TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

How Hegemonic Masculinity Gets Gender History Wrong - Woke Father

Oncefa2

February 25, 2021
63 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://www.wokefather.com/privilege/hegemonic-masculinity-gets-gender-history-wrong/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title How Hegemonic Masculinity Gets Gender History Wrong - Woke Father
Author

Oncefa2

Upvotes 63
Comments 18
Date February 25, 2021 4:56 PM UTC
(5 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/lsb47q/how_hegemonic_masculinity_gets_gender_history/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/how-hegemonic-masculinity-gets-gender-history.1061856
https://theredarchive.com/post/1061856
Top posts by Oncefa2

In 2017, men worked 56% of all hours and earned 56% of all income. Women worked 44% of all hours and earned 44% of all income.

2369 upvotes
March 5, 2020
/r/MensRights

"If rape laws were gender neutral then men would falsely accuse women of rape" -- a discussion I had with a feminist.

2233 upvotes
September 2, 2020
/r/MensRights

If feminists actually believed in the theory behind toxic masculinity, they would support the men's rights movement. MRAs are giving men a voice and a safe space to express themselves.

2205 upvotes
December 14, 2020
/r/MensRights

I feel like there is an unwritten rule in society that men are expected to listen to their wives / girlfriends and be obedient to them. Nobody wants to talk about this though and some people even think it's misogynistic to bring it up.

2068 upvotes
September 21, 2020
/r/MensRights

#MeToo failed Johnny Depp and proves that the woke movement is nothing but digital chivalry

2034 upvotes
April 22, 2022
/r/MensRights

Most feminists are radical feminists by the literal dictionary definition of radical feminism: "the belief that society functions as a patriarchy in which men oppress women"

1985 upvotes
May 5, 2021
/r/MensRights

Men do not seem like they are proud to be men. And this is detrimental to their mental health. We need to celebrate men instead of demonizing them.

1964 upvotes
March 26, 2021
/r/MensRights

The idea that women are "bigger victims" than men is a harmful, antiquated gender norm that promotes toxic ideas in society

1816 upvotes
December 27, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 41 points42 points43 points 5 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Hegemonic masculinity is the theory that masculinity is inherently violent, domineering, and seeks to control other people (and especially women). It's a popular theory but has recently come under increasing scrutiny.

This article discusses how male servitude to women is actually what underlies a lot of this. Men fight and struggle to aquire resources not for themselves, but for other people (and mainly for women and children).

Women and children being put in front of men is what ultimately leads to men being placed into these roles. And a close look at what traditional masculinity concerns itself with backs this up: documents from the 1800s when women were supposedly oppressed by men clearly show that men were expected to place women in front of them at all times and take on these less than pleasant roles in society.

A close look at contemporary media also backs this up. Male violence is glorified in the media, but only when that violence is used for the benefit of women. Gender studies programs use these media examples as proof that society encourages men to be hegemonic without ever looking at the actual story lines of these movies.

[–]generaljony 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I think this article fundamentally misunderstands Connell's concept of a hierarchy of masculinities with hegemonic masculinity at the top. It simply refers to the most culturally exalted form of masculinity. Or is, quoting directly, the 'most honoured way of being a man'. That isn't to say that hegemonic forms of masculinity don't reinforce gendered power, they do and it is crucial to the concept, but it's not as simple as saying that hegemonic masculinities are all violent and aggressive.

Masculinities constantly change, across and time and space. The elegant, even effete, rabbinic masculinity was hegemonic amongst Jewish men living the in the Pale of Settlement in the 19th century. In America, before the 20th century there was a hegemonic ideal of being a self-made man, a form of masculinity that a generality of middle class (white) men aspired to achieve, but was structured by self-reliance and capitalistic impulse rather than violence.

So in short, we can't easily draw out certain characteristics or traits amongst hegemonic masculinities that differ enormously. Some are violent and aggressive, some are not.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Violence is only one aspect of it. In fact the entire section about what was expected out of a 19th century English gentlemen doesn't mention that at all (except that violence against women, in any form, and for any reason, is strictly prohibited). It was brought up mainly because gender studies programs focus on it in modern media.

You can still recontextualize the examples you gave as being rooted in male servitude.

The self made man is independent so he can support a wife and kids, for example.

The picture of a successful man isn't just one who earned his independence through hard work. In fact a successful man without a family basically isn't in the picture at all. And in the modern world, people hate that person. He's called a man child for spending his money on his hobbies instead of on a family.

The American ideal is still one where a man works hard so his wife and kids don't have to. And that propels him to the highest ladders in society where he becomes in charge of business and politics.

I'm not saying that has to be the end of the conversation but I don't think that a lack of violence in your examples is necessarily a weak point in this argument.

[–]generaljony -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This speaks to the complexity of masculinities as another commenter has said. With these two examples, that recontextualisation isn't clear at all. For Jewish men at that time, in that place, it was often the case that the woman was actually the breadwinner, for the men studied religious texts all day and did community work. Indeed, it was only when mass immigration to Britain and the USA occured that that role reversed.

An exception perhaps, but how about the self made man. Well, it is certainly true that men found familial responsibilty to their wives and children to be restrictive. So what happened? In 1850, 93% of California's population was male. 200,000 men fled there to take part in the Gold Rush. To find fortune, a possibility of social advancement and an escape from female domestication. If it is a form of servitude it is one that is readily escaped.

I think another problem with the analysis is that it doesn't really integrate women into it. Sure, providing for someone else constantly is onerous but a woman at that time is clearly in a worse position with hardly any legal, cultural, economic or social power (that isn't 100% true but I am generalising here for Reddit). In a worse position even than very poor men. Indeed, as I've shown with the self made man, this form of servitude is perhaps not as restrictive or culturally important as is made out to be.

[–]SchalaZeal01 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, providing for someone else constantly is onerous but a woman at that time is clearly in a worse position with hardly any legal, cultural, economic or social power (that isn't 100% true but I am generalising here for Reddit).

The woman at that time, is in a better cultural, economic and social position, and likely legal too, to a corresponding class man. And contrary to feminist sayings, she could work. Most who weren't of means and born into wealth, did work.

[–]mrarants 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This speaks to the complexity of masculinities as another commenter has said.

Precisely and how many times will you meet feminists who argue masculinity is often a response to female needs, demands or servitude to women in any way shape or form?

For Jewish men at that time, in that place, it was often the case that the woman was actually the breadwinner, for the men studied religious texts all day and did community work.

Often, sometimes, all the time, are words that don't tell us anything but I am willing to argue gender roles might have been diverse in different cultures. Gender roles are impacted by material conditions.

If it is a form of servitude it is one that is readily escaped.

Wrong and ignorant assertion that relies on a cherry picked example which doesn't disprove anything.

I think another problem with the analysis is that it doesn't really integrate women into it.

It does.

but a woman at that time is clearly in a worse position with hardly any legal, cultural, economic or social power.

Wrong.

Indeed, as I've shown with the self made man, this form of servitude is perhaps not as restrictive or culturally important as is made out to be.

The same can be said about every claim you make about women. What you're essentially doing is only undermining the problem so your narrative around female subordination doesn't weaken.

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So in short, we can't easily draw out certain characteristics or traits amongst hegemonic masculinities that differ enormously. Some are violent and aggressive, some are not.

I feel like your criticism fails to address the point that when the term "hegemonic masculinities" is used by a gender studies person, 99.99% of the time, it is used in exactly the way u/Oncefa2 suggests.

A generalization that is correct in merely 80% of the cases would be recognized as valid, useful and accurate in many, if not most contexts. Certainly not a valid excuse to shield modern gender dogma from criticism.

[–]generaljony 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That may be. I guess I'm approaching it from Connell's original text where that isn't a dogmatic belief. And a gender studies person is probably also in that 0.01%.

The response isn't to completely do away with the original theoretical concept but rather to take issue with how it's applied. That is a different line of argument to the original article.

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The response isn't to completely do away with the original theoretical concept but rather to take issue with how it's applied.

In that case, your argument appears even weaker. I think if we look at how this argument is applied, the sort of a feminist-who-actually-does-things-with-consequences-on-the-ground, in terms of legal, institutional, academic outcomes, going by the available fossil evidence for, is even further away from an ideal of egalitarianism that some pissed off mod of AskFeminists who thinks that putting wordplay based on "hyper-nitro-bitch" into her flair is empowering.

(and I was personally always amused by that power fantasy)

If you take career, or celebrity feminists, it is even worse.

(assuming I understood your argument correctly)

[–]generaljony -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It depends on where you are looking friend. If it's on Reddit then sure I can imagine it being applied unevenly. If you are looking at the body of academic work about masculinities you might see some more nuanced takes.

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If it's on Reddit then sure I can imagine it being applied unevenly.

I don't appreciate the implication that my experience with feminists is limited to Reddit.

(now, I get that you probably meant nothing by it, and I am overreacting, but "you have just read a bunch of think-piece articles, and have no idea what real feminism really is" is a favorite bad faith tactic that I was walloped with a hundred times – so I can't help but draw parallels. You might want to be more careful in using these words in an argument with non-feminists)

If you are looking at the body of academic work about masculinities you might see some more nuanced takes.

I am talking about applications in the real world, and would welcome to be proven wrong on this.

Every uncommonly empathetic feminist I have closely talked to about the harms caused by their movement has had a pet theory to share with me. It was a really nice, compassionate theory that would fix everything. And a whole two and a half academics knew about it. 90% of activists have never heard about it, and it didn't inform their actions.

So nope. When I say feminism, I mean people who actually do something. Unfortunately, most popular feminist academics' understanding of masculinity, like Kaufman or Kimmel, are fucking horrid.

EDIT: A couple words.

[–]Nath43673 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this misunderstanding is consistent with known criticism of how the concept is typically talked about and used.

From Wikipedia: "In response to the adverse connotations surrounding the concept, Collier remarks that hegemonic masculinity is solely associated with negative characteristics that depict men as unemotional (see affect display), aggressive, independent, and non-nurturing without recognizing positive behaviours such as bringing home a wage or being a father."

I've heard a number of people say that toxic masculinity basically replaced hegemonic masculinity as a descriptive term. Certainly it is far more popularised.

[–]mrarants 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this article fundamentally misunderstands Connell's concept of a hierarchy of masculinities with hegemonic masculinity at the top. It simply refers to the most culturally exalted form of masculinity.

I think you need to show us where we've claimed otherwise. We don't take issue with the word hegemonic (well at least many of us so long as we understand masculinity isn't a stagnant thing that doesn't change) as much as we take issue with how Connell mostly interprets said hegemony. That is to say, as r/Oncefa2 pointed out and based on my limited surface level sociology knowledge, she saw hegemonic masculinity as one wherein men oppress women, and define their identity in relation to violence, coercive control, etc... You will meet few feminists that are truly interested in defining masculinity in a positive way or talking of it in a positive manner. The APA's very guidelines label masculinity a pathological disorder (not explicitly, but by defining masculine traits as inherently negative on the whole) all while encouraging psychologists to make men aware of their power and privileged position in society.

The elegant, even effete, rabbinic masculinity was hegemonic amongst Jewish men living the in the Pale of Settlement in the 19th century.

Not denying it, but I'd like to see evidence for it.

In America, before the 20th century there was a hegemonic ideal of being a self-made man, a form of masculinity that a generality of middle class (white) men aspired to achieve, but was structured by self-reliance and capitalistic impulse rather than violence.

Yes, I think this makes sense. It was because capitalism had to be built and that mainly but not entirely relied on male on male competition and the provisioning of women and children which you completely left out of your analysis (though it is worth pointing out women and children did work in the lower classes whereas in the upper classes, wealthy women were privileged enough to stay home).

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As if action movies are the apex of fiction anyway. What about Shakespeare, Dostoyevski, Thomas Mann, JD Salinger? Are all their heroes dominant and violent? Don't they play a role in western culture? What about children's books, films and tv programs (with which most boys and girls grow up)? Are they all fighting and action? Nothing is easier than to pick one genre that is known for the many violent men in it and then conclude society adores violent men. Even thrillers aren't like that - Poirot, Wexford, Columbo, none of them are machos.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a good point.

There are a lot of violent women in modern action movies anyway. Including in kids shows where this is seen as being progressive.

One difference though is that they're usually fighting for themselves, or at the very least for other women or children.

It's just chivalry (ie protecting and providing for women) being played out over and over again in a modern context. These programs are called "gender studies" classes but for some reason they can't pick up on that.

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These programs can't pick up on anything that makes sense.

[–]throwra_coolname209 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's almost like men throughout history are nuanced and masculinity isn't a monolith 🤔

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a really good blog post, thank you for sharing.

This part particularly resonated with me:

Meanwhile, traditional expectations for girls and women continue to be removed from modern media for the sake of providing women with greater freedom in their everyday actions and choices.

Yet, instead of dismantling very real elements of traditional masculinity that constrain boys and men from experiencing the same freedom in their everyday actions and choices – feminists instead continue painting an inaccurate picture of both the historic and modern values of masculinity. They seek to convince the world that “brutish” behavior was what defined masculinity – when in reality society has always condemned that behavior. It was never part of what defined masculinity at all.

True freedom and equality would mean no human would enjoy privileges or protections over another, simply due to their gender. To accomplish this would require dismantling the elements of traditional masculinity that have always, and continues, to provide women with privileges. And feminists will never do that.

Unfortunately, it does not address the most obvious, if very factually weak, criticism of "but real feminists are not like that."

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter