Literature Review Of Masculinity

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.

Masculinity can be defined as the behaviours, social roles, and relations of men within a given society in addition to the meanings that are attributed to them. The term masculinity stresses gender, unlike male, which stresses biological sex. Despite, this we often times see masculinity being represented as directly correlating to men with an inability to adhere to this is shown making you less of a "man". As put by Katz (1999) there is an expectation that men on screen must be void of emotion, not backing down from a fight, tough and an embodiment of the male gaze. Katz (1999) argues that essentially what

In Michael Kimmel’s non-fiction academic book chapter: “Bros Before Hos: The Guycode” is an excerpt from his critically acclaimed book Guyland released in 2008, that addresses the ideals and fundamentals of where masculinity stems from and society’s direct effect on young men and the creation of the modern day masculine male. Michael Kimmel’s combination of credible resources, informative personal research, and real-life personal narratives that help to establish and support his strong and feasible argument, of societies effect on male masculinity, that readers alike can relate to and understand.

Historically, men have held every position of power and status in known societies, civilized or otherwise. Men have been the fore-runners, the providers and the respected warriors of every age since the dawn of recorded time. These cultures did not confuse their identities or cultural roles in regards to gender; men were expected to win fame and fortune for themselves and their families, tribes or clans while women were expected to support their men in domesticity and child-rearing. Men knew what was expected of them since birth as they were often surrounded by masculine role-models in their own societies. However, modern masculinity has become something else entirely. Too much has been written about these time periods to rehash any of the

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.

Masculinity has changed very little over time. By definition, to be masculine is to be tough, having little or no emotion, and having great physical strength and endurance. Men are thought to be natural leaders and should accept the role of dominating the household (both his wife and children. “Inequality between women and men is a worldwide social phenomenon”. (Schaefer, R., 2012. p354)

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.

In today’s society, masculinity has changed throughout time. Fast forward one hundred years ago, masculinity is defined as being strong and having a good paying job. But as the world is changing so is the representation of manliness. You don’t have to show your dominance over men or women today, but you should support your family nowadays and we have all been brainwashed by the thought of masculinity from our ancestors. As men our reputation is always being valued but now it isn’t so much about our reputation but about caring for one another and especially for our families. Perspective of manhood is also a significant factor in portraying what masculinity is in the eyes of other people. Masculinity has been shown through money, appearance, and providing protection for your family members but as we shift into the modern world, masculinity is not seen as displaying the most discipline but caring for one another by taking out some of your time to help one another. Throughout the paper, I will be writing about my interviews from a broad spectrum of ages from one of my younger sisters to my dad with not friends not at Seb’s in between so I can get what it really means to be a man from all ages.

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,

To understand either work’s take on hegemonic masculinity, it is important to identify masculinity as a gendered hegemony. In her definition of gender, Judith Halberstam notes that gender is socially systematized, performed, and reproduced in cultures, institutions, and individual identities (Burgett, Bruce, and Hendler, 116). In a like manner, in her article on gendered violence, Mimi Schippers notes R.W. Connell’s research on masculinity to expand this definition, implying that masculinity is central to gender relations. In short, Connell defined masculinity as “simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage… in gender, and the effects of these practices on bodily experience, personality, and culture” (Schippers, 86). Here, masculinity is classified as a social position, the set and practice

In order to fully understand a more in depth evaluation of both why and how men conform to this social phenomenon, one must know how hegemonic masculinity is defined. This term was made popular by Connell’s work Gender and Power which critiqued the male social role and how hegemonic masculinity has developed (Connell 830). Scholars agree that hegemonic masculinity is characterized by “being emotionally detached and

Masculinity is a term that is often associated with strength, power, control, and dominance in men. However, many texts support the claim that masculinity can be perceived as “socially constructed” and available for systematic discrepancy, similar to femininity. For example, in Michael Kimmel’s “Men, Masculinity, and the Rape Culture,” Kimmel identifies the “traditional masculinity” in which men exclusively can experience the “right to manhood” and the “dare and aggression” that is rightfully theirs (Kimmel, 142).

How is gender and gender roles socially constructed? Soulliere states that gender is a cultural creation that is frequently developed by and represented through popular cultural media such as advertisements, music, sports, and entertainment television (Soulliere 2006). The article “Wrestling with Masculinity: Messages about Manhood in the WWE” by Danielle M. Soulliere (2006), examines messages about manhood revealed by televised professional wrestling (Soulliere 1). Messages concerning masculinity and manhood were investigated and compared to the cultural version of masculinity (Soulliere 2006). Soulliere’s research proves that the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) depicts messages, which supports the dominant hegemonic form of masculinity (Soulliere 2006). To further grasp and understand Soulliere’s hypothesis, we must first examine her research methods and outcomes.

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

According to Anthony Clare the heart of the masculinity crisis lies within the understanding of “the private and public sphere, the intimate and the impersonal, the emotional and the irrational” (Clare, 2000:212). Both men and women are both confined to their spaces and the line between the two has somewhat been blurred, thus resulting in a crisis. The way in which this line is blurred is by masculinity becoming more feminized. There have been two major shifts in masculinity over