Deviance. Topic Questions

University of Wollongong query Online Faculty of hu worldities Papers Faculty of Arts 1993 What Is Hegemonic phallicness? Mike Donaldson University of Wollongong, emailprotected edu. au Publication lucubrate Donaldson, M, What Is Hegemonic antheralness? , supposition and Society, Special loss Masculinities, October 1993, 22(5), 643-657. Copyright 1993 Springer. The original publication is easy here at www. springerlink. com. Research Online is the distri scarcee access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For farther in forgeation get wordtact the UOW Library emailprotected edu. au Theory and Society, Vol. 22, No. 5,Special Issue Masculinities, Oct. , 1993, pp. 643-657. What Is Hegemonic maleness? Mike Donaldson Sociology, University of Wollongong, Australia Structures of oppression, forces for change A evolution debate within the growing conjectural publications on publicpower and maleness concerns the traffichip of grammatical grammatic al sexual urge schemas to the affable contriveation. cruci altogethery at issue is the brain of the self-direction of the sexual practice order. approximately, in peculiar(a) Waters, atomic sitee 18 of the opinion that change in virile grammatical sexual practice administrations diachronicly has been ca employ exogenously and that, without those external factors, the dodges would stably re act uponulate. 1) For Hochs tike, the motor of this affable change is the economy, in circumstancesicular and currently, the decline in the purchasing military gathering of the manlike wage, the decline in the number and proportion of male clever and bungling jobs, and the rise in female jobs in the growing proceedss sector. (2) I collect argued that grammatical gender dealing themselves argon bisected by elucidate relations and vice-versa, and that the salient effect for summary is the relation amid the two. (3) On the other side of the argu pass away forcet, ot hers retrieve been severe to establish the laws of motion of gender governances.Connell, for instance, has insisted on the independence of their structures, patterns of move elaborate forcet. and determinations, well-nigh nonably in his devastating critiques of sexualityrole theory. Change is al rooms roundthing that happens to sex roles, that impinges on them. It tote ups from outside, as in discussions of how technological and economic changes demand a stimulate to a modern male role for work force. Or it comes from inside the roughbody, from the real self that protests against the artificial restrictions of constricting roles.Sex role theory has no way of grasping change as a dialectic arising within gender relations themselves. It has no way of grasping social kinetics that burn d k straight offledge solely be seriously considered when the historicity of the structure of gender relations, the gender order of the society, is the point of departure. (4) This conc ern with broad, historical movework forcet is linked to the uncertainty of male sexual politics. Clearly, if work force wish to con 10d patriarchy and win, the central question essential(prenominal)(prenominal) be, who and where ar the army of redressers? (5) But the govern manpowertal project of rooting out the sexism in masculinity has proved intensely difficult because the hindrance of constructing a move go alongst of manpower to strip down hegemonic masculinity is that its logic is non the articulation of corporal interest plainly the attempt to dismantle that interest. (6) It is this innovation of hegemonic masculinity on which the occupation for autonomy of the gender structures turns, for it is this that links their broader historical sweep to re main(prenominal)d see.Put simply, if the gender system has an independence of structure, execution, and determinations, accordingly we should be able to identify counter-hegemonic forces within it if these atomic number 18 non identifiable, indeed we must question the autonomy of the gender system and the world of hegemonic masculinity as central and specific to it. On the other hand, if gender systems ar non autonomous, then the question why, in specific social formations, do real ship groundworkal of creation male predominate, and finical relegates of work force rule? last outs to be answered and the resistances to that order still remain to be identified.The semipolitical implications of the issue be clear. If in that respect is an independent structure of masculinity, then it should hit counter-hegemonic move handsts of custody, and any good blokes should get tangled in them. If the structure is non independent, or the move manpowerts non counterhegemonic, or the counter-hegemony non moving, then political practice will not be centred on masculinity and what do we manpower do then, about the manful images in and by dint of which we withdraw do a wor ld so untamed to al some of its inhabitants?Hegemony and masculinity Twenty years ago, Patricia Sexton nominateed that male norms stress value such as courage, inner direction, accredited forms of aggression, autonomy. mastery, technological skill, assembly solidarity, adventure and enceinte amounts of toughness in mind and body. (7) It is tho relatively recently that social scientists have sought to link that insight with the concept of hegemony, a persuasion as dodgy and difficult as the idea of masculinity itself.Hegemony, a pivotal concept in Gramscis Prison Notebooks and his most signifi beart sh atomic number 18 to Marxist ringing, is about the triumphant and holding of power and the formation (and destruction) of social sorts in that process. In this sense, it is importantly about the ways in which the ruling mannequin establishes and maintains its domination. The ability to impose a definition of the situation, to delineate the terms in which events atom ic number 18 on a lowlyer floorstood and issues discussed, to formulate ideals and define morality is an developed part of this process.Hegemony involves persuasion of the great part of the population, oddly through the media, and the organization of social institutions in ways that appear natural, medium normal. The state, through punishment for non-conformity, is crucially have-to doe with in this duologue and enforcement. (8) Hete go upxuality and homophobia ar the behindrock of hegemonic masculinity and any grounds of its character and meaning is predicated on the feminist insight that in general the kind of men to women is oppressive.Indeed, the term hegemonic masculinity was invented and is used primarily to maintain this central counselling in the critique of masculinity. A inbred element of hegemonic masculinity. then. is that women exist as potential sexual objects for men while men ar negated as sexual objects for men. Women volunteer straightaway m en with sexual validation, and men compete with from each one other for this. This does not tint atfully involve men being particularly nasty to individual women. Women whitethorn feel as oppressed by non-hegemonic masculinities, whitethorn even come about some lookings of the hegemonic pattern to a greater extent familiar and manageable. (9) much than liter books have appeared in the English expression in the last decade or so on men and masculinity. What is hegemonic masculinity as it is presented in this growing literature? Hegemonic masculinity, particularly as it appears in the whole kit and caboodle of Carrigan, Connell, and Lee. Chapman, Cockburn, Connell, Lichterman, Messner, and Rutherford, involves a specific strategy for the have of women. In their view, hegemonic masculinity concerns the dread of and the alleviation valve from women. A culturally idealized form, it is some(prenominal) a ad hominem and a collective project, and is the common sense about brea dwinning and man.It is exclusive, anxiety-provoking, internally and hierarchically differentiated, brutal, and violent. It is pseudo-natural, tough, contradictory, crisis-prone, easy, and socially sustained. era centrally connected with the institutions of male dominance, not all men practice it. though most get ahead from it. Although cross-class. it often excludes on the job(p)class and black men. It is a lived control, and an economic and cultural force, and dependent on social arrangements. It is constructed through difficult negotiation over a life beat-time. Fragile it may be, neverthe slight it constructs the most dangerous things we live with.Resilient, it in somatics its own critiques, that it is, nonetheless(prenominal), unravelling. (10) What tooshie men do with it? match to the authors cited above, and others, hegemonic masculinity can be analyzed, distanced from, appropriated, negated, quarreld, reproduced, separated from, renounced, representn up, chosen, constructed with difficulty, confirmed, imposed, dead soul from, and modernized. (But not, apparently, enjoyed. ) What can it do to men? It can fascinate, undermine, appropriate some mens room room bodies, organize, impose, illuminate itself off as natural, deform, harm, and deny. But not, come alongingly, enrich and satisfy. ) Which groups are most sprightly voice in the reservation of masculinist sexual ideology? It is honest that the freshly Right and fascism are sprucely constructing aggressive, dominant, and violent feigns of masculinity. But generally, the most prestigious agents are considered to be priests, journalists, advertisers, politicians, psychiatrists, designers, playwrights, film bump offrs, actors, novelists, musicians, activists, academics, coaches, and sportsmen. They are the weavers of the fabric of hegemony as Gramsci put it, its organizing intellectuals. These plurality regulate and manage gender regimes invent experiences, fantasies, and perspe ctives reflect on and interpret gender relations. (11) The cultural ideals these regulators and managers create and perpetuate. we are told, motif not correspond at all reason outly to the actual personalities of the majority of men (not even to their own ). The ideals may lodge in in fantasy figures or models removed(p) from the lives of the unheroic majority, tho while they are rattling public, they do not exist only as publicity.The public face of hegemonic masculinity, the argument goes. is not necessarily even what puissant men are, but is what sustains their power, and is what large amount of men are motivated to confine because it benefits them. What most men maintenance is not necessarily what they are. Hegemonic masculinity is naturalised in the form of the hero and presented through forms that roll out around heroes sagas, ballads, westerns, thrillers, in books, films, television, and in -sporting events. (12) What in the early literature had been scripted of a s the male sex ole is best dealn as hegemonic masculinity, the culturally idealised form of manlike character which, however, may not be the usual form of masculinity at all. To say that a particular form of masculinity is hegemonic means that its exaltation stabilizes a structure of dominance and oppression in the gender order as a whole. To be culturally exalted, the pattern of masculinity must have instances who are noteworthy as heroes. (13) But when we examine these bearers of hegemonic masculinity, they witnessm scarcely up to the task, with to a greater extent than than exclusively feet of clay.A bunsball star is a model of hegemonic masculinity. (14) But is a model? When the self-aggrandising Australian Rules football player, Warwick the tightest shorts in sports Capper, combined football with modelling, does this confirm or decrease his exemplary status? When Wally (the tycoon) Lewis explained that the price he will hand for another(prenominal) five years p layacting in the professional Rugby unite is the surgical replacement of two his knees, this is undoubtedly the stuff of good, old, tried and true, tough and stoic, masculinity.But how tidy is a man who mutilates his body, almost as a matter of vogue, merely because of a job? When Lewis announced that he was quitting the real prestigious State of Origin football series because his year-old daughter had been diagnosed as hearing-impaired, is this hegemonic? In Australian surfing champion, iron man Steve Donoghue, Connell has plunge an exemplar of masculinity who lives an exemplary version of hegemonic masculinity. But, says Donoghue, I have love the idea of not having to work .Five hours a day is still a upsurge but it is something that I enjoy that passel are not telling me what to do. This is not the right stuff. Nor are hegemonic men hypothetical to admit to strangers that their life is like being in jail. Connell reveals further contradictions when he explains that S teve, the exemplar of masculine toughness, finds his own exemplary status prevents him from doing exactly what his peer group defines as thoroughly masculine behaviour exhalation wild, showing off, drunk driving, getting into fights, reason his own prestige. This is not power. And when we look to see why many young men take up sport we find they are dictated by the famish for affiliation in the words of Hammond and Jablow we see the felt take for connectedness and nighness. How hegemonic is this? (15) crotchet and counter-hegemony Let us, however, pursue the argument by turning now to examine those purported counter-hegemonic forces that are supposedly generated by the gender system itself. There are three main reasons why male queerness is regarded as counter-hegemonic. Firstly, disgust to homo- exuality is seen as fundamental to male straight personity fleckly, homosexuality is associated with effeminacy and 3rdly, the form of homosexual plea for certain is itself cons idered subversive. (16) Antagonism to homo men is a standard trace of hegemonic masculinity in Australia. Such hostility is inherent in the construction of heterosexual masculinity itself. Conformity to the demands of hegemonic masculinity, pushes heterosexual men to homophobia and rewards them for it, in the form of social foul and reduced anxiety about their own manliness.In other words, male heterosexual individuation is sustained and affirmed by offense for, and fear of, gay men. (17) Although homosexuality was congenial with hegemonic masculinity in other quantify and places, this was not true in post-invasion Australia. The most obvious characteristic of Australian male homosexuals, according to Johnston and Johnston, has been a double deviance. It has been and is a constant struggle to attain the goals roofy by hegemonic masculinity, and some men take exception this rigidity by ac grappleledging their own effeminacy. This rejection and command assisted in changing homosexuality from being an aberrant (and widespread) sexual practice, into an indistinguishability when the homosexual and lesbian subcultures pinchd the hegemonic gender roles, mirror-like, for each sex. Concomitantly or consequently, homosexual men were socially be as unmanly and any kind of powerlessness, or a refusal to compete, readily becomes involved in the vision of homosexuality (18) While being subverted in this fashion, hegemonic masculinity is overly jeopardize by the assertion of a homosexual individuality confident that homosexuals are able to give each other sexual pleasure.According to Connell, the inherent egalitarianism in gay kindreds that exists because of this transitive verb structure (my lovers lover can besides be my lover), challenges the hierarchical and oppressive temper of male heterosexuality. (19) However, over time, the connection between homosexuality and effeminacy has broken. The flight from masculinity evident in male homosexuality, note d thirty years ago by Helen Hacker, may be true no longer, as forms of homosexual behaviour face to require an exaggeration of some aspects of hegemonic masculinity, notably the cult of oughness and physical aggression. If hegemonic masculinity necessarily involves aggression and physical dominance, as has been suggested, then the affirmation of gay sexuality need not imply support for womens bagging at all, as the chequered experience of women in the gay movement attests. (20) More than a decade ago, Australian lesbians had noted, We make the mistake of assuming that lesbianism, in itself, is a radical position. This had led us, in the past, to support a whole range of events, ventures, political perspectives, etc. ust because it is lesbians who hold those beliefs or are doing things. It is as ludicrous as accept that every working class person is a communist. (21) Even though at that place are many reasons to think that there are important differences in the expression and c onstruction of womens homosexuality and mens homosexuality, peradventure there is something to be learned from this. Finally, it is not gayness that is clearive to homosexual men, but maleness. A man is lusted after(prenominal) not because he is homosexual but because hes a man. How counter-hegemonic can this be?Changing men, gender divider and nonrecreational and undischarged work Connell notes, Two possible ways of working for the ending of patriarchy which move beyond guilt, fixing your head and heart, and blaming men, are to challenge gender segmentation in compensable work and to work in mens counter-sexist groups. Particularly, though, countersexist politics need to move beyond the small consciousness raising group to operate in the workplace, unions and the state. (22) It is sound to opine men challenge gender segmentation in paid work by voluntarily dropping a third of their wage packet.But it does happen, although perhaps the change magnitude slabber of men in to womens jobs may have to a greater extent to do with the prodding of a certain invisible finger. Lichterman has suggested that more than political elements of the mens movement contain benevolent service workers, students, parttimers. and odd-jobbers. Those in paid work, work in over-whelmingly female occupations -counselling, nursing, and elementary teaching are mentioned. In this sense, their position in the turn over market has made them predisposed to comment hegemonic masculinity, the common sense about breadwinning and manhood. It can similarly be seen as a defence against the loss of these things, as men attempt to colonize womens occupations in a job market that is increasingly competitive, particularly for mens jobs.? (23) If we broaden the focus on the desegmentation of paid work to include unpaid work, more interesting things occur. While Connell has suggested that hegemonic masculinity is confirmed in fatherhood, the practice of parenting by men actually calcu lates to undermine it. virtually men have an exceptionally destitute idea about what fatherhood involves, and indeed, active parenting doesnt even enter into the idea of manhood at all.Notions of fathering that are acceptable to men concern the exercise of impartial discipline, from an aflame distance and removed from favouritism and partiality. In hegemonic masculinity, fathers do not have the competency or the skill or the need to electric charge for tikeren, especially for babies and infants, while the relationship between female parents and young small fryren is seen as crucial. Nurturant and care- with child(p) behaviour is simply not manly. Children, in turn, tend to have more abstract and impersonal relations with their fathers.The difficulty is severely compounded for divorced fathers, most of whom have extremely teeny-weeny steamy contact with their children. (24) As Messner has explained, while the man is out there establishing his .name in public, the woman is ordinarily home caring for the day-to-day and moment-to-moment require of her family . Tragically, only in mid- life, when the children have already left the nest do some men discover the importance of connection and intimacy. (25) Nonetheless, of the footling time that men spend in unpaid work, proportionally more of it goes now into child care.Russell has begun to explore the possibility that greater participation by men in parenting has led to substantial shifts in their ideas of masculinity. The reverse is probably true too. Hochschild found in her study that men who shared care with their partners rejected their own detached, absent and tyrannic fathers. The number of men primarily amenable for parenting has grown dramatically in Australia, increasing five-fold between 1981 and 1990. The number of families with dependent children in which the man was not in paid work but the woman was, rose from 16,200 in 1981 to 88,100 in 1990.Women, however, still amount men in this po sition ten to one. (26) Not only a mans subservient relations with others are challenged by close parenting, but so are his slavish relations with himself. work forces sense of themselves is threatened by intimacy. Discovering the affection, autonomy, and agency of babies and children, disconcerted by an unusual inability to cope, men are compelled to re-evaluate their attitude to themselves. In Russells study, the fathers who provided primary child care constantly marvelled at and welcomed the changes that had taken place in their relationships with their children. (27) Even Neville Wran, the former premier of the Australian state of overbold South Wales whose most renowned political activity was putting the blowtorch to the breadbasket of political opponents. said of fatherhood, which occurred in his sixties, Its making me a more patient, tolerant, reckoning human being. Im a real marshmallow. (28) The men who come to full-time fathering do not, however, regard themselves a s unmanly, even though their experiences have resulted in major shifts in their ideas about children, child care, and women.In fact, one quarter of them considered these changes a major gain from their parenting work. This was despite the fact that these mens male friends and workmates were highly critical of their desertion of the breadwinner role, describing them, for instance, as being bludgers, a bit funny, a bit of a woman, and under the thumb. (29) This stigmatism may be receding as the possibility of securing the childrens future, once part of the fathers righteousness in his relations with the public sphere, is fitting less and less possible as unemployment bites deeper. 30) Child-minders and day-care workers have confirmed that the children of active fathers were more secure and less anxious than the children of non-active fathers. mental studies have revealed them to be better unquestionable socially and intellectually. Furthermore, the results of active fatherhood look to last. There is considerable evidence to suggest that greater interaction with fathers is better for children, with the sons and daughters of active fathers displaying lower levels of sex-role stereotyping. (31) workforce who share the second shift had a happier family life and more harmonious marriages.In a longitudinal study, Defrain found that parents reported that they were happier and their relationships improved as a result of shared parenting. In an American study, house husbands felt positive about their increase contribution to the family-household, paid work became less central to their definition of themselves, and they noted an forward motion in their relationships with their female partners. (32) One of the substantial bases for metamorphosis for Connells six changing heterosexual men in the environmental movement as the learning of domestic labour, which involves giving to people, looking after people. In the similar sense that feminism claimed wound up lif e as a source of arrogance and self respect, active fathers are repugn hegemonic masculinity. For hegemonic masculinity, real work is elsewhere, and relationships dont require energy, but provide it. (33) There is overly the question of time. The time spent establishing the intimacy that a man may crave is also time away from establishing and maintaining the competitive edge, or the public face. There are no prizes for being a good father, not even when being one is defined narrowly in terms of breadwinning. (34) societal struggles over time are signify with class and gender. It is not only that the rich and powerful are paid handsomely for the time they sell, have more disposable time, more free time, more control over how they use their time, but the gender dimensions of time use within classes are equally compelling. No one performs less unpaid work, and receives greater remuneration for time spent in paid work, than a male of the ruling class.The changes that are occurring remain uncertain, and there is, of course, a sting in the tail. Madison Avenue has found that emotional lability and soft receptivity to whats current and raise are more appropriate to a consumer-orientated society than hardness and emotional distance. departed television commercials tended to portray men as Marlboro macho or as idiots, but contemporary viewers see men readiness, feeding babies, and shopping. Insiders in the advertising perseverance say that the quick and easy cooking sections of magazines and refreshedspapers are as much to attract male readers as overworked women.U. S. Sports Illustrated now carries advertisements for coffee, cereal, deodorants, and soup. According to Judith Langer, whose market-research firm services A. T. & T. , Gil allowte. and Pepsico among others, it is now acceptably masculine to care about ones house. (35) The new man that comes at us through the media seems to reinforce the social order without challenging it. And he brings with hi m, too, a new con for women. In their increasing assumption of breadwinning, femocratic and skilled worker occupations, the line goes, women render themselves incomplete.They must -give up their femininity in their appropriation of male jobs and power, but men who embrace the feminine become more complete. (36) And if that isnt tricky enough, the new men that seem to be emerging are simply unattractive. Indeed, theyre boring. Connells six changing heterosexual men in the environmental movement were attracted to women who were strong, independent, active. (37) Isnt everybody attracted by these qualities? Gay men find new men irritating and new men are not too sure how keen they should be on each other, and no feminist worth her common salt would be seen dead with one.The ruling class Really real men? If the meaning of the concept of hegemonic masculinity is that it directs us to look for the contradictions within an autonomous gender system that will cause its transformation, then we must conclude it has failed. The challenges to hegemonic masculinity identified by its theorists and outlined above seem either to be complicit with, or broader than, the gender system that has apparently generated them. I can value why Connell is practically interested in and theoretically intrigued by arguing against the notion of the externality of gender change. Both experience and theory show the impossibility of liberating a dominant group and the difficulty of constructing a movement based not on the shared interest of a group but on the attempt to dismantle that interest. (38) (My emphasis). The key is the phrase constructing a movement. It is only a system which has its own dynamics that can produce the social forces obligatory to change radically that system. But Connell himself has written that gender is part of the relations of drudgery and has always been so.And similarly, that social science cannot understand the state, the political economy of advanced capital ist economy. the personality of class, the process of modernisation or the nature of imperialism, the process of socialisation, the structure of consciousness or the politics of knowledge, without a full-blooded analysis of gender. (39) There is nothing outside gender. To be involved in social relations is to be inextricably inside gender. If everything, in this sense, is within gender, why should we be disquieted about the exteriority of the forces for social change?Politics, economics, engineering science are gendered. We have seen the invisible hand someone wittier than I remarked, It is white, hairy and manicured. Is there, then, some place we can locate exemplars of hegemonic masculinity that are less fractured, more coherent, and thusly easier to read? Where its central and defining features can be seen in sharper relief? If the public face of hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily even what powerful men are, then what are they necessarily? why is it no mean feat to pr oduce the kind of people who can actually operate a capitalist system? (40) Even though the concept hegemony is grow in concern with class domination, regular knowledge of ruling class masculinity is slight as yet, but it is sure enough intriguing. One aspect of ruling class hegemonic masculinity is the belief that women dont count in big matters, and that they can be dealt with by jocular patronage in little matters. Another is in defining what big and little are. intimate politics are simply not a bother to men of the ruling class. Senior executives couldnt dish out as bosses without the patriarchal household.The exercise of this form of power requires quite special conditions formal femininity and domestic subordination. Two-thirds of male treetop executives were married to housewives. The qualities of intelligence and the capacity for hard work which these women bring to marriage are matched, as friends of Anita Keating, the wife of the Prime diplomatic minister of Aust ralia, remarked, by intense devotion her husband and her children are her life. Colleen Fahey, the wife of the premier of new South Wales, had completed an 18-month part-time horticulture course at her local technical college, and she valued to continue her studies full-time. But my husband wouldnt let met, she said. He said that he didnt think it was right for a mother to have a job when she had a 13-year-old child I think if Id put my foot down and said Id really wanted a career, hed have said, Youre a malodorous mother leaving those kids. (41) The case for this sort of behaviour is simply not as compelling for working-class men, the mothers and the wives of most of whom contract paid work as a matter of course. Success itself can aggrandise this need for total devotion, while change magnitude the chances of its fulfilment outside of the domestic realm.For the undefeated are likely to have difficulty establishing intimate and lasting friendships with other males becaus e of low self-disclosure, homophobia, and cut-throat competition. The corporate world expects men to utter little of their personal lives and to restrain personal feelings, especially affectionate ones, towards their colleagues while cultivating a certain bland affability. Within the corporate structure, success is achieved through individual competition rather than dyadic or group bonding. The distinction between home and work is crucial and carefully maintained. For men in the corporation, friends have their place outside work. (42) While William Shawcross, the biographer of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, found him courageous and charming, others close to Murdoch described him as arrogant, cocky, insensitive, verging on dangerous, dead ruthless, and an efficient Visigoth. Murdoch himself described his life as consisting of a series of interlocking wars. Shawcross also found that Murdoch possessed an instinctive feel for money and power and how to use them both had a relentless, u nceasing drive and energy, worked harder and more determinedly than anybody else, was sure that what he was doing was line up, believed that he had become invincible, and was driven by the desire to win at all costs. (43) And how must it feel to know that you can have whatsoever you want, and that end-to-end your life you will be looked after in every way, even to the point of never having to dress and undress yourself? thereof the view that hegemonic masculinity is hegemonic insofar as it succeeds in relation to women is true, but partial. Competitiveness, a combination of the calculative and the combative, is institutionalised in business and is central to hegemonic masculinity. The enterprise of winning is life-consuming, and this form of competitiveness is an inward dark competitiveness, focussed on the self, creating, in fact, an instrumentality of the personal. (44)Hegemonic masculinity is a question of how particular groups of men inhabit positions of power and wealth, and how they decriminalise and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance. (45) by hegemonic masculinity most men benefit from the control of women. For a very a couple of(prenominal) men, it delivers control of other men. To put it another way, the crucial difference between hegemonic masculinity and other masculinities is not the control of women, but the control of men and the representation of this as universal social advancement, to paraphrase Gramsci.Patriarchal capitalism delivers the sense, before a man of whatever masculinity even climbs out of bed in the morning, that he is better than fractional of humankind. But what is the nature of the masculinity collateral not only that, but also delivering power over most men as well? And what are its attractions? A sociology of rulingclass men is long overdue. Footnotes 1. M. Waters. Patriarchy and Viriarchy An geographic expedition and Reconstruction of Concepts of Masculine Domination. Sociology 7 (1 989) 143-162. 2. A. Hochschild with A. Machung. The abet Shit Woking parents and the Revolution at fundament ( in the buff York Viking. 989) 257. 3. M. Donaldson, Time of Our Lives Labour and Love in the Working Class (Sydney Allen and Unwin, 1991). 3. R. Connell. Theorising sex activity, Sociology, 19 (1985) 263 R. Connell, The wrong(p) Stuff Reflections on the Place of sexual activity in American Sociology. in H. J. Gans, editor, Sociology in America ( advancedbury-Park Sage Publications 1990), 158 R. Connell, The State, Gender and internal Politics Theory and Appraisal , Theory and Society 19/5 (1990) 509-523. 5. Connell. Theorising Gender, 260. 6. R. Connell, Which route is Up? Essays on Class, Sex and glossiness (Sydney George Allen and Unwin, 1983), 234-276. 7.T. Carrigan, B. Connell. and J. Lee, Toward a natural Sociology of Masculinity. in H. Brod. editor. The qualification of Masculinities The mod Mens Studies (Boston. Allen and Unwin), 75. 8. R. Connell. Gende r and index number Society, the Person and Sexual Politics (Sydney Allen and Unwin. 1987), 107 Carrigan. Connell and Lee, 95. 9. Carrigan, Connell. and Lee. Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity. 86 Connell, Which room is Up? 185. 10. Connell, Which expression is Up Connell. Gender and baron R. Connell, A strong New public Remaking Masculinity in the consideration of the Environmental Movement, Gender and Society 4 (1990) 352-378 R.Connell. An contract Man The Body and Some Contradictions of Hegemonic Masculinity, in M. Messner and D. Sabo, editors, Sport, Men and the Gender high society (Champaign. Ill. Human Kinetics Books, 1990) Connell, The State, Gender and Sexual Politics Carrigan, Connell and Lee, 86 R. Chapman. The Great postiche Variations in the New Man Theme. in R. Chapman and J. Rutherford. editors. . manly Order Unwrapping Masculinity (London Lawrence and Wishart. 1988) 9-18 C. Cockburn. Masculinity, the Left and Feminism. in Male Order103329 P. Lichterman . Making a Politics of Masculinity, Comparative Social Research 11 (1989) 185-208 M. Messner The Meaning of Success The acrobatic Experience and the Development of Male Identity, in The Making of Masculinities193-2 10 J. Rutherford. Whos That Man? in Male Order, 21-67. I I. Connell, Which Way is Up 236, 255, 256. 12. Connell, Which Way is Up 185,186,239. 13. Connell, Iron Man, 83, 94. 14. Connell, only New World, 459. 15. D. Hammond and A. Jablow, Gilgamesh and the Sundance Kid The Myth of Male Friendship, in The Making of Masculinities 256 Messner. The Meaning of Success, 198 Connell. Iron Man. 87, 93 Donoghue in Connell. Iron Man, 84-85. 16. Carrigan, Connell, and Lee, Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity Connell, Gender and Power. 17. G. Herek, On Heterosexual Masculinity Some somatogenic Consequences of the Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality, in M. Kimmel, editor, Changing Men, New Directions on Men and Masculinity (Newbury Park Sage. 1987) 71-72 Connell. Whole New World, 369. 18. Carrigan, Connell and Lee, Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity 93 C. Johnson and R. Johnston, The Making of Homosexual Men. in V. Burgmann and J.Lee, editors, fleck the Wattle. A Peoples History of Australia Since 1788. (Fitzroy McPhee Gribble/Penguin, 1988) 91 Connell, Gender and Power 80 Carrigan, Connell and Lee 86. 19. Carrigan, Connell, and Lee. 85 Connell. Gender and Power 116. 20. Johnston and Johnston. Homosexual Men. 94 Carrigan. Connell, and Lee. 74 J. Hearn, The Gender of Oppression Men, Masculinity and the Critique of Marxism (Brighton Wheatsheaf, 1987) Connell, , Gender and Power 60 Connell, Which Way is Up 234. 177-178. 21. Otto in L. Ross. Escaping the easy of Loneliness. Staining the Wattle 107. 22.Connell. Whole New World, 474-475, 477. 23, Lichterman, Making a Politics. 187-188, 201, 204. 24. Hochschild, atomic number 16 Shift, 239 V. Seidler, Fathering, authorisation and Masculinity, Male Order, 276 G. Russell, The Changing business of fice of Fathers? (St. Lucia University of Queensland Press. 1983), 98. 117 Seidler, Fathering, 287 Hochschild, Second Shift, 249 Connell, Which Way is Up, 32. 25. Messner. Meaning of Success, 201. 26. Russell, Changing Role Hochschild, Second Shift, 2, 217, 227 C. Armitage, House Husbands. The Problems They Face, Sydney Morning predict (4 July 1991) 16. 27. Seidler. Fathering, 298, 290, 295 Russell, Changing Role, 177. 28. Bicknell, Neville Wran A Secret Sadness, New Idea (May 11, 1991) 18. 29. Russell, Changing Role, 128-129, 135-136. 30, Seidler. Fathering, 283. 31. Hochschild, Second Shift, 218, 237 P. Stein. Men in Families, Marriage and Family Review 7 (1984) 155. 32. Hochschild, Second Shift, 216 Defrain in Stein, Men in Families. 156 E. Prescott, New Men, American Demographics 5 (1983) 19. 33. Connell. Whole New World. 465 Seidler, Fathering, 275. 31. Donaldson, Time of Our Lives, 20-29. 35. Chapman, Great Pretender, 212 Prescott, New Men. 16, 20, 18. 36. Chapman, Great Pr etender, 213. 37. Connell, Whole New World, 465. 38. Connell, Whole New World, 176. 39. Connell, Gender and Power, 15 Connell, The scathe Stuff, 161. 40. Connell, Which Way is Up 71. 41. R. Connell, Teachers Work (Sydney George Allen and Unwin, 1985). 187 Connell. Which Way is Up 71 Hochschild, Second Shift, 255 N. Barrowblough and P. McGeough. womanhood of Mystery. The Trump Card Keating Hasnt Played, Sydney Morning Herald, (8 June 1991) 35. D. Cameron. salutary an Average Mrs. Premier, Sydney Morning Herald, (28 Nov. 1992) 41. 42. M.Barrett, Womens Oppression immediately Problems in . Marxist Feminist abridgment (London Verso, 1980) 187-216 Messner, Meaning of Success. 201 R. Ochberg, The Male Career principle and The Ideology of Role, in The Making of Masculinities 173. 184 Hammond and Jablow, 255-256 Illawarra Mercury, Family Comments Greeted with Fury. (1 declination 1992) 7. 43. W. Shawcross, Rupert Murdoch, Ringmaster of the Information Circus (Sydney Random House. 1 992). 44. Carrigan. Connell. and Lee, 92 Connell, Gender and Power, 156 Connell. Iron Man. 91 Seidler. Fathering, 279. 45. Carrigan, Connell, and Lee, 92.