Essay No. 7: Booze, Bacon, Bad Boys, and the ‘B’ Word
I find men to be absolutely fascinating. Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I research and study gender. And as a behavioral scientist, I have the exciting privilege of developing and testing scientific theories to investigate how being a man influences subsequent attitudes and behaviors (I do similar investigations for women as well, but they’re not the focus of this essay, per se). But perhaps the most central phenomena needed to understand male behavior is understanding this peculiar thing called [Western] masculinity.
So, for context, we can start with some vocabulary. Masculinity, generally, refers to traits and behaviors that are primarily associated with men. Masculinity is culturally constructed, so there’s definitely some variance across contexts, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some overlap and consensus across different contexts. Of course, I live in the US, and I’m most familiar with the US, so I’ll focus mostly on Western perspectives of masculinity.
Masculinity gives both men and women a broad description of what men ARE and equally importantly, what men ARE NOT.
Men are loud. They are not quiet.
Men are bold. They are not timid.
Men are fearless. They are not fearful.
Men are tough. They are not sensitive.
Men are dominant. They are not submissive.
Men are leaders. They are not followers.
Now OBVIOUSLY, these are extreme exaggerations. But I think that’s the point… that’s how masculinity and femininity work. They usually represent an exaggerated idea of underlying traits and behaviors. And that idea of exaggeration isn’t entirely bad, PER SE. Mentally, it reduces the likelihood of us mixing up men and women… because we ascribe one set of exaggerated behaviors to men (masculinity) and we ascribe a completely different set of exaggerated behaviors to women (femininity).
And based on what we know about the psychology of identity groups, we know that even when different groups are in harmony, they try to remain distinct from each other. It’s part of how you maintain the livelihood of your group.
That doesn’t mean there’s beef… it just means groups strive to maintain some level of distinctiveness.
So, football players try and maintain distinctiveness and uniqueness from basketball players.
People in America try and be distinct and unique from people in Canada.
Doctors try and be distinct from lawyers.
And so on and so forth.
So, men try and be distinct from women, and both masculinity and femininity help to reinforce that for both groups. And distinct, in this context, doesn’t necessarily mean better or worse or superior or inferior (although we can have that discussion another time). Distinct simply means the groups are separate.
So, we’ll be talking plenty about masculinity today. In fact, by the end of this, you might even be convinced that masculinity is EVERYTHING… there’s so much about manhood that’s inextricably intertwined with [Western] masculinity (frequently in ways that aren’t necessarily helpful). But I also urge you to keep in mind that men are NOT a monolith. Men vary in the extent to which they subscribe to traditional definitions of masculinity and gender roles, etc. For instance, by Western standards, I’m not a particularly masculine man, and I also don’t really subscribe much to Western definitions of masculinity. As you would imagine though, there are millions and millions of men, even around the world, who DO strive to be “masculine” and hold very traditional views of gender roles. And there are definitely important implications of that.
For instance, the expectation that being masculine involves being a risk taker, not surprisingly, has come to influence the health and safety risks that men expose themselves to. Even before getting into the underlying science of this, many of us can conceptualize and wrap our heads around this with our own anecdotal experience. Men are more likely than women to smoke. Men are more likely than women to drink. Men are more likely than women to drink heavily. Men are also more likely than women to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
The pattern continues, right?
Now, it is true that, on average, drugs and substance use appeal differentially to men and women. In fact, if you’re a woman, you may actually avoid substance use because you may have concerns about being viewed as a masculine woman. That’s a perfectly fair observation, but it’s more complicated than that.
In the psychology and sociology research on masculinity, we’re actually interested in the predictors of these health-related behaviors… we’re particularly interested in these behaviors among men, because men are far more likely to be users (and HEAVY users) of substances, illegal and otherwise. Across many of these research studies, a relevant pattern emerges.
Men who endorse traditional norms of masculinity are more likely to be users of substances, like alcohol, cigarettes, etc. In other words, the men who are most likely to put substances in their body that may compromise their health are the men who believe that men are supposed to be risk takers. I mean, it makes sense, right? For these guys, smoking cigars in the man cave, and taking 5 shots of bourbon, are just normal things that men are supposed to do. Perhaps equally importantly, masculinity is also about being in control. So, instead of being safe and admitting that they’re too drunk to drive, many of these gentlemen will choose instead to get behind the wheel and try and get where they’re going.
As you would imagine, the research in this area has really important health and safety implications. It means in order for men to feel like they’re living up to the standard of being a man (i.e. masculinity), it may involve them doing things that undermine their safety and health. It may also mean that men do things they KNOW are bad for them, but they do those things anyway, because that’s what a man is supposed to do. Indeed, now there’s an entire field of research known as male-role stress. The unrelenting burdens of masculinity may undermine men’s health in both expected and unexpected ways (cc: suicide and mental health across the genders).
But the health implications are broader than just drugs and safety. There are many men who don’t use any illegal drugs and only drink in moderation. Still, masculinity may have an influence on their health as well.
There’s been research showing that women seem to do a better job taking care of their body than men do, specifically as it pertains to health. Not surprisingly, data in the US shows that women, on average, live to be 81, whereas men live to be 76.
As it pertains to masculinity, the gap here is twofold.
For starters, part of masculinity is being impervious to harm. Now obviously, men aren’t actually indestructible, but masculine men may pretend that they are. Whether we’re talking about rescuing a kitten from a tree (a heroic deed), or getting in a fight at a bar (a physical confrontation), or getting drunk when your friends come over to watch football (overindulgence), many aspects of masculinity appeal to the notion of being invincible.
Unfortunately, that’s not good for your health. Men are NOT impervious to harm, and the body that we have is the one we’ll have every day until we die. So, a man’s willingness to recognize that and act accordingly will directly influence his health outcomes. It influences how regularly he goes to the physician. It influences his willingness to heed medical advice. It influences what he does when his body is trying to tell him that there’s something terribly wrong (i.e. when he feels pain).
So, the notion of being impervious influences how you maintain your body in terms of medical advice and access.
Relatedly though, it has similar implications for food consumption. Yes, it is true that women are more scrutinized about their physical appearance than men are, so they may show more restraint and discipline concerning what they eat. But the story is deeper than that, and it actually goes back to our observations on substance use: if you’ll put methamphetamine in your body, or heroin, or crack… then a triple bacon cheeseburger is NOTHING. I mean, it’s part of how masculinity is constructed, right? Men take risk, and they’re impervious to harm. So, why not have a triple bacon cheeseburger every day?
To be sure, there’s research that’s been done in this area as well, by psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists. Food isn’t gender neutral. From a cultural perspective, some foods are viewed as more feminine (i.e. a pumpkin spice-latte) and some foods are viewed as more masculine (i.e. a triple bacon cheeseburger). Moreover, given eating directly influences our health and weight, you could say that eating itself is a gendered activity, wherein men are expected to partake more than women.
There’s a precedent for these arguments. For instance, throughout much of history, meat has been associated with power and privilege. This has been the case in European, African, and Asian society, and even today, meat is among the more expensive items in grocery stores and restaurants. Meat is a delicacy. Moreover, historical records of civilizations around the world appear to suggests a longstanding relationship between meat and manhood.
We don’t have to go back very far in time to find examples of this. For example, in the early 20th century, America was actively involved in WWI. Throughout the war, food was rationed to better support the war effort. Civilian women went without so that men on the battlefield could eat their fill of meat. Today, MEN… EAT… MEAT (although diets vary a bit throughout the world). In fact, this norm in Western society is so strong, that men don’t consider a meal complete if it doesn’t include meat.
MEN… WANT… THE BACON.
But here’s the thing. This isn’t just a preference. It’s a norm. And when people violate norms, there are usually penalties associated with doing so. In this case, research has found that men who don’t eat meat (i.e. vegetarians) are considered less masculine than men that do. I should also point out that this study was done with a sample of all WOMEN, finding that eating meat (vs. being vegetarian) makes you sexy. In general, I would expect men to show a similar pattern, viewing vegetarian men as less masculine.
If that’s true though, men may eat LESS vegetables and MORE meat, just to avoid being viewed as a unmasculine.
Less broccoli.
More bacon.
And to the extent that diets really high (low) in red meat (vegetables) may undermine your health, it may mean masculinity has struck men yet again. Here, too, we see more health consequences.
Now, one relevant question you may have at this point is, “What’s all the fuss among men with being viewed as masculine? WHY IS THAT SO IMPORTANT?”
Well, we’ve touched on it a little bit already. Keep in mind that masculinity is culturally constructed, and culture pertains to norms. And norms exist to set scripts for behavior. Deviating from those norms means your behavior is atypical, and atypical behavior is penalized… that’s true across the board in society (although people of greater privilege usually have more flexibility with norm violation). In other words, satisfying norms means “good things” happen and deviating from norms means “bad things” happen.
There are many examples of that, but we actually mentioned one of the most important one’s already. In the study I mentioned previously on attraction, men who ate meat were perceived as sexier than men who are vegetarian. To be sure, this wasn’t simply a matter of correlation. As they statistically tested for various mechanisms, they found strong evidence that masculinity attributions drove their effects. In other words, vegetarian men were perceived as less masculine than men who were not vegetarian (men who ate meat AND vegetables), and the decrease in masculinity resulted in being perceived as less sexy.
This motivates an important question… is there any legitimacy to the idea that nice guys finish last? Do women have a preference for these macho men, even when they’re really nice guys that may be less macho?
Well, kinda.
There’s research in mating psychology that uses a sociobiological, or evolutionary, logic to better understand who people are attracted to and why. As you may be able to surmise, they incorporate helpful insights from biology to understand human sexual behavior.
This field of work started in the late 1980’s, and it’s created quite the stir since. I think when you write research papers about sexual behavior, biology, and evolution, it has the potential to be very contentious. Part of the reason why is those fields, separately and collectively, have been used to support oppressive and perverted arguments in the past about underrepresented groups in society (i.e., women are biologically inferior to men, Black people have an uncontrollable sex drive). As a result, we always want to exercise discretion in how we interpret results for this kind of work.
So, what does mating psychology tell us about bad boys and nice guys? I can be really technical and specific, but the findings are generally as follows: when women are thinking of short-term mating motives (i.e., a one night stand, a casual sexual experience, etc.), there’s evidence that they prefer bad boys over nice guys. As you would expect, for LONG-TERM mating motives (i.e., future husband), we observe the exact opposite pattern (so yes, there are circumstances where women prefer bad boys, but that isn’t necessarily all the time). Additionally, women’s sex drive may influence how they perceive bad boys: during periods of high (vs. low) sex drive, there’s evidence women are more likely to see a bad boy as having potential to be suitable long term partners, i.e. good boyfriends, good husbands or good dads.
Now remember, I told you this field has the potential to be quite contentious at times, and maybe now you can see why I said that. But taking a step back, I’ll be honest, I think the findings are somewhat intuitive. I mean think about it, right? For instance, imagine if I told you that when men are in a period of high sex drive, they might prefer the stripper to the nice, pretty girl on their volleyball team that they already have great chemistry with. For most of us, we wouldn’t find that super surprising. As a guy, I can UNEQUIVOCALLY tell you that when I’m feeling a high level of sexual arousal, I’m more prone to think and behave in ways that may be at odds with my better judgement. That’s why I think with my brain and not with my penis. Because otherwise, I might make a very different set of decisions, right?
These mating psychologists have basically found evidence that when women are in a period of high sex drive, it may influence what men they find most attractive (i.e., bad boys vs. nice guys), and it also may influence how they perceive bad boys (i.e., “I think he’d be faithful if he was with a good woman”). I don’t say that to be deterministic: every woman is not the same, and obviously there’s a lot of variation from person to person, but there is some evidence that this pattern exists.
Practically, that means that even though Western masculinity has MANY problematic elements, if you’re a bad boy, you may feel there’s some pay off when it comes to the dating market. After all, being a bad boy is pretty pertinent to masculinity, which could be appealing to some women: Bad boys need to be dominant. They have to be able to fend off threats and be fearless in doing so. They also need to be respected, otherwise, people will continue to threaten them on an ongoing basis. So, even though Western masculinity IS problematic on many levels, some men may feel adhering to it is worthwhile because it improves their dating prospects (i.e., women come find them when they want a one night stand, and sometimes even for serious relationships).
But while we’re on this topic of sex, relationships, and bad boys, how do men handle those situations where a woman thwarts their advances? Think about it. Men are supposed to be dominant, and sure, and successful. I mean, getting rejected by a woman doesn’t really seem to fit very well into how we culturally construct masculinity, even though we know that rejection is a normal part of romantic interactions between heterosexual men and women.
So, here’s how it works. Identity represents important dimensions of who we are as people. Periodically, we have experiences that serve to undermine our social standing within a social identity group. You can think of these as “identity threats”. In our case, a man being rejected by a woman is a particular kind of identity threat: a masculinity threat.
Now, when a man’s masculinity is threatened, he has to regain it. There are different ways to do so, but generally, they involve (1) elevating/reestablishing his own social standing, (2) reducing other people’s social standing, (3) or doing both.
Enter the ‘B’ word.
See, this is part of the issue with Western masculinity. You can’t be masculine and be unsuccessful. You can’t be masculine and be rejected. You can’t be masculine and not be desired by women. So, now you have this awkward situation where men feel like their masculinity is threatened when a woman declines their advances, whereas rejection is really just a normal part of putting yourself out there with different people.
Now, one thing I haven’t touched on but I’ll do here is emotions. Because of Western masculinity, men are pretty limited in the emotions they’re permitted to display. They can show anger and that’s really kind of it. Emotion is a curious thing to think about from a gendered perspective. When we think about the gender research on emotions, one thing we know is that when bad things happen to people, they demonstrate one of two emotions: anger or sadness. People generally get angry about things they feel like they have control over and they get sad about things they feel like they don’t. That’s one reason why anger is an approach emotion, that leads people to action, and sadness is not.
So, if a family member dies, you may get SAD about that, but if someone catches an attitude with you at work, you may get ANGRY about that. The latter is something you may feel like you can control, but the former is something you may just feel the need to accept. Importantly, we know being in control is a masculine characteristic. Not surprisingly, anger is a more normative response for men than it is women, whereas sadness is a more normative response for women than men.
But, the very fact that a man gets angry when his advances are declined tells us something important. It means he thinks that he can control whether or not women are receptive to him. If he got sad instead of angry, he’d basically be signaling the opposite: “I can’t control whether or not women are receptive to me, and that’s why I’m sad”. The idea that a man may feel he has control over outcomes like these in his social life, of course, is a manifestation and reflection of patriarchy. And the ‘B’ word largely reinforces that. It’s a gendered insult, intended to degrade the woman and elevate his status as a man. So, if she declines his advances, he may buffer the masculinity threat by using gendered insults to elevate his own social standing while reducing hers.
Suffice to say, manhood, particularly Western masculinity, is very complex… and there are many, many aspects of it that are borderline, if not outright, toxic. But it’s also fascinating to think about and fascinating to study.
Let me know what you’re thinking about masculinity, especially if you have thoughts on Booze, Bacon, Bad Boys, or the ‘B’ word.
Some random thoughts,
Nnamdi