What is “masculinity?”
What does it mean
to be “masculine?”
Is it… strength?
Courage? Self-reliance? Being a good leader?
Braveheart: "...our freedom!"
Staying cool & calm under pressure?
Billy: "My hand does not shake."
Suppressing all emotions—except your righteous anger?
Sexual aggression, divorced—or at least distanced—from emotional intimacy?
Starlord: "I'm gonna be totally honest with you. I forgot you were here."
Having a high tolerance for alcohol?
Steve Rogers: "I can't get drunk."
For pain?
Making more money than your wife?
Shoulders twice as wide as your hips?
THREE times as wide as your hips?
Looking cool in a leather jacket?
You think I jest, but I know I went through a leather jacket phase back in high school.
In fact, over the years, I myself have tried cultivating several traits on this list
in an effort to achieve societal acceptance & self-satisfaction.
I’m not trying to mock them all, necessarily—I’m
trying to understand how they fit into our
modern notion of what it means to be “masculine.”
Why these traits? Which ones are biologically innate?
Which are simply perpetuated by society?
Which of them are harmful, and which are beneficial?
Who can we credit for their perseverance?
Who’s to blame for their propagation? 
And if you’re wondering why a YouTube channel
that’s ostensibly about film is asking these questions,
I’d say it’s because a large part of our modern notion of “masculinity” comes from cinema.
Katie Archer: "It's so much nicer this way, SO much more masculine!"
Throughout the life of this channel, I’ve
made several videos about feminism, and while
they all address some prominent anti-feminist
talking-points, I’d be lying if I said that
any of them were constructed with a specifically
anti-feminist audience in mind.
I usually present my beliefs right up front, then kinda
work my way backwards to try and show you
how I got there—but I wonder if that might
leave some viewers with the impression that
I decided on my beliefs before I looked at the
evidence, and that’s simply not true.
So today, I’d like to try something different.
I’d like to start by asking some foundational question.
A question that everyone with a
vested interest in this debate might be inclined to ask.
Then work my way forwards to try
and reach some tenable conclusions.
And because this is ostensibly a YouTube channel about movies,
I'd like to use cinema to illustrate my points.
One of the root issues, as far as I’m concerned,
is what I asked earlier: what even is “masculinity?”
What does it mean to be “masculine?”
Now, I’m not here to gatekeep. I’m not
trying to exclude “femininity” or nonbinary
identities from the debate. But since it’s
masculinity that tends to preoccupy the minds
of most anti-feminists, I figure that's as good a
place as any to start, if indeed anti-feminists
are going to be my presumed audience. Something
else to keep in mind is that I’m not presenting
myself as some sort of expert. It’s not
that I "know so much" about what it means to
be “masculine” so much as I’m simply...
familiar with the struggle. I am well-acquainted
with the stresses, pressures, and anxieties
that come with trying to figure out how I’m
supposed to look, feel, think, behave, 
“as a man,” in today’s society.
That existential tension that desperately needs
sorting in order to achieve equilibrium & happiness.
The same existential tension that makes you
wonder if Joker might actually be a good film.
As if the best thing about The Dark Knight wasn’t
that it didn’t give two shits about the Joker's origins.
But for whatever it’s worth, today, I’m more than happy to share what I've learned,
as a feminist... with
an anti-feminist audience.
Let’s take a look at one of my all-time
favorite films: Children of Men. 
Obligatory spoiler alert, but come on: if you haven’t seen this film already, it is well worth pausing
this video—right now—to go watch it!
Children of Men tells the story of a world caught up in a global infertility crisis.
By the year 2027, nobody’s had a baby in over 18 years.
Britain is ostensibly the only country in
the world that still has a functioning government,
but it’s descended into a fascist police-state
that routinely incarcerates immigrants & other undesirables.
Crazy, right?
Theo is the main character—a former activist turned cynical low-level bureaucrat
who’s contacted by an underground paramilitary resistance-movement
that wants him to help escort a young immigrant
woman to the coast—a young immigrant woman
who’s somehow gotten pregnant.
Kee: "I'm scared."
But we’re not gonna focus on Theo—even though he is the main character.
No, we’re gonna talk about Luke—a supporting player in all the action.
At the start of the film, Luke is
second-in-command of the paramilitary group
that contacts Theo. He’s soon elected leader
of the group when their former commander,
Julian, is murdered by a mob of angry thieves.
Luke possesses many of the qualities one might
associate with traditional “masculinity.”
He’s strong. He's brave. He’s a man of action—he gets the job done.
He’s organized. Level-headed. Thoughtful.
Luke: "Get him a shower and a clean shirt. Thomas, don't block the car in, it needs to be jump-started."
A good leader. People listen to him.
He’s articulate, empathic, and self-sacrificing.
Luke: "When you and the baby are well-enough, we will find a way to get you to the Human Project, I promise you."
Risking life & limb to save the women & children under his protection.
Luke: “I forgot what they look
like! They’re so beautiful. They're so tiny!”
He *also* happens to be…
...a fucking serial killer.
Theo: "What are you doing? Why did you do that?"
Luke: "Get in the fucking car!"
Soon after Julian is murdered, we find out Luke was the one who actually orchestrated her death, 
so that he could take over the power-vacuum that she’d left behind. 
Luke routinely executes people in cold blood.
Every act of so-called mercy that he bestows is, in fact, an attempt to manipulate others into doing what he wants.
Luke: “Not in front of the girl. Wait until we get around the corner, them do 'em all."
So why are we looking at Luke? Well, because I think he illustrates an important point about masculinity.
That how “masculine”
you are is inherently value-neutral.
Luke is as “masculine” as you like… but that
has no bearing on whether or not he’s a "good person."
Theo, by comparison, is
only really good at two things: empathizing...
...and running away.
And yet he’s the hero
that Luke only wishes he could be.
Luke: "We need the baby! We need him!"
Theo: "It's a girl, Luke."
“Well, hold on!” I hear you say. “Luke
was at war. 
He was forced to make difficult decisions for the sake of the cause—a good cause. A progressive cause! 
He was fighting for the greater good!
But his drive to lead became a *need* to lead, and he let his emotions get the best of him.
Guy was always way too angry.
Luke: "Patrick... you ever break protocol again... I'll have to kill you."
Okay… how about a different dystopian sci-fi
movie-character from the mid-aughts, who also
embodies all the traditional notions of “masculinity,”
who wasn’t at war and never lost his temper
and didn’t need to lead? What might that
sort of character teach us about masculinity?
Dr. Mathias: “I see no listing of rank or name."
Operative: “I have neither. Like this facility... I don't exist.”
This is the Operative—the primary antagonist of the 2005 sci-fi/action film Serenity. 
The Operative is tasked with hunting down River Tam—a 17-year-old mentally traumatized ballerina-assassin
...and part-time human bendy-straw, who may or may not be privy to some of the most classified
government-intel in the entire galaxy. Nobody actually *knows* what she knows…
Dr. Mathias: "If-if there was some classified information that she... sh-she never spoke of it."
But the mere possibility is enough to sign her death warrant.
Operative: “Secrets are not my concern."
"Keeping them… is."
Despite the Operative’s fanatical
dedication to his mission, he’s oddly dispassionate.
Operative: “I should tell you so that you don’t waste your time: you can’t make me angry.”
Inara: "Please! Spend an hour with him!"
He isn’t motivated by personal ambition
or a desire to be on top.
He’s not proud or bloodthirsty.
Operative: “We should’ve done this
as men… not with fire.”
As far as he's concerned, he just wants to make the world a better place.
Operative: “We’re making a better world."
"All of them… better worlds.”
In fact, it’s the Operative’s level-headedness
and complete lack of ego that ultimately saves
our heroes—when he orders his troops to
stand down after all the damage has been done.
Operative: “Stand down!"
"Stand down… it’s finished.”
And yet he’s still unequivocally evil.
Mal: “I don’t murder children.”
Operative: "I do... if I have to."
He says so himself.
Operative: “What I do is evil, I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."
Please don’t misunderstand me:
I’m not saying masculinity itself is “evil.”
Remember all of Luke’s good qualities we
talked about? Same goes for the Operative.
His unique set of skills & personality traits
might’ve actually done some good if they
were ever dedicated to a noble cause.
A less murdery one.
But I suppose you’ll be wanting a more positive
example of hyper-masculinity at this point.
You know—something to prove I’m not one
of those feminists who thinks that all forms of masculinity are eeeevil!
Or as I like to call them: “strawmen.”
Sure, no problem.
2008 was one of my all-time favorite years for film, and one of my all-time favorite films of 2008 was Redbelt.
It tells the story of Mike Terry, a Los Angeles jiu-jitsu instructor who's suffering—wait.
Are *all* my examples gonna be played
by Chiwetel Ejiofor?
Is… is this… 
Is this a secret "Chewy" stan-video?
Well… it’s not *not* that.
What do you want from me? He’s my favorite living actor and we needed a control!
So Mike Terry is a Los Angeles jiu-jitsu instructor suffering from a cascade of compounding bad luck.
There’s an accidental shooting in
his studio that almost gets someone killed.
He can’t pay to replace the window because
he told the insurance company the wind did it
in an effort to protect the woman who fired
the shot.
Terry: "The girl? He turned her in, the cops would've said it was attempted murder."
His best friend gets stiffed for doing a job that Terry put him up for.
Terry: "I set you up with a job with my people who apparently stiffed you."
Guy can't seem to catch a break.
But then Terry saves the life of a fading action-movie star in a bar-fight.
And for at least a little while, things seem to be looking up.
The actor is impressed with Mike’s whole ethos, and
soon he’s rubbing shoulders with the Hollywood elite.
Terry: “They want me to be a producer!”
But then they go and give him a watch that Terry has the bad luck of giving to his friend as payment for the job
he got stiffed on, and when his friend tries to pawn it…. 
Manager: "Somebody pawned the watch that Chett gave you." 
Terry: "And he was told the watch was stolen."
Manager: "Stolen?" 
Terry: "Yeah."
Soon enough, everything comes crashing down.
The actor cuts all ties, and his manager
steals Terry’s training-method as a publicity-stunt
for an upcoming prize-fight. 
Terry: "Each fighter has a two-in-three odds of choosing a white marble. White marble's a pass."
Promoter: "Should he pick a white marble, he'll be given a pass... should he pick a black marble, he'll be given a handicap."
This is especially upsetting to Terry, since
he’s always refused to fight for money,
since he believes it’s a dishonorable
practice that ultimately weakens the fighter.
Chett: "You compete?"
Terry: "No."
Terry sues for copyright infringement, but
in what is one of my all-time favorite instances
of planting & payoff, turns out they’ve
got dirt on Terry and his lawyer 
from something that happened in the very first scene of the film.
With bankruptcy looming, possible criminal charges, and no legal recourse,
Terry reluctantly decides to accept a long-standing invitation
to fight for some prize-money in a desperate attempt to try and finally get his life back on track.
If you’re looking for a vision of benevolent
hyper-masculinity in film, you could certainly
do worse than Mike Terry. An archetypal warrior-poet,
Terry is just as skilled at fighting as he is
disinterested in perpetuating violence.
Terry: "Everything has a force. Embrace it or deflect it, why oppose it?"
For all his strength, Terry never actually goes looking for a fight.
Even when fighting could probably solve a lot of his problems. 
Ok—he *does* go looking for a fight *once* at the
end of the film, when he reluctantly signs
up for the undercard prize-fight. But as soon as he realizes what a sham it all is, he packs it in.
Terry: “Pack it up, we’re going home.”
Right before finally deciding to do something that will unequivocally involve some fighting.
The last scene *is* something of a power-fantasy… but I do love how wonderfully unpretentious writer/director
David Mamet’s explanation is.
Mamet: "Would you have broken up that fight?"
So now I think it’s high-time we ask ourselves
what separates a hyper-masculine hero like
Mike Terry from two hyper-masculine villains
like Luke and the Operative? 
All three of them are strong & self-assured. They’re all powerful fighters. 
Both Terry and the Operative are thoughtful, soft-spoken, and fully capable of backing down from a fight
if they feel it’s not absolutely necessary.
So what makes two of them bad-guys and one of them a good-guy? 
What determines their
moral alignment?
I have racked my brain over this, and I can really only think of one thing.
You ready…?
Terry doesn’t want to control anyone.
Even when he’s fighting, it’s
less an attempt to control peoples’ lives
so much as it is an attempt to *prevent* other
people from controlling the lives of others.
In essence, Terry wants complete control of
himself… and absolutely no control over anyone else.
Does that sound like your typical anti-feminist?
Not to me, it doesn’t.
Whenever a Men’s Rights Activist cites some statistic about male combat fatalities, higher rates of mental
illness, or harsher prison sentences, it’s
never an attempt to advocate for medical or
judicial reform—it’s only ever an attempt
to shut women up.
Now, I know what you’re thinking.
“Well, MGTOW doesn’t want to
shut women up. They just want to ‘go their own way.'"
"Men who want to be left alone in peace!”
Yeah, I know that’s their *stated* goal, but I have to wonder 
why these men wanted
to get away from women in the first place.
When you hear them talk, it sounds to me like
they’re less interested in preventing their
own oppression and more that they harbor a bitter,
entitled resentment over their inability to
control women in the first place.
So Mike Terry is a vision of benevolent hyper-masculinity. Good for him.
But at the end of the day, isn’t he really more of an *inspirational* figure rather than an *aspirational* one? 
I mean, can any of us ever really be as perfect as Mike Terry?
What if you’re *not* a hyper-masculine warrior-poet
with a pacifist-streak who can’t be bested
in physical combat? What are you supposed to do then?
Well, after looking at three hyper-masculine characters, I think it’s high-time we finally talk about… betas.
Dirty Pretty Things is one of my favorite films that nobody’s ever heard of. 
Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Okwe, an undocumented immigrant who ekes out a living in London 
driving a cab during the day and working a hotel front-desk at night.
One evening, a guest informs him there’s
a blocked toilet in one of the rooms, and
when Okwe goes up to un-clog it… 
I know, right!?
One of my favorite first-act twists in all of movie-history!
So Okwe stumbles upon a black-market organ-smuggling ring—organized
by the sadistic hotel manager Juan.
Okwe: "A human heart."
Juan: "What?!"
Jesus, does this guy ever play a *non* sadist?
When Juan finds out Okwe was actually
a surgeon back in Nigeria, he immediately
starts pressuring Okwe to join the operation.
At first he tries appealing to Okwe’s empathic nature.
Juan: "If you are a doctor, you can do something for these guys."
But when Okwe makes it clear he still doesn’t want to be involved, Juan just starts blackmailing him.
Not so hard to do for an undocumented immigrant.
Juan: "Stop acting like you've got a choice."
So Okwe isn’t exactly mopping the floor
with his enemies here.
His preferred method of resolving conflict is just to avoid it, same as Terry.
But unlike Terry… Okwe doesn’t avoid conflict because of some pacifist-streak.
He avoids it because he’s not much of a fighter.
Unlike Terry, Okwe is racked with insecurities
& self-doubt. In fact, he sports many traits
that I know a lot of anti-feminists find off-putting—even
disgraceful. He’s not aggressive or domineering.
He’s really rather meek and deferential.
He can’t even close with the woman he’s sharing a flat with, for God’s sake!
But are we really gonna sit here and argue that he’s a total "failure of a man"
because he’s not some black-belt skull-crusher?
Man: "How come I've never seen you people before?"
Okwe: "Because we are the people you do not see."
"We are the ones who drive your cabs..." 
"...who clean your rooms..." 
"...and suck your cocks."
In my experience, the people most eager to rush to violence are usually the ones who
have the least experience with it anyway.
People who’ve seen and suffered violence aren’t
usually the first people to advocate on its behalf.
Okwe presents a vision of masculinity that’s kind & deferential rather than overpowering & aggressive.
And lest we forget...
Okwe does indeed finally gain the upper hand over his boss...
...playing into his own strengths and exploiting his boss’s weaknesses in such a way that sees
him come out on top in *the* most satisfying
way imaginable.
Okwe: "Senay!"
But hey—maybe *you* wouldn’t call Okwe some
soy-boy beta. 
Maybe that’s just what the *bad* anti-feminists would say.
But not you. You’re one of the *good* anti-feminists.
You're totally fine with men who don’t perpetuate violence & aggression. I’m not even being facetious.
Surely there’s *some* of you out there, right?
Even so... there’s still one character we need to take a look at
before our examination of cinematic masculinity
is complete.
The last example is, of course, my personal favorite performance of Chiwetel Ejiofor’s entire career. 
No video about masculinity—or Chiwetel Ejiofor—would be complete without it.
You’ve all been expecting it. Here you go.
Lola [singing]: "Whatever Lola wants... Lola gets...."
"Take off your coat... don't you know you... can't win."
Kinky Boots tells the story
of Charlie Price, a mild-mannered Northamptonian man
who inherits a struggling shoe factory in the wake of his father's death. The factory is deep
in the red long before Charlie gets his hands
on it, but just when he’s about to close
up shop, he meets Lola, a drag queen performer
in desperate need of some tailor-made heels
that can stand the weight of 
a man.
Lola: "God!"
"Clean off, again!"
"Like most things in life, it cannot stand the weight of a man."
After a lot of prodding from his employee Lauren,
 Charlie recruits Lola to design a
whole range of boots for the factory, and
hopefully tap into a lucrative niche market.
For at least a little while, things seem to be looking up.
But then tensions within
the town...
Nicola: "Get out!"
...and between the two men threaten to destroy their new business-venture.
Lola: "I'm a... I'm a Northampton shoe designer, Charlie."
Charlie: "Yeah, you're that as well.
You're also a man in a dress."
...and their nascent friendship.
Charlie: "For my sake, tomorrow, please turn up looking like the picture on your passport."
God, I love this movie.
Charlie: "How much do you weigh?"
Lola: "A right amount—how much do you drink?"
The fact that it’s still not on blu-ray even 13 years after the debut of the format
is nothing short of
a crime against humanity.
In hindsight, this whole video could’ve been an examination of masculinity through just the lens of Kinky Boots.
After all, it has more to say about the subject
than any other film we’ve talked about:
Woman: "Can I just ask—are you a man?"
Lola: “I am, love, yes.”
Woman: “Ah, that's fine. Just so I know how to leave the toilet seat."
So what can we learn about masculinity from
Kinky Boots? Well, first and foremost: that
so much of “masculinity” is merely performance.
A fashion. Literally! You know how high heels
got their start? They were invented to keep
men’s feet secure in their riding-stirrups.
Men started wearing them in portraits once
they realized how good they made their calves look.
And soon after turned them into a symbol
of status and wealth. Women eventually started
wearing high heels when femininity started
to become associated with extravagance & impracticality.
Wild, right? Today’s social transgression
is yesterday’s fashion fad—and vice-versa.
Other people might argue that men are naturally
predisposed to wear demure, muted colors.
But, uh… not in the animal kingdom. 
Hell, not in the 1970s!
 Men aren’t supposed to wear dresses? Tell me the functional difference between a skirt and a kilt. 
The most ironic thing about this for me is that the people who write 10,000-word op-eds about how “nail polish is for girls”
are the same people who insist that gender
is this innate, biological absolute. Oh, really?
So where is the mani/pedi-gene, exactly?
So all this begs the question: if so much
of masculinity is performance… which qualities
are intrinsically male? At the end of Kinky
Boots, Lola saves Charlie’s shoe factory
by putting on a catwalk-show to end all catwalk-shows.
This after Charlie had called Lola to apologize for insulting him earlier.
 Charlie: “I don't know what the hell a man is. But I know that if it involves being brave...
...you are more of a man than I will ever be.”
An indiscriminate viewer might come away with
the impression that bravery is the inherently
masculine trait in question, and that Lola
is masculine because he is brave.
But I personally think this moment is really just a tender reconciliation between friends.
Lola: "Don't think that's why I came."
Charlie just acknowledging that his earlier anger came from a place of fear &self-doubt.
Not, say… facts & logic. 
I think the movie’s real thesis on “manhood” comes earlier, when Lola repeatedly asks factory-worker Don to define manhood.
Lola: “Why don’t you write down what you think would make me more of a man, and I'll write down what I think would make you more of a man."
Don never writes anything down.
Don: "Piss off."
But he does challenge Lola to an arm-wrestling competition, which Lola goes ahead and lets him win.
[cheering]
We then find out what Lola thinks Don could do to be more of a man.
Lola: “Change your mind
about someone.”
One of my personal favorite quotes comes from Alice S. Rossi.
“To avoid intellectual sterility, it is wise to periodically reexamine our most deeply-held presuppositions."
The ability to change one’s mind is a borderline superpower.
That’s how you become an adult. By optimizing your behavior in the face of new evidence.
That’s it! 
That's everything.
If I could encourage anyone, anywhere, to adopt just one trait to become a better person, that would be it.
A proud inclination to change one's mind.
But of course… a willingness to change one’s mind isn’t an inherently “masculine” trait.
And that’s the point. 
Nothing is.
What were you gonna suggest? 
Level-headedness?
Luke wasn’t level-headed.
A desire to be in control? 
The Operative considered himself completely disposable.
Aggression? Terry wasn’t
aggressive. Strength? Okwe wasn’t strong.
Ok, how about just “masculinity?” Surely, we can all agree that masculinity is an inherently “masculine” trait, right? 
But Lola, see… was feminine.
[singing]
See, what we call "gender" is basically just a collection of anecdotal averages—none of them prescriptive. 
Men might typically bench-press more than women.
Might typically sport more testosterone. 
Might typically… have penises.
But not always.
Never “always.”
You’re never *always* going to find any of these traits in *all* men, and absent in *all* women.
The only reason these traits ever skew in one direction anyway is because that's what has to happen to the data
when you sort your sample
into a binary—of which gender isn’t.
That's not even up for debate at this point. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conservatives of my youth 
told me I acted too much “like a girl” for their liking.
So even they agree that gender presents on *some* sort of spectrum. 
There will always be women who can out-lift men. Who are faster than men. Braver. Smarter. Better leaders.
Who look cooler in leather jackets!
There’s always going to be people who don’t
identify as men or women. And that’s fine!
The averages say nothing about anyone’s
value. The averages say nothing about your
value. Take it from me: I grew up with all
the traditional notions of masculinity and
gender-binaries, and they never made me feel
like a better person. They only ever produced
agonizing anxieties and devastating self-doubts—a
chronic fear that I wasn’t measuring up
to someone else’s standard of who I was
"supposed" to be. In fact, it wasn’t until I finally shed such notions that I was finally able
to cultivate my own strengths as I
saw fit—literally: I didn’t actually get fit until
I purchased a workout guide designed by, and
presumably for, cis women.
And I’d be doing a disservice if I didn’t recommend the same to all of you. It's what I changed my mind about.
So stop trying to prescribe the behavior
of others based on your personal notions of gender.
Because if you’re the kind of person
who experiences apoplectic rage at the thought
of someone else expressing their gender-identity
in a way that you find inconsolably discordant
with your way of life… even though the other
person has no power or influence over you…
...then may I submit...
They are not the one with
the psychosis. You are.
["Sharp Dressed Man" by ZZ Top]
And if anybody wants to run into the comments and like
call me a soy-boy and log off or whatever
First of all, thank you for the engagement.
And second of all...
Come on, you know I'm hot.
