Masculinity - A shift in paradigm - an interchangable performance
March 22nd 2008 13:42
Australian masculinity. A conceptual framework geared towards an attempt at understanding the complex workings that are the male, the Australian male. Now this was my dream subject to take. Took me two years and it was worth it.
I love the study of sexuality and gender but am so dissolution with feminism and its circular theories. so masculinity is good, refreshing and not exclusionary.
So come one of the texts of the course, the Twyborn affair. Apparently it’s an Australian masterpiece, only Aussie book to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. so why hadn’t I ever heard of it? Not sure really so I decided, as advised, to start reading it asap as to ensure the depth of appreciation deserved by such an icon work.
So I read it. Took me a whole week and it was a tough one. So multidimensional- in fact that is an understatement. it’s not something that you can read and simply digest, it’s a book that haunts through its very phrasings and insights which rip into the condition of our identity. Our identity, yours and mine. it’s so contentious and an issue that is far too complex for one book to address, so I thought.
I’m not going to go into any details of the plot because one of the true beauties of the novel lie in the obscure development of the story. What I will go into is the issues it raises about our constant quest to fit some prefixed mode of existence, of identity. The leading character is like a piece of clay who attempts to fold and slide into what it is that their gender deems to be necessity acts, performances. Now this idea is something that has been on gender and sexuality theorist’s minds for the last decade, the discussion that gender and sexuality are mere performances which align with the prevailing social conceptions on what it is to be a man or a woman, to be heterosexual or otherwise.
so why is it a social necessity to act in a certain way to be considered worthy of the title of your sex? I’m not talking about gender roles and so on but rather the very idea that there is such thing as gender specific characteristics. For example it has become taboo in Australia to have a certain football code which you support furiously; as if it is a grave matter of life and death. Once you have chosen you code you then must play (if you are a man) and watch and support (if you are a women). It is a masculine trait to play in a burly and dominating fashion; to wear your opponent down; to appear to bust through your jersey because of excessive muscle definition. Now the rules of masculinity would forbid any kind of delineation from this image, this performance of the football player. The football player would not be lithe and slight in figure but must be big and bulky. Now in terms of acting the part, performing the part of this alpha masculine the football player must drink loads of beer and bourbon and get hit up for rowdy behavior at least once in their illustrious career. This is generalized; but then everything about masculinity is generalized.
My point really gets boiled down to a simple question. Do you see this behavior as meeting you thoughts in the typical Aussie bloke (note that the career of football can easily be changed with say a trade career or a professional one, the point lies in the drinking and the body)? Can you see a pattern begin to emerge in the accepted norms? As if there is even a “norm”? This is where I must come back to my discussion of the Twyborn affair.
The novel exposed the very fallacy that masculinity as the norm is hinged on. There can be no regular guy; there cannot be any definite identity which demonstrates the identical characteristics of all males. Masculinity is rarely discussed; it is not even on the agenda because the male is the rule which renders all others the exception of this rule. How restrictive is this!!!! This is what perpetuates issues in our society that see homosexual men considered pollute outcasts (the norm of masculinity is not only heterosexual but homophobic), issues like domestic violence where men consider it more normal to abuse their families because they are drunk the to discuss their emotions with a professional. Now I’m not for a moment suggesting that masculinity myths are central to all problems in society. What I am suggesting is that the “normal” association of men with a certain strain of masculinity is highly restrictive and highly unnecessary most specifically in an era which is seeing more and more emphasis on the blurring of lines and the mixing of identities. Most interestingly however men, some men and women, are fighting harder to retain the “traditions” of masculinity.
This issue is something that I have been thinking a lot about and I will be posting more succinct and refined comments on the issue. So please if anyone has thoughts on the issue of gender and sexuality but most importantly on the issue of masculinity and its various representations in literature, movies or television please add your thoughts.
I love the study of sexuality and gender but am so dissolution with feminism and its circular theories. so masculinity is good, refreshing and not exclusionary.
So come one of the texts of the course, the Twyborn affair. Apparently it’s an Australian masterpiece, only Aussie book to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. so why hadn’t I ever heard of it? Not sure really so I decided, as advised, to start reading it asap as to ensure the depth of appreciation deserved by such an icon work.
So I read it. Took me a whole week and it was a tough one. So multidimensional- in fact that is an understatement. it’s not something that you can read and simply digest, it’s a book that haunts through its very phrasings and insights which rip into the condition of our identity. Our identity, yours and mine. it’s so contentious and an issue that is far too complex for one book to address, so I thought.
I’m not going to go into any details of the plot because one of the true beauties of the novel lie in the obscure development of the story. What I will go into is the issues it raises about our constant quest to fit some prefixed mode of existence, of identity. The leading character is like a piece of clay who attempts to fold and slide into what it is that their gender deems to be necessity acts, performances. Now this idea is something that has been on gender and sexuality theorist’s minds for the last decade, the discussion that gender and sexuality are mere performances which align with the prevailing social conceptions on what it is to be a man or a woman, to be heterosexual or otherwise.
so why is it a social necessity to act in a certain way to be considered worthy of the title of your sex? I’m not talking about gender roles and so on but rather the very idea that there is such thing as gender specific characteristics. For example it has become taboo in Australia to have a certain football code which you support furiously; as if it is a grave matter of life and death. Once you have chosen you code you then must play (if you are a man) and watch and support (if you are a women). It is a masculine trait to play in a burly and dominating fashion; to wear your opponent down; to appear to bust through your jersey because of excessive muscle definition. Now the rules of masculinity would forbid any kind of delineation from this image, this performance of the football player. The football player would not be lithe and slight in figure but must be big and bulky. Now in terms of acting the part, performing the part of this alpha masculine the football player must drink loads of beer and bourbon and get hit up for rowdy behavior at least once in their illustrious career. This is generalized; but then everything about masculinity is generalized.
My point really gets boiled down to a simple question. Do you see this behavior as meeting you thoughts in the typical Aussie bloke (note that the career of football can easily be changed with say a trade career or a professional one, the point lies in the drinking and the body)? Can you see a pattern begin to emerge in the accepted norms? As if there is even a “norm”? This is where I must come back to my discussion of the Twyborn affair.
The novel exposed the very fallacy that masculinity as the norm is hinged on. There can be no regular guy; there cannot be any definite identity which demonstrates the identical characteristics of all males. Masculinity is rarely discussed; it is not even on the agenda because the male is the rule which renders all others the exception of this rule. How restrictive is this!!!! This is what perpetuates issues in our society that see homosexual men considered pollute outcasts (the norm of masculinity is not only heterosexual but homophobic), issues like domestic violence where men consider it more normal to abuse their families because they are drunk the to discuss their emotions with a professional. Now I’m not for a moment suggesting that masculinity myths are central to all problems in society. What I am suggesting is that the “normal” association of men with a certain strain of masculinity is highly restrictive and highly unnecessary most specifically in an era which is seeing more and more emphasis on the blurring of lines and the mixing of identities. Most interestingly however men, some men and women, are fighting harder to retain the “traditions” of masculinity.
This issue is something that I have been thinking a lot about and I will be posting more succinct and refined comments on the issue. So please if anyone has thoughts on the issue of gender and sexuality but most importantly on the issue of masculinity and its various representations in literature, movies or television please add your thoughts.
| 62 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Teresa Ralton
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
I just stumbled upon your posts while looking for 'computer' information. I saw your name a few posts back but I've forgotten what it was. Maybe you have gone already- this was done a year ago and your latest was done 4 months ago.
Thought I'd leave a message anyway. I think you are a very good writer - natural, expressive and thoughtful. Even your occasional misspelling and use of the wrong word seems kind of quirky.
Anyway, you may be completely over this subject by now but I'll make a comment anyway, since I am here.
Professional footballers can only be used as the extreme example of macho behaviour. So many of them are very young and not yet emotionally mature - they look like men but really they are still boys who get treated like heroes, given a lot of money and not held accountable for their actions to the same degree as everyone else. A lot of them are away from families and under pressure, I guess. But i think, the issues you raise about domestic violence and homophobia and other traits are dying out bit by bit with each generation. Even footballers, when off the field and in public, seem to want to appear very metrosexual. That's what it looks like to me, anyway.