Masculinity Definition

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.

This definition refers to a so-called „hegemonic masculinity“ because it describes a man of power, in power and with power(272).

Pascoe discusses how masculinity can function as a regulatory mechanism of gender in American adolescent boys. It has been found that the word ‘fag’ is not necessarily directed at a homosexual boy, but has taken on a new meaning in school age boys. It is being used as a disciplinary mechanism to police certain behaviors “out of fear of having the fag identity permanently” (Pascoe p.330). This kind of teasing and harassment can temporarily be place on any boy who shows signs of weakness or femininity. The high schoolers in the study told Pascoe that calling someone a fag was like telling them they were nothing or stupid (Pascoe p. 335). Boys could be called a fag for anything that he did that was opposite of masculine, even when it had nothing to do with his sexual preference. The fag discourse seemed to be just another way for the contest of masculinity to take

From an early age, our society begins to construct gender identities. Males are pressed to learn “suitable” gender roles in accordance to the masculine expectations our society has created. This means from a very early age boys are taught what it means to be a man. Porter’s way to explain masculine socialization is through what is known as the “man box.” Inside the box is a list of socially valued expectations that compose what manhood is about. The box includes expectations/guidelines such as, “don’t cry or openly express emotions (with the exception of anger), do not show weakness or fear, demonstrate power control especially over women (aggression dominance), be a protector, do not be “like a woman,” be heterosexual, do not be “like a gay man,” be tough, athletic, and strong, do not need help, and view women as property/objects.” This idea of manhood is instilled in young boys head and continues to stay with them for the rest of their lives. A fear

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 “Before Manliness Lost Its Virtue” (2017), David Brooks (a New York Times Op-Ed columnist) claims that we are living in a “crisis of masculinity” (15). David Brooks backs up his claim by comparing and contrasting manliness of the men in the White House (the “”I don’t care what you think” manliness” [2] and the “the look-at-me-I-can-curse manliness”[2] ) to men in ancient Greece (“real men defended or served their city”[6] the “The manly man… risks death and criticism.”[8] and “They are constantly picking fights”[9].) to the ideal man (“The magnanimous leader… uses his traits… to create a just political order.”[11]).

that labels these things unmanly, feminine, womanly, and gay, and teaches boys to avoid them at all costs.” If these characteristics are things that men have, and make them a better person, why is it so merely reinforced by society that men shouldn’t have the qualities? If a guy is blocking these out because they’re not manly, there could be some serious repercussions. These characteristics that are generally associated with women are made fun of in men and they often feel their masculinity is becoming threatened. Due to this men may suppress certain emotional issues, especially around other men. An example of this is shown in the book Passing: When People Can’t Be Who They Are by Brooke Kroeger. In chapter one, Not Some Social Agenda Struggle, Kroeger tells the story of David Matthews, a young man who is caught between two races as he struggles to find his identity. David was raised in a single parent household with his father raising him. He brings up how he and his dad rarely talked about his mother or anything emotional saying, “We were just tough guys and it just didn’t seem like the kind of touchy-feely stuff I needed to know”. Here David shows that he and his dad both feel they are too tough to talk about touchy issues that he

To read Babio without recognizing the gender politics at work in the play would disregard much of how the play itself creates meaning. So much of the play’s plot and character dynamics are related to the way gender functions in this play. One major theme of Babio is the idea of masculinity and how masculinity is defined. Through the portrayal of Babio as an effeminate character, Babio is able to define masculinity through absences in Babio’s Character. Consequently, Babio makes the additional point that lovesickness is not an intrinsic aspect of medieval masculinity, despite the fact that love sickness is often attributed to men.

Not surprisingly, the article analyzes the differences between men who are womanizers and ones who are gentleman. This article was written in response to the author, Laura Merten’s, experiences regarding the collateral damage caused by masculinity in the United States. In this article, she highlights her desired characteristics in a gentleman. In other words, she is describing her ideal characteristics of masculinity. Some of those characteristics include, “Love, understanding, vulnerability, respect, loyalty, and concern” (Merten). Interestingly, these traits are all qualities one would look for in a best friend. In reality, men seem not to focus on the aspects, in which women desire, but the socially constructed aspects, sought out for men’s approval. First of all, this inherently demonstrates the lack of respect devoted to women. Additionally, this desire for men’s approval only reinforces the continuous cycle, which devalues and even dehumanizes

With multiple masculinities, certain masculinities are valued hierarchically over others. A hegemonic form of masculinity is most valued, whereas other masculine styles – such as the young, effeminate and homosexual – are subordinated (Hanke 1992:190; Connell 1998:5). Notably in relation to masculinity, femininity is relegated as

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).

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.