One of the newsletters I have been subbed to for a while has been The Art of Manliness. Which is a website all about manhood and being the modern man in this age. One of the things they talked about in one of their many articles was a breakdown of the core of masculinity and manliness. It is an older page now and they tend do things have podcasts nowadays.
I have a jaded relationship with their masculinity core articles and the sort of factors they mention. In one light it removes the more subjective nature of masculinity for a more objective one. It also puts it into a certain light which even someone that does not necessarily meet all the stereotypes still can be classified under the masculine category. Specifically it does not mention voice, walking or anything like that related to expression in their definition. Instead it uses other metrics for manliness and masculinity. However, the metrics themselves could be considered themselves restrictive despite being broad as well.
According to The Art of Manliness being masculine and manly goes back not to expression or conforming as a male to anything outside of what they deem the 3 P's of masculinity. The 3 P's listed are protect, procreate and provide. This means that as long as you are falling into these 3 P's they consider that manliness and masculine. In some ways this could be quite broad as different individuals can protect, provide and even aim towards procreation differently. It also totally removes other stereotypes needing to be met. It removes the idea that expression really matters it is all in accepting your role instead.
Let's start with protection that can be done by someone no matter how they express themselves. Any man can learn to use a weapon if they study. Or learn a Martial Art no matter if they swag or strut down the street. Any man can learn to step in front of the innocent and protect them. You do not need a 6 pack of abs to protect people although if you have them they might help in some ways. Nowhere in the article does it say you can only have one method of protecting. Nor does it say you are protecting just women or children. However, it does say the mans role is to protect in a way which makes it seem like some sort of evolutionary duty. Something which needs to be met to be manly and to truly be taking on the masculine role.
Next let's move onto providing or provision the second core of masculinity. The jest of this would be exactly as it sounds that it is your role to be a provider to other people. Mainly to your partner and children when in a long term committed relationship. Traditionally that partner would be a woman, but, could be a man as well as long as there is provision. This makes a base assumption that you will have a long term partner and children. If someone ends up being a life long single man this role could extend to ones highly valued friends possibly as an alternative. However, it makes the assumption you are even making enough to do so. It also makes an assumption there is anyone of high enough value to you to provide anything to them.
The final P is procreation and this is pretty self-explanatory that one of your roles as a man/the masculine is to spread your seed into a female for the purpose of reproduction. Although if you are into other men it could be interpreted as the drive to man dive. That procreation and the drive for it are integral to being a manly or masculine man. This includes though not only the desire to reproduce, but, other corollary ideas like men should be the initiators and pursuers. As well as that your pursuing of wealth and status is necessarily tied to trying to reproduce with women or whatever partner you have. Where does this leave men that pursue wealth simply to be a flourishing human being? Not for the sake of what it will give them, but, for being a content person in this one life we have. Where does this leave shy men or nervous men? Are they not men?
I take issue with the fact that there seems to be this idea that just because men have done these things in the past men need to do them in the modern day to be a "real man." While it is in a sense less restricting in using roles like this over talking about other forms of behavior. It seems to base a man's worth as a man on whether they decide to protect, provide or procreate toward others. Which means that it seems anyone that does not fall into one of these categories in their relationship with others is not masculine or is less than a man. Or as it says is not good at being a man. It seems to pull a phrase out of the manosphere to be basing men's worth on a Gynocentric view of men. The idea that our worth as men comes from being free bodyguards, walking wallets and living sperm banks.
I am not going to argue this has not been the role of the masculine sex since time immemorial. I will not deny that these roles are part of the male evolutionary history and psychology. Hell, I am not even going to deny that one major fuck ton of men in modern day society will naturally feel drawn to these roles. However, there seems to be a sense wherein people that fall outside of this are deemed not to be good at being their gender/sex because they do not fall into the roles. Men are individuals and not all of them fall into archetypes that would encompass such roles in life. These men are just as much men as the next man. I do not think masculinity comes from living a life in service to others. To me that comes across as very much asking men to live a life counter to what their happiness would be.
