(Fragile) Masculinities

During my first year at University I took a module called Critical Approaches which had us look at the different ways art historians interpret art and the theories behind this. This included, for example, looking at queer theory, gender studies, race issues and other issues and theories that decide how we see and understand art. What follows are my notes from a presentation I gave surrounding masculinity for this module based around the chapter, 'Masculinities' by Niall Richardson and Sadie Wearing. I wasn't initially going to share this since it's quite lengthy and obviously meant to be given in a verbal format with accompanying slides etc. however, with the recent issues that have surfaced surrounding male violence against women, sexism and sexual assault, I felt that it is important to discuss these gendered issues, to try to understand why society holds traditional masculinity and femininity to such rigid standards and to show people who may be unaware, just how women and men are being treated and perceived within society.

The statistics that came out in the last few weeks and testimonies from other women are heart-breaking but, speaking as a woman, far from shocking. Instead of rehashing mine and others' trauma and those chilling stats, I decided to let the experts in gender studies speak (with my own input since I couldn't just copy and paste the chapter!) and share a very small, brief insight into what it is like to be a man (and almost by default, a woman) in society and what it actually means to be 'masculine' today. In my opinion, the real historical, nitty gritty information is the most important part of this presentation, so skip to the section 'Image of Men' to just read about that if you want!

The introduction of the chapter, Masculinities discusses what masculinity is in modern day terms and briefly talks about some issues men may have with their masculinity today. The chapter is then split into two sections; ‘Gazing upon the Male Body’ which talks about still images of men, specifically talking about the male pin-up and the male gaze and men in the media and ‘Images of men’ which looks at changes in society and politics and how this has had an impact on men and how they are shown in the media.

The chapter opens with explaining how the study into masculinity is different from that of femininity as ‘unlike femininity, masculinity has not required a political formation in order to advance its rights’[1]. It also mentions the male gaze in cinema and how there is the reinforced idea of the male as active and the female as passive. This, therefore, according to Richardson and Wearing, makes it difficult to look into masculinity in film from the standpoint that anything would be degrading to a male audience and so is looked at and studied differently to how femininity is.

The section also explains how gender and sex are different; whilst sex is based in biology, gender is a ‘cultural performance of this biological sex’[2]. Richardson and Wearing argue that ‘there is nothing within the male body that asserts an essential activeness other than a cultural expectation of this role. […] These cultural expectations are supported and reinforced by media representations’[3] and that masculinity is a performance learned over time.

The role of the rejection of femininity in defining masculinity is also discussed with Richardson and Wearing saying, ‘masculinity has always defined itself in terms of what it’s not’[4]. Boys learn quickly that portraying feminine features or characteristics is taboo and will often get teased for acting too feminine. Richardson and Wearing argue that because of this, ‘misogyny (the fear of women) has often been a component of masculinity’[5] as well as effeminophobia, the fear of being feminine because ‘the effeminate male body demonstrates that masculinity is merely an act – a set of culturally learned performances – and therefore deconstructs the very identity that is so precious to male bodies’[6]. Masculinity can then be described as fragile, as seen by the changes in recent years in order to reinvent itself in time with political and social changes of the time such as gay liberation and feminism.

The next section is called ‘Gazing Upon the Male Body’ and talks about both still and moving images of men and how these are perceived. Firstly, it discusses the still image of men, specifically the nude, saying that women look at themselves being looked at whilst men look at women and are in action. The authors argue ‘a female nude is relaxed – a body in repose, inviting the gaze of the spectator to marvel at her beauty. […] By contrast, the male body was usually a body in action’[7] and that whilst the nudity displayed in female nudes is for beauty purposes, the male nude is simply to show strength and power instead; the female nude is eroticised whilst the male nude ‘simply appears undressed’[8].

The chapter goes on to argue that whilst many people may believe this portrayal of masculinity – being muscular and poised for action – is the definition of maleness, this is perhaps not the case. Richardson and Wearing argue that rather, this is just another cultural performance that could happen to anyone – male or female – with hard work; this trait doesn’t automatically belong to a man just because they’re male.

The gaze of the male model is also discussed here, with Richardson and Wearing using Richard Dyer’s work to aid their argument. They say that whilst a female nude model commonly will look at herself, appreciating her own beauty, male models have an elevated gaze as if their minds are on better things and he doesn’t care that he is being watched. Richardson and Wearing argue that:

‘unlike female models, the men are not complicit in the act of objectification (there are very few images of men gazing upon their own reflection in a mirror) and instead the representation implies that they are simply using their bodies to get a specific job done.’[9]

Therefore, this suggests that intelligence ‘has been deemed masculine while the body has been deemed feminine’[10], despite both models essentially being used for their bodies.

The alternative to this higher, elevated gaze is a confrontational one, directly at the camera as shown in fig. 2. This is in comparison to female nude models who usually look away and lower their gaze. Richardson and Wearing say, ‘in this respect the model suggests that if he is being objectified it is with his consent’[11] and they comment on how there is a very small amount of images where male models look as if caught unaware compared to the amount of female images, especially in fashion photography, that portray women this way.

Richardson and Wearing talk about the ideas put forward by Laura Mulvey which is that of the male gaze in cinema. They discuss how the idea may be problematic as it doesn’t account for the female viewers or genres of films that are classed as women’s films. For instance, films that eroticise the male body for the pleasure of the female spectator. An example the text uses is musicals and melodramas, mentioning John Travolta’s character in Saturday Night Fever as his body is objectified in certain scenes with no benefit to the plot, suggesting that the purpose was only for the viewers pleasure.

Richardson and Wearing also mention that the heterosexual male’s identification to the men in films is also important in the male gaze, not just their desire for the females featured in film. As part of this, they suggest that ‘the male body can indeed be the object of the gaze, but that, unlike the female body, the male must not be explicitly represented as such’[12]. However, identification and desire may not be separate as seen in the case of homosexual males who may identify with the males they see in films as well as desire them.

The authors argue that ‘as long as the body is both the focus and agent of sexual desire, then the question of eroticism cannot be overlooked’[13] and as a result, that there may be erotic pleasure, even from heterosexual men in looking at the male body in, for example, action films. They take the phrase, ‘repressed homosexual looking’ from Paul Willemen to explain this but say that this form of looking from ‘heterosexual’ men must be ‘paid for’[14] through the experiences of the male character of desire in the film. Richardson and Wearing argue that when men in action films get beaten and brutalised, it is ‘not simply a narrative convention but a way or ensuring that the spectator ‘pays’ for the guilty pleasure of the homoerotic gaze at the male body’[15] and use Fight Club and the character Angel Face as an example. This is because the character, played by Jared Leto is very attractive – even his name is meant to represent that he is good looking – and would give men pleasure, both erotic and through identification. However, he is severely beaten by the protagonist of the film which the text argues is a way of the film punishing the male viewer for finding homoerotic pleasure in seeing the character.

The final section, ‘Image of Men’ speaks about changing trends in social and political context over the years and how masculinity has responded to this, changing and redefining itself when needed.

The section begins with saying that men, until the rise of feminism, had the privilege of not considering themselves as being gendered, much like white people historically would not consider themselves as raced. As a result of this, masculinity was a certainty and not something that was analysed. However, second-wave feminism in the 80s brought to light the fact that gender and sex differ as ‘it was one of the key agendas of second-wave feminism to denaturalise gender’[16] and establish and change the fact that masculinity is characterised by activity whilst femininity is passive. Due to the changed feminism set out to make, some people argue that masculinity in the 80s ‘entered a period of crisis’[17].

In response, to this crisis, Hollywood began to make a great amount of action films, referred to by Richardson and Wearing as ‘hard bodies cinema’. Actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone were popular faces in many films of this time which showed off their bodies and fighting skills. The text argues that this was in order to reassure men and reaffirm their sense of masculinity at a time when masculinity was being questioned because of the fact that the actors’ and characters’ bodies and skills – which are typically considered masculine – are what saves the day, perpetuating the idea that masculinity is the dominant gender.

At the end of the 80s, what is now called, new masculinity started to emerge inn a more sympathetic response to second-wave feminism. ‘The ‘new man’ was an insightful response to the activism of feminist politics and represented a form of masculinity which was aware of its performances – most importantly how they could offend of oppress others’[18] and overall just offered a softer side to masculinity. The authors use the L’Enfant images as an example of this. These were posters which were popular in the late 80s and early 90s which depicted a muscular and typically attractive man holding a baby. These images demonstrated an acknowledgement of feminist ideas and showed a softer side to masculinity. They also went against the ideas that women were to look after babies and children rather than men and gave a nod that men also had a parental role. Another example the text mentions is the career of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the changes seen in the character of the Terminator and his character in Kindergarten Cop by which both characters are muscular and ‘manly’ but also show a softer side as well.

‘New lad’, however emerged in the mid-1990s as a way of rebelling against the feminist ideas and new masculinity of the late 80s. Men identified as new lads were typically regressing, being considered sexist and macho. They were thought generally to be working-class or at least portrayed themselves this way in order to completely reject the ideas of feminism which arguably only addresses middle-class, white women as only they have the luxury of only having feminist ideas to worry about whilst other, less privileged feminists may be worrying about providing for themselves and their families instead. The text does say however that the new lad’s rebellion against middle-class ideals may have been down to the growing gay liberation movement and presence of gay men in the metropolis as, in Britain, gay men and culture has always had an association with the middle-class. Hollywood also took on this trend of new lad in the films they made during this time, for instance the American Pie series of films and other ‘gross-out comedies’[19] such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall and 40-Year-Old Virgin.

The late 90s and early 2000s then saw the emergence of the metrosexual, another way men could identify themselves and their masculinity. Richardson and Wearing argue that metrosexuality responded to the new lad trend and although was similar to the idea of the new man, differs in political and historical context. Metrosexuality was based on the activities of gay men in metropolitan settings who stereotypically were very conscious of grooming, fashion and shopping. There was also an idea that because gay men didn’t have children, they would have had more disposable income available to do these things. The media was important in perpetuating the idea and character of the metrosexual male as it brought gay characters into the mainstream with TV shows such a Will and Grace which heroicised the gay characters in it by making them more capable and nicer than the heterosexual characters. The text also talks about the make-over show Queer Eye in which the ‘Fab Five’, five gay men make over the life of a heterosexual man, helping him change not only his scruffy appearance but his home, grooming and self. The text explains the shows impact as having ‘mapped neatly on to the elevation of gay male sensibility – gay men as harbingers of style and good taste’[20], helping to further create this idea of the gay man as better. From this point of view, the authors argue that ‘metrosexuality, therefore, is not simply a revision of new man ideology but is a sympathetic response to gay culture in which straight men not only appropriate elements of gay iconography and style but also voluntarily place themselves in the position of both active desiring subject and desired object’[21].

First written April 2019 - all information correct at time of writing.

[1] Richardson, Niall and Sadie Wearing. Gender in the Media (Macmillan International Higher Education, 2014). 33. [2] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 34. [3] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 34. [4] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 34. [5] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 34. [6] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 35. [7] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 36. [8] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 36. [9] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 37. [10] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 37. [11] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 38. [12] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 39. [13] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 39. [14] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 40. [15] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 40. [16] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 41. [17] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 41. [18] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 42. [19] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 44. [20] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 47. [21] Richardson and Wearing. Gender in the Media. 47.

Illustrations

Fig. 1 – young boy with illustrated orange arms, one muscular and one not, coming from his shoulders, c. 2018, The Epic article, “Changing the face of Western masculinity”

Fig. 2 – Male model, Simon Martini pictured shirtless, staring at the camera, c. 2017, New York Times Style Magazine article, “8 Male Models to Watch This Season”

Fig. 3 – Fight Club Film Poster. David Fincher, 1999. Fox 2000 Pictures, United States of America

Fig. 4 – Chris Hemsworth holding a small baby, c. 2012, People article “Chris Hemsworth cradles daughter, India Rose, 7 weeks, on Monday during a trip to wife Elsa Pataky’s native Madrid”

Bibliography

Richardson, Niall and Sadie Wearing. Gender in the Media, Macmillan International Higher Education, 2014. Print.