The end of an era is upon us! This is MASKulinity’s series finale episode...maybe just for now. It is Samantha’s farewell episode (Remoy may return), and RGP1  interviews her about MASKulinity Podcast, including a trip down memory lane… 

Thank you so much for listening!

Referenced on this episode:

In this week’s episode, Remoy takes us to another side of AI. Grad computer science researcher Maria Teleki lends her findings to shed light on how AI feeds our existing patriarchal notions and structures

• What is a large language model? We’re sure you’ve heard about this term, also known as an LLM, that’s becoming more and more relevant to our everyday lives.
  • Remoy gives us the definition.
  • Maria follows up with how this technology learns about us and how we speak. Are there speech differences between genders? Maria’s research searches for answers to that question in…podcasts.
• A particular word tends to emerge in women’s speech patterns. 
  • But it’s not just that one word. Maria and her team’s research uncover different common words and patterns in the ways people speak to their own gender.
• So what does that mean for LLMs? Maria explains.
  • LLMs learn these gendered speech patterns and their programming informs their response. If the programming stems from patriarchy, the response will be patriarchal. The bias thrives.
  • Maria continues, breaking down how when LLMs recognize speech to be men’s, users get better results, especially in more profitable sectors.
  • The bias doesn’t stop at gender. Race and sexuality bias in LLMs also creates gaps and inequalities in technology usage.
• There is hope! Maria gives us a silver lining.

Referenced on this episode:

• That paper that Maria and her colleagues wrote that was the basis for this episode? You can go more into those technomasculine AI weeds here: Masculine Defaults via Gendered Discourse in Podcasts and Large Language Models
• And you can see, at scale, the work Maria has as is continuing to dig into on her Github page

COMPANION PIECES:

• Other folks are uncovering AI bias in topics other than speech at the Algorithmic Justice League
• More on how AI biases impact folks’ bottom line based on gender
• The UN has more to say about this about AI, gender bias and development
• Just like patriarchy negatively impacts men in real life, it can negatively impact men through AI

It’s our hundredth episode, and in the spirit of us being around so long, Remoy takes us back to when the US did unMASK American leadership: with its first woman VP in the White House. Kamala Harris didn’t become president, but let’s not forget what it meant for her to come so close… Her videographer, Azza Cohen, helps us pull back the curtain on what it meant to have Harris’s leadership and the difference she made for men and women everywhere.

• Remoy loves a guessing game! He takes Samantha on a windy road figuring out how he got to meet this week’s guest, Azza Cohen.
• After a fun windy game, he taps in Azza Cohen, Kamala Harris’s videographer, to describe what it was like to document the first woman vice president.
  • She describes how Kamala’s leadership made more people feel seen than we realize, with a simple description of herself.
  • Azza describes how some news outlets used her nod toward a marginalized community to diminish her leadership, but it was just conservative ones…
  • Our illustrious guest points out how portrayals of women in the media are directly tied to the public’s perception of them as leaders. Kamala was a perfect example of this.
• And then a little context about white balance.
  • Azza shares how photography and camera technology principles have racist roots.
  • She reflects on her experience as adapting previous knowledge to different skin tones.
• Azza shares how Kamala’s leadership impacted her.
  • Azza reflects on the difficulty taking space and having confidence in the workplace, and how Kamala inspired her to do just that in an on-the-job moment.
  • She points out the inherent gender bias that we sometimes have when dealing with kids.
    • Samantha admits having to confront her biases in her own life.
    • Azza shares an anecdote showing how Kamala challenged gender biases in her leadership and the difference it made.
• What about the fact that Kamala was too centrist for some? Samantha plays devil’s advocate.
  • Azza gives an insightful response about our political system.
• Azza shares symbolic moments during the transition of power in 2024.
  • How did the former VP handle it?
  • What were those last moments like?
  • Samantha and Remoy reflect on how important it was for Kamala Harris to be in the position she was in.
• Azza ends with a powerful word on the images we consume, particularly as it concerns the current administration.
  • She wants to remember how women’s leadership is captured in this country and what the impact on our society may be because of it.

COMPANION PIECES:

• Our episode How American Politics REALLY Sees Men & MASKulinity does include Americans’ thoughts about women’s leadership traits
• No, having a woman president would not turn our country into a matriarchy (I think we wish it did kind of?!), but some examples of what women’s leadership could be like would still be helpful. We had talked about matriarchy,
• It didn’t work out, but some men were still about that Kamala as President life

Referenced on this episode:

• That original Slate piece Azza wrote that caught Remoy’s interest? You can read it here
• You can follow Azza on Substack @azzacohen
• The image in our episode art is an Official White House photograph by Lawrence Jackson

We're running back this friendly reminder for the holidays! Wishing you and yours a great holiday season and see you in the new year for original MASKulinity episodes!

************************

Episode Notes

The holiday season is upon us shortly in the US. Some men will be surrounded by close ones, and some will finally get the R&R they’ve been craving, but many may feel alone.

• Americans have less and less friends. On this episode, Samantha and Remoy talk through some Survey Center on America Life findings on the state of American friendships. There are many men who have absolutely no friends, and that number is steadily increasing. The hosts get some help to understand how this impacts them during the holiday season.
• Our resident counselor for men, Justin Lioi, is back to talk about having mental ease during the holidays. He stresses that being alone at this time can be a fulfilling choice but it’s OK to reach out for attention and support if it’s loneliness rather than intentional alone time.
• Justin helps the hosts understand why reaching out can be difficult for men, how slipping back into old relationship dynamics can make it worse, and how to detect mental distress in the body.

COMPANION PIECES:

• Ignoring it won’t make it go away! How doing the work leads to men’s freedom 
• Special Episode! Getting Free, with Darnell Moore
• Ya can’t pour from an empty cup! How Men Can Take Better Care of Themselves

Referenced in this episode

• Terrence Real, therapist author of I Don’t Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression
• Pia Mellody, author of Facing Codependence: What It Is, Where It Comes from, How It Sabotages Our Lives
• Bowling Alone by Robert D. Putnam shows how we people in modern societies have become more and more disconnected from each other

Referenced on the socials

• STATE OF AMERICAN MEN 2023 FROM CRISIS AND CONFUSION TO HOPE

OUR GUEST THIS WEEK:

Justin Lioi

Justin Lioi lives in Brooklyn, NY where he has a private practice that specializes in men's counseling. He has worked with families since 2008 and after several years of listening to fathers speak mostly about their children decided to put their needs front and center. He is a former New York actor and Music Together teacher and is an elected member of the National Association of Social Workers. He blogs regularly on men's issues as well as relationships and parenting at 

www.ParkSlopeTherapist.com

.

Boys can’t wear dresses, they say….but was that always true? This week, Professor Jo Paoletti stops by the pod to let us know why boys stopped wearing dresses.

• Remoy starts us off with a visual…of none other than himself swagged out in a dress as a baby.
  • You may be thinking to yourself, is that a Texan thing? Is it his worldly background? Nope! Boys used to wear dresses…
  • He taps in Professor Jo Paoletti who gives us the scoop.
• So all babies used to wear dresses, but what does that mean? Was it always the skirts and lace we see on babies these days? Not exactly….
  • Clothing used to be purely practical and not necessarily a way to announce a kid’s gender through their fashion…
  • In fact, using clothing to distinguish kids’ gender was against the grain for a while…
• We recently talked about the 1800s as a pivotal era in men’s clothing, but for baby boys and girls, the move was to keep things as gender neutral as possible.
  • There were concerns about boys’ behavior that made dresses the better choice. Listen to find out what behavior society was told to suppress…
  • The clothing choice was not just about suppressing certain behaviors; it was about function. In what sense? Professor Paoletti breaks it down.
  • Color came up in our Fashion Is Resistance episode, but about the babies? Did it start off as blue and pink? Great question - listen to find out….
• Then the ‘80s happened and a new concern emerged (surprise it’s the ‘80s again)…
  • This time, it’s not Reagan… But what was it that made it suddenly so important to distinguish male and female babies from each other at a glance? Take a guess… It’s not so different from the conundrum we’re facing today…
    • Jo Paoletti charts the evolution from functional to purposely gendered clothing.
    • There was a shift in the family structure that caused a butterfly effect for boys and they were failing to meet expectations… It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
    • Boys could have been the ones to keep the dresses, but they didn’t; why? Jo paints the picture for us.
• It wasn’t just young boys’ behavior that was a concern, but young men’s in general.
  • Psychologists got involved in this clothing shift at the turn of the century.
  • The Industrial Revolution strikes again and shifts the currents of fashion for all ages…
  • The distinction between boys and girls in fashion would supposedly help curb “deviant” behavior in men.
  • A familiar refrain starts taking over the conversation on men’s behavior - spending too much time with their mothers… Enter the Boy Scouts, enter sports, anything to keep the MASKulinity in boys.
  • Industries follow the conversation and new choices pop up in stores. Consumerism helps ensure the shift.
• But when we say boys, it wasn’t all boys… There was a particular ideal that boys and eventually men, would be expected to model.
  • It’s what all roads lead to so far this season…
• Perhaps the most important point Jo makes in this episode is that we all perform gender in some way… Drag of a sort, if you will.
  • Might come as a surprise, but let us humor you!

Was this episode shocking, surprising, old news? Let us know in the comments!

Referenced on this episode:

• Huffpost featured our guest talking about exactly this
• Gender and Sex Roles in the 1970s 
• Our recent episode, Fashion Is Resistance

COMPANION PIECES:

• Our illustrious guest, Jo Paoletti write extensively about this; read more:
  • On Substack
  • Gender Mystique
• When we talked about Black dandyism and suits with stylist and writer Joe Wilkes
• Long time ago, we talked about the Boy Scouts…
• We also talked about drag and masculinity…
• Pinky and the Blue Boy - get a history of how and why color became gendered in this Modern Manhood episode 

Headship? Wives submitting to husbands? Yep, we're talking about Christian MASKulinity this week with the help of theologian and author Dr. James Spencer. The hosts start out by reflecting on how much Christianity has impacted not only their own lives but American life as a whole.

• What has our society retained as a nation founded by Chiristian men? So much of American culture is based on Christianity, and even folks who aren’t Christian in practice deem themselves culturally Christian. The hosts start by setting the stage for the wide-reaching impact of this conversation.
• In fairness, it’s not just American life. Samantha and Remoy have a moment about who the oldest Christians are, and they remember one of the first ways Christianity was leveraged to perpetuate a distinct group’s interest…
• They start dissecting their own Christian experiences… What exactly did these two former Christians learn about gender and masculinity in church? Samantha and Remoy share the views their respective churches had and how it shaped their idea of gender in that context.
  • Remoy puts on his preacher boy hat to recall some of the key principles he remembers about Christianity. And more importantly, what did he teach about manhood and masculinity when he was behind the pulpit?
  • Samantha shares why this episode is important to her as a former Christian and the suspicions her upbringing brought up for her. James addresses her concerns about some biblical intentions.
  • It turns out there are a lot of key differences between Samantha and Remoy’s past Christian learnings and experiences and James’s biblical conclusion of what it means to be a Christian man…
  • Men are expected to be the final decision maker on everything, and people will often turn to the Bible to prove that point. But what if that’s not what God intended? James gives us a theologian’s perspective on what God likely intended.
• Where exactly in the Bible does it say that men should be in charge? When it comes to marital relationships, a very specific verse tends to come up to justify male leadership, but there seems to be some context missing. Samantha gives us the verse, and James fills in the blanks.
• The idea of headship comes up consistently when folks cite the Bible as the basis for men’s blanket leadership.
  • It’s not just the biological essentialist claim that men are better leaders in the home because they’re men; it’s supposedly also because God said so. But does the Bible actually back that up? James lets us know.
  • James breaks down how men’s leadership should mirror that of Jesus Christ over the church.
  • And what does that look like in relationships? It’s vastly different from the “do as I say” leadership that some men feel they are owed and entitled to, including Christian ones.
  • James helps us understand what that means for husbands and we hear echoes of shedding the mask that is MASKulinity for the sake of a deeper faith.
• Like in our Anti-Anti-Porn Episode, we’re seeing how Christianity gets co-opted to further a human-made patriarchal agenda rather than the spiritual life Christians are called on to develop according to James.
• Christian men don’t have to be married to have integrity with their faith.
  • James gives us insight into what different Christian masculinities can look like, through the story of one of Jesus’s most prolific and significant apostles. We discover that how it looks is far less important that where it comes from…
  • Remoy gives some seldom-talked-about background on how Christianity emerged back in the day like only a former preacher boy would…
• Samantha ends by bringing up a topic that’s been in the news so much, it’s taken over the image of mainstream Christianity…perhaps (actually definitely) for the worse: Christian nationalism.
  • James provides some important, should-not-be-forgotten-lest-we-want-to-repeat-history context about the merger between church and state and the implications on society…
  • He cites the Barmen Declaration as an example of Christians fighting extremism during Nazi times.
  • There are parallels between nazism and Christian nationalism in the US which James does not equate, but we kinda do!
  • Samantha examines a few tenets from a popular Christian nationalist group.
    • How close do these tenets mirror God’s biblical message? The hosts discuss…

Referenced on this episode:

• Inclusivity & Gender in Christianity - Two religious leaders lend their thoughts to the  gender debate in Christianity today
• Myths of Male Headship
• Dr. James Spencer’s podcast, Thinking Christian (Samantha mistakenly mentioned Christian First, which is the name of the framework he teaches courses in)
• The Proud Boys’ 12 tenets

COMPANION PIECES:

• What Does Christian Masculinity Really Look Like?, by our guest Dr. James Spencer
• Discipled Men: Rethinking Masculinity Through the Lens of Christ from Thinking Christian, our guest’s podcast
• Notes on Christian MASKulinity - our new Substack piece
• The Anti-Anti-Porn Episode about Christian men and porn
• Re-Thinking Masculinity: A Blog nn Christian Nationalism

How have we gone this long without talking about it? That’s right… We’re talking about porn this week, but it may not be what you think. Remoy enlists the help of Dr. Kelsy Burke to understand how the term “porn addiction” came to be, and exactly what the folks who came up with this term had in store.

• It’s hard to believe that Remoy starts this conversation at Christianity, but he does. He sets the tone for the conversation by getting the tea on the hosts’ humble Christian beginnings.
• Remoy shares how porn and Christianity intersect and the warnings men receive in church.
• Dr. Kelsy Burke explains how the notion of “porn addiction” and men’s Christianity intersect…and somehow work well together.
• Why would using the term “porn addiction” be co-opted by Christian men? Kelsy lets us know about that too…
• Lots of things popped off in the 80s! That includes Christian sex scandals. Listen to Kelsy break down how conservatives of that era bring MASKulinity and the “porn addiction” rhetoric together to control the narrative.
• What about women? Can they be “addicted” to porn?
• Soooo, is porn bad or naw??
• Samantha shares the oxymoron that pops up between cishet men and women.
• Kelsy goes on to describe how conservatism and conversations around sex in Christian circles lead to upholding the system we all know and (don’t) love.
• We know at least some of you have heard of No Fap November. Christian men are using this strategy as a show of masculine strength. Guess where this theory/strategy came from…
• This anti-porn rhetoric and scapegoating is everywhere, including government…

Referenced on this episode:

• Interested in learning more about all that Dr. Burke’s uncovered? Read more in their book: The Pornography Wars: The Past, Present, and Future of America’s Obscene Obsession
• You can also catch some of the highlights from Dr. Burke’s book over in their 2020 article over at Slate: Sinning Like a Man

COMPANION PIECES:

We talked about substance use disorders (addiction at the time) and MASKulinity a long time ago:

• Figure It Out: The Connection between Masculinity and Addiction
• Addiction: Men Are Twice as Likely, with Justin Lioi and other New Yorkers
• Exploring Commonalities in Addiction, a Mini Field Study

We’re back with our first original episode of the season! Our guest, Joe Wilkes, culture and policy writer and editor and fashion stylist, takes the mic with us to talk Black Dandyism. Many of us didn’t know this term prior to this year’s MET exhibition and gala theme, Superfine: Tailoring Black Style Our guest gave us some important notes on the role fashion can play for men in resisting the expectations of MASKulinity..

• What is Black dandyism? Joe Wilkes gives us a definition and takes us through its origins.
  • You may be surprised to find out where it started… But eventually people made it their own.
  • Having a sense of style for Black men in the 19th and early 20th century was new and hard for some to accept.
  • Extravagance or lack thereof causes people to classify men’s masculinity, especially, BIPOC men’s masculinity—why is that…? Joe’s answer evokes the racial hierarchy of masculinity.
• The universal suit men wear today wasn’t always the masculine standard... Samantha takes Remoy through where the “dandy” term comes from and the impact it had on menswear.
  • In Europe, aristocratic styles thrived on excess and extravagance, but something we take for granted today was previously reserved for the aristocratic and royal classes.
  • A middle-class man who had an in with the who’s who of Regency London altered the course of menswear for centuries to come. 
• Dandyism becomes a dress code that equalizes classes.
  • Men’s style evolved with the advent of a new age.
  • Understated and tailored styles became the standard for fashion, at least for quite some time. 
  • Men of different races embraced dandyism differently. Why is that?
• How is fashion resistance exactly? Joe helps us understand why fashion was so important to Black men’s identity and dignity.
  • At a certain point, the desire for authenticity and liberation starts to trump survival, a reflection of the times in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
  • But then, to avoid being deemed feminine or being subject to homophobia, men toned their look down. Joe explains how a specific event brought that on.
  • Joe shares a little of his own history, having to alter his look based on the community he was around.
• But perhaps there is a group of men who are allowed to wear whatever they want with way less criticism…
  • Take a guess which group that is…
  • If cishet men have unspoken requirements to meet what masculinity is supposed to look and dress like, does that mean queer men get more leeway? Joe shares some insights…
• Fashion is resistance but it’s not just that. Joe ends on a positive note we all need to keep in mind..
• Some questions we’re still wondering about:
  • How has your own fashion sense evolved? Do you dress to be authentic or to blend in as best as possible? 
  • Can the way men dress dictate how masculine they are? Does the way certain men present themselves put manhood and/or masculinity at risk for some people?
  • What do we say to the Brummel-thinking folks who think masculinity requires men to dress with “understated elegance”?
  • Let us know in the comments below!

Referenced on this episode:

• Exploring Dandyism and Black Expression: A Roundtable Discussion; led by our guest Joe Wilkes
• MET’s exhibition Superfine: Tailoring Black Style
• Monica L. Miller’s book Slave to Fashion, the inspiration for the MET theme
• Beau Brummell's Revolution: The Rise of the Modern Men's Suit in the 19th Century
• The Zoot Suit Riots and Wartime Los Angeles

COMPANION PIECES:

• History of the Black dandy; more history of Black Dandyism
• Dandyism around the world
• The Evolution of Black Masculinity Through Fashion  (TW, expletive used)

This season of MASKulinity is all about Relationships and Resistance, and we're starting with resistance.

What does resistance look like as performance art—more specifically, theater?

Your favorite literati doy, Remoy George Philip thee First's, latest production, Performing the Revolution, explores this question in a four-part series.We're dropping the first episode in our feed to set the tone for the season. This series is a powerful reminder that community and perseverance are requirements for social change, and that joy and play can be part of resistance. Samantha first interviews journalist and documentarian Ida Hardin, coproducer on the podcast, to get some between-the-lines questions answered. Themes of resilience, grief, and liberation echo through this first episode set in New Delhi.

*****

Performing the Revolution, "in India"

Meet Jana Natya Manch, a.k.a. JANAM, one of India's storied street theatre companies. We follow their journey from one of their most crucial, catalyzing and tragic moments in the 1980's, all the way through to the work they make today. 

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4klSwQSuzly63HdKfGt1ce

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/performing-the-revolution/id1765455380

Everywhere: https://pod.link/1765455380

Referenced on this episode:

• Some background on Jana Natya Manch (JANAM Theatre)
• Safdar Hashmi’s leadership at JANAM 
• Performing the Revolution in Conversation

COMPANION PIECES:

• Performing the Revolution team member Beto O’Byrne stopped by to talk wrestling as escapist for men in The Wrestling Episode 
• Robert and Mabel Williams understood that sometimes resistance is violent. Kellie Carter Jackson told us their story in The Resistance Episode
• Organizations resisting MASKulinity
• A short message from Moloyashree Hashmi

Just to clarify, we’re not talking about a bear succeeding at being chosen over a man in the woods. We mean the show! The Bear continues to be a favorite at TV award shows, and this year is no different. Naturally, your hosts talked about it. But first, they took a look at the show that rivalled it last year with just as many Enny wins. Succession. Your favorite hosts are joined by Professor of Race, Gender and Sexuality at Simmons University, Suzanne Leonard.

• The crew takes a moment to acknowledge the SAG nominees. We love when deserving people get their flowers.
• With The Bear being nominated, the crew decides to talk MASKulinity in the show, but first, they talk about a previous winner that reminds us all a bit too much of real life: Succession.
  • Samantha takes us through some interesting facts about the family that Succession is based on.
  • Suzanne lets us know what attracts her about the show. Are you a bit voyeuristic like her and Samantha are when it comes to this show? What is it about miserable rich people that draws our attention?
  • With a quick synopsis of Succession, Samantha breaks down the similarities between the Fox News Murdochs and their fictional counterparts..
    • A power struggle between a father and his children for the head seat of the company, something that provides a particular comment on fatherhood, power, and MASKulinity in our current social and political moment.
  • Why are we talking about this show? Suzanne and Samantha apprise Remoy of why it’s helpful for us to dissect this type of patriarchal leadership.
    • Suzanne makes an important note on mourning traditional media, which feels like it might be dying out, but is it?
    • So much political, economic, and social power is concentrated in families with Murdochs, Trumps, and Maxwells, it’s worth examining the BTS of these powerful families through this show.
  • Exactly how powerful are these nepotistic families? The crew runs down the list of the Murdochs’ empire and their impactful media (and legal) history and MASKulinity.
  • SPOILER ALERT: Samantha presents some scenes from Succession for Remoy to react to. Suzanne weighs in.
    • The fatherhood that Logan Roy displays can be mapped onto Trump’s leadership of both his family and the US as a country: we sustain his legacy.
    • Wielding real power and setting the tone for men’s MASKulinity both in their families and in our larger society are staples of the all-powerful patriarchs.
    • Suzanne highlights the ruthlessness of the powerful masculinity in the fatherhood displayed and how damaging it is to people around the folks who perform that masculinity. It is reflected in all these clips.
    • Remoy makes a poignant point about America’s need for a father figure running the country.
• The crew continues on to discuss crowd favorite, The Bear. Remoy points out that if Shrinking is the best way to deal with MASKulinity’s woes, and Succession is the most toxic, The Bear falls somewhere in the middle.
  • Remoy provides a great synopsis of the show, highlighting how differently it deals with masculinity compared to Succession.
    • We examine the relationships stemming from Carmy’s newfound leadership.
    • Carmy and Syd’s relationship represents a great mixed-gender leadership collaboration for this show.
    • Richie’s evolution as a person as well as the rest of the cast’s reflected the power of a connected leadership.
  • The Bear deals with mental health in an immensely different way from Succession. Carmy relies on those around him to get better while Kendall schemes while wielding power as his father does.
  • The Bear chronicles changing dynamics in a workplace as does Succession. The three draw out the differences and few similarities between masculinities in the two shows.
  • Suzanne highlights how class creates a different landscape than the opulent Succession
• In our deep dive, Suzanne shares some great nuggets in her research on gender in powerful structures.
  • We dive into questions about how family structures impacted our recent election of an all-powerful patriarch.
  • We get into how women hold up these power structures. Suzanne’s research has looked at how women’s own power is garnered through all-powerful couples.
  • Suzanne makes points on whiteness and how racial hierarchies impact this all-powerful dynamic.

OK, now we’re really outta here! See you soonish! 👋🏾👋🏿

Referenced on this episode:

• The Murdochs’ own family power struggle
• HBO’s Succession and our reckoning with male monsters - referenced article by BBC’s Hugh Montgomery
• When we talked about Shrinking, the nominated show that got mental health right
• When we talked about some very different TV Dads
• How American Politics REALLY Sees Men & MASKulinity - our episode dissecting the PEW report
• How Americans See Men and Masculinity - Pew Research Center report that continues to be relevant
• Perhaps it’d be helpful to see how men maintain social connections; we talked about it 

COMPANION PIECES:

• On The Bear and MASKulinity