Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Review of and Response to the Documentary Film “The Mask You Live In”

Review of and Response to the Documentary Film “The Mask You Live In”

Last updated on: June 1, 2017 at 7:58 am by Roger E. Olson

Review of and Response to the Documentary Film “The Mask You Live In” 2017-06-01T07:58:59-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Long-time readers of this blog will know that one of my concerns, often expressed here, is the plight of boys and men in America. That is also the concern of the documentary film “The Mask You Live In” which was produced by a feminist film maker who also produced the documentary “Miss Representation” (about the many misrepresentations of women in popular culture).

If you have not watched both or one of these excellent documentaries, please do so. They complement each other very nicely. Here I will focus exclusively on “The Mask You Live In” and invite responses from those who have seen the film. My general rule of thumb for this blog is and its comment section is the sign I have seen posted in some cafes, bars and restaurants: “Be nice or leave.”

Let me begin with a story. I could begin with hundreds of stories from my own experiences, but I think this one is fresh and pertinent to “The Mask You Live In” which is about our American culture’s profoundly problematic images of masculinity.

I recently had the privilege and great joy of walking my daughter down the aisle at her wedding and releasing her into the loving care of her husband—a young man who epitomizes what I can only can “undistorted masculinity.” (Something I can say of my other son-in-law as well and of many men I know personally.)

I was raised in a culture—both macro- and micro- – about which “The Mask You Live In” speaks. “Boys and men don’t cry.” Yet, no sooner had I handed my daughter over to her fiancée, her husband to be, and sat down next to my wife in the front row than I broke down crying. I was simply unexpectedly, but not surprisingly, overcome by emotion. All the years of fatherly love and care and worry and hope came to a head in that moment and I couldn’t hold back the flood of tears.

In that moment I was embarrassed and liberated. Isn’t it only women who cry at weddings? My fatherly anxieties about my daughter’s well-being in life felt released. At that moment I felt more conflicted than at most moments. The voices of the culture and family in which I was raised shouted “sissy!” in my head, but the voice of reason and love shouted “be yourself in this moment” in my head.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

That is what “The Mask You Live In” is all about—the distorted images of masculinity that many boys and men suffer from, and that cause much suffering of others, and the deep need boys and men feel to just be themselves in normal and positive ways, including showing emotions of tenderness, and the tremendous conflict that tension creates inside.

The narrative of “The Mask You Live In” is that pre-adolescent boys, by and large, are not very different from girls in terms of feelings and not being afraid to show them. Emotions of profound joy and sorrow, intimate friendship and empathy, mostly come fairly easily to boys before adolescence. However, due to cultural norms promoted by popular culture, older males, peers, some parents, many adolescent boys put on a mask of feeling nothing but coolness and anger. The cause of the transformation has been labeled by some psychologists and sociologists “the boy code.” Of course it begins very early in life when boys are called “sissies” for crying or showing any kind of vulnerability, but it becomes especially prominent and controlling in adolescence. The result for many young men is belief that “being a man,” being “masculine,” requires no vulnerability and no tenderness. In its most extreme form this distorted masculinity is sometimes labeled “machismo.”

“The Mask You Live In” very helpfully illustrates the damage this “boy code,” this “machismo,” this distorted masculinity has not only on women but also on boys and men themselves and on society in general. The film includes many interviews with boys and men of all ages as well as with psychologists and sociologists of both sexes. And it is not at all anti-male; the overall ethos of the film is empathy for males. But, of course, the underlying concern is for culture as a whole because “machismo” has negative effects not only on the boys and men but also on girls and women and on society as a whole.

The film focuses much on the roles of men in the lives of boys and young men—especially the roles played by fathers and mentors (e.g., coaches)—without neglecting the roles of women (e.g., mothers). The stories told by some of the young men, many of them prisoners, can be deeply moving. The film flashes statistics that I think would surprise most people in America. According to one statistic one in five boys experience sexual molestation.

The film shows quite clearly how men can play a crucial role in the emotional development of boys and young men but without shaming or blaming or putting fathers and mentors up on a pedestal to the neglect of mothers and other women who also play crucial roles in boys’ emotional development—for good or bad.

One focus of one part of the film is the experience labeled “father hunger.” According to the experts, boys need either a good father, to show them how to become a good man, or a good coach—whether he be an athletic coach or just a mentor.

Overall I found the film extremely positive and helpful in plumbing and articulating, however briefly, of course, a major social problem too often neglected. One of the things I especially appreciated about the film was its lack of blaming and shaming of males in general. There was no narrative that males are simply bad unless they come to fit some stereotype of feminine beingness which requires undoing their masculinity entirely. The film makes clear that it is about distorted masculinity and not masculinity itself. Boys and men can be both strong, protective, energetic, performance-oriented, proud of being male, while at the same time being empathetic, in touch with their tender emotions, and kind.

Now for some words of mild criticism of the film. I noticed that all of the producers of the film were women; not one man was among the several producers. (Yes, there is in the credits a category of [something like] “associate producers” that includes a few men, but that category is clearly set off and apart from the category of “producers.”) My question is this: What would those women say about a documentary film about females produced solely by men? What would most women think of such a documentary, however positive and helpful it may be? I suspect there would be much harsh criticism of such a male-produced film about women. Could they not find one man to co-produce this film? I think they should have.

So what difference would that have made? I don’t know exactly, but, had I been asked to be one of the producers, I would have insisted on a few things that are never mentioned in the film. I would have insisted that they at least be touched on.

For example, nowhere in the film is the role of testosterone mentioned. Perhaps that’s because there is really not much, if anything, that can be done about that. Culture can be changed, hopefully, but biology can’t be except in a few pathological cases of literal testosterone poisoning (clinically high levels of testosterone). What role does testosterone play in the adolescent transformations the film focuses on and decries? Surely some. Most adolescent boys, if they would open up and talk about their sexual feelings and other feelings about their changing bodies, would admit that they don’t even recognize themselves—compared with who and what they were before puberty “kicked in.” The flood of testosterone in early male adolescence has powerful effects over which many boys and young men seem to have little control. How many adolescent boys, going through puberty, are ever given any opportunity to talk with a medical professional about these changes? Girls usually have that opportunity; boys rarely do.

Testosterone is not only a “sex hormone;” it is also an aggression hormone. High levels of testosterone flooding a male body can influence him toward aggression he himself does not even understand or like. Studies have also shown that high levels of testosterone (and by “high levels” here I mean compared with what was before) tend to lessen feelings of empathy.

For the most part, “The Mask You Live In” was an excellent treatment of a somewhat delicate, somewhat controversial, and largely culturally ignored subject—the difference between “distorted masculinity” and what I will call here, for lack of a better term, “normal masculinity.” However, I think the film could have done a better job of describing normal masculinity. It shows it better than it talks about it. Many of the images of good men included: vigorously, working out, engaging in athletics, competing without undue aggression to cause harm, etc. Near the end of the film a very stereotypically masculine man talks about how masculine traits can be channeled into positive contributions to humanity.

Overall, however, I thought the film, perhaps because it was produced by women (some of them at least known feminists), lacked any in depth discussion of what being male means other than in negative ways (machismo) and in simply human ways that would be said of all people including females. So the question I often ask here, that almost always goes unanswered, is left almost untouched by this film: What is “good masculinity” other than just being a good person?

I do not think it will work, in the long run, to tell boys and men to “just be good humans” and totally neglect what value there is in being male per se. Nobody that I know says that there is no special value in being female other than just “being a good human.” We all know that females as females contribute much good to the world. Just look at the difference in popular culture between Mothers Day and Fathers Day; in the weeks leading up to the former there is much celebration of not only mothers but also women in general. Never a tinge of negativity. Contrariwise, Fathers Day, compared with Mothers Day, is given short shrift in popular culture and, if it is treated at all, there is often a tinge of negativity. (For example, many television sitcoms make fun of the neglect of the family for the wife and mother while the same sitcoms make fun of the husband and father as not really worthy of celebration.) The cultural narrative has, for quite a while now, been that females have laudable qualities as females whereas males only have laudable qualities insofar as they are like females. This, I fear, feeds into male resentment and undermines efforts to counter distorted masculinity. Adolescent boys and young men also need pride in being the sex that they are and insofar as the message they receive from culture is that their maleness itself is a detriment to society except insofar as it is adjusted to be more like females they will feel resentful and turn toward distorted masculinity to gain pride and respect. Somehow or other we need to communicate to boys and young men that they have much to offer to society, to the common good, as males. That is almost totally missing in even the very best treatments of sex and gender such as “The Mask You Live In.”

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 29, 2017

Some Random Memories and Thoughts about "Memorial Day" in the United States

Next Post

June 3, 2017 Response to "the Benedict Option"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who wrote most of the New Testament letters?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul Peter James John