Dibs on that Sexy Piece of Ass: Hegemonic Masculinity on TFM Girls Instagram Account

Abstract

The study examines how the TFM Girls Instagram account, along with its followers, shapes and maintains dominant discourses of masculinity. Mixed-method analyses revealed that women were depicted more in bikinis, posed in overtly sexually suggestive poses, excluded the women's eyes and faces, and included predominately White, fit, big-breasted women. There was a positive correlation between the number of likes/comments with breast size. There were also instances of misogyny and objectification manifested in the men's comments attached to the photographs. The results highlight Instagram as a digital extension of fraternal social spaces. TFM Girls reinforces hegemonic masculinity on a macro-level by allowing virtual linkages among fraternity members across the United States and by fostering a national online frat house ripe with misogyny and objectification.

The use of Telegram for the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images: gendered affordances and the construction of masculinities

“…In line with existing research, also in this case objectification practices can be considered as a means through which hegemonic masculinity is enacted (Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018). The data thus point to the presence of a Telegram-mediated form of homosociality, which offers innovative ways to objectify women and exponentially increases the harm related to NCII.…”

“…According to Hall and Hearn (2017), these practices can be interpreted as ways to regain the loss of external control over women as well as to re-enhance the man's status, in a context where new forms of masculinities built around claims to victimhood and aggrieved entitlement are increasingly widespread across online domains (Banet-Weiser & Miltner 2016;Kimmel, 1994)3. Moreover, existing research also points out that the non-consensual material posted online becomes the object of scrutiny and judgment through evaluating, ranking and commenting practices (Uhl et al 2018), while tagging behavior results in the creation of a folksonomy of misogyny (Thompson & Wood, 2018), thus contributing to the further objectification of the female subject (Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018). The presence of these behaviors overall reflects the persistence of sexual harassment as a means to perform masculinities (Quinn, 2002;Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018).…”

“…Moreover, existing research also points out that the non-consensual material posted online becomes the object of scrutiny and judgment through evaluating, ranking and commenting practices (Uhl et al 2018), while tagging behavior results in the creation of a folksonomy of misogyny (Thompson & Wood, 2018), thus contributing to the further objectification of the female subject (Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018). The presence of these behaviors overall reflects the persistence of sexual harassment as a means to perform masculinities (Quinn, 2002;Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018). Girl-watching practices (Quinn, 2002) and ritualized harassment (Flood, 2008), although commonly dismissed as "only play" work instead as mechanisms through which male-to-male interactions are established (Flood, 2008), hegemonic masculinities performed (Connell, 2005) and power inequalities maintained (Bird, 1996).…”

The Use of Telegram for Non-Consensual Dissemination of Intimate Images: Gendered Affordances and the Construction of Masculinities

“…4 Moreover, existing research also points out that the non-consensual material posted online becomes an object of scrutiny and judgment through evaluating, ranking, and commenting practices (Uhl et al, 2018), while tagging behavior results in the creation of a folksonomy of misogyny (Thompson & Wood, 2018), thus contributing to the further objectification of the female subject (Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018). The presence of these behaviors overall reflects the persistence of sexual harassment as a means of performing masculinities (Quinn, 2002; Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018). Girl-watching practices (Quinn, 2002) and ritualized harassment (Flood, 2008), although commonly dismissed as “only play,” work instead as mechanisms through which male-to-male interactions are established (Flood, 2008), hegemonic masculinities performed (Connell, 2005), and power inequalities maintained (Bird, 1996).…”

“She Thinks of Him as a Machine”: On the Entanglements of Neoliberal Ideology and Misogynist Cybercrime

“…Symptomatically, Jane (2017) explains that misogynists spew anti-feminist vitriol on social media simply “because they can” (p. 43). But research that understands anti-feminist social media as merely a “digital extension of fraternal social spaces” (Rodriguez & Hernandez, 2018, p. 9) implicitly presumes that such misogyny is generated ex nihilio by pathological individuals. And as O’Neill (2018a) writes, “unless we accept the idea that some men just hate women—that misogyny really is an immovable force—then we need to understand what draws men to the manosphere.” Such a deeper understanding has practical stakes insofar as misogynist cybercrimes turn out to be “the digital transmogrification of very real political problems, whose potential solution may only be actualised if material equality and social justice become universal conditions of emancipation” (Koulouris, 2018, p. 759; see also Hodapp, 2017).…”