Thursday, October 13th, 2011
In my current reading for sociology of masculinity (tutorial) I have run across some interesting and some disturbing conceptions of what drives masculinity. In the article I was focusing on tonight the author (Sharon Bird) conceived of a masculinity formed by three basic principles:
- Emotional distance
- Competitiveness
- Sexual objectification of women
I find the concept somewhat disturbing, but I cannot deny it either. It seems as though the current baseline of hegemonic masculinity is still founded on those ideas. I have come to accept item 2 about masculinity, but I cannot believe that 1 and 3 still hold that firmly in practice for most men. The problem with hegemonic masculinity is in the separation of the gender role and the gender identity. In hegemonic masculinity the gender role is everything that is conceived of and accepted as “masculinity” in societal norms. Gender identity on the other hand is the components of masculinity that a male decides to use, and also some components that may not reside in the standards of masculinity. The identity often contains an acknowledgement of the role and what is required to maintain a masculine identity in public. Hegemonic masculinity in the gender role side is static and self-protecting (through fag discourse and other social sanctions). This limits the amount of influence that anyone can have on it. While gender identity is always evolving, gender role is what it always has been.
One of the key components of hegemonic masculinity is a clear separation of men and women. It is what allows men to define themselves. The emotional distance is designed to protect the male from appearing weak and also provides a certain amount of control in social situations. The competitiveness functions as a way of establishing a hierarchy of distinction between men. An individual male must define himself and defend his right to be a male by being “better” then someone else. This trait of distinction is always what leads to sexual objectification of women. Men prove their significance and power by proving that women are inferior. In sexually objectifying women this boundary is established.
If I were to approach the topic from a Freudian perspective I would say that men who subscribe to hegemonic roles have developed a system of ego defense and are dependent on their own status and distinctiveness in the world for emotional stability. From a conflict (Marxist) perspective I would see it as the normal way of the world. The Marxist perspective is the most optimistic, since it provides the hope that the women and the subordinated men will create a unified social presence and overthrow the influence of the hegemonic standard.
[thought to be continued]
Sunday, September 25th, 2011
When I began the certificate program in Gender Studies I accepted that I did not know a lot about gender, and probably even less about sexuality.
Before I began the program I accepted that men have a penis and women have a vagina. This was my essential “truth” of sex. I also implied to myself that they had those organs since birth. Now I find myself 5 weeks into the program and I must now accept that most males were born with a penis, but not all of them, and not all people with a penis are “men” or were born with them.
Before I began the program I knew that men tended to be in control in relationships due to cultural precedents, but I wasn’t sure why. Now I have a lot more data on the topic and still don’t have a clue what makes men so special.
The bottom line… I know nothing about sex or gender, and labels are more trouble than they are worth.
Monday, September 19th, 2011
Why did I choose to focus on masculine studies, when it seems that feminist theory is where everything is?
The simple answer is because I feel that masculinity is where the social problems originated. There are social difficulties because of hegemonic masculinity. This is the problem for non-whites in western culture, it is the problem for non-heterosexuals and it is the problem for women. It is my belief that as long as masculinity holds the power and a certain type of masculinity is defining culture, then there can be no liberation and no equality. Society is crippled and controlled by a gender that makes up a lot less than 50% of the population. Assuming that there were 50% men in the United States (there isn’t, its closer to 55% women, 45% men I believe, but I don’t have the exact numbers at the moment), we must remove those that are non-white, and those who identify as something other than heterosexual to find out final number. In those remaining after taking those numbers away, only about 1/3 of them probably have the financial resources to have “power” in society, and the other 2/3 believe that just because they fit the hegemonic standard they are somehow attached to that power and continue to support the mission of those who do have power. The issues lie in the masculine ego, and in the social institutions that value having a penis.
Another concept I have considered is that one day men will no longer rule the Earth. Women are slowly beginning to realize that there is someone behind the curtain pulling the strings and that men are not the majority and have done nothing to deserve the power, and the world is slowly changing. Once men are no longer in a position of power I feel that the construct of masculinity may be severely damaged. I personally believe that being a male who holds a masculine identity is something that is quite special, and do not wish to see men (collectively) reduced to just another “human” “person” in a homogeneous pool of homo sapiens. I feel that masculinity is in need of a major revitalization to an establishment that does not exist based on power, but on a certain solidarity and sense of shared honor. Those traits cannot be held while others are being oppressed to support the masculine cause.
Finally, feminist theory is great in concept. Feminist theory proposed equality for all genders and sexes. It is an honorable goal, but current theorists in the field are lacking a key factor in making that happen, men. Elizabeth Grosz has become my favorite feminist to pick on, just because she is so far out there with some of her writing. She believes that certain concepts of physics (mostly our understanding of mater and time) need to be reconsidered simply because they were created by men. There are implications made that because the theories were established by men, they must in some way be flawed and designed to oppress women. I do admit however, that there are others in the field that seem to be for the equality of everyone and seem to be focused erasing social boundaries. Unfortunately, those individuals tend to be more on the side of sexuality studies, and no one in this society (outside academics) really takes them seriously, society just isn’t ready for it yet.
I am in masculine studies because I am a man, whether by my biological components or my socially presented gender. I do not wish to discriminate against women, homosexuals or any other group. I am curious about how the masculine identity was formed and how society molds and manipulates it. I am a male and I am proud of it.
Freud presents the idea of stages of social development based on sexual development. One of the key properties of the theory is that females experience a certain jealousy and feelings of inadequacy because of lacking “parts” when compared to males. I cannot necessarily believe that all females experience feelings of inadequacy, but perhaps just enough do to allow the myths of male superiority to continue. With those myths women give men the power to place them in a lower social position.
I am at this point an amateur in the field, and certainly do not believe that Freud holds all of the answers to why women have been subjugated throughout history, but re-reading the theories, I can’t help but wonder if maybe there is a small bit of truth in those theories regarding the way that males and females view themselves in society.
Gender is typically treated as “role” in society. Unlike other roles, such as “student” or “postal carrier”, the role of gender is present in all aspects of life. Why is this the case? If gender is truly limited to a social role, shouldn’t it be something that only applies in certain locations and certain situations?