Wardrobe of Masculinity

Certain forms of masculinity seem unable to exist without an observer, living entirely in the public eye. You know it when you see it, although describing it gets complicated quickly because none of the individual parts are necessarily bad. Strength is not bad. Confidence is not bad. Physical competence is not bad. Protectiveness, decisiveness, toughness, ambition, courage, endurance, and the ability to keep functioning when things get ugly are all useful traits. Some of them are traits I admire deeply. Some of them I have needed. The trouble begins when they stop being qualities and become credentials.

That is when masculinity starts feeling less like identity and more like performance. The question quietly changes from “What kind of man are you?” to “Can everyone tell that you are a man?” Now the symbols matter. The voice matters. The posture matters. The hobbies matter. The reaction to vulnerability matters. The ability to appear unaffected becomes part of the costume. Somewhere along the way, the man is no longer simply living. He is presenting supporting documentation.

I am not interested in mocking that person. I am more interested in the qualification process. What exactly makes somebody a “manly man”? How many approved behaviors are required? Is there a licensing exam? Do points accumulate for fixing an engine and disappear if you cry during a movie? Does chopping wood offset knowing the words to a love song? Can a person drive a boat, raise children, carry someone out of danger, and still lose standing because he admits that something hurt him? The rules become very strange as soon as you ask them to sit still long enough to be examined.

The oddest rule may be emotional distance. Masculinity has often been presented as if feeling something is normal but showing that you felt it is a kind of administrative error. Fear may exist, but it should be translated into action. Sadness may exist, but preferably somewhere private. Affection is acceptable if delivered with sufficient sarcasm. Grief is permitted under extraordinary circumstances, although everyone should become visibly uncomfortable if it lasts longer than the scene requires. Anger, meanwhile, enjoys remarkably broad zoning permissions.

The performance gets reinforced because people reward the visible signals. Somebody who appears unshaken is called strong. Somebody who takes charge is called decisive. Somebody who never asks for help is called independent. Somebody who does not discuss fear is called brave. Those descriptions may be accurate. They may also be flattering translations of isolation, anxiety, control, or avoidance. We are very good at naming the behavior we can see and assuming the inner machinery matches the label.

That is not emotional control. At least, not automatically. Control means having access to the feeling and choosing what to do with it. Suppression means pretending access itself is suspicious. Those can look identical from across the room, which is probably why the distinction survives so easily. A man who says nothing may be composed. He may also be terrified of saying anything. Silence alone does not tell us which.

Meanwhile, some of the most traditionally masculine acts require almost none of the theater. Responsibility is often quiet. Fatherhood is mostly repetition. Grandfatherhood appears to involve a surprising amount of sitting on floors, carrying snacks, and accepting that someone much smaller than you has made an irreversible decision about where you will be going next. Service is rarely cinematic while you are doing it. Competence frequently looks boring. Real protection may consist of knowing when not to escalate something. Courage can be deeply unimpressive from the outside.

This is where the performance begins to seem unnecessary. If the qualities are real, why must they constantly be advertised? A bridge does not spend much time insisting that it is structural. It just holds the weight. A person who is secure in his masculinity should presumably be allowed the same privilege.

That does not mean traditional masculinity is fake. Plenty of men genuinely enjoy the activities, aesthetics, roles, and social codes associated with it. Good. Wear the boots. Grow the beard. Lift the thing nobody else wants to lift. Know exactly which socket is missing before opening the case. There is no prize for rejecting convention simply because it is conventional. Authenticity works in both directions. The issue is not whether a trait looks masculine. The issue is whether masculinity is being used as a test that keeps narrowing the available range of being human.

That test can become exhausting because it requires constant maintenance. A performance has to remain legible. If your identity depends on being the toughest person in the room, every room contains a possible audit. Someone stronger becomes a threat. Someone more successful becomes a comparison. Someone emotionally comfortable becomes suspicious because he is violating the rules without appearing to pay a price. The identity begins needing opponents simply to prove that it still exists.

This may explain some of the obsession with categories like alpha, beta, strong, weak, dominant, soft, real man, not a real man. They provide a scoreboard for something that probably should not need one. Human beings are complicated enough without converting personality into a wildlife documentary narrated by someone selling supplements.

I have always found the broader definition more useful. Masculinity can include strength without requiring hardness. It can include bravery without requiring emotional anesthesia. It can include leadership without domination, protection without possession, confidence without theater, and resilience without pretending nothing leaves a mark. A man can be calm because he is secure instead of because he has successfully hidden every internal event from witnesses.

And yes, he can cry, but not because crying is secretly the most courageous thing a man can do either. That would simply create another performance requirement. Tears do not grant moral superiority. Some people cry easily. Some people rarely do. The useful freedom is not being required to prove anything through either response. Feel what you feel. Manage it responsibly. Keep moving when movement is needed. Stop when stopping is needed. There should not be a masculinity deduction attached to the plumbing.

Maybe that is the distinction I keep coming back to: doing manly things is different from needing to be seen as a manly man. One concerns action. The other concerns presentation. A person can spend years doing hard things without turning hardness into a personality. He can be useful in emergencies and gentle afterward. He can carry responsibility without carrying the pose. He can protect people and still need comfort himself. None of those combinations are contradictions unless the definition of masculinity was too small to begin with.

So when I hear someone declare that a man needs to be tougher, more dominant, less emotional, more aggressive, less sensitive, or more obviously masculine, I do not immediately object.

However, I do have some questions.

Tough enough for what? Dominant over whom? Less emotional in which situation? More aggressive toward what problem? What exactly are we trying to produce, and why is the performance itself being treated as evidence that the underlying quality exists?

Those questions are not attacks on masculinity, they are merely requests for specifications. If the product is strength, show me strength. If the product is courage, show me courage. If the product is responsibility, kindness, leadership, protection, endurance, or competence, show me those things too. But if the product is mostly a collection of signals announcing MAN PRESENT, I am going to wonder why the packaging is doing so much work.

Being a man should be spacious enough to contain an actual person. Otherwise we are not describing masculinity anymore.

We are describing wardrobe.