The problem with praising Tim Walz's version of masculinity
I get the temptation to hold up Walz as a healthier way to be a man. But I'm not so sure it's helpful for men (or anybody).
Journalist
just wrote about vice presidential candidate Tim Walz and masculinity, and I want to drive home her point a little more here.Clark-Flory writes:
“The insistence on masculinity keeps boys and men and everybody trapped in a box. So much ostensibly progressive discourse around masculinity actually feels more like a defensive and phobic balancing act. Just enough of the ‘good’ feminine qualities, but without being too feminine, too much like a woman, which is insulting to men and women (and often rooted in homophobia).”
She was referencing the ongoing obsession among many Democrats with Walz’s “positive masculinity.” As Guardian opinion writer Moira Donegan wrote on X:
The problem with this is labeling Walz’s positive attributes as “masculinity.”
Yes, he represents a counter to Trump’s hateful and domineering leadership. Yes, this is very different than the dangerous (and historically incorrect) version of masculinity promoted by right-wing leaders and influencers. Fox News host Jesse Watters recently said about Walz’s tendency to smile, laugh, and hug: “Men should not move this way. It’s not the way we move.”
I get the temptation to hold up Walz as a healthier way to be a man. Especially as more and more young men are shifting rightward politically.
But I’ve struggled with the idea of “positive masculinity” (or “healthy masculinity”) since starting this newsletter and thinking and reading more about the history and science of gender. I now wonder if there’s any value in defining what is positive or negative (and healthy or unhealthy) masculinity. Or even in using the word “masculinity” at all.
👋 New to this newsletter? I’m Jeremy, a therapist busting the myth of “traditional” gender roles and helping men and couples have healthier, more fulfilling relationships. If you subscribe, you’ll get a free post like this every week. For $5/month you’ll get my Friday Q&A posts with specific advice on how to improve your relationship, get better at dating, raise a boy in a healthy way, support the men in your life, and more. 👋
As Clark-Flory wrote, it keeps boys and men (and everybody!) trapped in a box. The sort of traits often attributed to “positive masculinity” are things every human should want. Walz has been praised for his “palpable joy and open expressions of compassion for people in need.” His “compassion [and] kindness.” His “fairness, courage, and honor.”
Aren’t these things girls and women should be aspiring to as well? Things everyone should be? Good human things?
I like how
, author of BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity, puts it:“The whole framing [of ‘positive masculinity’] feels as though it is actually reinforcing stereotypes rather than challenging them ... It [not only] fuels the fear that for boys to embrace anything associated with women would be a humiliation, a belief which is subtly demeaning to women and girls ... [But also] the pressure to meet some arbitrary standard of masculinity is the very thing that is making boys sick and insecure, emotionally repressed and socially isolated.”
Nathan J. Robinson, in an essay eviscerating the idea of “positive masculinity,” writes:
“I don’t think there’s any way to present a ‘positive masculinity’ that doesn’t stigmatize boys perceived as effeminate. If there are masculine virtues, and a masculine ideal, then surely it’s better to pursue them than to not pursue them, and the non-masculine boy is inferior.”
The more I think about it, maybe men’s goal should be to expand our idea of what masculinity is.
Maybe we shouldn’t fight over what is “positive” or “toxic” masculinity. The more I’ve unlearned the narrow, limited box that I was taught as a boy about being a man, the better my mental health and relationships have become. I don’t really see much value anymore in using the label “masculine” to describe what I’m aspiring to be.
And what I’m doing isn’t anything all that advanced or radical. As historian
points out, “In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was common for male friends to hold hands, embrace, share a bed and snuggle up on a cold winter’s night, and write to one another about their mutual affection.”As I’ve written about before, so-called “traditional” ideas about what it means to be a man are only a few hundred years old. They were invented to support the system of capitalism, which is a relatively recent invention.
Maybe we should try to expand the definition of masculinity so much that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. So much that Walz would just be an example of how to be a decent, compassionate human being, regardless of his gender expression. Those of us who happened to be born with a male body would have the freedom to say and do whatever we want and be whoever we want.
It’s important to note that we’d be following in the footsteps of queer and trans people, who—in the words of domestic violence researcher Lee Shevek—are “expand[ing] masculinity to the point of meaninglessness.” Shevek continues:
“I might describe a shirt as feeling ‘masculine’ to me and for another person that same shirt would feel feminine, and we would both be right. [Masculinity] is a nebulous, vibes-based, and continuously contested category.”
(If you have a few dollars to spare, you can donate to Shevek’s important work here.)
I get the pull to use men like Walz (and Kamala Harris’s husband Doug Emhoff) as foils to the Trumps and JD Vances and Andrew Tates. And I get the pull to debate what version of masculinity is best for men and women and everyone. We need to fight back against the made-up, cartoon, “weird” version of being a man being held up by the right.
But I’m going to try not to reinforce outdated, unscientific, ahistoric ideas about gender in the process.
Now, a question for the comments below (or email me at jeremy@jeremymohler.blog): How do you feel about the unequal share of household labor?
(P.S. If you become a paid subscriber for $5/month, you’ll get my weekly Friday Q&A posts with tips for a healthier, more fulfilling relationship, plus the warm feeling of supporting my writing!)
I share your concern about categorizing certain positive traits as masculine or feminine. We should encourage folks to strive to be compassionate, fair, courageous and honorable regardless of their gender
I'm reminded of US Army Captain Molly Murphy, who recently graduated from Ranger School, the first female Army Nurse to ever do so. She exhibited enormous strength, endurance, and resilience, admirable qualities for anyone regardless of gender
Or look at the late great Richard Simmons. He was a tremendously empathic man who worked to help people of all shapes, sizes, genders and sexualities improve their physical health, and to love themselves and their bodies. He too exhibited qualities worth emulating, regardless of gender
Regarding household chores, I know for myself that a huge part of my frustration is the feeling of my efforts being invisible, of being taken for granted. I've asked on multiple occasions "Do you think the rubbish fairies clean up after you? No, I do!"
Which makes me think of Herbert Hoover, who dehumanized the housework of White House servants so much that he demanded they hide from him at all times. And when he doesn't see or notice the people working, he thinks that no one else is working
("White House Black History", from Tell Me More on NPR, February 21, 2011)
Women are indubitably at a better place than men when it comes to figuring out their own collective consciousness. And they’ve definitely explored areas that would not be considered feminine in the past.
But looking at them today, did they give up on a vision of femininity? Is being a woman not something that has its own particularities? And if it is (which based on how I see women interact, and see themselves, I think it is), then how can we help men find that path as well?
Finding a positive thing to associate with men shouldn’t negate the fact that women can also have that positive aspect, just like I find a certain aura and understanding of women that is inherently feminine, but (in principle) doesn’t stop men from pursuing the same traits.
I don’t know if I’m getting the point across - I like the article, and I understand where it’s going, but I just fear there is always this idea unconsciously pushed that there’s nothing inherently good to being a man at this point, and to be what we want men to be, we have to look always outside of masculinity. But maybe this is just my insecurities projecting themselves.