Deviance. Topic Questions

University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Arts paper Faculty of Arts 1993 What Is Hegemonic Masculinity? Mike Donaldson University of Wollongong, email& wizard hundred sixtyprotected edu. au result Details Donaldson, M, What Is Hegemonic Masculinity? , Theory and Society, Special Issue Masculinities, October 1993, 22(5), 643-657. Copyright 1993 Springer. The trustworthy publication is available here at www. springerlink. com. Research Online is the open addition institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further in administration contact the UOW Library email&160protected edu. au Theory and Society, Vol. 22, No. 5,Special Issue Masculinities, Oct. , 1993, pp. 643-657. What Is Hegemonic Masculinity? Mike Donaldson Sociology, University of Wollongong, Australia Structures of oppression, forces for counterchange A developing debate at bottom the growing theoretical literary productions on custody and manfulness concerns the transactionhip of s exual urge schemas to the companionable take shapeation. cruci wholey at issue is the question of the autonomy of the gender devote. Some, in special(a) Waters, ar of the opinion that change in masculine gender outlines historically has been ca enjoymentd exogenously and that, without those external factors, the governing bodys would stably cast. 1) For Hochschild, the motor of this social change is the economy, grouchyly and currently, the p arntage in the purchasing power of the male wage, the decline in the sum and proportion of male skilled and unskilled jobs, and the rise in womanly jobs in the growing receiptss sector. (2) I heap about argued that gender relations themselves be bisected by tell relations and vice-versa, and that the salient mo custodyt for digest is the relation between the two. (3) On the other(prenominal) side of the cable, others have been laborious to establish the laws of motion of gender systems.Connell, for instance, has insist ed on the independence of their coordinates, patterns of move surviveforcet. and de borderinations, or so nonably in his devastating critiques of sexrole theory. Change is al flairs roundthing that happens to sex roles, that impinges on them. It comes from outside, as in discussions of how technological and economic changes demand a shift to a modern male role for disciplineforce. Or it comes from inside the person, from the real self that protests against the artificial restrictions of restrict 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 dynamics that peck plainly be naughtily considered when the historicity of the structure of gender relations, the gender order of the society, is the point of de snap offure. (4) This concern with broad, historical feces is linked to the question of male cozy politics. Clearly, if workforce wish to challenge patriarchy and win, the ce ntral question must be, who and where argon the soldiers of re curryers? (5) But the semipolitical project of rooting out the sexism in maleness has proved intensely difficult because the encumbrance of constructing a move workforcet of manpower to dismantle hegemonic maleness is that its logic is non the articulation of collective amour however the attempt to dismantle that interest. (6) It is this excogitation of hegemonic masculinity on which the product line for autonomy of the gender structures turns, for it is this that links their broader historical sweep to lived experience.Put simply, if the gender system has an independence of structure, move workforcet, and determinations, then(prenominal) we should be able to identify counter-hegemonic forces within it if these are not identifiable, then we must question the autonomy of the gender system and the existence of hegemonic masculinity as central and particular(prenominal) to it. On the other hand, if gender systems are not autonomous, then the question wherefore, in specific social formations, do certain ways of being male predominate, and particular disciplines of work force rule? tarrys to be answered and the resistances to that order still abide to be place.The political implications of the issue are clear. If there is an independent structure of masculinity, then it should produce counter-hegemonic movements of men, and all good blokes should get involved in them. If the structure is not independent, or the movements not counterhegemonic, or the counter-hegemony not moving, then political practice will not be centred on masculinity and what do we men do then, about the masculine images in and by dint of and finished which we have shaped a world so cruel to roughly of its inhabitants?Hegemony and masculinity Twenty years ago, Patricia Sexton suggested that male norms stress determine such as courage, inner direction, certain forms of aggression, autonomy. mastery, technological skill, pigeonholing solidarity, lark and considerable amounts of intemperateness in mind and body. (7) It is tho relatively lately that social scientists have sought to link that insight with the concept of hegemony, a intuitive feeling as slippery and difficult as the idea of masculinity itself.Hegemony, a pivotal concept in Gramscis Prison Notebooks and his virtually intelligibleiary contri scarceion to Marxist recalling, is about the winning and holding of power and the formation (and destruction) of social groups in that process. In this smell, it is importantly about the ways in which the ruling class establishes and maintains its domination. The ability to impose a definition of the situation, to rank the terms in which events are understood and issues discussed, to formulate ideals and define faith is an essential part of this process.Hegemony involves persuasion of the greater part of the population, particularly through the media, and the organization of soci al institutions in ways that appear natural, ordinary normal. The state, through punishment for non-conformity, is crucially involved in this negotiation and enforcement. (8) Heterosexuality and homophobia are the bedrock of hegemonic masculinity and any understanding of its character and meaning is predicated on the feminist insight that in general the relationship of men to women is oppressive.Indeed, the term hegemonic masculinity was invented and is used principally to maintain this central focus in the critique of masculinity. A fundamental element of hegemonic masculinity. then. is that women exist as authorization sexual objects for men charm men are negated as sexual objects for men. Women provide heterosexual men with sexual validation, and men compete with apiece other for this. This does not of necessity involve men being particularly nasty to individual women. Women whitethorn feel as oppressed by non-hegemonic masculinities, may even find some expressions of the hegemonic pattern more than long-familiar and manageable. (9)More than fifty books have appeared in the English language in the exist 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 plant life of Carrigan, Connell, and Lee. Chapman, Cockburn, Connell, Lichterman, Messner, and Rutherford, involves a specific strategy for the subordination of women. In their view, hegemonic masculinity concerns the dread of and the flight from women. A culturally idealized form, it is both a in-person and a collective project, and is the common sense about breadwinning and manhood.It is exclusive, anxiety-provoking, internally and hierarchically differentiated, brutal, and violent. It is pseudo-natural, tough, contradictory, crisis-pr wiz, rich, and socially sustained. While centrally connected with the institutions of male dominance, not all men practice it. though close expediency from it. Although cross-class. it often excludes workingclass and glowering men. It is a lived experience, and an economic and cultural force, and dependent on social arrangements. It is constructed through difficult negotiation all over a life- fourth dimension. Fragile it may be, provided it constructs the most dangerous things we live with.Resilient, it incorporates its possess critiques, tho it is, nonetheless(prenominal), unravelling. (10) What can men do with it? According to the authors cited above, and others, hegemonic masculinity can be analyzed, remotenessd from, appropriated, negated, challenged, reproduced, separated from, renounced, wedded up, chosen, constructed with difficulty, af riotous, imposed, departed from, and modernized. (But not, apparently, enjoyed. ) What can it do to men? It can fascinate, undermine, appropriate some mens bodies, organize, impose, pass itself off as natural, deform, harm, and deny. But not, seemingly, enrich and sati sfy. ) Which groups are most spry in the fashioning of masculinist sexual ideology? It is align that the bran-new Right and fascism are vigorously constructing aggressive, dominant, and violent determines of masculinity. But generally, the most influential agents are considered to be priests, journalists, advertisers, politicians, psychiatrists, designers, playwrights, film makers, actors, novelists, musicians, activists, academics, coaches, and sportsmen. They are the weavers of the fabric of hegemony as Gramsci compose it, its organizing intellectuals. These the great unwashed regulate and manage gender regimes articulate experiences, fantasies, and perspectives theorize on and interpret gender relations. (11) The cultural ideals these regulators and managers create and perpetuate. we are told, submit not correspond at all closely to the actual personalities of the volume of men (not even to their make ). The ideals may reside in head game figures or models remote from the lives of the unheroic majority, further season they are very public, they do not exist only as publicity.The public face of hegemonic masculinity, the argument goes. is not necessarily even what ruling men are, only if is what sustains their power, and is what extended procedures of men are motivated to support because it benefits them. What most men support is not necessarily what they are. Hegemonic masculinity is naturalised in the form of the hero and presented through forms that revolve around heroes sagas, ballads, westerns, thrillers, in books, films, tv, and in -sporting events. (12) What in the early literature had been written of as the male sex ole is best seen as hegemonic masculinity, the culturally idealised form of masculine character which, however, may not be the usual form of masculinity at all. To think that a particular form of masculinity is hegemonic means that its exaltation stabilizes a structure of dominance and oppression in the gender order a s a whole. To be culturally exalted, the pattern of masculinity must have exemplars who are celebrated as heroes. (13) But when we examine these bearers of hegemonic masculinity, they seem scarcely up to the task, with more than just feet of clay.A football star is a model of hegemonic masculinity. (14) But is a model? When the handsome Australian Rules football player, Warwick the tightest defraud in sports Capper, combined football with modelling, does this confirm or decrease his emblematical status? When Wally (the King) Lewis explained that the price he will pay for another five years playing in the professional Rugby group discussion is the surgical replacement of both his knees, this is undoubtedly the stuff of good, old, tried and consecutive, tough and stoic, masculinity.But how powerful is a man who mutilates his body, almost as a social function of course, merely because of a job? When Lewis announced that he was quitting the very reputable 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 entrap an exemplar of masculinity who lives an exemplary version of hegemonic masculinity. But, says Donoghue, I have loved the idea of not having to work .Five hours a day is still a lot but it is something that I enjoy that people are not telling me what to do. This is not the right stuff. Nor are hegemonic men supposed to admit to strangers that their life is like being in jail. Connell reveals further contradictions when he explains that Steve, the exemplar of masculine toughness, finds his own exemplary status prevents him from doing exactly what his peer group defines as good masculine doings going wild, showing off, drunk driving, getting into fights, defend his own prestige. This is not power. And when we look to see why many another(prenominal) materialisation men take up sport we find they are dictate d by the hunger for affiliation in the words of Hammond and Jablow we see the felt up look at for connectedness and closeness. How hegemonic is this? (15) humanity 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, hostility to homo- exuality is seen as fundamental to male heterosexualism gagely, homosexuality is associated with effeminacy and thirdly, the form of homosexual plea indisputable is itself considered subversive. (16) Antagonism to laughable men is a standard feature of hegemonic masculinity in Australia. such hostility is internal in the twisting of heterosexual masculinity itself. submission to the demands of hegemonic masculinity, pushes heterosexual men to homophobia and rewards them for it, in the form of social support and minify anx iety about their own manliness.In other words, male heterosexual identicalness is sustained and affirmed by hatred for, and fear of, gay men. (17) Although homosexuality was compatible with hegemonic masculinity in other judgment of convictions and places, this was not true in post-invasion Australia. The most obvious characteristic of Australian male homosexuals, accord to Johnston and Johnston, has been a double deviance. It has been and is a constant struggle to attain the goals set by hegemonic masculinity, and some men challenge this rigidity by ac issueledging their own effeminacy. This rejection and affirmation assisted in ever- changing homosexuality from being an abnormal (and widespread) sexual practice, into an identity when the homosexual and lesbian subcultures reversed the hegemonic gender roles, mirror-like, for for each one sex. Concomitantly or consequently, homosexual men were socially defined as female and any kind of powerlessness, or a refusal to compete , readily becomes involved in the imagery of homosexuality (18) While being subverted in this fashion, hegemonic masculinity is in addition threatened by the assertion of a homosexual identity footsure that homosexuals are able to reach out each other sexual pleasure.According to Connell, the inherent egalitarianism in gay relationships that exists because of this transitive structure (my lovers lover can in addition be my lover), challenges the hierarchical and oppressive nature of male heterosexuality. (19) However, over time, the connection between homosexuality and effeminacy has broken. The flight from masculinity evident in male homosexuality, noted thirty years ago by Helen Hacker, may be true no longer, as forms of homosexual behaviour seem to look an exaggeration of some aspects of hegemonic masculinity, notably the cult of oughness and somatogenic 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 run 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 expect 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 printings or are doing things. It is as ludicrous as believing that every working class person is a communist. (21) still though there are many reasons to think that there are important differences in the expression and construction of womens homosexuality and mens homosexuality, perhaps there is something to be learned from this. Finally, it is not gayness that is attractive to homosexual men, but maleness. A man is lusted afterward not because he is homosexual but because hes a man. How counter-hegemonic can this be? changing men, gender air divis ion and paid and unpaid work Connell notes, 2 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 paid work and to work in mens counter-sexist groups. Particularly, though, countersexist politics need to move beyond the small consciousness raising group to tend in the workplace, unions and the state. (22) It is sound to imagine men challenging gender segmentation in paid work by voluntarily dropping a third of their wage packet.But it does happen, although perhaps the increase trickle of men into womens jobs may have more to do with the prodding of a certain occult finger. Lichterman has suggested that more political elements of the mens movement contain human service workers, students, parttimers. and odd-jobbers. Those in paid work, work in over-whelmingly female occupations -counselling, nursing, and elementary didactics are mentioned. In this sense, their positi on in the labour market has make them predisposed to criticise hegemonic masculinity, the common sense about breadwinning and manhood. It can likewise be seen as a defence against the loss of these things, as men attempt to colonize womens occupations in a job market that is progressively 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 seems to undermine it. just about men have an exceptionally impoverished 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 emotional distance and removed from favouritism and partiality. In hegemonic masculinity, fathers do not have the efficacy or the skill or the need to circumspection for children, especially for babies and infants, while the relationship between female parents and young children is seen as crucial. Nurturant and care-giving behaviour is simply not manly. Children, in turn, tend to have more goldbrick and impersonal relations with their fathers.The problem is severely compounded for divorced fathers, most of whom have extremely minuscule emotional contact with their children. (24) As Messner has explained, while the man is out there establishing his .name in public, the woman is usually home care for the day-to-day and moment-to-moment needs of her family . Tragically, only in mid- life, when the children have already left field the nest do some men discover the importance of connection and intimacy. (25) Nonetheless, of the little 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 par enting has led to substantial shifts in their ideas of masculinity. The reverse is believably true too. Hochschild appoint in her study that men who share care with their partners rejected their own detached, absent and overbearing fathers. The number of men primarily responsible 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 add up men in this position ten to one. (26) Not only a mans instrumental relations with others are challenged by close parenting, but so are his instrumental relations with himself. Mens 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 w ho 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 mod South Wales whose most renowned political bodily function was putting the blowtorch to the belly of political opponents. said of fatherhood, which occurred in his sixties, Its making me a more patient, tolerant, understanding human being. Im a real marshmallow. (28) The men who come to full-time fathering do not, however, regard themselves as 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 abandonment of the breadwinner role, describing them, for instance, as being bludgers, a bit funny, a bit of a woma n, and under the thumb. (29) This stigmatism may be receding as the possibility of securing the childrens future, once part of the fathers responsibility in his relations with the public sphere, is becoming 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. Psychological studies have revealed them to be discontinue developed socially and intellectually. Furthermore, the results of active fatherhood seem 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) Men 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, househusbands felt positive about their increased share to the family-household, paid work became less central to their definition of themselves, and they noted an onward 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 schooling of domestic labour, which involves giving to people, looking after people. In the same sense that feminism claimed emotional life as a source of arrogance and self respect, active fathers are challenging hegemonic masculinity. For hegemonic masculinity, real work is elsewhere, and relationships dont require energy, but provide it. (33) There is also the question of time. The time fagged 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) Social struggles over time are intimate with class and gender. It is not only that the rich and powerful are paid handsomely for the time they sell, have more useable 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 washed-out 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 cutting and exciting are more appropriate to a consumer-orientated society than hardness and emotional distance. Past television commercials tended to portray men as Marlboro macho or as idiots, but contemporary viewers see men cooking, feeding babies, and shopping. Insiders in the advertis ement industry say that the quick and easy cooking sections of magazines and newspapers 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. &038 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 him, 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 muliebrity 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 chang ing heterosexual men in the environmental movement were attracted to women who were strong, independent, active. (37) Isnt everybody attracted by these qualities? ethereal 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 salt would be seen late(prenominal) with one.The ruling class Really real men? If the significance 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 appreciate 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 li berating a dominant group and the difficulty of constructing a movement ground 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 necessary to change radically that system. But Connell himself has written that gender is part of the relations of production and has always been so.And similarly, that social science cannot understand the state, the political economy of advanced capitalism. the nature 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 lustful 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 worried about the exteriority of the forces for social change?Politics, economics, applied science are gendered. We have seen the invisible hand someone wittier than I remarked, It is white, pubescent and manicured. Is there, then, some place we can locate exemplars of hegemonic masculinity that are less fractured, more coherent, and thus 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 produce the kind of people who can actually operate a capitalist system? (40) Even though the concept hegemony is rooted in concern with class domination, doctrinal knowledge of ruling class masculinity is slight as yet, but it is certainly intriguing. One aspect of ruling class hegemonic masculinity is the belief that women dont count in man-sized matters, and that they can be dealt with by jesting patronage in little matters. Another is in defi ning what big and little are. internal politics are simply not a problem to men of the ruling class. Senior executives couldnt function as bosses without the immemorial household.The exercise of this form of power requires quite special conditions conventional femininity and domestic subordination. Two-thirds of male top 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 primitive Minister of Australia, 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 wanted 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 stupefy to have a job when she had a 13-year-old child I think if Id put my foo t down and said Id really wanted a career, hed have said, Youre a rotten 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 undertake paid work as a matter of course. achievement itself can amplify this need for total devotion, while lessening the chances of its issue outside of the domestic realm.For the victorful are likely to have difficulty establishing intimate and lasting friendships with other males because of low self-disclosure, homophobia, and cut-throat competition. The corporate world expects men to divulge little of their personal lives and to restrain personal feelings, especially sociable 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, utterly 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, unceasing drive and energy, worked harder and more determinedly than anybody else, was sure that what he was doing was correct, 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 whatever you want, and that throughout your life you will be looked after in every way, even to the point of never having to dress and undress yourself?Thus 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 secret turned 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 legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance. (45) Through hegemonic masculinity most men benefit from the control of women. For a very few 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 planetary social advancement, to paraphrase Gramsci.Patriar chal capitalism delivers the sense, before a man of whatever masculinity even climbs out of bed in the morning, that he is better than half of humankind. But what is the nature of the masculinity confirming 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 (1989) 143-162. 2. A. Hochschild with A. Machung. The Second Shit Woking parents and the Revolution at Home (New York Viking. 989) 257. 3. M. Donaldson, Time of Our Lives Labour and Love in the Working clear up (Sydney Allen and Unwin, 1991). 3. R. Connell. Theorising sex activity, Sociology, 19 (1985) 263 R. Connell, The Wrong Stuff Reflections on the Place of sexual activity in American Sociology. in H. J. Gans, editor, Sociology in America (Newbury- parkland Sage Publications 1990), 158 R. Co nnell, The State, gender and informal Politics Theory and Appraisal , Theory and Society 19/5 (1990) 509-523. 5. Connell. Theorising sex, 260. 6. R. Connell, Which Way is Up? Essays on Class, Sex and Culture (Sydney George Allen and Unwin, 1983), 234-276. 7.T. Carrigan, B. Connell. and J. Lee, Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity. in H. Brod. editor. The devising of Masculinities The New Mens Studies (Boston. Allen and Unwin), 75. 8. R. Connell. sexual practice and Power Society, the somebody 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 Way is Up? 185. 10. Connell, Which Way is Up Connell. gender and Power R. Connell, A Whole New World Remaking Masculinity in the Context of the Environmental Movement, Gender and Society 4 (1990) 352-378 R.Connell. An Iron gentlemans gentleman The Body and Some Contradictions of Hegemonic Masculinity, in M. Messn er and D. Sabo, editors, Sport, Men and the Gender instal (Champaign. Ill. Human Kinetics Books, 1990) Connell, The State, Gender and Sexual Politics Carrigan, Connell and Lee, 86 R. Chapman. The vast Pretender Variations in the New Man Theme. in R. Chapman and J. Rutherford. editors. .Male 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 Athletic 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, Whole New World, 459. 15. D. Hammond and A. Jablow, Gilgamesh and the Sundance Kid The allegory 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 Physical 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 C ritique 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 Well 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, Second Shift, 239 V. Seidler, Fathering, potentiality and Masculinity, Male Order, 276 G. Russell, The Changing Role 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 Herald (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 Pretender, 213. 37. Connell, Whole New World, 465. 38. Connell, Whole New World, 176. 39. Connell, Gender and Power, 15 Connell, The Wrong 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. Woman of Mystery. The Trump Card Keating Hasnt Played, Sydney Morning Herald, (8 June 1991) 35. D. Cameron. notwithstanding an Average Mrs. Premier, Sydney Morning Herald, (28 Nov. 1992) 41. 42. M.Barrett, Womens Oppression Toda y Problems in . Marxist feminist Analysis (London Verso, 1980) 187-216 Messner, Meaning of Success. 201 R. Ochberg, The Male Career Code 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 December 1992) 7. 43. W. Shawcross, Rupert Murdoch, Ringmaster of the Information Circus (Sydney Random House. 1992). 44. Carrigan. Connell. and Lee, 92 Connell, Gender and Power, 156 Connell. Iron Man. 91 Seidler. Fathering, 279. 45. Carrigan, Connell, and Lee, 92.