insideMAN

  • Who we are
  • Men’s Insights
  • Men’s Issues
  • Men’s Interests
  • About Men

Is your masculinity a product of nature or nurture?

July 10, 2014 by Inside MAN 13 Comments

Photo courtesy: sdminor81

What is it that makes a man masculine asks Glen Poole?

Last week we explored the Seven Stages of Masculinity that men experience at different stages of life and history. But what creates these different stages of masculinity? Is it good old mother nature or the nurture of the “man’s world” we live in?

If you view masculinity from an integral perspective then there a four distinct forces that shape your masculinity:

  • Your biology
  • Your psychology
  • The cultures you inhabit
  • The society you live in

These four distinct forces interact at every stage of masculinity to shape your experience of being a man. In simple terms biology and psychology represent the forces of nature while society and culture represent the forces of nurture. The importance your place on each of these four forces will be governed by the side you take in the nature vs nurture debate? Or maybe you don’t take sides, maybe you believe that masculinity is a bio-psycho-socio-cultural construct…….!?

THE BIOLOGY OF MASCULINITY

Maleness is formed at a biological level in the XY sex chromosomes found in every cell of our bodies. The small proportion of men born with an XXY chromosome are less masculine in a variety of ways—they have less testosterone, smaller testes, less public hair, less facial hair, a lower sex drive, are less muscular, may have man boobs and can be shy and lack confidence in childhood.

By contrast, children with the condition congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to higher levels of male sex hormones such as testosterone. Boys with the condition can enter puberty early leading to increased body hair and an enlarged penis at an early age, while girls with the condition may have unusual looking genitalia (such as an enlarged clitoris) and a tendency towards more masculine behaviours such as a preference for playing with “boys’ toys”.

The impact of biological factors like chromosomes and hormones on our masculinity has been observed by researchers studying the journals of men undergoing testosterone replacement. What they discovered was that as men’s testosterone levels rose they used fewer words in their journals and wrote less about people and more about objects.

The apparent masculine interest in objects, more than people, has also been observed at a neurological level. According to Simon Baron-Cohen’s Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory the female brain is more often hard-wired for empathy while the male brain is more often hard-wired for understanding and building systems.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF MASCULINITY

The nature of masculinity changes over time in parallel with the common social systems that define a culture or historical era. In the agricultural age, for example, the invention of the plough revolutionized food production. The plough relied heavily on male upper body strength and required men to work away from their family while women stayed close to home. To this day the hard-working dad and the stay-at-home are still recognized as archetypal masculine and feminine roles.

As countries evolve from agrarian to industrial to post-industrial systems of economic production, the nature of masculinity and femininity also evolves. In modern industrial nations, women can reach the top of their field by adopting masculine traits. As post-modern, post-industrial nations emerge, feminine skills become more valued as we explored in our post: 10 reasons more male graduates end up jobless.

It is no coincidence that the UK’s modernist, industrial Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was considered to be the “best man” in her Government while the U.S.A.’s post-modernist, post-industrial leader, Barack Obama, has been repeatedly described as the country’s first female president.

The laws that govern sex and gender are also part of the social systems that shape our masculinity. In countries where men and women have generous and equal parental leave rights, women earn more and men do more childcare.

Is this because the men in these countries are more feminine, nurturing and caring naturally, or is their masculinity being nurtured in a new direction by the country’s parental leave laws?

THE CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF MASCULINITY

The values and beliefs of the communities we are born into play a huge role in defining our masculinity. Last week we talked about the Seven Types of Masculinity. These stages can be observed at a collective level as cultures progress through seven distinct stages of development as follows:

  • Cavemen and Cavewomen
  • Tribes
  • Warriors
  • Rules and Roles
  • Explorers
  • Peacemakers
  • Integral Men and Women

Each stage brings a new set of values and beliefs. For traditional “rules and roles” cultures, social order is preserved by men and women conforming to set norms that restrict expressions of masculinity and femininity within limited confines. In simple terms men (and their masculinity) rule the public realm and women (and their femininity) rule the private realm.

At the “explorer” stage of cultural evolution women are usually granted equal rights and equal opportunities with men in the public realm. As high-flying women like Margaret Thatcher show, women who learn to play by masculine rules can reach the very top, but for most women equality of outcome is not possible.

Explorer societies tend to be competitive and individualistic and are divided into the “haves” and the “have nots”. When “peacemaker” societies emerge, they have a strong focus on the “have nots” and the pursuit of equal outcomes. The public realm becomes increasingly less masculine (as do men and boys) and the social shift towards a post-industrial economy sees a rise in the value of feminine qualities like empathy. The “peacemaker” wave of cultural evolution also sees men having a greater role in the private realm with the emergence of the “househusband” and the “stay-at-home-dad”.

The dominant values and norms of the cultures we live in have a strong influence on our masculinity. It’s hard to imagine young men today, who are mostly at the explorer and peacemaker stages of masculinity, accepting mass conscription in the way millions of men did in 1914-1918, when most men and women were operating at the “rules and roles” stage of their masculinity and femininity.

Similarly, in peacemaker Scandanavian countries it has become the norm for men to share in the feminine, nurturing role of raising children and women to share in the masculine, provider role of providing a household income. It’s difficult to image men and women in 1914 sharing the roles of nurturer and provider. Of course many women did take on “men’s work” at home while men went to war, but when those men returned, men and women generally returned to their distinct nurturer and provider roles.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MASCULINITY

The psychology of masculinity is perhaps the most interesting aspect to explore as it is in our own psychological world that we experience being a man, being manly and being masculine. Our psychological world is where our gender identity is formed and where we personally experience the influence that biology, society and culture have in shaping our masculinity.

Some biological determinists see gender differences in society as being the result of men’s and women’s psychological preferences and choices. For social and cultural determinists, the choices and preferences men and women express at the micro level are the result of coercion at a macro level. For example, If we don’t give fathers equal rights and opportunities as parents through laws and policies at a macro level, then this will effect the preferences and choices that individual fathers make at the micro level.

So is our masculinity shaped entirely from the outside by the social norms and cultural values that surround us? Or is it our nature that makes us masculine with our male hormones and choromosomes and neuro-biology simply triggering characteristics that have evolved over millennia and are now deeply embedded in the male psyche?

According to the Psychologist Martin Seager who chaired the UK’s first male psychology conference last month, there are three ancient rules of masculinity that create the “male script” that shapes and informs our experience of being a man. These rules are:

  • Men should be fighters and winners
  • Men should be protectors and providers
  • Men should retain mastery and control

It has also been argued that men and women evolve psychologically through three similar stages of development (ie egocentric, ethnocentric and worldcentric),  albeit in a different masculine or feminine voice.

Masculine psychological development is driven by rights: i.e. my rights, our rights, everyone’s rights. Feminine psychological development is driven by care: i.e. my care, our care, everyone’s care.

As you consider whether your masculinity is shaped by nature or nurture you may also reflect on your own masculine and feminine development.

From a masculine perspective do you assert your own rights? Do you take a stand for the rights of people in the groups you belong to, e.g. your family, your country, your gender? Do you recognize the rights of all human beings?

From a feminine perspective do you make sure your needs are taken care of? Are you mindful of the needs of people in groups you belong to, e.g. your family, your country, your gender? Do you recognize the value in taking care of the needs of all human beings?

Finally, what do you think shapes masculinity? Is it the biological differences that make us male? Is it the social systems like technology, the economy and the laws that affect men’s lives? Is it the gender norms and values of the cultures we live in? Or is it all down to male psychology? We’d love to hear your experiences and beliefs about masculinity so please leave us a comment.

Written by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: ABOUT MEN Tagged With: articles by Glen Poole, biological determinism, cultural determinism, femininity, gender, male psychology, Martin Seager, nature versus nurture, rules of masculinity, seven stages of masculinity, social determinism

  • http://thepowerofrelationship.com Mark Davenport

    All I can say in response to all the forces – internal, external, individual, collective – that shape the experience and expression of masculinity and femininity is: yes, yes, and again yes. To say it another way, none of those forces has no effect. We are all some mix of all of it. This does not speak to values or to what mix is better than another. I imagine that would depend on what is functional or emerging at any particular time and place in history.

    • Inside MAN

      Thanks Mark, I’m of the view that there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of masculinity and femininity at all stages of development and that’s a more useful disctinction to work with—I may rather be surrounded by integral men and women, for example, but I’d rather hang out with healthy explorers than unhealthy peacemakers (and vice versa) Best wishes Glen, insideMAN

      • http://thepowerofrelationship.com Mark Davenport

        Nice distinctions, Glen. Even I might appear unhealthily committed to peacemaking in my comments above. ?

  • http://www.eventoddlersneedfathers.com/ Kingsley (Kip)

    It is old fashioned and out of date to see gender roles in terms of a nature / nurture debate. I liked the earlier description as a ‘helix’ which showed the different factors intertwined. Present thinking is that individuals may be genetically predisposed to certain conditions which may or may not be triggered by experience. The example previously given was a gene for Neuron Motor Disease NMD which may lie dormant until triggered by high levels of stress that can occur due to work or sport. It is a false argument to see gender roles through the lens of the nature / nurture debate. Similarly it is false to see the development of Mankind with reference to a ‘cave man’. This is to reduce the editorial standard of the new magazine to the same populist level as Bare Grylss TV program ‘The Island’.

    • Inside MAN

      Thanks for you comments as always Kip. We’re here to promote conversations about men (and by men, particularly UK men) from lots of different perspectives—our aim is to be inclusive. If you want to propose an article on your perspectives of gender and masculinity let us know.

    • Darren Ball

      Hi Kip,

      I don’t think we’ve yet reached sufficient consensus on the nature of gender differences to declare that there is a “present thinking”. Prof Baron-Cohen and Cordelia Fine are good examples of the debate that’s being had within the scientific community.

      A book that was useful to me was Nature Via Nurture by Matt Ridley who gives examples of the sort you mention – our nature in one environment will be different to our nature in another. Nature and nurture are intertwined. Also from Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender, she suggests that the nature part may be just that we self-identify as our gender. Society then informs us what our gender’s role is, and we then conform to it.

      This is not my area of expertise, so I don’t know what is right, but I use my bullshit checker to decide what isn’t right. The first thing to note is that this is an area of science where ideologies are at risk. For that reason some scientists will have an agenda, and some findings are likely to the the result of advocacy research. It was either Julie Bindel or Julie Burchill (one of the Julies) who declared that this whole debate was “won” by feminists decades ago. She honestly believes that a scientific fact will be answered by an ideology – what’s true is what she want to be true.

      The idea argued by many, that our gender identity is a social construct (nuture and environment) is certainly false as evidenced by transgendered people. It is noteworthy that lots of feminists are very uncomfortable, even abusive, towards transwomen. I wonder if this is because their very existence undermines a core belief about gender symmetry?

      There are also well-documented cases of children behaving much like the opposite sex, according to the norms of their community. They subsequently discover that the child has the opposite sexes’ internal organs. Nobody could have known this so conditioning wasn’t at play. Examples of this are found in Nature Via Nurture.

      My final bullshit checker is that we would be a very poorly adapted species if there weren’t innate gender differences. We are only here because we have been successful at reproducing. Since males and females have very different reproductive roles, it would be astonishing if identical behaviour had evolved for both sexes. We may not know what those differences are, but we can be certain that some significant differences do exist.

  • CitymanMichael

    Logic would say that homo sapiens developed to be as successful as possible and there is no denying that man has come to “rule the world”.
    In this context it would follow that biology has driven psychology and culture and indeed society to bring about such success. (some would argue that this is not success)
    Competition among males to spread their genes has led to the vast majority of the success in the physical world. And competition for fertility/attractiveness between females has aided this process.
    This biological process continues. We just don’t know in which direction and how fast it can respond to the pace of change.

  • http://www.eventoddlersneedfathers.com/ Kingsley (Kip)

    I am pleased to see the topic has created such interest. But just to say that the Nature / Nurture thing is old hat and I have given a link to a video called ‘The father of modern child psychiatry on gene-environment interactions – Sir Michael Rutter’ from 2011.

    “UK psychiatrist Sir Michael Rutter talks about the importance of the environment for children’s social development and the interactions between nature and nurture in the development of mental illness”.


    http://youtu.be/a4cxBZXbobo

  • http://www.eventoddlersneedfathers.com/ Kingsley (Kip)

    All, I have some old friends of mine I sometimes visit usually in times of crisis, mine not theirs. Occasionally I explain about my campaigning and tell them that the research shows there is absolutely no difference between the love and affection of a mother compared to a father. Lately my oldest friend seems to get unusually irate, not rude, when we get onto the topic so much so that I wonder what is going on? His wife reminded me the other day that he gets uptight because his brother has had a full sex change to Samantha. What has this to do with the nature / nurture debate? Well, I believe, one of the reasons for the change was that Samantha thought that the sex change would make her body more compatible with her ‘moral soul’, so to speak, ie as a caring sensitive individual. I think it annoys her brother to hear me say that research shows there is no difference between the love and affection of a mother compared to a father and I think we must all be very careful how we pedal gender stereotypes. kip PS I bumped into Samantha this week in Tescos supermarket and had a short chat to see how she was getting on! PPS Prof Sir Michael Rutter called my book ‘even Toddlers Need Fathers’ an ‘interesting and informative guide’ and I hope the video is helpful!

  • Nigel

    Our American cousins did a variety of ( sometimes unethical) experiments . In particular looking at adult responses to baby behaviour. Usually the same baby and the same behaviours. In study after study it was the case that the adult response was quite different according to the sex the adults were told. In effect the adults interpreted the crying etc. according to their interpretation of the emotion or intent and this was often dramatically different . The differences reflected stereotypes. Quite apart from this strong evidence of the role of nurture it also is one in the eye for any notion that empathy actually reflects much about the person being empathised with so much as the empathisor.

  • Pingback: Are you a masculine or feminine father—and which one is best? | insideMAN()

  • Pingback: New book highlights sexism against men in Scotland | insideMAN()

  • Pingback: Eight things that Fight Club taught us about masculinity | insideMAN()

InsideMAN is committed to pioneering conversations about men, manhood and masculinity that make a difference. We aim to create spaces where the voices of men, from many different backgrounds, can be heard. It’s time to have a new conversation about men. We'd love you to be a part of it.

insideNAN cover image  

Buy the insideMAN book here

Be first to get the latest posts from insideMAN

To have new articles delivered direct to your inbox, add your name and email address below.

Latest Tweets

  • Why Abused By My Girlfriend was a watershed moment for male victims of domestic abuse and society @ManKindInit… https://t.co/YyOkTSiWih

    3 weeks ago
  • Thanks

    5 months ago
  • @LKMco @MBCoalition @KantarPublic Really interesting.

    5 months ago

Latest Facebook Posts

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: Error validating application. Application has been deleted.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 190
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Copyright © 2019 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.