Hegemonic masculinity, media, and advertising

In what follows, we offer a sampling of the advertisements discussed in the workshop we held on February 4, 2015 and some of the commentary that accompanied them. Unfortunately, what we cannot provide is a sampling of the lively and entertaining discussion that made the two hours we allotted for the session feel far, far too short. For a glimpse of that, you will have to join us the next time!

- Nathan Kalman-Lamb

Poster for The Men's Team's workshop on masculinity and advertising.

Advertising is simply everywhere; it has become part of our daily audio/visuals and our daily mindset. Nike’s slogan, “Just do it” represents the power and the global influence of advertising. It seems like we are exposed to 100 times the amount of advertising we were even fifteen years ago due to the extent to which media is now broadcasted and received through personal devices. One thing that hasn’t changed, though, is that men and women continue to be represented in radically different ways.

Representation for men and women is considerably different. Men are usually represented as serious, muscle-laden, and dominating. Women are typically portrayed as confused, uncertain, and, perhaps most ubiquitously (unless the portrayal is negative), thin.

What happens when we do not live up to the perceived standards and socially-accepted norms? We simply buy products and services, whether we really need them or not, that promise us satisfaction, happiness, status, even an improved sex life. If we do not buy these products, most of us fear is that we will feel a lack of worth, depression, lower self-esteem, and insecurity, regardless of if we are men or women.

So taken are we with living up to a certain standard or standards presented in media and advertising that we will go to extremes to challenge any obstacle to our personal gender identity and/or gender expression. Some feel so strongly about this that they come to see gender-based violence in one or more of its myriad forms as acceptable. Some feel that being considered beautiful, no matter what the cost, including cosmetic surgery, which has tripled world-wide over the past ten years, becomes justified. They are not.

- Tony Barone

The above ad depicts a hockey coach who is overtly emotional while trying to motivate his team. The interesting part of this commercial is the reaction he elicits from the players, who seem both confused and irritated. The ad condescendingly states "there's no place for sensitivity in hockey," underlining the absurdity of being openly emotional when in a typical masculine atmosphere. The correlation of sports and masculinity is a dominant cultural code in our society, with young boys being mentored in an atmosphere that encourages hostility, aggression,  and a lack of emotion. This ad represents the conditioned stereotype evident in organized sports; the worship of strength and the celebration that comes with the denial of emotion. 

- E. A.

At first glance the commercial comes across as funny and entertaining, but on closer inspection what we are really seeing is media playing with and mixing up our understanding/perception of gender and gender roles.  The commercial works because its ability to disorient and provoke is memorable. This ad challenges our default perceptions of male and female roles. A computer nerd is not supposed to embody masculinity; he is not supposed to be entitled to kiss the swimsuit model.  Not in our world with very clearly defined gender roles and gender identity. The absurdity of the image of them kissing -- according to the logic of hegemonic gender norms -- reinforces the image that we are supposed to (but don't) see: Bar Rafaeli kissing a muscular Hollywood actor or model. In this case, then, masculinity is that which is alluded to but never explicitly shown.

- Tony Barone

There are a number of things implied in these two commercials. Men (and only men) should care about how their beer tastes. Indeed, this is presented as a sort of prerequisite for manhood. However, it is not okay for a man to dress like a woman, for clothing functions as a performance of gender. Thus, manhood is something that must be displayed; it is by what he wears, what he buys - that is, by material things - that a man shows that he is a man. The disdain in both ads for performances of femininity reveals something else as well: 'femininity' is somehow inferior to 'masculinity.' The insults about his 'purse' are not just about the bag itself - they are about calling his manhood into question, indeed, about patronizing him as a lesser form of person: a woman. 

- Christopher Ford

Old Spice has a tradition of utilizing its traditional image of  'manliness' in its ad campaigns and in this commercial they've hired Terry Crews. Crews represents the alpha male, both an actor and past NFL linebacker, he embodies the physical characteristics of a strong and masculine man. What makes this commercial exceptional lies in its satire; both Crews and the directors understand the role of masculinity, and this commercial lampoons the idea with an over-the-top, exaggerated mascot who is so strong and powerful he transcends what is physically possible. The notion of his persona being so desired is also poked fun at with an absurd twist that puts him as the role of every character in the commercial. At the end, he even marries himself, causing him substantial frustration where he then destroys himself with the only thing stronger than him; the product advertised. When the spot concludes, Crews, playing his wife, simply states "men" in a sarcastic and jocular manner, emphasizing the complete absurdity of both the masculinity, and the entire commercial. 

It is also important to acknowledge the way in which race intersects with gender in this ad. The choice of an African-American actor is deliberate, for blackness is historically associated with hypermasculinity. This depiction of blackness carries with it, then, a variety of loaded connotations around physicality, violence, and sexuality. Each of these characteristics is a signifier of masculinity, and all are ostensibly epitomized most completely by black men. (There is nothing inherent or natural about the association of blackness with masculinity. It is the product of a history of racial violence and exploitation by white people.)

- E. A.

Why we need to stop playing “the game”

By E. A.

Why are some men the aggressor when it comes to relationships? 

If we focus on the traditional male/female paradigm (this analysis is not meant to normalize or privilege heterosexual relations at the expense of homosexual relations, but merely to examine some of the dynamics in the former) we will see a common conception: the man must actively seek the woman. When it comes to dating, the illusion typically exists that there is a “game” that must be played. This illusion is one that both sexes play a part in, and no matter how “progressive” or “alternative” the individuals may be, both parties will almost always play along – even in the most minute ways – with this socially-entrenched model of behaviour. 

This can be seen in the example of a standard night at a popular nightclub. On such a night, men will approach the event intending to meet women and earn their favor. The game is what must be “played” to distinguish the characteristics of one individual from another; it is the stage set for competing individuals to successfully “win” the object of their desire, a prize, so to speak. 

It is in this realm that we see the man as active; he must seduce the women, pursue her, attempt to win her over, and further, do so in a way that renders the attempts of other men inferior. Now, this is done by engaging her senses; a man must perform a multitude of personalities to stand out from the competition. He must possess (or, as is most often the case, display that he possesses without any genuine substance) desirable traits that the woman looks for. He must be confident and charming, humourous and witty, physically and aesthetically pleasing, etc. Thus, in this realm, the man must play according to a predefined role. Not to say that there isn’t any room for creativity and innovation, but there is certainly a structure that must be adhered to if he aims for objective success. 

Women too play into this construct. When a woman goes for a “night out” she typically prepares herself by dressing in a way that is appealing (whether this be defined by terms like “sexy” or “flirty” is case specific, however, it is almost always in a way that renders preference to her male counterpart). This is done to improve her chances of being seen, to look more attractive than other women. This construct has permeated deep into popular culture, with women going to painful lengths just to achieve a specific look. The woman then presents herself through both her clothing and body language. Often, women will dance suggestively, embrace their friends provocatively, and exhibit coquettish body language. Although these are all active and completely conscious actions, the role of the woman within the structure of the game is still inherently passive. This is all done in an attempt to get a man to engage with her. Although it is acceptable for her to start the conversation, she must possess some degree of desirability, in the hopes of catching the attention of the man and stopping him from pursuing other women.    

Now, as you read this you may think that this model is based on tired stereotypes and a simplistic outlook on the dating scene. This is partly true. Nightclubs and “the game” represent a microcosm of human activity, but there is no doubt that it is a very real and very popular activity among young people. It is one that has become deeply entrenched in popular culture. We can look no further than popular music, most of which variously references “the club,” the activity of pursing and interacting with the opposite sex, and sexual activities. Further, television and other popular media regularly play into the conception of “the game;” advertisements that present male hygienic products as “rugged, “manly” or “smooth” (look no further than an old spice ad for deodorant) make shameless allusions to masculine characteristics that the stereotypical woman is supposed to like. Sitcoms often lampoon the dating scene and the popularity of Friends and How I Met You’re Mother, are a testament to the insidious acceptance of these codes. Both contain stock characters who embody the attributes of the dating scene; the former has Phoebe, absent-minded girl who lives for a good time, and the latter, Barney, a serial womanizer with little respect for women who inspires hope for legions of men. The point being made is that there is a real and well-understood social construct that dictates the relationships between men and women. It is widely accepted, albeit subconsciously, by the masses due to its insidious nature and ability to homogenize itself with almost every facet of modern culture. This is true so much so that non-hegemonic groups still pander to its structure; the LGBT community has the “butch” and “femme” and the “top” and “bottom”.  Some progressive cultures, such as polyamory, see sexuality as open, yet make no attempt to deconstruct the gender roles (although they do seem more open to varying viewpoints). Even feminists themselves have open debates regarding the role of masculinity in their own sexuality, with some fully embracing it and seeing it’s exploitation as a form of empowerment, and others fully rejecting it (yet this often plays into a masculine role, the “butch”).   

So let us return to the original question: why are some men the aggressors when it comes to relationships? Those who actively enjoy and embrace the structure of “the game” are quite susceptible to overt enthusiasm. It’s not a big leap to jump from confidence to power, and this can become quite domineering. As a man, I’ve heard numerous references to women as “kills,” “wins”, “scores,” and even “prey,” reducing them to the very object that “the game” holds them as. This creates contempt for women that some men find “easy,” as they do not correctly fulfill to their given role, or do so poorly, or haphazardly. It is not uncommon for men to diminish the personality of a promiscuous woman. Perhaps this can in part explain the actions of violence towards sex workers (something far more common than in domestic relationships, although that violence is a real issue in its own respect) and explains why there is a very real and socially-accepted culture of domination when it comes to the seduction of women. The Pick Up Artist, or PUA, culture is an extremely concerning community that seems to feed off this dynamic and they have, rightly, come under the criticism of feminists and intellectuals. Although not all men see women as inferior, there is a very real consciousness that sees them as playing a passive role, a role that is easily exploited and dominated by those who seek power through violence. 

But the issue of gender-based violence is obviously not that simplistic. Psychoanalytic and social scientific research shows us that the psyche of humans is extremely complex. Among the multitude of reasons that may drive a man to physically assault a woman, there are men who do so because they themselves have been dominated. Whether the culprits were other men, authority, or institutions, these individuals feel victimized and hurt. They may then seek violent power as a form of unconscious retribution. Further; they may see the passive role of women as something that can be easily subjugated.  These men, dealing with a variety of issues, may find the construction of dating and socializing as something they can easily comprehend. From here they may exploit this knowledge in an attempt to realize their own aggression. The man earns the trust of a woman but only to lower her defenses, thus attacking a vulnerable and easy target. 

These examples illustrate both the complex causes of gender-based violence and allow us to elucidate the effects it has on female survivors. The latter example emphasizes what a woman means when she says she feels victimized. For simply playing into an assigned role, she is degraded and violated. 

An awareness of these gender roles helps to understand not only the causes but also some of the responses to gender-based violence. Women who “dress like sluts” are not “asking for it,” they may simply be doing it to attract the attention of a particular person. Not all men are perverted, domineering predators, some may just be shy or introverted, or simply have been told to act in a certain way. The barriers of miscommunication and social constructs are what lead to a majority of the issues, and there must be much more open dialogue when it comes to addressing the void between genders (and their assigned social roles) in an attempt to secure empathy for one another. With consent becoming something of a buzz word in the media, let’s not forget what it really means: to give permission, to have the other see you as an equal, respect your wishes, and to share something with you. 

Consent, in short, creates the conditions for play between sexual partners; “the game is simply an exercise in violence and power. It’s time to start reimagining the games we play.

The lesson of 2014: Why we must believe women, always

By Nathan Kalman-Lamb

Well, it's December of a year that feels like it has been dominated by stories of gender-based violence. Of course, gender-based violence was no more prevalent in 2014 than any other year, it just feels that way because stories of domestic and sexual violence that are typically ignored or suppressed have achieved notoriety due to the celebrity of the figures involved.

We have attempted to engage with many of these stories in the inaugural year of the Men's Team blog, from  Isla Vista to Ray Rice. In these pieces we have tried to unpack from a structural standpoint how masculinity, particularly in its more extreme or toxic forms, invites men to perform acts of violence. This is an important project and one we remain fundamentally committed to. Indeed, one might say that spreading awareness about this reality is the reason why the Men's Team exists.

Yet, as the year comes to a close, I want to touch on a different dimension of gender-based violence, one that we have yet to engage and one that relates to perhaps the two highest-profile cases of the year (at least in Canada): Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby. Of course, we could examine the violence performed by these two men over the years through the lens of toxic masculinity and coercive entitlement and it would certainly shed some light on their actions. That, however, is a project for a different day.

Jian Ghomeshi hosting a live taping of his radio show Q in Vancouver, 26 Mar 2009.  Image via Penmachine and has been distributed under the terms of this license. It has not been modified.

I want to end 2014 by focusing not on those who perpetrate gender-based violence, but those who are subjected to its horrors. The most resounding lesson to be gleaned from both the Ghomeshi and Cosby sagas is how remarkably difficult it is for a woman who has experienced sexual violence to speak about it and be believed.

Let us focus on the Ghomeshi case, for it is the most relevant to us here in Canada (indeed, it is particularly relevant to us here on the Men's Team given that Ghomeshi is a former York graduate who once led the York Federation of Students). When the news that the CBC had fired its most prominent radio host first emerged, Ghomeshi released a statement on Facebook exonerating himself of responsibility for any wrong-doing and instead cast aspersion on unnamed women he claimed were about to accuse him of significant sexual misconduct.

Within a day, those accusations emerged in the form of a report by the Toronto Star citing four anonymous women who all stated they had been subjected to sexual violence by Ghomeshi. This is the moment I want to dwell on, for it is the one that says everything about what women who experience this form of violence must endure.

The seemingly-overwhelming reaction online in the press and through social networking platforms was the call to reserve judgement. Let the legal process play itself out, we were told. This was a case of he said-she said. It would be wrong to make any assumptions about what actually happened.

Now, of course, hindsight makes it easy to suggest that this was not the most appropriate or rational response. And, it should be added, there is something deeply damning and disturbing that the word of one man was taken as commensurate with that of four women. Certainly, it speaks to the level of internalized misogyny that remains pervasive in our ostensibly post-feminist society.

But, that's not what I want to focus on either. No, rather, the point that I believe must be underlined repeatedly is this, and it is really very simple: we have an ethical obligation to believe women who say that they have experienced sexual violence. This moral imperative has nothing to do with the particular contingencies of the case in question. Instead, it is predicated on the fact that in the context of a patriarchal society - a society that systematically privileges and empowers men over women -  it is inherently unsafe for women to publicly articulate the harm they have experienced at the hands of men. If we are interested in building a world that is genuinely equitable from the standpoint of gender, we need to begin by acknowledging the systematic nature of women's oppression and the violence men perform against women. We need to believe women when they say that they have experienced sexual violence. Every single time.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that we abandon the legal system or the safeguards that exist to protect the innocent from being falsely proclaimed guilty. (I do reject the insidious and pervasive myth of the false rape accusation, one of Hollywood's favourite tropes most recently seen in the film Gone Girl, a myth that distorts the reality that the rates of false rape accusations are no different than those of false accusations of other crimes.) Men deserve a day in court, just like anybody else.

But, when it comes to the court of opinion, impartiality is no longer a legitimate option. Those who are genuinely concerned about the prevalence of gender-based violence need to stand by those who make accusations whenever they make accusations. We need to start believing women systematically in order to counter the systemic barriers to being believed that women face.

So, the next time that there is a Jian Ghomeshi, don't say you don't know who to believe. In 2015, when the time comes, believe every woman who has the remarkable courage required to say what happened to her.

I promise that there will be plenty of opportunities.

Gender and Halloween: Costumes for men

By Christopher Ford and Nathan Kalman-Lamb 

 

As you’ve already read in part one – and if you haven’t read part one, you can find it here – mainstream Halloween costumes marketed towards young women and women can be very problematic in that they normalize the hyper-sexualization of women and perpetuate a gendered division of labour. However, what about the male experience when it comes to Halloween costumes?

Well, let’s begin by doing a brief background discussion on masculinity (and we would recommend checking out this video of a poet discussing masculinity through poetry).

According to more traditional (read ‘patriarchal’) conceptions of masculinity, being a man means being aggressive, dominant, strong (both physically and mentally), and self-sufficient. It also means being sexually-attracted to women (that is, not homosexual), seldom displaying emotion, and never being a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or abuse.

More broadly, to be a man under this ideology is simply to not be a woman.

This is why many of the more popular slurs that men (and women) use to insult other men are words and phrases that compare them to a woman or her anatomy – for example, ‘so-and-so is a [insert derogatory epithet for vagina],’ or ‘so-and-so does that like a girl.’ Indeed, for many men, there is no worse insult than to be compared to a woman.

Does this sound like a healthy culture to you?

So, now, let’s talk Halloween costumes. When it comes to costumes for men, there are almost no rules. Wear whatever you want, so long as it’s not offensive.

However, the only thing that is absolutely forbidden for a man unless he wants to have his ‘manhood’ seriously questioned is that he should not attempt to dress up in a ‘feminine’ costume.

Take the following example: a few years ago, a story emerged in the New York Times about a woman from Kansas whose five year old son had wanted to dress up as Daphne from Scooby Doo. He was a big fan of Scooby Doo, and, having already dressed up as the mystery-solving pooch the year before, Daphne had seemed like the next logical choice for him.

And so his mother, blogger and writer Sarah Manley, agreed and ordered the costume for him.

When he showed up at school for the annual Halloween party, all of the other children, the young boy’s friends and classmates, loved his costume!

But, the other moms did not. Many of them made their displeasure known to Manley, and this led to her taking to her blog to write an article that has since accumulated well over two million views and 47 000 comments.

The article begins with the title “My Son is Gay,” a clever bit of misdirection she follows with, “[o]r he’s not. I don’t care.”

The point here is that she was incredibly displeased with how some of the other mothers were criticizing her for allowing her son to wear the Daphne costume. Some suggested that she was simply asking for him to be bullied (even though the only people who were bullying her son and herself were the other parents). Others suggested that she might somehow affect her son’s sexuality (i.e. cause him to become gay) by allowing him to dress like that.

“If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot,” said Manley in her post

“Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.”

The final point is perhaps the most important, for it gestures to the fluid and flexible nature of identity. Children experiment with different performances of identity precisely because human beings are not essentially bound to any particular identity category. Gender is one form of identity among many and it is something that children should be free to play with (just as they are free to play at being pirates and vampires and princesses).

It is also something that adults should be free to play with. Yet, conventional masculinity tells us that men (and boys, as we saw in the above example) are only allowed to dress and act in very particular ways that conform to the characteristics described earlier. This is something that actually hurts men because it crams them into an identity box that may (indeed, almost certainly does) feel uncomfortable and constraining.

The fact that men are not allowed* to portray femininity in their Halloween costume attire is simply symptomatic of the fact that they are not allowed to enact traits associated with femininity in their everyday lives.

Halloween is a socially-sanctioned opportunity to perform different identities from those we typically inhabit. Gender should be no exception. If we are interested in deconstructing masculinity and its norms, we need to start encouraging boys and men interested in exploring non-masculine costumes of all sorts rather than holding them back.

We need to act like Sarah Manley.

*There are exceptions to this rule. In fact, men are allowed to perform femininity on Halloween as long as it is in a manner that clearly ridicules the feminine. In certain hyper-masculine contexts, cross-dressing does occur, and is permissible on Halloween, as long as it is clearly designed to reveal that women and femininity are absurd, or simply that men acting in a feminine way are worthy of mockery and disdain. Such costumes do not attempt to recreate the feminine carefully and appreciatively, but instead signify it in sloppy, broad strokes. This is in stark contrast to cross-dressing in other contexts, which seeks to celebrate femininity by reproducing it in loving and meticulous detail.