Search Results

This chapter provides an overview of masculinities scholarship and its importance in understanding not only masculinities, manhood, and men but also feminist theory. It considers the theoretical perspectives and questions ranging from masculinity as social construction to whether men can be feminists, the masculinities of racial minority men, resisting male privilege, the concept of hegemonic masculinity, the influence of queer theory on masculinities theory, and the impact of masculinity on boys and young men. It also examines how culture, and especially media, produces and reproduces gender before turning to an analysis of the complex threads of rebellion and ongoing reproduction of power. Finally, it offers suggestions for reorienting masculinity in a pro-woman direction.

This introductory chapter sets out the book's purpose, namely to explore a new school of legal thought: multidimensional masculinities theory. It attempts to provide a deeper understanding of how gender, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, class, and other identity factors are present yet often invisible in legal theory and doctrine. Multidimensional masculinities theory of law derives from feminist theory, feminist legal theory, and critical race theory (especially critical race feminism, as influenced by queer theory). It argues that we must always consider gender, race, class, and other identities, as well as shift lenses to put the primary focus on a particular identity that is foregrounded in that cultural context. Multidimensional masculinities theory thus explores how particular concepts of masculinity are used to produce power in different ways, depending on what other categories of identity they interact with, and in what cultural context. The remainder of the chapter discusses the emergence of multidimensional masculinities theory and where the new discipline of Multidimensional Masculinities and Law may be headed. An overview of the subsequent chapters is also presented.

This chapter introduces the reader to research on masculinities and multidimensional masculinities theory, and discusses generally how this body of research and theory can aid analysis of cases arising under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination based on race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. It examines the origins of masculinities theory and its relationship to workplace behaviors, as well as its potential use in explaining why certain behaviors should constitute sex- or gender-based discrimination. It explains that masculinities theory as a methodology asks readers to shift their perspectives to examine human behavior and organizations through a different lens. The chapter defines masculinities as a complex social structure, the construction of masculine identities through performance, and the performance of masculine practices at work.

This chapter looks at the metaphor of the drug game as a chess game in the critically acclaimed HBO police drama The Wire. This analogy is also a metaphor for the way the hierarchy of identities reproduces itself. It argues that “the king stay the king,” in chess and in the game of real life identities, because we tend to accept the fundamental principle that there will always be some form of hierarchy. Addressing the hegemonic masculinity versus hegemony of men debate within masculinities studies, it argues that multidimensionality theory helps provide an answer by showing that there is simultaneously a general but diffuse hegemonic masculinity and a variety of alternative masculinities that are sometimes hegemonic in particular contexts. In the context of The Wire, that simultaneity is reflected in the fact that the drug dealers who are so well-depicted in the show aspire to succeed under both the general society's definition of success and their own inner-city codes. Highlighting the class dynamics that travel along with racial and gender dynamics in the show, the chapter calls for a multidimensional masculinities theory that incorporates a critique of capitalism.

The Introduction tells the story of Jonathan Martin, a young, black, professional football player on the Miami Dolphins who checked himself into a mental health institution because of his teammates’ verbal harassment. An older, white player, Richie Incognito, led the harassment that had clear racial and class tinges. But the media missed that the harassment was gender-based because masculine practices, especially in all-male workplaces, are normalized and invisible. The harassing behavior occurred in large part because of Martin’s failure to live up to the image of a tough, masculine, football star. Groups of men in all-male workplaces, the chapter observes, harass men like Martin who they see as weak, in order to police the boundaries of masculinity and assure their own masculine reputations. The chapter notes that the behavior met the proof requirements of an illegal hostile work environment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and argues that expert testimony on masculinities theory can help judges and juries understand the hidden masculine behaviors and structures that result in illegal discrimination.

This chapter deals with the thorny issue of whether an individual’s harassing behavior occurs “because of sex,” a proof requirement of Title VII. Using masculinities theory as a lens, it identifies the problems courts have in interpreting whether harassing behaviors occur because of sex, explains the importance of power as both a prerequisite to and a goal of sexual harassment, and analyzes the different variables present in workplace situations that create a hostile work environment. The chapter discusses examples of sex- or gender-based harassment, with different perpetrators and victims and varying behaviors and motivations, and explains why the harassment in these examples occur “because of sex.” It then argues that this theoretical analysis creates the legal justification for creating a presumption that behavior occurs because of sex where sexualized or gender-based behavior occurs, a presumption that would shift the burden to the defendant to prove that the behavior did not occur because of sex.

This chapter examines the traditional place of men in feminist theory as the essentialist holders of privilege. Feminist analysis challenges masculinities scholarship to remain focused on inequality, power, subordination, and oppression as critical to any meaningful study of men. By focusing on men as men or men in relation to other men, feminism underscores the importance of keeping women's inequality in view. This chapter considers the development of masculinities theory and research as an outgrowth of feminist and queer theory, particularly in sociology and psychology, beginning in the 1970s. It also discusses how antiessentialism became a core component of feminist theory and concludes by outlining some of the challenges of masculinities theory and its differences from feminist analysis.

This chapter discusses the way masculinities theory can be used to prove a disparate treatment case under Title VII by identifying invisible stereotypes about women (e.g. “aggressive bitch,” caregiver, siren) and men (e.g. breadwinner – not the caregiver), and it uses specific examples of scenarios and cases that help the reader understand the hidden stereotypes that affect workplace decisions made by employers. It demonstrates that workplaces are saturated with and constructed of gender and class expectations about the proper roles of men and women. And, it explains that jobs themselves have genders. Because of how engrained these structures are, people do not even perceive gender. The chapter argues that judges and juries must be made aware of gendered structures, expectations, roles, and stereotypes in order to make accurate decisions in Title VII cases.

This chapter reviews Şahin v. Turkey, which was brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by a female Turkish student who was suspended from Istanbul University for wearing the headscarf in contravention of the state's enforcement of secularism. The court held that the ban was justified to prevent the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. The case demonstrates that the struggle between local masculinities in Turkey intersects with the global geopolitical struggle between Western and Islamic masculinities. In upholding the headscarf ban, the ECHR reinvokes Western and Orientalist narratives, constructing the headscarf as a symbol of women's subordination under Islam. Şahin essentializes Islam, condemning Islamic gender relations as incompatible with European notions of gender equality. The discursive use of women's bodies in Şahin, therefore, illustrates the interaction between local struggles over competing masculinities, on the one hand, and global masculinities, on the other hand.

This chapter examines the use of masculinities theory to prove a disparate impact cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It notes that disparate impact creates a potential remedy for the negative effects produced by invisible masculine promotion policies, standards, and practices in workplaces because disparate impact does not require a showing of discriminatory intent. The chapter uses a number of hypothetical examples to explain how masculinities theory can educate judges, juries, and lawyers to recognize invisible structures and practices that have a disparate effect on men and women based on their gender.

This chapter draw some conclusions from four examples of specific applications of masculinities analysis. The first example, education, implies a shift from a male-centered system to reform based on feminist critique on behalf of girls and women. It also suggests that equity requires asking the man question. The chapter argues that masculinities analysis has much to add to feminist analysis by highlighting the dynamics of gender socialization and how it reproduces gender inequality. Masculinities analysis also reinforces a culture of gender assumptions that are based in gender hierarchies, between boys and girls and between some boys and other boys. The other examples of applying masculinities theory involve the juvenile justice system, fathers and fatherhood, and adult male survivors of child sexual abuse.