but we socialize ourselves
and each other pretty hard, as men, not to be all over the place, but rather to
fit snugly inside what Rosalind
Wiseman calls “the Act Like a Man” box. There is one acceptable way to be a
boy or a man—deviate from it at your peril.
We’ve been raised with some pretty hardcore, binary thoughts
about gender and sexuality. “Normal” men are one thing, feel one thing, behave
one way, are attracted in one way to one opposite sex. Anything that deviates
from that “normal” is, by definition, deviant. But the reality is that “normal”
is a cluster of things hovering around a mean, not a singularity where all
things meet. If there is such a thing as mean masculinity, it exists only
because most cases of Actual Men hover around that point, at locations to one side or another of that mid-point it in
equal measure. In other words, not all men are X; some men are a little X+ (meaning to the left of X, not better than X) and
some are a little X- (meaning to the right of X, not lesser than X); some are a LOT X+ and X-.
But what have we men done? We have looked at that
distribution and we have invalidated almost everyone to the left as being dangerously
“faggy” or “gay.” Maybe only the tail; maybe almost all the way up to just
short of the mean. Depends on the generation. But even in our relatively
enlightened times, too many of us live in terror of anything to the left of the
mean, and hope that we, personally, are never tagged as being in that group.
But the extreme right? The extreme right is considered totally safe and viable:
the hyper-macho, the toxic, the brutal—those are all considered reasonably
permissible ways of being a man. So, we don’t just accept the cluster around
the mean—we say “real men” exist at the mean and all the way out to the
furthest extreme of only the right-hand tail, while anything even slightly
to the left of the mean is dangerous and to be shunned.
Remember—the mean, the average, the “normal” would not exist unless there were equal numbers of cases on BOTH sides of it. That’s how distribution works. Which means there are a hell of a lot of us to the left of the mean (in aggregate and also in a variety of individual traits). But we’ve decided to make invisible and untouchable any expression of masculinity in the left-of-X range. Those traits do not exist and must not exist in the Act Like a Man box.
Which is ludicrous, right? Because if the values to the left of the mean disappeared, the mean would shift hard towards the right. By definition. But we like to pretend that nothing to the left of the mean is part of who we are, and we reinforce that idea constantly.
Would gay men, measured alone, fall into the same rough distribution,
or would their mean skew a little to the left? I don’t know.
Would straight men pulled out into a separate group skew a
little to the right? I don’t know.
What I do know—or sense, because, again, I have no expertise
in any of this—is that masculine traits and behaviors among men as a whole follow
something like a normal distribution regardless of sexual preference, and that
all of this—all of it—should be considered a normal and ordinary range of expression
of masculinity.
I wrote
a year ago about how we might be better served by thinking of gender qualities
along a linear continuum—a slider switch rather than an on/off toggle. But if
you insisted on marking intervals along the masculinity slider for measurement purposes,
I think you’d find that, in aggregate at least, most of us would probably
register at around 5 on a 1-10 scale. Regression to the mean.
Why does that matter? It matters because people in the
majority like to pretend that minorities do not exist—or, at the very least,
that their existence as minorities makes them less-than-worthy or
less-than-real or less-than important. But remember: in a distribution, even the extremes help to define the mean. And remember: so very, very much of life on
earth falls into these distributions. For any set of values clumped around a
mean, there are always tails at either end. They are not weirdos or
deviants or wrong. They simply represent the tails—they are people with certain
traits expressed less often than others within a particular population. But they are
expressed. They are part of the data set. They are part of us. They help
define us. They belong.
And I’ll repeat this thought as well: the mean is simply an aggregate
of traits and behaviors. Go searching for the individual person who is a
perfect representation of the average of all traits--Mister Perfectly Average Man, and you’ll come up with an
empty set. There is no perfectly-averagely-masculine man. If masculinity were
made up of 100 separate traits, none of us would register at-the-mean 100
times. We’d be a little to the left here, a little to the right there, a little
further out in some areas, a little closer in for others. As individuals, we
are all over the map—and yet, so many of us are terrified of allowing ourselves
to vary.
There are as many ways to be a man as there are men. There is no box. There is no fucking box. We need to just stop.
We need to let some air in and let each other breathe.
