"Anxious masculinity"?

I expected better. When a study comes up, based on dubious "facts" that makes women look bad, you're quick to attack it and shoot it down.

When something like this "anxious masculinity" comes up, based on dubious "facts"... you support it whole-heartedly?

The book speaks of such ridiculousness as "womb envy". If Freud and "penis envy" is considered bunk, I'd expect you give the same treatment to nutjobs that announce men have "womb envy".

More than a little disappointed.

Mr. T - Sargent on the special Gender Policing task force! Sigh.

"In a culture based on male domination and in which most things feminine tend to be devalued, even if they are secretly envied, the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. This powerful adult male imperative to be unlike females and to repudiate anything that smacks of maternal caretaking is played out just as powerfully in politics as it is in personal life. In fact, political contests among men are in many ways the ultimate battles for masculine supremacy. This makes disavowing the feminine in oneself and projecting it onto one’s opponent especially important. This femiphobia--this male fear of being feminine--operates unconsciously in many men as a very powerful determinant of their political behavior."

- Stephen J. Ducat, definining "anxious masculinity" in an interview w/ BuzzFlash.com.

I'd say this commercial is a perfect display of anxious masculinity.

When something like this "anxious masculinity" comes up, based on dubious "facts"... you support it whole-heartedly?

It's called Gender Role Conflict...Google it. All about decades of study/peer-reviewed on anxious masculinity and men's self-policing of each other to avoid the dreaded feminine in themselves and others.

I wrote and in depth post about this commercial. I discuss the ways in which gender essentialism is harmful. This commercial further proves the point that traits that we assign based in gender have a tendency to other large groups of people. Sexuality has nothing to do with gender identification, and when we relate the two, we further support a gender binary as an acceptable way to understand and order our world . A gay male is just as masculine as a hetero male. The problem is that we have assigned specific behaviour patterns to masculinity without acknowledging that what we view as masculine has morphed over the centuries, thus what we have normalized today is simply the result of the continual social disciplining of gender performativity.

My god. It never ceases to amaze (and depress) me how gender normativity is invoked in advertisements for the most random, ungendered products. Apparently in the candy world, 3 Musketeers is feminine and Snickers is masculine. Because a 3 Musketeers is mostly air, like women, and a Snickers bar has nuts, like men. Or something.

It's fascinating how potentially gendered preferences based on social pressures (3 Musketeers has fewer calories and less fat; women don't want to gain weight; men don't care as much whether they gain weight) become gender prerogatives. "If you're X, eat this" turns into "If you don't eat this, you're not X enough."

Actually, I really like Snickers. I also like Coke Zero (which, in the Coke universe of signification, is the masculine analogue to the feminine Diet Coke). You know, I *thought* my voice had been getting lower lately, but I had assumed I was imagining it...

Oh, and I've read Stephen J. Ducat's The Wimp Factor, although it was several years ago. I'm not a fan of his wacky Freudian stuff, but the data he cites is extremely compelling -- it's impossible to look at it and NOT realize that something creepy is going on with gender in the realm of politics.

Jessica, in one of the posts you link you write:

"Because what better way to punish a man than to feminize him? After all, there's nothing worse than being a woman."

That said, I had absolutely no problem with the Snickers Super Bowl commercial where the two (straight) guys freak out about kissing. It isn't anti-gay for two straight guys to be disgusted by kissing each other, they're straight and thus aren't interested in each other. Homophobia would be if they were disgusted by seeing two other men kiss.

Renee, I would certainly agree that gender and sexuality aren't determinatively linked, but people who are gay ARE statistically more likely to be gendered more like the opposite sex than those who are straight.

Bondo: But their cure for the accidental kiss is "manly" behavior. First, the extremity of needing to do something painful in response to an accident definitely indicates homophobia (or else just have an awkward moment, laugh it off, done). Second, the commercial is saying that it is UNMANLY for two men to kiss--they have to prove they are not gay (as being gay is terrible) by doing something manly (the opposite of gay).

I for one found the older commercial more explicitly homophobic than the Mr T commercial. To me the one above is definitely offensive (and violent!) but is more directly about anxious masculinity than SPECIFICALLY homosexuality, though obviously that's in there, too.

Bondo

On a Feminist site, we are allowed to be selfish and consider more the affect on women.

Implying that the worst thing for a man to be is a woman is obviously devalueing women. The evidence is the lesser value placed on ANYTHING female in our entire culture.

Even the tagline is offensive. "Snickers: get some nuts."

I don't know what to say about that other than what a horrible tagline and I'm surprised that they were allowed to use it. The double meaning is obvious (like they intended) so I can't see how the censors allowed them to use it. I guess they got away with it because it doesn't literally say, "Snickers: otherwise your balls won't drop and you'll be a castrated 'girly-man' for your entire life."

Thank goodness I now how to best display my masculinity - by eating Snickers.

*rolls eyes*

Shame on you, Snickers. I almost wished that I actually liked Snickers candy so I could quit eating it.

Thanks for the link. I wonder how it is that a group of people could sit in a room and think up this idea...Did no one along the way raise an objection, especially given the company's history of offense?

Jane,
Certainly feminism can focus more exclusively on women, this is why I've co-opted post-feminism to mean a movement to a broader gender movement that is concerned with male gender issues as well (see http://votingwhileintoxicated.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/what-means-post-feminism/ ). Of course then I was criticized for claiming that feminism as the word would imply doesn't include concern about male gender issues.

I would say, it is odd to conclude that when femininity in men is framed to be worse, it means women are being devalued, but when masculinity in women is framed to be worse, it doesn't mean that men are being devalued. Rather, feminists tend to insist it still means women are being devalued.

Anyway, these commercials are unfortunate, but I reckon they aren't so harmful ultimately. They are more a reflection of societal flaws than a contributor to them. Snickers is more weak than evil.

Hi Bondo,

I think that it's pretty complicated. I see what you're saying that women can be accused of being masculine as an insult, but mostly I think that in the case where someone is trying to insult their status as a sexual object for men.

I can also think of many cases where it's positive for a woman to be identified as manly or as having what our society has deemed masculine traits ("one of the boys," "tomboy," etc.) It's difficult for me to think of a time when it's a positive thing for men to be identified as being feminine. It just seems to me that it's not actually the same for men and women here. Men can be insulted, but not praised by being feminized, but women can be both insulted and praised by being masculinized...

Not sure that makes sense.

Anyway, I agree with your overall point, that gender binaries hurt both men and women, but I also think Jessica would be remiss not to point out that "feminine" is being used as an insult here and that historical that has as much to do with thinking women are stupid, weak, and inferior, as it does with trying to stuff someone back in one of two gender boxes.

Alright, this bothered me then, but news moved on, so I ask it now: How was the Super Bowl ad bad?

Sure it featured homophobic characters, but that doesn't make the commercial homophobic. That logic would mean that just about every mystery and horror novel in the world was advocating murder. The question is, are the characters portrayed as sympathetic ones, especially with respect to their fear of teh ghey?

The answer is pretty clearly no. This comes from five seconds in, when we see that they are so taken by the experience of a Snicker's bar that they don't notice the dude on the other end. That's a pretty huge indicator that these two aren't supposed to be sympathetic characters, but rather objects of ridicule. We're supposed to laugh at their Alpha Male posturing to cover up their insecurity of what just happened. I'm not sure how that's supposed to sell Snickers, but it certainly doesn't sell homophobia

I bring it up since it was mentioned here, even though I think this new commercial is a whole other kettle of fish, and I never understood the outrage.

Ah, yes, a link to something is obviously whole-hearted support with no caveats whatsoever. Are you feeling a touch defensive?

No, but if it's mentioned in a post, obviously it's supported. I become insulted and offended when people suggest such ridiculous Freudian nonsense as "womb envy".

Implying that the worst thing for a man to be is a woman is obviously devalueing women.

Women act much the same way about the implication of being male. So, either both are wrong, or neither are.

I would say, it is odd to conclude that when femininity in men is framed to be worse, it means women are being devalued, but when masculinity in women is framed to be worse, it doesn't mean that men are being devalued. Rather, feminists tend to insist it still means women are being devalued.

This point exactly.

I was flipping through a 'People' magazine the other day and came across a block on one of their pages which featured six photographs of well-known male actors and singers (such as George Clooney and Marc Anthony) who were all sitting with their legs crossed and above the photos ran a headline which ran, "What is wrong with these guys? Didn't they get the memo that crossing your legs is for GIRLS!" It was nauseating. As a straight male who is by no means masculine, these types of adverts are starting to piss me off.

Personally, I'm disappointed in Mr. T.

I thought he was better than that :(

Speaking of anxious masculinity, anyone seen the new Weight Watchers for Men web ad campaign? "No tears, no daily affirmations..." Clearly a focus group instructed them to "man-up" weight loss like Snickers needed to "man-up" chocolate. I would love to see a Targeting Men series ala Sarah Haskins.

are ads like this created just to post on You Tube to create a buzz, albeit, a controversial one? what's the point? I guess even bad publicity is still publicity, but do they have the "nuts" to air these on TV? because I usually never see the controversial commercials that I see on the internet actually on television. so it makes me think they were created for the sole purpose of posting to You Tube.

The Onion sums it up perfectly today:

World's Worst Person Decides To Go Into Marketing
'I'm Thinking...Marketing,' Says Horrible, Horrible Man
July 31, 2008 | Issue 44•31

i'm usually the first to spot sexism in advertising but when i saw this advert the whole sexism thing by-passed me and i thought it was funny. i guess its become so engrossed in our culture even us who are acute to it are beginning to become numb to it.

Meh, kind of funny. I don't see offense in every non-PC corner.