Don't Just Be a Man; Be a Good Man

There is a learning exercise used by advocates of gender equity -- including social justice educator Paul Kivel, sociologist Michael Kimmel, and anti-sexist activist Jackson Katz – to demonstrate how certain conventions of masculinity have persisted, despite changes over the past fifty years in societal assumptions about how women should look and act.

To begin, the instructor asks participants, “What do you think of when I say, ‘Be a man’?” The instructor then writes on the blackboard the participants’ responses, which typically include acting tough and not revealing any signs of weakness, being in charge and in control and not letting other people tell you want to do, and doing things for yourself and, if necessary, by yourself and not relying on other people for help. The instructor then draws a large box around these responses and points out that the contents of the box represent a notion of masculinity that is prevalent and pervasive yet limited and limiting.

Next, the instructor asks, “What are the words that will be used to describe a boy who is not in this box?” Most responses to this question imply femininity and are intended to be derogatory. Everyone (especially boys) knows that a boy who deviates from masculine stereotypes risks being called a “sissy” or “mama’s boy” or, if the boy is older, something more crude. In terms of boys’ gender socialization, the likelihood that a boy will be ridiculed, rejected, and/or bullied if he is not in the “Be a man” box indicates the pressure boys feel to be in the box.

This exercise illustrates that conformity is not only about fitting in but also not standing out. Clearly, there are dangers to being outside of the box, and boys quickly learn to accommodate their behaviors to group and cultural norms in order to protect themselves against the risks of being different. However, being inside the box is not safe either, as a boy can be called out, so to speak, at anytime and by anyone. At school and on the playground, seemingly innocuous behaviors – like showing an interest in colors, toys, activities, or behaviors that are associated with girls – can become a liability when others consequently question the boy’s masculinity.

Instead of directing boys to “Be a man,” we can help them strive towards something more gratifying (and conducive to their health and happiness) by modifying this directive only slightly. Michael Kimmel points out that, just as most boys know what it means to “Be a man,” they also know what it means to “Be a good man.” While there may be some overlap between these two, they are nevertheless distinct. Whereas the call to “Be a man” elicits behaviors that involve and result in disconnections (e.g., through zero-sum competitiveness and the objectification of oneself and of others), boys will tell you that being a good man centers, for instance, on being honest, moral, responsible, trustworthy, loyal, and generous (i.e., qualities and behaviors that reflect and enable the preservation of one’s integrity and relationships).

By teaching boys to challenge and replace archaic norms of masculinity that have been found to hinder their relationships and undermine their well being, and enabling boys to develop masculine identities that more accurately reflect their humanity and contribute to a lasting sense of worth, we can empower boys to remain true to themselves and – as Jackson Katz proposes – rise to the better angels of their nature.