Visit https://ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

Exploring Masculinities Identity Inequality

Continuity and Change 1st Edition C.J. Pascoe

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/exploring-
masculinities-identity-inequality-continuity-and-
change-1st-edition-c-j-pascoe/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookfinal.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

South Asian Masculinities Context of Change Sites of

Continuity 1st Edition Filippo Osella (Editor)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/south-asian-masculinities-context-of-
change-sites-of-continuity-1st-edition-filippo-osella-editor/

Russia s Foreign Policy Change and Continuity in National

Identity Fourth Edition Andrei P. Tsygankov

https://ebookfinal.com/download/russia-s-foreign-policy-change-and-
continuity-in-national-identity-fourth-edition-andrei-p-tsygankov/

East Asian Capitalism Diversity Continuity and Change 1st

Edition Andrew Walter

https://ebookfinal.com/download/east-asian-capitalism-diversity-
continuity-and-change-1st-edition-andrew-walter/

The Radical Right in Switzerland Continuity and Change

1945 2000 1st Edition Damir Skenderovic

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-radical-right-in-switzerland-
continuity-and-change-1945-2000-1st-edition-damir-skenderovic/
Russia in the Middle East and North Africa Continuity and
Change 1st Edition Chiara Lovotti

https://ebookfinal.com/download/russia-in-the-middle-east-and-north-
africa-continuity-and-change-1st-edition-chiara-lovotti/

Exploring Language Change 2Rev Ed Edition Ishtla Singh

https://ebookfinal.com/download/exploring-language-change-2rev-ed-
edition-ishtla-singh/

Communicating Marginalized Masculinities Identity Politics

in TV Film and New Media 1st Edition Ronald L. Jackson Ii

https://ebookfinal.com/download/communicating-marginalized-
masculinities-identity-politics-in-tv-film-and-new-media-1st-edition-
ronald-l-jackson-ii/

Race gender sexuality and social class dimensions of

inequality and identity 2nd Edition Susan J. Ferguson

https://ebookfinal.com/download/race-gender-sexuality-and-social-
class-dimensions-of-inequality-and-identity-2nd-edition-susan-j-
ferguson/

The Global Local Interface and Hybridity Exploring

Language and Identity 1st Edition Rani Rubdy (Editor)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-global-local-interface-and-
hybridity-exploring-language-and-identity-1st-edition-rani-rubdy-
editor/
Exploring Masculinities Identity Inequality Continuity
and Change 1st Edition C.J. Pascoe Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): C.J. Pascoe, Tristan Bridges
ISBN(s): 9780199315673, 0199315671
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 11.13 MB
Year: 2015
Language: english
IDENTITY, INEQUALITY,

CONTINUITY, AND CHANGE

C. J. PASCOE &

TRISTAN BRIDGES
EXPLORING MASCULINITIES
 EXPLORING
MASCU LIN ITI ES
IDENTITY, INEQUALITY, CONTINUITY,
AND CHANGE

C. ]. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges

NEW YORK OXFORD

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Copyright © 2016 by Oxford University Press.

For titles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education

Opportunity Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the
latest information about pricing and alternate formats.

Published by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
http://www.oup.com

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Exploring masculinities : identity, inequality, continuity and change / [edited by]
C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-19-931567-3 (pbl<. : all<. paper) 1. Masculinity. 2. Men--Identity.
1. Pascoe, C. J., 1974- II. Bridges, Tristan.
HQ1090.E9242016
305.31--dc23
2015001211

Printing number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper
 For

Desmond, Parker, Emerson, Ciaran, and Spencer

&

Raewyn, Mike, and Michael

 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi

INTRODUCTION -EXPLORING MASCULI NITIES:

HISTORY, REPRODUCTION, HEGEMONY, AND DISLOCATION

PART I HISTORICIZING MASCULINITIES 35

CHAPTER 1 Historicizing Masculinities-An Introduction 37

1. Remaking Manhood through Race and "Civilization" 50

Gail Bedennan
2. Houdini, Tarzan, and the Perfect Man-Introduction 67
fohn F. Kasson
3. Romantic Friendship: Male Intimacy and Middle-Class Youth
in the Northern United States, 1800-1900 75
E. Anthony Rotundo
4. Clothing and Gender in America: Children's Fashions,
1890-1920 89
fo B. Paoletti
5. Shell-Shock as a Social Disease 94
George L. Mosse
6. Breadwinners and Losers: Sanctions Against Male Deviance 100
Barbara Ehrenreich
7. Guyland: Gendering the Transition to Adulthood 107
Michael Kimmel

vi i
viii CONTE NTS

PART II MULTI PLYING MASCULINITIES 121

CHAPTER 2 Multiplyin g Masculin ities-An Introduction 123

8. The Social Organization of Masculinity 136

Raewyn Connell
9. Retrofitting Frontier Masculinity for Alaska's War
against Wolves 145
Sine Anahita and Tamara L. M ix
10. Manhood Over Easy: Reflections on Hegemonic, Soft-Boiled,
and Multiple Masculinities 155
Melanie Heath
11. Synthesized Masculinities: The Mechanics of Manhood
among Delinquent Boys 166
Victor Rios and Rachel Sarabia
12. Inclusive Masculinities 17 8
Eric Anderson
13. Healthy for Whom?-Males, Men, and Masculinity:
A Reflection on the Doing (and Study) of Dominance 188
Matthew B. Ezzell
14. On Patriarchs and Losers: Rethinking Men's Interests 19 8
M ichael A. Messner
15. Masculinities as Structured Action 207
Ja mes w: Messerschm idt

PART III NAVIG ATING MASCULINITIES 221

CHAPTER 3 Navigating Masculin ities-An Introduction 223

16. Latino Boys, Masculinity, and Puberty 235

R ichard Mora
17. "My Passport Says Shawn": Toward a Hip-Hop
Cosmopolitanism 245
Marh Anthony Neal
18. Masculinity Dilemmas: Sexuality and Intimacy Talk
among Christians and Goths 25 8
Amy C. Wi/hins
19. Styled Masculinity: Men's Consumption of Salon Hair Care
and the Construction of Difference 269
Kristen Barber
20. Becoming a Firefighter 2 80
Matthew Desmond
 Contents Ix

2 1. Can Bourdieu Help Us Understand Masculinity, and Can

Masculinity Help Us Understand Bourdieu? 291
Adam Reich
22. "Manning Up to Being Gay": Minority Masculinities in the
Community and at the Club 30 1
Anthony C. Ocampo
23. Negotiating the Field of Masculinity: The Production and
Reproduction of Multiple Dominant Masculinities 311
Tony Coles

PART IV DISLOCATING MASCULINITIES 323

CHAPTER 4 Dislocating Masculinities-An Introduction 325

24. Research on Men and Masculinities: Some Implications

of Recent Theory for Future Work 337
Alan Petersen
25. An Introduction to Female Masculinity:
Masculinity without Men 34 8
]. Jach Halberstam
26. Gosh , Boy George, You Must Be Awfully Secure in Your
Masculinity! 359
Eve Koso/sky Sedgwich
27. Midwest or Lesbian?: Gender, Rurality, and Sexuality 364
Emily Kazyai1
28. William's Doll and Me 376
Karl Bl�ya n t
29. Penis Panics: Biological Maleness, Social Masculinity,
and the Matrix of Perceived Sexual Threat 3 82
Laurel Westbrool, and Kristen Schilt
30. Negotiating Vulnerability and Fear: Rethinking the Relationship
between Violence and Contemporary Masculinity 394
M ir iam]. Abelson
3 1. Dude-Sex: White Masculinities and 'Authentic' Heterosexual
among Dudes Who Have Sex with Dudes 402
Jane Ward
32. Masculinities and Post-Homophobias? 4 12
Tristan Bridges and C. ]. Pascoe

CONCLUSION-HISTORICIZING, MULTIPLYING, NAVIGATING, AND

DISLOCATING: LOOKING TO T HE FUTURE OF GENDER THEORY 425

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I t takes a village, and more than a bit of luck, to write a book like this. We were interested
I in crafting a book that could be used in classrooms, but also wanted to organize the field
of masculinity studies in new ways. Our editor, Sherith Pankratz at Oxford University
Press, guided us patiently through several iterations of this text. In addition to Sherith, we
received incredible feedback from a number of reviewers of early drafts of the Table of
Contents. Most specifically, we' d like to thank Freeden Oeur for such incredible feedback
on an early draft that dramatically shifted our organization of the book. The whole process
helped us to consider what was new about this book and how we were building on and
connecting diverse bodies of existing research.
Additionally, we have both benefitted from incredible mentorship from masculinities
scholars more generally. Michael Messner and Michael Kimmel in particular were so help­
ful in the early stages of this proj ect. As we worked through edits and suggestions, we care­
fully talked through suggestions and advice from "West Coast Michae l " and "East Coast
Michael " and the book is so much stronger as a result. We also received feedback from
Raewyn Connell and James Messerschmidt in the early stages of this project and were so
grateful for their time and attention. Perhaps the earliest kernel of the manuscript emerged
out of discussions C. J. had with Barrie Thorne about frustrations she had with the current
state of the field as she was writing what would become the text of Dude, You' re a Fag.
As we developed a new framework building on Connell's theory of gender relations to
consider how all of the work we think of as masculinities studies can be connected, we
were also incredibly fortunate to receive original contributions from a number of scholars
in the field. We were both completely honored to be able to include original work by ( in
the order they appear in the volume) Melanie Heath, Victor Rios, Rachel Sarabia, Eric
Anderson, Matthew Ezzell, James Messerschmidt, Richard Mora, Kristen Barber, Adam
Reich, Anthony Ocampo, Laurel Westbrook, Kristen Schilt, and Miriam Abelson. We also
want to thank John Ibson for allowing us to publish a picture from his personal collection
of early U . S . photographs depicting men together.

xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We've also benefited from the i ncredible feedback we've received less formally as we
discuss the book with others . Among the many who deserve recognition for these con­
versations, and whose ideas, we hope, are reflected i n these pages are Tara Tober, Megan
Sheppard, Sarah D iefendorf, Sarah Mosseri, Jaime Hartless, Lauren Stewart, and D'Lane
Compton, as well as several iterations of C. J.'s Contested Masculinities classes at Colorado
College and Tristan's Men and Masculinities courses at both the University of Virginia and
The College at Brockport, State University of New York.
We are deeply i ndebted to our i ncredible research assistant, Andrea Herrera. She kept
us organized and on task and, quite frankly, made the production of this book possible.
We also benefited from the careful attention of Katy Albis at Oxford University Press, par­
ticularly in helping us organize the manuscript and helping us with all of the copyright
issues that are a bit outside either of our expertise.
We are both also thankful for the support of our families. It is obvious that we wrote a
lot for this text; what is less obvious is that we have also, between the two of us, had four
babies during the period of time we were working on this book. Countless chapters have
been written or reviewed holding babies, washing bottles, or with bleary eyes left over
from sleepless n ights. Our partners, Megan Sheppard and Tara Tober, have done that extra,
often unacknowledged, labor that makes a book like this possible on top of the conversa­
tions about the book, reading over drafts, and discussions about all of the joys and struggles
involved in collecting work from so many authors. To both of you we say thank you.
We have also been working on this book for a couple years now. It a l l started with an
email between two scholars, strangers to one another. That email led not only to a close
friendsh ip, but also to generative and exciting discussions that resulted in this text. This
proj ect has led us to feel reinvigorated about the field, our research, and the future of soci­
ology of gender. So, as cheesy as it is to "acknowledge" each other, we'd be remiss not to
mention this and the i mportance of our hard work and friendship to this project.
 INTRODUCTION

EXPLORING MAS CULINITIES

History, Reproduction, Hegemony,
and Dislocation

"The closer we come to uncovering some form of exemplary masculinity,

a masculinity which is solid and sure of itself, the clearer it becomes that
masculinity is structured through contradiction: the more it asserts itself, the
more it calls itself into question."
-SEGAL 1990: 123

"Manhood is not bestowed at the outset; it must be constructed, or let us say

'manufactured.' A man is therefore a sort of artifact, and as such he always
runs the risk of being found defective."
-BADI NTER 1995: 2

WH A T I S MA S C U L I N I T Y?

During Super Bowl XLIV, "Dove for Men" (201 0) aired a commercial entitled "You are a
Man!" Against background music of the William Tell Overture, the commercial followed a
man's life from conception through childhood through adulthood narrated by the following
lyrics:

Get born. Get slapped. Now get to school. Be good in sports. Always look cool. Lift weights.
Be strong. Know how to fight. Stay out late. But be polite. And find a nice girl that will say
"I Do," and have three kids that look just like you. Rake leaves from the hedge and mow the
yard. Honey can you open this jar? If you hear a noise in the middle of the night, go check
it out with a flashlight. You reached a stage where you feel at ease. You've come this far and
it wasn't a breeze. You can take on anything. Of course you can, because you are a man!

"You are a Man!" indeed. This short, entertai ning ad transmits a lesson in masculinity,
telling us exactly what society expects of men. I n this ad Dove presents masculinity as
something men possess simply by virtue of being born male. Dove tells men they "can take
on anything" because they are men . Masculinity messages like this are everywhere-in the
2 E X P L O R IN G M A S C U L I N I TI E S

music videos w e watch, the books w e read, the history w e are taught, the advertisements at
which we laugh, and more. Indeed, advertisements like this one are part of a society-wide
process through which behaviors, identities, embodi ments, and dispositions we come to
think of as "masculine" are constructed.
Although the Dove ad situates men as unproblematically masculine (i.e., "You are a
man, so these are all the things you can and should do" ) , a great deal of popular culture situ­
ates masculinity as something to which men must lay claim (rather than passively possess)
lest they risk somehow losing it. For instance, during the same Super Bowl (X LIV), a separate
. . commercial framed masculinity as a much more tenuous-not to mention onerous­
achievement. This commercial, advertising the Dodge Charger, featured no music. It pre­
sented a series of men, looking straight-faced and somewhat defeated into the camera. Some
aren't shaved, some are in pajamas, but they all look deadly serious as the camera pans closer
to each man's face and then cuts to another, accompanied by the following message:

I will get up and walk the dog at 6:3 0 AM. I will eat some fruit as part of my breakfast.
I will shave. I will clean the sink after I shave. I will b e at work at 8:00 AM . I will sit through
two-hour meetings. I will say yes, when you want me to say yes. I will be quiet when you
don't want me to say no. I will take your call. I will l isten to your opinion of my friends.
I will listen to your friends' opin ions of my friends . I will be civil to your mother. I will put
the seat down. I will separate the recycling. I will carry your lip-balm. I will watch your
vampire TV shows with you. I will take my socks off before getting into bed. I will put my
underwear in the basket. And because I do this, I will drive the car I wa nt to drive . Char­
ger. Man's Last Stand !

Unlike the Dove ad, this ad tel ls men they are not masculine. In fact, we are told that the
requirements of modern society (being a good worker and a healthy adult) and heterosex­
ual relationships (overbearing and demanding female partners) actually emasculate men.
This commercial tells men they have a problem while simultaneously offering the solution
(e.g., Messner and de Oca 2005; Bridges and Kimmel 2009). Their "problem," accordi ng to
the commercial, is that they are fighting an endless barrage of internal urges on a moment­
by-moment basis to suppress the wild man who l ives inside them. The solution is purchas­
ing the thing that will express this inner masculinity-a Dodge Charger. "Release your
inner man," the commercial seems to say.
Dove portrays men as in control; Dodge situates men as controlled by others. Who's
right? That is a more difficult question to answer than it might at first appear. For instance,
although these two ads seem like they are talking about masculinity in completely differ­
ent ways, they also rely on a great deal of common ground. Both commercials present
masculinity as a natural property of men. Whereas Dove presents men as unproblemati­
cally embracing their gender through various tasks throughout life and around the house,
Dodge situates these same sorts of obligations as attempts to subdue men's "natura l " incli­
nations. Both commercials rely on us understanding masculinity as some kind of inherent
property of men. But what, exactly, they each situate as " inherent" is vastly different.
The reason these seemingly contradictory advertisements resonate with viewers is that
when discussing masculinity, we have learned to embrace contradictions embedded in
 Exp/oring MasCIl/in i ties 3

understandings of masculinity. And we can casually ignore these contradictions most of

the time because most of us proceed from the notion that everyone knows exactly what we
mean when we address the topic. For instance, when we ask students to define masculinity,
their answers commonly refer to specific objects (e.g., guns, beer, neck ties, tools, beef),
practices (e.g., chopping wood, lifting weights, buying and selling stocks), or bodily fea­
tures (e.g., facial stubble, musculature, weathered skin) . Like the Dove commercial, stu­
dents typically get around actually defining masculinity by instead offering a list of
potential ingredients-as though one could combine many of them, bake at 350 degrees
for 30 minutes, and out pops a man.
Thus, asking "What is masculinity? " often elicits smiles and knowing smirks because
the question-on the surface-seems so self-evident as to not require an answer. As such,
a book on masculinity might seem unnecessary. Men are studied all the time, aren't they?
Isn't history the history of men? Aren't politics the politics of men? Medicine, the medicine
of men? As feminist analyses have shown, academic inquiry has often taken men for
granted as nongendered subjects. But this book is not addressing men per se. I nstead it
examines masculinity.
What, then, is the difference b etween men and masculinity? Why use these two differ­
ent terms? "Man" refers to a state of being; "masculinity" refers to much more: identity,
performance, power, privilege, relations, styles, and structure. In other words, masculinity
is what makes one a man. But once we try to articulate exactly what makes a man, we find
that it is often much more difficult than we might have anticipated. Most of us casually use
a sort of "I know it when I see it" approach or think of masculinity as a series of "nots" (e.g.,
not feminine, not "gay, " not interested in interior design, cooking, or clothing) .
Whereas we often easily recognize women's lives as gendered (in fact we have established
entire classes, departments, and bodies of scholarship around women's studies), masculin­
ity is less easy to recognize and often seems invisible. Men's lives, however, are just as orga­
nized by gender as are women's. We too often fail to appreciate this. Why? Because power
renders certain identities and structures less visible than others. The mechanisms that afford
privilege are often invisible to those on the receiving end of that privilege; meanwhile what
makes people marginal is all too apparent to the marginalized. As Michael Kimmel writes,
"Marginality is visible and painfully visceral. Privilege is invisible and painlessly pleasant"
(1990: 94). When privilege is "working," those most advantaged by systems of power and
inequality are relatively unaware of their advantages (e.g., Mcintosh 1 9 88).
So why is it so important to recognize men as gendered? Because gender is one of the
major ways through which power structures, privilege, and inequality are reproduced-in
addition to (and in combination with) race and class. Therefore, it is important to see men
as gendered because masculinity repl icates power and affords power to those with that
identity. It is impo rtant to investigate masculinity to understand the ways in which poli­
tics, the state, institutions of school and work, rel igion, family, and nationality are infused
with, and themselves shape, masculinity.
This book is premised on an understanding that masculinity (as wel l as femininity, and
gender more generally) is "socially constructed." That is, the readings in this text do not
assume that masculinity is biological ly determined.l Rather, this text operates on a social
4 EXPLO R I N G MA S C U LIN I T I E S

constructionist perspective-emphasizing varying definitions of masculinity, the role of

individuals in contesting and enforcing these definitions, the patterning of masculinity,
the role of various social institutions in sustaining and organizing masculinity, and the
ways in which power is reproduced, embodied, and contested regarding masculinity. This
means that three things are going to be highlighted in this text. First, masculinity is so­
cially constructed. As such, meanings of masculinity are not transhistorical or universal.
Second, variations a mong men are important in terms of understanding masculinity. Not
all men are beholden to or enact the same masculinity. Additionally, not all men h ave the
same privileges by virtue of being male as all other men. As such, we might begin to think
of masculinities in the plural. Third, masculinity may or may not be related to a male body.
That is, although some of the sociology of masculinity has assumed a male body-such as
Whitehead and B arrett do in arguing that masculinity is best understood as "what men do"
(20 0 1 : 15 -16) - our understanding of masculinity is broadened when we understand it as
something women can " do" too.
Although masculinity is a term most of us use with a certain kind of casual confidence,
there are really few aspects of masculinity that we can define conclusively. There is a general
agreement that masculinity has something to do with men and that it is associated with a
set of approved behaviors and activities. But the image we get is vague and the details can
change a great deal depending on when, where, and who we ask. Masculinity has a slippery
quality to defining and understanding it: the more precisely we attempt to define the term,
the more likely it becomes that we are simply defining it in a single moment, context, his­
torical period, or culture and for a particular group. Indeed, as Segal writes in one of the
quotes at the outset of this introduction, "the more it asserts itself, the more it calls itself
into question" (19 9 0: 123). For the purposes of this volume, we define masculinity as the
practices, behaviors, attitudes, sexualities, emotions, positions, bodies, organizations, in­
stitutions, and all manner of expectations culturally associated with (though not limited
to) people understood to be male. One thing to note about our definition is that it is descrip­
tive, not prescriptive. By this, we mean that masculinity is a description given to all manner
of cultural roles, institutions, practices, and processes. Prescriptive accounts of masculinity
focus primarily on what men should be like, rather than what they are like. 2
This essay addresses different explorations into masculinity, from prescriptive to de­
scriptive approaches. Biological and early sociological approaches tend to be prescriptive,
whereas later sociological, specifically social constructionist approaches, tend to be de­
scriptive. This essay outlines these approaches, describes the shift to a social construction­
ist approach, h ighlights important concepts, and suggests four contemporary approaches
that characterize contemporary explorations of masculinity: historicizing, multiplying,
navigating, and dislocating masculinity.

B I OLOG I CA L E X P LOR A T I O N S

A social constructionist approach to gender contradicts many of the common-sense under­

standings we have of masculinity. People use phrases like "raging hormones" to explain all
manner of men's (often bad) behavior. After all, men, on average, have higher levels of
testosterone than women. And testosterone makes men aggressive and hypersexual, right?
 Exploring Masculinities 5

Well, yes and no. There's actually a lot of evidence indicating that what we think of as mas­
culine behavior produces spikes in testosterone rather than the reverse (e.g., Sapolsky 19 9 7;
Mazur and Booth 1998; Booth et al. 2006 ) . For instance, testosterone is often hailed as a
magical elixir that makes men violent, prohibits them from falling in love, and provides a
biological foundation for social hierarchies.But it turns out that a much more biologically
accurate understanding of testosterone is that it is a biological response to (rather than
causal mechanism of) aggression, love, and social status.
These claims about testosterone are an example of biological explanations of gender
inequality and, specifically, masculinity. These types of explanations focus on how innate
biological differences between m ales and females work in ways that program them for dif­
ferent social behaviors. This programming is said to take several forms: endocrine func­
= =
tioning (testosterone aggression and estrogen nurturing and teamwork); number of
eggs female bodies produce versus the number of sperm male bodies produce as leading to
different mating behaviors; chromosomal diversity (e.g., XX, XY, XO, XXV, XYY); and sex
differences in brain structure and function, for example.
Although biological sex is often treated as unproblematic, like masculinity, once we get
down to the nitty-gritty, it is more complicated than many assume.One method of "sexing"
the body is to ask about chromosomes. Male sperm come in two types: one carrying an
X chromosome and one carrying a Y. Female eggs come in one variety: they all carry X chro­
mosomes.3 Usually, fetuses are born with either two X chromosomes (female) or one X a nd
one Y (male) . Some individuals, however, do not "fit" in either of these types. Some indi­
viduals, for instance, are born with two X chromosomes and one V-XXV (a genetic condi­
tion referred to as Klinefelter's syndrome) or two Y chromosomes and one X-XYY. And
there are equally diverse combinations of sex markers4 (like testes and a vagina, ovaries
and a penis, or having a chromosomal type-like XX-that does not "match " external
genitalia).5 Indeed, there are a variety of sex markers one can use to determine sex: fetal
sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, gen ital sex, fetal interna l reproductive sex, brain di­
morphism, juvenile gender identity, pubertal hormonal sex, and more (e.g., Money a nd
Ehrhardt 1 9 72) . Many of us are used to all of the markers "agreeing" with one another (i.e.,
all pointing toward either "male" or "female" ) . But the significant fact is that they do not
always agree (e.g., Fausto-Sterling 2000, 201 2; Gilbert 2010; Money and Ehrhardt 1 972) ; we
simply treat them as if they do or should.
Additionally, many tend to think of sex as incredibly inflexible (i.e., you're either male
o r female and whichever you "are" does not change).Interestingly, however, we learn from

others how to think of sex as inflexible. Consider an experience Tristan had in the grocery
store as an example. Tristan's one-year-old child was dressed i n a light-yellow onesie, a pair
of light gray cotton pants, and without anything that might definitively indicate gender
identity. A precocious young girl came skipping along with her mom in tow, walked up to
Tristan, pointed at his child, looked at her mom, and asked, "Mommy, is that a boy or a
girl?" Her mother looked back and forth among the child, Tristan, and her daughter and
tentatively offered, "That's . . .um .. .a boy, honey." "Why?" her daughter quickly shot
back. Perhaps not wanting to talk about penises and vaginas in public and possibly exas­
perated with the "Why? " stage of toddlerhood, the mother simply said, " Because!" Still not
6 E X PL O R I N G MAS C LILI N I T I ES

satisfied, the young girl continued, "Will he always be a boy? " The mother awkwardly
chuckled, shrugging her shoulders, grinning, and shaking her head atTristan. "Yes, honey, "
she laughed, "He'll always be a boy." And with that, they moved on.
The question about the future of Tristan's child's gender seemed odd to this girl's
mother. But the girl was not joking when she asked. The mother's answer conveyed signifi­
cant information about our cultural understandings of gender. Like this one, some of the
most important lessons we teach children are probably not on purpose-like showing
them what's worthy of attention, what to ignore, what should be noticed but not discussed,
and more. This l ittle girl learned one of the ways that many people think about gender-a
part of one's identity that is unchangeable, permanent . To think otherwise, she learned, is
laughable. Treating the gendering process as inevitable and permanent disguises the fact
that . . . well . . . it's not. It is so important to our society that we think of gender as stable that
psychologists have even made it a stage in our psychological development, something they
refer to as "gender constancy" (e.g., Slaby and Frey 1975; Ruble et al. 2006; Fausto-Sterling
20l2)-an understanding of gender as a permanent state of being. Between the ages of three
and five (in the United States), children absorb the message that gender is something that
tends to remain stable over time.6
I n other words, what that example indicates is that much of what we take for granted
about gender as biological truth is actually socially taught. Thus, treating masculinity as
predetermined fails to acknowledge the impact of our social environments. Science text­
books, for instance, even "gender" biological functions themselves. In Emily Martin's
(1991) content analysis of descriptions of eggs and sperm in medical textbooks, she discov­
ered that gender stereotypes pervade the biological sciences in how the behavior of sex
cells is understood and explained. Martin discovered that there is a clear "importation of
cultural ideas about passive females and heroic males into the 'personalities' of gametes"
(19 91: 5 0 0 ) . Research l ike this indicates that we ought to remain skeptical of biologically
deterministic explorations of masculinity, but also illustrates that we are clearly collec­
tively preoccupied with biological frameworks for understanding masculinity (see also
McCaughey 2008) . What all of this research agrees on is the idea that whereas people may
be born male or female (although some defy such classifications), all of us are socialized to
become men and women, masculine and feminine. When we look at biological under­
standings of sex and gender from this perspective it becomes clear that this sort of ap­
proach is not just descriptive of some sort of natural reality; it is actually prescriptive in the
way we describe and understand the diversity of seemingly natural bodies .

S OC I A L E X P LORATIO N S

If masculinity (and femininity for that matter) is not dictated by biological functions, how
might we begin to understand it? How is it, in other words, that we might theorize about it?
Considerations of gender as socially and culturally constructed go back (at least) to the
beginning of the 20th century with the anthropologist Margaret Mead's cross-cultural re­
search. Mead was fascinated by varying definitions of what was considered masculine or
 Exploring Masculin ities 7

" feminine" in different cultures around the world. One of her most famous studies on this
issue Sex and Temperament i n Three Primitive Societies ( 1 963 [ 1 935])-describes three tribes
-

in New Guinea that have understandings of gender that are dramatically at odds with one
another. Not only do the three groups of people have competing understandings of mascu­
linity and femininity (Le., what some cultures define as masculine others define as femi­
nine), but also two of them do not believe that men and women have meaningfully different
personalities at all.
Mead's research calls into question two central assumptions about masculinity (and
femininity, and gender more generally) : (1) that there are certain inherent properties that
every culture on earth recognizes as masculine (and feminine); and (2) that there are mean­
ingful differences between people born with vaginas and those born with penises. Mead is
widely credited as one of a group of academic pioneers who began a scholarly dialogue that
challenged the "naturalness" of gender as a central organizing framework of social life.7 This
book is a small piece of this larger theoretical exploration, focusing on contemporary explo­
rations of masculinities as socially constructed. As we describe below, the first attempt at a
social theory of masculinity (and gender more broadly) is called "sex role theory." Later in­
vestigations pointed out the shortcomings in this theory and attempted to provide a more
satisfactory theory of masculinity-by focusing on "gender relations" instead of "sex roles."
This latter investigation into gender relations lays the groundwork for the explorations in
the rest of this book.

SEX ROLE THEORY

Although it may seem surprising now, early sociological analyses of gender were not neces­
sarily feminist. The first systematic attempt to theorize and address gender by sociologists
was undertaken by an American scholar named Talcott Parsons. During the 1 95 0s, Parsons
was among the most influential sociologists in the United States. Parsons (1954) suggested
that social order was possible (despite the omnipresence of conflicts or the potential for
conflict in any social system) because of a social process he referred to as "functionalism."
A functionalist approach to society argues that everything in society has a purpose, a role
to play in the reproduction of the social system- e ve rythi ng.

-
The concepts of "socialization" and "roles" are key parts of functionalist framework for
understanding society. Socialization functions to ensure that everyone understands the
"dos" and " don'ts" of the society in which they live, including what roles they should p er­
form. Roles are practices and identities into which people are socialized. They have elabo­
rate sets of actions tied to them. Although functionalists were interested in all sorts of roles
and social processes in society, the most important social roles for Parsons are what he
called sex roles .
Through the concept of sex roles Parsons attempted to address the social organization
of masculinity and femininity. Metaphorically relying on a bit of language from theater­
role-al lowed Parsons to draw a distinction between the role being played and the actual
person playing the role. Being a man or a woman, sex role theory suggested, meant enact­
ing a role that was understood to be definitive of one's sex. Correspondingly, sex role
8 E X r L ORING MA S C ULI N I TIE S

theorists understood there to be two sex roles in any given context: a "male sex role" and
a " female sex role . " Significantly, although Parsons ( 1 9 5 4) understood these roles to be
different, he e mphatically did not bel ieve them to be unequal. Parsons referred to the
male sex role as " instrumenta l " and the female sex role as "expressive " (Parsons and
Bales 1 953) -and you can probably imagine the kinds of j ustifications for the division of
labor, the public and private spheres, and more implicit in this framework. So, there 's a
"separate, b ut equa l " p h ilosophy embedded in the functionalist framework for thinking
about gender.
Role theory was an impressive first attempt to talk about something as social that we
tend to think of as natural. Like the work of Margaret Mead, sex role theory invites us to
shift our attention away from cultural assumptions about biological differences b etween
men and women. For instance, differences between men's and women's behavior-within
this framework-are understood as socialized responses to different sets of social expecta­
tions, not as hardwired. In so doing, sex role theory sought to directly connect social struc­
ture with the formation of personality, human action, interaction, and identity.
Scholars built on and refined sex role theory in the subsequent decades. Some sug­
gested that analysts m ight think more productively about roles in the plural, rather than
role (Brannon 1 9 76). For instance, psychologist Robert Brannon asked, if the male s ex role
really is one thing, then how can a football player, a j et-set playboy, a blue-collar brawler,
a big-shot businessman, simply working men, Don Juan-type smoldering "studs," politi­
cians and statesmen, and others all be l iving up to it? If the male sex role is one thing, how
can all of these different men be understood as fulfilling it? To solve this problem Brannon
suggested that the male sex role be understood as a role with four d imensions:
• No Sissy Stuff-Masculinity is the persistent repudiation of anything and everything
feminine. This, for Brannon, is the most important dimension of masculinity.
• The Big Wheel-This d i mension of masculinity is measured by success, status, power,
and wealth and by occupying visible positions of leadership.
• The Sturdy Gall- Brannon created this d imension to address the fact that some men
that we culturally identify as masculine conspicuously lacll social status. Despite varia­
tion, common elements associated with this dimension of masculinity are self-reliance,
confidence, emotional stoicism, and an ability to remain calm and composed in mo­
ments of pain, anger, danger, etc.
• Give 'Em Hell-Whereas Brannon argues that "the big wheel " and "the sturdy oak" are
not inherently bad qualities, "give 'em hell " is a d imension that is much less benign .
This dimension of masculinity is measured by an aura of aggression and violence and
the p articipation in daring and dangerous behavior.

Brannon suggested that recognizing multiple dimensions associated with the male sex rol e
would allow u s t o recognize t h e different ways that different groups o f m e n fulfill the
social expectations associated with men and masculinity. 8
However, once tested empirical ly, the sex role model was less useful than it i nitially
seemed (Pleck 1 9 8 1) . In The Myth of Masculinity (1 9 8 1) , Joseph Pleck distilled the empirical
claims embedded in sex role theory and systematically evaluated whether they were
 Exploring Masculinities 9

supported by existing research. Pleck identified eleven central claims associated with sex
role theory-claims that can be assessed by research. Below are a few from his list:

• Empirical tests can be designed to empirically "prove" who is masculine, feminine, or

neither.
• The internalization of the masculine sex role through watching role models is more

important for boys than for girls.

• Sex role identification-particularly for boys-is extremely complex and prone to
failure.
'. Homosexuality results from failed sex role identification,
• Socially "appropriate" sex role identification is necessary for psychological health.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Pleck's review of the empirical research testing these claims
(among others) indicated that arguments based in sex role theory often involved selec­
tively reinterpreting data in ways that confirmed hypotheses (Pleck 1 9 8 1 ) . The evidence, in
other words, did not support the theory. Social problems did not result from men and
women who were not embracing their sex roles (as role theory claimed) but because of the
rigid nature and understanding of sex roles themselves (Plecl{ 1 9 8 1),
I n shifting the attention from the failure of individuals to the problems with sex roles
themselves, Pleck played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for the demise of the sex
role paradigm. Although it is no longer a popular theoretical approach, sex role theory
forged a conversation about gender that sought to understand masculinity and femininity
as features of societies and social structures rather than inherent properties associated
with biological differences between male and female bodies.
We suggest that if it is possible to claim a precise date on which sex role theory was of­
ficial ly discredited, it occurred sometime between April and May of 19 8 5 . If that seems
oddly specific, it is. Judith Stacey and Barrie Thorne (19 85) published "The Missing Fem i­
nist Revolution in Sociology, " and on the other side of the world, Raewyn Connell pub ­
lished a short article- "Theorising Gender" ( 1 9 8 5 ) -that collectively spelled out the
failings of sex role theory as a social theory of gender. Together they critique sex role theory
for the fact that it was tautological, teleological, and ahistorical, and it ignored diversity
and inequality (see also Connell 1 9 79) .
To say that a theory is "tautological " means that it i nvolves a circular form of reasoning.
In other words, the premise of the argument is simply a restatement of the argument's con­
clusion. A central premise of sex role theory is that people play the various sex roles they are
socially assigned because of social expectations. But the argument can quickly dissolve i nto
infinite regress once we ask, "Why do others apply these social expectations? " Within this
framework the only logical response is, "People are expected to apply these social expecta­
tions to others," and so on. Sex role theory implicitly assumes an incredible amount of vol­
untarism on the part of everyone. We all-according to sex role theory-voluntarily apply
sets of social expectations about masculinity and femininity to everyone around us.
Teleological arguments rely on some grand design in which we are assumed to place our
faith. In the case of sex role theory, a biologically deterministic theory about sex and gender
actually lurks behind what initially appeared to be a social theory of gender. For instance, sex
10 EXP L OR I N G M A S C U L I N I TI E S

role theory has no easy explanation for why men would all seamlessly take up the male sex
role (nor would any empirical investigation of men be able to demonstrate this) . There's a kind
of false universalism implicit in the sex role framework. By a metaphorical sleight of hand, sex
role theory is able to casually rely on what is ultimately biological reductionism. Connell
(1985) points out that this is even apparent in the name of the theory, which awkwardly pairs
a biological term-sex-with a sociological one-role. As Connell writes, "This is why discus­
sion of sex roles constantly slides into discussion of sex differences" (1987: 50).
Sex role theory was ahistorical. When sex role theory really " hit its stride" among schol­
ars, it was the 1 950s . Talcott Parsons wrote a great deal about U . S . families and family life
in his work. Indeed, we've been teaching about 1 950s families in the United States since
they existed . In fact, when we talk about the "traditional family," we're invoking some idea
of what families looked like during this period of U . S . history. As far as traditions go, how­
ever, the families that we think of as characterizing the 1950s were unimpressive. The
family form was far from universal even during the period it is popularly understood to
characterize (Coontz 1 992) . And the traditional family had terrible staying power-it just
was not around for all that long. There are a variety of reasons that account for its emer­
gence during that period-an economy capable of providing a " family wage," processes of
suburbanization on an unprecedented scale, etc. It was also the period when televisions
became a stable feature in family homes and when we saw the emergence of family sitcoms
like "I Love Lucy" and "Leave It to Beaver" that celebrated a particular family form-one
with clearly delineated roles for men and women. This was also the time when Parsons was
writing and he seems to have mistakenly assumed that the family forms that became prev­
alent during that period would stick around. Ahistorical argu ments mistakenly assume
that the way things are today are the way they have always been and always will be.
Because of its lack of historical context, sex role theory also lacks a theoretical mecha­
nism to adequately explain change in gender relations (in part, because the theory did not
really acknowledge change) . The framework attempts to get around this by situating itself
as timeless. When social definitions of masculinity (or femininity for that matter) change,
sex role theory has no way of explaining precisely how or why the change occurred. Socio­
logical theory and scholarship on gender have heavily criticized this aspect of sex role
theory, framing gender both as a structure (e.g., Hearn 1987; Lorber 1 994; Risman 2004)
and as an institution (e.g., Martin 2004) in its own right.
Sex role theory was incapable of accounting for diversity; it presumed universal partici­
pation in the enactment of sex roles. Yet, any serious look at society tells us that not all
men can, do, or even try to fulfill what sex role theory presented as a series of obligations
for anyone belonging to the social category, "man." The issue is subtle, but significant: sex
role theory implicitly m istakes what is culturally normat ive for what is nor mal. Although the
male sex role and the female sex role may have been (and may continue to be) regarded as
the right or proper way of doing gender-how people might think others should be doing
gender-certainly not everyone lives up to these cultural stereotypes and ideals . It was a
prescriptive theory of gender parading around as though it were descriptive. Sex role theory
has no way of making sense of anyone who might deviate from the expectations associated
with the role that this framework situated them as socially obligated to play.
 Exploring Maswlinities 11

Similarly, the sex role theoretical model also explicitly understands masculinity as one
"thing" (and femininity as well). In every conceivable situation, Parsons argued that there
is a male sex role and a female sex role. Yet, even the most superficial understanding of
masculinity acknowledges that there is likely widespread disagreement about what
"counts." It does not make sense to consider masculinity singularly in the way sex role
theory treats the concept. Masculinities are plural (e.g., Connell 1 9 9 5 ) . Different historical
periods have distinct conceptualizations of masculinity; understandings of masculinity are
different in different cultures around the world; our understandings of what it means to
. :'be a man" change over the life course; different groups might have different understand­
ings, and we often employ different conceptualizations of masculinity in different con­
texts. For i nstance, we often casually presume that masculinity looks a little different inside
men's sports team locker rooms. The idea is that certain behaviors that might label some­
one " lewd " in one context are openly acknowledged and celebrated in another. So, mascu­
linities are plural and sex role theory had no way of accounting for this fact.
Finally, and most problematically, sex role theory did not address inequality. Although
Parsons (1954) understood masculinity and femininity to be dramatically different from
each other, he did not believe they were unequal in any way-just different. Betty Friedan
(1963) famously referred to this strategy as "the functionalist freeze," a feature of functional­
ist theories of gender that implicitly naturalized the subordination of women and their rela­
tionship with "the family." Sex role theory was able to obscure issues of power and inequality
by focusing more heavily on ind ividuals than on social structures, contending that the male
and female sex roles were naturally complimentary. As Stacey and Thorne write,
The terms are depoliticizing; they strip experience from its historical and political con­
text and neglect questions of power and con fl ict. It is signi ficant than sociologists do not
speak of "class roles" or "race roles." Functionalist assumptions linger more deeply in so­
ciological conceptualizations of gender than of other forms of inequality. ( 1 9 85: 307)

Shining a light on the inadequacy of sex role theory to deal with power and inequality­
issues central to scholarship on gender today-produced a feminist revolution in socio­
logical theorizing on gender.
If gender inequality does exist, the sex role theoretical framework implicitly suggests,
the only way to make sense of inequality is to say that it results from differences. And if the
differences are (implicitly) understood as natural, then any inequality that results from
them can only logically be understood as natural as well. Gender inequality, within sex
role theory, appears inevitable.9 Subsequent theorizing about gender reveals that there is
far more evidence to suggest that the relationship between gender difference and gender
inequality flows in the opposite direction. Societies with understandings of masculinity
and femininity as dramatically opposed have higher levels of gender inequality (e.g.,
Sanday 1 9 8 1 ; Gilmore 1 99 0) . Simply put, collective investmen ts in ideologies of gender differ­
ence are associated with higher levels of gender inequality.
Together, these critiques boil down to one more general critique of sex role theory:
things are just more complicated than that! The simplicity of sex role theory is one clue that it
presents society as far less complex that it actually is. Today, social theorists embrace the
12 EXPLO R I N G M A S C U L I N ITIES

complexity of societies as a n i ntegral component of societies. For gender, this means that
things are more complicated than saying there are instrumental and expressive roles in
every i maginable situation, that men (naturally) fulfill the former, whereas women (inevi­
tably) satisfy the latter. Social explorations of men and masculinities grew out of this frus­
tration with sex role theory as an i nadequate theoretical framework for studying masculinity
(and gender more broadly) . I ndeed, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that studies on men
and masculinities-as a subfield within gender studies-emerged out of a critique of sex
role theory. And every attempt to theorize about masculinity that came after had to address
some of the shortcomings associated with sex role theory. Although scholars no longer ad­
dress this explicitly, each of the explorations of masculinity in this book is implicitly in­
volved in building on this critique.

E X P L OR I N G G E N D E R R E L A T IO N S

Raewyn Connell's influential theory of gender rel ations provides a satisfying way for social
analysts to address the fact that "things are just more complicated than that." Connell is
one of the most widely read and cited gender scholars alive today. Although her theoriza­
tion of masculinities is only one piece of a much larger theory of gender in social life, it has
become most famous for the conceptualization of " hegemonic masculinity." Connell's
theory of gender relations shifted the sociological discussion of gender and mascul inity and
her concepts provide the foundation on which each of the four trajectories of exploration
we describe in this book builds .
In contrast to earlier approaches, a gender relations approach acknowledges the impor­
tance of biology without relying on it as a causal explanation for gender. Connell accom­
plished this by theorizing what she refers to as the "reproductive arena." When scholars say
that masculinity is socially constructed, they are not saying that penises do not actually exist
or that human reproduction does not actually require eggs and sperm. Rather, when we say
that masculinity is socially constructed, what we are challenging is the significance of these
biological facts for the rest of social life. As Connell writes, "we are talking about a historical
process involving the body, not a fixed set of biological determinants. Gender is social prac­
tice that constantly refers to bodies and what bodies do, it is not social practice reduced to the
body" (1995: 71). As such, the term reproductive arena refers to the various practices, perfor­
mances, and social processes that get culturally attached to reproductive differences.
Just by way of example, consider something like lactation and breastfeeding. Women's
bodies lactate; men's bodies do not. Lactation is a completely natural process. Right? Well,
yes and no. It is true that women's bodies lactate; well, most women's bodies. But, breast­
feeding is far from the straightforward natural process you might be thinking of it as. If it
were so natural and preprogrammed, why would we need breastfeeding classes? Why
would we requ ire "lactation consultants," "nursing coaches," and all manner of breastfeed­
ing professionals? After having children, both of us can tell you that breastfeeding is not
quite the seamless natural process you may have been led to believe. Women learn to nurse
children not through biological programming, but through social i nteractions, mediated
(in many societies) by a vast array of social institutions. Indeed, if we only understand
breastfeeding biologically, our understanding will a lways be incomplete. Breastfeeding is
 Exploring Masculinities 13

a biological process heavily shaped by political, cultural, and economic institutions that
structure the practice of breast feeding and the meanings associated with that practice (e.g.,
Schmied and Lupton 2 0 0 1 ; Stearns 1 9 9 9 ) .
The capacity of (many) female bodies to lactate and nurse infants is often used as a
j ustification for a wide variety of social practices. For instance, the fact that (most) women
can lactate is often used to suggest that women are "natural caregivers." Implicit in this
argument-and sometimes made explicit-is what this means for men. Although it is bio­
logically possible for males to lactate (e.g., Diamond 1 9 95 ) , most men do not. But, what
this means for men is a social-not a biological-matter. The fact that (most) men do not
lactate is often used as an explanation for their l ack of natural caregiving qualities. Caregiv­
ing and care work, however, are socially, not biologically, organized. In the United States­
and many other societies around the world-we think of breast feeding as connected with
care work and the capa�ty to nurture. Using Connell's language, this means that we think
of care work as part of the reproductive arena. Just to be clear, although lactation is a biolog i­
cal process, our collective belief and investment in the notion that lactation is justification
for the gendered organization of care work is a social process. When we think about care
work as a natural outcome of lactation, we enter the reproductive arena. The reproductive
arena refers to all of those aspects of social life that we think of as inherently connected to
reproductive differences between male and female bodies that are not, in fact, inherently
connected to reproductive differences between male and female bodies.
This can be a tough pill to swallow. Gender may feel natural. Recall, however, that we
wrote earlier that calling masculinity a social construction is not denying the reality of mas­
culinity. Rather, discussing the social construction of masculinity is merely challenging the
stability and origin of that reality. Connell 's theory understands masculinity as inherently
unstable, with its origins in the social structure and organization of society. Biologically
deterministic theories of gender, i n other words, consider gender as coming from within-as
though gender is expressed from some internal, biological essence. Connell's theory, and
the theorizing in this book, understands gender as coming from without-as socially orga­
nized and embedded in social institutions and interactions. This small change gave rise to
an entirely new way of thinking about, studying, and exploring masculinity.

G E N D ER R E L A T I O N S

Rather than focusing on sex or gender roles, this new way of thinking focuses on gender rela­
tions. Gender relations are understood, in this approach, as "the relationships arising in and
around the reproductive arena" (Connell 2002: 73) . Such relationships constitute "one of the
major structures of all documented societies" (Connell 1 995: 72, emphasis ours) . This trans­
formation in language is significant for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it
allows us to go from understanding gender as a product of other social structures and i nsti­
tutions to considering the ways social structures and institutions are produced by gender. It
allows us not only to consider the ways that gender is structured by society, but also the
manner by which gender participates in the structuring. It also enables us to move beyond a
discussion of indi viduals to institutions in understanding who or what is considered mascu­
line. The state, the military, and schools, for instance, can be understood as masculine
14 EXPLO R I N G M A S C U l. I N I T I E S

within this framework. It is for this reason that Connell theorized masculinities as "configu­
rations of practice " rather than social roles. Configurations of practice can be mobilized by
individual men, but can be understood as institutionalized as wei I. 10
These configurations of gender practice take place in a particular gender order, i n which
one might find more specific gender regimes . The term gender order refers to overarching
patterns in gender arrangements and relations. Although not only women are nurses, for
i nstance, women dominate the field. Although some heterosexual married men stay home
with their children while their w ives work, the opposite scenario is significantly more
common. Indeed, society is structured in ways that make these gender arrangements and
relations l ikely-not inevitable, but certainly more convenient. Connell refers to aspects of
social life like this as small parts of an overarching gender order that structures our under­
standings of gender and relations of power and i nequality. Yet, gender relations are-at
certain moments and in certain contexts-at odds with the gender order as well. Connell
uses the concept gender regimes to make sense of this fact. The gender arrangements of a
particular institution or in a specific organization or context can be referred to as a "gender
regime."11 Connell puts it this way:

The gender regimes of . . . particular organizations, [institutions, or social contexts,] then,

are part of wider patterns, which also endure over time. I call these wider patterns the
gender order of a society. . . . Gender regimes . . . usually correspond to the overall gender
order, but m ay depart from it. Change often starts in one sector of society and takes time
to seep th rough i nto others. (20 0 2 : 73)

Although a great deal of scholarship and theory considers institutions, organizations, and
settings that sometimes appear to challenge the gender order, Connell's theory ought to
caution us to examine these challenges carefully.
Thinking of gender in terms of relations, rather than roles, that are found i n particular
gender orders, as well as more specific regimes, allows us to more clearly understand com­
plicated gendered practices, identities, and representations. Consider the iconic image of
the Marlboro man: a lone cowboy, working the land, shaving once a week, smoking while
leaning on fence posts in wide-open American expanses. He may be one of the most rec­
ognizable images of masculinity i n American advertising. The Marlboro man appeared to
live by h imself, for himself. We learn a bit about what he does for work or for fun in the
images in the advertisements . He's running his ranch, sitting on wooden fences, lighting
up with a lasso at hand, camping out for the night with his head on his saddle, and always
with his cowboy hat on (or close by) . But, we learn relatively little of the complete man in
these images . Is he married? Is he heterosexual? Does he h ave children? Does he h ave sib­
lings? Is he l iving on his parents' ranch or is he "on his own"? Does he have health prob­
lems? Does he have a day job that allows him enough free time to ride and rope in the
afternoons as the sun sets? Or is he being portrayed flat work "? If we knew all of this, we
might decide that he is less masculine than we may h ave thought he was-or, at the very
least, that he does not l ive up to his own image and reputation.
And these different aspects of the Marlboro man's gender identity as a masculine man
might be on different historical paths. For i nstance, as the economy shifts and small farms
 Exploring Masculin ities 15

struggle to survive, the Marlboro man might not be as economically "at ease" as he was
made to appear. Will he have to sell the farm? If that happens, will he have to relocate­
move to a more densely populated urban setting to fi nd work and support himself? This
change will certainly require new kinds of interactions with new groups of people and
kinds of i nteractional and emotional exchange he might be ill-prepared to undertake.
What will become of his iconic status? The Marlboro man was the most successful advertis­
ing image of the 20th century. As the lifestyle he was depicted as living becomes less fea­
sible for more and more people, however, what will become of these ads as symbols of
. masculinity? Will future generations cease to recognize the images as masculine? Or might
these images retain symbolic masculine credibility despite depicting (or perhaps because
they depict) lives less possible today? 1 2
By focusing on gender relations rather than roles, i t becomes clear that the gender
order is composed of various dimensions capable of simultaneously moving in different
directions . "We often experience disparities in gender relations, as if part of our lives were
working on one gender logic, and another part on a different gender logic" (Connell 2002: 75).
Connell suggests that we can understand these contradictions, disparities, and the tug
and pull of gender relations by considering four distinct d imensions of gender rel ations:
p ower relations, production relations, emotional relations, and symbolic relati o n s
(Connell 2002) . These d i mensions are best understood as i nterconnected and mutually
re inforcing. Examples from any one dimension necessarily bleed into the others . They
work together, even as they are often working toward different ends or the same ends i n
different ways . 1 3
Emphasizing the dimension o f power relations enabled Connell's theory to directly chal­
lenge the way in which role theory ignored gender inequal ity. Instead, in Connell's model,
power is central to understanding gender. The primary axis of power in Connell's theory is
"the overall subordination of women and dominance of men" (1995: 74) . This is what or­
ganizes gender relations on a global scale. These power relations can operate directly (as in
the deployment or threat of physical violence) or symbolically (as illustrated by referring to
a father as the " head of the household " ) . In this approach power relations are understood
as simultaneously interpersonal and institutional . ! 4
Focusing o n the dimension of production relations i ncorporates gendered divisions of
labor into her analysis of gender. As Connell writes, "The division of labour itself is only
part of a larger pattern. In an industrial economy, the shared work of women and men is
embodied in every major product, and every major service. Yet women and men are differ­
ently located i n the economic process" (2002: 80). In most societies around the world, men
perform certai n tasks and women perform others . Although the specific tasks assigned
to men or women vary by society and historical period, the division itself is ubiquitous
(e.g., Charles and Gruski 2004) . It might be tempting to think that perhaps men are doing
the more important work or work that has a larger impact on a society because men control
a great deal of the world's resources. But historical data suggest an alternative explanation.
Men are not rewarded more for their work because they are doing work that is "more impor­
tant." Rather, we tend to think of the work men do-whatever it happens to be-as more
important and deserving more pay because it is men who happen to be doing it.15
16 EXPLOR I N G M A S C LI L I N I T I E S

Attending to emotional relations focuses attention on the significance of emotional attach­

ments and the way these arrangements may feel idiosyncratic and personal, but are deeply
patterned by gender. Indeed, part of the reason gender inequality is difficult to spot in our
l ives is the result of our emotional commitments and relationships. Conceptualizing emo­
tional relations as a distinct dimension of gender relations enables Connell's theory to get at
this powerful paradox embedded within gender relations that helps us simultaneously desire
to promote change and cling to what we know and, sometimes, love. We may think of emo­
tional commitments primarily as positive (think of love and romance) . Yet Connell under­
stands emotional commitments as capable of being negative and hostile as well. Prejudice,
for instance, may be understood as an emotional relationship. Therefore, misogyny and ho­
mophobia can both be analyzed by attending to this dimension of gender relations.
More recently, Connell added symbolic relations to her theory to refer to the ways in
which gender is embedded in cultural symbols. We are symbol-using creatures who com­
municate through symbolic systems (a single word is a symbol standing in for a whole set
of meanings, for instance) . Gender is deeply embedded in this symbolic system . "Though
language-speech and writing-is the most analyzed site of symbolic gender rel ations, it
is not the only one. Gender symbolism also operates in dress, make-up, gesture, in photog­
raphy and film, and in more impersonal forms of culture such as the built environment"
(Connell 2002: 84) . Events, acts, and objects are all cultural symbols that can convey gen­
dered meanings and are embedded in gender relations.
The fact that we tend to think of kitchens as feminine spaces in the home, whereas base­
ments and garages have a masculine air about them, is one way to consider this. Kitchens,
interestingly, have undergone a shift in symbolic meaning. In U . S . homes, kitchens are, by
far, the most remodeled room in the house (Arnold et al. 2012), in part because they occupy
a different place in family life today than they did when a great deal of the houses in the

United States were built. People are not just putting in new stoves and refrigerators; they are
breaking down walls, removing doors, and generally opening kitchens up. The kitchen
might once have been a small room inhabited primarily (and possibly, in extreme cases,
only) by women. But today, kitchens are the room in the house in which most families
spend most of their time. Kitchens went from being a room to collect and prepare food to
"command central " in most American family homes. This transformation speaks to the
ways that objects (in this case kitchens) come to take on symbolic gendered meaning and
how that meaning can change. Gender is, quite literally, a part of the architecture. Simi­
larly, whereas one-bathroom homes m ight have worked for famil ies of four in the 1 9 5 0 s
with one " breadwinner, " today's families require more. The rhythms o f family life have
transformed as more women entered the workplace, and the transformations that fol lowed
in our built environments illustrate just how pervasive symbolic gender relations are .
Importa ntly, Connell's theory can be used t o think about these types o f historical changes
in the home. Remember that sex role theory was criticized as ahistorical and incapable of
accounting for change. Connell suggests that these sorts of changes actually constitute gender
relations. Connell considers each of the dimensions of gender relations historically unstable,
prone to crisis. Connell addresses this by theorizing what she refers to as "crisis tendencies "
as a historically constant process within gender relations.16 Thus, "the analysis of crisis
 Exploring Masculinities 17

tendencies i s a question of identifying dynamics which have the potential to transform [these
four dimensions], and thus change in fundamental ways the conditions of future social prac­
tice" (Connell 1 987: 1 59) . But crisis tendencies are uneven, often affecting gender relations
incompletely. And although Connell argues that the gender order continually tends toward
crisis, she also suggests that this tendency may have intensified in recent history. This has
produced "a major loss of legitimacy for patriarchy," and Connell suggests that "different
groups of men are now negotiating this loss in very different ways" (1995: 202) . As relations
of power, production, emotions, and symbols change and adapt to changing circumstances,
. this inevitably involves reverberations throughout gender relations.
Conceptualizing crisis tendencies as an i ntegral feature of gender rel ations allows
Connell's understanding of gender relations to make sense of historical change. But it does
so by considering the diverse potential embedded within any historical transformation in
gender relations . Crisis tendencies enable Connell's theory to make sense of moves toward
and away from gender inequality and simultaneously speak to the flexibility of systems and
structures of power and inequality. They illustrate that masculinity is, in some ways, in a
state of continuous crisis. Speaking of masculinity as " i n crisis" at any point in time makes
little sense from this perspective, "other than to say that masculinity is perhaps partially
constituted as crisis" (Edwards 2006: 24) . The history of gender inequality is often casually
presented as a slow but steady march toward equality. But, this casual observation often
presumes that inequality will not transform-that patriarchies are not, to use Johnson's
(2005) term, "flexible." Connell 's theory makes possible an understanding of "progress"
and contextualizes this potential with a conceptualization of inequality as flexible, adap­
tive, and on the moveY

F RO M M A S C U L I N I T Y TO M A S C U L I N I T I E S

Moving beyond sex role theory also involved moving beyond the language that posited one
male or one female role. To do this Connell suggested that we begin to talk about masculini­
ties, rather than the singular masculinity. Pluralizing masculinity allows us to think about
relationships between men and women as well as among men and among women. Whereas
masculinity-as an ideology and configuration of practice-affords men power, Connell
wanted a theory capable of accounting for the fact that not all men benefit from gender
inequality in the same way. As such, Connell conceptualized four configurations of mascu­
linity, defined by status and power- hegemonic masculinity, subordinated masculin ity,
complicit mascu linity, and marginalized masculinity. To properly understand these vari­
ous configurations of masculinity, however, it is important to remember that, for Connell,
what is thought to comprise normative masculinity is embattled terrain.
Significant for Connell, however, was the notion that not all men benefited from gender
inequality in precisely the same ways. Some groups of men benefit a great deal, but some
might seem to benefit little from men's collective advantages. To address this, Connell intro­
duced the term "patriarchal dividend," referring to things like the gender wage gap (in which
men make more on average than woman), feelings of safety, authority, respect, and bodily
i ntegrity. Connell emphasizes the centrality of power and i nequality through the concept of
the patriarchal dividend and situates it as "the main stake in contemporary gender politics.
18 EXPLO R I N G M A S C U L I N ITIES

Its scale makes patriarchy worth defending" (2002: 142) . Different configurations of mascu­
linity are positioned differently with respect to the patriarchal dividend-some masculini­
ties collect more (or different aspects) of the patriarchal dividend than others.
Hegemonic masculi nitylB is one of the most used terms from Connell 's theory. Of all of
the work that relies on Connell's theory, an i ncredible share draws solely on this concept.
It is a sexy concept that provided scholars a way out of the many dead ends offered by role
theory. Connell defines hegemonic masculinity as "not a fixed character type, always and
everywhere the same. It is, rather the masculinity that occupies the hegemonic position in
a given pattern of gender relations, a position always contestable . . . . It is the successful
claim to authority, more than direct violence, that is the mark of hegemony" ( 1 9 9 5 : 76-77) .
Although the concept has sustained critique (e.g., Donaldson 1 993; Demetriou 2 0 0 1 ;
Schippers 2007 ) a n d reformulation (Connell a n d Messerschmidt 2005 ) , its central prem­
ise has not changed.19 That premise is that hegemonic masculinity is "the configuration of
practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of
patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and
the subordination of women" (Connell 1995: 77) .20 Connell makes no mention of specific
traits or behaviors here-although a great deal of scholarship making use of the term often
artificially flattens it by misinterpreting it to suggest that it has a specific performance and

l
0ijZ!
applies to a specific group of men or historical period.
Most simply, hegemonic masculinity refers to the most culturally exalted forms of
masculinity-configurations that justify dominance and inequality. Whereas we tend to
think of masculine icons as deserving to be held up, conceptualizing them as " hegemonic"
offers a different explanation. As Bridges writes, "we do not exalt hegemonic masculinities
because they are hegemonic; they are hegemonic because we exalt them" (200 9 : 9 1 ) . Hege­
monic masculinity is historically and contextually mobile. Indeed, given this defin ition,
we might even discuss hegemonic masculinities because the same configurations are not
exalted everywhere (at least not necessarily in the same ways or to the same degree) . And
although few-if any-people m ay embody these forms, they play a critical role in justify­
ing gender inequality and dominance. Precisely as the term hegemonic indicates, these
forms of masculinity are seen as ideologically legitimate even by those whose practices
would not be characterized as hegemonically masculine.
Subordinated masculinity refers to configurations of masculinity with the least cultural
status, power, and influence. Connell initially used gay men as the key example here. She
writes, "Oppression positions homosexual masculinities at the bottom of a gender hierar­
chy among men. Gayness, in the p atriarchal ideology, is the repository of whatever is
symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity, the items ranging from fastidious
taste in home decoration to receptive anal pleasure" (Connell 1995: 78; see also Connell
1 992) . We have an elaborate language to symbolically expel people from occupying mas­
culine statuses (often, although not always, fem inizing them in the process) :
sissy, fag, homo, nerd, dork, pussy, mama's boy, girl, girly, baby, apron strings, wuss, wussy
boy, wimp, turkey, pussy, pussy whipped, whipped, homo, twat, baby, little girl, queer,
punk, dickwad, cock, cocksucker, cock gobbler, peeker, puff, dandy, fopp, ween ie, weiner,
 Exploring Masculin ities 19

fuck hole, fudge packer, bitch, Iii' bitch, bitch ass, bitch nigga, son, kid, poof, poofter, puffta,
queen, fairy, batty boy, gay lord, cunt, cunt licker, clown, ass clown, tool, tool bag, wife,
dickless, Nancy, Nancy-boy, Nelly, Mary, Sally, deadbeat, scrub, scumbag, fruit, milque­
toast, fruitcake, pretty boy, punk, douche, douche bag, ladyfinger, lady/ladies, pantywaist,
pansy, cream puff, maricon, puta, jato, pato . . .

And on and on and on. As these terms i ndicate, masculinities may be subordinated in
more ways than one. For instance, subordination may include political and cultural exclu­
sion and segregation, violence (symbolic, legal, and physical), economic discrimination,
and more. So, subordinated masculinities are best understood as subordinated within
each of the dimensions of gender relations Connell defines.
Connell theorizes the term complicit masculinity to refer to configurations of masculin­
ity that benefit from the overal l subordination of women, but do not appear to be actively
i nvolved in the subordination. "Masculinities constructed in ways that realize the patriar­
chal dividend, without the tensions or risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy, are
complicit in this sense " (Connell 1 995: 79) . Complicit masculinity enables Connell's
theory to conceptualize configurations of gender practice and identity that benefit from
gender power and inequality although they appear to play no role (or a small role) in shor­
ing up systems of gendered power and inequality. An example might be the way i n which
a husband who endorses an egalita rian relationship with his wife may still benefit from
making more money for performing the same j ob she does. Or if they have ch ildren and
he is an involved father, he may receive surplus credit for parenting in ways his wife's par­
enting contributions are not afforded the same attention, recognition, or status.
Marg inalized masculinity refers to "the interplay of gender with other structures such as
class and race" (Connell 1 9 9 5 : 80). This enables Connell to illustrate how different mascu­
linities can share some ground with hegemonic configurations, but simultaneously exist as
marginal ized by and to these forms. It also provides the possibil ity for conceptualizing the
ways in which dominant masculinities can reproduce other forms of inequality alongside
gender inequality. For instance, Connell writes, "In a white-supremacist context, black
masculinities play symbolic roles for white gender construction. For instance, black sport­
ing stars become exemplars for masculine toughness" ( 1 9 9 5 : 80). Thus, stereotypes of
black masculinity can work in ways that shore up hegemonic masculine forms without
necessarily occupying the same practical terrain-marginalized by the same construct
they symbolically participate in defining. The tensions that are ever-present between, on
the one hand, marginalized and subordinated masculinities and, on the other, hegemonic
masculinities produce a system of relationships in which disruptions and transformations
are in a state of continuous play.
Although the concept has received far less attention, Connell initially theorized hege­
monic masculinity in relation to a configuration of femininity she termed "emphasized
femininity. " As a result of the "global domination of women," Connell suggests that a
"hegemonic femininity" does not exist . 2 1 Connel l suggests that the highest status mascu­
linities, those most culturally exalted, are also forms associated with the greatest power.
Yet, she argues that-as a result of gender inequality-the relationship works differently for
20 EXPLORING M A S C U L I N I TI E S

femininities. Although she did not define configurations of femininity i n the way she does
for masculinities, she does suggest that the most culturally dominant femininity achieves
power and status through its connection with hegemonic masculinity. Connell defines
emphasized femininity as " defined around compliance with . . . subordination and . . . ori­
ented to accommodating the interests and desires of men" ( 1 9 87: 1 83) . Thus, for Connell
the highest status form of masculinity is the least culturally subordinated, but the highest
status configuration of femininity remains subordinate to hegemonic masculinity. Signifi­
cant here is that Connell does begin to theorize femininities as well as masculinities, although
less attention was given to feminine configurations of practice in the theory (see Schippers
2007). What is significant is that emphasized femininities receive status and power through
their association with hegemonic masculinity. I ndeed, along with other configurations of
masculinity, emphasized femininity plays a key role in propping hegemonic masculinities
up-and as such, emphasized femininities also can be understood as benefitting in some
ways from the patriarchal d ividend. Other femininities, however, do not.
The vast majority of scholarship on m asculinities has primarily util ized Connell's
theory by exporting her concept-hegemonic masculinity-to different settings, to make
sense of various individuals and groups. We detail the main strand of analyses that
emerged from her theorizing in the "Multiplying Masculinities" section. A great deal of
scholarship, however, exports this concept without a complete understanding (or often
with an i naccurate understanding) of the theoretical framework within which it is situ­
ated. And as a result, hegemonic masculinity is often inaccurately (or, more mildly, impre­
cisely) deployed. Work citing the term often considers it solely alongside other configurations
of masculinity, but fails to situate these forms within any of the dimensions of gender rela­
tions Connell outlined . As such, hegemonic masculinity is often depicted as a specific
"type" of man rather than a configuration of gendered practice within a system of gender
relations that is i nternally contradictory and rife with con flict. It is a configuration of prac­
tice that Connell understands as always capable of transforming (despite not always being
depicted this way in research relying on the term) .

C O N T E M P O R A RY E X P L O R A T I O N S : H I S T O R I CI Z I N G ,

M U LT I P L Y I N G . N A V IGAT I NG. A N D DIS L OCAT I N G

When Connell produced her theory of gender relations, she cautioned readers at the outset
not to consider her theory (or any other, for that matter) as outside of the social relations
it sought to explore. In the preface to Gender and Power, she wrote, "theories don't grow on
trees; theorizing is itself a social practice with a politics" (Connell 1 9 87: xi) . This admoni­
tion inspired and has continued to shape her theory and research . As two scholars who
were keenly interested in masculinity, both of us did what graduate students are supposed
to do when positioning your research in the existing literature. We took our empirical data
and tried to place it in a theoretical tradition of analyzi ng masculinities . Unfortunately,
what we found was ONE theoretical tradition. It is not that there is anything wrong with
this particular theoretical tradition or that there has not been research on men and mas­
culinities across the social sciences and in other disciplinary traditions. Most of what we
found i n the social science literature, however, was dominated by a single theoretical
 Explorillg Masculill ities 21

framework. We did not find the animating questions, discussions, and tensions that so
enliven the feminist l iterature on gender inequality.
Of course, none of this is to say that this particular approach is incorrect or that there are
not other approaches that can engender these sorts of discussions. Indeed, that is what this
book aims to do-to bring a variety of approaches to exploring masculinities into dialogue
with one another. What we found is that when analyses of masculinity from a social scien­
tific perspective did not engage with a particular approach and theoretical framework, they
were often not seen as a part of "Masculinities Studies" proper. The animating discussions
�hat would enliven both perspectives failed to happen (at least to the extent we expected)
because the studies were categorized as not of a particular sort. The dominance of the single
approach has-we suggest-produced a field of inquiry that has become overly segregated
from gender studies, writ large. No single scholar is to blame for this segregation. Indeed, it
speaks volumes to the power, omnirelevance, and interdisciplinary relevance of Connell's
framework, in addition to that of a number of other scholars who provided a foundation for
research and theory on masculinities when the field of inquiry didn't quite exist. Building
on insights from groundbreaking feminist scholarship within and out of sociology, scholars
like Raewyn Connell, Michael Kimmel, Michael Messner, Jeff Hearn, Michael Schwalbe,
Barrie Thorne, Nancy Chodorow, Michael Kaufman, Patricia Yancey Martin, Arthur Brittan,
Victor Seidler, James Messerschmidt, Joseph Pleck, Elizabeth Badinter, Harry Brod, Helen
Hacker, Scott Coltrane, David Morgan, Mairtin Mac An Ghaill, Oystein Gullvag Holter,
Alan Petersen, Kenneth Clatterbaugh, Matthew Gutmann, Tim Edwards, Robert Staples,
Alan Johnson, Judith Kegan Gardiner, Wayne Martino, Debbie Epstein, Ann Ferguson, Isaac
Julian, Kobena Mercer, Mary Jane Kehily, Peter Lyman, Richard Majors, Karin Martin, Jen­
nifer Pierce, Christine Williams, Marlon Ross, Paul Willis, Julian Wood, and Maxine Baca
Zinn, among others, produced a field of inquiry that enabled us to study masculinities and
ask questions not previously possible.
With this volume, we are endeavoring to do two things simu itaneously. First, we hope
to continue to celebrate and examine the incredible work being produced by scholars who
situate their work directly withi n masculinities studies . Second, we seek to cultivate what
we understand as incredibly fertile ground at the outskirts of masculinities studies. Col­
lecting research and theory widely acknowledged in the field alongside explorations of
masculinity that rarely receive citation by "masculinities scholars," we attempt to highlight
some of the com mon ground between these approaches. But we are equally interested i n
the tensions that exist a s w e recognize diverse approaches, theoretical models, concepts,
and more. Indeed, we suggest that the field is becoming defined by four separate but re­
l ated trajectories of scholarship. Each stresses different aspects of social life and, given this
fact, may come to different conclusions about any number of social phenomena. We out­
line the approaches themselves ( historicizi ng, multiplying, navigating, and dislocating)
and elaborate on the assumptions, methods, and general approaches associated with each.
We have also endeavored to put these bodies of scholarship i nto dialogue with one an­
other in this volume in ways not currently recognized.
With this volume, we suggest continuing to mine Connell's research and theory for more
ideas. But, rather than suggesting that there are no other ways of studying masculinities, we
22 EXPLO R I N G M A S C U L I N ITIES

suggest that Connell's theory b e understood as an organizing framework within which we

can connect these diverse bodies of scholarship. Indeed, Connell's theoretical framework for
understanding gender relations (and masculinities within those relations) offers us poten­
tial areas for dialogue, disagreement, and more by incorporating research on and theoretical
explorations of masculinities that continue to push the boundaries of the field to more fully
realize the potential of both Connell's theory and the field of study more generally. Below,
we briefly introduce the four trajectories we see as organizing contemporary scholarly explo­
rations into masculinities along with how each can be understood as connected by Con­
nell 's theoretical framework. We introduce each trajectory of exploration in more detail
prior to each of the four sections that organize the book.

H I ST O R I C I Z I N G M A S C U L I N I T I E S

Considering masculinity within a historical perspective is one of the most basic building
blocks that scholars initially used to critique the sex role theoretical framework. Research
within this theoretical trajectory is primarily concerned with historical transformations i n
the meanings, social status, power arrangements, and even the look a n d feel o f masculini­
ties throughout time. What masculinity has been called, of what it was thought to be com­
posed, and what it has been hailed as entailing have all varied throughout time. It might
seem like a simple point-masculinity varies historically-but it is one with enormous
i mplications for studying the topic. I ndeed, the types of things we consider as comprising
masculinity today have not been regarded as masculine throughout time. Conversely,
many things that may have once been understood as primary features of masculinity may
have nothing to do with masculinity today.
Two examples from Western and U . S . culture are the historical transformation of h igh
heels and changes i n androgynous names . In the 1 7th and 1 8th centuries, high heels were
understood as a mascul ine shoe and men were, largely, the group wearing them. Like
plump bodies and pale skin, wearing h igh heels (the impractical shoe that they are) sym­
bol ized an individual's wealth, his lack of a need to work. In fact, women initially wore
heels in an attempt to appropriate some of the power associated with men (Wade and
Ferree 2014) . Less affluent groups adopted the fashion hoping to obtain social status. Per­
haps surprisingly, given modern understandings of beauty, men's legs also symbolized
masculinity during this time period. Men wore tights to display the shapeliness of their
legs. It goes without saying that male legs, much less those atop a pair of high heels, are not
widely embraced as key markers of masculinity today. Indeed, as high heels were gradually
worn more and more by women, they eventually lost their status as masculine.
The gendering of names over time also illustrates historical changes in masculinity.
At one point, parents in the United States named their sons Kim, Cary, or Robin without
thinking twice about it-or Shannon, Riley, or Casey more recently. Think of Cary Grant-a
masculine icon on the silver screen, to be sure. The name Kim was popularized as a name for
boys after Rudyard Kipling published Kim ( 1 9 0 1)-a story of a poor orphaned boy. Both of
these names likely strike contemporary readers as feminine or-at the very least-not mas­
culine. Names that were at one point in time androgynous (like Kim or Cary a half-century
 Exploring Masculin ities 23

ago or perhaps Cameron, Bailey, o r Hunter today) fol low a specific pattern-not s o different
from high heels, as it turns out. As androgynous names become more popular and a critical
mass of girls receive them, the number of boys receiving those names drops precipitously
(Lieberson, Dumais, and Baumann 2000) . This is how Kim, Cary, Dana, Robin, and Casey
have come to be understood as "girl " names. Like high heels, this belies a more general find­
ing in historical analyses of masculinity: changes in masculinity most often occur as reac­
tions to changes i n femininity (Kimmel 1 9 87).
What both of these examples have in common is that masculinity, studied over time, is
. often (re)situated as "not feminine." As gender relations transform, what we understand as
masculine will necessarily transform to adapt. These periods of change are often associ­
ated with claims that masculinity is in crisis. Although masculinities scholars are largely
critical of the "crisis of masculinity" thesis for reasons we address in more detail in the
"Historicizing Masculinities" section i ntroduction, a great deal of this work exam ines h is­
torical periods during which masculinity was u nderstood as in crisis. Although often not
explicitly in conversation with Connell's work this trajectory of masculinities scholarship
is usefully understood as i mplicitly relying and building on four ideas within Connell's
theory: power relations, production relations, hegemonic masculinity, and, perhaps most
significantly, crisis tendencies.
This trajectory in masculinities scholarship is structured by four dominant themes that
we articulate in greater detail in the section introduction . But, as a whole, h istoricizing
masculinities scholarship is interested in the historical form and maintenance of gender
and power relations. Many scholars in this vein are i nterested in historical challenges to
power relations (and transformations in production relations often play a large role in
this research) . Changes in production relations, for instance, produced by mass industri­
alization at the turn of the 20th century, echoed throughout gender relations and are a
powerfu l il lustration of what Connell refers to as crisis tendencies . Conceptualizations of
hegemonic masculinity shift and transform at these moments as new masculinities h is­
torically emerge and others decline. H istoricizing masculinities scholarship traces these
shifts across time and builds on Connell's framework providing examples of these trans­
formations as they take place. In the section introduction, we spell out four dominant
themes that structure historical research on masculinity and provide a selection of read­
ings in this section that exemplify these themes .

M U L T I P LY I N G M A SC U LI N I TI E S

The emergence of what we refer to as the m ultiple masculinities perspective is most clearly
attributable to Connell's (1 995) research and theory. Her initial insight, building on her
dissatisfaction with sex role theory, is that masculinity is not one thi ng it is not one iden­
-

tity, role, practice, whatever. Although the term is often used in ways that imply that mas­
culinity is an " it, " Connell 's understanding of masculinities situated what was thought of
an it rather as a "they, " "them," or "those." She argues that research on masculinity could
only adequately overcome the pitfalls associated with sex role theory by pluralizing the
term: masculinities.
24 EXPLORING MASGULINITIES

But beyond suggesting that we need to b e studying masculinities (rather than mascu­
linity), Connell created a framework within which we could make sense of the fact that not
all masculinities are created equal and posited that masculinity is better understood as
social "practice" than as a social role. As a practice, Connell does not mean to suggest that
masculinities are purely voluntary-that we can simply do masculinity however we please.
Rather, the multiple masculinities framework offered a new model for understanding
gender practice as structured by four separate dimensions of gender relations: power rela­
tions, production relations, emotional relations, and symbolic relations. So, the multiple
masculinities perspective understands masculinity as plural and frames gender as a con­
figuration of practice rather than as a role.
A great deal of the research within the multiple masculinities perspective does not
apply the full potential of Connell's theoretical framework. Rather, as Pascoe (2003)
argues, the framework is more often reified. Although the vast majority of scholarship
within this perspective relies on Connell's conceptualization of masculinities, sometimes
research stops here and creates new typologies of masculinity that are then applied to in­
dividual men (although Connell's conceptualization of masculinities referred to diverse
social practices-rather than different kinds of men) . This framework still has extraordi­
nary power, but the majority of scholarship within the framework uses a small piece of
Connell's overall theoretical perspective, situating individual men or groups of men rela­
tive to hegemonic masculinity with less of a consideration on how this concept fits within
the larger multiple masculinities model and approach. In the introduction to this section,
we articulate these pitfalls in greater detail and discuss how the research and theory in this
section attempts to build on this model and to avoid the shortcomings associated with a
great deal of the scholarship seeking to apply Connell's model (not with the model itself) .
The research that we include in this section is representative of the scholarship that deals
more critically with the approach and builds on Connell 's original conceptualization.

N AV I G AT I N G M A SC U L I N I T I E S

Navigating masculinities scholarship is also best understood as an extension of Connell's

theory, but stressing, extending, and building on slightly different elements of the frame­
work than the previous two trajectories in masculinities scholarship. Research within this
trajectory in the field often focuses on configurations of gender practice that Connell dis­
cussed as "marginalized masculinity" and "subordinated masculinity." The work here
takes Connell's conceptualization of the patriarchal dividend seriously and is interested in
the ways that different configurations of masculinity receive more and less of it in different
ways and in distinct contexts.
Not all of the research and theory that we recognize within this trajectory of masculini­
ties studies explicitly cites and connects with Connell 's theory. But we suggest that this
body of work is building on her theoretical apparatus nevertheless. This is an approach
that utilizes tools from feminist intersectional theories of interconnections between d if­
ferent systems of inequality (e.g., i nequalities based on race, class, education, sexuality,
age, ability, and more) . This body of scholarship and the theory that it has produced brings
fresh insights, concepts, theoretical models, and tools to the study of masculinities.
 Exploril1g Masclllil1 ities 25

I n the introduction t o this section, we more fully explain what i t means to look at
gender and inequality " intersectionally, " where this perspective comes from, and how
these tools build on concepts, rel ationships, and ideas within Connell's theoretical model.
We explain some of the central issues dealt with in scholarship within what we refer to as
the navigating masculinities perspective. Unlike the multiple masculinities perspective,
the scholarship here is not united around a key set of texts. Rather, we suggest that this
body of scholarship can be understood as building on key elements associated with i nter­
sectionality within Connell's theoretical framework-marginality and the unevenness of the
patriarchal dividend-while maintaining an interest in fundamental aspects of Connell 's
theory of gender relations (like power and production relations) .
The scholarship represented in the navigating masculinities section expands the dia­
logue of scholars studying masculinities. I ndeed, some of the scholarship represented here
(and in the following section) has not historically been understood as part of the canon of
research and theory within masculinities studies. But by extending our definition of what
qualifies as masculinities scholarship, we suggest that a great many masculinities scholars
have much to learn from explorations of masculinity by scholars outside of the field (nar­
rowly defined) who are building on core aspects of the theoretical framework that contin­
ues to define the field.

D I SLO C A T I N G M A SC U L I N I T I E S

Similar to the navigating masculinities framework, the work withi n the trajectory of mas­
culinities research and theory we call dislocating masculin ities does not rely on a common
theorist or set of concepts . Indeed, many of these scholars likely to do not recognize them­
selves as in conversation with one another or with masculinities studies, per se. What
unites the theory and research within this perspective is a set of common concerns that are
best summarized as building on three separate aspects of Connell's theory. This frame­
work continues to highlight "power relations," a significant element uniting all four of
these approaches. But what we refer to as dislocating masculinities scholarship also builds
on two central aspects of Connell's theory.
First, dislocating masculinities scholarship is critically concerned with the dimension
of gender relations that Connell refers to as "symbolic relations." How discourses, ideolo­
gies, and more support certain configurations of practice as masculine and specific gen­
dered relations of power and i nequality is a central question for these scholars. Just as
navigating masculinities scholarship brought in new theoretical tools from intersectional
theory and research, dislocating masculinities scholarship engages more critically with
postmodern theories of gender, poststructuralism, and queer theory. It is significant that
each of these theoretical perspectives emerged outside of the social sciences . The work here
is i nterdisciplinary (like Connell's theory) and, collectively, dislocating masculinities
scholarship helps to operationalize elements of theories developed i n diverse fields to
make sense of important configurations of gender and practice less studied by scholars
within masculinities studies more narrowly defined.
Second, and perhaps most significantly, dislocating masculinities scholarship is note­
worthy in that it detaches studies of masculinities from studies of people with male bodies.
26 E X PLO R I N G M A S C U L I N I T I E S

Whereas Connell conceptualized the reproductive arena to help detach understandings of

masculinity from biological imperatives and male bodies, a great deal of scholarship often
implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) considers masculinity as anything and everything
people with male bodies do and configurations of practice only available to male-bodied
persons. But, like sex role theory, this is a casual form of biological reductionism, and Connell
was interested in developing a theoretical framework capable of moving beyond it. So, this
body of scholarship focuses on the boundaries between masculinities and femininities, often
interrogating these boundaries with research on populations that call the very boundaries
themselves into question: transgender men, drag kings, and all manner of what Halberstam
(1998) refers to as "female masculinities."
Dislocating masculinities scholarship is best understood as critically highlighting and
building on elements of Connell's theory less often deployed by scholars who we situate
within the previous three trajectories of theory and research. This scholarship-and we
count our theory and research with this trajectory-presents exciting opportunities to more
fully realize the mission of Connell's theory and the full potential of her framework
Significant here is that there is a great deal of scholarship (even represented among the
contributions to this volume) that might be understood as belonging to more than one
trajectory of exploration. So, it is important to acknowledge that the framework we present
here is a way of thinking about the field that allows us to highlight the diverse ways that
illustrate both the continued endurance and the power of Connell's theory of gender rela­
tions and masculinities . Rather than thinking of a given scholar as only occupying one of
these four trajectories, we suggest that it is much more useful to consider how and in what
ways different aspects of their work can be situated within this framework for thinki ng
about masculinities scholarship. Indeed, considering how research might fit within more
than one of the four traj ectories we outline here allows us to more carefully consider dif­
ferent aspects of the research and emergent theories and concepts in the field. Below, we
offer a set of questions to consider as readers approach each of the contributions to this
volume, followed by a brief overview of the organization of the remainder of the book

E X P L O R A T O RY Q U E S T I O N S

As you read the work that we have collected for this volume, it is important to consider how
this work builds on the theoretical traditions that structure social constructivist investiga­
tions of masculinity. Below is a list of questions we invite you to consider throughout the
volume.

• How is masculi n ity defined? Does it have clear or contextual boundaries? Is it related
to sex? And if so, how? Different answers to these questions allow scholars to highlight
distinct aspects of the social world.
• Where is masculinity "located " in the theory? Does the perspective si tuate masculinity
as a property of individuals? Does the perspective discuss masculinity as a property of
i nteractions or systems of social relations? Is masculinity explained as a feature of
social institutions or as " institutionalized " ? How do you know? What is it about the
treatment of the topic that leads you to classify it this way?
 Exploril1g Masculil1ities 27

• Does this perspective explain sOme o f the variation in masculinities that w e know
exists? How?
• Does this perspective acknowledge other theoretical perspectives as important as well?
Or does the perspective necessitate understanding other perspectives as inaccurate or
as no longer useful?
• What are the theory's implications? Another way of thinking about this is as follows:

If this theory is correct, what are some of the consequences of this fact? For instance,
how might it help or hinder different understandings of gender i nequality?
, . How is power understood in the theory? Is it understood as something held by a rela­
tively small group of people and wielded over others? Is it understood as more diffuse,
structuring all of our identities and i nteractions? Can it be understood in both ways?
• Can you recognize elements of Connell's theory in the research? Are elements from

Connell's theory missing that might provide a, different perspective?

• How does the perspective respond to some of the early problems with sex role theory?

Remember that every perspective does not necessarily have to resolve all of the issues
associated with sex role theory to be a powerful perspective, Sometimes, for example, a
concept might prove incredibly useful in dealing with one of the shortcomings of sex role
theory in an incredibly effective way, Any framework for analyzing masculinity and gender
inequality can be looked at in two ways, We can consider what it can do and we can consider
what it cannot do, Keeping both in mind can help you recognize the significance of each of
the contributions to this volume, even those that might fail to acknowledge everything.
Although sex role theory is widely discredited in the social sciences today, it is important to
remember that it opened doors to new ways of understanding and studying gender that
enabled subsequent theory and scholarship. When sex role theory is discussed today, it is
most often discussed, as we address it here, for what it failed to do. But sometimes, we need
new theories to attempt to shift the conversation-even if done so imperfectly-i n ways
that help us realize we can ask questions we might never have seen. Consider each of the
readings in this light. Yet, it is equally important to recognize how far we have come from
sex role theory and how much this new work has to offer.
At the outset of this introduction, we offered two quotes that structure the explorations
of masculinity in this book. Both Segal (1 9 9 0) and Badinter (1 995) agree that masculini­
ties are constructed. But they are also both keen to recognize the ways in which contradic­
tions are embedded within constructions of masculinity, As such, as objects of resea rch
and theory, masculinities are best understood as moving targets, We often treat masculin­
ity as though it is a stable, transhistorical, cross-cultural, obj ective thing. Yet, as the read­
ings in this volume attest, masculinities are anything b ut natural or stable. It is only
through recognizing and understanding that masculinities can, do, and will change that
we can better understand them, And once we do, they are sure to change again. The frame­
work offered in this book provides a way of contextualizing these changes, seeking to
better understand where and how they emerge, what they mean, and how power and in­
equality are challenged and reproduced. The d iverse strands of scholarship within this
book are connected by a common interest in exploring masculinities. Built into our
28 E X PLO R I NG MA S C U L I N I T I E S

understanding o f the four trajectories shaping contemporary explorations o f masculinities

is the possibility for new interd isciplinary dialogue and debate. We invite you to partici­
pate as we continue to explore continuity and change i n masculinities as well as social
systems of power and inequality.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Eric. 2009. Inclusive Masculinity. New York: Routledge.

Arnold, Jeanne E . , Anthony P. Graesch, Enzo Ragazzini, and Elinor Ochs. 2 0 12 . Life at Home in the
Twenty-First Century. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press .
Badinter, Elisabet h . 1 9 9 5 . XV: On Masculine Iden tity. Ithaca, NY: Columbia University P ress.
Booth, Alan, Douglas A. Granger, Allan Mazur, and Katie T. Kivlighan. 2006. "Testosterone and
Social Behavior." Social Forces 85 ( 1 ) : 167-9 1 .
Bourdieu, Pierre . 1 9 84 . Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Brannon, Robert. 1 976. The Forty-Nine Percen t Majority: The Male Sex Role. New York: Random
House.
Bridges, Tristan. 2009. "Gender Capital and Male Bodybuilders ." Bod}' & Societ)! 1 5 (1): 8 3-10 7.
Bridges, Tristan. 2010. "Men Just Weren't Made To Do This: Performances of Drag at 'Walk a Mile
in Her Shoes' Marches ." Gender & Society 24 ( 1 ) : 5 -3 0 .
Bridges, Tristan. 2 0 1 4 . "A Very 'Gay' Straight? Hybrid Masculinities, Sexual Aesthetics, a n d the
Changing Relationship between Masculinity and Homophobia." Gender & Society 28 ( 1 ) :
58-82.
Bridges, Tristan, a n d Michael Kimmel. 2009. "Book Review: Buchanan, Andrea J., a n d Miriam
Peskowitz. 2007. The Daring Booh for Girls. New York: Collins. Iggulden, Conn, and Hal Iggulden.
2007. The Dangerous Bool? for Boys. New York: Collins." Men and Masculinities 12 ( 1 ) : 141-44.
Bridges, Tristan, and C. J . Pascoe. 2014. " Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions i n the Sociology
of Men and Mascul inities." Sociology Compass 8 (3 ) : 246 -5 8 .
Buss, David M . 1 9 95. " Psychological S e x Differences: Origins through Sexual Selection ." American
Psychologist 5 0 (3 ) : 1 6 4 - 6 8 .
Charles, M aria, a n d D avid B . Grusky. 2 0 0 4 . Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of
Women and Men . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Connell, Raewyn . 1 979. "The Concept of Role and What to Do with It." Australia and New Zealand
Journal of Sociology 1 5 (3 ) : 7- 17.
Connell, Raewyn. 1 9 8 5 . "Theorising Gender." Sociology 1 9 : 260-72.
Connell, Raewyn. 1 9 87. Gender and Power: Societ)" the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Connell, Raewyn. 1 9 9 0 . "An I ron Man: The Body and Some Contradictions of Hegemonic Mas­
culinity." In Sport, Men, and the Gender Order, edited by M ichael A . Messner and Donald F.
Sabo, 83-95. Champaign, I L: Human Kinetic Books.
Connell, Raewyn . 1 99 2 . "A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the
Dynamics of Gender." American Sociological Review 57 ( 6 ) : 7 3 5 -5 1 .
Connell, Raewyn. 1 9 9 5 . Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, Raewyn. 2002. Gender: Short Introductions. London: Polity Press.
Connell, Raewyn, and James W. Messersch midt. 2005. "Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept." Gender & Society 19 ( 6 ) : 829-59.
 Exploring Masclilin ities 29

Coontz, Stephanie. 1 9 9 2 . The Wa)' W e Never Were: American Families a n d the Nostalgia Trap. N ew
York: Basic Books.
De Boise, Sam. 2014. "I'm Not Homophobic, 'I've Got Gay Friends': Evaluating the Validity of In­
clusive Masculinity. " Men and Masculinities, published online a head of print 16 October 2014.
Demetriou, D emetrakis. 200 1 . "Connell's Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique." Theor)'
and Societ), 30 (3) : 337- 6 1 .
Di amond, Jared . 1 9 9 5 . " Father's Milk." Discover 1 6 (2) : 82- 87.
Donaldson, Mike. 1 9 9 3 . "What Is Hegemonic Masculinity? " Theor), and Societ), 22 (5) : 643 -57.
D reger, Alice Domurat. 1 9 9 8 . Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Edwards, Tim . 2 0 0 6 . Cultures of Masculinit)'. New York: Routledge .
Fausto -Sterling, Anne . 2000. Sexing the Bod)': Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexualit)'. New
York: Basic Books.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2 0 1 2 . Sex/Gender: Biolog), in a Social World. New York: Routledge.
Friedan, Betty. 1 9 6 3 . The Feminine M)'stique. New York: Norton.
Gilbert, Scott F. 2010. Developmental Biolog),. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Gil more, David D. 1 9 9 0 . Manhood in the Mailing: Cultura l Concepts of Masculinit)'. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1 9 7 1 . Selections from the Prison Noteboolls. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
H abermas, Jilrgen. 1 975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston : Beacon P ress.
Halberstam, Judith . 1 9 9 8 . Female Masculil1ity Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hearn, Jeff. 1 9 87. The Gel1der of Oppression: Mel1, Masculil1it)' and the Critique of Marxism. New York:
St. Martin's Press.
Hearn, Jeff. 2004. " From Hegemonic Masculin ity to the Hegemony of Men." Feminist Theor), 5 (1) :
4 9 -72.
Heilman, Madeline E . 200l . "Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent
Women's Ascent up the Organizational Ladder. " Journal of Social Issues 57 (4) : 657-74 .
Johnson, Alan. 2 0 0 5 . The Gel1der Kl1ot, rev. a n d updated e d . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kessler, Suzanne J. 1 9 9 8 . Lessol1s from the Il1tersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kimmel, Michael. 1 9 8 7. "The Contemporary 'Crisis' of Masculinity i n Historical Perspective."
In The Mallil1g of Masculinities: The New Men's Studies, edited by Harry Brod, 1 2 1 -53. Boston:
Allen & Unwin. '
Kimmel, Michael . 1 9 90. "After Fifteen Years: The I mpact of the Sociology of Masculinity on the
Masculinity of Sociology. " In Men, Masculinities and Social Theor)" edited by H arry Brad and
David Morgan, 93 -109. London: Unwin Hyman.
Kimmel, Michael. 1 9 94. "Masculinity as Homophobia." In Theorizing Masculinities, edited by
H arry Brod and Michael Kaufman, 1 1 9 - 4 1 . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kipling, Rudyard. 1 9 0 1 . Kim . New York: Macmillan.
Lieberson, Stanley, Susan Dumais, and Shyon B aumann. 2000. "The I nstability of Androgynous
Names: The Symbolic Maintena nce of Gender Boundaries. " American Journal of Sociolog)' 105
(5) : 1 24 9 - 8 7.
Lorber, Judith. 1 99 4 . Paradoxes of Gender. New H aven, CT: Yale University Press.
Martin, Emily. 1 9 9 1 . "The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance B ased on
Stereotypical Male-Female Roles ." Signs 1 6 (3) : 4 8 5 -5 0 1 .
Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2004. "Gender a s Social Institution." Social Forces 8 2 : 1 249 -73 .
Matthews, Richard. 1662. The Unlearned Alchemist. London: Joseph Leigh.
30 E X P LO R I N G MASCULI NITIES

. n
Brai
Mazur, Allan, and Alan Booth . 1 9 9 8 . "Testosterone and D ommance . . M e n . " Beha viora l and
m

Sciences 2 1 (3) : 353 - 6 3 . .

Debates over Sex, VIOlence,

McCaughey, Martha . 2008. The Ca veman Mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the
and Science. London: Routledge. .
l Accoun t of Commg to See
Mcintosh, Peggy. 1 9 8 8 . "Wh ite Privilege and Male Privilege: A Persona
No. 1 89. Wellesley, MA.
Corre spond e n ces th rough Work in Women's Studies . " Workin g Paper
McNay, Lois. 1999. "Gender, Habitus a n d the F ie l d : Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity."
Th eo ry, Culture & Soc iety 16 (1): 95-1 1 7.
Mead, Margare t . 1 9 63 [ 1 9 35 ) . Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: Morrow.
Meadow, Tey. 201 1 . " ' D eep D own Where the Music Plays': How Parents Account for Childhood
Gender Variance ." Sexualities 14 (6) : 7 2 5 - 47.
Meadow, Tey. 2014. "The Child." Transgender Studies Quarterly 1 ( 1 -2): 5 7-59.
Messner, Michael A. 1 99 2 . Power a t Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press.
Messner, Michael A., and Jeffrey Montez de Oca. 2005. "The Male Consumer as Loser: Beer and
Liquor Ads in Mega Sports Media Events." Signs 3 0 (3): 1879-909.
Money, John, and Anke A. Ehrhardt. 1 9 72 . Man and Woman, Boy and Girl: Differentiation and Di­
morphism of Gender Iden tity from Conception to Maturity. Oxford: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Oakley, Ann. 1 9 7 2 . Sex, Gender and Society. London: Gower.
Padavic, I rene, and Barbara F. Reskin. 2002. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Parsons, Talcott. 1 95 4 . Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott, and Robert Bales. 1 9 5 3 . Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. London:
Routledge &. Kegan Paul.
Pascoe, C . J . 2003 . "Multiple Masculinities?: Teenage Boys Talk about Jocks and Gender." American
Behavioral Scientist 46 ( 1 0) : 1423-3 8 .
Pascoe, C . J. 2007. "Dude, You 're a Fag": Masculinity a n d Sexuality i n High School. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Pleck, Joseph H . 1 9 8 1 . The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
Preves, Sharon E . 2003. Intersex and Iden tity: The Contested Self New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni­
versity Press.
Risman, Barbara. 2004. "Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestl ing with Activism." Gender &
Society 18 (4) : 429-50.
Ruble, Diane N., Carol L. Martin, and Sheri A. Berenbaum, eds. 2006. Gender Development. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. 1 9 8 1 . "The Socio-Cultural Context of Rape: A Cross- Cultural Study." Journal
of Social Issues 37 (4) : 5 -27.
Sapolsky, Robert. 1 9 9 7. "Testosterone Rules ." Discover, March I, 1 9 9 7.
Schippers, Mimi. 2007. "Recovering the Feminine Other: Masculinity, Fem ininity, and G ender
Hegemony." Theory and Society 36 (1) : 8 5 - 102.
Schmied, Virginia, and Deborah Lupton . 2 0 0 1 . "Blurring the Boundaries: Breastfeeding and
Maternal Subjectivity." Sociology of Health & Illness 23 (2) : 234-50.
Segal, Lynne. 1990. Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Cha nging Men. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University P ress .
Slaby, Ronald G . , and Karin S . Frey. 1 9 75 . "Development of Gender Constancy a nd Selective
Attention to Same-Sex Models . " Child Developmen t 46 (4) : 849-56.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 "Mitähän se tuonee Eteläjyllannille?" sanoi Karen.

"Kaikki on Jumalan kädessä."

Rouva Grunnet otti Kain syliinsä, pani hänen pienet kätensä ristiin
omien käsiensä lomaan ja sanoi vapisevalla äänellä:

"Sano nyt pikku Kai, niinkuin isoäiti sanoo: Jumala varjelkoon

tanskalaista kansaamme!"

Yö vaipui yhä synkempänä yli maan, joka silmäili ylös tähtiin

monine loistavine ikkunoineen, lyhtyineen ja majakkatulineen.

Saksalaistuttamiskourat, pikkuradat, heittelehtivät sinne ja tänne

monissa päättömissä mutkissa ja kaarteissa, — luulisipa melkein vain
sen vuoksi, että tie venyisi niin pitkäksi kuin mahdollista.

Ne koettivat kaartaa maata, ne ajelehtivat yltympäri silmät

hehkuvina, hyökkäsivät pahaa tarkoittaen nuolen nopeudella
eteenpäin, pujottelivat esiin ja vetivät perässään niinkuin mitkäkin
matelijat loistavaa, monijäsenistä ruumista.

Minne ratoja rakennettiin, sinne ilmestyi saksalaisia työmiehiä,

minne saksalaisia työmiehiä saapui, sinne ilmestyi krouveja. Se oli
selvä asia.

Mutta tähdet kulkivat alati omia ratojaan kaikkien yläpuolella, ja

vuosi alkoi taas omaa kierrettään samoinkuin vuosisatakin.

Kultavirta Berlinistä tulvaili maahan saksalaistuttamisasian hyväksi,

ja tanskalainen nainen kirjoitti ensimäisen kirjoituksensa "Danevirke"
lehteen helmikuun toisena päivänä..
 Theodor Brix nimittää häntä ja hänen toimintaansa yleensä
"alhaisimmaksi vihollisen puolelle pakenemiseksi." ["Nordschleswig
und die Selbsterniedrigung Deutschlands."]

Kaikkialta kuului suuttumuksen huuto:

"Kuinka nainen saattoi tehdä sellaista! Kuinka nainen saattoi sitä

tehdä!"

Naiset häpesivät sukupuolensa puolesta ja he kiittivät vain

Jumalaa siitä, ettei tuo nainen ollut eteläjuutilainen.

Santarmit kulkivat pitkin teitä tuo lehti kädessä, jota ennen oli
pidetty niin suuressa kunniassa, mutta jota kaikki nyt halveksivat.

He kuljettivat sitä pihoille, he veivät sen sisään taloihin. Sitä oli

väkisin tyrkytettävä ihmisille, samapa se huolivatko he siitä vai ei.
Aivan kuin myrkkyä olivat sen sanat salaisesti tungettavat
eteläjuutilaisten mieliin. Danevirke-nimen peitossa olivat saksalaiset
ja muutamat harvat vihollisen puolelle siirtyneet henkilöt väijyksissä.

Mutta ei kukaan, jota ei kova hätä pakoittanut, tahtonut saada

tätä ratisevaa lehteä taloonsa. Sille käännetriin selkää ja suljettiin
siltä ovi.

Borriskin kohtasi sen kerran tiellä.

"Mitä te tahdotte minusta?" kysyi hän.

Winberg sen hänelle ojensi.

Winberg oli tosin Karenin kaukainen sukulainen, mutta

epäluotettava tanskalainen mies.
 Hän oli yksi pelkureita

Borris repi lehden kahtia ja polki sen lokaan.

"Vai sinäkin, Winberg?" sanoi Borris. "Kuulehan! Minä tahdon

sanoa sinulle jotakin. Me emme tahdo kaupustella
kansalaisoikeuksiamme. Me emme tahdo tehdä itseämme vikapäiksi
halpamaiseen itsemmetuhoamiseen. Jos annamme saksalaisille
pikkusormemme, niin he pian ottavat koko kätemme. Ja sitten
saamme heidän halveksumisensa kaupan päällisiksi. Sano terveiset
ystävillesi, saksalaisille, että me, eteläjuutilaiset, emme suostu
välipuheihin!"

"Ei, ei", mutisi Winberg, "siksipä ei olekkaan huonompia

valtioviisaita kuin me."

Borris pysähtyi.

"Minä sanon sinulle jotakin", sanoi hän. "Kun viimeksi olin

nimismiehen luona, niin kohtasin etehisessä useita, jotka olivat
ilmoittaneet luopuvansa tanskalaisista yhdistyksistä saadakseen
palvelukseensa renkiä. He pelkäsivät samoinkuin sinäkin, Winberg."

"Hm!" sanoi Winberg.

"Mutta tiedätkös mitä nimismies sanoi, kun hän seurasi minua

sivuhuoneesen?"

"En", vastasi Winberg.

"Niin, hän sanoi: 'Es sind lauter Lumpen!' [Ne ovat kaikki
roskaväkeä.]
Niin, minä en sitä sanonut, Winberg, vaan preussilainen nimismies."
 "Winbergillä on saksalainen omatunto tanskalaisessa ruumiissa!"
naureskeli Madsen, joka astui ohi.

Mutta seuraavana päivänä sattui haudankaivaja Madsenille samalla

tiellä jotakin muuta hauskempaa.

Hän ajoi aika ravia ja huomasi tiellä pienen pojan, joka käveli
kantaen koria, ja se oli yhtä suuri kuin poika itsekin ja näytti aivan
lintuhäkiltä.

Hän oli pistänyt päänsä koriin.

Madsen pysähdytti hevosen päästessään hänen kohdallensa.

"Minnekä sinä menet?"

"Frandsenin krouville", kuului vastaus korin sisästä.

"Hyppääppäs kärryihin, niin saat ajaa sen matkan."

Sitä ei tarvinnut sanoa kahdesti Ebbe Keldetille, sillä hän se oli.

Hän heitti korin vaunuihin ja hyppäsi itse perässä.

"Paljon kiitoksia", sanoi poika.

"No! Kuinka vanha sinä olet?"

"Kymmenen vuotta."

"Sittenhän sinä olet aikoja sitten koulupoika. Onko hauska käydä

koulua?"

"No! Täytyyhän sitä oppia; sen isä sanoi."

 "Hauska kuulla", vastasi Madsen, joka tahtoi panna häntä
koetteelle, "sillä minä olen saksalainen."

"Seis!" huusi Ebbe, jolle äkkiä tuli kova kiire. "Minä tahdon mennä
pois! Minä tahdon mennä pois! Minä tahdon pois!"

"Mutta mikä sinulle tuli, poika?"

"Ei, minä en tahdo ajaa kauemmin!" huusi Ebbe ja hänen

kasvonsa tulivat punaisiksi ponnistuksesta, yrittäessään tavoittaa
koriansa.

"Ei, minä en tahdo ajaa kauemmaksi! Minä en tahdo ajaa

kauemmaksi!"

Ja Ebbe heitti korin tielle ja hyppäsi alas, ennenkuin Madsen ehti

pysähdyttää hevosta. Hänellä oli kova kiire päästä pois niistä
vaunuista.

Mutta Madsen katsahti taaksensa ja hänen silmäänsä osui lapsen

salamoivat katseet.

Hän oli pistänyt päänsä uudelleen lintuhäkkiin ja Madsenista

näytti, ikäänkuin linnun vilkkaat, kiiluvat silmät olisivat tähystelleet
häntä korin lomien välistä.

"Minä voin lyödä vetoa kymmenestä markasta, että tuo oli vanhan
Keldetin poika", naureskeli hän tyytyväisenä. "Sama huimapää kuin
isäkin!"

Hän katsoi taaskin poikaan ja heilahutti piiskaansa, niin että se

läimähti.
 "Sellainen poika! Sellainen poika! Siinä hän rehkii korineen
eteenpäin koko pitkän matkan tuossa loassa! Niin, kun meillä on
tuollainen sotajoukko takanamme, niin me, eteläjuutilaiset, voimme
huoleti odottaa tulevia aikoja!"

11.

"Kun musta haikara näyttäytyy keväällä, niin tulee takatalvi. Jos se

on valkoinen ja puhdas, niin se ennustaa kuivaa kesää, mutta jos se
on likainen ja pörröinen, niin tulee märkä kesä", sanoo
eteläjuutilainen.

Mutta Klaus tiesi vieläkin tarkemmin, sillä hän sanoi:

"Jos samalla kertaa näkee haikaran lentävän, kuulee hyypän

huutavan ja auran vakoja uurtavan, niin ennen vuoden umpeen
menoa on pakko muuttaa toiselle seudulle."

"Älä turhia puhu, sinä onnettomuutta ennustava lintu", sanoi Bodil.

"Hankippa minulle tässä vielä sadetta huomiseksi, parhaiksi vaatteen
pesulle."

"Ei, ei, se on mahdotonta", vakuutti Klaus.

"Herra pitää kaikesta parasta huolta, mut satamaan hän ei

saa, kun tuulee luoteen puolta!"

Ja lausuttuaan tämän epäluottamuslauseen jumalallisten voimien

vallasta, hän läksi. Sillä hänen piti mennä kertomaan Karenille, mitä
hän oli kuullut Aabenraassa, ja mitä hän oli lehdestä lukenut.
 "Niinpä niin, pikku rouva, v. Köllerin täytyy alistua ja keskeyttää
hiukan palvelusväen karkoitusta, sillä nyt meillä ei ole työväkeä, ja
siitä saksalaiset saavat kärsiä yhtä paljon kuin mekin, ja siitäkös
huuto nousee. Ei, sanovat saksalaiset, me tahdomme, tuhat
tulimmaista, saada tanskalaisen palvelusväkemme takaisin, sillä
matka edes ja takaisin on yhtä pitkä, ja aina on pidettävä hirveätä
melua tyhjästä, ja nyt Tonderin pormestari on selittänyt, — niin, sen
hän todellakin on tehnyt! - että ensi markkinoilla on siitä ilmoitettava
useissa Pohjoisjyllannin lehdissä, koska ilmoitus Riben piirilehdessä ei
ollut vedellyt. Niin, kostoksi tanskalainen palvelusväki on käynyt
kalliiksi! Eikö viime vuonna karkoitettu Borrisgaardistakin
palvelusväkeä, kun Borris ei tehnyt ostoksiaan saksalaiselta
leipurilta? Mikä saksalainen osaa leipoa ruisleipää?"

Klaus löi kädellään polveensa ja nauroi, niin että hän aivan

kaakotti.

"Niin, nyt on lasten vuoro!" jatkoi hän ja pyöritti hattua käsissään.

"Sillä Ebbesenin hakemus hyljättiin tänä vuonna, kun hän pyysi pikku
Svenille vapautusta kesäkoulusta, koska poika jälleen olisi saanut
kesäksi paikan Borrisgaardissa. Sen sijaan hän saa vapautusta
mielihyvällä, jos hän menee kotisaksalaisen luo palvelukseen. Niin,
voisihan Borriskin saada hänet, jos hän eroaisi tanskalaisista
yhdistyksistä, ja samantapaisia ilmoituksia lähetetään nyt kaikille
tanskalaismielisille."

"Ja ovatko he kaikki vastanneet?"

Klaus seisoi suu selällään.

"Ei tietenkään! Tuhat tulimmaisinta — ei! Eiväthän he kaikeksi

onneksi ole niin silmittömän hulluja, etteivät he kieltäytyisi yhtenä
miehenä!"

"Kas vaan, Klaus!" sanoi Karen. "Kas vaan!"

Karenilta pääsi hiljainen nauru, — sitä sydämellisempi se oli, mitä

hiljaisempi.

Huhtikuun toisena päivänä olikin sitte "väenmarkkinat" Tonderissä

vain sitä varten, että saataisiin palvelusväkeä Tanskasta
Eteläjyllantiin.

Sinne ei ollut saapunut ainoatakaan tyttöä ja ainoastaan

kymmenen miestä. Saksalaiset tappelivat niistä ja miehet kohottivat
hintoja. He vaativat neljäsataa, jopa neljäsataaviisikymmentä
markkaa palkkaa.

"Voihan tuo olla, tavara on kallistunut!" sanoivat he nauraen.

"Täällähän kiistellään meistä!"

"He ovat vähällä joutua toistensa tukkaan ja repiä käsivarret

sijoiltaan!"

Samaan aikaan maaneuvokset boikottasivat kaikkia tanskalaisia

krouveja.

Mutta tuskinpa he olivat edeltäpäin osanneet odottaa sitä

arvokasta vastausta, jonka väestö heille antoi:

"Kesän kuluessa tulee rakennettavaksi kuusi uutta kokoushuonetta

eri pitäjissä!"

Se tapahtuikin. Ja suurvaltaa kohtasi toinen tappio toisensa

jälkeen pienen, urhoollisen joukon puolelta, joka oli saanut
maailmanhistorialliseksi tehtäväkseen varjella kansojen
itsemääräysoikeutta.

v. Köllerin pakkopolitikka epäonnistui. Poliisien uhkaukset

koettaessaan saada ihmisiä luopumaan kansallisista yhdistyksistä
vaikuttivat vain sen, että jäsenluku kohosi ja että rahalahjoja tulvaili
yhdistyksien kassoihin.

Eteläjyllannin sanomalehtien toimittajat olivat vankeudessa tai

olivat joutua vankeuteen, mutta mitäpä se auttoi, kun tilaajamäärä
kohosi?

Kirkko oli kuitenkin se paikka missä kauimmin siedettiin tuota

vainottua tanskan kieltä. Vieläkin pidetään tanskalaista
jumalanpalvelusta noin sadassa eri pitäjässä.

Mutta mitä se merkitsee verrattuna kaikkiin muihin pitäjiin? Ja

yhäti vain taannutaan. Taannutaan aivan auttamattomasti!

143,000 ihmisestä puhuu 8000 saksaa, mutta jos siitä

vähennetään kaikki saksalaiset virka- ja toimimiehet ja kaikki
Saksasta muuttaneet, niin tuskin jää 1,700 saksaa puhuvaa henkeä
jäljelle.

Ladelundista, etelä-Tonderin provastikunnassa ja noin tusinasta

muista pitäjistä on tanskalainen jumalanpalvelus hävitetty kokonaan,
syystä että sinne on siirtynyt kymmenen, sanoo kymmenen
saksalaista.

"Niin, niin, kun pappi tyytyy puhumaan kymmenelle ihmiselle,

jotka istuvat niin harvassa, että saisivat huutaa toisilleen tyhjässä
kirkossa, niin se on hänen asiansa", sanoi Madsen.
 Eteläjuutilaiset alkoivat jo vuosia sitten perustaa vapaaseurakuntia
ja muutamia vuosia myöhemmin rakentaa vapaaseurakunnan
kirkkoja. Siihen asti he olivat pitäneet jumalanpalvelusta muissa
huoneustoissa, yksinpä ravintoloissakin.

Kun Bovlundin soma kirkko oli valmis (sittemmin kävi aivan samoin
Haderslevin kirkon!), niin virtasi sinne joka taholta seurakuntalaisia,
pyhävaatteissa ja juhlatunnelman vallassa, tanskalaiset virsikirjat
kainaloissa.

Miten hauskaa olikaan nähdä teitä, jotka olivat aivan mustanaan,

niin paljon ihmisiä niillä vilisi!

He nyökkäsivät ilosta säteilevinä toisillensa.

"Se on meidän kirkkomme! Se on meidän kirkkomme! Me olemme

itse sen pystyttäneet Jumalan kunniaksi."

Pianpa kirkko tuli täyteen hartaita, syvästi liikutettuja ja kiitollisia

ihmisiä. Kiitollisia, syystä että he pitkän odotusajan kuluttua olivat
päässeet herroiksi omaan kirkkoonsa.

Aurinko loisti kaikkien kumartuneiden päiden yli ja kaikki silmät

olivat kyyneltyneet.

Mitä Jumalan sana onkaan äidinkielellä lausuttuna! Miten sitä

sanaa voi näännyksiin asti janota! Kun sitä tarjotaan vieraalla
kielellä, jota ei ymmärrä, tai ainoastaan vaivoin ymmärtää, niin
tuntuu siltä kuin saisi kiviä leivän asemesta.

Ja nyt pappi seisoi alttarilla. — -— —

 Mutta aivan samana päivänä ja aivan samaan aikaan ajoi
saksalainen pappi erääsen kirkkoon niistä monista pitäjistä, joissa
tanskan kieli oli Jumalan huoneesta karkoitettu.

Tämä oli ensimäinen sunnuntai väkivallantekojen jälkeen ja täynnä

"pyhää" intoa ja luottamusta "hyvään" tulokseen pappi siis ajoi
kirkkoon.

Hän katsoi ihmeissään ympärilleen.

"Ei ainoatakaan ihmistä! Ei teillä eikä poluilla! Niin hiljaista, kuin

maa olisi ollut noiduttu ja uinunut lumottua unta!"

Hän ajoi edelleen ja monta ihmeellistä ajatusta heräsi hänen

mielessänsä.

"Ei ainoatakaan ihmistä! Mitä se merkitsee? Olisiko kelloni

epäkunnossa?"

Hän rupesi niin kovasti kiirehtimään, ettei hän malttanut sitä edes
tarkastella.

"Minun täytyy kiirehtiä. Täytyypä minun oikein kiirehtiä! Olisinko

nukkunut liian kauan? Eihän sitä koskaan ennen ole minulle
tapahtunut! Aja kovemmin, ajuri, aja kovemmin!"

Ajuri nykäsi ohjaksia ja hevoset juoksivat aika kyytiä eteenpäin,

mutta hiljaisuutta kesti vain papin lähestyessä yhä likemmäksi.

"Kuuletko kellojen soittoa?" kysyi pappi, joka hermostuneen

levottomuuden valtaamana seisoi pystyssä vaunuissa. "Olisiko
haudankaivaja unohtanut velvollisuutensa?"
 Ei, kellot tekivät tehtävänsä. Hän saattoi jo kaukaa nähdä, miten
innokkaasti kellon kieli häilyi edes-takaisin.

Hän tuli kirkolle, — ei ainoatakaan ihmistä!

"Mitä ihmettä! Olisiko jo niin myöhäistä, että he istuisivat kaikki

sisällä odottamassa minua?"

Kellot vaikenivat.

Ei, kirkko oli tyhjä, — ei ainoatakaan ihmistä! Tyhjät tuolirivit

ällistelivät epätoivoisina häneen.

"Um Gottes Willen!" [Jumalan tähden!] huusi pappi ja katseli

ympärilleen. "Wo sind die Menschen?" [Missä ihmiset ovat?]

Niin — missä ihmiset olivat?

"No, tämäpä käy yhä pahemmaksi ja pahemmaksi", ajatteli hän

taas.
"Olisivatko he kaikki nukkuneet liian kauan? Luulenpa melkein, että
heillä on tänään tanskalainen unikeonpäivä. Soittakaa uudestaan,
Gredsted."

"Niin, kyllä minä soitan. Ei siitä pidä puutetta oleman", vastasi

Gredsted levollisesti ja kiipesi torniin.

Ja kirkonkellot soivat parhaansa mukaan, saksalaisen papin

seisoessa alttarilla ja odottaessa suuressa preussilaisessa
viisaudessansa ihmisiä, jotka eivät tahtoneet tulla. He istuivat
kotonansa ja lukivat vanhoja tanskalaisia postillojansa. Niitä he
ainakin ymmärsivät.
 "Suokoon Jumala, että kirkkotie pysyisi edelleen yhtä autiona kuin
nytkin!" ajatteli Gredsted ja soitti: "Pysykää kotona! Pysykää kotona
-joka ainoa sielu! Älkää tulko! — Älkää tulko!"

Kellot soittivat siten tyhjässä kirkossa, niin että ne suorastaan

paukuttivat tuomiopäivän-lyöntejään papin omaan päähän.

"Katsokaa taas alas tielle!" huusi hän ylös tapuliin.

"Ei, ei ole ainoatakaan sielua!" vastasi haudankaivaja.

Ja kellot, jotka niin monien vuosisatojen kuluessa olivat keränneet

seurakuntalaisia pääalttarin ympärille, kutsuivat tällä kertaa nyt
turhaan.

Ei kukaan seurannut heidän kutsuansa. ‒ ‒ ‒

Mutta kun tanskalainen pappi samaan aikaan seisoi alttarin edessä

monen peninkulman päässä vapaaseurakunnan kirkossa Bovlundissa,
missä aurinko valaisi kumartuneita päitä, ja kaikkien silmät olivat
kyynelissä, niin tuli preussilainen ratsastava santarmi äkkiä
häiritsemään kirkon rauhaa.

Kalisevin miekoin ja kilisevin kannuksin hän astui kuorin läpi.

Hän nousi alttarin portaallekin ja kielsi Preussin kuninkaan

nimessä, ettei Jumalan sanaa saisi tässä huoneessa saarnata.

Saksalaiset sanat sähisivät kirkon halki. Sähisevä ääni tunkeutui

joka paikkaan, se tunkeutui kaikkiin sydämiin, missä hyviä tunteita
vallitsi ja myrkytti ne.

Pian sen jälkeen oli kirkko tyhjänä ja kirkko suljettiin.

 Vapaaseurakunnan kirkot Bovlundissa ja Haderslevissä olivat
useita vuosia suljettuina.

Alemmat virkamiehet kielsivät eteläjuutilaisia käyttämästä niitä.

Eteläjuutilaiset valittivat heti, mutta asiaa viivytettiin.

Korkein tuomioistuin julisti tietysti, että kielto oli laiton, syystä ettei
asianomaisilla virkamiehillä ollut oikeutta sitä säätää.

Vapaaseurakunnat aikoivat silloin ruveta käyttämään kirkkojansa,

mutta sitten tuli toinen virkamies, joka taaskin antoi kiellon.

"Heitä oli kiusoitettava! Heitä oli kiusoitettava!" sanoivat

saksalaiset, ja sitten oli aloitettava taas alusta.

Kaksi kertaa kirkkoasia oli ollut esillä ylituomioistuimen edessä

Berlinissä, ja nyt kolmannella kerralla eteläjuutilaiset vihdoin saivat
luvan käyttää niitä kirkkoja, jotka he itse olivat rakentaneet omilla
varoillansa.

Yhdentenätoista päivänä toukokuuta 1900 kirkkoasia voitettiin!

Ja silloin levisi hiljainen riemu yli koko kovasti koetellun maan!

Karen, joka oli istutuspuuhassa puutarhassansa, ei voinut käsittää,

mitä kiireellistä asiaa rouva Grunnetilla ja rouva Borriksella saattoi
olla, kun he tulivat yhdessä melkein juoksujalkaa vainioiden poikki.

Puutarha-aidan yli hän saattoi nähdä heidän harsojensa ja

huiviensa liehuvan heidän ympärillään raikkaassa tuulenhengessä.

"Mitähän se lienee? Mitähän se lienee?" ajatteli Karen, laskiessaan

puutarhasakset käsistään ja mennessään heitä vastaan.
 Kun he huomasivat hänet, niin he heiluttivat heti nenäliinojansa
hänelle osoitteeksi, että heillä oli hyviä sanomia.

Rouva Borris sai ensin henkeään vedetyksi ja nojautui aitausta

vasten.

"Kirkkoasia on voitettu!" sanoi hän. "Voi Karen, siitä vasta on

lohdutusta ja iloa!"

"Niin, niin", vastasi Karen. "Kun jaksetaan vain kestää —!"

"Niin", puuttui rouva Grunnet puheesen. "Ei se koske ainoastaan

Bovlundia ja Haderslevia, vaan muitakin paikkakuntia, joissa myöskin
kirkkoja tulee rakennettavaksi. Minä näen jo toisiakin huippuja
kohoavan. Se voi meilläkin tapahtua."

"Tiedätkö sinä jotakin, äiti?" kysyi Karen.

"En", — vastasi rouva Grunnet vältellen, — "eihän täällä

Eteläjyllannissa koskaan voi tietää, mikä rajuilma on tulossa."

Ukkosen jyrinä tulikin pikemmin, kuin mitä olisi voinut aavistaa. Jo

neljän päivän kuluttua saivat he tietää, että heidänkin pitäjästään
hävitettäisiin tanskalainen jumalanpalvelus.

Itse asiassa heillä oli vain neljä kertaa vuodessa tanskalainen

jumalanpalvelus, mutta sekin oli poistettava.

Valdemar ei ollut niinä päivinä kotona, -hän oli lähtenyt pohjoiseen

päin Gustav Johansenin vaalikokoukseen toukokuun kuudentena
päivänä Kristiansfeldin seuduille, siihen merkilliseen kokoukseen,
joka saksalaisten ansiosta tuli kuuluisammaksi kuin mikään muu.
 Ja koska Valdemar oli jo ruvennut saamaan johtajan aseman
pitäjän asukkaitten keskuudessa, niin he odottivat, kunnes hän
palaisi kotiin.
 12.

He seisoivat kaikki tanskalaisten kokoushuoneen "Frej'n" edustalla

Tyrstrupissa, eivätkä voineet päästä sisään.

Sinne oli keräytynyt kolmesataa henkeä, ja kaikki olivat

preussilaisia kansalaisia.

"Mikäs on esteenä?" kysyi Borris.

"Niin, kaikki ovet ovat lukossa", vastattiin siihen. "Ettekö näe?

Kaikilla ovilla koreilee nimismies Valentinerin virkasinetti."

Gustav Johansen ajoi herra Valentinerin luo.

"Koska minä preussilaisena valtiopäivämiehenä olen vuokrannut

salin, niin minä vaadin, että se myös avataan."

"Ei, minä en avaa sitä."

Ja silleen se jäi.

Sitten lähdettiin ajaen, jalkaisin ja polkupyörillä herra Finnemannin

talolle Taarningiin, mutta sielläkään ei saatu kokousta pitää.

Santarmit tulivat sanomaan, että huoneustot siellä eivät olleet

'määräyksenmukaiset'. "Suuresta salista puuttui hätäovi."

Ja kun vihdoin Haderslevista saapui itse santarmipäällikkö, niin

hän hajoitti kokouksen ja käski jokaisen heti lähtemään Taarningista.
 Muuta neuvoa ei sitten ollut, kuin että vaalimiesten ja
valtiopäivämiehen oli pakko lähteä läheisen rajan toiselle puolelle
Frederikshojin krouviin kuningaskuntaan.

Se oli varsin omituinen meno.

Valdemar ja muutamat muut kiiruhtivat edeltäpäin polkupyörillä, ja

nostivat tervetuliaisiksi Danebroglipun liehumaan.

"Täältä tulee kokonainen siirtolaisjoukko", sanoivat he nauraen.

"Meidät on potkittu pois Eteläjyllannista."

Huone oli ahdinkoon asti täynnä ja tunnelma, joka kohosi

myrskyisenä Gustav Johansenia kohtaan, oli voimakas ja valtava —
hän tuskin sai sananvuoroa.

Mutta vaikka he olivat päässeet tyyssijaan Tanskan puolelle, niin ei

Gustav Johansen sallinut sittenkään, että he olisivat sanoneet tai
laulaneet mitään sellaista, jota ei olisi voitu sanoa tai laulaa
rajapyykkien eteläpuolellakin.

"No, oletko kuullut, että tekin kadotatte nyt tanskalaisen

jumalanpalveluksenne?" sanoi Eskild yhteisen aterian jälkeen.

"Mitä ihmettä?" kysyi Valdemar.

"Niin, Jens Stiger Vigumista sen kertoi. Mutta nythän voit

matkustaa kotiin ja ottaa asiasta selkoa."

"Niin, sittenpä lähdenkin matkaan!" sanoi Borris.

Ja hän läksi, mutta mitä lähemmäksi hän tuli kotiansa, sitä

enemmän väkeä hän näki koossa keskustelemassa talojen edustalla,
ja sitä useampia työmiehiä, jotka heittivät työkalut käsistään ja
kiiruhtivat pelloiltaan tielle, saadakseen tarkempia tietoja
ohikulkevilta.

Joka paikassa minne hän tuli, vallitsi suuri mielten kiihko.

"Mikä on hätänä?" kysyi Valdemar levollisesti ja pidätti kiihkeää

hevostansa. "Antakaas kuulla."

"Niin, sellaista se on", vastasi Madsen, joka tuli Frandsenin

krouvilta ja nojasi käsivartensa hevosen selkään. "Nyt he aikovat
karkoittaa tanskan kielen kokonaan kirkostamme, ikäänkuin nuo
neljä poloista kertaa vuodessa olisivat liikaa. Kirkkoraati panee
vastaan, mutta mitä se hyödyttää?"

"Ei se paljon auta", sanoi Valdemar.

"Ensiksi saamme valittaa rovastille, ja se on turhaa! Sitten

valitamme konsistoorille ja kenraalisuperintendentille, — eikä sekään
auta!"

Valdemar ajoi rivakasti eteenpäin ja näki äkkiä Karenin seisovan

kummullansa, ikäänkuin hän olisi odottanut jotakuta, ja varjostavan
kädellä silmiään auringolta.

Hän tähysteli Højemarkeen päin.

Valdemar tunsi pistoksen sydämessään ja hän vetäisi ohjaksia.

"Anna olla! Anna olla!" mutisi hän itseksensä.

"Oletko kuullut?" huudahti rouva Borris, joka juoksi portaita alas

häntä vastaan.
 Valdemar hypähti alas vaunuista ja heitti ohjakset rengille.

"Kyllä, kyllä! Meidän rahamme ovat hyvään tarpeesen. Kyllä niitä

nyt tarvitaan!"

Valdemar suori itseään ja ojensi käsivarsiaan koetellakseen

voimiaan. "Meidän täytyy mitä pikemmin saada sotakassamme
täyteen. On jo aika, on jo aika! Nyt kerätään rahoja Aabenraassa
vapaaseurakunnan kirkkoa varten, ja Sundevedissä kerätään
myöskin. Meidänkin pitää ruveta keräämään."

Ja rinnan äitinsä kanssa hän nousi portaita ylös. Valdemar kietoi

käsivartensa hänen uumillensa.

"Paha voi kääntyä hyväksi", vakuutti Valdemar. "Ole levollinen äiti.

Meidän täytyy kestää kaikki levollisesti."

Kun Borris pari päivää myöhemmin seisoi lähetystön

puheenjohtajana rovastin kanssa vastatusten, niin hän sanoi:

"Preussilaisten viranomaisten pitäisi toki ajatella, että me,

eteläjuutilaiset, olemme vapaana syntynyt kansa, jolla on voimakas
oikeudentajunta ja itsetunto."

"Das mag wohl sein" [Voihan tuo olla], huudahti rovasti kiivaasti,
"aber wir wollen es knechten!" [Mutta me tahdomme musertaa sen.]

Veri kuohui Borriksessa ja hänen kätensä puristautuivat nyrkkiin

hänen kuullessaan tämän epäkristillisen väitteen papin suusta.

Mutta hän hillitsi itseään sittenkin ja vastasi niin täydellisellä

tyyneydellä, että rovastin suorastaan täytyi räpäyttää silmiään
kohdatessaan itseensä suunnatun, lujan katseen.
 "Minä uudistan vain: preussilainen hallitus menettelee epäviisaasti.
Olettehan itsekin sen huomannut. Jos karkoitatte meidän
äidinkielemme monen vuosisadan vanhoista kirkoistamme, niin te
pakoitatte meitä rakentamaan vapaakirkkoja, samoin kuin te
pakoitatte meitä rakentamaan kokoushuoneita. Hallitus on itse
syypää siihen, että saksalaiset papit saarnaavat tyhjille penkeille.
Sellaista varoitusta ei pitäisi jättää huomioon ottamatta."

Audiensi oli lopussa ja rovasti kumarsi. Mutta nähdessään

Borriksen astuvan lähetystön etunenässä kadun poikki, hän polki
lattiaan.

"Der Kerl hat einen stolzen Kopf! Schade! Schade! Das haben ja
alle die Schleswiger!" [Mies on ylpeäluontoinen. Sääli. Sääli. Sitähän
kaikki slesvigiläiset ovat.]

13.

Satamassa olevat puulastilaivat olivat liputetut mastonhuipusta

kannelle saakka juhannuksen valoisien öiden kunniaksi.

Mutta Klaus oli taaskin valmis ennustelemaan.

"Kun kanat syövät heiniä, niin nousee myrsky."

"Minun mielestäni, Klaus, sinun olisi pitänyt ruveta

ilmanennustajaksi, sillä siinä toimessa sinä varmaan olisit jotakin
ansainnut", arveli Bodil ja läksi ulos tyyneen juhannusiltaan
poimiakseen vanhaan tapaan ”juhannuskaalia.
 Sitä on poimittava auringon laskun jälkeen ja istutettava seinän
viereen — kaalintaimi kutakin talon henkeä kohti. Se, jonka kaali
kasvaa, elää seuraavaan juhannukseen, kenen kuihtuu, hän kuolee.

Bodil ei sitä tietysti uskonut, mutta se kuului nyt kerran asiaan. Se

oli vanha tapa, joka kuitenkin on yhä enemmän häviämässä.

Sittenkin hän riemuitsi jälkeenpäin nähdessään, että sekä hänen

että
Klausin kaali kasvoi.

Kun aurinko juhannusiltana vajosi lakeuden viimeistä äärtä kohti,

niin Karen istui kummullansa antaen katseensa kulkea yli laajan
kentän ja jänönpoikaset, jotka olivat taivuttaneet pitkät korvansa
alas selkäänsä, kiitivät vakoja myöten kesantopellolla.

Tuollaista auringon valaisemaa lakeutta on yhtä ihana katsella kuin

merta.

Vaikka tietääkin, että jossakin on raja, niin sitä ei sittenkään voi

nähdä, ja sen vuoksi se tekee äärettömyyden vaikutuksen.

Ajatus voi vapaasti liikkua aivan kuin villihevonen arolla.

Kun iltatuulen henkäys käy äänettömästi yli luonnon, vilja aaltoilee

ja puunlatvat taipuvat lehahdellen, aivan kuin pitkät, pehmeät
hyökyaallot, niin silloin se muistuttaa vieläkin enemmän merta, jonka
heikko tuulenhenki saa liikkeelle.

Karen saattoi niin hyvin käsittää, mitä hän kerran oli lukenut,
nimittäin että synnynnäiset asukkaat Borneon saarella eivät voineet
hengittää, kun vuoret olivat liian korkeat.
 "Jumala tiesi", ajatteli hän, "miksi niin monet eivät huomaa, että
lakeuskin tai rannikko vei olla suurenmoinen, kun monet kädet
uskollisesti työtä tehden ovat sen raataneet ja kun se huojuu Luojan
siunauksen alla? Mutta sitä vastoin kun se on villinä,
viljelemättömänä arona ja ranta kivikkona, karuna ja
hedelmättömänä? Miksi sitä silloin sanotaan suurenmoiseksi? Onhan
merikin yhtä villi ja voimakas, lyököön sen aallot kiviä tai
hiekkasärkkiä tai multamaita vasten, ja suurenmoisin sentään
kaikesta se voitto, jonka ihminen saavuttaa raa'an luonnon yli.
Lannistaisivathan he sittenkin maan valtansa alle."

Karenin miettivässä ja aprikoitsevassa mielessä heräsi himmeä

käsitys siitä, mitä viljelys merkitsi — myös henkisessä merkityksessä.
Ei epäluonnollinen liikaviljelys, joka samoinkuin muinoinen
ranskalainen puutarhataide hävittää luonnon, vaan se sivistys, joka
hallitsee ja jalostaa sitä.

Jotkut saavat heinäkuumetta kun pyörtänäluste levittää pölyä,

toiset jälleen saavat nuhaa rukiin heilimöimisestä.

Ja nyt ruis heilimöi.

Olisi voinut luulla, että tuuli tai aurinko olisi antanut merkin, sillä
äkkiä tiheä, kullanpunertava pilvi kiiti ruispellon yli. Iltatuuli puhalsi
miljaardeja hedelmöiviä itiöitä, jotka pölähtivät tähistä sikiämiin.

Itiöpilvi laskeutui alas, mutta äkkiä se taas kohosi ja pölähti

taaskin niin tiheänä, että se esti Karenia näkemästä mitään.

Kun se jälleen oli laskeutunut, niin aurinko oli jo mennyt mailleen

ja Karen jäi istumaan paikoillensa, kesäyön levittäessä läpinäkyvän
harsonsa vesille ja maille.
 Hän ei voinut nukkua. Huomattuansa ettei Valdemar voinut sietää
Kaita, ja että oli parasta pitää häntä poissa tieltä, oli hän useamman
kerran tullut ajatelleeksi äitinä olemisen merkitystä ja omia
äidintunteitansa.

Olihan hän aina kuullut puhuttavan, että nuori tyttö halusi tulla
äidiksi, että hän aavisti tätä pyhää salaperäisyyttä, lyhyesti: että
nainen rakasti lasta ennenkuin se oli syntynyt, ihaili sitä, eli sen
kanssa yhdessä sen vielä levätessä hänen sydämensä alla ja että
hän tunsi onnenhurmausta, kun hän vihdoin piteli sitä sylissänsä.

Mutta eikö sitä sanota vain sen vuoksi, että vanhan juutalaisen
määräyksen mukaan nainen tulee autuaaksi ainoastaan lapsen
synnyttämisen kautta?

Miksi ei puhuta isän vaistosta yhtä hyvin kuin äidin vaistosta?

Naisilla ja eläimilläkö vain on vaisto? Eivätkö miehet itse ole sitä

keksineet, jotta me olisimme heitä halvemmat?

Jos mies ymmärtää ihmisen sielun vaihteluja, niin se tietysti on

ihmistuntemusta, mutta jos nainen sitä tekee, niin on se vain
vaistomaista.

Niin, kyllä hän silloin ja tällöin oli kuullut sellaista sanottavan!

Tai sitten naiset ovat hyvin erilaisia, niin etteivät he vähintäkään

ole toistensa kaltaisia.

Ehkäpä hänellä ei ollut yhtä kehittynyttä tunne-elämää kuin

monella muulla, olihan sekin mahdollista! Hän oli vain käytännöllinen
ihminen. Mutta hän ei ollut tuntenut mitään senkaltaista.
 Hän ajatteli menneitä aikoja ja eli ne uudestaan mielessänsä. Ei,
nuorena tyttönä hän ei ollut kaihonnut mitään sellaista. Hänen
mielestään siinä oli jotakin epäpuhdasta.

Mitä oli rakkaus? Oliko se vain vietti, jonka tuli enentää sukua? Ei,
ei mitenkään! Se olisi sen halventamista, sillä eläimelläkin oli sama
vietti. Se, joka vain siihen tyytyy, ei tiedä mitä rakkaus on, ja vain
halventaa sitä. Mutta mitä se sitten oli? Niin, ajatteli Karen edelleen,
se on kaihoa ja halua päästä henkisesti ja ruumiillisesti yhdeksi sen
kanssa, jonka sielua ja ruumista rakastaa.

Kuinka siveellisiksi ja puhtaiksi ihmiset tulisivat, jos he kaikki

tuntisivat tällä tavalla! Sillä jos tahtoo henkisesti yhtyä jonkun
kanssa, niin kylläpä sitä silloin varoo, kelle ihmiselle antautuu, eikä
sitä silloin myöskään puolustaisi uskottomuutta, sanomalla sitä "vain
mielenhuumaukseksi." Ja kuinka yksin ja hyljättynä sitä kulkeekaan,
kun sielu ei ole kokonaan mukana!

Niin, kaikkea tätä tämä pilalle mennyt avioliitto oli opettanut

hänelle. Ja kuinka monta miljoonaa sellaista avioliittoa olikaan
maailmassa, ja kuinka sitä täytyi koettaa kaikin voimin pelastaa
haaksirikosta sitä mitä pelastettavissa oli!

Jos naiselle ei muu ollut tärkeätä kuin äidiksi tuleminen, niin

olisihan silloin yhdentekevää, kuka mies oli, sillä mieshän joutuisi
silloin toiseen sijaan.

Sittenkin kun hän oli joutunut kihloihin ja naimisiin, ei hän koskaan

ollut ajatellut lasta, - hän ei tehnyt itseään paremmaksi kuin mitä
hän oli, — ja tietäessään että se tapahtuisi, että hän tulisi äidiksi, ei
hän ollut tuntenut mitään erityistä iloa eikä liikutusta.
 Hänestä se pikemmin oli vain hänen kohtalonsa; se oli sallittua.
Mutta luultavasti hän olisi tuntenut toisin, jos hän olisi ollut
rakastunut mieheensä. Sitä pahempi — silloin hän ei sitä enää ollut,
ja sen vuoksi lapsikaan ei voinut olla hänelle mikään rakkaudenlahja.

Eikä hänellä ollut aikaa ajatella syntymätöntä lasta, sillä hänellä oli
kylliksi työtä hoitaessaan taloa. Hänellä oli kädet täynnä työtä, eikä
pienokaisen vaatteiden valmistus tuottanut hänelle iloa eikä riemua,
se oli vain velvollisuus, joka oli omantunnonmukaisesti suoritettava.

Kun Kai sitten oli syntynyt ja hän kuuli hänen ensimäisen

huutonsa, niin ottiko hän hänet ihastuksen ja riemun valtaamana
syliinsä?

Ei, jos hän tahtoi olla rehellinen, ja siitähän tässä nyt oli kysymys,
niin ei hän voinut sitä lainkaan sillä tavalla muistaa.

Hän oli ensin tuntenut sanomatonta vapautusta, kun tuskat

lakkasivat, ja kiitollisuutta sen johdosta, että tämä elontaistelu oli
loppunut, ja sitten kun hän ensi kerran katsoi lapsensa kasvoihin,
niin hän teki sen jonkunmoisella nuorekkaalla uteliaisuudella, aivan
kuin johonkin outoon ja arvoituksentapaiseen, jota hänen nyt tuli
oppia tuntemaan.

Vasta jokapäiväisten velvollisuuksien kerällä, kun pienokainen

avuttomuudessansa riippui niin kokonaan hänen huolenpidostaan ja
suojastaan, heräsi äidinrakkaus hänessä ja tämä tunne kasvoi päivä
päivältä ja liittyi kokonaan hänen omaan elämäänsä, kunnes se tuli
yhtä kuolemattomaksi kuin hän itsekin, suuremmaksi häntä itseänsä.

Mutta se oli hiipinyt hänen sydämeensä vähitellen, se ei kuulunut

itsestään hänen luonteesensa, eikä ollut mitään itsestään selvää.
 Vasta sitten hän tunsi, että poika oli hänen omaa lihaansa ja
vertansa, ja iloitsi siitä, kun hän näki kuinka suuresti lapsi sekä
mieleltään että ulkomuodoltaan oli hänen itsensä ja Esbenin
kaltainen, kun hän huomasi, että poika oli tanskalainen, samoin kuin
hän itsekin, eikä saksalainen, niinkuin lapsen isä.

Ja kun häntä kohtasi se kova koettelemus, että joku teki vääryyttä

hänen lapsellensa, — ja se oli suuri vääryys, — niin silloin hän ensi
sijassa oli äiti, ei mitään muuta kuin äiti, vaikkapa se mies, jota hän
rakasti, olisikin tämän vääryyden tehnyt.

Siten nuo kaksi, Valdemar ja Karen, ajattelivat itseksensä. He

olivat liian arat ilmaistaksensa ajatuksiansa toisillensa.

Siten he koettivat itsekseen ajatellen päästä selvyyteen ja selvittää

kareja hiljaisuudessa niin hyvin kuin he saattoivat. Se oli salaisuus
heidän ja Jumalan välillä, eikä se liikuttanut ketään muuta ihmistä.

14.

Sekä Karen että Klaus olivat hyvin mielissään siitä pienestä,

reippaasta ja luotettavasta apulaisesta, jonka he taas tänä vuonna
olivat saaneet.

Preussilaiset olivat toista mieltä, sillä he arvelivat, ettei Ebbe

Keldetin olo talossa kauan kestäisi.

"On tullut haaste nimismiehen luo", ilmoitti Klaus, vilkuttaen

silmiään.
 Klaus ymmärsi sen tarkoittavan Ebbeä. Karen ei sanonut mitään,
mutta tultuaan nimismiehen luo, hän kysyi levollisesti:

"Mikä tarkoitus on sillä haasteella, jonka minä sain tänään?"

"Te otta työhön Ebbe Keldet, vanha postikuljettaja, Svend Keldetin

poika, joka olla koulupakko?"

Karen myönsi.

"Hyvä on. Minä anta te lupa pitä poika."

"Minulla on siihen oikeus, herra nimismies. Minun ei tarvitse

pyytää lupaa."

"Minä sano: hyvä on, te saada lupa pitä poika, mutta minä anna
yksi ehto."

Nimismies rutisti kädessään lehteä.

"Ja mikä se on, herra nimismies?"

"Että te sano ylös ensi kvartali 'Hejmdal' lehti ja abonnera sen sija
tämä lehti päälle."

Nimismies levitti sanomalehden Karenin eteen, jotta sen suurilla

kirjaimilla painettu otsikko oikein pistäisi hänen silmiinsä.

Siinä seisoi: "Danevirke." Karen säpsähti. Hän olisi voinut repiä

lehden nimismiehen kädestä.

Nimismies katsahti häneen salaisesti hymyillen, mutta hänen

silmänsä olivat äkäiset.
 "Tämä olla hyvä lehti, oikea lehti sellaiselle Danskan naiselle kuin
te olla. Mitä te muuta tahdo, kuin mitä olla tässä? Kaikki
Copenhagenin uutiset. Ja se olla halpa, oikein halpa, ja se olla niin
danskalainen, niin danskalainen! Mitä te muuta tahdo?"

Jos nimismies olisi ollut huutokaupan pitäjä, niin hän ei olisi

paremmin voinut suosittaa tavaroitansa.

Kun Karen tuli kotiin, niin hän otti vertavuotavin sydämin pojan
puheillensa.

"Sinä saat mennä, pikku Ebbe", sanoi hän. "Nimismies ei salli

sinun olla täällä."

"Sepä oli somaa", vastasi Ebbe, repien kiharaa tukkaansa ja läksi

kokoomaan tavaroitaan myttyyn.

Sitten hän sai hyvän aterian ja sekä Karen että Kai katselivat häntä
surumielin.

Ebbe vilkutti silmiään ja pyyhki niitä kätensä selällä, ja sitten hän

kiitti ruuasta ja omasta puolestansa.

Kun hän läksi, niin hän katsoi pitkään taaksensa, niinkuin hän ei
sittenkään olisi tahtonut lähteä.

Mutta seuraavana aamuna hän tuli takaisin aivan hengästyneenä,

pieni vankka ruumis kiireestä kantapäähän asti täynnä velvollisuuden
tunnetta ja palvelusintoa, saadakseen suorittaa totuttua työtänsä.

"Sinäkös se olet?" kysyi Klaus. "Niin, minä se tässä olen. Isä

suuttui.
Isä sanoo, että hänellä itsellään on valta määrätä minusta. Jos hän
sanoo: mene! niin minä menen, ja jos hän sanoo: tule! niin minä
tulen.
Siihen preussilaisilla ei ole mitään sanomista. Niin isä sanoi!"

"Se on oikein!" sanoi Klaus. "No, no, lähdetään sitten yhtenä,

pikku
Ebbe!"

Ja sitten Klaus kertoi Karenille, että samoin oli vastikään käynyt

Sten Martensille. Hänenkin olisi pitänyt tilata "Danevirke" lehteä ja
vielä lisäksi erota kaikista kansallisista yhdistyksistä. Mutta siinäpä
nimismies oikeaan osasi, sillä pojan isä itse oli itäpreussilainen, ja
itäpreussilainen suuttui silmittömästi, kun nimismies tahtoi
sekaantua hänen vanhemmanoikeuteensa.

"Ja se on aivan oikein. Antakaa vain saksalaisten itsensä maistella

mehua, niin saisimmepa kuulla!"

Viikko kului ja santarmi tuli taaskin vetäen taskustaan

"Danevirken", ja Ebben täytyi jälleen lähteä talosta.

Seuraavana päivänä poika tuli taas takaisin.

"Kas vain!" sanoi Klaus. "Hän tulee aikaa myöten aivan villakoiran
näköiseksi, samoin kuin hänen isänsäkin, kun Hänelle parta ensin
kasvaa. Hän on yhtä innokas toimessaan ja yhtä kepeäjalkainen."

Mutta yhtä järkähtämättömän varmaan tuli santarmikin takaisin

"Danevirke"-lehtineen ja kolmannen kerran oli Ebben lähdettävä
kotiin.

Seuraavana aamuna kuuli Bodil ja Klaus liikettä ja nopeaa

hengitystä, ikäänkuin joku olisi kiireesti juossut.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com