‘Man Up’ and Stereotypes of Masculinity
This week many of us have been following the race to be Leader of the Conservative Party, and thus our next Prime Minister. I would never venture into Politics in my blog so I will not be giving my considered opinion on the merits of Jeremy Hunt versus Boris Johnson. However, one thing that Mr Hunt said in the media this week attracted a great deal of negative attention. He was seeking to persuade Boris to join him in a televised debate: a venture that the Johnson team seemed keen to avoid. Mr Hunt told Boris to ‘man up’, hoping that by calling his masculinity into question, he could shame him into appearing opposite him. Loughborough Grammar School staff, and commentators across the country took a deep intake of breath, knowing how harmful it can be to use language as a weapon to perpetuate stereotypes of masculinity.
We all know that we are living in an era, when we need to be much more careful over the words that we choose to use. Whatever your view might be on political correctness, nobody wants to cause offence unnecessarily. However, I’m more concerned about something more serious which is how our language can reinforce negative stereotyping. Of course, this is not unique to what we might now term ‘toxic masculinity’. It happens with racism and sexism as well. Indeed, in Thursday’s assembly, Mr Perry marked the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots by reminding us of the harm that casual homophobic language does. If a boy criticises something by saying “that’s so gay”, the link between homosexuality and negativity is clear. What is the effect on one of his listeners who knows himself to be gay? How difficult must it be to hear homosexuality equated with negativity on a daily basis?
It is similar when our choice of language reinforces the stereotypes that displaying hyper-masculine behaviour (aggression, the intention to dominate, standing one’s ground come what may, or the expectation of hiding fear, pain or vulnerability) is considered necessary to be a man. I couldn’t help thinking about this a few days ago when reading accounts of the current court case, trying a young man who stabbed a father to death on the Guildford to London train on 4 January. It’s tempting for us to wring our hands in despair at the growing tendency of young men (like the defendant in this case) to carry knives. However, I have been more interested in the reaction of the 51 year old victim. Having initially been insulted by the defendant, he chose to escalate the situation. His masculinity would not allow him to ignore an insult, especially in front of his teenage son. He felt the need to show his son that his version of a ‘man’ would never step away from conflict. He needed to dominate and humiliate. Is this what it is to be a man? The consequence of his decision to escalate a minor disagreement was to lose his life.
The need to be the dominant male of the tribe, and to fight fire with fire were important traits for our cavemen forebears. However, continuing in the 21st Century to conform to a prehistoric hyper-masculinity doesn’t make men happy as surveys show repeatedly. Educators have realised in recent years that, if we can help young men and boys understand that they don’t have to conform to aggressive stereotypes of masculinity, we can reduce antisocial behaviour, mental health struggles, suicides, gender-based crime and domestic violence. Whether he becomes Prime Minister or not, Jeremy Hunt would do well to take this on board.
I wrote in my blog in January about our nascent GREAT men initiative. Having discussed our ideas with our student Wellbeing Committee, we will be launching this fully in September and using a variety of new resources in boys’ PSHE lessons. The intention is that boys will develop not just an awareness of the positive character traits that we wish to promote, but also the language required to give an outlet to how they feel, so that anger and aggression can be replaced by a more positive response to the world.
Growth mind-set Resilience Emotional Awareness Talk