Theories 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.

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.

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.

An overarching social paradox is inherent in the way Canadian citizens internalize the notion of civic duty; while violent participation in the Great War is lauded as personal and national achievement, post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from significant trauma, physical or social, is also recognized as an integral part of the military consciousness. Veterans experience grief as a result of the expected ownership of this psychological binary, and the ability to communicate grief among groups of veterans becomes problematic due to other binaries existing as part of the Great War experience, namely notions of male camaraderie. Groups of males, particularly soldiers, are forged and cultivated based on pre-existing masculine values, and the analysis of the ramifications of imposed masculinity in relation to group dynamics and individualism is as significant as the depictions of violence in the narrative of war. If the Great War alters conceptions of pre-war and post-war male groups due to trauma, then the war period offers an effective analysis for the deconstruction of pastoral male camaraderie prevalent before the devastating physical and social violence that ensues. Eve Sedgwick’s text, “Between Men” (1985), defines homosociality as the “social bonds between persons of the same sex … it is applied to such activities as ‘male

2.1 Masculinity during WWI – Historical Background After now classifying what Victorian masculinity was associated with, this Chapter will bring to light how the depiction of masculinity changed through the Start of the First World War. The war did not 'delete' all the known ideals of masculinity, but rather led to alterations. Men were witnessing another shift in the history of masculinity due to the War, which had a great Impact on ideals of manliness. George Moose's essay “The Image of a Man” (1996) discussed different concepts of masculinity, such as the soldierly ideal, which was not prevalent before WWI.

Caris, Evan ‘British Masculinity and Propaganda during the First World war’ Georgia College & State University. 2015.

Even though soldiers are constantly exposed to extreme trauma and ordeal, they still fight for a sense of duty to their state. For example, French troops during the French Revolution fought for their sense of duty to the establishment of a free France. This feeling of responsibility to the state can be seen in Howard’s War In European History when it is said that French troops were fighting as “free men to defend freedom” (79). Also, a sense of duty to the state can be seen in ordinary French soldiers’

Each of them attempts to exhibit the ideal concept of “man”. Though we never know what branch of military they are in, they all show the markers of military men; including violence, crudeness, and insensitivity. Military Culture, as investigated in Patrice A. Keats article, is the concept that military training “tends to promote hyper-masculine values and behaviors, such as strength, toughness, violence, insensitivity, violence, and aggressive or exaggerated heterosexuality.” (Keats, 293). It is further added that military culture creates an unhealthy sense of competitiveness by rewarding “aggressive and highly-restrained, unemotional behavior.” (Keats, 294). O’Brien criticizes these expectations by paralleling in the men both these negative impulses instilled by society – then heightened by the military – and their human, fearful response to the likelihood of death. The reader can easily see the struggle the men face within themselves – they fear death, but even more than that, they fear showing that they fear death. “They were too frightened to be cowards,” (O’Brien, 1527). This

“They gazed about them with looks of uplifted pride, feeling new trust in the grim, always confident weapons in their hands. And they were men.”₃ This is a good example of, even though people do not like to admit it, war turns boys into men. “The youth had been taught that a man became another thing in battle. He saw his salvation in such a change.”⁴

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

As Connell suggests that every society has cultural notion of gender, but not every culture has the concept of masculinity. In modern usage, the term masculinity ultimately relates to how one behaves i.e an unmasculine person would behave differently than what is considered ‘normal’ in many cultures. In other words, an unmasuline person behaves peacefully, non-dominating, and has less sexual desire signifying that a masculine person in contrast is violent, dominating and interested in sexual conquest (Connell page 68-69). Such cultural influences link masculinity in the opposition of what is called ‘feminity’ having characteristics such as emotions, inactive and tolerant (Lucas 139). In simple terms, if maleness is understood in terms of biology,

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