#hegemonicmasculinity

Talladega Nights critiques toxic masculinity not only through individual behavior but also by highlighting how cultural expectations reinforce harmful traits. Ricky Bobby represents exaggerated traits of Southern masculinity, praying to Baby Jesus at dinner, encouraging his children to insult their teachers, and refusing to admit that French cuisine tastes good.

Ricky Bobby giving an exaggerated prayer to Baby Jesus during family dinner.

Charles Cornett explains that while these stereotypes are exaggerated, they reflect real traits associated with the South. A.O. Scott described the movie as simultaneously “phony and authentic,” balancing over-the-top humor with real cultural resonance. Ricky embodies hegemonic masculinity, demonstrating toughness, religiosity, and resistance to outside influence. Through exaggeration, the film critiques the cultural pressures that define masculinity and enforce harmful behaviors.

Southern cultural stereotypes of religion, pride, and stubbornness reinforce harmful behaviors. Ricky’s exaggerated Southern traits illustrate that masculinity is socially constructed and culturally enforced, further exploring how social pressures shape male identity.

“To speak of masculinities is to speak about gender relations. Masculinities are not equivalent to men; they concern the position of men in a gender order. They can be defined as the patterns of practice by which people (both men and women, though predominantly men) engage that position. There is abundant evidence that masculinities are multiple, with internal complexities and even contradictions; also that masculinities change in history, and that women have a considerable role in making them, in interaction with boys and men”.

- R.W. Conner 1995

For those participating in more marginalized fandoms—those celebrating content that is not accepted by mainstream society to be worthwhile or cool—shame plays a large role in their fandom participation (Bell, 2013). With the emergence of the Internet and Internet communities, fandom has become more accessible to the average fan. Interestingly, these fan-based communities are often highly segregated across gender.

Fandom can be creative in its appropriation and recreation of media and cultural texts, it is social in that in fosters a sense of community within the fans because of their shared object of fandom and the sense that one is not alone in their quirks. It can be actively formed against mass culture or perpetuate mass culture. Fandom can be resistant, offering alternative readings to what the producer may have intended, however this may not always be the case Poaching and ‘nomadic behaviour identified in fandom by Jenkins (1992) can be described as fans navigating their way through different textual landscapes and appropriating them how they deem fit. This navigation and movement through the textual landscape is an intertextual one, meaning that fans do not rely only on one text but have the luxury to choose from an array of texts, whether related or not. Self-identifying as fan, one could argue is an assertion and a claiming of one’s fandom, therefore by doing this one displaces the mainstream notion of what a fan or fanhood is, there is a taking back of power in how one chooses to enact their fandom.

Fandom threatens power by going against the ‘acceptable’ ways in which texts are supposed to be read, Jenkins (1992) reiterates this by stating that, “fan interpretive practice differs from that fostered by the educational system,” (Jenkins 1992:19). Therefore, fans have a complete disregard for these rules and move through texts as ‘nomads’ and ‘poaching’ what is beneficial to them. The cultural value that is bestowed upon certain texts is questioned and the ‘correct’ reading of texts that has been taught in institutions of higher learning, or passed on through cultural exchange is ignored. A fandom like the men that form part of what I will refer to as the ‘Brony Bunch’ popularly known as Bronies, are likely not be taken as seriously as their expression of fandom deviates from the everyday expressions of fandom by men- a toxic masculine fandom is predominantly characterized by aggressive behaviour as epitomized by the ultimate football fan.  

Bronies (‘bro + pony) are young adult men who follow the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic animated series. Not only have they been met with ridicule but they are controversially debated amongst those who cannot comprehend why a man would enjoy something meant for little girls. It goes against traditional notions of manhood and the potential construction of hegemonic masculinity.

There is a ‘boy code’ that cannot be transgressed, this code is a set of rules and expectations that are places on boys from a young age on the kind of masculine behavior that they are expected to enact (Hautakangas, 2015). However, Bronies to transgress this ‘boy code’, stipulating that it offers a joy that cannot be found among discourses that frame hegemonic masculinity. Bronies’s interest in the My Little Pony series has been met with suspicion, explained as a sexual fetish or as ‘gay behaviour’.

“the apparent out of placeness of bronies speaks volumes about naturalized gender norms, and how they are related to our everyday media cultures” -Mikko Hautakangas 2015 

Bronies have to reconcile their fandoms with the masculine identities; Bronies recognize that their fandom as a violation of gender norms, and becoming a brony is described as a process of recreating one’s masculine identity. Brody culture embodies an identity that transgresses the stereotypical attitudes.

Even though Brony fandom can is deemed as going against the conventional performance of masculinity. Antihegemonic expressions of masculinity such as theirs still have access to hegemonic masculinity, and affirming heteronormativity and marginalising non-heterosexual, non-masculine identities, they exclude certain social classes and ethnicities/races as well.

Nonetheless this critique does not take away from the subversive potential of Brony culture, the series brings to its male audience a much-needed opportunity to lose themselves in a de-masculinised world.

References

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. 1995. Cambridge: Polity.

Hautakangas, M. (2015). It’s ok to be joyful? My Little Pony and Brony masculinity. The Journal of Popular Television, 3(1), 111-118.

Jenkins, Henry (1992). ‘“Get a life!”: Fans, poachers, nomads’. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York & London: Routledge

In "Welcome to the Men's Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity," by Sharon R. Bird, I learned that homosociality means "nonsexual attractions held by men (or women) for members of their own sex," whereas heterosociality "refers to nonsexual attraction held by men (or women) for members of the other sex" (Bird 121). Bird pointed out that there are three aspects of homosexuality that contributes to hegemonic masculinity, which are emotional detachment, competitiveness, and sexual objectification of women. These elements are present in most of my male friends with a few exceptions. In my opinion, the handful of them that does not show emotional detachment, competitiveness, and/or sexual objectification of women are really sweet and gentle guys. I agree with the statement "emotional detachment is one way in which gender hierarchies are maintained" because if an individual shows emotions, others can easily take advantage by manipulating that individual's emotions (Bird 125). One of the respondent who participated in the interview said, "It's like otherwise you're gonna get walked on" and that is why males are consistently competing with one another (Bird 128). By engaging in the objectification of women, men show their peers that they are tough and in control. In the conclusion, Bird mentioned on page 130 that "violations of the norms of hegemonic masculinity typically fail to produce alterations in the gender order; instead, they result in penalties to violators," which reminded me of a reading that talked about the punishments an individual will receive if he/she do not act/dress their biological sex.

When I read "What is Hegemonic Masculinity?" by Mike Donaldson, I had to reread many parts of the text to fully understand what the author was trying to say. The author stated that “hegemony…is about the winning and holding of power and the formation (and destruction) of social groups in that process” (Donaldson 2). In addition, “a fundamental element of hegemonic masculinity then is that women exist as potential sexual objects for men…” (Donaldson 2). After reading those two sentences, I had a better idea on what hegemonic masculinity is. I strongly agree with hegemonic masculinity being “a lived experience, and an economic and cultural force, and dependent on social arrangements” for the reason that this concept is difficult to understand if an individual has never experienced it before (Donaldson 3). Furthermore, race and class are important factors that contribute to hegemonic masculinity because those are some of the differences that determine how a person is treated or seen by society. Since homosexual males are attracted to their own sex, the sentence “it is not ‘gayness’ that is attractive to homosexual men, but ‘maleness’ makes perfect sense (Donaldson 6). Moreover, a hierarchy system exists in some institutions and by saying that “politics, economics, technology are gendered,” the author is implying that citizens assume men are at the highest level of a system while the females remain at the lower levels due to history and what our society is taught to believe (Donaldson 9).

 In “The Act-Like-a-Man Box,” by Paul Kivel, the author suggested that males who do not live up to masculinity are “taught to fear” not being “manly enough” and suggests that they “might be gay” (Kivel 83). I agree with the author that “withdrawal of affection is emotional abuse,” which implies that males are not free to express their feelings and are constantly living up to the society’s expectations (Kivel 83). I liked the way Kivel ended his belief by stating living outside the box “is a choice each of us can, and must make—to step outside the box and back into our families and communities” (Kivel 85). Boys and men are busy worrying about what others think that they lose themselves in the process of living in the box.