These are already written--I'll be revising them for this platform but my examples are already set. I saw Incredibles 1 but not 2--how does it express or subvert this trope (as far as you can tell from the brief summary)?
You define toxi masculinity in terms of "domination," which I think is a fair simple summary.
One aspect of toxic masculinity that I key into, unsurprisingly given that I grew up in a military familty, is the idea of masculine redemptive violence. You see it in action movies A LOT. The action hero kills a lot of people, but it's ok, because the violence is redeeming. "Redeeming" as in it has a salvific effect for one's masculinity--that one's masculinity, like salvation, is beyond reproach. To give an example outside of theatre, I suspect that this is at play in those cases where a property owner kills an intruder *as that person is running away and poses no threat*. There have been a number of cases near where I live like that, where after an initial investigation the Stand Your Ground laws are invoked. I've even had cases like that in my own extended family, where there this almost ... lust? ... to prove one's bona fides as a real man through threatening and possibly shooting a trespasser to save the homestead, the wife, and the family.
I invented (subconsciously picked up?) the term because of just how extreme the violence can get, and how aggressive the attitudes, both in theatre and in life. As if some men need to play these characters on the stage of life, to become the character.
I am ... ahem ... not trying to "dominate" discussion. Just passionate.
Yeah the honor code of violence is a very deeply ingrained thing, across cultures. The provider and the protector. Which, in and of itself, isn't toxic. But the toxic versions of these things turn real stereotypical, real misogynist, real fast. It's the hegemonic/hyper- masculinity duality that I talk about in PTMT #2.
I won't hold it against ya that you're only doing traditional gender. I write that because non-traditional contemporary American gender is sooo complicated that one might need to be a specialist in it. I have a friend who is such a specialist, and she tells me that homosexual gender queer folk have similar problems both in terms of external and internal stereotyping.
Mainly I'm doing that because I'm not writing about gender myself, but about Hollywood tropes. The tropes come from Hollywood (and big media culture of other sources), and since Hollywood is still very stuck in the gender binary, that's how the tropes come out.
"The bait and switch problems of each PBFT was the dangling of the “badass” in front of us to distract us, while assuming that the character’s strength is enough to make us not notice nor care about the inherent misogynistic structures she has been constructed with."
This is precisely, in my years when I tried to teach this, what my students just didn't seem able to get. They saw the signals of strength, but not the misogynistic roles and stereotypes that were disempowering and further stereotyping. I don't know if I'm just queer (probably, as in gender queer), or if it really is that hard to get people to notice gendering. I should point out that I'm assuming a traditional cisgender audience; anyone with a hint of nontraditional gender didn't really struggle with this, but that population didn't explode in my classes until the last 3 years.
Well sweet and toxic aren't necessarily opposites. Doesn't arsenic appear in apples? Isn't there a toxic alkaloid with a sweet taste that I'm forgetting? And then of course there's opium... :)
Thank you for the recommend, and for your linklist.
OK, one more....
In the Mr. Mom post, might I suggest Incredibles 2 as a reference?
Also, want to blow minds? Look like a "normal" man ... and babywear in public.
I'd like to do a national sociological experiment with a group of men babywearing and recording of reactions in various regional cultures.
These are already written--I'll be revising them for this platform but my examples are already set. I saw Incredibles 1 but not 2--how does it express or subvert this trope (as far as you can tell from the brief summary)?
You define toxi masculinity in terms of "domination," which I think is a fair simple summary.
One aspect of toxic masculinity that I key into, unsurprisingly given that I grew up in a military familty, is the idea of masculine redemptive violence. You see it in action movies A LOT. The action hero kills a lot of people, but it's ok, because the violence is redeeming. "Redeeming" as in it has a salvific effect for one's masculinity--that one's masculinity, like salvation, is beyond reproach. To give an example outside of theatre, I suspect that this is at play in those cases where a property owner kills an intruder *as that person is running away and poses no threat*. There have been a number of cases near where I live like that, where after an initial investigation the Stand Your Ground laws are invoked. I've even had cases like that in my own extended family, where there this almost ... lust? ... to prove one's bona fides as a real man through threatening and possibly shooting a trespasser to save the homestead, the wife, and the family.
I invented (subconsciously picked up?) the term because of just how extreme the violence can get, and how aggressive the attitudes, both in theatre and in life. As if some men need to play these characters on the stage of life, to become the character.
I am ... ahem ... not trying to "dominate" discussion. Just passionate.
Yeah the honor code of violence is a very deeply ingrained thing, across cultures. The provider and the protector. Which, in and of itself, isn't toxic. But the toxic versions of these things turn real stereotypical, real misogynist, real fast. It's the hegemonic/hyper- masculinity duality that I talk about in PTMT #2.
I won't hold it against ya that you're only doing traditional gender. I write that because non-traditional contemporary American gender is sooo complicated that one might need to be a specialist in it. I have a friend who is such a specialist, and she tells me that homosexual gender queer folk have similar problems both in terms of external and internal stereotyping.
Hey, maybe a guest post on this?
Mainly I'm doing that because I'm not writing about gender myself, but about Hollywood tropes. The tropes come from Hollywood (and big media culture of other sources), and since Hollywood is still very stuck in the gender binary, that's how the tropes come out.
In the post, you write,
"The bait and switch problems of each PBFT was the dangling of the “badass” in front of us to distract us, while assuming that the character’s strength is enough to make us not notice nor care about the inherent misogynistic structures she has been constructed with."
This is precisely, in my years when I tried to teach this, what my students just didn't seem able to get. They saw the signals of strength, but not the misogynistic roles and stereotypes that were disempowering and further stereotyping. I don't know if I'm just queer (probably, as in gender queer), or if it really is that hard to get people to notice gendering. I should point out that I'm assuming a traditional cisgender audience; anyone with a hint of nontraditional gender didn't really struggle with this, but that population didn't explode in my classes until the last 3 years.
Yes! That's why I keep calling it a "bait and switch"--it's so deceptive.
I used to try to compare the new Wonder Woman to the general in Star Wars Rogue One, which I interpretted as explicitly trying to subvert the trope.
The general subverted it? Yeah that's possible--I'd have to watch Rogue 1 again; it's been a while.
Well sweet and toxic aren't necessarily opposites. Doesn't arsenic appear in apples? Isn't there a toxic alkaloid with a sweet taste that I'm forgetting? And then of course there's opium... :)
Thank you for the recommend, and for your linklist.