If you know me you've already heard this a million times over (shoutout hystericalend 😝✌️) but I would adore the chance to talk about violence and masculinity particularly in an Australian context because Leviticus is suuuch a beautiful and complex representation of it!!
In Hunter and Ryan's specific social context, the hegemonic masculinity they aspire to is fundamentally built upon homo-phobia and -hysteria, which means it is fundamentally built against them.
(This inability to conform is actually an incredibly common experience, even for straight men, since the hegemonic masculinity in any given scenario is almost always literally impossible to achieve [though of course it has a particular potency in our religious/rural/queer context!].)
In compensatory attempts to nonetheless achieve an “honoured” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, pg. 832) status and gain privilege, we often find young queer men fixating on reaffirming the subordination of the even ‘lesser’ identities around them - often the more feminine. In response to subordination, they often feel an instinct to highlight the ways in which they do have privilege. What parts of a hegemonic performance they can live up to.
This is why the intersection of shame and masculinity and homoerotic desire is so interesting to me. Ryan and Hunter throwing rocks at each other? Trying not to wince, and trying to make the other person react more? That’s such an interesting micro-level representation of this whole warring relationship, and the desire to hold some minor power and status over one another.
That’s why Ryan's relationship with Naim is so different - there’s no struggle for dominance between them. Naim has this sort of wide-eyed innocence and emotional intelligence that allows him to be less guarded... he has that shy kid energy where he doesn’t really care about performance or facade, because he’s not even properly engaging with the social environment occurring around him. An observer if you will 😏
Allow me to introduce you to a phenomenon Michael Kaufman (2012) describes as ‘men’s contradictory experiences of power’; it is the very gendered expectations that bring men privilege that force them to be so unemotional and alone. Whilst a patriarchal society may dictate that men are superior, it also dictates that they must be self-sufficient – and it also dictates they cannot express the alienation that comes from this imposed self-sufficiency. To quote therapist Terrence Real in ‘The Will to Change’ (hooks, 2004), “disconnect is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnect is masculinity.”
So men end up with all this pent-up alienation and emotion (and especially the boys in Leviticus because of the whole gay situation) yet are unallowed to express it in any meaningful way. Well! There is one emotion our society does allow men to express! – and that is anger. “Real men get angry,” writes bell hooks (2004), and “anger is the best hiding place for anybody seeking to conceal pain”. And so it makes sense that so many men take whatever they may be feeling, and repackage it into a violent rage. Indeed, it is the process of socialisation in our unique cultural, structural environment that subtly teaches boys they are not only entitled to but also limited to their ability to get mad.
I feel like a lot of non-Australians don't understand this but the theme of male violence runs so consistently throughout the mythology of this country. We live on unceded land, stolen by mostly male invaders, taken with a systematic violence that continues today. The land was ‘civilised’ and conquered with anger that was deemed natural, in line with the chain of being – a ‘superior’ white masculinity violently 'transitioning' things to the 'way they should be'. This mythology reaches out from the core of our culture and permeates all aspects of our society. As Australians grow up, we watch men batter themselves on the TV playing footy, playing rugby. These things work their way into the psyche, sneakily and consistently.
And again, to think back to hegemonic expectations - Hunter and Ryan, fundamentally unable to reach that most honoured status, struggling with the loss of control that comes with that. And is violence not one of the most visceral ways to express control and dominance? And if all male emotions must be expressed through a narrow lens of rage, then those two approaching this intense mix of shame and desire with violence and rock-throwing is certainly apt. It’s almost compensatory, for what they see as a somewhat-inevitable outlet of an unfortunate truth about themselves. Repentance! Self-flagellation!
When we connect aggression and gender performance in the way Australians so often do, we normalise male violence as a natural and positive expression of masculinity – no matter how “violent or violating” it may be (hooks, 2004). Indeed, Stephen Whitehead (2002) argues that we neither compartmentalise male anger and violence as ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’, as we have so closely intertwined what it means to be a man with the ability to enact one's violent will upon others. So why should Ryan care if Hunter hurts him? That's just what men do. 😝✌️
(References, lest my Masculinities professor be disappointed in me - or you miss the chance to read some amazing books and articles!:)
hooks, bell. (2004). The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. Washington Square Press.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Kuypers, J., & Kaufman, M. J. (2012). Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences of Power. SAGE Publications, Inc. EBooks, 5. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627.n8
Whitehead, S. M. (2002). Men and masculinities : key themes and new directions. Polity.
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
vaporwave
areudirty
dailybridgerton
gummygunk
turnnoffyourmind
prguitarman
kianamaiart
titsay
