Research Paper about Defining Masculinity

The ideology of gender roles has existed since the moment mankind appeared on earth. Humans have always disagreed upon which gender has it easier: male or female. Barbara Ehrenreich, author of “What I’ve Learned from Men,” describes her vision of how women should be strong like men. She believes that women need to become tougher and learn from the stereotypical definition of a man. She also uses sarcasm to describe the traditional macho male. In contrast, Charles M. Blow, the writer of “Real Men and Pink Suits,” discusses the frustration of how difficult it is to fit in the traditional definition of masculinity. Many men feel that they do not fit in society’s description of a male, such as being strong, powerful, and controlling, which becomes potentially dangerous as they face hatred from the people surrounding them. The two texts are comparable in the way that both authors preach each gender should express their individuality. 

In Ehrenreich’s essay, the author claims that women should adopt certain male attributes, and her standpoint reveals that taking on their characteristics would make women stronger. For instance, Ehrenreich expresses how soft women can be. According to the author, “This realization does not mean that my feminist principles have gone soft with age: what I think women should learn from men is how to get tough.  After more than decade of consciousness-raising, assertiveness training, and hand to end combat in the battle of the sexes, we’re still too ladylike.  Let me try that again—we’re just too damn ladylike” (157). Ehrenreich indicates that women adhere to their gender roles a bit too much. By way of illustration, throughout generations, women have been taught to sit quietly and not act the way she truly feels. For example, if she is watching television and shouts for the remote, she gets lectured. If she raises her voice, she is deemed as “too rude” and would be silenced, while a man would get away with the same action. These actions advance a man’s power and tyranny over a woman, and Ehrenreich clearly wants women to take action while it’s in their own hands. The author continues to describe other womanly attributes that she feels must be put to a stop, like the fact that women should give up the soft smiles and react in an angrier manner. As seen in the essay, “As a general rule, women get irritated; men get mad.  We make tight little smiles of ladylike exasperation; they pound on desks and roar.  I would recommend emulating the full basso profundo male tantrum, but women do need ways of expressing justified anger clearly, colorfully, and, when necessarily, crudely” (162). She explicitly describes men’s tantrums as “basso profundo” in a sarcastic manner, which further illustrates her ideology of the traditional macho male. Her description accurately depicts one of the typical stereotypes of men, which is to unveil their monstrous anger when they don’t get their way. It is critical to note that her reasoning is biased, as not all men fit into this description. To exhibit, if a man acts too “girly,” like using a softer voice or wearing nail polish, he is told to “toughen up.” Many men who attempt to escape their gender norms get criticized, while in this case, a woman is encouraged to do so.  

Blow’s essay opposes Ehrenreich’s stance. The entire point of his article is that men cannot be put into specific molds. Blow describes the stereotypical attributes of masculinity and their effect on society. The author emphasizes that jokes about men who do not fit in the societal definition of men shouldn’t be tolerated. Blow writes, “But in the real world — where bullying and violence against gays and lesbians, or even those assumed to be so, is all too real — “jokes” like his hold no humor. There are too many bruised ribs and black eyes and buried bodies for the targets of this violence to just lighten up and laugh” (216). Just because the intention of a joke is harmless, it doesn’t make an individual guilt-free in regards to hurting someone else’s feelings. According to the article, men typically have a harder time expressing their emotions than women. Generations have taught them to be strong, and they have heard “men don’t cry” countless times in their life. The more those jokes against them are made, the more it becomes normalized, which makes many of these men going through this issue susceptible to bullying, violence, and even worse, suicide. In order to prevent such unfortunate events, one must expand their mindset, ignore what generations have taught for years, and begin a new generation of acceptance and individuality. As for example, Blow writes, “And it’s about understanding that masculinity is wide enough and deep enough for all of us to fit in it. But society in general, and male culture in particular, is constantly working to render it narrow and shallow. We have shaved the idea of manhood down to an unrealistic definition that few can fit in it with the whole of who they are, not without severe constriction or self-denial” (217). Society confined men under a specific definition, and are described by the world as a typical superhero: powerful, muscular, and the type of people to save the day. Throughout their childhood, boys look up to these heroes, but on the inside, many of them feel that they don’t belong. With more awareness and discussion on such topics in school, it has become increasingly accepted on a wide scale and considered normal to feel this way. 

Ehrenreich and Blow both conclude that masculine stereotypes may seem either empowering or constricting, depending on whether a person is a male or female. From a woman’s perspective, male stereotypes allow women to live up to those stereotypes and even beyond. Ehrenreich encourages women to abandon their traditional, reserved habits and act the way they truly feel by adopting more masculine features, such as raising her voice without feeling guilty as well as throwing a tantrum when she doesn’t get what she wants. On the other hand, in Blow’s essay, from a male’s point of view, typical masculine stereotypes, like being the hero and man of power,  shrinks a man’s ability to go beyond such ideologies in fear of the people around them. In contrast to Ehrenreich’s writing, Blow discusses that if a man were to renounce his gender role, it would be shameful to society. This could potentially mean danger to them, as they would be more at risk of bullying by people who do not agree with the idea of a man not conforming to his gender role. Although the authors utilize different techniques and perspectives, the two make it clear that masculinity can be used as means of expanding or constricting freedom.