Matcha & Masculinity
 
In recent months, social media has found a new target for derision: the performative male. He drinks matcha, carries a tote bag, and reads feminist literature in public while listening to Clairo through  wired earphones. He is, as many believe, putting on a performance—pretending to be an emotionally sensitive feminist who proudly rejects toxic masculinity, all for the sake of wooing women. Calling a man a “performative male” is just a way of calling him manipulative—afterall, his performance is meant to deceive women into thinking that he’s a man of good character. Yet, the supposed “evidence” of this insincerity is found not in his actions, but in his aesthetics. Rather than being a legitimate critique of men who use feminist language for personal gain, the social media trend reduces them to an archetype defined by what clothes they wear and what they like to drink. In the process, a trend supposedly meant to expose has instead heavily reinforced traditional gender roles and perpetuates bioessentialism.
 
We want men to be progressive, for them to read feminist literature, to express their emotions, to reject hypermasculinity, yet when they do exactly that, we automatically assume they’re em insincere. But why do we assume that? We must ask ourselves: is the issue that they are reading feminist literature, or that they are doing it in public? Why is it an issue to be reading in public? Is the issue specifically reading feminist literature in public? It’s the same as the elementary school saying that boys can’t like pink because pink is for girls, and blue is for boys, but wrapped in “woke” jargon.
 
Many claim that calling out  “performative males” prevents women from falling for their assumed ruse—that is why all the identifiers for a performative male are visual, not behavioral. However, this just means that people are making assumptions about somebody solely based on their appearance, fueled by their pre-conceived notions of masculinity. Women have long been subjected to the same sort of judgement, just packaged differently: pick-me girls. Men who enjoy “feminine” things are accused of faking interest for female attention, and are labelled as “performative males"; women who take interest in male-dominated things like sports or gaming are accused of faking it for male attention, and are labeled “pick-mes”. Both rely on the same logic: gendered expression is never authentic, only strategic. Men are only called performative when it’s matcha, loafers, and tote bags—never when it’s black coffee, military boots, or briefcases. The former is coded as feminine and thus fake; the latter, masculine and therefore real. The distinction shows that what’s really being policed isn’t sincerity, but gender itself. This is just aesthetics-policing rooted in bioessentialism: the belief  that qualities like gender are inherently tied to one’s biological sex. If a man paints his nails or carries a tote bag, the assumption is that since those things are “feminine”, he is not being true to himself. Afterall, a man being true to himself is dropping that matcha latte and grabbing a pint of beer instead, right?
 
Side note: the implication that men who embrace traditionally feminine things are automatically progressive or feminist is asinine. A guy can paint his nails all he wants and knit as many sweaters as he pleases, yet still treat women as sub-human.
 
It’s also worth noting  that the very same aesthetic that is now being dubbed performative has long existed in East Asia —the soft and understated fashion, tote bags, and of course, matcha, which originates from most well known from the Japanese tea ceremony. To take an aesthetic from East Asian men, who have long been and continue to be stereotyped as “effeminate,” and to associate it with femininity in a negative way is to perpetuate the same Orientalist assumptions that have historically dehumanized them. In the past, East Asian men were portrayed one of two ways in Western media: docile and feminine, or cunning and deceptive. Both of these traits play into the performative male accusation.  As well, both ways were used to oppress them—the first to make East Asian men seem weak, and the second to cause people to distrust them—ensuring  that the white man retains all social power. Western discomfort with gender nonconformity turned these portrayals into warnings for the public: the soft man must be hiding something. The same sentiment is echoed in the discourse around “performative males,” which also has many homophobic undertones. So many traits that are deemed “feminine” or “fake” are often associated with queer men: interest in skin care and hygiene, emotional articulation, and even consuming media made by women. Specifically, these are the very things that queer men constantly get homophobic comments for.
 
What I find most ironic is that calling someone “performative” is a performance in and of itself. It just gives men an opportunity to make fun of things women like while simultaneously putting down and mocking other men to re-affirm their own masculinity. It’s a way for them to seek validation and assert their authenticity by positioning other men as fake—it’s a way for them to distinguish themselves as “not like other men”.
 
To be completely transparent, there is a kind of catharsis in this cultural turn. After years of women being accused of faking interest in male-dominated spaces, and being subject to it myself, it was a bit satisfying to watch men deal with the same scrutiny that women have for so long. However, ultimately, upholding strict gender roles benefits no one, and neither does shifting the target from women to men. A man reading Sylvia Plath in public might just be doing it to attract women—but even that is a sign of progress, in a way. It indicates that there is now a social pressure to care about women’s interests and values. Even though that’s the bare minimum, it’s not something that existed twenty years ago. If we accept that all gender is performance, we can shift the focus from “who’s performing” to “what values are being performed,” meaning that we can criticise those who perpetuate patriarchal roles through their performance, rather than those who simply deviate from traditional masculinity. 
 
Everyone is performing something: masculinity, femininity, sensitivity, or maybe non-chalance. But again, the question shouldn't be who is performing, but what values are being performed. Afterall, is it really so bad that some men are pretending to be well-read, well-dressed feminists when the alternative is them pretending to be macho? If men are performing empathy instead of apathy, vulnerability over detachment, respect rather than dominance, maybe the performance is progress afterall.