What he means is that one’s sex derives from one’s reproductive organs and genital configurations , whereas gender refers to the amount of stereotypical femininity and masculinity a person exhibits. Gayle Rubin, for instance, uses the term ‘sex/gender system’ in order to describe “a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention” (1975, 165). To inhibit one’s gender means having to learn behaviour, manners, gestures and attitudes that our culture deems appropriate to each sex. It is through learning these patterns that we become socialized and gendered, moving from our individual anatomical sex (being male or female) to a processed social product (behaving as a man or woman). From the social and cultural expectations for a man and the manner and degree to which he acknowledges and lives up to them we derive the concept of masculinity; those applicable to a woman, together with her compliance with them, we think of as femininity.
Other academics defend that all men lose their masculine hegemonic status when they grow old (Meadows and Davidson 296). Kampf, Marshall and Petersen also hold the same opinion. They claim that hegemonic masculinity is found in those men whose bodies are svelte, robust and youthful. Therefore, they believe that, “if these embodied qualities of youth are viewed as ‘essentially masculine’ then aging and old age are the negation of that ideal, threatening men as they age with the obvious failure of matching up to such representations of maleness”
To profess their heterosexual identity, boys enact the ritual of performative sex talk. With a profusion of sexual bravado, boys fight to one-up each other in their stories of sexual prominence and prosperity. Pascoe states that “expressing heterosexual desire establishes a sort of baseline masculinity” (87), in part to distance themselves from the feminine identity of a “fag,” but also to establish masculine dominance. These discussions center around how these boys are able to enact their subjectivity and control on the world around them, with women as the objects of their control and puppets of their desires. Furthermore, the masculine dominance is established through compulsive heterosexuality when boys engage in specific patterns of opposite-sex touching.
In a simple way masculinity can be viewed as the opposite or the counter part of femininity. But a critical approach of masculinity shows a different story altogether. It is not exactly the counter part of femininity rather a socially constructed form of behavior, attitudes, presentation depending upon the biological features. Manliness or manhood is not something which the man is born with rather after birth through the action and reaction, attachment and detachment, known and unknown one achieves it. “Gender identities are formed from birth as children are moulded into socially-approved patterns of masculinity and femininity.
Manhood is also accomplished through the subordination of women and through culture. Additionally, masculinity intersects with other factors including sexuality, race, and class, which leads to multiple forms of masculinity. The dominant form of masculinity is hegemonic masculinity through which privileged males have dominated women and other men. Accomplishing this form of masculinity is near impossible for minority men, which leads them to engage in compensatory masculinities. Street life-oriented young men are likely to engage in less superior forms of masculinity consisting of working-class masculinity, hypermasculinity, and street masculinity.
In Marshall Erikson, we see a dominant formation of postfeminist masculinity, which simultaneously merges traditional masculine value. His large physical build body structure and lawyer profession as well as his emotional softness, a caring nature, and domestication to his long time girlfriend and wife, Lily, give the viewers a conflicting construction of masculinity. However, the textual affirmation of his faithful marriage does not identify with traditional masculinity values. Franka Heise, in her article “‘I’m a Modern Bride’: On the Relationship between Marital Hegemony, Bridal Fictions, and Postfeminism” conveys the privileges of ‘marital hegemony’ in contemporary American culture which reinforces and legitimizes “heterosexuality as norm and monogamy as a social duty” and where marriage is “the most desirable and ultimately only legitimate form of intimate, heterosexual relationship” (Heise 1). Thus, Marshall from the beginning of the program is automatically claimed with hegemony control over both Ted and Barney.
Introduction: Hypermasculinity is defined as the “exaggeration of traditionally masculine traits or behaviour” (Collins English Dictionary n.d.), and is an extremely prevalent social norm across varying countries and cultures. Its exact definition varies in different historical and cultural contexts, but it is largely characterised as a strong societal pressure upon men to adhere to highly unrealistic expectations of “manliness”, such as tangible physical strength, constant participation in conventionally “manly” interests and a rejection of any feminine traits. What distinguishes hypermasculinity as a social norm from mere masculinity as a character trait is that hypermasculinity is founded upon the warped belief that a true man cannot resemble a woman in any way or form – having any traits that are “even remotely feminine strips [one] entirely of [their] masculinity.” (Michael 2016). In order for men to live up to hypermasculine standards, they must completely reject conventionally feminine parts of themselves such as kindness, compassion and tenderness. Although this social norm has taken on different meanings throughout the evolution of mankind, its dire consequences arising from its pervasive influence remain largely the same.
Connell states that hegemonic masculinity is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power. Using this definition the military men can legitimately make a claim to hegemonic masculinity. As service members they are agents of the state domination, legally vested with the right to use lethal force in order to maintain domination. Similarly, in the case of the Indian army, it may be interesting to see how the army personnel not only represent the ideal masculinity but also use their institutional power in order to establish their masculinity as hegemonic. However, before going further it is also important to understand the distinction between external and internal hegemonic
The interchange of the two administrations is especially apparent in the marvel of the imaginative commercial enterprises, two shafts that unendingly strengthen each other, whereby the segments of machinic subjugation become in centrality because of a surplus of subjectivation. "Should we then talk about a willful servitude?" ask Deleuze and Guattari, and their answer is no: "There is a machinic subjugation, about which it could be said that it shows up as reaccomplished; this machinic oppression is no more "deliberate" than it is
Hegemony is the process by which a ruling group secures the consent of the ruled. Hegemony passes through cycles of emergence, establishment, renewal, and decline, and the hegemonic process will necessarily involve alliances and therefore compromises with groups outside the hegemonic class itself. Fashion hegemonises the society and creates a class of its own. The recently emerging, symbolic interactionist concept of social world offers a means for redressing this omission and for advancing further upon the ground opened by Herbert Blumer 's still exciting breakthrough in the ‘Sociology of Fashion’. In the work on ‘Fashion from Class Differentiation to Collective Selection’, Blumer pursues two aims: • to challenge the then prevalent functionalist