Rancid wrote:Most men I know are able to express feelings other than aggression.
That's fucking dense. Can't say I really understand what it's all trying to say.
I posted from my phone so I didn't really add much more but the first quotation is a summary of different offshoots and reactions to the women's liberation movement/feminism.
I quote alongside the quote that follows it to emphasize the MMM as having a view of masculinity as something essential to some inner being of men. But such an essentialized inner world is metaphysical in that they merely posit its existence as many do, it is an error of thought to assume the origins of a thing comes from it in isolation.
onsider another example showing how beliefs about sex differences cloud people's analytical vision. How often have we heard question like: will women who enter high-status jobs or political positions end up looking like men or will the result of their entry be a change in the way business and politics is conducted? Implicit in this question are a set of strong assumptions: men have essential personality characteristics and cultural orientations that have shaped the terrain of high status jobs and women have different essential personality characteristics and cultural orientations. The conclusion is that and women's entry into these positions unleashes a conflict between their feminine essence and the dominant masculine essence that has shaped the positions. Either the positions must change to adapt to women's distinctive characteristics or the women must become masculine. (It is perhaps telling that those who raise this issue usually seem concerned only with women entering high-status positions; it is unclear if women becoming factory workers are believed immune or unimportant.) The analytical flaw here i assuming that masculinity has shaped the character of jobs rather than that jobs have shaped masculinity. In her well-known book Men and Women of the Corporation, Rosabeth Kanter argued persuasively that the personality characteristics associated with male and female corporate employees really reflected the contours of their positions. The implication is simple and straightforward. Women who enter high-status positions will look about the same as men in those positions not because they are becoming masculine, but because they're adapting to the demands and opportunities of the position, just like men.http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/future.of.gender/Readings/DownSoLong--Persistence&Origins.pdf
Many authors have suggested that feminine personality characteristics (including a lack of drive) explain women's lack of success in climbing corporate ladders. Kantor has persuasively argued that these characteristics are really a direct result of structural conditions. Men placed in positions with no opportunities for advancement and with no effective power show the same personality and behavior characteristics as women in such positions. In the past, however, all women were condemned to occupy the positions without futures. Only men could realistically aspire to rise. Therefore we have good evidence that inequality produces differential motives to dominate weighed against no evidence of any inherent sexual difference in such motives.
From this they assert that men's deep masculinity has been harmed by modern society and men need to get together to get back in touch with their manliness.
As a crude opinion, they're middle class wankers who have lost a sense of meaning in their lives for a lack of ritual and sanctity destroyed by commodification.
The latter two quotes have to do with Raewyn Connell's position on toxic masculinity where they dismiss the primacy given to it and don't treat it as that significant a concept than saying that some things associated with masculinity are bad in their effect to both men and women.
And with the framework of hegemony as appropriated from Gramsci, they're trying to explain a multitude of 'masculnities' in terms of expectations and reproduced behaviours in men in different positions in society.
There is no monolithic sense of masculinity and part of that is because to include all men together is to have a rather abstract conception. Such an issue has been present even in the feminist movement which got broken down into particulars with third wave feminist intersectionality which despite the emphasis given to transgender stuff, was originally about white middle to upper class women being considered as feminists to the neglect of black women.
The issue being simply categorizing a group of people together based on some shared characteristic is typical of abstract generalities that don't reflect the contours of reality but simply select some shared trait.
This isn't a way to think meaningfully of any group and is why one has to look at actually organized groups of people with shared aims, ie being a man or a woman doesn't mean you essentially share much in common with all other men and women.https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/flourishing.pdf
We also take ‘projects’ rather than ‘groups’ as a unit of analysis. That is, rather than seeing a community as a mosaic of groups of various kinds – ethnic groups, age groups, occupational groups, voters, consumers, etc. – we see the social fabric as woven of projects.
This has a number of implications. Firstly, it means we do not take subjects as nonentities with contingent attributes attached (gender, occupation, ethnicity, ...) by means of which they can be pigeon holed into various groups. We see social life as made up of people pursuing common ends, i.e., projects, and the community as we find it is the product of these projects. This society, with its laws, customs, land, human beings, etc., is all created and shaped by past projects and kept alive by the projects we pursue today. Every individual human life is itself a project.
So toxic masculinity/femininity presupposes as positive/authentic masculinity/femininity and thus tends to assume some metaphysical essence of one's sex (see this with biological determinist views of humans that take biological processes and leap to social explanations rather than they being explained in their own terms).
There have been those that associate the term toxic masculinity with feminism/women's lib, such as in the honeybadger link I first posted and many who simply pick up the term. But it doesn't seem to be a signiicant conceptual tool other than saying certain behaviours associated with men are detrimental
to others and themselves in some way.
As such, it's not really that meaningful a concept as it's not really that concrete in terms of being a combination of essential abstractions to base it within real world relations and thus give it explanatory power, as it merely amounts to saying something is bad which is but an early stage of thought and probably why it doesn't amount to much except in academia.
(a) In the Qualitative Judgment, the subject is ascribed a single quality, the relevant social practice is said to be good or bad, or novel or whatever. Hegel presents a logical critique of any such judgment, hinging around the point that equating an individual with a particular is always faulty.
And it's possible inclusion in Connell's hegemonic masculinity is minor, and the concept of hegemonic masculinity is trying to solve a problem long identified about the deficiency of identifying shared aims based on one's sex and is trying to solve it by giving explanation to particular positions of people and their behavior.