The construct that masculinity is in crisis raise storms in debates about men, masculinity and feminism. Though men from some quarters would vehemently deny there is crisis in masculinity, there is unparalleled evidence that there is a masculinity crisis and interestingly it leads to new and furthers existing hegemonic masculinity. Before 1970s, men’s movements were unheard of in a society dominated by women’s movements seeking for their rights and equalities. The inherent factor behind women’s movement was that women faced oppression by virtue of their gender probably from pressures placed on them by society. However, in early 1970s men’s movements started to mushroom in society just like the women’s movements. What implications did these movements have? From a closer look of events, what men tried to say is that, just like women, they faced oppression on basis of their gender.
Factors like unemployment, incapability to express their feelings and their restrained response to physical abuse may have instigated these movements. The society expects men to secure employment, not to be emotional and to be ‘gentlemen’ enough when dealing with women. This was unrealistic in the wake of women’s call for equal rights in society thus pushing men away from their cultural roles of breadwinners in the society among other issues. Men found themselves losing grip of their roles in society and in the wake of these events, and in retaliation came together and formed men’ movements. This was the primary indication of masculinity crisis.
In the wake of these events, men moved with speed, abandoned their cultural roles and assumed feministic roles in society. Young men started adopting feminine styles like bleached and tousled hair, piercing different places of the body coupled with tattoos, a practice that was a preserve for women hitherto. Unfortunately, Shapely (2000) posits that instead of men drawing levels with contemporary women, they are adopting the worst women’s traits. This is a clear indication of masculinity in deep-rooted crisis. It appears that men are picking the self-confidence battle from where women left it. While women are budging their focus from appearance to intelligence and power, some men are taking the opposite direction. Are men victims of a changing competitive society that robs them of their sentience of worth? Well, this remains a point of contention but the reality is that a masculinity crisis is very pronounced in society today.
Crisis masculinity is here to stay and that is not surprising. However, this crisis fosters anatomies of hegemonic masculinity. This is a form of masculinity, more esteemed than other forms (Men and Masculinity, 2009). Forms of masculinity portrayed in popular films and sports, attract more respect from different quotas and people perceive this as the ideal form of contemporary masculinity that a ‘modern’ man should adopt. This leads to marginalization and stigmatization of other forms of masculinity unpopular among a given clique of men in society. Nevertheless, what is the genesis of all these subdivisions in describing manhood?
Social research indicates that masculinity does not exist as a form of personal life alone, but also as an impersonal component of institutions and culture alike. Community life forms the basis of collective definitions of masculinity and these definitions changes as communities change. Some societal changes like declining industrial employment among other numerous changes that mark the 21st century, lead to some hegemonic embodiments in particular centres of communities. A good example is the attempted incorporation of same-sex marriage clauses in the legal systems in some countries like Britain. Organizations like army and some corporations, embed themselves in hegemonic masculinity patterns that people may prefer at the expense of other masculinity forms.
Moreover, mass media appears to campaign for particular patterns of masculinity overlooking others. Unfortunately, society tends to believe that what is popular is the best. This is an illusion but does not stop masculinity crisis’ unwavering drive to create hegemonic masculinity. Both historical and sociological explorations indicate that men’s conduct and patterns of though regarding gender issues change slowly over time. Men and women’s societal roles are changing with time drawing differing opinions towards that same. These differing concepts about gender issues lead to mobilization of men into different groups. While some groups advocate for different hegemonic masculinity setups, others defend more generalised approaches to the issue. Politics ensue but this owes its roots to contradictions and tensions in masculinity issues.
In his research, Rutherford (1992) notes that crisis in masculinity emerged in early 70s as men tried to respond to uprising potency of feminism in the prevalent socialism in those days (1-2). The first move to indicate crisis in masculinity was ‘men against sexism.’ Men aged between 18 and 41 years sought to move from the conventional forms of family structures upheld by their fathers in late 60s. To this group, these practices were untenable in their age and they had to adopt other family structures, which would incorporate issues like gay marriages and heterosexuality. This was a real crisis in defining masculinity. With some men detested these movements and viewed their course as anathema, supporters of these movements felt that it was for a good course to pursue what they believe was right.
The ultimate outcome of these differences led to formation of hegemonic masculinities. People naturally believe in change and they saw this as a change worth supporting. Men rallied behind this move, which resulted to men adopting more feminist characteristics. Coincidentally, even to date, the masculine hegemonic masculinity that accepts feminine behaviour is popular. Paradoxically, these hegemonic masculinity establishments emerged from the ‘masculine crisis.’
Unknowingly to many contemporary men, as they adopt feminine styles, they are forming a coterie of individuals who have shifted from the conventional definition of masculinity. Iida (2008) notes that, these men are not adapting feminine aesthetics to hold the place of women or to become women so to speak, but is to shun the collective masculinity expectations obtruded upon them. In their escapist strategy, they form groups that define masculinity differently. This is the source of hegemonic masculinity discussed here. People adore and esteem this clique of ‘feminism’ men without knowing that it was not a free will choice to adopt feminism strategies but was an imposed move. However, some men follow feminism aesthetics from sheer curiosity. Simply because they adore these ‘trendy’ fashions and outlooks, they adapt and integrate them in their lifestyles. The ultimate result is formation of hegemonic masculinity that people esteem over others.
People may as well define hegemonic masculinity as alternative gender identities. Iida (2008) posits that what may appear as masculinity crisis may be people responding to the up surging heterogeneity and murkiness in the global village where culture is information-oriented. However, this response owes its roots to crisis in masculinity where young men are moving away from conventionally defined masculinity, which does not solve the intricate issue of gender awareness amongst contemporary unseasoned men. Thus, it becomes difficult to divorce the issue of hegemonic masculinity from masculinity crisis without redefining the two.
The other way of asserting that hegemonic masculinity stems from masculinity crisis is the massive celebrity life following by youths across the globe. Contemporary youths emulate popular celebrities in the world who themselves form hegemonic masculinity clique in society. These celebrities adopt more feminism practices in what Shapely (2000) calls ‘feminizing the culture.’ What leads to such massive celebrity following across the globe? This implies that youth find no meaning in the conventional way of defining masculinity and thus seek more definitive self identification which is only found in this ‘feminine culture’ full of hegemonic masculinity resulting from masculine crisis. Connell (1995) posits that the prescriptive definition of masculinity loses its grip at personal level (70). Different people will perceive masculinity from different perspectives and the ensuing crisis make people to team up and squeeze into hegemonic groups that defines them better.
In conclusion, it is clear that masculinity crisis fosters kinds of hegemonic masculinity. Men’s movements in early 1970s indicated clear existence of crisis within masculinity. In an attempt to counter effects of feminism whish was drastically arising, men found themselves adopting more feminism styles. This coupled with the much glorification of these new lifestyles by media, made many men to adopt feminism. These events led to formation of different groups in defining masculinity. The groups that adopted feminism lifestyles found more applause from the society hence esteemed. This led to formation of hegemonic masculinity stemming out-rightly from the underlying masculinity crisis.
Reference
Connell, R 1995, “Masculinities”, 2009. Web.
Iida, Y 2008, “Beyond the ‘Feminisation’ of Culture and Masculinity: The Crisis of Masculinity and Possibilities of the ‘Feminine’ in Contemporary Japanese Youth Culture”. 2009. Web.
Men and Masculinity 2009, “Hegemonic Masculinity”, Web.
Rutherford, J 1992, “Men’s Silences: Predicaments in Masculinity”, 2009. Web.
Shapely, L 2009, “Masculinity in Crisis”, Web.