Page 124 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 124
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
and the exhibition of achieved gender equality expressed in individual-
ised agency, freedom and choice previously associated with masculinity
(McRobbie, 1991; Gonick, 2004). They must be “bright and beautiful”, a
“heterofeminine/desirable and successful learner”, an “aggressor and nur-
turer” (Ringrose, 2007, p. 485).
Simultaneously, the discourse of the “crisis of masculinity” pos-
es boys as a “problem”, as victims and deprivileged compared to girls
(Martino et al., 2009). “The boys’ crisis” is believed to be the result of the
assertion of feminism and gender equality, and hence the changes in gen-
der roles in society, which are said to be leading to the rising identity inse-
curity of men/boys, their “softening” and “feminisation”. This is believed
to be particularly shown in the school environment, which is allegedly
feminised, due to which boys are said to lack a “real male” role model.
The solution for this allegedly increasing feminisation of boys is looked
for in the return to the gender norms of traditional masculinity (Beasley,
2005, p. 180). At the same time, neoliberal consumerism addresses boys
in a similar way as girls, i.e. with aestheticisation of masculinity under-
pinned by the advertising cosmetic and fashion industries. According
to Mort (in Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2007, p. 163), these images are
based on the narcissistic display of macho representations of male pow-
er and virility through outfit and style. This corroborates the trends of
aestheticisation, the consumer practices and pluralisation of masculinity
which are celebrated by some as “the new forms of inclusive masculinities”
(Anderson, 2009), while others warn against the hybridisation and prom-
ulgation of hegemonic masculinity so as to adapt to the neoliberal condi-
tions (Bridges and Pascoe, 2014), which only conceal the existing unequal
gender relations.
What should also be pointed out is the growing social emancipation,
visibility and recognisability of non-binary gender identities that show an
impact by way of loosening perceptions of the gender system as natural,
heteronormative, stable and complementary.
This makes young people face several ambivalent situations in the
processes of their gender identity construction and negotiation. It seems
that in an atomised and fragmented neoliberal society, secure and sta-
ble self-identity no longer automatically arises from one’s position in the
social structure, and in its place, some argue that we are seeing attempts
to ground identity in the body as individuals are left alone to establish
and maintain values with which to live and make sense of their daily
lives. Bodies represent ever more important arenas for the complex for-
mation of gendered identities and power relations, among others using
122
and the exhibition of achieved gender equality expressed in individual-
ised agency, freedom and choice previously associated with masculinity
(McRobbie, 1991; Gonick, 2004). They must be “bright and beautiful”, a
“heterofeminine/desirable and successful learner”, an “aggressor and nur-
turer” (Ringrose, 2007, p. 485).
Simultaneously, the discourse of the “crisis of masculinity” pos-
es boys as a “problem”, as victims and deprivileged compared to girls
(Martino et al., 2009). “The boys’ crisis” is believed to be the result of the
assertion of feminism and gender equality, and hence the changes in gen-
der roles in society, which are said to be leading to the rising identity inse-
curity of men/boys, their “softening” and “feminisation”. This is believed
to be particularly shown in the school environment, which is allegedly
feminised, due to which boys are said to lack a “real male” role model.
The solution for this allegedly increasing feminisation of boys is looked
for in the return to the gender norms of traditional masculinity (Beasley,
2005, p. 180). At the same time, neoliberal consumerism addresses boys
in a similar way as girls, i.e. with aestheticisation of masculinity under-
pinned by the advertising cosmetic and fashion industries. According
to Mort (in Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2007, p. 163), these images are
based on the narcissistic display of macho representations of male pow-
er and virility through outfit and style. This corroborates the trends of
aestheticisation, the consumer practices and pluralisation of masculinity
which are celebrated by some as “the new forms of inclusive masculinities”
(Anderson, 2009), while others warn against the hybridisation and prom-
ulgation of hegemonic masculinity so as to adapt to the neoliberal condi-
tions (Bridges and Pascoe, 2014), which only conceal the existing unequal
gender relations.
What should also be pointed out is the growing social emancipation,
visibility and recognisability of non-binary gender identities that show an
impact by way of loosening perceptions of the gender system as natural,
heteronormative, stable and complementary.
This makes young people face several ambivalent situations in the
processes of their gender identity construction and negotiation. It seems
that in an atomised and fragmented neoliberal society, secure and sta-
ble self-identity no longer automatically arises from one’s position in the
social structure, and in its place, some argue that we are seeing attempts
to ground identity in the body as individuals are left alone to establish
and maintain values with which to live and make sense of their daily
lives. Bodies represent ever more important arenas for the complex for-
mation of gendered identities and power relations, among others using
122
