Obviously gender studies should incorporate studying both genders, but stereotypically that's just not the way it tends to work out. It made me think about just how little masculinity is discussed. It's not something that comes up in conversations with my friends, and as evidenced by the name of the "women's and gender studies" minor offered at the University, it's not something widely discussed at an academic level either. It seems masculinity in popular culture is defined more by an avoidance of typically feminine behavior than by any actual definition of masculine behavior. The few stereotypical masculine behaviors such as hunting, working on cars and fighting aren't actually that popular among the majority of guys. However, participation in feminine activities such as watching "Gossip Girl," shopping or talking openly about feelings is much more likely to earn negative reactions.Popular media is starting to subvert this structuring of masculinity. One example is the growing "bromance" film genre. The recent movie "I Love You, Man" and a plethora of Judd Apatow films feature male characters who share their feelings about one another in a typically un-masculine way. In the television world, characters like J.D. from "Scrubs" act in stereotypically feminine ways, like carrying around a unicorn diary in one episode. It certainly isn't the norm, and usually these
characters are supposed to draw laughs rather than make a statement about the way we look at masculinity, but it is a step toward guys being more accepting of male participation in typically feminine activities. Even the new James Bond movies portray the ultimate "guy" as a little more emotional and less of a womanizer. Weakening arbitrary gender divides in popular culture is eventually going to cause a restructuring of the way we define masculinity. Unfortunately, gender studies tends to fall within the feminine realm of interests, meaning that working to develop a healthier definition of masculinity is, by its very nature, un-masculine. Guys need to make it OK to talk about what it means to be a guy. Even more importantly, having a better discussion of what it is to be a guy is a vital step in building a healthier view of men with differing lifestyle choices.
For the sake of "developing more inclusive notions of masculinity and making the discussion of gender more accessible to a wider audience" we are witnessing a major backlash. Weren't we always talking about this masculinity for hundreds and hundreds of years? Open your TV or a philosophy book and see what is discussed: masculinity as the norm, humanity as masculinity, universal as harmonious masculinity. Do you want to just name it positively and claim it? Go ahead, no one will stop you. The problem is when this positive claim of masculinity is related to gender studies as a form of inclusiveness and softening of the feminist discourse. I know that privileges have to be kept by white heterosexual men by any means but don't come with this bullshit that poor guys are marginalised and discriminated in gender studies departments controlled by lesbian terrorists. Or that we already leave in post-patriarchy and it's safe now. Or that egosyntonic masculinity can be subversive and empowering for women. As long as femininity is still pathology, masculinity is the norm and the healthy way to live in society, I see all these initiatives as dead ends. And for Godsake, try to be a little bit more modest!
2 comments:
Just few comments:
1.It is quite a huge sign of ignorance for someone to claim that masculinity is little discussed in either academic or media, or whatever social space. There are lots of departments dealing with men and masculinities, hundreds of journals and thousands of articles focusing on this topic in several ways more or less with pro-feminist agendas. Not to mention that masculinities are so visible and invisible at the same time on all levels for anyone who “reads” critically the structural organization of the social order. :P
2.Why is masculinity defined in non-feminine ways? Precisely because this is how it functions! What masculine identification has no implication (material and symbolic power I mean) on what “the feminine” is or might be? Who can point at a masculine image that is not having a negative definitional aspect towards “the feminine”?
3.To become “feminine” is one key step indeed but not sufficient!
4.One thing is to talk about masculinities and quite another to extrapolate this unto the agenda of gender studies. To bring in gender studies the same old stories about what it means to be a “guy” adds nothing to our struggles. It becomes even more dangerous.
5.The point is not to talk about what it means to be a guy, but rather to question these account of what is to be a man in the current structural power relations. And this indeed relates to women. That is why gender studies is about women at the end of the day. Probably, to be “a different man”, or, to do or to express “a different masculinity”, is to promote women and “the feminine”! :P..nothing special about men otherwise!
....btw Mihai, what do you want to say about your male colleagues doing gender studies?
thanks for your comments! they certainly clarify a lot. but what i find problematic is the way antropology deals with masculinty as just another category to be analysed. That means uncritically. And this is where (some of my male but not only) colleagues working on masculinity fit the picture: they are fascinated by the method leaving out the political implications of their endevour. And they simply switch: from gender studies they move into anthropology, nice and clean. Just another respected academic field without the need to explain your position or to answer any feminist agendas.
Post a Comment