Masculism: A Rocky Road To Liberation

With incels and misogynists on one side, and neofeminists and misandrists on the other — can we ever get to where we need to be?

In late-autumn of last year, I wrote a thought piece pondering how the concept of masculinity can be modified or retooled for the modern age. Does something that’s considered to be “masculine” necessarily fit into a cozy little box?

My editorial piece can be read HERE:

In response, I received many supportive comments. But I also fielded some constructive criticism. Many of these counterpoints were fair. Others weren’t.

I encountered a bit of pushback for choosing to use the descriptor of “nutric masculinity” when describing such concepts.

Today, I’m going to deconstruct both of those critiques. In doing so, I might challenge some of my own suppositions. Or, more likely, further redefine them.

Most of the positive ideas I’m sharing are ones that all contribute to an ideological movement I believe is desperately needed across our society. I call it “masculism,” juxtaposed as a complementary partner to feminism.

Masculism would agree with many of the beliefs often found throughout most schools of feminism. The difference is that it would be male-led and male-centered in a worldly and integrative manner. Many women have even called for something in this vein to arise — spearheaded by and designed for men (or boys) — and they have conceptually described it, for lack of a better phrase, as “a thoughtful men’s movement.”

That qualifier is obviously intended to distinguish it from the more harmful traits exhibited by Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) within the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM). Of course, saying “a more thoughtful men’s movement” sounds awkward and can be a bit of a mouthful.

Thus, that brings us back to “masculism.”

What Is Masculism?

First, let’s break down some of the core principles I’d cited when suggesting how a male-identifying person can practice “nutric masculinity” as a remedy for “toxic masculinity”:

• Show compassion when someone asks you to cease intrusive behavior
• Examine how trauma and exploitation from your past has shaped your present-day mindset and behaviors
• Identify and quantify the intensity of one’s emotions
• Recognize your fears, while giving yourself grace for having them
• Acknowledge your feelings and learn how to express them
• Recognize when/if you encounter receiving unearned privilege in life, due to male status…and explore how you can use your voice and your influence to promote equality
• Have the courage to show vulnerability, especially when someone else is violating your boundaries through their speech or actions
• Talk with other men (or boys) who can relate to your experiences, aspirations, fears, anxieties, flaws, and strengths

My usage of the descriptor “nutric” was meant to be a direct antonym to the descriptor of “toxic.” Still, quite a few people seemed confused as to what “nutric” meant. Some of them recommended I consider a different descriptor altogether.

According to Merriam-Webster, “nutricism” refers to:

…symbiosis in which one organism is nourished or protected by the other without apparently being of reciprocal benefit

North Carolina psychiatrist Dr. Ricardo Bierrenbach, MD agrees with me. His synonyms for “nutric,” in terms of human psychology: nurturing, understanding, trustworthy, reliable, inspiring, and confident.

Contrast that with “toxic masculinity,” which is a view of male superiority that justifies misogyny. It seeks control and domination over women/girls, transgender people, nonbinary people, and female-presenting people.

Toxic masculinity is systemic, in addition to cultural and social — whereas misandry (“toxic femininity”) tends to be more social and cultural but less systemic. There are even many radical feminists who decline to acknowledge the presence of misandry…or, they downplay it, thereby minimizing the psychologically-damaging effects that misandry has on young boys.

This is why we need an androcentric counterpart to feminism.

The terms “masculism” and “nutric masculinity” are very much neighbors, here.

But, for those of you who insist that the descriptor of “nutric” is still too confusing, I’ve come up with some potential alternatives:

Vital Masculinity

Active Masculinity

Buoyant Masculinity

Amidst all of this discussion: there are two principles that, as a masculist, I view as nonnegotiable.

First, consent education should be taught in ways that encompass all gender identities and gender energies. This is vital when teaching young people how they can achieve healthy sex lives:

(Refer to the memoir I wrote about my middle school Family & Consumer Education teacher if you want a primer on what NOT to do, in terms of K-12 sex ed)

Secondly, our society must stop viewing “chivalry” as a monodirectional form of etiquette directed at women by men. Instead, chivalrous behavior should be normalized as something that crosses and transcends gender lines:

Ideally, these central tenets — which I believe are dually applicable to masculism and feminism — should be taught through mentoring and modeling behavior.

Where Does Gender Essentialism Fit In?

Hermes Solenzol was one of the commentators who’d suggested that I wasn’t delineating strongly enough between “sex” and “gender.” The former is defined according to one’s anatomy and/or genitalia; the latter is based on one’s embrace of masculine and/or feminine roles and energies.

Mr. Solenzol had expressed his intent to write his own piece on what he defined as “positive masculinity,” later on that month. Indeed, HERE was his end product:

He summarized the following twelve tenets for what he defines as positive masculinity within men and boys:

• Having nonaggressive pride in one’s male identity
• Managing anger through mindfulness
• Refraining from physical aggression
• Enjoying consensual sex and love
• Being responsible and selective in one’s choice of a sexual partner
• Avoiding misandrist women (or, presumably for gay guys, to avoid self-loathing men with internalized sexism)
• Respecting neurodiverse persons
• Sharing platonic friendships with people of all sexes and genders
• Accepting mentorship
• Revering ecology and nature
• Taking on scary challenges that can be managed in a reasonably-safe and controlled environment
• Crying over pain, but laughing over joy

This was a good list (even if it comes off as a bit heterosexist, perhaps unintentionally on the author’s part). But aren’t most of these goals — when subbing in “female” for “male” — the same types of actions encouraged by most rational feminists, as well?

So, this begs the question: can introspection, creativity, empathy, and collaboration ever be “masculine” traits? Society generally associates these characteristics with femininity. But, if we assume they are inherently “unmasculine” — doesn’t that set up men and boys for failure, from the get-go?

If the aspects considered to be “feminine” are positioned as much more humanitarian alternatives to qualities we consider “masculine” — then aren’t we essentially saying that men/boys are innately *INFERIOR* to women/girls?

This is what “neofeminism” (e.g., the female exceptionalism touted by feminists including Mary Daly, Janice Raymond, and Carol Gilligan) is based upon — the supposition that women should be able to say or do whatever they want, without any regard to the damage their words and actions can inflict upon others…as long as they’re doing this with the intent to dismantle patriarchal systems. And, if their behavior occurs under the assumption of them fighting patriarchy, then they should be allowed to express themselves without rebuttal or consequence.

Whereas, according to a neofeminist framework, men should be more deferential and self-censoring throughout life, in general.

Neofeminism and misandry aren’t embedded within our civilization to the systemic extent that incel culture and misogyny are. But neofeminist thought is skyrocketing, culturally and socially. We see it everywhere: daytime talk shows, school classrooms, at certain workplaces, in family households, and throughout scripted film/TV.

How long before it seeps into systemic structures?

When Traditionalism Falls Apart

Another reader (*NOT* Hermes!) opined that I’d failed to illustrate what I meant by nutric masculinity. My references were too broad and flexible. I hadn’t listed off specific traits or behaviors that encompass what nutric masculinity should be.

In his view, the military draft (via Selective Service) instills a “sense of duty” (promoting patriotism) in young men. When I asked him, hypothetically, what would be the complementary “sense of duty” for women: he referenced mothers sending their sons off to war as the primary example. He believes that procreation should be a responsibility undertaken by all people who have a healthy and fertile capability to reproduce.

Overall, he gave men the sociological burden of being providers and protectors. In effect, that opinion cements their positions as decision-makers and power-brokers. He also mentioned what a moron he feels Donald Trump is; so, apparently, he was trying to preemptively inoculate himself from the vitriol that the MAGA crowd receives.

According to this reader, my solution (“nutric masculinity”) is reactive rather than proactive. He feels it’s just a backhanded attempt (from me) to “get rid of gender.” It makes no distinction between how a good man behaves differently from a good woman.

While I find his overall thought process to be extremely rigid and oppressive, he does raise a valid question…

What *is* the difference, if any, contrasting how men and women should each approach humanism?

We can acknowledge how there are observable differences in the patterns of thought, expression, and behavior from women versus men.

The bigger question is: are those differences biologically innate? Are they learned or conditional? Are they a combination of nature and nurture? Is it “nature” for some people, but “nurture” for others?

I doubt we’re going to get any definitive answers on this debate, anytime soon.

So that brings us back to my original focus: how can we achieve justice, equality, respect, self-worth, celebration, safety, and stability for EVERYONE? Regardless of sex and/or gender.

I still keep coming back to masculism. #SorryNotSorry — but that’s where I’m at.

There are many schools of feminism…and not all of them are in lockstep with one another. Many people will skip over the academic descriptions, reducing their “values” of female exceptionalism down to the lowest common denominator.

You have what I refer to as “Chrissy Teigen Feminism,” which is essentially:

“Women/girls should be applauded for speaking their minds and standing up for themselves, whereas men/boys should hold back and practice the gentlemanly art of knowing their place.”

And then there’s what I refer to as “Winifred Banks Feminism,” which is essentially:

“Men/boys can’t be trusted to make wise or productive decisions in group settings. Women/girls, on the other hand, can and do.”

Or, you have the Jonah Hill philosophy that male problems should always take a backseat — in terms of urgency and significance — to female problems:

As long as we have people pushing malevolent agendas under the guise of “feminism” — then we need “masculism” (whether you want to call it nutric, vital, active, buoyant, or something else) as a regulating force.

As a check on toxic misandry.