In the early 1950’s the Philip Morris Tobacco Company was attempting to figure out a method of attracting men to smoke filter tip cigarettes because there was a mistaken belief that the filter tip would lower the toxicity of cigarettes and the demand for them would increase. Their leading filter tip brand, Marlboro, was very popular with women.  Therefore, they needed to figure out how they could get men to buy Marlboro’s.  Their adverting agency came up with idea of the “Marlboro Man.”  The images initially featured rugged men portrayed in a variety of roles but later primarily featured a seasoned cowboy or cowboys in picturesque wild terrain.  The campaign was hugely successful and Marlboro sales to men grew exponentially. To further understand the true meaning of the Marlboro man, the following excerpt from a research paper contrasting the Michelangelo sculpture David with the Marlboro man is quite instructive.

“However, the greatest similarity between the David and the Marlboro Man is the philosophical ideas they symbolize. Via the chosen particulars, strong profile, the masculine hands, the man of action (as both inner thought and outer action), the Marlboro Man symbolizes the universal in man: reason, independence, efficacy, and egoism. Like the David, the Marlboro Man controls and is at home in an intelligible universe, comprehending reality and acting in accordance with it. Fronting the essential facts of life, the Marlboro Man purposely exists as his own end, doing what must be done. An imitation and perfection of nature, the completion of the nature of man, the potential as abstraction in form, man as he could be, more handsome than any particular man, more real than the real, the Marlboro Man symbolizes the same meta-ethical, aesthetic and political ideas as the David. The Marlboro Man stands tall on the billboards of the world as the Aristotelian aesthetic ideal, symbolizing reason, independence, efficacy, egoism and explicitly or implicitly, republican liberty (Exhibit 8). In Aristotelian fundamentals, the Marlboro Man is a 20th century David.” In current popular culture the Marlboro Man is often referred to as a  symbol of the “real man” stereotype of hyper masculinity.  The Marlboro type man is seen as a man confined to the man code limiting his emotional life and forced to live a limited masculinity that negatively affects his well being and his attitudes towards women. However, if we examine the traits associated with the Marlboro Man stereotype we see some very positive aspects of masculinity.  Taking action is embedded in the Warrior archetype.  Again, in the light a man of action who does not use his warrior to bully or utilize excessive violence is highly desirable.  Reason -comprehending reality – is the behavior associated with the King archetype and in the light is the thoughtful deliberating aspect of masculinity.  Not sure what the problem with independence is as long as it is not taken to  the extremes of isolation.  An independent man takes responsibility for his actions without blaming others for mistakes and misfortune.  Efficacy, getting things done quickly, can also be seen as a positive trait of masculinity.   Men tend to be result oriented fixers.  As long as a man does not become so hyper focused that he ignores the bigger picture resolving a problem expeditiously is a good thing.   I do agree that egoism is not a positive trait that the real man should endorse and not necessary ingredient for a positive real man role model.

What we need is a new and renamed Marlboro Man that represents the best of masculinity without abandoning the notion that there is much benefit to aspiring to be a “Real Man.”  I welcome blog readers to suggest a new image and name to replace the Marlboro Man. 

Another new book or article, by a women, talking about boys and masculinity.  As reported on CNN online,  Emma Brown’s new book, “To Raise A Boy: Classrooms, Locker Rooms, Bedrooms, and the Hidden Struggles of American Boyhood,” reveals that dismantling rigid concepts of masculinity is the next step toward true social progress on gender.

Her main premise is the often repeated trope that  rigid gender norms for boys and men put their own health at risk and that makes it hard for boys and men to ask for physical or mental help.

Brown goes on to state that, “Another problem is isolation. Many boys are forced to disown their desire for emotional intimacy. One of the most memorable conversations I had was with a 50-year-old man who woke up in middle age and realized he didn’t really have any friends — no one he could connect with emotionally.”

She also claims that research has found links between boys who believe they must live up to standards about being “real” boys or men and those at a greater risk for perpetrating sexual violence against women.

Let me begin with debunking her main premise about rigid gender norms.  Yes, there are some men who do not take proper care of themselves for both mental and physical health related issues.  Frankly, I believe that this might be true for a few boomer men and those men who inhabit the fringe hyper masculine world.  The truth is that for the vast majority of men among the younger generations, according to counselors at post secondary schools, they seem not to hesitate in seeking help for depression, anxiety and trauma related issues.  In addition, there is no evidence for the notion that society at large promulgates the message that boys don’t cry.  Again, I’m sure there are a few parents and old school athletic coaches who do deliver this message but certainly it rarely appears in the mainstream media and from the pop culture icons.

Brown’s argument that boys are forced to disown emotional intimacy does not ring true based on my personal experience and the many men I have interacted with in 25 years of facilitating men’s groups.  Men openly talk about the close friendships they had as boys, teens and through young adulthood.  What they miss is the opportunity to continue those types of relationships once they are actively pursuing careers and participating in family life.  The issue of adult male loneliness is not a product of a constrained masculinity but part of a bigger problem of social isolation in our modern society that has affected men more than women.  Robert Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone” underscored how the collapse of the American community has had a profound impact on increasing male isolation.

Particularly infuriating was her claim that research links how a “real men” attitude leads to a greater risk for perpetrating sexual violence against women.  When I checked the research she relied on I found the following. “Thus, the men who adhere strongly to these particular hegemonic masculinity (i.e., antifemininity, sexual dominance masculine norms may feel compelled to be sexually aggressive and/or coercive toward an intimate partner in order to maintain their need for dominance within their intimate relationship. ”  In other words the data showed toxic masculinity attitudes which are far different than the vague real men perspective is the link to truly misogynistic behavior.  As I have frequently blogged, being a real man in the light of masculinity is a far cry from the toxic masculine world.

I find it increasing troubling that rehashing the no longer valid  message that we continue to constrain boys and men from being fully actualized is leading to misconceptions about gender roles rather than clarifying the discussion of how to achieve a gender equal not a gender neutral society.