If Hollywood teenage heartthrobs are anything to go by, does the recent obsession with Timothée Chalamet and Harry Styles signify the rise of ‘soft masculinity’?
What is the ‘soft boy’?
Those who conform to soft masculinity are more commonly known as ‘soft boys.’ Vogue regards Chalamet as the “poster boy of soft boy style.” The soft boy is “someone who subverts the expectations of masculinity and claims traits that are traditionally coded as feminine.” K-pop has certainly played a role in normalising soft masculinity, due to the ‘Kkonminam’ (flower boy) aesthetic of the male singers. As such, a 2018 Global Data report found that three-quarters of South Korean men receive beauty treatments at least once per week.
‘Soft’, a New York male skin care brand, has tapped into this new form of masculinity, its tagline stating, “skincare doesn’t have to be hard.” Their Chief Operating Officer states, “Soft has traditionally been used as an insult for not fitting within the blueprint of traditional masculinity. We really want to embrace that word and kind of flip it on its head, because soft is really a positive thing. It’s about being vulnerable and sensitive and in touch with your emotions. And really just being comfortable with who you are.”
Gender socialisation
The definition of masculinity varies considerably across different societies, cultures, and periods. This is because gender is the set of social and psychological characteristics that society expects of its males and females. Thus, Judith Butler claims that gender is a performance.
Many believe gender socialisation is a mere cog in society’s machine, which enables smooth operation. For instance, Talcott Parsons argues that gender gives us a way of pairing off the complementary skill sets that are required for a successful family. As such, boys are taught ‘instrumental qualities’, such as confidence and competitiveness, to prepare them for the labour force. In contrast girls are taught ‘expressive qualities’, like empathy and sensitivity, which prepare them to care for their families.
Society encourages conformity to these gender roles by tethering them to notions of biological difference and ‘the natural order,’ thus marginalising those who fail to conform to these gender norms as ‘freaks of nature.’
Therefore, using Parson’s heteronormative approach, the soft boy who displays the ‘expressive qualities’, deemed to be in the domain of women, bends gender norms. Yet, contrary to rejection, soft boys are revered, as Timothée Chalamet is the “internet’s boyfriend.” This seems to suggest that traditional masculinity may have met its expiry date.
‘Traditional masculinity’
So-called ‘traditional masculinity’ is otherwise known as patriarchal masculinity in ‘Western’ societies. He’s strong, stoic, straight. The ultimate bread-winner – he’s not afraid of gluten. R.W. Connell defines hegemonic masculinity as the current, most honoured way of being a man in a society. This unattainable ideal, therefore, creates a pecking order derived by how close one is to this ‘ideal’.
In common parlance, hegemonic masculinity is often understood as the ‘alpha male.’ This pop psychological term holds that men deemed as ‘alphas’ represent the apex of masculinity.
However, the term has been discredited by L. David Mech, the very wildlife biologist who coined it. He found that he had made an observational error, as instead of viewing a pack of wolves, he had simply observed a family of wolves. In addition, the ‘alpha’ is not necessarily the strongest male. Take chimps, our closer relatives, in which smaller, more mild-mannered ‘beta’ males can become dominant by doing favours such as grooming or our other closest relatives, bonobos, in which the ‘alpha’ is an old female.
Regardless of how factual the ‘alpha’ is in the natural world, the term is inapplicable to human societies due to their sheer complexity. Human dominance, dependent on the social situation, is in constant flux. Therefore, we should retire the idea of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ homo sapiens as this pseudo-scientific concept arbitrarily entrenches social stratification. It misguidedly leads people to believe that the notion that men should be dominant leaders, is part of the natural order, rather than an idea constructed by a patriarchal society. Therefore, as Connell states, it ideologically legitimises the global subordination of women to men.
Toxic masculinity
More recently, discussions of the negative impact of patriarchal masculinity have been brought to the forefront of public consciousness. In light of the global #MeToo Movement, which exposed the normalised sexual violence and harassment typically inflicted on women by men, an online culture has been created in which people criticise ‘traditional’ masculine traits they deem as toxic. This has seeped into offline culture, as #MenAreTrash and #MasculinitySoFragile are employed in conversation. They both serve to describe toxic masculinity defined by Terry Kupers, – a term which outlines the aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, “such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination.”
The infamous Gillette ‘We Believe: The Best Men Be’ (2019) advert criticised its company slogan ‘Best a Man Can Get,’ and presentation of patriarchal masculinity, with the simple opening question, ‘is this the best a man can get?’
Evolution by natural selection?
Therefore, the popularity of the soft boy can be attributed to the criticism of toxic masculinity. As Connell states, “When the conditions for the defence of patriarchy change, the bases for the dominance of a particular masculinity are eroded.” Consequently, hybrid masculinities arise. These refer to the “selective incorporation of qualities associated with subordinated masculinities and femininities into privileged men’s gender identities.” Demetriou suggests this ability to adapt is what makes hegemonic masculinities so powerful. He cites the heterosexual male appropriation of “bits and pieces” of gay male culture, as it incorporates “what appears pragmatically useful and constructive for the project of domination at a particular historical moment.” As such, Bridges and Pascoe claim social hierarchies are fortified in ‘softer’ ways.
This adaptation via natural selection allows patriarchy to continue reproduction. As Johnson states, “Perhaps the most efficient way to keep patriarchy going is to promote the idea that it doesn’t exist… Or, if it does exist, it [i]s by reputation only, a shadow of its former self that no longer amounts to much in people’s lives.”
Is there a crisis of masculinity?
The discussion of toxic masculinity has been met with significant pushback. It has been argued that there is a crisis of masculinity, in which men have been demonised and emasculated. For instance, the Gillette advert became one of the most disliked videos on YouTube, with a 2:1 dislike ratio and over 1.5 million dislikes, sparking an international boycott. The common discontent was expressed by Piers Morgan: “the implication from that video is that most men are pretty awful people – we’re toxic.” And so, “masculine men have to be driven out of society because being masculine is evil – EVIL!”
Likewise, the Chinese state-media Xinhua has slammed the portrayal of soft boys, or as they called them, “sissy pants.” They argued it was having an adverse impact on teenagers and the future of the nation. In response, a former schoolteacher in Beijing founded the Real Man Training Club to turn teenage boys into the “alpha males” they fear the country is losing.
However, the sense of a ‘crisis of masculinity’ has arisen from a sense of lost power, as marginalised groups such as women and the LGBTQ+ community have gained more rights. For instance, a similar sentiment of a crisis of masculinity was felt in late-20th-century America, as the new Christian Right arose in response to the destroyer of the American family – the Second Wave Feminist Movement.
That being said, one could argue that there is a ‘crisis of masculinity,’ given that in the UK men account for 76 per cent of all suicides. The American Psychological Association has warned that “traditional masculinity ideology,” is associated with negative effects on mental and physical health. For instance, masculine ‘ideals’ such as emotional repression and the pressure to conform to expectations of dominance and aggression, may heighten the potential for boys to engage in violence, as anger is their only ‘acceptable’ outlet.
Therefore, bell hooks argues, “The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity” and “until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any critique of patriarchy represents a threat.”
Feminist masculinity?!
Consequently, hooks argues that “ending patriarchy […] is the only resolution of the masculinity crisis that most men are experiencing.” This is because the feminist movement has enabled girls to now “create a sense of self that is distinct from sexist definitions” but “the same freedom has not been extended to boys.” Yet, by definition, feminism is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.
Unlike a patriarchal masculinity, a feminist masculinity would be free from the pressures of what a man ‘should’ be. The critical understanding of patriarchy would enable us to see how it affects the ‘ideals’ we are socialised into. And thus, equip us to actively dismantle patriarchy one brick at a time. Masculinity and femininity would be treated as equally valuable. Rather than navigating the world with a prescription of how to be, one can just be.
A ‘feminist masculinity’ would be challenging to implement given that many see feminism as anti-male. hooks argues this has been “one of the tremendous failings of feminist theory and practice”, as it has prevented “strategies for alternative masculinity and ways of thinking about maleness” to be formed.
Does the soft boy signify that we are closer to a feminist masculinity? On the one hand, Anderson argues that this ‘inclusive masculinity’ does indicate “decreased sexism,” “the erosion of patriarchy” and a decrease in “homohysteria” (fear of being homosexualised).
On the other hand, Messner argues that although “softer” and more “sensitive” styles of masculinity are developing among some privileged groups of men, he calls this “more style than substance.” The very fact that the soft boy trend, in the ‘West,’ has been popularised by white heterosexual men, indicates how it is only accessible to the privileged members of society, who can dip into this ‘trend’ when fashionable. Messner argues that when we view young, straight, white men’s masculinity solely as indicators of a decline in gender and sexual inequality, marginalised groups of men such as black and ethnic minorities, often end up viewed as playing a greater role in perpetuating inequality.
In the words of bell hooks, “Mass media are a powerful vehicle for teaching the art of the possible.” The popularity of the soft boy and K-pop prove that a celebrated soft masculinity is possible. However, the ‘soft boy’ does not allow us to see how patriarchal structures forge the rigid idea of masculinity, and who has the power to bend it – a feminist masculinity does.
So, I ask you, what world would you rather live in? One in which you are in constant fear of whether you are proving that you are ‘man’ enough? Or, one without that fear, where you can find out who you actually are?
Offline sources:
Connell, R.W. and Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender & Society, 19(6), pp.829–859.
Connell, R.W. (2005). Masculinities (Second Edition). University of California Press.
hooks, bell (2004). The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. New York: Atria Books.
Silverstein, L.B. (2016). Feminist masculinities: The end of gender as we know it. APA handbook of men and masculinities. pp.145–172.
