Hegemonic Masculinity; No/body Wins

Raewyn Connell is often credited with the creation of the term hegemonic masculinity, and is a prolific writer in those discourses. Hegemonic masculinity is one of those terms that can be hard to define; I know what it is, the discourses that inform it and the discourses it informs, shapes and transposes upon. But I have no pithy sentence to give to you, no neat package of information, no discreet meme. Foucalt's idea of bodies as vessels of power is useful when understanding hegemonic masculinity. Check out this explanation and critique of Foucalt's power-knowledge-discourse-bodies work. Bodies are created, reconstructed and imbued with power, and some bodies/ways of being carry more weight, have more social ascendancy and cultural capital than others. Which bodies have more power? Ones coded as male, as masculine, and some forms of masculinity have more power than others. To steal from Sartre in Being and Nothingness "the body constitutes their meaning and marks their limits".
Go to Google (or your preferred search engine - monopolies of access and knowledge are worrying but their algorithms and servers are just so good). Type "hegemonic masculinity". Click on "Images".
The results speak for themselves. Big, buff, WHITE men doing manly things. Here are my favourite image results:

PUMP IT!!!!!!

SOMETHING WITH GUNS!!!!

JESUS!!!???

RACISM! COLONIALISM!!! SAVING HELPLESS WOMEN! SO MANLY!!!

CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE YOUNG MIDDLE CLASS WHITE GUY! RISK TAKING IS FOR REAL MEN!!! (knowledge of the Hey Girl meme/Feminist Ryan Gosling masters thesis is required to understand the hilarity)

You might also notice that most of the images are of fictional characters, heroes and models (hi Derrida!). This reflects one of the best (read - worst) parts of hegemonic masculinity. It's amorphous and temporal, changing throughout time and space. It's different for differing nationalities, classes and colours. And it does not necessarily reflect the everyday experiences and embodiment of actual men, no concrete connection to general masculinity is needed. Hegemonic masculinity is invisible, unattainable and harmful. That's the great thing about hegemonic masculinity: it not only oppresses women through devaluing their assigned attributes, violence, legislation etc., it polices and restricts all those on (and outside of) the gender spectrum, even the most manly of men. Pretty neat, huh?

Think happy thoughts!

SJ

Innocent Power

One of the readings from week three was Donna Haraway's chapter "Situated Knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective" from Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature. The book is listed under both philosophy and zoology, depending on the lister. In the prescribed chapter, Haraway critiques and adds to ideas of objectivity in science, ultimately suggesting that the only real objectivity is that of situated knowledges and partial perspectives, going past the anthropological tradition of reflexivity and baring the position and biases of the questioner. I think the essay ought to be categorised as philosophy rather than science texts as I doubt their practicality, but still thoroughly enjoyed the reading and agreed with much of what Haraway wrote. 

One argument that struck me was the critique of 'Innocent Power' as a doctrine of objectivity, in which the subjugated is positioned as the most credible source, offering a clearer perspective with which to transform the world. Haraway argues that this is not the case, not least because such positions are in themselves "God-tricks... ways of being nowhere while claiming to see comprehensively", ending up being as un-locatable and unchallengeable as the positions they are supposed to be an alternative to. At around the same time as I read this piece, some major drama was going on within the computer tech community. Violet Blue is a well known sex-positive, feminist advocate and educator within the tech community, and the cancellation of her talk on harm minimisation, sex, drugs and partying at a conference was not taken well. The cancellation was pushed by The Ada Initiative, a feminist organisation supporting women in open source technology and culture, based on the name of the talk "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits", which is understandable if the content and presenter of the talk wasn't known, and you thought that someone was for reals going to give a talk about how to date rape.
The responses:

• Violet Blue's post about it

• What the Ada Initiative had to say

• The hackers' responses (a selection)

The situation naturally has a fair bit of history (feminism is still fairly new in tech and has naturally had a lot of  backlash and hatred thrown in it's supporters direction), but has opened up a space for some necessary discussions to take place. What I found most interesting about the situation, is the innocent power afforded to the Ada Initiative, an organisation that seems to position itself as the only one representing 'women' and one that can not be questioned because of this. It is an example of the very "unlocatable, and so irresponsible, knowledge claims" that can not be called to account for their actions. Having decided that tech conferences shouldn't not have any "off-topic" talks, and only to mention sex or sexuality in specific ways and having published a guide for how to do this, uses the innocent (and real) power they wield to shut down anything that they decide is harmful to 'women'. It is this dictatorial power, and the use of 'women' as a monolithic identity with a fixed locus, that exemplifies Haraway's words: We do not want our world represented by innocent powers.

SJ
Oh, here is the same talk given at an earlier conference:

EDIT: Oops, no it isn't! I can't find the talk I'm writing about, but the talk on this page is interesting anyway and at least explains why a non-tech talk is being given by a non-tech presenter at tech confereences.