I’m back to writing in English, and oy vey, whenever I think on the direction of something un-PC, I get terribly blocked. I’ve been struggling with a 200-word excerpt on neoliberal masculinity since morning because what I want to say (and what the textual evidence shows) is wrongthink.
So I’ll try to think it through here to see if it helps.
OK, so how do we describe positive masculinity normally? What words do we use? We say, he’s strong, dependable, reliable, solid, he’s a rock.
Nobody ever described the masculine ideal as changeable and malleable, right?
And what is solid? It’s the opposite of fluid. The fluid changeability of neoliberalism is the opposite of masculinity.
At the same time, neoliberalism expects ultra-productivity and competitiveness, which are traditional masculine traits.
So there’s an unresolvable conflict in that you have to dissolve yourself in feminine traits while enhancing the very masculine ones.
And it works exactly the same for women but in the opposite direction.
That’s why the neoliberal ideal is both “gender-fluid” and asexual. It’s something that’s always in-between, engrossed in refashioning a barren self. It is always in the process of becoming and never actually becomes.
Does it make sense so far?

Leave a comment