Bruce Willis' gender has nothing to do with it

I read an article on Quora that discussed why Bruce Willis was allowed by his agents and managers to continue to work, even though it was obvious to them and to everyone on set that he was ill.

The conclusion of the piece wasn't the notable part, because I already knew it. Willis wanted to continue collecting paychecks for as long as he could to provide for his second family, which includes younger children, having only married his second wife some 15 years ago. In a way, you could say he was exploiting the people willing to pay him for the nominal performances he was able to give as much as they were exploiting him. 

No, it's the judgment this Quora author reached about why Willis was able to do this that struck me as noteworthy and considerably flawed:

"He wanted to be an actor, he wanted to work, and he wanted to provide for his loved ones while he still could. He did it, and he didn't mind the judgment of criticism. Because Bruce Willis is a man."

It occurred to me what an old-fashioned, and often inaccurate, thing it is to describe someone making a hard decision and taking responsibility as "being a man."

I don't know about you, but most men I know -- myself include -- are much more reluctant to make really tough choices and do things that are unpleasant than the women in our lives. 

Literally every big long-term decision, best practice, bit of preventative maintenance, and example of forward thinking in my family is something initiated by my wife. Me, I'm happy to enjoy the short-term, day-to-day pleasures that carry me through life. I'd face up to the important things eventually, but not nearly as quickly as my wife would, and does. 

And yet somehow, my gender is the one that gets rewarded for standing up and doing the right thing.

Now, I don't think the argument is quite as simple as this. The way this is being used, the opposite of "man" is not "woman." I think the opposite of "man" is more accurately described as "boy," or "wimp," or "coward," or "spineless person." 

But in most arenas in life, the opposite of "man" is indeed "woman," so it begs the question: If standing up and doing what's best for your family is "being a man," then is lying in the corner in a fetal position "being a woman?"

I just think we need to change our thinking so that Willis' very laudable actions don't have to be framed in terms of "being a man," even if no offense is intended toward the women who more often actually do the things attributed to Willis while their men drink beer and watch sports. 

You could even re-write that sentence and say "Because Bruce Willis is a good husband and father." In reality, the people he's speaking well of there are husbands and fathers, not men in general. We expect husbands and fathers to be providers, but not in a way that runs contrary to what wives and mothers do. In that phrasing, it isn't excluding any woman, it's celebrating the exploits of particular sorts of men, not all men. And with the word "good" added, it excludes those who aren't. 

Even "Because Bruce Willis is a good person" is far better, and maybe the superior choice overall, because then it is just celebrating the capacity of human beings, without any gender associations at all.