American University of Paris

Masculinities
Prof.: Lissa Lincoln
Gabriela Araújo Motta
24 April 2018

Masc4Masc:
The Rules of Manhood in Gay Men Dating-Apps

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !1

American University of Paris
Global Perspectives on Gender
Prof.: Lissa Lincoln
Gabriela Araújo Motta
24 April 2018

Masc4Masc:
The Rules of Manhood in Gay Men Dating-Apps

Being part of a marginalized community in other words a subordinated cut in relation

to Hegemonic Masculinity, gay men often use a set of tools to compensate its vulnerability.

One mechanism is the hyper-masculine performance, rejecting all traditional behaviors

related to the role expected of women. In this paper, I will explore to what extent is hyper-

masculinity in Gay Dating-Apps is an illustration of Hegemonic Masculinity’s dominance.

Our cultural understanding of Masculinity is a socially constructed venue from a

number of intertwined social sections. Throughout various societies and spaces the

manifestation of this particular gender role shifts and adjusts according to the community’s

structure and expectations. These understandings —and the need for them— come from a

belief that some sort of discipline is needed in order to society to function. After the fall of

Feudalism, a new form of social hierarchy was urged1.

Gender is embedded in social institutions and it plays an irrevocable role in social

order. This gendered order is characterized by overreaching patterns in gender arrangements

1 See Michel Foucault Security, Territory, Population Lectures at the College De France, 1977 - 78

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !2

and relations and is structured by understandings of gender and power. In gender practices

our conduct is organized in relation to a reproductive arena, defined by bodily structures and

processes of human reproduction (Connel, 1995). The reproductive arena refers to all those

aspects of social life that we think of as inherently connected to reproductive difference

between male and female even though they are not. This power regime is composed by

various dimensions: power relations (the patriarchy), production relations, emotional

relations and symbolic relations. Power relations refers to the overall subordination of

women. It organized gender in a global scale. They can operate directly or symbolically and

they work simultaneously in institutional and interpersonal spheres. Production relations refer

to the order in which gender is applied as a signifier in work production, for instance pay and

status of occupations follow the gender of the primary occupant of the job and not the

opposite. Emotional relations refer to the way some arrangements feel personal but are

actually patterned by gender. The symbolic relations refer to the power given to

characteristics associated to each gender; for example saying that a women who doesn’t smile

are always in a bad mood. Because gender is a way of structuring social practices and

relations in all dimensions it is not to be simply added as another item to social analysis but

counted as a major component of its own.

Within all societies there are different cultural accounts of gender, but not all have the

concept of “masculinity” defined […] Most definitions take our cultural standpoint for

granted, but follow different strategies to characterize the type of person who is masculine.

Connel talks about 4 strategies that facilitate our understanding of masculinity; Essentialists

perspectives usually pick a feature and define masculinity around it, for instance being

aggressive or energetic would be a masculine feature.

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !3

 Freud would be an example of a theorist that at some point flirted with the essentialist

perspective equating masculinity in contrast to feminine passivity. Positivist sciences sets its

mindset in stating facts. Thus stating what men actually are. However that perspective poses

problems because there is no description without a standpoint. Firstly, the so-called neutral

descriptions are, nonetheless, backed up by gendered assumptions. Second, by stating what

men are we have to assume they are already sorted into the categories “men” and “women”.

Third, defining masculinity as what men are is to dismiss the usage in which we call some

women “masculine” and some men “feminine”. In that case, we could just simply talk about

the differences between males and females subjects instead. Normative definitions recognize

these differences and offers a standard: masculinity is what men ought to be. Semiotic

approaches define masculinity through a system of symbolic difference in which masculine

and feminine places are contrasted. Main characteristic on the male role then is the rejection

of the feminine (Brandon, 1976).

To understand social order, one must analyze the plurality of intersectioned

dimensions: race, class, gender as major components of social analysis. With growing

recognition of the interplay between these components it has become common to recognize

multiple masculinities (Connel, 1995). In Connel’s piece “The Social Organization of

Masculinity” she defines 4 specific categories: Hegemonic, Complicit, Subordinated and

Marginalized Masculinities.

As a term, hegemony emerges in the mid 16th century coming from the Greek

hēgemonia meaning leader, thus used to described leadership or dominance. When we talk

about gender, in our case study specifically, masculinities, we are talking about social

relations and its role in the construction of gender identities and what they represent in

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !4

society. The concept of hegemonic masculinity is introduced in the 80’s and well explored by

R.W. Connell who defines it as a set of social practices within gender relations that

legitimizes men as a dominant class. Masculinities, however, as the plural form well implies,

come in various forms.

This defined set of normative practices face the problem of not having many men

entirely fitting this pattern. Still, although not all men benefit from all gender inequality to the

same extent, a great amount benefit a great deal. A group of men that do not embody

Hegemonic Masculinity but still have ties and recognize its place are complicit with its

project. These men that are complicit but passive constitute Complicit Masculinity.

Hegemony relates to cultural dominance in society as a whole. Gender relations

within a group of men is no different. Subordinated masculinity is the one with least cultural

status, power and influence. The most important case in Contemporary European/American

society is the dominance of heterosexual men and the subordination of homosexual men

(Connel, 1995). It is more than just the stigmatization of gay men. The latter are subordinated

through a set of social practices: political and cultural exclusion would be a perfect example.

Though male homosexuality is the most notorious form of subordination to

hegemonic masculinity, it is not the sole. Some heterosexual men and boys are also targeted

and expelled from the hegemonic circle. This process is marked by numerous abusive words:

mother’s boy, ladyfinger, pantywaist, lily liver, candy-ass… Here, the symbolic blurring with

femininity is evident.

The interaction with different layers of oppression: race, gender, sex creates a new

and plural set of masculinities. The relation between the masculinities, subordinated and

dominant classes or ethnic groups create a marginalization relative to the authorization of the

hegemonic masculinity of the dominant group. Marginalized masculinity is one of the lowers

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !5

kind of masculinity. This relationship marginalization/authorization provides us with a

framework to analyze these masculinities. It is important to note that both hegemonic

masculinity and marginalized masculinity are not fixed types but a constantly changing

structure configured through particular situations and practices.

To recognize gender as a social pattern it requires us to see it as a product of History

and also a producer of History. We tend to think biology has a more important and place

when is precisely the history that makes us humans. To acknowledge femininity and

masculinity as a historical product is not to suggest their trivialness but to affirm social

agency.

All of us are socialized to become man and woman, masculine and/or feminine. Being

a man or a woman suggests enacting a role that defines each sex. From the day we’re born

we’re sorted out as belonging to one group or another. Wearing blue or wearing pink, playing

with cars or playing with dolls. Our names and future expectations coming from our parents

vary according to what is told our assigned sex is.

Gender organizes society in a global scale, operating directly or symbolically, leading

an overall subordination of women through power schemes to various directions. A set of

practices characterize and devizes society into two groups. Men, associated with physical

force, emotional stability, masculinity features lead from the top of the social hierarchy.

Women, docile delicate individuals that are charged with social responsibilities to assure and

protect men’s place. They are invited to follow these social subjugation and if resisting

thrown to marginalized spaces. Men are thought to stay away from whatever characteristics

that cross a performance associated with being a woman.

In previous research involving gay men, gender expression, masculinity is frequently

discussed. Some gay men report masculinity as an essential part of their identity (Connel1,

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !6

1992). Many gay men also move to eradicate behaviors and traits that may be deemed

effeminate by society as they grow. Harry (1982, 1983) provided evidence to suggest that

many gay men “defeminize” as they transition into adulthood as a result of pressure from

hegemonic masculinity norms. (Deason, 2017). Being a gay men involves being part of a

marginalized identity in social hierarchy; Being perceived as feminine brings another

disadvantaged in terms of power position. Enacting this hyper-masculine performance

facilitates getting access to arenas of power. However it evokes a misogynistic standpoint and

proves the impact of Hegemonic Masculinity within gender relations.

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !7

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Connell, R W. “The Social Organization of Masculinity.” Masculnities, Allen & Unwin,

1995, pp. 67–86.

Connell, R W. “Hegemonic Masculinities Rethinking the Concepr.” Gender and Society, 1

Dec. 2005, pp. 829–859.

Deason, D. L., "Hypermasculine, Antifeminine: The Role of Masculine Identity in Relational

Aggression Among Gay Men" (2017). Dissertations. 910.

GABRIELA ARAÚJO MOTTA !8