Hegemonic Masculinity and Addressing Gender Inequality

Hegemonic Masculinity: An Explanation of Power

Connell’s early works on hegemonic masculinity were published in the 1980s and influenced by feminist theories of patriarchy, gay liberation and sociological thought, particularly Antonia Gramsci’s analysis of economic class relations (Connell, 1983, 1987, 1995, 2000; Carrigan et al., 1985; Kessler et al., 1982; Nascimento & Connell, 2017). In the book Masculinities which aggregates these early ideas, hegemonic masculinity was defined in the now well cited quotation, “as the configuration of gender 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, p. 77). Acknowledgement of the origins of Connell’s thought enables recognition of her original intentions for this term and the ideas that informed its conceptualization.

Gramsci utilized the idea of hegemony to explain the imposition and durability of capitalism as an economic strategy in western states through largely consensual means (Rosamond, 2024). This idea provided a way of capturing how power operates, not simply by brute force and coercion (i.e., physical force or violence) but to form our everyday understandings of social relations that choreograph ways we consent to and reproduce unspoken and unacknowledged relations of power (Butler, 2000, see pp. 13–14, cited in Hearn, 2004). The consensual element of hegemonic power’s operation offers an especially effective way of controlling everyday life and perceptions of “normal”. This type of thinking infiltrates daily routines and social structures without an overtly oppressive exercise of power and is subsequently less likely to incite opposition. Within the realm of masculinities, hegemony offered a way to understand the perseverance of unequal gender relations despite significant resistance from feminism (Connell, 1987).

Via the concept of hegemony, it is possible to see how particular ideas about masculinity (e.g., men are naturally more aggressive than women) establish themselves as commonsense. Hegemonic masculinity encapsulates the idea of a cultural ideal of masculinity promulgated through society, that does not necessarily reflect what men are actually like (Connell, 1987). This ideal is always constructed in relation to various subordinated masculinities and in relation to women, so, “the interplay between different forms of masculinity is an important part of how a patriarchal social order works” (Connell, 1987, p. 183). At the time Connell was writing, these models of masculinity were exemplified by film characters like Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne and Slyvester Stallone. Such models were fantasy figures who boasted levels of heterosexual prowess and physical strength not necessarily expressed or attainable for the average man. As Connell (1987) explains, the winning of hegemony (i.e., the acceptance of these ideals of manhood as commonsense) relies upon their revered character by those whom this power subordinates. That is, men who don’t emulate these ideals, and women.

The winning of hegemony also relies on the possibility of alternative performances of masculinity and resistance to hegemonic ideals. As Connell (1987, p. 184) explains,

“Hegemony” does not mean total cultural dominance, the obliteration of alternatives. It means ascendancy achieved within a balance of forces, that is a state of play. Other patterns and groups are subordinated rather than eliminated. If we do not recognise this, it would be impossible to account for the everyday contestation that occurs in social life, let alone for historical changes in definitions of gender patterns on the grand scale. (p. 184)

Practices of masculinity that do not subscribe to the hegemonic ideal exist within this operation of power, so that some men may be stay-at-home-fathers, invested in romance, gentle and emotionally intuitive. These masculinities always occupy a subordinated position in the masculine hierarchy, an arrangement that is integral to the successful execution of hegemonic power. There can be no hegemonic ideal of masculinity without subordinated forms, and subsequently non-hegemonic practices of masculinity are crucial to the maintenance of the successful collective strategy of men’s dominance in relation to women.

This explanation of hegemonic masculinity highlights dimensions of Connell’s original thinking which have receded in recent usage. It suggests hegemonic masculinity was originally conceived to describe an articulation of power that explains the endurance of inequitable gender relations between women and men. Hegemony is an explanation of how power works to render particular ideas about masculinity (and femininity) “normal” and seemingly indisputable (i.e., men are usually physically stronger than women). The potency of hegemony lies in the fact that these ideas do not involve an oppressive exercise of force, but garner the consent of the population through an (almost) imperceptible normalization in social action and institutional arrangements. Hegemonic masculinity also explains the existence of diverse practices of masculinity that do not subscribe to hegemonic ideals, and yet also do not significantly destabilize the gender order. Their presence is not evidence of challenge to hegemonic masculinity, but instead integral to the successful maintenance of men’s overall dominance. Without other practices of masculinity that are subordinated, hegemony as an articulation of power cannot be mobilized.

Evolution of Hegemonic Masculinity as a Concept

Hegemonic masculinity has evolved as an overarching framework to understand masculinities and men’s experience of power since these original pronouncements. This evolution has been influenced by how scholars have adopted this idea and how Connell and others have responded to its appropriations and critiques (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Demetriou, 2001; Messerschmidt, 2020). Messerschmidt (2020) observes that Martin (1998, p. 23) was the first to allude to the issue of slippage and how, “some scholars equated the concept with a fixed type of masculinity or with whatever type of masculinity that happened to be dominant at a particular time and place” (p. 23). Waling (2019b) argues this adoption of Connell’s work has led to a particular mode of academic theorizing about men’s lived experiences and categorization of masculinity into a range of static and fluid “types”. She explains,

Theoretical models such as inclusive masculinity (Anderson, 2009), mosaic masculinity (Coles, 2008), and hybrid masculinities (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014), all seek to provide an explanation regarding men’s engagement with masculinity and masculine practices. Each theory relies on, in some way, categorizing men’s experiences and behaviors as belonging to a particular “type” of masculinity, or a typology of masculinit(ies). (Waling, 2019b, p. 94)

As a type, hegemonic masculinity is cast negatively and involves men displaying characteristics considered “toxic” and that involve dominance over others (Waling, 2019a). This shift away from viewing hegemonic masculinity as capturing an articulation of power, subsequently has implications for our ideas about how gender equality might be achieved. It has meant that men who are seen to engage in hegemonic masculinity have been cast as the “problem” and “solution” to dismantling the unequal gender order. In the logic of this application, any hope of changing unequal gender relations must involve alternative ways of being a man.

As part of the desire to “correct” misapplications of Connell’s notion of hegemonic masculinity, focus has been on differentiating masculinities that legitimate men’s power from those that do not (Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018; Schippers, 2007). As a consequence, a more nuanced differentiation within the framework of multiple masculinities has eventuated allowing for the distinction between “dominant”, “dominating” and “hegemonic” masculinities (Messerschmidt, 2016; Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018). This distinction is captured by Messerschmidt and Messner (2018, p. 41) who explain, “hegemonic masculinities are those masculinities constructed locally, regionally, and globally that legitimate an unequal relationship between men and women, masculinity and femininity, and among masculinities”. In this differentiation, dominant masculinities are primarily popular forms of masculinity that do not contribute to unequal gender power relations and are therefore non-hegemonic. Similarly, “dominating masculinities” are also typically non-hegemonic in that they do not legitimate unequal relationships between women and men, but “rather involve commanding and controlling particular interactions, exercising power and control over people and events” (Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018, p. 42). The example of dominating masculinity Messerschmidt and Messner offer is President Bush who exerts authority and control via his governmental decisions but does not culturally legitimate unequal gender relations in an operation of power that can be characterized as hegemony.

To explain this distinction between hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities further, Messerschmidt (2016) provides an example of dominant masculinity drawn from his own research. Here dominant masculinity is exemplified by teenage boys who were popular, tough and athletic, attended parties and engaged in heterosexuality. While these boys occupied a structurally dominant position in their school by embodying the most esteemed form of masculinity, they are described as “not in and of themselves” legitimating gender inequality (cited in Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018, pp. 41–42). The key to understanding why these performances of masculinity are not hegemonic, is because they do not culturally legitimate gender inequality in a way that reflects a hegemonic operation of power. The cultural legitimation of gender inequality stabilizes unequal gender relations through a consensually authorized means. Such action is not understood as individually orchestrated but instead operates through institutional, local and international power structures and practices. This article argues however, that this does not mean that non-hegemonic configurations of masculinity fail to contribute to unequal gender relations. Rather, the way power is exercised here cannot be characterized as hegemony.

Lucy’s (2024) discussion of perceived inaccuracies in the use of hegemonic masculinity further illuminates this distinction between hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities. He explains that to be hegemonic (in Connell’s original sense) masculinities must be authorized through the consent of the population and achieve legitimation through the subordination of other masculinities and femininities. The young men in Messerschmidt’s study exhibit masculinities that can be seen as non-hegemonic because they do not meet the criteria for an articulation of power that is characterized by “the political mechanics of relational legitimacy” (Lucy, 2024, p. 127). As Messerschmidt describes, these young men do not engage in practices that seek to intentionally subordinate and marginalize other young men and women. Additionally, their actions are not characterized by, or located within, a political operation of power exercised via governmental and/or institutional means. While not actively participating in practices which contribute to gender inequality, I would argue these young men cannot extract themselves from a social fabric which perpetuates them. This means they are unavoidably implicated in contributing to unequal gender relations, even if they oppose this inequality and it is not generated in their own actions. It seems possible that a tendency not to emphasize this point is in part responsible for the idea that non-hegemonic masculinity holds more hope for altering unequal gender relations.

The fact that hegemonic masculinity as a type has been conflated with dominance, may also be responsible for this sense of hope. As Lucy (2024) explains, this conflation occurs when traits that are linked with dominance such as physical mass and propensity for violence are frequently associated with hegemonic masculinity. Implicitly then, removal of these traits and encouraging men to practice more non-hegemonic masculinities is thought to reduce men’s dominance. My own previous work has followed this logic (Allen, 2007). What I, and others discussed below have found however, is that masculinities that are cast as non-hegemonic do not significantly disrupt the hierarchical relationship between women and men and are no less implicated in sustaining unequal relations between them. While this may not equate with an operation of power that can be described as hegemony, it still involves an operation of power which stabilizes an unequal gender order.

How Subordinated Masculinities Contribute to Gender Inequality

When hegemonic masculinity is understood as a type, subordinate masculinities can be conflated with those that are perceived to be non-hegemonic (for exceptions see Beasley (2008), Bridges and Pascoe (2014), Bridges and Pascoe (2018), Demetriou (2001), Filteau (2014). In her early work in this area Connell (2005) identified that,

Gay masculinity is the most conspicuous, but it is not the only subordinated masculinity. Some heterosexual men and boys too are expelled from the circle of legitimacy. The process is marked by a rich vocabulary of abuse: wimp, milksop, nerd, turkey, sissy … and so on. (p.79)

Empirical studies have long documented how masculinities thought to demonstrate characteristics assigned as feminine, are designated as subordinate within the hierarchy of masculinities (Holland et al., 1993; Martino, 1999; Pascoe, 2005; Redman, 1996a). As subordinated masculinities are presumed not to enjoy the same access to power as hegemonic masculinities, their practices are believed to involve a less repressive exercise of power over others, including women. Subsequently, subordinate masculinities may be seen as not contributing to the perpetuation of a hierarchical relationship between men and women. Recent research in relation to the practices of subordinate masculinities tells another story however.

The ways subordinate masculinities can reinforce unequal power relations between women and men has been drawn into sharp relief in studies that examine relationships between heterosexual and homosexual men. This phenomenon occurs because while sexuality is a differentiating factor in these relationships, individuals share an identity within the gender order as men. In his research around friendships between straight and gay-identifying men in Sydney, Gorman-Murray (2013) found that hegemonic gender norms were reinforced at the same time that masculine hierarchies based on sexual orientation were contested. This was apparent for two participants who were friends whose relationship was premised on shared “blokey” camping, sport, music and work interests. Gorman-Murray (2013) explains how their friendship involved performances of macho Australian masculinity based on bonding over sport and outdoor activities in ways that referenced, rather than challenged hegemonic ideals. Such straight-gay friendships therefore exhibit “elements that comply with and buttress, rather than contest, dominant social divisions and power relations, particularly around gender” (Gorman-Murray, 2013, p. 221).

This point about straight-gay friendships is also made in a recent analysis of Otis Milburn’s depiction of “alternative” masculinity in the Netflix series Sex Education (Allen, 2024). Through the character of Otis, this program offers a televisual depiction of contemporary embodied heterosexual masculinity (Nunn, 2019-2023). Although the storylines and Otis’ character are fictional, the sexual and gender issues he navigates echo young men’s current lived experience with the show’s creator Laurie Nunn explaining the series was motivated to explore contemporary sexual politics (Frost, 2020). Otis represents the embodiment of new masculinity in the wake of the #MeToo movement, as a sixteen-year-old male who is pro-feminist, prioritizes the pleasure of his female sexual partners and is queer positive. Part of what makes Otis’ masculine performance a departure from traditional configurations of masculinity is his close relationship with best friend Eric who identifies as gay (Allen, 2024). While this relationship departs from hegemonic ideals of masculinity, it simultaneously constitutes a main site for practices which reference it. To provide just two examples from this analysis, Otis shares details with Eric of his sexual encounters with female love interest Ruby who is the most popular girl in school, in a demonstration of masculine sexual prowess. In addition, in a conversation with Otis, Eric engages in the sexual objectification of fellow student Maeve by commenting on the size of her breasts and calling her a “slag” and “nympho” for “sucking off 12 guys in 10 minutes for a dare” (Season 1, Episode 1). While these characters occupy subordinated positions within the hierarchy of masculinity as gay (Eric) and “nerdy” (Otis) both participate in practices of masculinity which subordinate women.

Ging’s (2019) research examining masculinities within the manosphere is also illuminating here. The manosphere (Van Valkenburgh, 2021) describes a network of interest groups operating predominately online to promote men’s rights and constitutes a space where some individuals engage in extreme misogyny. These groups are comprised of individuals who self-identify as “betafags” and “incels” (involuntary celibates), names derived from how they view their relationship to “alpha” masculinity and women. Incels blame women for not wanting to have sex with them, and thus their involuntary celibacy, and alpha males for preventing their sexual success (Haywood, 2019). Men who identify as gay, also form part of some manosphere communities which profess to be “queer-friendly” signaled by their ready adoption of the descriptor “betafag” and shared allegiance as subordinated (i.e., beta) masculinities. In her analysis of these subordinated masculinities, Ging (2019) observes how the manosphere professes a pro-gay discourse which draws gay men and “geeks” together to establish male dominance over women.

[G]ay positivity functions here to unite white, middle-class men, irrespective of sexual orientation, against feminism and other forms of “political correctness” that are perceived as threats to freedom of expression and, ultimately, to their social privilege. The ideological machinations of the manosphere serve as a stark demonstration, therefore, of how reduced homohysteria can happily coexist with extreme expressions of misogyny and racism […]. (Ging, 2019, p. 652)

Ging (2019) provides another example of how subordinated masculinities such as men who identify as gay and “geeks”, contribute to unequal relations between women and men. While such masculinities are designated subordinate within a conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity as a type, this does not make them immune from participating in the maintenance of unequal gender relations. It would seem then, that being designated a man in the gender order regardless of other markers such as sexuality, involves (in)voluntary participation in inequitable gender relations. As indicated above, even in the mediated world of television where Otis Milburn exemplifies a pro-feminist and queer positive masculinity, he continues to contribute (at least sometimes and despite his best intentions) to stabilizing unequal gender relations.

Another example of the failure of subordinated masculinities to significantly disrupt the gender order is found in the work of Bridges and Pascoe (2018). Their research has explored whether contemporary masculinities such as those nominated as “inclusive” (Anderson, 2009) represent a fundamental challenge to systems of power and inequality. Examining the emergence of new masculinities characterized as the “metrosexual”, the “hipster” and “bro” they apply a framework of hybrid masculinities to explain how these masculinities involve.

…the selective incorporation of elements of identity typically associated with various marginalized and subordinated masculinities and—at times—femininities into privileged men’s gender performances and identities. (Bridges & Pascoe, 2018, p. 258)

This selective incorporation of identity traits can be coded as “gay” (Bridges & Pascoe, 2015), “Black” (Hughey, 2012) or “feminine” (Arxer, 2011) which are identities categorized as subordinated or marginalized. Taking “the hipster” as an example, this man is white, college-educated, city dwelling and typically androgynous, intellectual, creative and distinguished by grooming habits, literary and artistic curiosity as well as culinary preferences (Bridges & Pascoe, 2018). Bridges and Pascoe (2018) observe however that despite these identity traits suggesting considerable change to how masculinities are practiced, they fail to significantly challenge existing systems of gender inequality. Characterizing these masculinities as “hybrid” for the way they incorporate aspects of subordinated and marginalized identities, these researchers explain how such symbolic changes work to reproduce existing systems of gender, sexual, racial and class inequality. The symbolic nature of these changes serves to obscure the fact that structural gender power relations remain fundamentally unchallenged and continue to largely sustain existing ideologies and systems of inequality between men and women, along with people who identify as gender and/or sexually diverse.

Connell’s (1987) original conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity has always held an answer for why non-hegemonic configurations of masculinity cannot secure gender equality. As explained above, as an articulation of power, hegemony necessarily involves the presence of alternative ways of being a man. These are not eradicated by the operation of hegemony but are integral to its realization. The presence of these alternatives make hegemony possible because to have a masculine ideal (real or imagined), other forms must be subordinated. Connell (1987, p. 185) briefly alludes to the idea that non-hegemonic masculinities are not the answer to gender equality in her early work when she states, “Women may feel as oppressed by non-hegemonic masculinities” (p. 185). Although she does not elaborate on this statement, it may reference the fact that although non-hegemonic masculinities do not legitimate unequal gender relations in accordance with the operation of hegemony, they can sustain unequal relations between women and men by other means.

The studies above reveal that within a conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity as type, subordinated and non-hegemonic forms of masculinity do not necessarily result in more equal gender relations. It might be argued that shifting men’s styles of gender display (Waling, 2019b) overestimates men’s agency as individuals to initiate such changes, and underestimates the complexity of power’s operation (Beasley, 2012). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity contains a modernist understanding of power that recognises men are themselves caught in power relations they do not control (Beasley, 2012). This does not release or excuse men (or anyone) from the responsibility of ethical care for others, but it acknowledges that what men say and do is configured within power relations they do not determine. However, such a conceptualization of power offers minimal viable opportunities for changing the status quo. These solutions (see more below) are also reliant on men collectively changing themselves and shifts to larger institutional, national and global forces which must occur.

The conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity as a type attributes a high level of self-awareness and deliberation to the way men act and reproduce gender inequality. Subsequently, men’s practices of masculinity are understood as about “identity management” and wanting to project a particular image of themselves to others (Aho & Peltola, 2023). This thinking leads some scholars to question whether men’s adoption of a pro-feminist stance and support for gender equality are genuine, or, a guise for maintaining gender inequality (Stick & Fetner, 2021). From this perspective, men are cast as calculated manipulators who deliberately wield power over others for personal gain. While there are undoubtedly men who do this, this view cannot explain how men like Otis Milburn, who despite a genuine investment in gender equality, continue to perpetuate unequal gender relations. In Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity, such men might be understood as exhibiting a form of false consciousness, or benefiting from the patriarchal dividend, however this renders them “dupes” of hegemony, with minimal agency. In these accounts, men are subsequently cast dualistically as either, wielding all the power as calculated manipulators, or dupes whose subjection to power is complete. Neither approach enables a nuanced enough understanding of power’s operation from which viable solutions for securing gender equality might be gleaned.

Does Hegemonic Masculinity Offer Adequate Solutions to Gender Inequality?

What Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity has enabled is an acknowledgement of the ways in which power operates to influence our lived and commonsense understandings of gender (Hearn, 2004). It describes an operation of power that works productively with our consent, rather than repressively to create the dominance of particular ideas about masculinity (and implicitly femininity). This particular mode of operation allows for alternatives and resistance to normative practices of masculinity, and thus helps explain the perseverance of unequal gender relations, despite the existence of challenges to it. What the notion of hegemonic masculinity also illuminates is the potency of hegemony as an articulation of power to tether us to existing ways of being and doing. In addition, evolution of this concept has revealed the multiplicity of ways in which masculinities are lived and power relations between them. This insight has led to a “structurally hierarchical modelling of inter-relational competitive categories of masculinity” (Lucy, 2024, p. 128) that partially elucidates the role masculinities play in the construction and maintenance of the gender order.

Applications of Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity have spawned the notion that men and masculinities can be categorized into a plethora of types. This enduring body of thought has led to particular solutions for addressing unequal power relations between women and men. Amongst the multitude of ways of being a man, some have been considered more likely to afford gender equality than others. These masculinities are those that digress from normative forms which are associated with aggression, heterosexual prowess, physical strength and involve practices of dominance over others. It has been assumed that if men can change their masculine performance and abandon these negative character traits in order to inhabit new masculinities that are for example, pro-feminist and queer positive, then gender equality can be achieved. In the confusion that has resulted over the meaning of hegemonic masculinity, these alternative masculinities which are subordinated in the hierarchy of men, have been designated non-hegemonic and understood as not contributing to unequal gender relations. This article has sought to trace how we have come to such a conclusion about addressing gender inequality via the evolution of the term hegemonic masculinity. It has also endeavored to suggest this as an inadequate solution, by detailing recent research on subordinated (conflated with non-hegemonic) masculinities and the ways they continue to sustain an unequal gender order.

It might be argued that despite attempting to distance itself from being understood as a type of masculinity, Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity also implies a solution to gender inequality that relies on men changing themselves. In a recent publication Connell and colleagues assert a clear distinction between hegemonic masculinity as a type, and its characterization as, “a position in a structure of gender relations” (Wedgewood et al., 2023, p. 83). This assertion is furnished with the following explanation.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity may be briefly defined as the configuration of practices (meaningful actions with consequences…) that represent the most honoured way of being a man in a given social context, distinguished from less respected masculinities and providing legitimacy for the overall subordination of women in the society. (Wedgewood et al., 2023, p. 83)

There are no changes in this updated definition that imply the goal for attaining gender equality has altered however. In a recent engagement with Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity Yang (2020) explains this strategy involves countering the legitimation process, by “recognizing the progressive potential of hegemonic masculinities” and “treat [ing] hegemonic masculinity not as something to abolish, but as something to take over” (Yang, 2020, p. 328). Subsequently, the creation of hegemonic masculinities that authorize egalitarian gender relations between women and men and amongst masculinities remains the aim (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This strategy requires a wide spread transformation amongst men to change in gender positive ways (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). However, as Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) already identify, the cultural legitimation of gender positive forms of hegemonic masculinity is extremely difficult. It would involve the majority of men (and women) endowing cultural reverence to an ideal of masculinity that amongst others things, is pro-feminist and pro-gay. And, as the discussion above reveals, changing men in gender positive ways does not necessarily deliver overarching gender equality.

To end I offer a provocation, that all men and masculinities are implicated in the maintenance of an unequal gender order (as are all women and femininities). It makes nominal difference whether these masculinities offer a departure from normative practices, whether men are committed to gender equality or not, or have an explicit or unacknowledged investment in the existing gender order. While different ways of being a man might produce pockets of disruption to power relations in specific contexts, they are largely ineffective in significantly altering the enduring stability of the unequal gender order (Bridges & Pascoe, 2018).

The evolution of the concept of hegemonic masculinities has led to an offshoot of thinking around the categorization of men as types that has produced solutions for achieving gender inequality that are deficient. As Hearn (2019, p. 59) observes, “there is much that happens and accrues that is over and above individual action, and there is much that is experienced that is not determined or determinate” (p. 59). To capitalize on the hope contained in this idea necessitates other ways of conceptualizing men, masculinities and power’s operation beyond the notion of hegemony and hegemonic masculinity. While Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity offers an understanding of the cultural legitimation of unequal power relations, it does not capture nuances of power’s operation that do not work in this way. Either too much agency, or not enough, is bestowed on men in existing framings of power to change the gender order, leaving limited options for imagining change. Yang (2020) poses a question that similarly seeks acknowledgement of the operation of power beyond hegemonic masculinity when he asks, “If not hegemony, what is the mechanism through which this masculinity dominates other masculinities?”. Rephrasing this question in accordance with the current discussion, I ask, “If not hegemony what is the mechanism by which masculinities dominate femininities”? Understanding the complexity and nuances of power’s operation in the maintenance of the gender order is crucial for identifying where potential agency lies for undoing it.