emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

attack the naturalist ideology, according to which, for instance,
women are freely placed at men's disposal, not because they
are appropriated by men, but because passivity, washing up
and tenderness are specifically 'feminine' characteristics. They
have shown that the concepts of 'woman' and 'man' are the
justification and the result of a relationship of oppression, and
only when these concepts have been eliminated will it be
possible for each person to develop her or his potential as an
individual.
Men's reactions to this clarification have not varied much. Even
today they oscillate mainly between varied attempts by the
majority to salvage their threatened power, and feelings of guilt
among a minority for belonging to the oppressive sex; but those
who agree to question the idea of being a 'man' are few and far
between. Obviously a person who wields power and a person
who endures it do not share the same perceptions of reality. For
a woman, being confined within a sex category is all the more
sharply felt to be a form of mutilation for it corresponds directly
with her oppression: «to kill the myth of the "woman" including
its most seductive aspects»[8], for women, means to get rid of
an ideological structure which denies their identity as
individuals and justifies their exploitation. For men, on the
contrary, their category symbolises their power; and everything
which defines them as 'masculine' is valorising, even to
theextent that men do not generally see themselves as a
separate group, but rather as a reference for the species ― are
not humans as a rule referred to as 'man'?
[Introduction / 7]
Why should a man question the category 'man'? The question
could be rephrased. Why should a man want to give up all the
material, psychological and emotional advantages that he
enjoys as a result of the division into sexes? Why would an
oppressor give up his dominant position of his own free will?
Of course, recently, since the appearance of the women's
liberation movement, this position has become less stable: male
prerogatives are not as solid as they were before. Christine
Delphy [9] describes it as the change in perspective 'which
separates the "I'm not a feminist but... " of the pre-seventies and
the "I'm not a chauvinist but ...'' of the eighties.' In homes,
factories and offices affected by feminist ideas ― and there are
more and more of them― men actually have to stall and justify
obtaining what was previously their 'natural' due. The
arguments are multifarious― from the 'You're not mistaken but
I'm too old to change now' to 'l would iron my shirts but I was
never taught to iron' or 'Honestly! Why do you always belittle
yourself? Isn't it wonderful to be a good cook; isn't it as
important as building nuclear power stations?' The tone varies
but a man sometimes has to use his imagination if he wants to
continue being waited on hand and foot. What was formerly
taken for granted ―shopping, cooking, housework, production
and rearing of children, conjugal rights, love, admiration,