Cop 3 Reading: Recovering the Feminine Other

Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(1), pp.85-102.

Connell’s Model:

‘Instead of possessing or having masculinity, individuals move through and produce masculinity by engaging in masculine practices’

‘masculinity is an identifiable set of practices that occur across space and over time and are taken up and enacted collectively by groups, communities and societies’ 

‘the configuration of gender practice which embodies the current accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’ Connell (1995) p77

‘all forms of femininity in this society are constructed in the context of the overall subordination of women to men. For this reason, there is no femininity that holds among women the position held by hegemonic masculinity among men’ p187

emphasised femininity 

‘One form is defined around the compliance with this subordination and is oriented to accommodating the interest and desires of men. I will call this ‘emphasised femininity’. Others are defined centrally by strategies of resistance or forms of non-compliance. Others again are defined by complex strategic combinations of compliance, resistance and co-operation’ p184-185 

‘masculinities constructed in ways that realise the patriarchal dividend, without the tensions or risk of the frontline troops of patriarchy’ connell 1995 

‘hegemonic masculinity ensures male dominance, all men benefit on some level even though most men don’t have to be ‘on the front line’ or embody hegemonic masculinity’ 

‘focusing on what most men do will not necessarily reveal how hegemonic masculinity is implicated in gender hegemony’ 

‘we need theory that will allow us to distinguish masculine characteristic and men’s practices that perpetuate male dominance from those that do not’

Subordinate masculinity: Connell 

‘hegemony related to the cultural dominance in the society as a whole. Within that overall framework there are specific gender relations of dominance and subordination between groups of men. The most important case in contemporary European/American society is the dominate of heterosexual men and the subordination of homosexual men…Oppression positions homosexual masculinities at the bottom of a gender hierarchy among men’.  p78 

‘Connell suggests that subordinate masculinities are often conflated with femininity’ p88

‘we are left with no conceptual apparatus with which to distinguish femininity from subordinate masculinities unless we reduced femininity to the practices of women and masculinities to those of men’ (Halberstam, 1998; Lobber,1998; Martin 1998)

Marginalised Masculinity:

‘Connell offers marginalisation to characterise the relationships among men that result as class and race intersect with gender’ 

‘marginalised masculinity are those of subordinated classes or racial/ethnic groups’

‘This relationship is once of authority and marginalisation because hegemonic masculinity is conflated with whiteness and middle-class status’ 

‘within the context of a male dominant gender order, femininity is, by definition, a position of subordination in relation to masculinity’ 

An alternative model:

Judith Butlers theoretical framework for the heterosexual matrix

‘Butler (1990), gender is the socially constructed binary that defines ‘men’ and ‘women’ as two distinct classes of people. The discursive construction of gender assumes that there are certain bodies, behaviours, personality traits and desires that neatly match up to one or the other category’ 

‘both Connell and Butler agree that the categories ‘man’ and ‘women’ include a whole repository of symbolic meanings. These symbolic meanings for gender differences establish the origins (e.g. biology, divine will, socialisation), significance (e.g. defines subjectivity, is the foundation of society) and quality characteristics of each category (e.g. men are physically strong and authoritative/ women are physically vulnerable and compliant).

‘hegemonic features of culture are those that serve the interests and ascendancy of ruling classes, legitimate their ascendancy and dominance, and encourage all to consent to and go along with social relations of ruling’ 

‘it is through social practice that the hierarchical relationship between masculinity and femininity organises material relations of social life’ 

C - masculinity and femininity are culturally specific

‘Masculinities and femininities provide a legitimating rationale not just for embodiment and behaviours by individuals but also for how to coordinate, evaluate and regulate social practices’

‘culturally specific sets of meanings for what women and men are and should be (masculinity and femininity) and the mechanism (social practice) by which those meanings come to shape, influence and transform social structure’. 

Connell and Messerschmidt (2005)

‘discursive perspectives emphasise the symbolic dimensions, whereas the concept of hegemonic masculinity was formulated within a multidimensional understanding of gender. Although any specification of hegemonic masculinity typically involves the formulation of cultural ideals, it should not be regarded only as a cultural norm. Gender relations also are constituted through non-discursive practices, including wage labour, violence, sexuality, domestic about and childcare, as well as through unreflective routinised actions.’

Gender hegemony and multiple masculinities and femininities 

New definition proposed by Schippers based on Connels model, conceptualisation of hegemonic masculinity defined in difference to femininity and the way in which it articulates relationship to femininity: 

‘hegemonic masculinity is the qualities defines as manly that establish and legitimate a hierarchal and complementary relationship to femininity and that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’ 

conceptual space for hegemonic femininity 

‘Hegemonic femininity consists of the characterises defined as woman that establish and legitimate a hierarchal and complementary relationship to hegemonic masculinity and that by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’

Efforts to identify multiple and hierarchal configurations of masculinities and femininities must also force on this relationship:

‘What emerges are gender qualities that cluster into configurations that are constructed, not so much in their difference from and inferiority to hegemonic masculinity as Connell suggests, but instead against the idealised relationship between masculinity and femininity’ 

‘hegemonic gender relations depend on the symbolic construction of desire for feminine object, physical strength and authority as the characteristics that differentiate men from women and define and legitimate their superiority… then these characteristics must remain unavailable to women’

‘To guarantee men’s exclusive access to these characterises, other configurations of feminine characteristics but be defined as deviant and stigmatised. This is needed to define the ideals for femininity, but also to ensure swift and severe social sanction for women who take on or enact hegemonic masculinity’

C- pariah femininities are characteristics of hegemonic masculinity that women posses 

‘I propose calling this set of characteristics pariah femininities instead of subordinate femininities because they are deemed, not so much as inferior, as contaminating to the relationship between masculinity and femininity’

‘it is cultural insurance for male dominance that anybody who enacts or embodies hegemonic characteristics that does not align with their gender category is stigmatised as problematic and feminine’. 

‘masculinity maintains its position of superiority in relation to femininity and men maintain legitimate possession of those superior characteristics regardless of who is embodying femininity or masculinity’

‘there are no masculine characteristics that are stigmatised as contaminating or as subordinate’

C - feminine characteristics are seen as feminine because they are conducted by women even if the woman is displaying a ‘masculine’ characteristic such as aggression/power ‘she’s a bitch’ or sexual desire then ‘she’s a slut’ 

‘there are neither pariah masculinities nor subordinate masculinities. Thus, what where identified by Connell as subordinate masculinities, are, in this model, simply hegemonic femininity embodies or enacted by men’ 

‘we limit male femininities to characteristics and practices that are cultural ascribed to women’

‘there are features of femininity and masculinity that are no central to forming and legitimating a hierarchal relationship between men and women, and thus are neither particularly feminising nor stigmatising’ 

- such as childcare amongst the working class, however this is not the same for higher classes who still draw a distinct line between feathering (economic support) and mothering (nurturing and physical care).

Lena Eskilsson (2003)

research into logging culture in nineteenth century Sweden

‘valued masculine characteristics were not defined in hierarchal relation or in opposition of femininity’ 

‘Masculinity consisted of a strong work ethic, skill and maturity and was not juxtaposed to inferior and complementary characteristics valued by women’ 

C - there views on masculinity where base on characteristics that are not gender specific such as work ethic and can therefor not be inferior when carried out by a women 

‘what actual characteristics and practices are idealised as masculine and feminine is ultimately an empirical question and will vary by context, group and society’ 

p100

‘gender hegemony benefits from race and class hegemony when the gender practices of subordinate race and class groups are defined as problematic or deviant in order to reify and legitimate the ideal quality content for femininity and masculinity’ 

Conclusion: implications for research

‘masculinity and femininity are configurations of meaning and not practice, but it is only by identifying how putting these ideals into practice results in unequal power relations and distribution of resources that we can truly know if they constitute hegemonic femininity and hegemonic masculinity’