Men's Work and Male Lives

Men and Work in Britain

John Goodwin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429830150
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Studi di genere

First published in 1999, this volume took part in the emerging sociological debate on gender in the workplace by studying men's work, lives, gender roles and psychological health through the gender lens. Recent changes in the labour market, not least the marked increase of women at work, have been argued to have led to a crisis of masculinity and a re-evaluation of men's roles. This book has four main aims: to establish that there is a real absence of an empirical understanding of men in British gender-based sociological research; to explore men's recent experiences of the British labour market; to explore how masculinity and work are linked and maintained by critically examining existing accounts of gender theory and feminism; and finally to provide an empirical account of men's work and male lives via an analysis of existing data. The male workers were identified in the National Child Development Study 1991 and compared with male full-time workers and similar groups of women in the same study. Five areas of these men's lives were explored empirically: characteristics of male workers in NCDS5; men's attitudes to work; men and training experiences; men and household work; and finally men and mental ill health. The book concludes that the nature of men's work needs to be reconsidered and that the nature of gender research, particularly that relating to men, needs to be expanded and made more explicit.

1
The Sociological Gender Critique

Introduction

It is difficult now, from the vantage point of the late 1980’s to recall a time when gender relations were not regarded as a legitimate focus for sociological study.

(Maynard 1990: 269)

Gender has become a primary focus for sociological research and teaching¹, due to the efforts of the feminist movement and women’s studies that questioned the sexist base of academic sociology. In many ways the observation that Maynard (1990) makes is correct. The arrival of feminism, and the development of women’s studies, has moved the analysis of gender from within the margins of the family, to the centre of sociological enquiry. However, a more recent contribution to the understanding of gender, stratification, oppression and inequality, the development of so called ‘men’s studies’, has attracted criticism and debate amongst those who originally called for the gender critique.

Given these developments, this chapter has a number of aims. First the chapter will consider the development of men’s studies and hopefully go some way to clarifying what men’s studies entails. Throughout the discussion it will become apparent that a systematic study of men is needed within sociology (and other social sciences) as a necessary complement to the study of women. Secondly the chapter will consider those criticisms that have been developed by certain feminist scholars and reflect on some of the limitations with existing approaches to studying men. Finally, the discussion will conclude with an outline of how men are to be considered in this book.

The Gender Critique

It is now well documented that feminist scholarship has criticised sociology for containing a structural sexism (Stacey 1981), as well as stereotypes and distortions introduced through the common sense notions and methodological assumptions that sociologists have incorporated into their analyses (Oakley 1974; Morgan 1981; Stacey 1981; Dunning 1986; Hammersley 1992)².

Sociology is sexist because it is male-oriented. By male-oriented I mean that it exhibits a focus on, or direction towards the interests and activities of men in a gender differentiated society.

(Oakley 1974: 2)

Alternatively, as Seidler (1994) suggests, such a problem is more deeply rooted in sociology’s origins.

Sociology emerged as a child of the Enlightenment and it seeks its ancestry within the forms of thought and feeling that characterised the Enlightenment…It is common to rethink social theory in terms of the particular Enlightenment identification of masculinity with reason and the notion that society should be made an ‘order of reason’, with the idea that society should be recast and remade in the ‘image of men’. This is to lay bare a particular relationship between masculinity and our inherited forms of social and political theory.

(Seidler 1994: 1)

Yet as Leighton (1992) suggests, gender as an analytical concept within sociology was marginalised both within teaching and, until recently, research. As a consequence of this, at the outset of the gender critique, all feminist critiques of sociology were committed to addressing the discipline’s inherent sexism both in terms of its social theory and social research. This was to be done by redressing the gender balance and describing the lives and experiences of women, who had been ignored for so long by existing academics. Indeed Kimmel (1987) suggests that the main rationale for women’s studies rest upon the proposition that traditional scholarship has a de facto programme of men’s studies and that a certain amount of redefinition was required. The ‘stages of feminism’ reflect this, addressing what it is to be female and later with second wave feminism questioning the enforced masculine definitions of femininity and patriarchy. It would be time consuming here to reflect fully on the contributions of feminist (and other women) scholars, and such contributions have been largely explored elsewhere. Yet one main point needs to be made. Despite, (and possibly because of) the well intentioned feminist critique, men have become increasingly hidden in gender based research. Indeed on examination of much of the literature on gender and other areas central to sociological enquiry, such as gender and employment, men are often absent or marginal to the analyses made³. Hearn (1989) explains this by arguing that this invisibility of men is a reflection of men’s taken for granted structural power and domination. To look at men critically and usefully, must involve a close examination of patriarchy that will inevitably be a difficult task for (some) men. Yet such a critique of patriarchal practice is required.

Ford and Hearn (1991) note, patriarchy has many different meanings, and has produced a number of theories about the role of men and women⁴, with some feminists rejecting patriarchy (see Hakim 1996) whereas others suggest it is central to any understanding of women’s (and men’s) oppression. Such points have been acknowledged and the consideration of patriarchy has lead generally to an increase in the amount of writings on men and masculinity, and the development of the so-called ‘new men’s studies’ mainly in the United States and in a very limited way in the UK. What also needs to be noted, therefore is, in the absence or the increasingly marginal consideration of men in gender research, a new trend or ‘new revival’ in the writings on men

In recent years, there has been something of an explosion… in the production of sociological texts by men writing about masculinity.

(Pringle 1995: 2)

As Pringle (1995) suggests, recently within sociology, and across social scientific research in general, a new approach to the study of gender has emerged. Work is being undertaken in areas such as men’s sexuality, fatherhood and childhood experiences, not as a movement against feminist analysis, but as an attempt to examine the roles of men, and to redress the sociological scale of gender analyses. This area of enquiry has become known as ‘The New Men’s Studies’ and (like women’s studies), takes patriarchy as being central to its own analysis drawing attention to changes in the male role and now differing definitions of masculinity. However, what is men’s studies? At first glance this may seem like a very simplistic and straight forward question to answer as Brod suggests:

While seemingly about men, traditional scholarship’s treatment of generic man as the human norm in fact systematically exeludes from consideration what is unique to men qua men. The overgeneralization from male to generic human experience not only distorts our understanding of what, if anything, is truly generic to humanity but also precludes the study of masculinity as a specific male experience, rather than a universal paradigm for human experience. The most general definition of men’s studies is that it is the study of masculinities and male experiences as specific and varying social - historical - cultural formulations.

(Brod 1987:2)

As Brod argues, at it simplest, men’s studies is the study of men, bringing men back towards critical purview rather than equation with the generic However, as with the variety and diversity that is found within feminism and women’s studies, men’s studies and the critique of men has different meanings and implications for those who are working with and within it. Another useful definition of men’s studies comes from Hearn (1987, 1989) who emphasises the centrality of patriarchy and the forward moves made by feminism. In general, Hearn identifies three basic components of men’s studies. Firstly, it is the need for men concerned with gender, feminism and working against sexism and patriarchy to examine men and masculinities our/themselves.

Secondly, there is a need to do this critically. Hearn (1987) suggests that men’s (patriarchal) practice exists both in public and private worlds, and if men and gender relations are to change, this public/private male domination needs to be questioned. In many respects this argument is not new, but simply more apparent than it was previously. As Seidler notes:

So ‘sexism’ isn’t simply an abstract ideology that has to be challenged in people’s heads, but is a complex set of social relationships that we live out in our everyday lives… Somehow we need a way of recognising the power that we, as men, have in relation to women, while not being paralysed or silenced about masculinity. It means recognising that sexual politics deeply challenges the ways we are allowed to be, as men and the kind of power that we take for granted.

(Seidler 1991: 65)

Thirdly, the need for such an undertaking to be located in terms of a standpoint - the standpoint being anti-patriarchal. For Hearn (1989), men’s studies is located at the ‘anti-patriarchal’ praxis, where all pro-feminist men challenge existing notions of masculinity. However, this standpoint has only come about because of the forward moves made by feminism, feminist sociology and to some extent, gay liberation. Men’s studies merely reflects a positive response to these forward moves. The central theme of the response seems to be a critical assessment of what it is to be male and the politics of masculinity. As Hearn (1989) notes, it is no longer possible to take for granted maleness or masculinity. Indeed this seems to be a logical extension of the feminist arguments that a re-definition of what it is to be feminine is required, and that this must have a certain effect on the culturally accepted notions of what it is to be male, and accepted notions of masculinity.

These shifting definitions of maleness and masculinity are what men’s studies are a response to. Feminism was (and still is), important for the introduction of men’s studies as it questioned existing notions of masculinity.

… it is the case that women and femininity cannot be understood without reference to men and masculinity also.

(Maynard 1990: 283)

However, as well as defining what men’s studies constitutes, Ford and Hearn (1991) also offer a note of caution, suggesting the following ground rules for men’s involvement in the c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of tables
• Introduction
• 1 The Sociological Gender Critique
• 2 Linking Men and Paid Employment
• 3 Men, Work and Employment in Britain
• 4 Researching Men: Outlining a Quantitative Case Study of Men
• 5 Men and Employment in the National Child Development Study
• 6 Men, Work and Gender Role Attitudes
• 7 Men and Work Related Training
• 8 Men, Households and Private Work
• 9 Psychological Health and Men’s Work
• 10 Conclusion: Moving Male Work Further?
• Bibliography
• Index