R.W. Connell's Masculinities- and its Similarities to Gayle Rubin's Gender Hierachy

     While the terms masculinity or femininity are used every day, we hardly question their implications or dynamism. R.W. Connell’s “Masculinities” provides an interesting insight into the concept of ‘masculinity’. Connell suggests that masculinity is not a concept that simply defines what men ought to be, but is rather complex and intertwined with racial, class, and social factors. Hence often, the relation of dominance and subordination exists among men themselves, which Connell describes as ‘hegemonic’. For example, men who are effeminate, or perhaps homosexual, are at the bottom of the men’s hierarchy because they are deemed to be ‘less masculine’.

     Such premise is easily observable in contemporary society. In schools, masculinity is exalted through sports in which those who play sports, (perhaps football), are considered as ‘masculine whereas those who do not are ostracized or mocked as a “nerd, geek or wimp”. Yet, masculinity can take different forms according to the institutional setting. In business, men at the top management claim authority and thus are more masculine than their subordinates.

     What made Connell’s analysis interesting to me was that it is similar to Gayle Rubin’s idea of “Gender Hierarchy”. As Rubin mentions in “Thinking Sex”, the heterosexual couples are at the top of the hierarchy where they benefit from the “respect, social mobility, institutional support and material benefits”. Similarly, Connell argues that men who meet the normative standards of masculinity, in which being heterosexual is a requirement, are superior to those who do not. Thus intriguingly enough, Rubin and Connell seem to share the idea that there exists a hierarchal relationship not only between the opposite but also same sexes.