narratives of three generations of urban middle-class - eTheses ...

It is interesting to analyze in this context, two emerging paradoxes in the practices and
organization of these homosocial intimate spaces. The first paradox is that while on the
one hand, hegemonic masculinity defines its status by the rejection of others like
women, gay, lesbian, transgender persons and men of different region or origins; on the
other hand, it also depends on these marginalized and derogated ‘other/s’ to ensure its
hegemonic and dominant status, for self definition as real men with true masculinity
(Gough, 1998; Connell, 1995, 1987). Further, the humour, ridicule and abuse through
which other groups of people are constructed as weak or laughable and excluded and
oppressed by these ‘real men’; suggests ironically, some degree of anxiety around and
fear of the power that other people could wield over their dominant power (Gough,
1998).
The ‘humour-oppression-anxiety’ discourse could be connected to 1990s culture, often
viewed from within the academia and beyond as ‘pro-feminist’, even ‘emasculating’
(Gough, 1998: 431). For instance, a particular feature of doing masculinity in
contemporary society concerns suppression whether of masculinist ideas such as
aggression towards feminist colleagues or partners or politically correct sentiment such
as pro-feminist ideas in the presence of ‘old boys’. This is referred by Gough as a
phenomenon of ‘biting your tongue’ (183). This observation opens up the possibility and
the need to appreciate masculinity as multiple, conflicting and multi-layered, rather than
masculinity in the monolithic (Connell, 1995). Although he sees heterosexual men as
entrenched in the defence of patriarchy, Connell (1987) also finds reasons for men to
want to change this system, even though they are beneficiaries of such oppressive
structures, through ‘complicit’ masculinity (Connell, 1995:79). Hegemonic forms are
35