Komplexere Betrachtungen von Männlichkeit vs Feindbilder

Ein interessanter Artikel befasst sich mit Männlichkeit anlässlich eines Berichtes, bei dem eine Kindergärtnerin nur noch Mädchen mit Legos spielen ließ, weil sie meinte, dass Jungs sonst Vorteile hätten.

Dabei wird interessantes zu Männlichkeit dargestellt:

In fact, as a construct in Western societies, ‘masculinity’ is simply a way to understand and talk about specific traits that are typically ‘hegemonic’ (ie: dominant) in males but not in females. Classically, these traits include toughness, violence, aggression, endurance, bravery, and the suppression of emotions like fear and grief. As a natural extension of biological sex, this kind of hegemonic masculinity is mostly clearly observable in the different ways male and female children play and interact. Clearly, traits normally hegemonic in boys can be found in both sexes; not all girls play with dolls, and not all boys play with guns. But the distribution of these traits on average would lead us to expect that a lot more boys than girls will be interested in guns than dolls.

Härte, Gewalt, Aggressivität, Durchhaltevermögen, Tapferkeit, die Unterdrückung von Emotionen wie Angst und Trauer, das alles wäre als Formulierung für viele Feministinnen wahrscheinlich schon zu positiv oder sie müssten eben darauf verweisen, dass Männer so erzogen werden, was die positiven Seiten angeht und Frauen das quasi vorenthalten wird.

An archaic and inflexibly bio-determinist understanding of what it means to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ is both unscientific and damaging to those individuals who do not fit the standard model of their defined biological sex. It also makes little sense from a mental health perspective to insist upon a rigid and narrowly defined understanding of either gender. For example, we know that men actively negotiate their masculinity in more complex ways than the behavioural traits outlined above suggest. Men have been found to promote masculine traits like athleticism at the expense of other masculine social behaviours like alcohol consumption. Research also suggests¹ that ‘metrosexual’ men can be understood as those engaging in a sophisticated dynamic of traditionally masculine characteristics, such as earning power, paired with traditionally more feminine concerns over appearance.

Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit treffen immer nur im Schnitt zu und setzen sich aus vielen Faktoren zusammen, die man auch verschieden darstellen kann. Das gleich als Ende der Geschlechter darzustellen heißt schlicht, dass man die Rollen zu eng sieht:

During my PhD, I studied soldiers specifically trained to kill people. However, I found that the masculinity displayed by these professional warriors to be more complex than expected. On the one hand, these men seem to possess the attributes of a hyper-masculine male: toughness, aggression, dominance, and suppression of fear. On the other, they accept the realities of being a soldier, which require the individual to be subservient, obedient, and almost totally dependent, which are traditionally not masculine traits. This is to say nothing of the well documented and complex displays of platonic love among soldiers in war, who one minute may be charging a gun nest to protect one another, and the next may be sharing intimate and detailed stories of loss, regret, and fear.

Das finde ich ein schönes Beispiel, weil er eben bestimmte Faktoren zusammen bringt, die nicht in die poststrukturalistische Theorie passen und sich mit den dortigen Ansichten zu Männlichkeit widersprechen.

Weiter heißt es:

Masculinity is complex, and understanding it requires sophisticated discussions that shed light on those components of masculinity that are harmful and those that are benign or beneficial. Theories of ‘toxic masculinity’ operate on the assumption that, as the dominant sex, men have been socialized to take what is theirs by force. Social cues and cultural norms supposedly give men permission to commit violence and sexual assault, and ‘toxic masculinity’ is used to explain a variety of phenomena, from domestic abuse to aggressive imperialism and the pillaging of weak nations. Increasingly, the term is also used to describe a more symbolic kind of violence and aggression used to suppress or silence anyone who is not the ‘dominant voice’ in society.

Es wird eben ein Bild gemalt, welches eine bestimmte Funktion erfüllt, eben ein Feindbild, jemand, den man verantwortlich machen kann. Es besteht kein Interesse daran, dass tatsächlich „Männlichkeit“ in all ihren Facetten erkannt wird, das Bild im Dienste der Propaganda ist weitaus wichtiger.

An additional cost to pathologizing masculinity itself – instead of attempting to mitigate the damage wrought by its ‘hyper-masculine’ excesses – is that we stigmatize anything understood to be remotely masculine. Competition, rough and tumble play, and traits such as stoicism all become objects of suspicion. Of course, some boys are hyper-masculine, or pathologically masculine. These individuals will bully, establish dominance by hurting the vulnerable, and display other antisocial behaviors that do not benefit modern societies committed to the rule of law. But when dealing with these behaviors, Sommers suggests, we have to remember that most boys display healthy masculinity. Enjoyment of physical sports and competition does not indicate that all other related behaviors are built for destruction and domination. On the contrary, these traits also can serve to build, protect, and defend. The soldiers I studied, for instance, displayed a desire to protect, to be part of a group that allowed to them to ‘test themselves,’ to uphold values, but also to fall in line, to do as they were told, and to follow the rules. The typical British Special Forces soldier, for example, is well disciplined, has a strict codes of ethics and conduct to which they strive to adhere. These men are not, for the most part, feral savages who do as they please.

In der Tat hat Männlichkeit viele sehr schöne Seiten, die teilweise eben in einer Verbindung mit negativeren Seiten stehen. Männer mögen weniger emotional sein in einigen Bereichen, dafür arbeiten sie eher an einer Lösung für das Problem etc.