Inclusive Masculinity Summary

Connell (1995) developed this concept to describe how masculinities are always relational and, thus, one’s identity is continually constructed in relation to “otherness.” Crucially, Connell sees masculinity as integrally connected with power and constantly negotiated.

Society’s current structure of masculinity is unforgiving in form. It cuts out other forms of masculinity, it physically and mentally demanding, and its ill effects extend far beyond the men it infuses itself in. Yet what would we do if we were given other options for masculinity, ones that allowed for unique blends of attitudes and perceptions? Looking in to the lives of homeless men we can see the forced strategies which create new masculine codes created for the adaption against patriarchal pressures. They are made out of survival need to circumnavigate the painful mental and physical reality that is only made worse by harsh masculine standards. Yet these new masculinities hold out a form of hopefulness for society. They offer up new discussion to what it means to be a man, the potential for change, and what we can expect from changes in male identity over time. Using what we learn from the disadvantaged, we can hope to improve the lives of people, although the process will take time, effort, and careful mediation.

One of the key concepts detailed by Pringle (2007), is the idea of hegemonic masculinity, which was originally coined by Connell (1995). Connell suggest that the concepts of hegemony and masculinity have been intertwined, which has created a social form of a masculine ideal, developed around male dominance, power and patriarchy over groups who are deemed “weaker” such as women and homosexual men. Hegemonic masculinity is essentially a socially elite or desirable status, with which the “performance of ‘masculinity’” can be legitimately practised within society.

Jenifer Siebel Newsom’s documentary, The Mask You Live In, is about the struggles young men and boys face while they are figuring out their identity in a stereotyped America. The film highlights the negative psychological and sociological implications that stem from society’s expectations of “masculinity.” According to Dr. Caroline Heldman, masculinity is defined in the U.S. as a rejection of everything feminine. American culture has classified masculinity as a strong, hardened, domineering, powerful, and controlling state of being. There are typically three lies that boys learn at a young age that plant the idea that they have to be masculine. Those lies are 1) You must have superb athletic ability and be fast and buff, 2) in order to be a “true” man, you must have

R.W Connell also discusses marginalized masculinity which lacks some of the acting feminine. Violence is also a factor in masculinity because men feel that they are stronger and smarter. Most men that abuse women in any way do not see anything wrong with it. Many characteristics found in hegemonic masculinity, For example, being a disabled male because they are seen as weak. Subordinate masculinity lacks hegemonic masculinity by being emotional or justify their actions as need to feel in control, have power, and established their dominance.

At the present time, there seems to be a blurred line between ideal and practiced masculinities. Across different cultures and even ethnicities, the definitions of masculinity tend to differ, hence the plurality of masculinity. For example, “the stereotype of the Latino male centers on machismo“, the display of strong and aggressive masculinity” (Masculinities 1: Ethnic Identities and Men’s Ways of Being), whereas African-American’s masculinities developed a masculine gender identity known as the “cool pose, which enhanced their social competence, pride, dignity, self-esteem, and respect” (Masculinities 1). Even though the experience of each individual person may have been different, it is evident that both of these expressions of masculinity,

I like that this reading provided history of hegemonic masculinity and provided the theories of the ever changing term. Something that stood out to me was the idea that, we need to distinguish between "patriarchy and gender" (Holter, 1997,2003). I think that a lot of people to connect the two terms, we I think of patriarchy I think of power over the female gender. When it's slightly more than that. I think that men conform to masculinity and all of the socially constructed attributes just as much as women conform to femininity. I feel that once we drop the image of the ideal man or woman the issues of masculinity and femininity won't be as big of an issue. The two attributes seem to be directly linked to heterosexual attraction. Once our society stops selling this idea of attractiveness in a fixed category in media we can start shaping our own ideas. And there will be more room for people to be non

Being “Masculine is something that most of us, even women are very familiar with. When we think of masculinity we think of toxic masculinity or being hyper aggressive, non-emotional, hypersexual, and violent. For society, that is what masculinity is, toxic. In Jamie Lake’s I Got You, there were at least three different representations of masculinity. I believe that Jamie Lake gave

This author, in the same way as many others, asserts that his perspective of masculinity is as good as the next. While a view of masculinity might be a heterosexual man who lives a morally upright lifestyle, conforming to societal expectations and doing the right thing, other views could easily challenge that perspective arguing that not imposing your view on someone else is as valid an approach to life as

The notion of hegemonic masculinity has altered the field of gender studies and many academic arenas. An idea popularized by R.W. Connell, hegemonic masculinity has played an integral role in the emotional development of American men, articulating the impact that this societal construction has had on the concept of American masculinity. It is a contested topic, yet the impacts that it has in terms of sexuality, struggles for power and political leadership, and gender identities are valid (Connell 830). Although difficult to fully achieve, it acts as a guiding force for the stereotypically masculine. Hegemonic masculinity assumes the subordination of all other forms of masculinity, placing it at the top of the social hierarchy. At the same time, the idea of hegemonic masculinity has served as a bridge between the growing field of men’s’ studies and female studies (Connell 829). Several authors share the premise that men in American society conform to the standards of the social construct of hegemonic masculinity.

For trans men, it is hard to be supportive of the negative aspects of masculinity, but they also feel like they need to have some of the attributes in order to be considered a man as per the society’s expectations. Although many trans men feel the pressure to perform masculine traits, there are some who chose to challenge the definition of what masculinity is for them and what they do to control it in their lives. The author Jamison Green himself is a transman and he questions and challenges the ideals of masculinity and the role it plays in a person’s identity. He has his own ideas of masculinity. Green (2005) points that “most of the literature makes an assumption that only male bodies express masculinity” (p. 295). Additionally, he also states that “most people still believe that the body is the marker of gender and that gender and sexuality are dictated by the genitalia” (p. 295). It is obvious that people do not understand the real definition of masculinity—“masculinity is determined by behaviors or actions,” and people in Green’s study had also opined the same (p. 296). Overall, masculinity is not solely based on the male body and masculinity traits can be obtained from anyone. Green’s personal trans men perspective from “Part of the Package” (2005) states, “I believe masculinity is a collaborative project that starts with innate characteristics and behaviors (whether the expresser has a female body or a male body) and these are emphasized or deemphasized by social interactions (both sexual and nonsexual) in a such a way that the innate characteristics and behaviors are magnified, elaborated on, or suppressed, and ultimately the individual internalizes these characteristics and behaviors, incorporating them into her or his personality” (p. 298). It means that anyone can attribute masculine characteristics based on their natural behaviors regardless of their gender. Masculinity is not based on maleness, but more so on the person’s personality and attributes.

Masculinity, a seemingly simple concept. Yet, when examined more closely, it is clear that masculinity is constantly changing in its definition as well as in its most basic essence. Throughout the years, one can see this evolution firsthand by looking back at the men who have been portrayed in popular media in the United States of America. From the suave Don Draper types of the 1950s to the more casual, educated, and easygoing men- with perfectly chiseled abs, of course- that are portrayed in media today, the difference is clear. This drastic, yet unsurprising, shift in ideals, as well as the exponential increase of media consumed every day, has led to a change in how “masculinity” is perceived, as well as how it is enforced by society in the modern day. Alarmingly, this trend has led to the birth of so-called “toxic masculinity”, a bastardization of the original ideas behind masculinity which has created an enormous, detrimental effect on society as a whole. As defined in the article The Difference Between Toxic Masculinity and Being a Man, toxic masculinity is “manhood as defined by violence, sex, status, and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything… where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured,” (O’Malley) This is a clearly displayed truth, and it’s astounding to see how even from a young age boys are taught not to show emotions other than anger, conditioned to believe that being “like a girl” is the worst possible

In contemporary society, hegemonic masculinity is defined by physical strength and boldness, heterosexuality, economic independence, authority over women and other men, and an interest in sexual relationships. While most men do not embody all of these qualities, society supports hegemonic masculinity within all its institutions, including the educational institute, the religious institute and other institutes which form the ideological state apparatus.

Homosexuality continues to hold immense stigma in society due to the threat of conventional masculine ideology, negative beliefs rooted in cultural institutions, and religious fundamentalism, which do not condone homosexuality. Because of this, there are unprecedented negative emotional, mental and physical effects, which have catastrophic effects on individuals. It is essential to understand that homophobia is a social construction and not a literal phobia. According to a study, men who grew up in homophobic environments changed their attitudes once they began to interact with the world on a larger scale, and their internalization of what was “normal,” changed. Why then were the men homophobic before? This brings up the question of masculinity, however, and it was found that there are four prominent characteristics that determine machismo; these factors include avoiding femininity and “feminine” activities, partaking in the role of the bread winner, maintaining a confident, masculine character and active engagement in action and adventure. It is the social construction of both gender conceptions and individual stereotypes associated with these titles that often contribute to the taunting nature towards

Moreover, they deem the conflating of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ with a certain type of men or confining it to certain “manly” characteristics as an inadequate use of the concept. As Levy argues, ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is an ideal-type, ‘the currently accepted male ideal within a particular culture at a particular time’ (2007, 254). In his research of the recent academic appropriation of ‘hegemonic masculinity’, Messerschmidt found out that 18% of the 128 articles using it as a core concept ‘equated hegemonic masculinity with certain “masculine” character traits (2012, 61). He exemplified with a study that tried to show