Hegemonic Masculinity, Patriarchy, and the "Male Loneliness Epidemic"
There's so much to be said about the "male loneliness epidemic" and the take that I see the most often is that it's largely made up by whiny incel babies who think that they're G-d's gift to women. And that is certainly one way to interpret it, but it's not the only way.
Men are lonely. Just fundamentally because of the way that hegemonic masculinity works, particularly in the United States. Hegemonic masculinity is the archetypal form of masculinity, "the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women." 1 It is inherently anti-feminist and anti-feminine; it seeks to deny men's access to their emotions and emotional connections with others; it's how men (re)enforce masculinity. It has been wielded as a tool for violence, terrorism, and scorn in the embodied existence of straight men; and likewise applied through extreme violence against gay men, and cis and trans women alike.2 Hegemonic masculinity is the cultural expression of patriarchy and patriarchal masculinity. It has likewise slipped into the American/European context of conquest and colonization, spread like a plague throughout the world. It strips men of, basically, everything that makes them human and helps them to connect with others.
I have heard people joke that mens' friendships are so shallow, that they only talk about surface-level things like work or sports and do not go any deeper than that. Which is true. That's all factually accurate, but this analysis does not go into the deeper question of "why are mens' friendships this way?" Boys are not taught to have and express emotions. They are told that crying is "gay" or makes them a "sissy." They are told that "boys don't cry." They are given messages over and over that there is no room for emotions in masculinity. In fact, when men express their feelings, even if others in their life express their desire for it, the man is often punished by the selfsame individual calling for men of feeling.3
This indoctrination comes from all sides and is inescapable. Boy children frequently face abuse from sexist adults and peers for not adequately demonstrating patriarchal masculinity, a ritual shaming that serves to bring his behavior back into acceptable bounds.4 Rather than use the brute force of physical violence, most patriarchal fathers employ many methods of psychological terrorism, including weaponizing shame, to keep their sons under their thumbs.5 Sons are constantly challenged to sadistic power struggles by their patriarchal fathers--who consider their sons to be inductees to the ways of patriarchal masculinity--in order to strengthen their resolve and further their fathers' and patriarchy's birthright. These tactics are designed to prove their dedication to their fathers and to patriarchy. Without these methods, fathers would not be able to bend their sons' will to patriarchy's demands. Often most present in single-parent homes, the pervasive fear that allowing boys to feel will turn them gay, pushes single mothers to be even more harsh and emotionally withholding, hoping that this treatment will be sufficient in helping their sons be masculine.6 Through policing of masculinity (the accusation of homosexuality, gender nonconformity, otherness7) peers are more able to socialize their friends and classmates in patriarchal masculinity. That being said, masculinities shape and play off each other; there is a fluidity to them. As such, there is no one-to-one relationship between masculinity and anything else, let alone purely socialization. It can be enormously difficult to determine from where any aspects of one's masculinity comes from, let alone say that any one factor represents the totality of influence.8
Culturally, we cannot imagine a man who does not weaponize their emotions and men cannot imagine a world in which their emotions are treated as genuine expressions of their existence. This is a pattern that is repeated over and over and over again, providing men and boys with ample feedback that when others ask for their emotionality, they are lying and there is, once again, no room for men of feeling in their relationships and communities. There is no room in patriarchal culture for men to just exist as themselves or to find value in their own identity. Instead, their worth is judged based on what they do, their actions, their accomplishments, their failures--including their failure to live up to patriarchal standards.9
So what happens is that men shut down, they cut out that part of themselves, the part that is soft, the part that empathizes with others, the part that feels. This patriarchal indoctrination process is incredibly painful for boys by design, and it requires that boys deny and ignore their feelings.10 Their emotional reactions are internalized and forged into rage and fury, coming to the surface to assert their manhood. This mutilation keeps them safe in their relationships with others, but those relationships are, as a result, inherently unfulfilling. You cannot be in equitable and intimate relationships with others while remaining detached from your emotions. What happens as a result are the very same shallow, surface-level relationships that are often mocked where they stick to safe topics of conversation.
But these relationships are unfulfilling and men crave more. That's what they're talking about when they speak of the "male loneliness epidemic." They are crying out for companionship and intimacy within their platonic relationships, but they do not know how to achieve that because of the patriarchal indoctrination they experienced as children. However, in order to engage in these desperately wanted relationships would require divestment in patriarchy, and they have spent their entire lives being made painfully of the disastrous consequences of such a choice. They are forced between a rock and a hard place, between isolation and humiliation, between alienation and psychological torment. This is what we are asking of them and then mocking their pain. This interaction does not produce men who are willing to defy patriarchy in order to meet their needs. In order to encourage men to divest from patriarchy, to do this difficult work, the dominator model should be replaced with a partnership model that sees interconnectedness as the fundamental way of existing in relationship with one another.11 And that starts with those of us committed to anti-patriarchal liberation and activism. We must make room for the messiness of men figuring out how to do a different kind of masculinity.
Acknowledgement of the pain, suffering, and damage wrought by patriarchy to the very same men who are said to be saved by it is vital to addressing male crisis.12 It is paradoxical to assume, ask, or expect boys and men to experience their emotions when they are taught that they cannot be a "real man" if they feel or express their feelings.13 Fundamentally, they need to feel safe. Safety is a prerequisite for this kind of work. We need to give them the space and opportunity to express their feelings in whatever way that looks like, even if it is explosive or scary. We need to not be afraid of mens' emotionality, which will require very hard personal work to take ownership of our own experiences and reactions, even (and especially) ones coming from a place of trauma. And, equally as important, men have to want to do this work. When attempts to subvert or recontextualize masculinity are taken on by the individual, they can only be used to challenge patriarchy when they are enacted in ways that bring the man into community, particularly with others who are engaged in progressive political activities.14 This activism provides a framework through which their masculinity can be used to challenge patriarchy.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. 2nd ed. University of California Press. ↩︎
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. 2nd ed. University of California Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2015). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Routledge. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
Reigeluth, C. S., & Addis, M. E. (2016). Adolescent boys’ experiences with policing of masculinity: Forms, functions, and consequences. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039342 ↩︎
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. 2nd ed. University of California Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press. ↩︎
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. 2nd ed. University of California Press. ↩︎
