Men, masculinities and the material(-)discursive

Abstract

This article addresses the relations of materialist and discursive analyses of men and masculinities. More specifically, it argues for a materialist-discursive, material/discursive or even a materialdiscursive approach to men and masculinities. In the first part, some of the intellectual and political influences on the development of this approach are outlined. These include elaborations on materialism towards discourse, elaborations on discourse towards materialism, and attempts to work across that boundary. This is followed by focusing on, first, the example of men and violence, second, the topic of men, and, third, men's and males' materialdiscursive bodies. The concluding section discusses the importance of situatedness of knowledge, and the possibility of working towards the abolition of the social category of 'men'.To deal with this complex problematic, a concept that speaks across the non-equivalence of males, men, masculinity is needed, and for this I suggest 'gex', rather than sex or gender.Keywords: discourse, feminism, masculinities, materialism, material-discursive, men Some materialist reflectionsHow to locate oneself within Critical Studies on Men and Masculinities is a very important question. Just because people work on men and masculinities does not mean they agree on anything at all. To put this another way, I seek to deconstruct the dominant of men (Hearn, 1996a), masculinities, and the hegemony of men (Hearn, 2004(Hearn, , 2012c. Or to frame this in a third way, the personal is not only political; it is intimately linked to the activity of work in the

Femininities in STEM: Outsiders Within

“…As such, women's performances of femininities potentially threaten the STEM gender order. Connell's (1995Connell's ( , 2005 identification of multiple masculinities, although widely critiqued, opens up a more critical and nuanced reflection on variation in types of masculinities within particular contexts (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005;Hearn, 2014;Schippers, 2007). According to Connell (1987: 187), there are no femininities that are hegemonic: 'All forms of femininity in this society are constructed in the context of the overall subordination of women to men', with femininity seen as less valued than masculinity (Schippers, 2007).…”

‘Nowhere else sells bliss like this’: Exploring the emotional labour of soldiers at war

“…Instead, emotion as we see it is a key element of the organizational apparatus enabling military personnel to enact their labour in this extreme employment setting. Moreover, following Hearn (, ), we conceive of men/masculinity not merely as categories of sex and gender but as ‘material discursive constructions’ of subject positions. Drawing on the field of critical men's studies, we see masculinities as ‘multiple, fluid and dynamic … positions that are occupied situationally, in that the position occupied, practices and values espoused in one context may be different from those of another’ (Jewkes et al, , p. S113).…”

‘Power in the arm, steel in the will and courage in the breast’ – a historical approach to ideal norms and men’s dominance in Swedish club sports

“…19 Permeating these and other critical studies of men and masculinities is a political ambition to problematise men's power advantage as an issue relating to gender inequality and social injustice. 20 Despite, or perhaps due to its comprehensive influence on understandings of men and masculinities, in a Swedish context the term 'hegemonic' has had different meanings and been interpreted in slightly different ways. 21 In this paper, the terms hegemonic masculinity and men's hegemony are interpreted and used as analytical tools that at a general level explain and explore how patriarchy is maintained and reproduced through different power techniques.…”