An adjective used to describe someone or something that possesses one or more of a set of qualities which are normally attributed to men. Masculinity is a secondary trait that boys are supposed to aquire during adolescent development. This quality can be used as social currency and is often asserted during interactions which threaten a sense of male ego. Masculinity can materialize in the form of emotional (insensitivity) and physical strength, a “rough” appearance, deep voice, body hair, etc. A woman who expresses masculnity is described as being a “tomboy” (during childhood), “butch”, or even “a man”, while a male who expresses the same traits most likely will not be described as “masculine” or “manly” unless he is masculine to a very high degree. Masculinity is often seen as a ‘natural’ or ‘inherent’ trait in men, and as boys grow into adulthood it can become a necessary criteria for defining who is and is not “a man”. Men who do not possess enough of this trait are subject to emotional pressure, ridicule, and violence. A lack of masculinity in men is stereotypically attributed to homosexual men, while masculinity present in adult women is seen as a sign of lesbianism.
The binary opposition to Masuline is referred to as “Feminine”.
*This definition was written in the context of American culture.
A Feminist Theory Dictionary 
Is there a role for feminism to play in crafting a new view of masculinity? Or should the concept of the masculine be discarded entirely?
Is feminism concerned with masculinity because the latter should be destroyed? Would this infer that masculinity has an intimate relationship with patriarchy?
“This quality can be used as social currency and is often asserted during interactions which threaten a sense of male ego. Masculinity can materialize in the form of emotional (insensitivity) and physical strength, a “rough” appearance, deep voice, body hair, etc.”
What does masculinity DO?
Everything I wrote above was a question, sorry. Maybe I can flesh out what I mean.
The above definition wavers in between masculinity as a social concept (“Masculinity is a secondary trait that boys are supposed to aquire during adolescent development”) and masculinity as stemming from biological qualities (“Masculinity can materialize in the form of emotional (insensitivity) and physical strength, a “rough” appearance, deep voice, body hair, etc.”).
Is it both? Neither? Is masculinity a wholly negative thing?
Could we think of masculinity as this:
Masculinity is a machine embedded in society, in the social relations between people. The function of the machine can be altered according to the whims of those changed by its effects (that would be everyone). Does it matter that there IS a machine or WHO it is that controls its functions? Can masculinity, in contradiction to its current form, be altered in such a way that its effects aren’t harmful?
Sorry, more questions again…
I am certainly not defininy masculinity as a biological concept, I am listing attributes that people call “masculine”. Stength, insensitivity, body hair, and deep voices are not biological, in fact, most of these things are of can be part of a person’s choice of gender expression. Masculinity is performed, but I don’t look at it as completely social or completely biological. I do not hink masculinity as a thing is negative.
I’m not sure I understand masculinity as a “machine” but I will say that it does not have to be an oppressive characteristic and there are many cases where it is not. I think feminism is concerned with masculinity because it is used to contrast “femininity” and as something that women are not socially supposed to embody. The fact that men are so pressured to embody masculinity is oppressive to everyone.
So I tried to explain masculinity functioning like a machine, but didn’t do much explaining. Sorry.
You know the luddite movement? During the rise of European industrial capitalism, many, many people suffered and were materially dispossessed. The luddites were those that scanned their world, identified what was new about it (machines, factories, industrialism) and concluded that since the present was different from the past, and since the present sucks compared to the past, then the things that are new MUST be the cause of today’s badness. Thus machines were the targets of their wrath and anti-technology was the idea of the luddite movement. It is a deeply conservative and simplistic ideology.
What the luddites neglect however is the realization that machines don’t oppress people, they don’t make people miserable, they don’t materially dispossess people. In short, machines don’t DO anything. They are hunks of metal with very particular tasks to accomplish–they are set in motion by human intent. It wasn’t machinery that was making life miserable for the luddites, but capitalism. The luddites shouldn’t have been casting their sabots into the gears of the factory machinery, but into the skulls of the capitalist owners. Their mistake is faulting an auxiliary part for the ills of the whole.
Masculinity could just be a machine, with very particular ends to accomplish, that functions in the service of patriarchy. Is the goal to destroy this machine (assuming, even, that we could) or is it to re-align/re-define the human intentions and commands that make the machine do what it does?
Can we turn masculinity into a force that does not oppress and cause suffering as it does within patriarchy? Can machines that generate massive profit under capitalism be put towards more humane uses in some other economic structuring of society that ISN’T capitalist? Something that benefits all?