Topic 1: Recap Discussion Board

3

Seeing Privilege Where It Isn't Marginalized Masculinities and the lntersectionality of Privilege

BETHANY M. COSTON AND MICHAEL KIMMEL

When discussing privilege, we often ~nsider it a zero-sum quantity, one either has it" one does not. Since privilege is distributed along a range of axes, we consider three sites in which male privi­ lege is compromised by marginalization by other statuses: disability status, sexuality, and class. Em­ ploying a Symbolic Interactionist approach, derived from Erving Goffman's Stigma (1963) , we observe strategies employed by disabled men, gay men and working class men to reduce, neutralize, or resist the problematization of masculinity as a constitutive element of their marginalization by class, sexuality, or disability.

The idea tha~, "privilege is invisible to tho~e who have it has become a touchstone epi­

gram for work on the "super-ordinate" -in this case, White people, men, heterosexuals, and the middle class (Privilege: A reader, 2010) . When one is privileged by class, or race or gender or sexuality, one rarely sees exactly how the dynam­ ics of privilege work. Thus, efforts to make privi­ lege visible, such as McIntosh's (1988) "invisible knapsack" and the "Male Privilege Checklist" or the "heterosexual questionnaire" have become staples in college classes.

Yet unlike McIntosh's autobiographical work, some overly-simple pedagogical tools like the "heterosexual questionnaire" or "Male Privilege checklist" posit a universal and dichotomous un­ derstanding of privilege: one either has it or one does not. It's as if all heterosexuals are white; all "males" are straight. The notion of intersectionality complicates this binary understanding.

We propose to investigate sites of inequality within an overall structure of privilege. Specifically, we look at three groups of men-disabled men, gay men, and working class men-to explore the dy­ namics of having privilege in one sphere but being unprivileged in another arena . ...

This is especially important, we argue, because, for men, the dynamics of removing privilege involve assumptions of emasculation-exclusion from that category that would confer privilege. Gender is the mechanism by which the marginalized are margin­ alized. That is, gay, working class, or disabled men are seen as "not-men" in the popular discourse of their marginalization. It is their masculinity-the site of privilege-that is specifically targeted as the grounds for exclusion from privilege. Thus, though men, they often see themselves as reaping few, if any, of the benefits of their privileged status as men (Pratto & Stewart, 2012) . . . .

Bethany M Coston and Michael Kimmel, "Seeing Privilege Where It Isn't: Marginalized Masculinities and the lntersectionality of Privilege" from Journal of Social Issues, 68( 1) : 97- 111. Copyright 2012 by Wiley-Blackwell. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

19

•

20 r/\Rl I H /\ ',l lll IN I 11 1 <,

Doing Gender and the Matrix of Oppression

ln the U nit ed St a tes , th ere is a se t or id eali zed

s t a nd a rd s flw m e n . ·111 esc standards include b eing

b r,wc. d epend able, and strong, emoti onall y stabl e,

as well as c riti ca l, logical, and rati onal. 111e ideal m a le is supposed to be not only wealthy, but al so in a pos it io n o f power over others. Two words sum up th e expectati o ns fo r men: hegemonic masculinity

(c f. C o nn ell , 1995) . l11at is, the predominant, over­ p owe ring concept of what it is to be a "real man ."

The ideali zed notion of masculinity operates as both an ideology and a set of normative con­ straints .. .. One of the more popu-ways to see gender is as an accomplishment; an everyday, in­ teractional activity that reinforces itself via our ac­ tivities and relationships. "Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interac­ tional, and micropolitical activities that cast par­ ticular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine 'natures"' (West & Zimmerman, 1987).

These "natures;' or social norms for a particu­ lar gender, are largely internalized by the men and women who live in a society, consciously and oth­ erwise. In other words, these social norms become personal identities. Moreover, it is through the inti­ mate and intricate process of daily interaction with others that we fully achieve our gender, and are seen as valid and appropriate gendered beings ... .

. .. While the men we discuss below may oper­ ate within oppression in one aspect of their lives, they have access to alternate sites of privilege via the rest of their demographics (e.g., race, physical ability, sexual orientation , gender, sex, age, social class, religion) . A working class man, for example, may also be White and have access to white privi­ lege and male privilege. What is interesting is how these men choose to navigate and access their priv­

ilege within the confines of a par_ticula_r social role that limits, devalues, and often st1gmat1zes them as

not -men . •• · It is important to realize that masculinity is ex-

tremely diverse, not homogen_ous, unchanging,

fi d or undifferentiated . Dillerent versions of xe , masculinities coexist at any given historical period

I .. 11 coex ist within dif fe rent groups. Ho an t L,I . . Wever . . . 1 •. li ve rsit y and coex iste nce th at creates •1t 1 s t 11 s t · a spa for margin alizati o n . 'ul he d omin ant gr<J up neect t

to J·ustify its do m inance- th at differenc ... · d way ' C l \ I r)

fcri o r" (C heng, 2008 ) .

Dynamics of Marginalization

and Stigma Marginalization is both gendered and dynam ic.

How do marginalized m en resp ond to the prob.

lematization of their m asculinity as they are

marginalized by class, sexuality or disability status? .. . Stigma is a stain, a mark, and "spoiled

identity;' Goffman (1963) writes, an attribute that

changes you "from a whole and usual person to a

tainted and discounted one:' People with stigma­

tized attributes are constantly practicing various strategies to ensure minimal damage . ...

Goffman identified three strategies to neutral­

ize stigma and revive a spoiled identity. He listed them in order of increased social power-the more power you have, the more you can try and redefine

the situation ( these terms reflect the era in which he was writing, since he obviously uses the Civil

Rights Movement as the reference) . They are:

1. Minstrelization: If you're virtually alone and have very little power, you can over-conform to the stereotypes that others have about you .. • to exaggerate the differences between the stigmatized and the dominant group. Thus, for example, did

African Americans over-act as happy-go-lucky en­ tertainers when they had no other recourse. Con­ temporary examples might be . .. gay men who really "camp it up" like Carson Kressley on "Que_e! Eye for the Straight GuY:' Minstrels exaggerate dit­ ference in the face of those with more power; when

they are with other stigmatized people, they n1 1 a 1 ):

I h f 1 "·ictua ' aug about the fact that the power u ' · 1 -

. 1 sort 0 thmk we're like this!" That's often the on Y power that they feel they have.

1 1

U •unotll 2 . Normification : If you have even a sma '. es

:l"fterenC of power, you might try to minimize the t I ,

11 sa)'·

' k " Oll ' between the stigmatized groups. 'Loo ' Y_ . nee " , . 0 dtflere we re the same as you are, so there 1s n . the · d" · · · •fi ation 15 to 1scrn111nate agamst us." Norm1 c

strategy that the stigmatized use to enter institutions formerly closed to them, like when women entered the military or when Black people ran for public office .. . . Normification involves exaggerating the similarities and downplaying the differences.

3. Militant Chauvinism: When your group's level of power and organization is highest, you may decide to again maximize differences with the dominant group. But militant chauvinists don't just say "we're different;' they say "we're altltetter:' For example, there are groups of African-J\mericans ("Afrocentrists" or some of the Nation of Islam) who proclaim Black superiority. Some feminist women proclaim that women's ways are better than the dominant "male" way. These trends try to turn the tables on the dominant group . . . .

These three responses depend on the size and strength of the stigmatized group. . . . However, we might see these three strategic responses to stigma through a somewhat different lens. The over­ conformity of normification accepts the criteria that the dominant group uses to maintain its power; normifiers simply want to be included. By contrast, both minstrelizers and militant chauvinists resist their marginalization by rejecting the criteria by

which they are marginalized . .. .

Disabled Men

Discrimination against men with disabilities is pervasive in American society, and issues of power, dominance, and hegemonic masculinity

are the basis .... Disabled men do not meet the unquestioned and idealized standards of appear­ ance, behavior, and emotion for men. The values of capitalist societies based on male dominance are dedicated to warrior values, and a frantic able­

bodiedness represented through aggressive sports and risk-taking activities, which do not make room

for those with disabilities. For example, one man interviewed by Robert­

son (2011) tells the story of his confrontations with

those who discriminate against him. Frank says,

If somebody doesn't want to speak to me 'cause I'm in a chair, or they shout at me 'cause I'm in a chair, I wanna know why, why they feel they have

l <-.r-r-1ng Pr i'ld<•w· V'l hc•r,, It Isn't 21

to shout. I'm not deaf you know. If they did it once and I told them an<l they didn't do it again , that'd be fair enough. But if they keep doing it then that would annoy me and if they didn't know that I could stand up then I'd put me brakes on and I'd stand up and I'd tell them face-to-face. If they won't listen, then I'll intimidate them, so they will listen , because it's important. (p. 12)

. . . Men with physical disabilities have to find ways to express themselves within the role of "dis­ abled:' Emotional expression is not compatible with the aforementioned traits because it signifies vulnerability; in this way, men, especially disabled men, must avoid emotional expression. If they fail in stoicism, discrimination in the form of pejora­ tive words ("cripple;' "wimp;' "retard") are some­ times used to suppress or condemn the outward expressions of vulnerability.

But, men with disabilities don't need verbal re­ minders of their "not-men" status. Even without words, their social position, their lack of power over themselves (let alone others), leads them to under­ stand more fully their lacking masculinity. One man, Vernon, detailed these feelings specifically,

Yeah, 'cause though you know you're still a man, I've ended up in a chair, and I don't feel like a red­ blooded man. I don't feel I can handle 10 pints and get a woman and just do the business with them and forget it, like most young people do. You feel compromised and still sort of feeling like "will I be able to satisfy my partner:' Not just sexually, other ways, like DIY, jobs round the house and all sorts. (Robertson, 2011, pp. 8-9)

. .. When reformulating ideas of masculinity, these men usually focus on personal strengths and abilities, regardless of the ideal standards. This can include maneuvering an electric wheelchair or driv­ ing a specially equipped vehicle, tasks that would be very difficult for other people. Men who rely on hegemonic ideals are typically very aware of other's opinions of masculinity. 1l1ese men internalized ideals such as physical and sexual prowess, and athleticism, though it can be nearly impossible for them to meet these standards. 1l1en there are men

•

22 PART I : MASCULINITI ES

who reject hegemonic masculinity. 1l1ese men be­ lieve that masculine norms are wrong; they some­ times form their own standards for masculinity, which often go against what society thinks is right for men. Some men [tried] devaluing masculinity's importance altogether. The operative word is try because despite men's best efforts to reformulate or reject hegemonic masculinity, the expectations and ideals for men are far more pervasive than can be controlled. Many men trying to reformulate and reject masculine standards often end up "doing" gender appropriately in one aspect oflife or another.

Indeed, some men find that hypermasculinity is the best strategy. Wedgwood (2011) interviewed

disa~led men and Carlos was certainl~me who ap- preciated gender conformity: •

The thrill you get out of doing it because I'm an adrenaline junkie! [laughs]. Contact for me, gets your adrenaline going, gets your blood going and it's a rush ... if I have a really hard match and I'm getting bruised and getting smashed in there and I'm still trying to go for the ball and I keep getting hit-that's what I love about contact sports-I keep getting hit and everything and still getting up. (p. 14)

.. . However, as Erving Goffman (1963) writes, "The stigmatized individual tends to hold the same beliefs about identity that we do .... His deepest feelings about what he is may be his sense of being a 'normal person: a human being like anyone else" (p.

116) . Failing to maintain the hegemonic norms for masculinity has a direct, sometimes negative psy­ chological effect. People tend to judge themselves and measure their worth based upon an intersubjec­ tive, sometimes impossible reality. Goffman (1963) later continues, any man that fails to meet the social standards for masculinity is "likely to view himself­ during moments at least-as unworthy, incomplete, and inferior" (p. 128). Identity, self-worth, and con­ fidence depend on whether or not he accepts, con­ forms to, or relies on the social norms.

Men with disabilities are no strangers to accept­ ing and relying upon social norms of masculinity. Despite their sometimes stigmatized status, they do have access to sites of privilege .. . .

For example, a 2008 document · · · ary «

Life: For One Night Only;' aired on Chan 1 ' . Rea]

• ne 41n th United Kingdom and SBS m Au stralia is d . e

1. . . , escnbect in an Austra ian newspaper review as a « h

< , • • c arrnin documentary on the sexuality of disabled g

d . People" (Jeffreys 2008) . Here, a 1sabled man is t k ' . . , a en on a trip to Spam by his parents to access prost·t

• , 1 uted women in a special brothel for people with v .

anous disabilities' (Schwartz, 2008) . In this way he cl . . . , aims male privilege-the ab1hty to use economic re- sources to gain access to women's bodies-and w e, the viewers, see his masculinity-his sexual needs rights, and entitlements-as validated. . . . '

The desire to maintain a disabled man's masculin­

ity does not just stem from within that man, however. The model of rehabilitation of people with disabili­ ties, the medical model of disability, has a male body and male sexuality in mind. "Rehabilitation programs seek to cultivate 'competitive attitudes' and address 'concerns about male sexuality"' (Jeffreys, 2008). They are about "enabling men to aspire to dominant no­ tions of masculinity" (Begum, 1992).

Robert David Hall is an actor on the hit Ameri­ can television show CSI ( Crime Scene Investigation) and walks on two artificial legs due to having both of his legs amputated in 1978 after an 18-wheeler crushed his car. His character is not defined by his disability. "I used to hate the word 'disability;" he said. "But I've come to embrace the fact that I'm one of more than 58 million Americans with

some kind of physical or learning disability" (p. i).

''After the accident, I realized I had more strength than I knew;' Hall says. "I was forced to face up to reality, but facing such a reality helped me face any fears I had of taking risks" (Skrhak, 2008).

In today's world men with disabilities fight ~ . ' .. -their

uphill battle against hegemonic masculinity re· ·t· . h d . an}' enfo pos1 ion m t e social order-an its m A" "I /VJ

ers. Men with disabilities seem to scream, their STILL A MAN!" They try to make up for J'lle h . . h mascu J

s ortcommg by overexaggeratmg t e dates qualities they still have, and society accornJ1llO •ahtS th ' · ' exua flo 1s via their support of disabled mens s ' . pro·

b·t ·tatJOl1 and the sexist nature of medical reha 11

grams and standards.

1

Gay Men

.. . Today in the United States , gay men con tinue l o

be marginalized by gender- that is , their masculin ity is seen as problematic. l n a survey of over 3,000

American adults (Levitt & Klassen, 1976) , 69% be­ lieved homosexuals acted like the opposite sex, and

that homosexual men were suitable only to the "un­

masculine" careers of artist, beautician, and florist ,

but not the "masculine" careers of judges, doctors, and ministers . Recent studies have found similar

results, despite the changing nature of gay rights

in America (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Wright & Canetto, 2009; Wylie, Corliss, Boulanger, Prokop, & Austin, 2010) . Ill

The popular belief that gay men are not real men is established by the links among sexism ( the sys­ tematic devaluation of women and "the feminine") , homophobia (the deep-seated cultural discomfort and hatred felt towards same-sex sexuality); and compulsory heterosexuality. Since heterosexual­ ity is integral to the way a society is organized, it becomes a naturalized, "learned" behavior. When a man decides he is gay (if this "deciding" even occurs) , he is rejecting the compulsion toward a heterosexual lifestyle and orientation (Rich, 1980).

More than this, though, compulsory hetero­ sexuality is a mandate; society demands hetero­ sexuality; our informal and formal policies and laws all reflect this (Fingerhut, Riggle, & Rostosky, 2011). And, in response, men find that one of the key ways to prove masculinity is to demonstrate sexual prowess. Thus, a normifying process can be discerned among gay men of the pre-HIV, post­ Stonewall era . ...

Levine's classic ethnography of clone culture makes clear that, among gay men, hypermasculine display-clothing, affective styles, fashion, and, above all, sexual promiscuity-consisted of a large promissory note to the larger culture-a culture that was both heterosexist and sexist in its anti-gay senti­ ments (Levine, 1995). "We are real men!" that note read. "We not only perform masculinity success­ fully, but we embrace the criteria that denote and confer masculinity. And so we want you, the larger dominant culture, to confer masculinity on us:'

l \,, ,.ing P rivi l••w · Wh,,n, It Isn 't 23

I .argc r domin an t culture has not , generally, con­ ferred mascu linity on gay men . Indeed, a recent

study fou nd that "the stereotype of gay men as more feminin e and less masc uline than other men

appears robust" (Mitchell & Ell is, 2011 ). This re ­ search found that simply labeling a man gay, de­

spite the man presenting as gender-typical, made

the man more likely to be rated as effeminate.

Gender-nonconforming gay men may often feel marginalized within gay culture itself, from other

gay men, who are most likely to have experienced stigmatization and may have been effeminate ear­

lier in their lives. Writing about gay men's feminine stereotype, Lehne (1989) noted that, "Effeminacy itself is highly stigmatized in the homosexual sub­ culture" (p. 417) ....

Sociologist Tim Edwards detailed this type of rejection and reliance: on one hand, there are the effeminists who express gender nonconformity and/or seek to denounce traditional masculinity because of their personal style or a commitment to feminism-in other words, they reject mass social norms and deny their importance or very founda­ tion; on the other hand, there are the masculinists who are proponents of gay male "machismo" and seek to challenge the long-held effeminate stereo­ type of gay men-they rely heavily on the hege­ monic ideals ... .

The gay men who conform to hegemonic norms, secure their position in the power hierar­ chy by adopting the heterosexual masculine role and subordinating both women and effeminate gay men. Having noted that hypermasculine gay men have been accused of being "collaborators with patriarchy:' Messner (1997) pointed out the promi­ nence of hegemonic masculinity in gay culture: "it appears that the dominant tendency in gay culture eventually became an attempt to claim, eroticize, and display the dominant symbols of hegemonic masculinity" (p. 83).

Historically, camp and drag were associated with minstrelizers, those who exaggeratedly expressed stereotypic constructions of homosexual mascu­ linity. The 1950s hairdresser, interior decorator and florist of classic cultural stereotype were embraced

24 PA RT I : M A SC U LI NI T I ES

_ lliticil position . as lifestyle choices, it not yet il pt '

1 .• el:-

. t pes· 11e11 Minstrelizers embraced the stereo Y ·' b . " I wants to e feminacy asked the questron w 10 ,,

.., 1 , t much work. • · · butch all the time anywayr ts oo 1 'bilities for a l11e effeminists pointed tot 1e possi .

. . . . c · · Effem1-hberated mascuhmty offered by 1emm1sm. . . · 1 d • · · pol1't1·cal pos1t10n , msm, t 1ey argue , 1s a pos1t1ve .

aligning anti-sexist gay men with women, 1~ste~d of claiming male privilege by asserting their dif­ ference from women. Since, as Dansky et al. (1977) argued, male supremacy is the root of all other op­ pressions, the only politically defensible position was to renounce manhood itself, to refuse privilege. Dansky and his effeminist colleagues were as criti­ cal of mainstream gay male culture (IPd the deni­ gration of effeminacy by the normifiers) as by the hegemomnic dominant culture .. . .

Working Class Men

Working class men are, perhaps, an interest­ ing reference group when compared to disabled men and gay men. The way(s) in which they are discriminated against or stigmatized seem very different. These men, in fact, are often seen as in­ credibly masculine; strong, stoic, hard-workers, there is something particularly masculine about what they have to do day-in and day-out. Indeed, the masculine virtues of the working class are cele­ brated as the physical embodiment of what all men should embrace (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Sanders & Mahalingam, 2012) .

Working-class White males may work in a system of male privilege, but they are not the main beneficiaries; they are in fact expendable. The work­ ing class is set apart from the middle and upper classes in that the working class is defined by jobs that require less formal education, sometimes (not always) less skill , and often low pay. For men, these jobs often include manual labor such as construc­ tion, automotive work, or factory work. The jobs these men hold are typically men-dominant.

If the stereotypic construction of masculinity among the working class celebrates their physical virtues, it also problematizes their masc ulinit b imagining them as dumb brutes . .. . Minstreli~in;

. J t be the sort of self-effacing corn m1g 1 . . ,, nients , 15

"I'm just a working stiff. It can bean-.· 8Uch < f l l ·1 · "JJnst I ·,. . g strategy o ow- eve res1stanc b re -1z1n e ec ti Se behaviors actually let th e working I ause ,e . c ass Ill ff the hook wh en it com es to account 6.1. an

0 a I lty ·b·l·t 0r respons1 1 1 Y. • · · .

We can also see th is type of minstreliz t· . . a ion in

en who over-emphasize their adherence t . m o~ gender roles-being rough, uncivilized, brav e, or brutish ... .

Of course, there also are elements of militant

chauvinism in the proclamation of those stereo­ types as well. For men in these positions, sexism

and patriarchy are key features of their masculine dominance. When the work force is decidedly all or mostly male, relationships are often "built through

a decidedly male idiom of physical jousting, sexual boasting, sports talk, and shared sexual activities" (Freeman, 1993). Here, what is key for men is how they can effectively "compensate" for being under­ lings in the eyes of the managers that rule over them and the families they go home to. Using physical endurance and tolerance of discomfort, required by their manual labor, they signify a truer masculinity than even their office-working bosses can embody. They somehow signify a truer masculinity than their effeminate, "yes-men:' paper-pushing manag­

ers can lay claim to ( Collinson, 1992). Moreover, those in the working, or blue-collar,

class form a network of relationships with otber blue-collar workers that serve to support them an~ give them a sense of status and worth, regardless ot actual status or worth in the outside world (Cohen &H d h ork-o ges, 1963). In fact, because those int e w · 1 10unt mg c ass cannot normally exercise a great an f · 1 reh1-o power m their jobs or in many other forma . . · h' · shlP~ hons ips, they tend to do so in their re1atJOI1 . h " rearer

wit other working class members. To a g . -j r c]ass

extent than other classes, [the lower-Jowe 1·- ·u dto"a1

wi tend to measure status by power, an r·- d h. < fi ls en J

ate is own claim to status, where he ee & tied t · ." (Cohen 0 tt, by asserting a claim to powei Hodges, 1963). . the

H · ~~ owever, for those who want to min 1ore a d the 11 pparent differences between them an )

=h ~1 - Se

n

:t

r

t

dominant masculine ideal , a site of normificalion

could be the focus on all men's general relationship to

women and the family. Those involved in the union

movement, for example, stake claims to manhood

and masculinity by organizing around the principle

of men as breadwinners. The basic job that all "real

men" should share is to provide for their wives and

children. This would explain the initial opposition

to women's entry into the workplace, and also now

the opposition to gay men's and lesbian women's en­

trance. There is a type of White, male, working class

solidarity vis-a-vis privilege that these men have

constructed and maintained, that promotes and

perpetuates racism, sexism, and homophobia-the

nexus of beliefs that all men are supposed tcwlue (Embrick, Walther, & Wickens, 2007) .

... In the absence of legitimated hierarchical benefits and status, working class husbands and

partners are more likely to "produce hypermas­

culinity by relying on blatant, brutal, and relent­

less power strategies in their marriages, including spousal abuse" (Pyke, 1996). However, violence

can also extend outside the home. As Pyke (1996) points out, "The hypermasculinity found in certain lower-status male locales, such as on shop floors,

in pool halls, motorcycle clubs, and urban gangs, can be understood as both a response to ascendant masculinity and its unintentional booster:' ...

Conclusion Privilege is not monolithic; it is unevenly distrib­

uted and it exists worldwide in varying forms and contexts. Among members of one privileged class, other mechanisms of marginalization may mute or

reduce privilege based on another status. · · · In this

paper, we described these processes fo~ thr_ee groups of men in the United States-men with dis­

abilities, gay men, and working class me~-who see their gender privilege reduced and their mas­

culinity questioned, not confirmed, through th~ir other marginalized status. We described strategi_es these men might use to restore, retrieve,. or resist

that loss. Using Goff man's discussion of ~tigma, we

described three patterns of response. It is. thro~gh . mi·nsterlization nonmficat10n, these strategies- ,

.l. Sc: <' inr, Privil eze When· I t' Isn't 25

and militant chauvinism- that a person's attempt

to access privil ege ca n be vi ewed , and , we argue,

that we ca n better see th e standards, ideals, and

norms by which any society measures a man and

his masculinity, and the benefits or consequences of his adherence or deviance.

References

Begum, N. (1992) . Disabled women and the feminist agenda. Feminist Review, 40, 70- 84.

Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009) . The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(2), 160. doi: 10.1037/a0014583.

Cheng, C. (2008) . Marginalized masculinities and he­ gemonic masculinity: An introduction. The Jour­ nal of Men's Studies, 7(3), 295- 315.

Cohen, A. K. , & Hodges Jr., H. M. (1963) . Characteris­ tics of the lower-blue-collar-class. Social Problems, 10(4), 303- 334.

Collinson, D. (1992). Managing the shopfloor: Sub­ jectivity, masculinity, and workplace culture. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: Uni­ versity of California Press.

Dansky, S., Knoebel, J., & Pitchford, K. (1977). The ef­ feminist manifesto. In J. Snodgrass (Ed.), A book of readings: For men against sexism (pp. 116-120). Albion, CA: Times Change Press.

Embrick, D. G., Walther, C. S., & Wickens, C. M. (2007). Working class masculinity: Keeping gay men and lesbians out of the workplace. Sex Roles, 56(11), 757-766.

Fingerhut, A. W., Riggle, E. D. B., & Rostosky, S. S. (2011). Same-sex marriage: The social and psycho­ logical implications of policy and debates. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 225- 241.

Freeman, J.B. (1993) . Hardhats: Construction work­ ers, manliness, and the 1970 pro-war demonstra­ tions. Journal of Social History, 26(4), 725-744. Retreived from http:/ /www.jstor.org.libproxy. cc.stonybrook.edu/stable/pdfplus/3788778.pdf.

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973) . Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.