What do you think?
Rate this book
Masculinities
This is an exciting new edition of R.W. Connell's groundbreaking text, which has become a classic work on the nature and construction of masculine identity. In its first edition, Masculinities provided one of the most important voices in feminist scholarship by men. Connell argued that there is no such thing as a single concept of masculinity, but, rather, that many different masculinities exist, each associated with different positions of power. In a world in which gender order continues to extend privilege to men over women, but that also raises difficult issues for men and boys, Connell's account is more pertinent than ever.
In the new edition's substantial new introduction and conclusion, Connell discusses the development of masculinity studies in the ten years since the book's initial publication. She explores global gender relations, new theories, and practical uses of masculinity research. Looking to the future, her new concluding chapter addresses the politics of masculinities, and the implications of masculinity research as a way of understanding current world issues. Against the backdrop of an increasingly divided world, one that is presently dominated by neo-conservative politics, Connell's account highlights a series of compelling questions about the future of human society.
This second edition of Connell's classic book will be essential reading for students taking courses on masculinities and gender studies and will be of interest to students and scholars across the humanities and social sciences.
In the new edition's substantial new introduction and conclusion, Connell discusses the development of masculinity studies in the ten years since the book's initial publication. She explores global gender relations, new theories, and practical uses of masculinity research. Looking to the future, her new concluding chapter addresses the politics of masculinities, and the implications of masculinity research as a way of understanding current world issues. Against the backdrop of an increasingly divided world, one that is presently dominated by neo-conservative politics, Connell's account highlights a series of compelling questions about the future of human society.
This second edition of Connell's classic book will be essential reading for students taking courses on masculinities and gender studies and will be of interest to students and scholars across the humanities and social sciences.
349 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
98 people are currently reading
3656 people want to read
About the author
Raewyn W. Connell
46 books96 followersRaewyn Connell (also known as R.W. Connell and Robert W. Connell) is an Australian sociologist. She gained prominence as an intellectual of the Australian New Left. She is currently Professor Emeritus at the University of Sydney and known for the concept of hegemonic masculinity and southern theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
December 17, 2011
This is one of a small number of "seminal, important" books that is actually as good as its reputation. It is one of the first serious attempts to use what Women's Studies and feminism have learned about gender and apply it to men and male identity. A lot of other books of varying quality have followed, but this is the starting point for discussions of masculinity at the cutting edge of academic thought.
Typical for social science, Connell's basic insights can be easily summarized, but in order to understand his arguments, one must examine his case studies and evidence closely. The central points this book argues are 1) there is not one model of masculinity, but rather there are multiple competing "masculinities" simultaneously in the world, 2) The dominant (or "hegemonic") form of masculinity in a society maintains its status by subordinating alternative masculinities, 3) Masculinity is tied to class - often those who are excluded from class domination are also excluded from participation in the dominant form of masculinity, although they may be encouraged to benefit from male supremacy as a safety valve to prevent revolt against the gender order.
My biggest problem with Connell is one of semantics. The term hegemony refers to "preponderant influence or authority over others," but, as research on masculinity has progressed, it appears more and more that the dominant position is in contest, crisis, and even flux over time, which makes "hegemonic" a poor choice of terms. In the introduction to the second edition, Connell accepts that this term needs to be reconsidered, but from what I have seen, it remains the term of choice even for theorists who say precisely that hegemonic masculinity is not hegemonic. In all, however, this is a minor point, and at least the term has generated serious discussion about power dynamics among men within a gender unequal context.
One other interesting point, which I didn't see mentioned in my quick perusal of other goodreads reviews, is the fact that the author is transgender. When "he" wrote the book in 1995, "he" was a married "man" with a daughter. Since then, she has become a woman. It doesn't really impact the value of the work, but it is certainly interesting to consider how Connell's gender-biography has affected her understanding of gender and vice-versa. I won't go so far as to say that "only" a person who experienced profound gender ambiguity and ultimately a redefinition of their own gender identity could have written this book, but it is the case that one did.
Again, no quick summary can do justice to Connell's work, and this book remains a vitally important one for social scientists of all fields. The evidence and theories presented in this book will remain a starting-point for discussions of men and masculinity for a long time to come.
Typical for social science, Connell's basic insights can be easily summarized, but in order to understand his arguments, one must examine his case studies and evidence closely. The central points this book argues are 1) there is not one model of masculinity, but rather there are multiple competing "masculinities" simultaneously in the world, 2) The dominant (or "hegemonic") form of masculinity in a society maintains its status by subordinating alternative masculinities, 3) Masculinity is tied to class - often those who are excluded from class domination are also excluded from participation in the dominant form of masculinity, although they may be encouraged to benefit from male supremacy as a safety valve to prevent revolt against the gender order.
My biggest problem with Connell is one of semantics. The term hegemony refers to "preponderant influence or authority over others," but, as research on masculinity has progressed, it appears more and more that the dominant position is in contest, crisis, and even flux over time, which makes "hegemonic" a poor choice of terms. In the introduction to the second edition, Connell accepts that this term needs to be reconsidered, but from what I have seen, it remains the term of choice even for theorists who say precisely that hegemonic masculinity is not hegemonic. In all, however, this is a minor point, and at least the term has generated serious discussion about power dynamics among men within a gender unequal context.
One other interesting point, which I didn't see mentioned in my quick perusal of other goodreads reviews, is the fact that the author is transgender. When "he" wrote the book in 1995, "he" was a married "man" with a daughter. Since then, she has become a woman. It doesn't really impact the value of the work, but it is certainly interesting to consider how Connell's gender-biography has affected her understanding of gender and vice-versa. I won't go so far as to say that "only" a person who experienced profound gender ambiguity and ultimately a redefinition of their own gender identity could have written this book, but it is the case that one did.
Again, no quick summary can do justice to Connell's work, and this book remains a vitally important one for social scientists of all fields. The evidence and theories presented in this book will remain a starting-point for discussions of men and masculinity for a long time to come.
September 19, 2008
R.W Connell’s book Masculinities provides a good general summary of the different avenues of knowledge that have been obtained to date on masculinities as a field of study. While each avenue of knowledge has provided insight into masculinities, Connell argues that they fall short in critical ways. He theorizes masculinities as “relational,” in that it involves concepts of masculinity and femininity in relation to each other in addition to different forms of masculinity all relating to each other and all vying for cultural dominance. Hegemonic masculinity is whatever is culturally dominant within a particular society at a given period of time and it can change. It is important to note that hegemonic masculinity is not what men are—rather it is the ideal that they are trying to achieve because there are certain rewards at stake: such as power, recognition, money, and admiration. Men in power, then, are motivated to support hegemonic masculinity because of these rewards. Connell supports his theory of relational masculinities by gathering many life histories of men and exploring the plural nature of masculinities and their hierarchal arrangements in relation to each other. Connell is able to bring back the physical body into the studies of gender and social sciences without reverting to biological determinism by showing how some relational experiences are obtained by means of the physical body and then internalized to become a part of one’s social and psychological identity. Thus the body is an important means of sending as well as receiving social messages.
Connell’s book sparked some interesting ideas for me. I’ve always believed that hegemonic masculinity is bad news for women in general, but I’d never really considered the fact that hegemonic masculinity is a marginalizing force for many different types of men as well. It oppresses the men who try very hard but are not able to achieve the ideal, and it especially oppresses the men who aren’t able to achieve the ideal and do not even make the attempt to support its dominance. Connell does not believe that there is a hegemonic femininity. I would disagree. I believe there are plural femininities that exist in a relational hierarchy to each other. The difference, in my opinion, is that the feminine ideal has been crafted and maintained by hegemonic masculinity. Women in most societies have not been able to define what it means to be female. It has already been defined for them. The situation has greatly improved for most women in Western societies, but we “girls” are still encouraged to have perfect hair, perfect bodies, perfect makeup, and to provide pleasant company for men while they rule the world. That’s how I would define hegemonic femininity in current Western society. And though women do scramble and compete with each other to get to the top of that great imaginary pink pyramid, the rewards for doing so are quite meager indeed in comparison with patriarchal dividends.
Connell’s observations do provide some avenues of hope though for a common feminist like me. If hegemonic masculinity is more fluid than I thought, and if progressive social movements can cause people to question current power structures and even forsake them altogether, then perhaps someday we can work toward a type of “humanist hegemony” that flattens the pyramid structure and rewards us all with equality, tolerance, and eradication of poverty. Connell directly addresses my research agenda by asking if it is actually masculinity that is a problem in gender politics or is it rather the institutional arrangements that produce inequality. I believe it is the latter.
Connell’s book sparked some interesting ideas for me. I’ve always believed that hegemonic masculinity is bad news for women in general, but I’d never really considered the fact that hegemonic masculinity is a marginalizing force for many different types of men as well. It oppresses the men who try very hard but are not able to achieve the ideal, and it especially oppresses the men who aren’t able to achieve the ideal and do not even make the attempt to support its dominance. Connell does not believe that there is a hegemonic femininity. I would disagree. I believe there are plural femininities that exist in a relational hierarchy to each other. The difference, in my opinion, is that the feminine ideal has been crafted and maintained by hegemonic masculinity. Women in most societies have not been able to define what it means to be female. It has already been defined for them. The situation has greatly improved for most women in Western societies, but we “girls” are still encouraged to have perfect hair, perfect bodies, perfect makeup, and to provide pleasant company for men while they rule the world. That’s how I would define hegemonic femininity in current Western society. And though women do scramble and compete with each other to get to the top of that great imaginary pink pyramid, the rewards for doing so are quite meager indeed in comparison with patriarchal dividends.
Connell’s observations do provide some avenues of hope though for a common feminist like me. If hegemonic masculinity is more fluid than I thought, and if progressive social movements can cause people to question current power structures and even forsake them altogether, then perhaps someday we can work toward a type of “humanist hegemony” that flattens the pyramid structure and rewards us all with equality, tolerance, and eradication of poverty. Connell directly addresses my research agenda by asking if it is actually masculinity that is a problem in gender politics or is it rather the institutional arrangements that produce inequality. I believe it is the latter.
February 14, 2014
The essential idea behind R. W. Connell’s Masculinities is that there are different ways in which an individual can be “masculine”, the societally dominant form of which is known as “hegemonic masculinity”. The main purpose of hegemonic masculinity it to perpetuate the patriarchy, legitimize the dominant position of men in society, and keep women subordinated. In order to accomplish this, it must reject contesting views of masculinity and exist in opposition to femininity.
Connell’s argument beings with an examination of what she perceives to be the failure of clinical knowledge, social psychology, and new social science to produce a coherent conceptualization of “masculinity”. Part of the issue, the author believes, stems from the two traditional conceptions of the body as either a biological machine that produces gender differences or a blank slate on which social meanings are constantly imprinted. She argues instead for a middle ground, wherein the body has some level of physicality and agency that responds to processes of social determination, a phenomenon that she refers to as the body-reflexive practice. She goes further, however, and suggests the impossibility of producing a “science” of masculinity, because masculinity itself only exists in a relational form. Examining essentialism, positivism, the normative approach, and semiotics as ways in which scholars have attempted to characterize who is “masculine”, Connell rejects all of these and settles on a definition of gender as a social construct based around the biological reproductive arena. The structure of gender is one that brings together relations of production, power, and cathexis, and, with the involvement of body-reflexive practice, gender does not entail one unchanging masculinity, but a multitude of masculinities, the most important of which is hegemonic masculinity.
The next four chapters of Connell’s book are case studies that examine masculinity in terms of gender questions that have been raised by “crisis tendencies”. These crises have been fueled by the collapse of legitimacy for patriarchal power, as well as changes in production relations and emotional attachments to subordinate masculinities and femininities. The general conclusions she draws are that most men, regardless of their background, experience a “moment of engagement” with hegemonic masculinity and adopt some level of heterosexual sensibility. From this point, each man takes different paths as a reaction (or resistance) to these developments that are based on their personalities and the feelings of their body-reflexive practices.
Connell’s next chapter endeavors to uncover the origins of hegemonic masculinity, wherein new intellectual life, overseas empires, the growth of cities, and European civil war all contribute to the development of a masculinity that is violent, control-oriented, and entrusted with the purpose of ensuring that dominant groups remain that way. The penultimate chapter argues that, given male hegemony in the political sphere, all politics are, in fact, “masculinity politics” where “the meaning of masculine gender is at issue, and, with it, men’s position in gender relations”. After examining the four avenues through which these politics play out (masculinity therapy, defense of hegemonic masculinity, gay liberation in opposition, and straight men attempting to exit hegemonic masculinity), Connell concludes by postulating that we are in an era where those who are contesting hegemonic masculinity are beginning to gain the upper hand. The way forward, she posits, is to pursue a policy of difference and degendering, and to invest in education that is presented from the point of view of non-dominant groups.
The concepts in Masculinities are not simple and contain many nuances but, for the most part, Connell is able to successfully communicate these ideas to her audience. The book can be jargony at times, at least for a non-sociologist, but this problem does not detract from the work’s overall excellence. Masculinities has been considered a seminal and founding text in the study of masculinity, and any scholar whose work touches even tangentially on the issues raised here will find this study invaluable.
Connell’s argument beings with an examination of what she perceives to be the failure of clinical knowledge, social psychology, and new social science to produce a coherent conceptualization of “masculinity”. Part of the issue, the author believes, stems from the two traditional conceptions of the body as either a biological machine that produces gender differences or a blank slate on which social meanings are constantly imprinted. She argues instead for a middle ground, wherein the body has some level of physicality and agency that responds to processes of social determination, a phenomenon that she refers to as the body-reflexive practice. She goes further, however, and suggests the impossibility of producing a “science” of masculinity, because masculinity itself only exists in a relational form. Examining essentialism, positivism, the normative approach, and semiotics as ways in which scholars have attempted to characterize who is “masculine”, Connell rejects all of these and settles on a definition of gender as a social construct based around the biological reproductive arena. The structure of gender is one that brings together relations of production, power, and cathexis, and, with the involvement of body-reflexive practice, gender does not entail one unchanging masculinity, but a multitude of masculinities, the most important of which is hegemonic masculinity.
The next four chapters of Connell’s book are case studies that examine masculinity in terms of gender questions that have been raised by “crisis tendencies”. These crises have been fueled by the collapse of legitimacy for patriarchal power, as well as changes in production relations and emotional attachments to subordinate masculinities and femininities. The general conclusions she draws are that most men, regardless of their background, experience a “moment of engagement” with hegemonic masculinity and adopt some level of heterosexual sensibility. From this point, each man takes different paths as a reaction (or resistance) to these developments that are based on their personalities and the feelings of their body-reflexive practices.
Connell’s next chapter endeavors to uncover the origins of hegemonic masculinity, wherein new intellectual life, overseas empires, the growth of cities, and European civil war all contribute to the development of a masculinity that is violent, control-oriented, and entrusted with the purpose of ensuring that dominant groups remain that way. The penultimate chapter argues that, given male hegemony in the political sphere, all politics are, in fact, “masculinity politics” where “the meaning of masculine gender is at issue, and, with it, men’s position in gender relations”. After examining the four avenues through which these politics play out (masculinity therapy, defense of hegemonic masculinity, gay liberation in opposition, and straight men attempting to exit hegemonic masculinity), Connell concludes by postulating that we are in an era where those who are contesting hegemonic masculinity are beginning to gain the upper hand. The way forward, she posits, is to pursue a policy of difference and degendering, and to invest in education that is presented from the point of view of non-dominant groups.
The concepts in Masculinities are not simple and contain many nuances but, for the most part, Connell is able to successfully communicate these ideas to her audience. The book can be jargony at times, at least for a non-sociologist, but this problem does not detract from the work’s overall excellence. Masculinities has been considered a seminal and founding text in the study of masculinity, and any scholar whose work touches even tangentially on the issues raised here will find this study invaluable.
May 27, 2021
Erkeklikler kitabı da özellikle hegemonik erkekliğin inşası ve farklı erkeklik örnekleri üzerine düşünmek isteyenlere önerilir. Derli toplu ve kapsamlı bir bakış sunuyor Connell. Kuramsal çerçevesinin yanısıra yapılan görüşmelerle erkeklik pratiklerini somutlaştırdığı bölümler de tartışmayı ve meseleyi derinleştirmeye yarıyor.
May 12, 2025
Written in the 90s but more relevant and modern than most theory/opinion pieces/any gendered writing about men I've read in a while. Accessible and smart + has interesting takes on the lack of embodied writing in queer theory that was way ahead of its time.
Read
December 5, 2024Provides a very good base for research going forward, although definitely does feel slightly dated now which is to be assumed as gender and queer theory have come a long way since its release. Felt very accessible which is important for a work that is covering these kind of ideas, a welcomed change from some other similar theorists of the time *cough cough*. The main draw for me was that this definitely felt specialised towards Australian ideas of masculinity (duhhhh) but that also just gives the reader more reason to read more case studies from around the globe. Also not to be annoying but it is remarkable the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that are in a second edition.
March 31, 2025
Connell’s book is influential, so it’s hard to assess in its own right, as it’s overshadowed by its reformulations and critiques in academia and beyond. We can’t do without Connell’s framework, as it’s just such a good starting point for understanding what makes masculinities tick.
April 18, 2008
A sociological study among Australian men. Presents the comlexities of being male. An important book in light of the denegrating way in which men generally presented in the media. A bit of a tough read for me but ultimately worth struggling through.
Read
December 23, 2023Grave intéressant
August 10, 2024
This is truly one of the most fruitful and genius pieces of feminist literature I've ever read. Connel did a great job on both methodological and intellectual grounds!
I'd recommend this if you are ready to challenge your perspective on much of what we refer to as "social reality."
I'd recommend this if you are ready to challenge your perspective on much of what we refer to as "social reality."
November 7, 2025
Academic Slop.
July 2, 2022
Masculinities estava na minha prateleira de livros há mais de três anos esperando para ser lido. O momento então chegou e eu aproveitei muito essa jornada. Este é o livro seminal de Raewyn W. Connell, que traz a teoria da "masculinidade hegemônica" pensada a fundo nesta publicação de quase quatrocentas páginas. O livro é dividido em três partes. Para mim, a primeira parte é melhor de todas, porque como adoro teoria, é aqui onde Raewyn traça os direcionamentos de sua pesquisa. A segunda parte, que menos chamou minha atenção, é a pesquisa colocada em prática com entrevistas estruturadas com homens sobre sua relação com a masculinidade. Já a terceira parte é um misto de história da masculinidade, a política da masculinidade e direcionamentos futuros e atuais das dinâmicas da masculinide. Além disso, apesar de o livro traçar um panorama bastante abrangente sobre as masculinidades, me pareceu que faltou uma análise mais aprofundada do papel da mídia na construção e na desconstrução das masculinidades e da masculinidade hegemônica.
August 12, 2024
Twenty years after this edition and it still gave me some things to think about. Particularly chapters 9 and 10, about attempts to undo gender and the failures of feminist men's groups, made some excellent points. I've been told that Connell's concept of "hegemonic masculinity" has been criticized more recently but I found it useful.
If the holders of power and wealth didn't require institutional violence to maintain and expand their positions, then the biggest sources of manliness=willingness to use violence would be gone. Do we need to abolish capitalism, war, police, etc to end the toxic aspects of masculinity or would promoting a less toxic form of masculinity bring about the end of those violent institutions that maintain the status quo? I think we have to work at it from both ends. It's no coincidence that those most committed to shoring up masculinity are the ones who deny climate change, genocide, and medicine.
If the holders of power and wealth didn't require institutional violence to maintain and expand their positions, then the biggest sources of manliness=willingness to use violence would be gone. Do we need to abolish capitalism, war, police, etc to end the toxic aspects of masculinity or would promoting a less toxic form of masculinity bring about the end of those violent institutions that maintain the status quo? I think we have to work at it from both ends. It's no coincidence that those most committed to shoring up masculinity are the ones who deny climate change, genocide, and medicine.
February 3, 2013
I read a portion of this today for my Queer Theory class, and I've read much more of it back in 2010 in my intro to Gender Studies course. Connell does an excellent job deconstructing the cult of masculinity, the variances within it, and its stranglehold on much of (USian) culture. There are fascinating case studies in here, I recall, but I only read the theory portion this time around. Well worth the read.
October 22, 2007
Connell rocks. That's not much of a review but I'm not going to try and pack an analysis of this book into a paragraph. It's good shit and if you are interested in thinking about masculinity in any way, I highly reccomend this book.
Plus, I thought I'd cop to reading books that actually have something to say so that Barbara doesn't think I'm some sort of sex-crazed, magic maniac.
Plus, I thought I'd cop to reading books that actually have something to say so that Barbara doesn't think I'm some sort of sex-crazed, magic maniac.
October 3, 2024
Based more not on a research, but a "woke" agenda...
Evolutionary psychology is rejected, any character/temperament differences between males and females are deemed non-existent, testosterone's link with aggression is called false, heterosexuality is named a product of cultural and social pressures.
Evolutionary psychology is rejected, any character/temperament differences between males and females are deemed non-existent, testosterone's link with aggression is called false, heterosexuality is named a product of cultural and social pressures.
December 5, 2013
I know that I will enjoy this more when I get to grips with the material. This is still the go-to text about masculinity, even for a historian. This volume changed the face of gender studies for good reason.
February 24, 2022
Obra clásica dentro de los estudios de masculinidades. A pesar de pensarse desde la metrópoli global, bien podemos transplantar algunos conceptos a la experiencia de América Latina. En otro título, El género en serio, Connell establece una autocrítica a su propia obra.
May 27, 2023
Beetje gelezen, beetje geskimd maar was leuk
September 7, 2024
Connell dives into the presentation and structuring of Western, white masculinity and the tensions he sees present with it both in the personal and systemic spheres. I will say, I went into this book hoping for more discussion on just what masculinity is and the traits it carries, which to a degree is in the writing, but primarily Connell prefers to discuss the structures of power specific to men, not a interrogation of traits specific to masculinity, which there's a significant difference between. I also hoped for more discussion of non-Western perspectives or presentations on masculinity, which are largely absent from the writing. The primary focus of the text and of the case studies included are that of white men in Australia, and men's groups in the US, and their embrace or responses to Western patriarchy and their roles in it. I did find this very interesting and well-documented, but it does leave me wanting for the views left out.
In the introduction, Connell frames some discussion as needing BOTH a sociological and biological investigation, as to see a holistic view of gender and the gendering of the world by Western powers, but it does seem like most of the discussion centered on the sociological.
It's clear that the author sees attempts at "men's liberation movements" or "men's groups" as inadequate, with a strong tendency to bend to the reactionary or gender-essentialist. Connell argues that feminist or liberatory men's movements should be built around a politic of solidarity with women or other marginalized groups, rather than an assertion of a divine masculine or men's liberation, as at the end of the day, men may receive some harm at the hands of patriarchal systems, but they are clearly the dominant group reaping the dividends of this structuring, not an oppressed call by any means.
I think this is a helpful call, as trying to find a "liberated man" to aspire to and build toward is alluring, and I believe does have its benefits, but Connell is convincing in his argument, that as an actual impetus for sustained, material change and powerful movement, "men's liberation" has historically been easy to distract from the very real role of men at the top of a dominant system, in which the actual "liberation" is needed for the people on the other side of the equation, which men can be accomplices in, but not the protagonists of.
The case studies are very interesting, though somewhat dismal, as all of the groups are framed as largely reactionary, or ungrounded in their own place in patriarchy or just in understanding patriarchy as a system. Even the progressive groups interviewed seem to have an incomplete view on what it is exactly a man's responsibility to the world around him is, especially regarding feminism. Even the feminists interviewed don't seem to have found grounding in their role, and instead see their importance in falling into the shadows without retaining any notable characteristic of self.
Overall, I did find this book very engaging. It brought more questions than answers, which feels wholly appropriate for the scope of the work. I enjoyed it as a chronicle and investigation into the ways that Western men and men's movements have missed the plot. How to get with the program feels, largely, to be work to come, and doesn't feel as thought that perspective will come from the identities presented in this work, which I read as the point.
In the introduction, Connell frames some discussion as needing BOTH a sociological and biological investigation, as to see a holistic view of gender and the gendering of the world by Western powers, but it does seem like most of the discussion centered on the sociological.
It's clear that the author sees attempts at "men's liberation movements" or "men's groups" as inadequate, with a strong tendency to bend to the reactionary or gender-essentialist. Connell argues that feminist or liberatory men's movements should be built around a politic of solidarity with women or other marginalized groups, rather than an assertion of a divine masculine or men's liberation, as at the end of the day, men may receive some harm at the hands of patriarchal systems, but they are clearly the dominant group reaping the dividends of this structuring, not an oppressed call by any means.
I think this is a helpful call, as trying to find a "liberated man" to aspire to and build toward is alluring, and I believe does have its benefits, but Connell is convincing in his argument, that as an actual impetus for sustained, material change and powerful movement, "men's liberation" has historically been easy to distract from the very real role of men at the top of a dominant system, in which the actual "liberation" is needed for the people on the other side of the equation, which men can be accomplices in, but not the protagonists of.
The case studies are very interesting, though somewhat dismal, as all of the groups are framed as largely reactionary, or ungrounded in their own place in patriarchy or just in understanding patriarchy as a system. Even the progressive groups interviewed seem to have an incomplete view on what it is exactly a man's responsibility to the world around him is, especially regarding feminism. Even the feminists interviewed don't seem to have found grounding in their role, and instead see their importance in falling into the shadows without retaining any notable characteristic of self.
Overall, I did find this book very engaging. It brought more questions than answers, which feels wholly appropriate for the scope of the work. I enjoyed it as a chronicle and investigation into the ways that Western men and men's movements have missed the plot. How to get with the program feels, largely, to be work to come, and doesn't feel as thought that perspective will come from the identities presented in this work, which I read as the point.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 28, 2024
Read the introductory chapter to this book months ago, and was sure I was going to carve out the time to finish what I had started. But, for whatever bullshit reason, it somehow fell off of my radar and I forgot to continue. Recently, however, my interest was rekindled. There's been a lot of rhetoric that has attempted to frame the recent US election around Men's issues: Dickhead Trump made many appearances on popular podcasts with a large young-male audience; there's a general level of animosity towards DEI in the states (where people bemoan that it disadvantages men somehow); and so on.
I thought that understanding masculinity more broadly will help me in my thoughts on the matter, and so I picked this up again. I also had the less-noble pursuit of wanting to understand myself in light of what it means to be masculine — to read this as if it were it my horoscope and go, "Hey! That's totally me!".
I'm not really sure if I had anything groundbreaking thrusted upon me, because Connell offers a very inconvenient truth: it's really, really, hard to define masculinity. In fact, so hard, that she concludes there must be multiple masculinites — plurality here is essential. A masculinity is essentially a historic and social way of being that favours the inclusion of males, and intersects with race and class — many more factors than this, but the most salient variables to consider when thinking about intersectionality. I don't think the allusions to Heidegger here are accidental. Connell also goes insofar as to talk about the 'projects' of particular masculinities.
This, to me, is a perfectly acceptable and extremely well-defended thesis. Connell does massive groundwork in the opening three chapters to explain why psychoanalysis, physiology, and philosophy aren't the best equipped to answer the masculinity question. Specifically, she defends her reasoning to view this through the lens of the social sciences. I agree with her on this, but with a few reservations that are properly tenuous if I give it more thought. The middle third of the book focuses on life-histories of particular people belonging to different kinds of masculinites that Connell identifies. Two of these chapters are excellent, and the other two — the last two — feel much less insightful. Connell is aware of this, because she mentions that these two masculinites are necessarily more difficult to frame. Also, there are times during the writing where she loses empathy and lambastes these individuals? Strange. The last third is more of a synthesis of her thought and how we should think about the milieux of masculinity in the 20th century. Worthwhile, if just slightly boring.
The takeaway: gender studies is really difficult. There's a reason why the progress of these disciplines feels glacial and every partial insight is so hotly contested by the public: you need an immense working knowledge of so many fields of study. There are 70 pages worth of references — absurd for the length of this book! But maybe that's just Connell. Good for her, and I can see why this is such an important work in the field.
I thought that understanding masculinity more broadly will help me in my thoughts on the matter, and so I picked this up again. I also had the less-noble pursuit of wanting to understand myself in light of what it means to be masculine — to read this as if it were it my horoscope and go, "Hey! That's totally me!".
I'm not really sure if I had anything groundbreaking thrusted upon me, because Connell offers a very inconvenient truth: it's really, really, hard to define masculinity. In fact, so hard, that she concludes there must be multiple masculinites — plurality here is essential. A masculinity is essentially a historic and social way of being that favours the inclusion of males, and intersects with race and class — many more factors than this, but the most salient variables to consider when thinking about intersectionality. I don't think the allusions to Heidegger here are accidental. Connell also goes insofar as to talk about the 'projects' of particular masculinities.
This, to me, is a perfectly acceptable and extremely well-defended thesis. Connell does massive groundwork in the opening three chapters to explain why psychoanalysis, physiology, and philosophy aren't the best equipped to answer the masculinity question. Specifically, she defends her reasoning to view this through the lens of the social sciences. I agree with her on this, but with a few reservations that are properly tenuous if I give it more thought. The middle third of the book focuses on life-histories of particular people belonging to different kinds of masculinites that Connell identifies. Two of these chapters are excellent, and the other two — the last two — feel much less insightful. Connell is aware of this, because she mentions that these two masculinites are necessarily more difficult to frame. Also, there are times during the writing where she loses empathy and lambastes these individuals? Strange. The last third is more of a synthesis of her thought and how we should think about the milieux of masculinity in the 20th century. Worthwhile, if just slightly boring.
The takeaway: gender studies is really difficult. There's a reason why the progress of these disciplines feels glacial and every partial insight is so hotly contested by the public: you need an immense working knowledge of so many fields of study. There are 70 pages worth of references — absurd for the length of this book! But maybe that's just Connell. Good for her, and I can see why this is such an important work in the field.
May 23, 2024
How one can write a book about hegemonic masculinity (and have coined the term, I believe) without examining the ways in which race plays into gender, is unfathomable to me.
Especially the case studies (life histories) of Australian men chosen for the project bear a striking resemblance: They're exclusively white. Connell picks out four groups of men whose experiences she deems relevant to the discussion of masculinity and its openness to (or rejection of) feminism:
1. white mostly heterosexual cis men of poor background who are struggling to find employment and are organized in hyper-masculine biker gangs - with one notable exception, a guy who started cross-dressing
2. white heterosexual cis men who participated in the environmental movement and are trying to change their gender relations into something more equal
3. white masculine homosexual cis men
4. white heterosexual cis men in technical jobs
Why these particular groups? "I tried to identify groups of men for whom the construction or integration of masculinity was under pressure". I find it a glaring gap to focus solely on white cis men, but I also have doubts that Connell knew of, or was willing to consider the existence of trans men at the time of publication, even though prominent trans men and transmasculine people were publishing their own writing at the time (Feinberg: Transgender Liberation, 1992, Stone Butch Blues, 1993). A discussion of hegemonic masculinity under the omission of trans men is incomplete. Unfortunately, the result is yet another feminist publication fit to white cis gender relations, which cannot be transferred onto trans genders (or people of colour!) and thus runs the risk of over-generalization.
If her latest interviews with known German TERFS are taken into account, it is sadly unsurprising that Connell's perspective on trans genders is severely limited (Emma, 17.05.2018, "Wir sind kein drittes Geschlecht!").
The definitions of hegemonic masculinity opened up more questions for me than were answered. Connell does repeat that e.g. gay men are marginalized under patriarchy, because they are seen as "feminized" but does not make a connection with e.g. Asian men living in Western countries. Stating that men who are not meeting the conditions of hegemonic masculinity cannot generally reap its benefits, she nevertheless consistently claims that ALL men are receiving the "patriarchal dividend": the subordination of women. How this is compatible with intersectional theory, she does not explain.
Especially the case studies (life histories) of Australian men chosen for the project bear a striking resemblance: They're exclusively white. Connell picks out four groups of men whose experiences she deems relevant to the discussion of masculinity and its openness to (or rejection of) feminism:
1. white mostly heterosexual cis men of poor background who are struggling to find employment and are organized in hyper-masculine biker gangs - with one notable exception, a guy who started cross-dressing
2. white heterosexual cis men who participated in the environmental movement and are trying to change their gender relations into something more equal
3. white masculine homosexual cis men
4. white heterosexual cis men in technical jobs
Why these particular groups? "I tried to identify groups of men for whom the construction or integration of masculinity was under pressure". I find it a glaring gap to focus solely on white cis men, but I also have doubts that Connell knew of, or was willing to consider the existence of trans men at the time of publication, even though prominent trans men and transmasculine people were publishing their own writing at the time (Feinberg: Transgender Liberation, 1992, Stone Butch Blues, 1993). A discussion of hegemonic masculinity under the omission of trans men is incomplete. Unfortunately, the result is yet another feminist publication fit to white cis gender relations, which cannot be transferred onto trans genders (or people of colour!) and thus runs the risk of over-generalization.
If her latest interviews with known German TERFS are taken into account, it is sadly unsurprising that Connell's perspective on trans genders is severely limited (Emma, 17.05.2018, "Wir sind kein drittes Geschlecht!").
The definitions of hegemonic masculinity opened up more questions for me than were answered. Connell does repeat that e.g. gay men are marginalized under patriarchy, because they are seen as "feminized" but does not make a connection with e.g. Asian men living in Western countries. Stating that men who are not meeting the conditions of hegemonic masculinity cannot generally reap its benefits, she nevertheless consistently claims that ALL men are receiving the "patriarchal dividend": the subordination of women. How this is compatible with intersectional theory, she does not explain.
November 8, 2025
This “feminist sociology of masculinity” (Wetherell & Edley, 1999) has been massively influential in the way academics and everyone else in the West thinks about men and masculinity. As of Sept 2025 it has been cited over 33,000 times in Google Scholar, which is pretty incredible. The idea it describes is sprawling, complex, even confusing, not only influenced by feminism and patriarchy theory, but communism (via Gramsci) and psychoanalysis. However it has been much criticised (e.g. Donaldson, 1993) for creating an wildly cynical stereotype of masculinity, perhaps motivated by gender activism rather than a desire to understand men and masculinity. The result is book which has inspired countless thousands of students, sociologists, activists, media pundits, psychologists, social workers, HR managers, NGOs, government officials, lawyers, judges, charities, to rail against the supposed tyranny of the straw man, hegemonic masculinity. I suspect part of the success of Masculinities is that most people only have a vague idea of what it is about - something to do with smashing the patriarchy and setting the world right. It is a shame that their campaigning and other actions are destroying many things of value in the West, such as the stable family unit, and replacing it with a brave new world of liberation into righteous anger, high hopes, and - eventually - lonely regret.
May 27, 2025
3-4 stjerner, eg har ikkje heilt bestemt meg enno. Ho har ein del nyttige omgrep og analyseverktøy, men det var litt merkelege informantval, synest eg, og det ga meg liksom ikkje så mykje. Det verkar nesten litt som om ho ikkje fekk heilt dei dataene ho ønskte seg, men prøvde å setje det inn i eit slags system likevel? Idk. Mykje av det var også veldig overflatisk. Sikkert supert for nokon som treng ei oversiktleg innføring, tho!
Og misforstå meg rett; mykje interessant òg. Og mykje som ein veit, som er veldig fint å få formulert og bekrefta med forsking, som til dømes at kva me anser som nyttig kompetanse, vert tilpassa kva enn som gagnar middelklassemenn og hegemoniet. Apropos KI som er sååå viktig, framtida, "hvorfor evner ikke kvinnelige studenter å bruke ChatGPT!" (hjå Connell er dømet tech og IT, som var "kvinnearbeid", men det endra seg så snart det var pengar å hente)
Forresten heilt tullete å ha fire kapittelnivå.
Og misforstå meg rett; mykje interessant òg. Og mykje som ein veit, som er veldig fint å få formulert og bekrefta med forsking, som til dømes at kva me anser som nyttig kompetanse, vert tilpassa kva enn som gagnar middelklassemenn og hegemoniet. Apropos KI som er sååå viktig, framtida, "hvorfor evner ikke kvinnelige studenter å bruke ChatGPT!" (hjå Connell er dømet tech og IT, som var "kvinnearbeid", men det endra seg så snart det var pengar å hente)
Forresten heilt tullete å ha fire kapittelnivå.
November 25, 2024
Interesting book with many still valid points. Clear language and logic, admirably easy to follow the arguments. Very worth reading for anyone interested in gender theories
One star lost for far too uncritical acceptance of Freud, including praising the controversial Wolfman case, where it's known Freud blatantly lied.
One star lost for far too uncritical acceptance of Freud, including praising the controversial Wolfman case, where it's known Freud blatantly lied.
March 2, 2021
**Read for my 2021 gender and sexuality comprehensive exams**
Some good and interesting theory. I think all men would fit into the "complicit masculinity" category tho. Enjoyed the history and critiques of individualism. Some very optimistic thoughts too.
Some good and interesting theory. I think all men would fit into the "complicit masculinity" category tho. Enjoyed the history and critiques of individualism. Some very optimistic thoughts too.
January 9, 2025
The very end of the book articulates and explains a lot of things I've felt but couldn't ever put my finger on. I wish this book spent more time on those enlightening descriptions and explanations of modern masculinities and how exactly they're changing.
July 23, 2025
Reference book for SIMP27. According to the course structure, this book is for the topic "personal" section. I'm not familiar with this concept nor do I interested in. Why should I try to understand men if women are still being ignored?
September 11, 2025
a fascinating look at gender politics that was pretty easily accessible. i thought it dragged in some points (including during a lot of the life histories), but the first couple of chapters were really wonderful and gave me a new framework of gender to contend with that i really enjoyed
March 2, 2024
the best part about this book is the author later coming out as a trans woman <3
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews