I came across an article by one B. R. Merrick simply entitled, "What is Masculinity?"
Much to my surprise I found a very well written article all about essentials and stereotype formation more or less.
This much broader and yet still fundamental definition was as follows;
The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it.
This frees up men to both have a broad brush, but, also still have fundamental differences to women in many ways. It essentializes; thus separating masculine from feminine. Yet, it does not render a man against any particular desire, interest or trait that might be within the man.
He continues on in his article after asking a trick question of whether the more emotionally contemplating music or the aggressive music above is by a man. The trick being that both are by a man writing his music about different topics and in different moods. He follows from this to explain what he means in more detail VS what he does not mean.
" ....both musical examples above fit nicely within this definition, as both were written by one who existed in manhood, and who perceived, recognized, and applied the principles of the universe in which he lived to create his music. His contribution is different from a football player’s, from mine, and from every other man who ever walked upon this earth, or whoever will, but it is still masculine"
Least you think his brush is still not broad enough he goes onto describe his Men's Group Therapy sessions. In which he says the following;
"Over the next several months, or perhaps it was longer than a year, this group of men became my lifeline, my outlet, my anchor, and my friends. They were the genuine article..... I wasn’t the only masculine entity walking around on that campus that initially dismissed them as less-than-manly. I’m sure I am not the last to have been proven wrong. The masculine qualities these guys expressed were different than most. But there was no mistaking that each of them had a penis and testicles, and that the unavoidable, external acknowledgement of the possession of those members, along with the internal surging of testosterone, had its influence on their behavior and their manly bodies. None of these guys wore a dress. None of these guys wanted a sex change. None of them was under the impression that he wasn’t really a man.
Masculinity, whether we choose to define it or not, will continue. It’s natural law. What is required at this point in time is not to abandon the word, any more than I think we ought to abandon the word “honor.” What will benefit us the most is understanding, whenever we encounter it, those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood."
I think this is an excellent descriptions of masculinity. It lets men be men, but, also does not deny men access to full humanity in the name of being masculine as opposed to feminine. It also lets into the masculine club if you will lots of men that get labelled by society as womanly or effeminate even if they do not match the actual Biological or Psychological definition of that term in anyway at all.
It is both defining and freeing all at the same time. By defining masculinity in a way in which one is also acknowledging not everyone that tosses around that term knows what it in fact means. The answer to the man or boy that is "different" is not to make him feel like he is less than his sex. Is not to label him "effeminate," but, to understand this might be just aspects of "masculinity" miss-labelled as"feminine," It is instead once more as B. R. Merrick put it so well;
"....... those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood."
