Construction Of Masculinity

A New Construction of Masculinity Boys and young men learn early on that being a real man means you have to put on this tough guy persona. This persona’s manifestation are hyper-masculinity or machismo, independence, isolation, territorialism, inability to show emotions, inability to initiate emotional ties with other men, inability to recognize their need for community and sharing (Heath, 2003). In contrast with the construct of masculinity in classical Greek literatures where male-male relationships are part of the norms, and oftentimes very complex, our definition of masculinity is quite bit on the conservative side. This paper will attempt seek an explanation for this gap in construction of masculinity through exploration of gender roles
Of course, evolution is an ongoing process, so along the way we’re still adding and removing traits as society determines fit. This is social conditioning. We will refer to these traits as non-critical traits, because they are not critical during mate selection. That is, having these traits doesn’t change one’s success in mating. Achilles’ ability to display his affection toward another man is a non-critical trait (Hom. Il.). This can be accounted for by different social norms, and social values. In ancient Greek, the dynamics between men and women were hegemonic. Men asserted all control over women. Men were rulers and women were their subjects. This control prohibits women from entering certain avenues. This allows for a large number of male-only environments where men can be affectionate toward other men without the stigma of being effeminate. A bounded masculine space enabled these men to express themselves in a manner that did not challenge their masculinity (Heath, 2003). Vice versa, our modern social norms also prevent heterosexual men to have emotional relationships with other men (Heath, 2003). As the new feminist movement took off, men and women had started to experience gender conflicts and gender role reversal (Heiss, 1991). What was once a hegemonic dynamic becomes egalitarian. This is especially problematic during courtship and family life (Heath, 2003; Goldscheider &
There are three mechanisms involved: the sex drive motivate individual to initiate the process of seeking copulation with as many mate as possible, courtship/ romantic love selects the most fit individuals to copulate, and partner attachment keeps the individual around long enough to fulfill parental duties (Helen, Arthur, & Lucy, 2006). Because women have more investment in the offspring (eggs are biologically more expensive than sperms), it is important for her to pick a mate that has high fitness and is more likely to stick around to help raise the offspring (Helen, Arthur, & Lucy, 2006). So she seeks out males who are providers, someone who can provide for her and her offspring, males who are strong and independent with high status to protect her and her offspring from invaders or predators (Hamilton, 2007; Helen, Arthur, & Lucy, 2006). If females select males that are naturally dominant then it is expected that in a relationship, the male will be dominant and the female will be more supplicant. This process forms the traits that are now known as “masculinity.” Vice versa, males select mates that signal youthfulness, sexual maturity and child bearing potential. These signals are often displayed as physical features like breasts, buttock size, hips-to-waist ratio, voice, hair length, color and facial features (Hamilton, 2007). These traits are perceived