beef time

In a 2017 study that surveyed more than one thousand young men in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Mexico, respectively, led by the organization Promundo, the man box is defined as the combination of seven pillars. The first pillar is self-sufficiency, or the idea that men should be self-reliant emotionally and physically. The second pillar is toughness, understood as the ability to display physical and emotional strength in all circumstances. The third pillar is physical attractiveness, achieved without signaling too much effort. The fourth pillar is fulfilling traditional gender roles, financially providing for a household, and avoiding tasks deemed feminine. The fifth pillar is being both straight and homophobic. The sixth pillar is being hypersexual with no ability to say no. The seventh pillar is having the final say at home, having control over women’s movements, and the belief that violence and aggression are sometimes necessary tools to gain respect.

To be clear, these pillars, which are sometimes also referred to in the context of what is called “toxic masculinity,” are not a positive list or a how-to for men; rather, they are a condensation of the restrictions imposed on men. Harsh emotional rules are not just for women but apply to men, too—with very different requirements and consequences. Gender performance and oppression, at its most harmful, is a tight, two-way street. Penalties for those who deviate are severe, and in some ways harsher for men than for women. Calling a girl a tomboy is mostly an affectionate description, but calling a boy a sissy is an insult. In a misogynistic world, anything at all feminine is tarnishing.

In the Promundo study, which interviewed 1,318 men in the United States aged eighteen to thirty across all backgrounds and demographics, representative of the overall populations, three quarters of the men agreed with the statement that “society as a whole tells me that guys should act strong even if they feel scared or nervous inside.” The one form of emotional labor men are actively socially trained to perform is emotion suppression, followed by displays of strength or aggression. Anything beyond is transgressive.

This kind of restricted emotion expression stands in huge contrast to what emotional labor usually refers to—as a form of work that prioritizes other people feeling good. In fact, many of the pillars are the perfect opposite of emotional labor, not only requiring men to cut themselves off from truly understanding and managing their own emotions but also, through the imperative of aggression and dominance, priming them to disregard the emotions of others, thereby centering their own.

In my interviews with men, this often made it feel like the topic of emotional labor was a complete dead end. This was not only because the concept of emotions requiring time, effort, and skill astonished them to the point of deep confusion but also because so many professed themselves to be nonemotional.

One of the men I interviewed, Jeff, a straight white man in his late thirties in a long-term relationship, was dumbfounded by the concept. After I repeatedly explained what emotional labor referred to, Jeff finally announced he had understood what I was talking about. He then proudly made another firm assertion. “I am not an emotional person, so I do not need emotional labor!”

As Jeff expressed the thought that emotional labor was irrelevant to him, I realized our interview would not last very long. I initially thought the interview would go into the unusable pile, but it soon dawned on me that Jeff was actually expressing the crux of the problem. “I am not a particularly emotive person,” he continued, “which I am sure is somewhat familiar for men. I am generally considered pretty flat.”

If the first man box pillar is in part the idea that men should be self-reliant emotionally and the second pillar is in part emotional toughness, it didn’t take me long to understand that getting men to open up would also be asking them to violate core guidelines of gendered behavior. To an extent, all Jeff was really doing was refusing to play with those very rigid boundaries. But to another, Jeff was engaging in a bad-faith power play. By refusing to acknowledge the existence of his own emotions, Jeff was relinquishing the need for any emotional effort or the belonging to any emotional network, further rendering the work of others around him, absorbing and caring for his emotions, invisible.”]

Tempted to actually put this on spotify so I can secretly stream it at work...

Painted Tree Rat Callistomys pictus

A rodent from the state of Bahia, Brazil. The painted tree-rat is found in the Atlantic forest. It also occurs in cocoa plantations where some native trees remain. As far as known, it is nocturnal.

Endangered

🏵️ Ceramic hummingbird hawk-moth sculpture 🏵️

Selected Works from Grant Wood

Grant Wood was born in rural Iowa in the US on February 13, 1891. Wood is known for his role in American Regionalism, an art movement that highlighted rural American life and believed that to be the solution to the problems plaguing the country during the Great Depression. Though Wood studied in France, he dedicated his work to the American Midwest, most notably through his painting American Gothic (1930). Fun fact: American Gothic depicts a man and his daughter or wife, but the subjects are based on Wood's sister and their family dentist.

Though Grant was closeted during his life, he had a circle of friends who knew about his sexuality and supported him. Regardless of how we might feel about Wood's idea of rural America being the "solution" to American cities and the Great Depression, his work did have a large impact on defining a uniquely American art style for the time period.