Between armor and rift: Virility as myth, masculinity as experience

The burden of strength

The band Masculinity (Grasset, 2025) collects narratives instead of theorizing for a joint roundtable discussion on the stronger sex, which shows, among other things, that the difference between virilité and masculinité lies in the fact that virility the narrow, historically charged ideal of a “tough” man – a model that demands physical strength, dominance, invulnerability, a willingness to take risks and often violence – while masculinity The book represents the actual, concrete, and contradictory experiences of manhood, as depicted in the stories: vulnerable boys, insecure fathers, men who suffer under cultural rituals, bodies bearing the marks of societal expectations, and identities that struggle to break free from rigid, virile norms. The book makes visible that virility a rigid ideal model that deforms men, while masculinity It is an open, fragile, pluralistic field that only reshapes itself through the narration of its own fractures and uncertainties.

Dantzig's introduction can initially be read as a radical assessment of male identity. He diagnoses a historical overabundance of power that simultaneously privileges and deforms men. The crucial idea is that masculinity is not simply a neutral or natural characteristic, but a historically overloaded construct. The observation that men have had "too much power and utility" implies a structural entanglement: masculinity is not innocent. It is overshadowed by what has been made of it and what it has produced. Dantzig thus places the question of responsibility and the burden of male identity at the center of the discussion, shifting the focus from the individual to the historical.

At the same time, Dantzig demands that we always consider the potential for evil when thinking about "man." This formulation is not meant to be moralistic, but analytical: He points out that shadow zones are inscribed in cultural conceptions of virility—violence, dominance, abuse, conquest. For him, the norm of masculinity is inextricably linked to its destructive potential. In doing so, he exposes the ideal of virility as an ambivalent figure: It promises strength, yet carries within it the danger of destruction. Dantzig encourages us to confront this ambivalence instead of repressing it. The introduction thus becomes an appeal to take the unease surrounding masculinity seriously.

Furthermore, Dantzig displays a profound empathy for the men themselves, without relativizing the historical critique. He shows that men are products of a culture that demands strength from them, imposes invulnerability, and forbids doubt. This tension between privilege and coercion is central: men suffer under a system that was created by them—or that they themselves created. Dantzig describes masculinity not as a simple assignment of blame, but as imprisonment within its own myth. This is precisely what makes his critique more complex than classic essays on patriarchy, because it portrays men not as singular perpetrators, but as ambivalent figures shaped by a historical script.

Another important interpretive point is Dantzig's implicit concept of a "post-patriarchal masculinity." When he describes masculinity as fragile, exhausted, and historically worn out, he simultaneously points to the possibility of a redefinition. This new masculinity would be characterized not by power, but by reflexivity—not by superiority, but by doubt. Dantzig understands the present volume as a kind of research space in which men—as characters, narrators, or authors—make their own fragmentation visible. For him, literature functions as a medium of transformation: it allows the rigid image of man to be set in motion.

Finally, Dantzig positions the volume programmatically as a counter-proposal to any naturalizing notion of masculinity. The introduction clarifies that masculinity is a cultural narrative and can therefore be retold in literature. By explicitly problematizing tradition and naming its historical entanglements, he opens a space in which the following texts can be read as pluralistic, contradictory, and tentative approaches to the male self. The introduction is thus not merely a theoretical prelude, but an aesthetic manifesto: it invites us to understand masculinity no longer as a state, but as a process—a process that is critical, fragile, and profoundly human.

Habib-Rubinstein's presentation sets the tone for the volume by framing the question of contemporary masculinity historically, psychologically, and literarily. Rubinstein emphasizes that the volume does not offer a single answer to the question of virility, but rather highlights the diversity of experiences and their contradictions. The texts are intended as a "laboratory" in which different life paths, traumas, and social conditions become visible.

Habib-Rubinstein makes it clear that masculinity can no longer be understood as a stable category. The presentation functions like a curatorial act, preparing readers for the deconstruction of a myth. By positioning the literary voices as heterogeneous, he underscores that masculinity today is plural and is characterized precisely by difference and fragmentarity. In doing so, he shifts the topic from a biological or moral discourse to a cultural and narrative one.

Habib-Rubinstein's presentation complements Dantzig's introduction by translating his critical, historically grounded diagnosis of masculinity into a concrete literary and experiential perspective. While Dantzig describes masculinity as a concept overloaded with power, myth, and potential violence, Habib-Rubinstein focuses on how men actually live, fail, speak, or remain silent today. He doesn't invoke abstract ideals but instead points to the diversity of characters in the volume: boys who are crushed by paternal expectations, men who seek identity in crafts, work, or sports, those who bear the weight of norms in their bodies, and others who waver between cultures and are shaped by circumcision, migration, or tradition. In doing so, the presentation concretizes what Dantzig opens up theoretically: it shows that the "excess of power" Dantzig speaks of translates into stories in which men precisely do not have power over themselves—they are made, shaped, and broken.

At the same time, the presentation shifts the focus: it not only reveals the flaws of the virile model but also invites readers to consider the texts as explorations of new, fragile, and disordered images of masculinity. Habib-Rubinstein emphasizes that the volume does not seek a unified definition but rather brings together a diversity of voices, all operating at the margins of traditional masculinity. Where Dantzig stresses that the potential for evil is always inherent in man, the presentation reveals the other side: the vulnerability, the insecurity, the tenderness, the failures that permeate the texts and make new forms of masculinity visible. A dialogue thus emerges: Dantzig diagnoses the overload of masculinity, Habib-Rubinstein presents the literary figures who bear this burden—and who simultaneously, often tentatively and awkwardly, open up spaces beyond virility. The presentation makes it clear that the volume is not merely a book of critique but a space for searching, questioning, and retelling the narrative of male existence.

Dantzig's introduction reads like the perspective of a writer examining masculinity in the harsh light of the real-life stories that will follow. He describes man as the wearer of ancient armor, heavy with centuries of power, but long since hollowed out. By this, he means the figures who appear in the texts presented by Habib-Rubinstein: the father who, without asking, puts a knife in his son's hand, believing he is thereby instilling strength; the young boxer who allows himself to be pummeled in the ring because he has been told that only tough bodies are masculine; the circumcised boy, on whose skin the community inevitably stamps its mark; the sailor who must work in storms because his profession leaves him no other role than that of the steadfast man. Dantzig sees in these scenes not individual fates, but the traces of an ancient myth: men must endure, must perform, must remain silent. The virility of the narratives never appears heroic, but rather like an ill-fitting coat—a costly appearance that distorts the characters rather than strengthening them.

Dantzig thus opens our eyes to how deeply unease is inscribed in the male self. The stories depict men who believe they must be strong and, precisely because of this, break down: the boy who perceives his father's gesture as violence; the athlete whose body becomes an arena of social expectations; the narrator from India who, amidst male aggression, has learned to view fear as a part of everyday life; the man in the countryside who realizes that physical labor is no proof of identity; the Chinese narrator, torn between "virile" and "masculine," who realizes that both terms can be traps. Dantzig interprets such moments as symptoms of a masculinity that is becoming aware of its own overload: an identity that historically possessed too much power and is now buckling under its own weight. His introduction makes it clear that the question of masculinity can only be answered in the mirror of concrete experiences—and these experiences, as the stories powerfully demonstrate, are often characterized by fear, insecurity, and the painful desire to finally outgrow the role.

To the posts

Benjamin Prescott La Rue – La trajectoire des marins

Prescott La Rue tells the stories of sailors whose daily lives are shaped by danger, physical labor, hierarchy, and community. The sea serves as a space for male initiation narratives, but also as a place of solitude and existential self-examination. Seafaring forms a parallel society in which men find themselves in extreme situations and negotiate their identity within the tension between courage, exhaustion, and camaraderie.

The text offers a glimpse into a traditional, almost mythical form of virility: physical, risky, collective. At the same time, it reveals that this form is not stable. The harshness of seafaring is not glorified, but critically examined – as a system that shapes men but also wears them down. Maritime life paths appear as an allegory of male socialization: externally determined, dangerous, yet simultaneously supportive and destructive. La Rue thus exposes the romanticized image of the virile sailor.

Giovanni Delù – Les incertitudes de la masculinity

Delù describes the childhood of a boy in the 1980s who is confronted with conflicting expectations of masculinity. A pivotal scene shows the father placing a knife in his son's hand—a supposed initiation that feels like violence to the child. The narrator realizes early on that he cannot fit into the role that family and society have assigned him, and he carries this insecurity into adulthood.

The story deconstructs the notion that masculinity is learned through rituals. Delù demonstrates that these rituals can be traumatic and alienating. Masculinity appears as a forced performance that generates more suffering than orientation. By emphasizing the narrator's lifelong insecurity, Delù gives literary expression to the fragility of masculinity, undermining its normative rigidity.

Anatole Tomczak – Between us

Tomczak tells the story of a young man who tries to define his identity through physical strength and sees boxing as a way to become "masculine." But the sport reproduces the very pressures of toughness and invulnerability he is fighting against. Relationships—especially between men—appear fragile, full of misunderstandings and unspoken expectations.

The boxing ring becomes a symbol of a system in which masculinity is manufactured and evaluated like a product. Tomczak disrupts the narrative of sport as liberation and exposes it as a machine of discipline. By showing how difficult it is for men to allow intimacy or show weakness, he explains the distance that arises "between us." Ultimately, the text offers a critique of virile ideals that stifle closeness and vulnerability.

Mathis Chevalier – Rejection letter

The text is structured as a letter of rejection—a refusal directed against the adoption of a specific male role. The narrator rejects expectations imposed upon him, be they familial, professional, or societal. The letter format reinforces this theme: he speaks not to fulfill, but to reject.

Chevalier stages a subtle rebellion. The "refus" becomes a symbol of self-determination in a system that reduces men to specific roles. Masculinity is presented here as negotiable, refutable, and redefined. The text represents a generation that refuses to accept identity as an obligation.

Raphaël Zyss – Autofabulation à propos d'une circoncision et de ses conséquences

Zyss blends autobiographical reflection with fiction, analyzing circumcision as both a physical and symbolic event. The procedure appears not only as a medical intervention but also as a cultural marker of masculinity. The narrator explores how this procedure has shaped his relationship to his own body, his sexuality, and his male self-image.

Circumcision becomes a metaphor for the inscription of masculinity on the body. Zyss shows how intimate operations reflect societal power structures and how identity is shaped through cultural practice. “Autofabulation” means that one’s own history is always also a narrative—and that masculinity, like the body, remains subject to fabulation and change.

Eugène D. – Une place à la campagne

The narrator describes a stay in the countryside, where he encounters traditional notions: physical strength, control over nature, practical skills. The rural environment seems like a place where old role models persist. At the same time, he experiences an ambivalent mixture of liberation and confinement there.

Eugène D. examines rural masculinity as both a cultural relic and a place of longing. The text reveals how nature and masculinity were intertwined—as if the countryside were the stage for virile self-assertion. Yet the narrator's distance makes it clear that these notions have become fragile. The "place à la campagne" becomes a projection he can no longer, or no longer wants to, fill.

Sumit Kumar – Un drôle d'homme en Inde

Kumar recounts his childhood in India, where violence between men is commonplace and masculinity is expressed through aggression in both public and family settings. Women often act as mediators in male conflicts. The narrator later attempts to break these patterns but encounters deeply ingrained cultural norms.

Kumar's text portrays masculinity as a cultural trauma. Violence is not an exceptional circumstance, but rather a means of social communication among men. The child's perspective exposes the absurdity of the virile pose; the adult narrator grapples with the remnants of this upbringing. The story exemplifies the global challenge of decoupling masculinity from violence.

Qiyue Liang – Viril ou masculin ?

Liang examines the semantic and cultural distinction between "virile" and "masculine." The text compares various cultural conceptions, particularly within the Chinese context, and observes that virility often appears as an exaggerated, aggressive form of masculinity. At the same time, it demonstrates how these two concepts intertwine and distort each other.

Liang provides a theoretical and cultural analysis that intellectually complements the volume. By juxtaposing concepts, she reveals that masculinity is not a unified category, but rather is shaped by language, culture, and politics. The text invites readers to disentangle the concepts of "virile" and "masculine"—and thereby develop new concepts of identity.

Arthur Habib-Rubinstein – Un corps en forme de crime

Habib-Rubinstein portrays a male body that feels guilty: a body shaped like a crime because it bears the violence, expectations, and social projections of masculinity. The text shows how physicality is not neutral, but rather becomes the visible stage for societal ascriptions.

The body emerges as the first victim of the virile norm. Habib-Rubinstein shows how men learn to view their bodies as weapons, as shields, or as risks. The “corps en forme de crime” represents internalized guilt: men are both perpetrators and victims—shaped by a system that deforms them. The text concludes the volume with a philosophical reflection on the body.

Overall view

Heterosexuality, as presented in this volume, is not seen as a self-evident, neutral norm, but rather as a central vehicle and reproductive space for virile expectations. It is frequently tied to roles in which masculinity is defined by achievement, dominance, procreation, protection, or control: the father who wants to pass on strength; the lover who cannot be weak; the worker or athlete whose body serves as proof of masculine fitness. The texts demonstrate that heterosexuality here operates less as an intimate relationship practice than as a cultural script that compels men into certain attitudes—towards toughness, initiative, and silence in the face of fear and doubt. It is precisely where heterosexual relationships are characterized by misunderstandings, violence, excessive demands, or emotional absence that the extent to which the virile norm shapes and restricts desire becomes apparent. In this sense, heterosexuality is not a private space beyond power, but a site where the historical overload of masculinity is concretely inscribed—often at the expense of intimacy, tenderness, and self-reflection.

In this volume, homosexuality is less a clearly defined identity than a disruptive element of the virile order and a critical reflection of the norm of masculinity. It reveals that the hegemonic model of virility excludes, disciplines, or threatens not only women but also men whose desires do not fit into the heteronormative framework. Homosexual experience does not automatically appear as a liberated counter-world, but rather as a field of its own tensions: between visibility and danger, between conformity and deviation, between the desire for recognition and the rejection of virile standards. At the same time, homosexuality in this volume opens up a space in which masculinity can be narrated differently—less through power and assertiveness, more through vulnerability, ambivalence, and a conscious distance from the myth of strength. In this sense, it exemplifies what the volume as a whole seeks: not a new norm, but the possibility of conceiving and narrating masculinity beyond the virile ideal model.

This volume presents masculinity as a pluralized, fragile, and historically shaped concept. The contributions expose traditional virile norms—toughness, violence, self-control, superiority—as cultural constructs that are neither stable nor liberating. Instead, insecurity, vulnerability, and ambivalence emerge as central components of the male experience today.

At the same time, the texts critique the social mechanisms through which masculinity is produced: rituals, physical practices, familial expectations, linguistic distinctions, and cultural traditions. Masculinity is not reflected upon individually, but structurally – as a system that simultaneously privileges and harms men.

Ultimately, the volume develops a literary laboratory for new masculinities. The authors design alternative narrative modes that allow for closeness, doubt, fragility, intimacy, and self-examination. Literature thus becomes a space in which masculinity is no longer fixed but reinterpreted—not as a rigid identity, but as a process, in flux.