Integrated Masculinity

Showing your humanity through raw emotions used to be seen as proof of a person’s sincerity, honesty, and integrity. Something happened in the 20th century, women became the picture of teary-eyed fragility and the tearless, aggressive male became the ideal of masculinity. Media messages, commercials, and television shows stopped portraying men as responsible, competent, and compassionate husbands, sons, and fathers, instead they consist of idiotic or misogynistic archetypes. When men are portrayed as sensitive humans, it is largely under the caveat of being gay. As stated in A New Vision of Masculinity, there is still little worse than being mistaken for a homosexual (Cooper, 2016).

Hegemonic masculinity is a social construction which suggests to society that men must be stronger than the feminine of the species in every way. By definition, hegemonic masculinity is the dominance of men over women, where men must sustain this dominance in any way. Defining what the hegemonic masculine ideal is in Canada is difficult as we are a very young, multicultural country, so the notion of the ideal man is a warped characterization of the ideal American male. This paper seeks to prove that hegemonic masculinity is a social construction which is detrimental to society. The negative effects of hegemonic masculinity on men include; male violence, misogyny, and homophobia which are inextricably linked to how we define manhood as a culture.

Almost every person has heard the quote “the first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club”, a line from a film that’s widely known for its mind-bending plot that’s a blend of dark comedy, psychological thriller, and drama (Linson & Fincher, 1999). Despite its entertainment value, many fail to see the films in-depth social commentary on life in post-modern America. I saw that the film subtly skewers many aspects of life today such as consumerism, morality, organized religion, pop culture; and the focus of this essay; the portrayal of masculinity. In Fight Club, masculinity is portrayed as an essential merit of identity, absent in the average postmodern American male due to the consumerist nature of society. Consequently, the

This review provides an explanation from teen fathers while measuring masculinity differences. This material covers topics that impact teen fathers’ interactions, beliefs, traditional societal ideologies, and judgment. This analysis reflects qualitative data that describes stigma and the involvement of society regarding teen pregnancy.

Rejecting traditional masculinity as a whole would improve society on many different levels. Masculinity is very dangerous in the aspect that aggression, competition, and dare plays a major role. These aspects can have negative effects on boys in the long run by increasing levels of stress, physical injury and early death. Rejecting traditional masculinity contibutes to the fact that these factors would be nonigsistent. In addition, traditional masculinity takes away from relationships men try to have. Traditional masculinity contributes to the great emotional distance from other people. Also, traditonal masculinity has a negative effect on the way women and men interact. As men attempt to show of their masculinity, they seem to see women

The misguided perception of masculinity is the absence of anything remotely homosexual. In Michael Kimmel’s novel Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men he discusses the contradictions of masculinity and what it takes to be seen as a real men. In American, middle class white society, manhood is more than beards and sleeping around with women, it is being as far away from feminine as allowed. The most foreign idea to most would be to consider a gay man to be “manly.” This unfathomable idea is what spurs on homophobia and gives homosexuality a foul name. To be called a “sissy” or “faggot” is worse than being called a “bastard” or “dick.” Shaking a man of his masculinity and naming him a woman psychologically destroys a man.

In today’s North American society it is in the interest of most boys to be able to pursue an image that will help them fit in, whether it is at school, at home, or with their peers. In this case that image is usually hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity may be defined as the ‘macho man’ seen vastly in today’s media; he is tough, smart, good at sports, gets all of the girls but yet, is sexist towards them. There is a constant fear of being emasculated by peers making most boys believe that in order to keep their masculine image, violence will help reassure that. It is in society’s best interest that as many boys as possible acquire the hegemonic masculinity image. From a young age it is common to see boys fighting on a playground, playing with toy guns, and using profound threats; however, parents, teachers, and other members of society often fail to stop these actions because they instead accept them as the norm and claim that ‘boys will be boys’. It is evident that violence plays a huge role in shaping one’s masculine image. This paper will address the many different possible causes as to what may influence an individual to become violent, by analyzing the different agents of socialization, psychological, anthropological, and social theories. I will also relate it to my personal experience as being both the victim and perpetrator to violence and what factors were used to cause such delinquent acts. By doing so, it will be concluded that the

This essay focuses on ‘I Love You, Man’, and discusses about homosocial relationship between two men and explores ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and ‘the field of masculinity’ depicted in this film. ‘Hegemonic masculinity’, which is proposed by Connell (1987), is assumed to ‘the pattern of practice (i.e., things done, not just a set of role expectations or an identity) that allowed men’s dominance over women to continue.’ (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, p.832) However, hegemonic masculinity has strong influence not only over women, but also over other men as Demetriou (2001, p.341) states. Hegemonic masculinity dominates subordinated masculinity as well as women. ‘The field of masculinity’, the theoretical model suggested by Coles

For many years, beard has been an emblem of masculinity for men. Their facial hair and rugged aura has been an indicator that they are capable and competent. Their beard, matched with proud and brawny physique is a distinct representation of their manly gender.

“Masc for masc” (masculine looking for masculine) and “straight acting” (not being seen as a stereotype and being able to be excepted by heterosexual men) are terms used by Gay men to classify the type of man they are looking for in a partner; actively rejecting and devaluing femininity and upholding the hegemonic view of masculinity. Therefor I am researching the “how do gay and straight Latinos construct their masculinity?” Straight men deem anything feminine as less than, thus gay men are ousted. This ousting of gay men is a byproduct of heterosexism in which a men only date women and vice versa, thus gay men are seen as effeminate for the sole reason of dating other men. In an attempt to reclaim their lost masculinity gay men are rejecting effeminate men in an attempt to be seen as “one of the good gays”. The traits of reclaiming what gay Latinos feel is lost is strongly tied to femiphobia, internalized homophobia, and toxic masculinity. Gay men want to be seen as “normal” and “just one of the guys” at the cost of their fellow gay men’s humanity and manhood. They want to be seen as the “good gay” which I define as a gay man that wants to be removed from the stereotype and behaves and present as “straight” I want to investigate how gay Latinos specifically construct their masculinity and if they are contracting it based on their straight counterparts. It is important to distinguish how important masculinity is to Latin men specifically gay Latinos and see if a

Masculinity is a topic that has been debated in society quite often. Many wonder what is means to be masculine and if there can truly be one definition to a term that can vary so widely. Traditional masculinity has certain characteristics assigned to it such as strength, power, control, to be tough, and show no emotion, etc. These traits and thus masculinity have been traditionally assigned to the male body as “the male body is the most common purveyor of masculinity, but that does not mean that masculinity is entirely contained within the male body” (Reeser 17). While the male body might appear to be the most natural element of masculinity “masculinity has no natural attachment to the male body, even if is it commonly considered a male belonging” (Reeser 131). Transgender men, individuals who have transitioned or in the process of transitioning from female to male, embrace cultural ideals of masculinity as a means of being accepted into society as male. In this sense, masculinity can be perceived as a performance that transgender men give in order to successfully move through the world as male. Masculinity offers a sort of camouflage that allows transgender men to function as men without having to reveal their transgender status. The camouflage that embracing traditional ideal of masculinity and visibly passing as cisgender allows a sense of relief and safety for transgender men. This essay will examine how transgender men perform masculinity as crucial aspect

A screen pops up before you and dozens upon dozens of thumbnail images cloud your vision. The pictures range from headshot photos of men to bare chests and torsos, to simple desktop screen saver images and blank profiles. There is little to no text appearing before you, mostly images that give you a quick and straightforward description of the person beyond the picture. Among the variety of images, however, one similarity stands out: muscles, forced masculinity, racist and ableist “preferences,” among other issues that all point toward a very white, able-bodied, and masculine prototype of the supposed “perfect” man. While there are variations in this mystic male figure, using

These claims by culture and feminism do not match up with the definition of manliness, and that is where the debate lies. If the discrepancy was due to the researchers Mansfield and Gilmore, what are they to make of their observations and study? What are we to do with centuries of history in which humans lived with men at the helm because they were needed? How are we to explain the unconscious feeling that a man is doing right when he works to provide for his family? How can we explain the opposite feeling when a man does not? The argument that is not being made on the manliness side is that men should be the only ones in government or in business or that misogyny plays any role at all. They are not arguing for a return of the patriarchy, but they are arguing for a return of true manliness.

Reserving the cultural power and importance of gaming for the male audience effectively forms a gender hierarchy, which is the definition of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005). This concept is a theoretical perspective combining Gramsci’s analysis of class relations with gender studies to illustrate how gender can shape society. Connell defines hegemonic masculinity as a “gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Connell, 2005, p. 77). Therefore, in the context of the videogames industry and the gaming press, because men have always been, and continue to be perceived as, the dominant audience, they and not women, will remain the principal group courted by these institutions, which effectively reinforces the perception that gaming is a space owned by men where women are not

Google defines masculinity as a possession of qualities traditionally associated with men, using, "handsome, muscled, and driven, he's a prime example of masculinity" as their example. Although this definition of masculinity is common, it is undeveloped and exclusive to other forms of masculinity. Sociologists such as Raewyn Connell, Eric Anderson and Michael Kimmel have formed their own theories and definitions of masculinity. In this course, we have read an excerpt from Eric Anderson’s, Inclusive Masculinities, Raewyn Connell’s, Masculinities and Gender; In World Perspectives, and Michael Kimmel’s book, Manhood in America; A Cultural History to answer questions about the social construction of masculinity, how it is performed, how it