It is important to analyse and understand the lives of men as well as women in the context of development. Where men are considered, they are generally seen as obstacles to women’s development, and there is a perceived need for men to change in order for women to benefit.
Assuming a focus on men is often justified in terms of securing benefits for women, which is linked to simple ideas about power and gender relations: women can only be empowered when men give up power, however, impacts upon men and gender relations are often not considered (Cleaver, 2002). Approaches that argue for gender equality and social justice avoid seeing gender concerns as just instrumental in securing effective development, but recognise men and women as potentially
…show more content…
Men are not always ‘winners’ and their gender-specific inequalities and vulnerabilities should not be overlooked (Jackson, 1999). Changes in economic and social structures, and household composition are resulting in crises of masculinity, such as low educational attainment for boys, increased female incorporation into the labour force, more female-headed households, and fewer male role models. Poverty and economic change are seen by some to have ‘demasculinising’ effects, as roles of men are caused to change, calling their identity into question (Bujra, 2002; Barker, …show more content…
one is what the other is not: masculinity is not compassionate, emotional, complicated or cluttered, and is not made up of relations of dependence as femininity is, but is rational, logical, strong, nonchalant, and independent (McDowell, 2004). Theorisations contemporary to McDowell’s (2004) work emphasise the multiple nature of masculinities and femininities, as opposed to the dichotomous structure previously outlined. There must be a focus on both the cultural construction of multiple identities and the continued dominance of older structures of inequality (ibid.). There is a notion of men being inherently exploitative of women, and dominant (or hegemonic) masculinities and compliant (or subordinate) femininities (Jackson, 1991).
Hegemonic masculinity enforces the idea of male dominance as ‘natural’, based on the subordination of women and bonds between men. It comes from the essentialist notions of inherent biological differences between men and women, from which associated social consequences have come (Jackson, 1991). Although this comes from work written two decades ago, it continues to ring true, as demonstrated by a recent opinion article published in The Japan Times, entitled ‘In defense of traditional Indian masculinity’ and includes lines such as “But even so, let’s admit that man was born tribal (as woman
Therefore, this definitely adheres to the idea of masculinity being based on dominance, self-assuredness, as well as autonomy. Deborah Tannen’s theory of difference states
The concept of masculinity is considered as the qualities and characteristics of a man, typical what is appropriate to a man. In this article, A Community Psychology of Men and Masculinity: Historical and Conceptual Review, The author Eric S. Mankowski and Kenneth I. Maton, analyze four main themes: "Men as gendered beings, the privilege and damage of being a masculine man, men as a privileged group, and men’s power and subjective powerlessness. The second and fourth themes are described as
She taught at universities both in Australia and the United States. Connell highly disagreed that the ideas about what established masculinity are ethically definite. In other words, masculinity is important to whom is referred to. For example, “if women are seen as weak, passive and emotional, then men are supposed to be strong, aggressive, and rational” (Seidman, 221). Additionally, masculinity is based on how people interact with each other in which correlates with their race, class, and sexuality. With this said, Connell said, “to recognize diversity in masculinity: relations of alliance, dominance and subordination… This is a gender politics within masculinity” (Seidman, 223). To point out Connell’s theorizing masculinity, she believes that diversity defines masculinity has its own relationships with authorities. In our text, Seidman gave a brief example of how the roles carry out to the social authority such as President, Senator, CEO, General, media executive, or surgeon. It is stated that while there are many senators, executives, or CEOs who are women, it is definite identify as masculinity because people think those high authorities is only for a male role. In our text, Connell has mentioned that “every society has a dominant or a “hegemonic” type of masculinity” (223). This means that she believes men has the power or control type of their masculinity in the
In the past there were many biases against women and their lack of abilities compared to men. Although the male perspective has changed over the past few centuries, there are many feminists who still fight for ...
... E Glenn, and Nancy B Sherrod. The psychology of men and masculinity:Research status and future directions. New York: John Wiley and sons, 2001.
According to the authors West and Fenstermaker “doing difference” focuses on the inevitability of inequality, they state that the gender system of oppression is hopelessly resistant to real change and by ignoring the link between social interaction and structural change can have an impact on relations between men and women. This is an expansion of “doing gender” due to them simply elaborating and bringing new thoughts and perspectives into play. The authors refer and elaborate more on their views of “doing gender.” It is important to take this more inclusive perspective the authors believe that this can reveal the mechanisms by which power is exercised and how inequality is produced. For example West and Fenstermaker states that gender,
Realistically, when someone is more powerful, they have the ability to set the rules. Men have historically held power in society, which means that women did not have as much stance or freedoms as men have had in the past. For example, Canadian women did not have the right to vote until the year 1916. This factor has continued to trail into the present day, creating the ‘weak’ image towards women, overall forcing and pushing men to become the opposite of this factor. Thus, cultural ideals of masculinity rely on the ideas of femininity through patriarchy and gender binaries. The emphasis on characteristics of men are being exaggerated, as society is pressuring men with unattainable standards of masculinity such as being tough, muscular and buff. Men continue to conform to these characteristics, in the fear of being oppressed through exclusion, which only strengthens society’s standards even more. This leads to more societal pressures on men, thus leading men to experience more societal pressures in the fear of feeling excluded. These “systems of inclusion and exclusion are divisions or barriers that prevent people from joining and belonging.” (50). For example, if a man wears nail polish, they may be oppressed and excluded through facing ridicule and bullying, because wearing nail polish is considered “girly”, therefore this boy is rebelling against society’s socially
In today’s society boys become men when they hit puberty or lose their virginity. But women on the other hand become women when they get married and have children. It was commonly known that men earn more money in the workplace, and hold higher positions. Since years ago women have been able to do nothing, they had no say nor, could they vote. Women were expected to keep quiet when a problem occurred and not speak up for what they believed in. It was the stereotype that “a woman’s place was in the home”. The men were out making the money for the family so it was like what could you possi...
Jensen provides evidence throughout the text for three assumptions on why masculinity must be terminated from pertaining to just males. It is proposed that masculinity is harmful for both men and women, that men are surrendering their humanity by conforming with masculinity, and
The topics that Joe Ehrmann uses as framework for his Building Men for Others program are quite intriguing and make you really question masculinity. The first topic, rejecting false masculinity, can be interpreted a few different ways. In the book, it states: “As young boys, we’re told to be men, or to act like men” soon followed with “we’ve got all these parents say ‘be a man’ to boys that have no concept of what that means. I completely agree with the statement of Joe Ehrmann and often question the definition of ‘being a man’. Many boys and men will reject the idea of a man being anything other than being big and strong or having power.
Recently a new field of interest and analysis has begun taking shape around the study of the masculinities and the particularity of men's social, physical, psychological and labouring lives in differing historical contexts.
Masculinity is a subject that has been debated in our society for quite some time. Many wonder what it means to be masculine, as it is difficult to define this one –sided term. Pairing this already controversial term with “feminist studies” can bring about some thought - provoking conversation. Feminist studies of men have been around for many years with regards to the feminist movement. It seeks to create gradual improvements to society through its main principle of modifying the ways in which everyone views what it means to be a man. Feminist studies of men bring forth the discussion of hegemonic masculinity; how this contributes to the gender hierarchy, the radicalized glass escalator and ultimately the faults of this theory.
Manhood had not always existed; it was created through culture. Depending on the era, masculinity claimed a different meaning. But in all of its wandering definitions, it consistently contains opposition to a set of “others,” meaning racial and sexual minorities. (pp.45) One of the first definitions was the Marketplace Man, where capitalism revolved around his success in power, wealth, and status. A man devoted himself to his work and family came second. Although this is one of the first standing definitions, it still finds its spot in today’s definition, where masculinity consists of having a high paying job, an attractive young wife, and
Patriarchy manifested itself in the industrial revolution and in the plantation lifestyle of the south. This unspoken code defined that a dominant male in power was the principle decision maker for large groups of “inferior” people including women, children and servants/slaves. While this idea maybe most evident in white men, there is a central thought that a man, any man deserves power and respect merely by virtue of being a man. Men identify with a profile of being a protector, a provider and a strong central figure; this however, rarely proves to be the truth in modern society, rather a man who shows himself to be dependent on a woman for care appears to be weaker, not stronger.
Throughout history, there have been constant power struggles between men and women, placing the male population at a higher position than the female. Therefore, in this patriarchal system women have always been discriminated against simply due to the fact that they are women. Their rights to vote, to be educated and essentially being treated equally with men was taken away from them and they were viewed as weak members of society whose successes depend on men. However, this has not prevented them from fighting for what they believe in and the rights they are entitled to. On the contrary, it has motivated them to try even harder and gain these basic societal rights through determination and unity.