The Lens:
I had never heard of Jason Mamoa. That’s not to say I hadn’t seen him. If you go to IMDb.com, often the first preview you see is of the studly Momoa in his new show. I just didn’t know who he was.
Then I saw the NYT’s headline “Jason Momoa Prefers to Be Called a ‘Sensitive Alpha Male.’” (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/arts/television/jason-momoa-chief-of-war.html?smid=em-share) That intrigued me. For quite some time, the state of young men has been rolling around in my head.
It distresses me that they seem lost. For so long, we have been focused on providing guidance as well as opportunity for girls to be who they want, to shake of the stereotypes of who and what women should/shouldn’t be.
We have come a long way baby. But, we are running a marathon and have gone maybe only a few miles. In the process, though, we forgot about our boys. We are breaking down barriers for women. We haven’t done the same for our men.
My first experience with overt stereotypical male (and female) archetype was in the mid 90’s when we lived in Texas. There were very specific ideas on what it meant to be a man – aggressive, unemotional, dominant, tough.
My younger son was none of these things, in stereotypical terms, that is. He is tough, but not tough in the sense of bravado. He is tough in ways that are far more manly than bravado. He is disciplined. He is brave. He is physically strong but would never use force unless there was simply no other alternative.
Enter the “sensitive” alpha male – Jason Momoa. This is a hunk of a guy, often shown shirtless to show off his impressive pecs. He is a built 6’4”. The article includes descriptors like “boulder” and “bruiser.” He is as outwardly alpha male as they come.
But, that is only half the man. Emila Clarke, his “Game of Thrones” co-star says of Momoa, “The thing that makes him an interesting actor is his enormous heart and empathy — all in the body of a Trojan god.”
The article mentions his affection for his children: his daughter “snuggled up to him at the picnic table, where Momoa sat for an interview. Across the table was his son, Nakoa-Wolf, 16. Father and son were holding hands.”
Also mentioned is Momoa’s lack of fear of pink – he wears a pink scrunchie.
It should seem a bit crazy noting a man wearing pink. But, during the pandemic, one of my first graders didn’t wear a mask to school one day. All we had in child sizes were pink masks. He refused to wear it – pink is for girls. Pink is just a color, for heaven’s sake. Yet, we attach so much meaning to the color even a first grader knows pink is for girls.
When I talk about liberating our girls and having forgotten to liberate our boys, this is just one teeny example. Girls can wear any color they want. Yet, boys, as early as age 6, eschew certain colors as acceptable to put on their bodies. Honestly, pink is just a freaking color!
I hope this boy (who would be going into 6th grade in the fall) sees Momoa, this manly man, wearing pink and liberates himself from at least this one sexist limitation we put on our boys.
The Refraction:
I found it refreshing to read Momoa’s sensitivity – his ability to feel comfortable and secure in showing his emotions, being warm, kind and loving – traits we don’t foster enough (and sometimes at all) in our boys.
There was one thing that bothered me, though. It was this statement by two of the show’s creators of Momoa and the character he plays in his new show “Chief of War”: “He brought warmth and generosity to Drogo and also, they added, ‘the awareness that he could rip both your arms off.’”
Now, this was said in the context of the show. Drogo is the Chief and would be expected “to lead and inspire an army.” And, in that regard, it makes sense. It is hard to picture a chief leading an army to be all soft and no hard.
Still, the idea that here is this nice guy that can get away with his “feminine” side because you know he could rip off both your arms if you crossed him seemed to go back to the core idea of being male – you have to be tough, dominant.
What if you are male and aren’t those things? What if you are just warm, kind, sensitive without being tough (in the bravado sense), dominant, or aggressive?
This is where we are failing our boys – with a narrow (and I feel erroneous) definition of what it means to be a man.
My husband recently hurt his ankle. He first saw a nurse practioner. That was followed up by an MRI, then a visit with a sports doctor. When he saw the doctor, the doctor recapped the visit with the nurse practioner. He referred to the practioner as “she.”
The practioner had a foreign name that Americans would not be able to easily identify a gender. When he referenced “she,” I had to bite my tongue not to say the practioner was a man not a woman.
It pissed me off that he would make the sexist assumption the nurse practioner was a woman. I wonder what gender assumption he would have made had my husband first been examined by a doctor.
Why does it even matter? It matters because, as a society, we carry these implicit biases we don’t even know we have.
Sure, we all have them. (I mention this in “He’s Alive.”) But, we have worked tirelessly to encourage women to not be intimidated in pursuing traditionally male fields – you want to be a doctor, go for it.
We haven’t done the same for our boys. You want to be a teacher? Really? Why? You know it doesn’t pay much. And, teachers are mostly women.
Yet, one of the current concerns in the young lives of our boys is the lack of adult male role models in education.
In addition, we are seeing a surge in popularity of the “manosphere,” a female hostile environment. These podcasters/bloggers are giving the guidance as well as opportunity for men to be men that men so desperately want. (More on this in Liz’s Luncheonette “Boys Will Be Boys.”) Unfortunately, it is more of a toxic placater than a vision forward.
The manosphere chooses to play the blame game – it’s women’s, minorities’ successes that are the problem, doubles down on incivility. The manosphere is not the antidote for freeing men. Rather, the manosphere preaches the rigid expectations of society – the need to be aggressive, tough, crude – that hold them back.
Women understand we don’t want to be pigeon-holed into what society thinks we should be. We don’t want to be men. Mostly, we want the same opportunities available to us that are available to men, and we are fighting toward the end.
The problem men are facing is they don’t like where they are but don’t really understand where they want to be. They are confused and conflicted about who they are and who they think they should be: hard or soft, caring or stoic, tough or kind? How do you fight toward an end when you don’t know what the end is?
When all is said and done, I believe we are who we are created to be, and we should be free to be that person. Yes, we are shaped by our gender. But we should not defined by it. That seems so very simple. Yet, it is anything but. Why is that?