What does it actually mean to be a man? My job in the publishing industry often bumps up against this question since a lot of what we do is about creating content for men. What I find most interesting is how so much of what we create is informed by a particular idea of masculinity or manhood — and how very meticulously that idea has been mapped-out and maintained. Think man, think six-pack abs, think career-orientated, think sex-six-times-a-day if he could find a woman willing enough. Think sports fanatic, think style, not fashion; think grooming, not beauty. There is an entire checklist of what it is to be a man in South Africa; a rigorous thought process of “what guys would do” or “what guys would want to read”. So much so that on one occasion I was informed that “men wouldn’t use the word ‘beautiful’, they’d use ‘stylish’ instead”.
However this checklist is not based on anything concrete. There is no DNA analysis behind it, nor does it relate to some masculine essence somewhere. It is simply an idea we have of what “being one of the guys” means. But what’s important is how what starts out as an idea soon becomes something more prescriptive: an article on “Getting Big Fast” assumes that guys want to be muscular, but in being flagged for men, the article also creates an association between men and muscles. So in essence it’s not simply about reflecting on what it means to be masculine, so much as actively creating that meaning.
Now I’m simplifying things here somewhat. Obviously our ideas of manhood are initially drawn from the very society that we then address through our publications. In this way, part of what we are doing is recycling and reaffirming those ideas of manhood. But again, regardless of this, the point is that all those ideas we have about “a real man” are all completely constructed. What I’m saying is that often men behave the way they do not because of genetics or biology, but because of social prescriptions of how a man ought to act. We have a made-up image of what being a man is about, and we base a lot of what we do, and how we act, around that image, regardless of whether or not it actually exists.
But I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. It means that what constitutes manhood is variable, and that we can change what exactly it means to be a man in South Africa. A good example of this change taking place is how the whole idea of male grooming is slowly becoming more mainstream. Even five years ago the idea of men using cosmetics would have been unthinkable, yet now it’s gradually becoming more acceptable over time (and with some well-placed advertising).
The possibility for change is a good thing because, let’s face it, our current notions of masculinity are often what drive a lot of violent and destructive behaviour in men. Take for example the strong link between manhood and a virile (hetero)sexuality. To my mind this linking can have very negative consequences in a country with such a high HIV/Aids rate, not to mention the country’s high rape rate. Similarly I would argue that violence against women (and just in general) is an unsurprising outcome when dominance, “not backing down”, and a willingness to use violence, are all key markers of an esteemed manhood.
So what am I saying? Well it’s time we looked more closely at the narratives we construct about being a man. The Brothers for Life campaign currently on TV is doing this by re-negotiating the links between manliness and sexual behaviour (being man enough to wear a condom). We need more projects like this which question more, because I think that many aspects of how we define manhood are no longer applicable in South Africa today. Is a masculinity which values male dominance in the home still OK in a country that aims for sexual equality? Is it responsible to encourage an association between “real men” and diesel-guzzling 4X4s at a time when we need to be thinking more about our impact on the planet?
Good article like your line: “But I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. It means that what constitutes manhood is variable, and that we can change what exactly it means to be a man in South Africa.” In my 60+ years have seen what constitutes being a man and more importantly what a women can do change amazingly, very much mostly for the good.
Not sure agree with you that “well placed advertising’ is responsible for getting men to use more cosmetics. Many many years ago worked for a big multi national and they responded to men starting to use under arm deoderants by getting fully into the business, ie the market came first and advertising merely made men buy your product not other peoples product. I come from the old school that says advertising does not create markets but only affects whatever is already in society.
Brent
As always, a very thoughtful piece.
Excellent idea. The Conan the Barbarian stereotype definitely must go! Just as the Barbie image for women are getting a bit tasteless. Perhaps something more suited to our current lifestyles?
Once the new stereotype for males have been established and road-tested, we could move onto considering whether having a separate magazine for males and females and children are not at the root of a lot of stereotyping and sexism which creates problems like feelings of inadequacy in its readers with its concomitant, highly unnessary (expensive) stress- and consumerism- related diseases?
Perhaps we could then move onto considering whether magazines are not just a tree-wasting, polluting, advertising platform which has no real person’s interests at heart, except industry, of course.
I suppose a whole industry would then be found jobless and the heartless environmentally minded “individuals” would be blamed for the new economic recession and sporadic outbursts from freed people, who really like the way they are, and find the idea that anyone’s product will make them better somehow, obnoxious.
Oh no! I couldn’t face the recrimination. So back to changing the Conan/Rambo image. Does males really need to be muscular when all that muscle is going to turn to flab anyway and most never do anything more strenuous than driving a car or operating a mouse? Maybe we could transfer the whole 4×4 idea to mice? “Metallic silver, turbocharged, 4×4 suspension, fully automatic mouse”?
Maybe even smaller steps…
The whole purpose of manhood is to get some- no I lie to get a lot.A real man is one who does what women want. The women in his social reaches.Take my village till I was 13. It was the man who would come back from their town jobs over the month end who would buy the girls some drinks (fanta) and biscuits) well dressed and smelling nice.Or the local village farmer or businessman. These would get a lot . The rest got the scraps.
As regards violence you must realise all sport is about domination. Its war by another means.Its socialised violence. Even true violence- few females would be proud of you if when challenged you wimper away.Women want someone prepared to stand for something. Stand means having to fight sometimes not cause fights.A six pack means you are ready to fight and guess what women love six packs.
We are here to get laid that is our primary objective. Anything which can improve our chances with the objects of our desires at that time we will do.A man getting a manicure will not improve his getting laid chances but give it a try if you want.
Of course if the object of your desire is another man seriously consider said manicure
Translation: “What things can we sell to intellectually formless, passive male krillfeeders that will turn them into a variety of masculinity we can stomach?”
You’re analysing the negative and positive effects of consumer marketing on male identity? Shaming men into depilation and using cosmetics is a positive step?
Is there no end to the ego of the media?
Theres a few problems I have with this article.
Firstly it is wrong to suggest that male grooming is a recent phenomena. As far back as Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, do we find male grooming occuring. The Spartans being of the fiercest warriors, would spend time betwen battles grooming themselves. Cosmetics and wigs were worn by men as part of their everyday dress. There is also evidence of men passing their days in the gym, sculpting their bodies.
Secondly, the view that societal prescription defines what a man should be, and how he should act is also faulty.
You only have to go back to nature, and watch boys interacting, and you will very quickly discern what a mans purpose and role should be.
The first actions when boys meet, are to establish dominance. The boy with the bigger stature will normally dominate a group,(hence the male desire for muscular bulk, which could be subconcious)
his dominance will either be tacitly accepted, or be challenged. When it is challenged it will usually turn into a fight between himself and the challenger.
Agression in males are not by choice, but by their need to dominate and defend, and thus nature has endowed men with the hormone testosterone for this purpose.
I always maintain that we should not, and cannot fight nature, and attempts at changing the natural role and status of men or women, is doing exactly that.
The Praetor
From a woman’s point of view:
In the ad industry they talk of educating the client. How about the publishing industry educating the customer? Looks don’t count; manners still maketh the man. Common decency, stability and a wish to make the world a better place would count with me (starting at home).
However did that idiot in the Aero ad ever catch the girl eating the chocolate? Mismatched by the casting director is all I can say…
Guys need to have admirable morals that go beyond the bed!
Must be why I’m still single and ever likely to remain so.
Great piece
Being a man is simply being a good human being nowadays. In an era past, where male and female responsibilities were different (they are not so different now), manhood qualities were those that fitted those male responsibilities. Now that responsibilities are the same for both genders (except maybe in child birth), having separate values/qualities for man and woman is obsolete. Let’s make good human beings of different genders so that they can keep making babies for humanity to continue on this earth.
Regarding the media and male identity, every free thinking male is free to disregard the media’s biased picture of what it means to be a man.
Personally I take the attitude of MLH in terms of what makes a man, and it is what I strive (but don’t always manage) to be.
It is the attitudes of free thinking and deciding for oneself what it means to be a man that the media should be promoting, not a defined standard.
@The Praetor: We can fight nature. We do it all the time. I won’t bother to go into examples, there are plenty to be found by anyone who cares to look.
Should we? That depends on the situation or behavioral pattern in question.
“The first actions when boys meet, are to establish dominance.” This is not true, at least not as a generalization. It may be true in some circles, but it has almost never been true in my life experience. In those circumstances where someone *has* tried to establish dominance, their attempts have been largely ignored. Not fought off. Ignored. If necessary to the point of not even acknowledging those people as part of the group so that they go off and try their primitive ways elsewhere. This is a clear case of societal actions and reactions overriding nature.
We are conscious of our natures. We have choices.
Haiwa, as always your comment is obnoxious and dangerous. Men are not on this planet purely to get some, in the same way that women are not on this planet solely to reproduce.
A six pack does not mean that you are ready to fight, and no woman that I know is looking for a man to do her fighting for her.
Your comments really are rediculous.
I have always felt good in my own skin and I don’t like people who try to be something else. Why try to be a man? Why not have faith in your creation and just be yourself and do what ‘blows your hair back’.
Men want to be looked up to and admired by other men and fawned over by women. Being a ‘real man’ is being whatever it takes to achieve this at a particular point in time.
Being a man in a first world modern context is a far cry from being a man in a third world walking penis context as presented by Haiwe Tigre.
A real man has immense power, but does not use it. Instead he gives it away freely and asks for nothing but love and respect in return. A real woman does the same.
Jennifer thorpe,all I can say is you know very little about men and to what degree they will go to get some.But each to their own. good luck to you. Incidentally I find your comments and blogs quite naive but luckily I dont have to live by them thank god
@ haiwa Tigere
You really are a quite something…
@owen – Although I agree with you, being a confirmed individualist, I could not help but giggle at the archetypal picture of the hero(in) on the mountaintop, walking stick in hand, your last sentence called up.
@ haiwa tigere: frankly, I would say that your idea of manhood is quite limited. You’ve been socialised in a certain way, in a certain place and time where ‘getting some’ became the norm, so you can’t see that this is not the only way to be – to you it is the norm.
My father (a real warrior, if you like – he fought in WW2) would rather have talked than fought, always (despite being a strong weight-lifter and sportsman). He thought being a real man was about being a good father, mainly. He may have ‘got some’ with two women before he married, tops. He did not score himself on that basis.
My husband is not a fighter, either, but the best all-round lover you could imagine – he knows how to care about my mind as well as my body, and shows it. He is, in my book, a real man. And he knows something really important: that if you invest in real love as opposed to ‘scoring’, you’ll have a companion who cares about you when you can’t get it up anymore.
Dominance and scoring is not ‘nature’ – suggest you read The Old Way, a book about the original people of SA, and see how very, very little of this behaviour cropped up in their societies.