22
23

Captain America and Non-Toxic Masculinity (doctornerdlove.com)

AtTheEolian が 投稿

全 15 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]throwaway3456505 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Steve Rogers isn’t a warrior so much as he is a guardian. His first instinct is to throw himself into harm’s way in order to save others, regardless of whether he’ll survive or not. He quite literally threw himself on a grenade in order to save his unit during basic training.

This is pretty much in line with how I see my relation to my gender as well. I think that's why it took so long for me to go to therapy back when I was thinking about killing myself, better I be miserable than take up time someone else could be using. It's nice to know that the author thinks that makes me a good man.

I mean, that was a bit snarky, but I don't really see the difference between this "Non-toxic masculinity" and the sort of masculinity that leads to toxic behaviors. When I was a little kid I didn't want to be to be "some guy who couldn't talk about his feelings" I wanted to be someone like captain america, but when I grew up my own version of self-sacrifice was the best I could do.

Toxic masculinity isn't an ideal, it's just the result of striving to perform an impossible gender role. I think this article is really just enforcing the same system it opposes.

Just to rip into it a little more...

Steve Rogers is a 98-year old virgin.

In fact, we know exactly how much sexual experience Steve’s had. We’ve seen all of it. He’s been kissed three times. Once by Private Lorraine, once by Peggy Carter and once by Natasha Romanova. And that’s… pretty much it.

Is that really very relevant? the movie makes it very clear that he's desirable, that feels more important than whether or not he actually chooses to have sex.

As absurd as it may sound, it’s Steve’s personality that makes him so appealing to women. Yes, the body certainly helps, nobody’s going to deny that. But at the end of the day, Steve came thisclose to getting his v-card punched by Peggy Carter.

Okay, but it's still important that he's attractive right? My personality isn't very attractive, i'm filled with insecurity and self doubt and my sources indicate those are some of the least sexy personality traits. Does that make me less of a man? or just not a good man?

Pre-serum Rogers was someone who recognized that he was hardly the epitome of manly perfection. But rather than becoming a ball of resentment or looking for a magic fix that would let him become an “alpha” like his best friend Bucky, he simply kept trying to move forward. His greatest strengths were his moral core and the optimism that he’d make it through eventually, no matter how much work it’d take.

So basically we should look up to him because he never gave up hope that he could one day perform masculinity? Again, I'm pretty resentful about being expected to be captain america, does that stop me from being a good man?

Iunno, maybe I should stop seeing my therapist...

[–]FixinThePlanet 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

/u/Ciceros_Assassin talks about the difference between "performative masculinity" and "aspirational masculinity" in this comment.

What this essentially means is that each of us should define for ourselves what our own masculinities and femininities look like. Either we do this by consciously accepting or rejecting the roles that we are expected to fill, or we do it independently of the world, using a moral or ethical code that allows us to judge ourselves and work on ourselves independently of what society dictates.

Nobody says you must be Captain America. What they do want to say is: he embodies certain ways of looking at the world and himself that are good and great and admirable, and if there is anyone you want to set up as a role model for yourself, then he's a great choice.

The hope that Steve Rogers never gave up was not that he would someday perform masculinity as the world sees it. It is the hope that he would live a good life full of meaning. We could all use that hope. How you measure up to the rigid dictates of society should be independent of that hope, if you can think it so.

[–]throwaway3456505 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If you mean that he's a good person, well, I agree, but I don't see what that has to do with masculinity. If you mean he demonstrates a method of achieving a sense of masculinity without being 'toxic' well then I disagree for the same reason I gave above, for instance my example of self-sacrifice.

Nobody says I must be Captain America, but they do say Captain America is masculine and that I must be masculine.

[–]MaxSupernova 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

But he thinks the only way to deal with things is to punch them until they aren't problems any more.

He uses his shield as a weapon more than he uses it to defend.

Et cetera, et cetera.

I think this article totally cherry picks things to emphasize, because there are valid points to counter most of them just by choosing slightly different takes on the same aspects.

It's like a modern-day sermon where any example can be warped into a biblical lesson, but for masculinity.

[–]banana__phone 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think he was talking about the symbolism of having a shield.

But I totally see where you're coming from.

[–]Redditapology 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

You are taking it a bit too literally, they are using the shield as a way to say that he fights to defend others rather than fighting as an aggressor for his own personal goals. That's the whole point of the article, that beneath all the muscle and metal he is an intrinsically good guy, and -that- is his strongest ability. Not healing or throwing or punching, but the ability to genuinely lead through sheer determination and optimism.

That is one things I always loved about Captain. You need billions of dollars to be iron man. You need "science" magic to be The Hulk. But a five year old on the playground can be Cap if he stands up to bullies despite being scared out of his wits and half their size.

[–]Ciceros_Assassin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're totally right, and I'll add that turning any positive analogy on its head to be negative just for the sake of argument, or not having to try to live up to an ideal, is something Cap would never do.

[–]Kiltmanenator 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

This week, we’re returning to the topic of masculinity and how to be a good man in an era when what it means to be a man is changing.

I think there are actually separate (if somewhat related) phenomenon in that sentence. "Being a Good Man" vs "Being good at Being A Man".

Captain America is clearly a Good Man. Captain America is clearly a Man. The Joker is also clearly a Man, but he is not a Good Man. Characters like Don Corleone and Negan from TWD are all good at being men but are not Good Men.

Physical strength, a capacity for violence and the willingness to use it are among of the core tenets of toxic masculinity.

I'd say they're among the core of just Plain Ole Masculinity, and it's the abuse of that physical capacity for violence that introduces toxicity. I don't think there's anything inherently toxic about having those things be at the core of masculinity.

But it’s not Steve’s restraint or resistance to violence that makes him an example of positive masculinity. As a matter of fact, it’s an area where, in the terms of traditional, toxic masculinity, Steve falls far short of true manliness. Ready for it?

Two points. (1) I think Cap's restraint does make him an example of positive masculinity....in precisely the kind of way that the people who developed warrior codes centuries ago hoped it would. Chivalry and all that jazz is there to keep the warriors of the world from going full Clegane on the rest of us. (2) Doc here is playing awfully fast and loose with the term "traditional, toxic masculinity".

Chivalric heroes provide us with plenty of examples of sexually chaste warriors. Cap's nonsexuality is only "new" in the sense that everything has been sexualized out the ying-yang for the last 75 years. Cap not laying pipe left and right might be a welcome alternative male role model (IMO he is), but this kind of character is only new if we forget what has come before. In the sexual arena, Cap aligns quite nicely with traditionally masculine characters who, despite their chastity I'm sure Doc wouldn't approve of as Good Modern Role Models TM.

Basically Dr. Nerdlove writes about "traditional, toxic masculinity" as if it were a monolith when really we don't need to even look too hard in the Western canon to discover male characters Doc would probably hate but who nonetheless exhibit (1) restraint or resistance to violence (2) virginity (3) close male friendships. I don't think Doc is wrong in that Cap is a great role model. I just think he's got a yuge perspective issue. It's disappointing and it undermines his credibility, at least in my eyes.

[–]JonnyAU 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Physical strength, a capacity for violence and the willingness to use it are among of the core tenets of toxic masculinity.

I'd say they're among the core of just Plain Ole Masculinity

Idk. Saying those things are just regular masculinity seems rather gender stereotypical because it implies the inverse: that if one is not strong and violent one is not masculine. If one is a physically weak pacifist, he's no less of a man for it in my book.

[–]asaz989 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can I just comment on how happy the phrase "going full Clegane" makes me?

[–]Ciceros_Assassin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't agree with all of your comment, but a robust dialogue is exactly what's needed as we try to define and develop masculinity-in-flux, and you raise some good points.

So, in the interest of a robust dialogue working toward a functional definition of masculinity: some thoughts - and disagreements!

Your distinction between "being good at being a man" and "being a Good Man" is really interesting, and it speaks to a lot of what we discuss here between performative masculinity and... aspirational masculinity, I suppose. That there's a way of "being a man" as society sometimes defines it, and there's "being A Man" in a way that we want - the reason we look up to Cap instead of, say, Michael Corleone.

I took the author talking about the capacity for violence and toxic masculinity in a different way; to me, there's a material difference between knowing you're strong and could hurt things except you're holding back, and knowing you're strong and not having the impulse to hurt things at all. Cap doesn't hold his strength over others in a "let's get along, but..." way; the point is that he doesn't view his capacity for violence and mayhem as a trump card in a disagreement.

In a similar vein, I don't think the point was that Steve's virginity defines him; rather, the virtue is that he doesn't think of his sexuality as defining him at all. His chastity or sexual conquest isn't something to be wielded. It's just the way he is, on his own terms, and it's also impossible to imagine him holding someone else's sexual experience against them in any way. The point isn't that he's a virgin, but rather that he wouldn't make you feel bad if you were one, or listen to anyone who tried to make him feel bad about it.

All in all, I think the author does a good job of identifying certain elements of toxic masculinity (threat of force and superiority through sexual conquest) and how Cap responds to them in a way that makes him a strongly positive masculine role model.

I'd be interested to hear your counterexample male characters and see if they still match those criteria as I've framed them.

[–]FixinThePlanet 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I suppose it is because of the new movie coming out that "Steve Rogers and his Wonderful Masculinity" is such a hot-button topic. (For anyone wondering, there was another article in a similar vein posted just four days ago where the shield, his dislike for bullies, and his virginity all made an appearance.)

I suppose at the most basic level, all this article is saying is: "Please just try to be a good, kind, considerate person has a moral code, isn't afraid to show he cares about his friends, and doesn't hurt others if he can help it. Also don't make sex a priority." I can't really argue with any of that, though I am pretty baffled by how much was spent to say this.

I feel like these are the things parents teach their kids, surely? Be good to people around you. Be generous. Be polite. Be unselfish. Help your friends. Help those less fortunate than you. Don't chase after sex; find someone you love. This is stuff I learnt as a child; this is stuff every religion tries to teach its youth, albeit often with shitty double standards for men and women.
I guess what I don't understand is: why is this such a big deal? Is it only because Chris Evans is beautiful and there's a new movie coming out and talking about superheroes is fun? (In which case...)

[–]AtTheEolian[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

A post that takes on Steve Rogers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a role model of a more healthy masculinity. It addresses some of the criticism, breaks down some facets of his identity (though it is a little silly).

It also talks about the relationship between sexual experience and "manliness" and how we often read queerness into intimate relationships between men. Can't say I agree with how all of it is handled, but it's certainly worth a read.

As we get closer to the release of Civil War, I imagine there's going to be lots of talk about Steve Rogers, which is really interesting!

[–]Kiltmanenator 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

how we often read queerness into intimate relationships between men.

Prime examples of this would be Frodo and Sam ("hur durr so gay" kill me pls ) and now Poe and Finn. As nice as that would be to have canon gay characters in the new SW films I honestly think we need more examples of warm, affectionate, platonic male touch out there.