Perhaps it’s a predictable irony that in an election cycle that could realistically deliver the first female president, so much of the commentary has been about men. Or rather, not about men exactly, but about “masculinity.” Because somehow, in 2024, we still find ourselves unable to talk about men and boys without using masculinity as the basic frame of reference.
The electorate is faced with a choice, the story goes, between two models for masculinity. Toxic versus positive. In response to the vein-popping, furious, felon model of the right, the left is offering us a more morally upstanding and expansive “positive masculinity.”
“Positive masculinity” has been around for a while. Most likely coined in early 2000s by psychologists as a way of working with male patients in therapy, the term has now become the go-to framework for the wider progressive discussion about boys and men. It has also inspired a spate of programs and initiatives aimed at enticing boys to embrace more feminine-coded virtues such as emotional vulnerability and nurturing. Masculinity has had an unfairly bad rap, its proponents argue, becoming permanently shackled to the word “toxic.” Positive masculinity is an attempt to rebrand and reinstate it for the next generation, often with the claim that unlike the insecure posturing of the shirt-ripping strongmen, this is in fact “real” manhood.
The model is not a radical departure. Positive masculinity still draws on all the old trappings and anxieties of traditional manliness, the same belief that there is such a thing as a “real man” and the same fears of falling short. As its political standard-bearer, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz, is still required to constantly prove his masculine credentials. It is only by presenting as a man’s man and a veteran who loads his speech with sports metaphors and gun references that he earns the social leeway for his more feminist sensibilities. After all, only a “real man” is secure enough to fight for tampons in the grade school bathrooms.
After the cartoon supervillainy of Donald Trump and the smarmy misogyny of JD Vance, the “positive masculinity” of Walz and his ilk is a joyful relief, and these programs are often doing good work. But when it comes to truly shifting cultural norms for the next generation of boys and allowing them to embrace their full humanity without shame, we might do better to ditch the masculinity rhetoric altogether. Because rather than challenging the old stereotypes and patterns, the whole positive masculinity framework actually seems to be reinforcing them.
“Healthy or positive masculinity is the idea that men can be emotionally expressive, have female friends or mentors, and express their emotions without feeling emasculated,” the website of one such program in North Carolina says. The former professional football player Don McPherson uses the branding “Aspirational Masculinity” for groups he runs for boys and young men that focus on violence prevention and emotional vulnerability. When three psychologists from the American Psychological Association’s Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities set up a similar initiative for adolescent boys, their stated goal was to preserve the positive about traditional masculinity “while jettisoning what’s bad.”
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.lcc