One more last working class hero

masculinity. Contextually, I accept that most men will construct their individual masculinity according to a cultural
understanding: a false monolith/normative standard of what men are supposed to be. At the start of my research I set out
to question how this understanding and my occupation as a firefighter influenced my gender. By that time I had no doubts
that masculinity was a social application that had many forms and for each of these I might expect to find a social reason
for their existence and not a biological one (see Rabinow 1986: 4). Therefore, when the research started I had a good idea
of where I wanted it to go, but at that stage, I was not exactly breaking new ground, many had been there before me.
However, my research was in a new area and by using pro-feminist auto-critique to study how firefighters construct their
masculinity, my particular aim was to help the fire service with its equal opportunities difficulties.
I also anticipated that as firefighting might be considered a high profile ‘male’ job (which contextually supports the
false monolith of masculinity) that if I could ‘prove’ how social firefighters attributes were, I may challenge the
essentialist link that commonsense views apply to masculinity and to firefighters. In so doing, I was also hoping to
subvert a patriarchal hegemony that provides a dividend for men. In particular, I hoped to challenge one patriarchal
dividend, the sequential traditional gender division of labour (see Collinson 1988; Kimmel 1987; Cockburn 1991a; Lorber
1994; Connell 1995), which in turn supports the view that firefighters are male.
I had been doing my research for four years when Lorber (2000) suggested a degendering movement amongst
feminists. I already had notions about using the high profile public figure of the firefighter to deconstruct masculinity and
to do this by building on earlier arguments that we all make choices (Gerson 1986: 116). I hope this research provides
some tools to help with degendering, because I consider I have shown that people of a like mind (regardless of their sex)
who set out to become good firefighters construct the main elements of firefighters’ masculinity. The other elements are
more a local construction, peculiar almost to the watch on which a firefighter serves. Throughout the country each watch
will have its own ‘agreed’ way of fitting-in together. Some watches will require a high commitment to fitness, others
might look to extreme forms of heterosexuality and sexism and sit up all night watching porn videos, others will have a
strong connection to the union and some will be avid fund raisers.
Whilst I said at the start of this report I have no belief in masculinity as pre-given, I did recognise that firefighters
might find it difficult to understand life without such a word. Although a sociologist’s view, I suggest that firefighters’
masculinity is:
Firefighters’ masculinity is a social construction and has a central feature that firefighters achieve by passing the test
of being seen as a good firefighter. The standards for this test are set by the watch in the form of ‘universal’
protocols for firefighting and individually each firefighter has their own subjective interpretation of what these
standards are, and when they get-in at a fire they set out to achieve them in their own, their watch’s and the public’s
eyes. The other elements are a more local construction, variable and peculiar almost to the watch on which a
firefighter serves, and throughout the country each watch will have its own ‘agreed’ way of fitting-in with these.
Those who firefighters see as unable to achieve these standards (sometimes because firefighters will not let them) then
become an ‘other’, someone who firefighters marginalise and judge themselves against. This combination is what
firefighters call their masculinity.
108
6.5.5. A way forward
One, if not the most, negative feature attributed to masculinity is that it creates a hierarchy that subordinates women (and
weaker males) and valorises attributes that perpetuate violence. These hierarchies underpin masculinity and the
commonsense understandings that only men could be masculine. They also lead to the current understanding of
homosociality as a way that men perpetuate the gender division of labour. However, some of the evidence from this report
suggests that it may not be possible to carry out firefighting as it is currently done without firefighters’ informal
hierarchies. Therefore whilst I have no intention of arguing that the critique of masculinity should cease, it is possible that
feminists and pro-feminists have become to intent on critique. It must be considered that ignoring the positive outcomes
from men’s behaviour, does avoid the reality that (for whatever reason) some groups turn to other groups for
protection/help. The firefighter is a case in point and no amount of bad press has been able to topple their status with the
public and even feminist sociologists. What has been missed, is that firefighters protect everybody from fire, not only
damsels in distress, but also ‘other’ men who need help, even off duty firefighters. It is firefighters’ ability to help the
public and the fact that even now the fire service is predominantly male that allows firefighters to provide an image of
masculinity.
My qualitative methodology, which was in part adopted to convey firefighters’ views and experiences in a way
that would make sense to them, has brought to light some unexpected data on female firefighters. As I note in Chapter 3,
female firefighters describe their job and how they firefight in almost identical terms to male firefighters. This suggests
that women see themselves as firefighters as effectively and in the same terms as men. This evidence was unexpected and
almost missed, but it is clear in the terms of my description of firefighters’ masculinity that women as well as men are
achieving the masculine standards that I set out to find amongst male firefighters. This leads me to pose some questions
for future research and for feminists to consider. The first question is, ‘what do we call the gender of women who are
good firefighters and therefore achieve the attributes central to how firefighters construct their masculinity?’ The second