Ryan Scoats and Adam White discuss their recent article in SRO
A growing acceptance of homosexuality in
society is not just good for sexual minorities, but it also has a knock-on effect
for the ways that all men behave. In the past, a suspicion of homosexuality has
often been based on effeminate behaviours, like men wearing pink or holding
hands. Any boy not attempting to embody, or at least endorsing traditional
notions of masculinity, would therefore be singled out as feminine, and thus, a
fag. However, when men no longer fear being thought of as homosexual—because
being homosexual is no longer considered a bad thing—this broadens the range of
behaviours available to them. When men are able to choose their behaviours more
freely, not fearing stigmatization, being associated with that which were once
considered 'symbols of femininity' no longer has the same meaning. This is
something we are seeing within Western cultures of masculinities, particularly
amongst younger generations of men. For contemporary masculinity, having an
interest in fashion, crying during a film, or spooning with another man no
longer carry with them a homosexualising stigma.
This change in attitudes towards
masculinity can be understood through Eric Anderson’s
inclusive masculinity theory.
Anderson says that as men's fear of being though gay declines, a wider array of
male behaviours are socially acceptable. Inclusive masculinity theory has been
used by many to explain the improved
attitudes towards gay men in sport, increasing
physical tactility between guys and the social
development of both metrosexuality and bromances.
Yet, some have mistaken
these optimistic findings as suggestive of a gender utopia. Unfortunately, not all areas of society change at the same rate. Some
areas of society do, and will continue to exhibit higher levels of homophobia
as well as be more prone to gender policing. Those who continue to subscribe to
orthodox/traditional notions of masculinity are unlikely to embrace new, softer
forms of masculinity. With this in mind, our recent research in Sociological
Research Online looks at these contrasting cultures of masculinity through the
lens of the media; specifically Australia's weeklyrugby league show: 'The NRL Footy Show'.
The Footy Show airs every Thursday
typically after 8.30pm Australian Eastern Time. It has run for 23 consecutive
seasons since 1994 and usually involves 3 to 4 consistent co-hosts whom are
regularly supplemented with ancillary hosts who are namely current rugby league
players and/or other athletes. The show consists of various scripted segments
related to rugby league as well as interactions with current players.
Using a content analysis to examine three
separate episodes of the show, we found there to be inconsistent messages put
forward around masculinity. Whereas the scripted portions of the show presented
orthodox notions of masculinity, including casual misogyny, the valorisation of
violence, and condemnation of femininity, this stood in contrast to the guests
on the show: current players. Instead, these guests demonstrated more
‘feminised’ behaviours such as vulnerability, being in touch with their
emotions, or flamboyancy. We interpret this this disparity in ‘message’ as a generational
divide between the ‘old’ proponent’s orthodox masculinity and the ‘young’s’
inclusive masculinity. The show seems intended to appeal to those socialised in
an era where extreme homophobia was compulsory to achieve masculinity. This
culture of relative orthodoxy, however, stands in contrast to the younger
athletes appearing on the show who were cultivated in an era more acceptable of
homosexuals and feminine practices.
It would, however, be simplistic to simply
view this as a clash of cultures—the old versus the new—and the show attempts
to navigate this disparity through the use of humour. We suggest that the makers of the show recognise that the audience
no longer universally values orthodox masculinity, nor is it exalted by the
players they feature on the show. It is for this reason that the show aims to
shape a version of appropriate masculinity through humour. The tongue-in-cheek
style of the show suggests that all involved know that misogynistic and
homophobic statements are now socially unacceptable. However, this humour
allows for plausible deniability in their position. Thus, this strategy enables
the show to straddle the intergenerational divide: reinforcing traditional masculinity
to those with more orthodox appetites, whilst at the same time couching their
activities/language in humour that allows for the younger generation to
interpret them as innocuous banter.
