"But men weren't taught that. They were taught that they are the hero. The protagonist. The central character. The one. The boy who lived. The son who could bring balance to the force"

I've long struggled with growing up in a world with an increasingly toxic version of masculinity. It is a force strong enough that we need to take pause and actively reflect on it to move out of the current. I really wasn't sure what to expect with The New Masculinity, but Northey has taken smaller concepts of what a man does not do and flipped them on their heads.

"The masculinity we're familiar with is not an ideology of creativity or newness, it's an ideology of rejection and retreat"

Northey is also very vulnerable in the book, sharing personal anecdotes of their own experiences with these concepts and growth, prova look into how the reader may get there too.

The New Masculine does not solve all the issues with modern masculinity, but chips away at core facets of a toxic masculinity to give space for reflection on a new masculinity. Although marketed as a guide for boys and young adults, I found this personally both extremely poignant and continually relevant to my life.

Highly recommend a read.

Whatever else it might be, gender is a problem. Every basic question we might ask about gender - what it is, how it is, why it is - leads to multiple, often conflicting and confusing answers. What makes the problem of gender particularly vexing is that the problem has no seeming limits or boundaries. Because we are all unavoidably gendered (in some way(s) and in some sense(s) of that term) we come across this problem in all our affairs. Our private, personal lives are no less touched by the problem of gender than our public, sociopolitical lives. Moreover, the way we grapple with gender personally might be in direct conflict with how, say, politicians have grappled with gender legislatively. The problem, then, tends to run a little wild.

To look at the problem of gender is, invariably, to see a set of refracting and interrelated problems (e.g. gender’s relationship to sex, race, sexuality, capability, class, ethnicity, etc. etc. etc.). Aggravating the many and upsetting problems of gender is that a good many people do not, will not, or cannot see that gender even is a problem at all. For some, gender is taken as a given. It is clear, straightforward, untroubling. It just is. It is not only not a problem, but it’s not even an object of thought. In the same way as one may pay no mind to the problem of black holes in the galaxy, so too might some pay no mind to the problem of gender in their own lives or the lives of others. Unlike black holes in the galaxy, though, gender in one’s own life and the lives of others isn’t avoidable. Even those folks who - by dint of privilege, ideology, ability, or anything else - do not recognize gender as problem, have inevitably somehow (in their own way) addressed it. They have decided or accepted that gender is X, it manifests as Y, and it affects Z. It is valuable or trivial because of A, meaningful or meaningless because of B, and so on. One might not have a set of propositions or rules or definitions at hand, but all the same one has (at least) an intuitive or ad hoc or functional grasp of what gender means, why it matters (or doesn’t), how it shows up in the world, and what it affects. Even saying something as blunt as “there is no such thing as gender” is a way of addressing the problem.

Given its complexity and many-headedness, it feels safe to say that gender is a properly philosophical problem. It has metaphysical, physical, ethical, political, and aesthetic dimensions. There is, in fact, no part of gender that is not philosophical interesting and arresting. While the problem itself is a veritable nightmare, recognizing the problem as a problem needn’t be. As Wittgenstein writes, “[a] philosophical problem has the form: I do not know my way about.”

Wittgenstein’s decidedly simple description of the form of a philosophical problem is, to our eye, helpful especially in regards to gender. It is easy, for example, to imagine a person coming to recognize themselves in relation to their gender (positively or negatively) and thinking something like “I do not know my way about.” How to look, speak, dress, behave, etc. all might cause one (however briefly or deeply) to think something like “I do not know my way about.” How to understand one’s desires or those of other’s might, likewise, prompt one to say “I do not know my way about.” It is a practical admission of (potentially momentary) ignorance. Encountering a philosophical problem like gender is not necessarily a dire or tragic state of affairs, but it might be.

Not knowing, for example, your way about a mall is (in some circumstances) not much of problem. Likewise, not knowing if this outfit is too femme or not femme enough might be (in some circumstances) not much of a problem. These problems might just be mere inconveniences or annoyances. You don’t know what exactly to do or how to go about a set of circumstances, but sort it out without much issue or fail to sort it out without any meaningful consequences. Conversely, not knowing your way about a mall that is on fire is (likely) a very pressing problem. Likewise, not knowing whether your sense of self corresponds with your physiology might be a very pressing problem. These deeper problems take the same form as the shallower ones, but the way the problems are felt and the consequences that follow from answering them are radically different. The problem might be seem silly or serious, shallow or deep, unimportant or pressing, abstract or concrete - but, all the same, it must and will always have to be taken up somehow.

It seems likely that we have each had to admit at some point or another that, in regards to gender, we do not know our way about.

It is sometimes relatively simple to sort out “a way about” some issues, but other times impossibly tough. Sometimes your “way about” helps for a while, but you or things change such that you need a new or different “way about.” A philosophical problem - esp. as Wittgenstein defines it - never leads to final or permanent solutions. The best we can hope for is to recognize that the problem is a problem (e.g. honestly acknowledge when we do not know our way about in regards to it or some aspect of it) and that we might be able to (collectively or individually) create or discover a way of dealing with that problem effectively (if only temporarily). The problem might not go away, but we can at least work with or through or beyond it (for some time, in some cases, with some people).

Now, just because a problem is philosophical doesn’t mean that it is only and just an academic matter to be dealt with in textbooks and lecture halls. It is a theoretical problem, sure, but it is also a decidedly practical one. The problem of gender - as we’ve seen most recently in Kansas - plays out everywhere and has consequences that go quite far beyond the philosophical. Approaching the problem of gender a certain way and proferring answers to the problem has concrete effects on how the world is and how people navigate that world. One’s thoughts, feelings, dispositions, attitudes, actions, and life is impact by how people (you, your friends, your family, your broader social sphere, the institutions to which you belong, the legislature, etc.) sort through the problem of gender. The problem - moreover - is not just limited to actual situations, but on our imagination of potential situations. What one can do or how one can be is impacted by gender no less than what one can imagine doing or being. Finding a way to go about gender is, then, both a matter of what gender is - but also a matter of what gender might be. It is as much about how things are as it is about how things could be otherwise.

It is this last point that preoccupies and animates Alex Manley’s book, The New Masculinity: A Roadmap for a 21st-Century Definition of Manhood. On AM’s view, one pressing aspect of the problem of gender as it is manifest today is the problem of masculinity. Teen boys and young men (broadly defined) do not, now, know how they ought to go about being masculine (in a way that is not toxic or harmful to themselves or others). Boys and men of today are, AM writes, “caught between a model of masculinity no longer fully accepted by the world around them and a world around them for which they have no functioning model.” Boys and men, then, stand at a crossroads between an old, ineffective, unpalatable, and sometimes outright vile kind of masculinity and a new, effective, and (perhaps) socially good one. Sadly, as AM explains, many men are opting to adopt a rearguard, male chauvinism via online hategroups, questionable self-help guides, pseudo-cults, etc. (see Andrew Jailed in Romania, Jordan Lobster et al.) rather than forging a more open, soft, and equitable version of masculinity that improves not only the lives of men (broadly conceived) but also the lives of everyone who interacts with men (namely, everyone). This, then, is what The New Masculinity is for.

As the subtitle states, The New Masculinity is a roadmap to a new, contemporary mode of masculinity that is far more inclusive, exploratory, and equitable than the traditional and hegemonic version proffered throughout North American popular culture over the last long while. And like a roadmap, AM’s book is decidedly practical.

Each chapter takes aim at a particular attitude or behavior that is traditionally associated with (a certain form) of masculinity and seeks to offer a contrary alternative. The chapter titles, themselves, formally underline the double work of negating an established ideological position and offering a contrary one. Chapter Four, for example, is “if you’re a real man you never cry in front of your friends.” The chapter titles are often sort of red herrings. That is, they are a silly or superficial instance of a more serious issue (e.g. crying in front of friends is good and all, but developing a willingness to establish close personal connections with others and being able to display one’s feelings, be vulnerable, etc. with them is the real lesson here). The titling convention is, itself, a sly critique of most masculine ideological messages - namely, they’re silly and dumb. AM uses this dumb, silliness to their advantage, they use the levity or slightness of the purported ideological mandate as a means of pushing off into more troubling, difficult territory. By striking through the troubling part of each hegemonic definition of masculinity, moreover, AM highlights that, in terms of gender ideology, one never totally negates or does away with established notions. You will always be able to, so to speak, read the hegemonic demand lurking beneath the strikethough - but through certain actions (e.g. deliberately denying standing claims, performing actions otherwise) one can find a different way through regardless. This little typographical gesture illustrates AM’s chief claim regarding this new masculinity, namely, it is something one does despite extant supposed norms. One does not, so to speak, step onto the path of the new masculinity - but creates it along the way by stepping. The only thing that might be totally clear, as one heads towards the new masculinity, is that one is deliberately refusing to follow the expected or ideologically demanded route.

Unlike a roadmap, AM’s book is not simply or merely a set of instructions or directions for going from ProblematicAndToxicManVille to LessTroubledMascTown. Each chapter’s topic is addressed through three different, interwoven modes. The issue at hand (say, men’s attitudes towards domestic labor and femme-coded labor more broadly) is treated from 1) a social or cultural studies perspective (to describe the phenomenon and ideological framing of that phenomenon), 2) a personal perspective (to illustrate or exemplify how that phenomenon shows or has shown up in AM’s everyday life), and 3) a practical perspective (in order to prescribe certain concrete steps to counteract the bad, hegemonic, unhelpful, etc.). AM moves ably between these three registers, in part, thanks to the style they’ve adopted throughout the book. Regardless of the topic or mode, AM proceeds conversationally. One gets the sense throughout that AM seeks to speak with the reader than talk at or simply to them.

The conversational aspect of The New Masculinity means that the book is, as they say, very readable. Each page, section, and chapter moves at an easy and steady pace. AM doesn’t get bogged down in definitions, qualifications, counterexamples, etc. etc. etc. Quotations, background research, and anecdotes tend to be offered up quickly and moved through at pace. This is not an academic or theoretical text - but nor is it a memoir or self-help book. It is, for lack of a better word, a hybrid guide to complicated theoretical and practical matters relating to boys, men, masculinity, and relations between genders. Or, better, it is a conversation. Sometimes this conversation is earnest and other times funny, sometimes it is thick with quotes and statistics and other times relies on anecdotes and speculation. This conversational approach makes pragmatic sense given that it is meant for a broad audience of young men and teen boys. The approach, though, isn’t without certain risks.

To have a conversation with someone - especially, in the case of a book, a lot of possible someones - means making certain presumptions about them. One needs to presume a certain level of background knowledge, a certain amount of good faith, etc. And, in the case of The New Masculinity, certain identity traits. There is, truly, no such thing as masculinity (or gender more broadly) divorced from other aspects of personal and social identity like race, class, ability, etc. This means that AM needs to - for strategic reasons - presume certain things about whom they are talking to. AM is - to be clear - aware of this. They note, sporadically, that other aspects of identity can and do factor into what they’re saying, but - all the same - it warrants noting that these presumptive attitudes are sometimes distracting. For example, AM’s presumption that teen boys (by default) have a difficult time making meaningful, strictly platonic friendships with teen girls does (to our eye) presume that straight, cis boys are intended to be the recipients of this advice. Likewise, AM’s discussion of wearing makeup (or, more broadly, taking one’s physical appearance, look, style, etc. seriously) presumes (again, to our eye) certain unarticulated presumptions about the race, class, and social space occupied by the reader.

These are not, to be clear, condemnations of the book or its author. As we said above, the problem of gender is manifold. Its complexity is such that a full and complete appreciation of all its extensions and fuckery would (and often does) result in being cowed into stunned silence. To address gender at all (especially masculinity) at present is to run the risk of upsetting people, of saying things imprecisely or imperfectly, of getting things (from someone’s perspective) very wrong. Addressing the problem of gender is always and forever going to be problematic. Nothing is going to be beyond reproach. Reproach is, in point of fact, maybe a necessary part of addressing this problem at all. AM is, as they state explicitly at various points in the book, in the midst of figuring out their own relationship to masculinity and, as a result, is creating their own map alongside and with their readers. This map will be and must be imperfect.

A roadmap, it warrants noting, always needs to operate at a certain level of abstraction. It needs to simplify things and, by simplifying things, render the world a little inaccurately for practical purposes. Whether this particular roadmap does a disservice to the world or hampers one’s journey in it will, necessarily, come down to why you’re consulting it and what you aim to do with it.

We - for example - would have preferred that AM acknowledge or cite more examples of the new masculinity as it presently exists. There are no shortage of self-identified men who have been caring, vulnerable, and open in the ways AM advocates. Writers, filmmakers, musicians, and various others have - in their own way - already been living and advocating for much of what AM is proposing (i.e. a masculinity that is open, experimental, curious, careful, and concerned with others in all respects) for decades now. The inclusion of other positive examples would - to our eyes - have lent a little more clarity and heft to the propositions AM advocates for and (maybe more importantly) have forced AM to contend with the prospect that individual male actions might be insufficient to change ideas about masculinity as such - but, again, a roadmap can’t include everything lest it cease to be a roadmap. Moreover, this small critique - if it is appreciably felt by others - is very easy to address in venues other than the book itself (e.g. a New Masculinity syllabus containing works that might be of interest to readers could be shared by AM, curated by readers, etc. etc.).

Despite falling outside AM’s intended audience, taking issue with many of their diagnoses of the social and cultural state of North American masculinity, and disagreeing with some of their claims about the way to address or work through gendered problems - it is very hard not to admire both AM and what they’ve done in The New Masculinity. They’ve encountered a problem - men and boys do not know their way about masculinity right now - and addressed it as fully, practically, and directly as they can. Their willingness, moreover, to offer up their own personal experiences as both a positive and negative example of how to go about being masculine especially deserves to be commended. They are enacting just what they are prescribing, namely, a way of going about gender that is centered on a concern for others, a holistic care for oneself, a willingness to experiment, and a desire to create a different and (hopefully) better world for anyone and everyone touched by it (which, of course, means everyone).

The New Masculinity is, at once, a very humble and wildly audacious attempt to address an unsolvable problem in the hopes that (together) we might at least find better ways of running up against it, of saying not only “I do not know my way about” but also “I would like to find a way about that is better for us all.” The problem of gender may not be going away any time soon, but - with efforts like AM’s - there’s hope that new paths, new ways of going about being or appearing or seeming masculine that are better for everyone, might be paved before long.

The New Masculinity covers the ways modern gender roles have harmed people emotionally, socially, and physically. Alex Manley does a great job breaking down why specific gender expectations are harmful with research as well as personal examples. One thing that really upset me, while reading this, was how much I could see the cis men in my life who are harmed by these expectations (and refuse to let them go). Overall, The New Masculinity is a great introductory book and I'd recommend reading this with Sexed Up by Julia Serano.