Masculinities at the Margins of “Middle Adulthood”

Abstract

The intersections of masculinities and age have attracted relatively little theorizing. This article examines the theoretical implications of young/old age and masculinities by bringing together two bodies of literature (young age and masculinities and old age and masculinities) and two research studies (one with pre-teenage school students in Australia and one with grandfathers in the United Kingdom). We focus on two key themes: caring practices and relations and the divide between physical activity and intellectual pursuits. Drawing on these themes, we show how age allows for gender transgressions and practices of gender equality and how young boys and old men can also uphold a discourse of hegemonic masculinity, despite age-related tensions. We conclude by arguing that a consideration of age has much to offer in terms of thinking about how gender is socially constructed and illuminates the complex power relations of age and gender categories.

Keywords

hegemonic masculinity youth aging age intersectionality gender equality

Introduction

I won’t be able to do this much longer, if anything you’ll be picking me up. When do you think you could pick me up? [Joe, age 10] replied I don’t know … two years? (Bill, 72, and grandson Joe, 10. Field notes from grandfathering study in the United Kingdom—5 September 2009)¹

This article brings together two qualitative research projects (one with pre-teenage school students and one with grandfathers) and two currently separate bodies of literature to examine the intersection of (young and old²) age and masculinities. While perhaps not immediately obvious, we feel our work has many similarities, both in content and in the way in which age works as a social category that intersects with gender practices. The previously mentioned quote exemplifies the significance of age as a constant process that impacts how practices are undertaken and imagined. Bill, the seventy-two-year-old grandfather, represents aging—as decline, and Joe, the ten-year-old grandson represents young age—as growth. The intention of this quote is not to construct an age-based dichotomy between young (pre-teenage) boys and old men (around retirement age and older)³ but to emphasize the complexities of masculinities and age.

There is a burgeoning interest in the intersections of gender and (old) age (see, e.g., Arber and Ginn 1995; Calasanti and Slevin 2001), especially as they influence the lived experiences of women (Krekula 2007; Twigg 2004; Utrata 2011). This literature examines the complex and shifting power relations evident when examining the intersection of gender and age. Age is viewed as “a primary organizing principle of power” (Utrata 2011, 619), which intersects with other power relations, including in relation to gender. What this literature importantly draws attention to is how conceptions of age are socially constructed and contextual. Krekula (2007, 167) argues that when gender and age (and other categories) intersect, these categories can be strengthened or weakened, supplementary or competitive. Rather than being straightforward (such as being old plus being a woman equals further marginalization), different intersections can produce new forms of marginalization or neutralize potential forms of marginalization (Krekula 2007, 167). While this literature has primarily attended to women and old age, it has much to offer for thinking about the intersection of gender and old/young age more broadly, particularly in terms of its emphasis on power relations and complex intersections. Writing explicitly focusing on the intersection of gender and young age is less common but has drawn on similar themes, such as the importance of context and the impact of young age in allowing for the fluidity of gender (see, e.g., Moore 2001; Thorne 1993). We draw on several of these points in this article, in order to explore and understand the specificities of the intersection of masculinities and age that have yet to be fully addressed in the existing literature, either within masculinity studies or feminist writing about old age.

Although a consideration of young (pre-teenage) boys and old men (around retirement age and older) together is not necessarily straightforward, we believe there are sufficient similarities in their locations to offer a critique of masculinities theorizing and research which characteristically appears “middle adultist” and/or ageless. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005, 852) have emphasized the importance of examining childhood/youth and aging as highlighting the changing of masculinities with age, as well as demonstrating potential for more gender equal practices. Furthermore, an examination of the tenuous relations of age to patterns of masculinities offers the opportunity to critique the presumed universal applicability of hegemonic masculinity and related hierarchies. A focus on young and old age is useful for studying age-related transgressions and challenges to hegemonic masculinity, and how boys/men are variously positioned and position themselves in relation to discourses of masculinities. Paying attention to boys and old men together further allows for a consideration of similarities and variations in terms of the power relations in which they are embedded, including those related to age and gender (Calasanti 2004). We view this article as important to initiating a conversation between the masculinities literatures on young age and old age. Despite the notable work of Hearn (1999, 2007, 2011; Hearn and Sandberg 2009, see also Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2007, chap. 4), a consideration of young and old age together is virtually absent.

An intended aim of this article is to draw together the limited existing literature available which theorizes (young and/or old) age and masculinities specifically, alongside an exploration of our two research studies. Therefore, we begin the article by reconsidering theorizing about hegemonic masculinity in terms of the implications of age and then go on to examine the existing writing about masculinities theories and young and/or old age. This mapping provides a contextual background to the second half of the article where we discuss commonalities (and differences) relating to age between our research studies. Thus, in the second half of the article, we analyze the first author’s research with pre-teenage school students in Australia and the second author’s research with grandfathers in the United Kingdom. We use these studies to examine how young boys and old men position themselves and are positioned in relation to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity, arguing that a consideration of age complicates this. We do this via two themes common to our research projects: engagement in caring relations/practices and the divide between physical activity and intellectual pursuits. This article concludes with reflection on how young boys and old men trouble and problematize privileged forms of masculinity (Hearn 1995, 98–99).

Gender, Age, and a Reconsideration of Hegemonic Masculinity

Connell’s (2000, 2005) concept of hegemonic masculinity, at the top of a hierarchy of masculinities, is frequently drawn on in masculinities research (Beasley 2008, 88). Connell’s hierarchy of multiple masculinities theorizes subordinate and marginalised masculinities that are not classed as hegemonic, highlighting power relations between men as well as between men and women. However, a preoccupation with hegemonic masculinity has been at the expense of greater attention to other patterns of masculinities, where the rest of the hierarchy has been underutilized (Bartholomaeus 2012b, 2013; Connell 2008, 133). Age relations, and a focus on men/boys who occupy a tenuous position in relation to hegemonic masculinity, are largely invisible in discussions of masculinities because hegemonic masculinity valorizes youth⁴ or focuses on a middle age-group often perceived to be universal to all ages (or at least the most important). Feminist gerontologists have provided a more developed framework that acknowledges that age, like gender, is routinely accomplished and sometimes challenged in daily life (Laz 1998; Utrata 2011) and that “the experiences of groups are situated in a web of interlocking power relations” (Calasanti 2004, 307).

Hegemonic masculinity has attracted a number of critiques (Beasley 2008; Coles 2009; Demetriou 2001), but few in relation to age (Hearn and Sandberg 2009). We propose a reframing of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, although we are still cautious of its usefulness in understanding young boys’ and old men’s gender practices. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of discourse, we reframe hegemonic masculinity as a discourse (Bartholomaeus 2012b, 2013; Beasley 2008; Elias and Beasley 2009), to conceptualize how, while practices relating to a particular version of masculinity were endorsed by young boys and old men in our studies, they expressed plural and fluid gender practices. A discourse of hegemonic masculinity refers to “that which is most influential in defining what is most ‘masculine’ in any given setting, and that ensures men’s (as a group) authority over women (as a group)” (Bartholomaeus 2013, 281). This framing allows for an examination of masculinities as fluid practices rather than “types,” meaning that individual boys/men can move between different discourses. This fluidity is illuminated by young/old age but not exclusive to it.

Where Are Young and Old Masculinities?

Feminist-informed research focusing on masculinities has tended to exclude a theoretical consideration of age as a social category (Hearn 2011, 90), despite arguments that gender relations interweave with age to structure social life in young age (Moore 2001; Thorne 1993) and old age (Arber and Ginn 1995). Age is unique from other categories because of its apparent universality and its status as continually changing (Hearn 1999, 2011). Consequently, it offers the opportunity to highlight the fluid and socially constructed nature of gender and processes that challenge gendered norms, potentially revealing possibilities for social change.

There are some interesting parallels between young and old age in terms of masculinities. Both age-groups, for example, challenge “middle adultist” notions of masculinities, in that they both occupy ambiguous social positions. Young boys and old men are privileged by sexism, but disadvantaged by ageism (for this point in relation to old age, see Hearn 2011, 95), although this can play out in different ways. Despite potential difficulties with applying concepts because of young/old age, hegemonic masculinity is often used uncritically with these age-groups, particularly in studies with young (pre-teenage) boys. Connell herself adopts several different stances in understanding young boys’ relation to hegemonic masculinity—ranging from boys having the same relationship to hegemonic masculinity as men through to exclusion from the concept because of their young age (for a full discussion, see Bartholomaeus 2012a).

Much empirical research with pre-teenage (and teenage) school boys/students uses hegemonic masculinity (Renold 2005, 66), but there is little critique of the significance of age in being a barrier to hegemonic masculinity for pre-teenage boys (Bartholomaeus 2012a; Renold 2007, 276). Renold (2005, 67) argued that hegemonic masculinity was inaccessible to the ten- and eleven-year-old boys in her English study because the concept is both “adult-centric” and “elusive.” Eriksson (2007, 62) also provides a strong critique, focusing on Connell’s (2000) The Men and the Boys, arguing that masculinities theorizing, designed to understand the multiple positions of men as gendered adults, is used with boys and young men without consideration of the implications of age or age-related power. Others have also critiqued the use of “adult” versions of masculinities and theorizing about men with young (pre-teenage) boys (Bartholomaeus 2012a; Davies 2003, 101; Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2007, 104–5; Thorne 1993, 172). Despite the relatively small yet growing amount of research with pre-teenage boys (including, but not limited to, the references mentioned previously), searches of the leading masculinities journals, Men and Masculinities and Journal of Men’s Studies, reveal a lack of engagement with this particular age-group (for exceptions, see Epstein et al. 2001; Hasbrook and Harris 1999; Renold 2007; Swain 2006).⁵

Debate focused on old men is more nuanced than on young boys and the literature is beginning to burgeon (as exemplified by the growing number of articles in the leading masculinities journals just mentioned, such as Slevin and Linneman 2010). However, as in the studies with pre-teenage boys, studies about old men have similarly tended to utilize hegemonic masculinity without acknowledging that Connell did not theorize old age. Despite Connell’s (2005) long-standing interest with the life history method, it is apparent that in her key book Masculinities, none of her participants are older than fifty, with the majority being in their twenties. Hearn highlights the difficult fit between old age and hegemonic masculinity, arguing that “[h]egemonic masculinity has limits as a framework for taking on board all the complexities of ageing (men)” (2011, 95). Men’s positionality within gender relations has been found to differ as they age, positioning them as subordinated by and/or complicit to hegemonic masculinity. This is because old age is viewed as translating automatically to decline, especially as hegemonic masculinity is premised on physicality (of the body), sexual prowess, and authority (Eman 2011). According to Slevin and Linneman (2010), old gay men occupy subordinate positions in Connell’s hierarchies of masculinities, which relates to issues such as sexuality and exclusion from public spaces (Tarrant 2013). However, the use of subordinated masculinity reflects an ageist conceptualization of old men in gender relations, who have entered a feminized life “stage.” Linking old age and subordinated masculinity appears too simplistic and ignores factors such as status related to old age—whether financial or relating to “wisdom” and age hierarchies. Other writers position old men’s practices as complicit with hegemonic masculinity. That is, old men (as a group) gain from the patriarchal dividend through their advantage over women (as a group; e.g., see Hearn 2011; Thompson 2006). However, theorizing old men as subordinate or complicit ignores fluidity within men’s gender practices and the diversity of practices and bodies in the “old age” category. Such a framing also fails to capture, for example, the many anxieties that men negotiate as they get older, which in many ways are rooted in and constitutive of wider sociocultural contexts and expectations in which aging and the “graying” of the population is feared.

Despite several similarities in the theoretical positioning of young (pre-teenage) boys and old men, we acknowledge that there are differences between boys and men. Boys can look forward to status gained by economic earnings, athleticism (or they at least are likely to have stronger and more athletic bodies than they have in childhood), and sexuality, while old men may have enjoyed these things, although at least some of these experiences may be in the past. In some non-Western cultures in particular, old people, especially men, may appear to be revered because of their old age (see, e.g., Powell and Cook 2006), but they may only retain the “utterances of control and rituals within the family,” rather than any actual privilege (Cook and Powell 2007, 140). It is also important to recognize that there is much diversity within young age and within old age as well as differences relating to “generational” change, and other intersections such as ethnicity, race, culture, class, (dis)ability, sexuality, and geographical location.

Research with Primary School Boys and Grandfathers

This article draws on two research projects. The first author’s research examined primary school students’⁶ understandings of and views about gender. Research was conducted in two South Australian coeducational primary schools in August–November 2009. One school was Greek Orthodox (Socrates Primary) and the other was Catholic (St. Catherine’s Primary). Both schools had students from a mix of cultural backgrounds, with the majority at Socrates Primary being from Greek and/or Cypriot backgrounds and over half at St Catherine’s Primary from Anglo/white backgrounds. Both schools were largely middle class but, on average, students at Socrates Primary came from more advantaged backgrounds. The research involved a total of ninety-five students in two junior primary school classes (aged six to seven) and two upper primary classes (aged eleven to thirteen). Each class was involved in five sessions, lasting approximately ninety minutes each, which were made up of two or three activities aimed to encourage the students to explore issues about gender. These sessions involved activities such as writing about who they looked up to, completing a friendship activity naming their “best” and “other” friends, writing about their imagined futures, and being involved in discussions, drawing, and writing about popular culture. Interviews were conducted with the teachers from all four classes and six mothers of the students in the classes (including two in a joint interview). An additional mother was involved via an e-mailed questionnaire. No fathers elected to participate. The parent and teacher interviews focused on how the parents/teachers thought gender was understood by their children/students in their class. Three teachers were available for second interviews where they were asked for their feedback and explanations of the initial findings from the research. Students were also shown some of the initial findings and were asked for their interpretations in the final session (for full details of the study, see Bartholomaeus 2012b).

The second author’s study examined men’s constructions, performances, and geographies of grandfatherhood and grandfathering, focusing on their identities as old men and their relationships with their children and grandchildren. Thirty-one semi-structured interviews and two complementary observations were conducted with grandfathers, who were living in the North West of England. Data were collected over a period of one year between July 2008 and July 2009. The sample filled a gap in the grandparenting literature where research is mostly conducted with women and involves either only a limited sample of men or none at all. The average age of the men interviewed was sixty-eight years, ranging in age from fifty-two years to eighty-six years. The sample was predominantly white, middle-class, and able bodied, although one grandfather was black with Jamaican heritage and another was vision impaired. Despite limited cultural and ethnic diversity in the sample, the semi-structured approach allowed for the exploration of key themes relating to contemporary grandfathering of which care practices, aging, relationships with grandchildren, and personal biography were central (for greater detail of the study, see Tarrant 2011).

We now focus on data from these two studies, exploring how factors relating to age positioned young (pre-teenage) boys and old men in multiple ways in relation to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity. We examine caring practices/relations and the divide between physical activity and intellectual pursuits, because they were themes common to our two research projects, and demonstrate complexities with engagement with hegemonic masculinity. Exploration of these commonalities allowed us to develop our emerging ideas and theories about these age-related complexities, and bring together these two diversely constituted datasets, produced in different contexts, into meaningful analytic conversation.

Caring Practices and Relations

Caring practices and relations may be seen as providing a particular challenge to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity (where boys and men give and receive care) and show how the boundaries of age (young and old) can impact these practices. However, in this section, we also show the limits to caring both for the young boys and the grandfathers, and how caring practices were engaged with in particular ways, which sometimes worked to uphold gender divisions rather than being transgressive.

Young Age: Caring Practices and Cross-gender Friendships

There was a complex interweaving of age, masculinities, and caring practices in the primary school research, and there were particular ways in which caring practices could occur. Practices that could be seen as challenging to and/or differing from a discourse of hegemonic masculinity involved caring about others and maintaining cross-gender friendships (these themes are discussed in greater detail in Bartholomaeus 2013).

Engagement in caring and considerate practices was evident among many of the boys and girls in the junior primary classes. This behavior was advocated by both junior primary school teachers in the research and was supported by the general context of the junior primary school classroom with its focus on fairness, sharing, and turn-taking (see, e.g., Hännikäinen and Rasku-Puttonen 2010). While such practices were less evident in the upper primary classrooms, caring practices and attitudes were occasionally shown by some boys when writing about their imagined futures, where an eleven-year-old boy wrote “[i]n My future I will win a lottery and give some to poverty,” and a twelve-year-old boy wrote that he “[w]as well mannered” and “[d]idn’t have a car—Rode a bike because hated Pollution.”

At times, some of the boys also demonstrated caring attitudes when writing about their love for their family and friends. For example, Amin wrote of his love for his family and home country:

when I am 60 I will go to my country and I want to be in my plune [plane] in my country and I wish to be with my family even [sic] and my seocand [second] wish is to be die where my family is die [sic]. (Amin, 12, Socrates Primary, imagined future story)

About a third of the younger boys and half of the older boys who completed an activity about who they looked up to wrote about looking up to their mothers and sometimes described them as “loving.” Although some boys wrote about love for their family, girls from both age-groups were more likely to express this. In addition, describing mothers as “loving” is less challenging to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity than boys expressing their love for others or describing themselves as loving. A few of the boys wrote about their friendships with other boys in a caring and emotive way.

Young age also appeared to allow for cross-gender friendships that can be seen as a challenge to misogyny and homosociality, often viewed as important for constructing hegemonic masculinity (Bird 1996; Flood 2008). Students were asked to draw a friendship map, naming their “best” and “other” friends. Cross-gender friendships made up nearly a third of all friendships noted, with a similar number of cross-gender friendships named by boys and girls. The ways in which these friendships played out varied for the different classes and age-groups. In this activity, the upper primary students were more likely to identify cross-gender friendships than the junior primary students. However, from the perspective of the teachers, the junior primary teachers emphasized cross-gender interaction more than the upper primary teachers.

The age of the students was a reason given for cross-gender friendships and interaction by both junior primary teachers. This was evident from Mrs. Searle’s (Socrates Primary) observations that boys and girls played together and were “cohesive” in year 1 (aged six and seven), but began to separate in years 2 and 3, with “girls sitting down talking and the boys off playing sport and those sorts of things.” The complexities of this interaction was emphasized by Mrs. Hartley (St. Catherine’s Primary) who suggested that boys and girls in her class tended to separate by gender when they had a choice, but they did not mind when she put them into mixed-gender groupings.

There were also examples of positive interactions between girls and boys in the upper primary classes and much clearer patterns of cross-gender friendships emerged. These patterns involved boys labeled by their teachers as “effeminate” or “feminine” being friends with girls; friendships between boys and girls who had a “low status” and/or were marginalized in one of the upper primary classes; and heterosexualized friendships between boys and girls who enjoyed a “high status” in class—that is, they were secure in their position in the classroom.

Young age influences the existence and acceptability of cross-gender friendships as well as the ability to demonstrate caring and loving attitudes. Although these practices could sometimes be a challenge to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity, there were particular avenues for this to occur. Caring for families was often an accepted and expressed practice for boys, as was also evident in the grandfathers’ study.

Old Age: Grandfathering and Caring for Grandchildren

Feminist researchers have long argued that it is women who predominantly take on care responsibilities for children (Brannen and Nilsen 2006; McKie, Gregory, and Bowlby 2002) and grandchildren (Scraton and Holland 2006) and this is spatially reproduced in an ongoing division of labor that constructs men as breadwinners or pursuers of outdoor leisure pursuits, and women as carers and associated with the domestic. To some extent, this is supported by the grandfathers who took part in this study (Tarrant 2013). However, difference and diversity in grandfathering points to variability in the practices of care grandfathers are involved in, as well as how they construct these practices in relation to masculinities. Furthermore, grandparenting is a relational practice (see Utrata 2011), with circumstances and contexts influencing care practices.

Several of the men interviewed were involved in more intimate, “feminine” caring tasks such as nappy (diaper) changing. Across the sample responses ranged from no involvement in nappy changing, supporting a resilient gendered division of familial labor, to an open discussion of sharing caring tasks with wives. The narratives of Ray and Wally demonstrate these different approaches effectively:

I didn’t have to [nappy change] the little ones, thank God (laughs). [Son] does it all and [daughter] does it all. When they’re here, [wife] does it. They’re girls, I think girls need girls, I’m sorry I’m a bit old-fashioned, do you know what I mean? Men, men are men, in that sense and as I say, they love their grandma to do it, they look to grandma to do it, they don’t look to granddad to do it and I think “yeah that’s good, that’s good.” (Ray, 69)

The stereotypical view is of course, the guy goes down the pub, with a box of cigars, sinks 50 pints and celebrates the birth. I don’t subscribe to that at all, and it’s not a man’s job to bother with children and change nappies and so on. Because of the nature of the life we have, I change nappies, do the washing, do the ironing, cooking, cleaning whatever, as and when necessary, as and when I’m able to do. (Wally, 56)

Both Ray and Wally constructed nappy changing in relation to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity by either rejecting stereotypical views or adhering to them (“men are men”). The reasons for this are complex and individualized, relating to the men’s specific family circumstances, their relationships with the other men and women in their lives, and generationally specific notions of masculinities. Interestingly, in Ray’s example, the reasons for not nappy changing are that he deems it less appropriate for someone of his gender and age. He upholds the “gender order” by adhering to what he refers to as an “old-fashioned” notion of being a man. Ray’s rejection of the carer role and his subsequent adherence to traditional gendered and generational norms reinforce his marginal status as a carer in the family. Wally, however, does not subscribe to this view at all; nappy changing is something he has always done, and caring practices are an acceptable part of grandfathering. Unlike Ray, Wally’s narrative explicitly acknowledges his transgression from the dominant discourse of masculinity. There is little evidence that he is subordinately positioned. Rather, age and caring practices he deems generationally appropriate, as well as the opportunity to nappy change afforded by his personal circumstances, promote gender equality, fitting with a more progressive form of masculinity that may be outside the hegemonic/subordinate hierarchy.

The grandfatherhood and primary school studies both show how age outside of “middle adulthood” allowed for some transgressions and more caring behavior. However, they also showed that sometimes the rejection of these practices upheld the “gender order,” such as when men defined their care in relation to “old-fashioned” notions of masculinity (for one of the few in-depth considerations of masculinities and care, although without much discussion of age, see Hanlon 2012). Differences in how this played out were sometimes specific to age-related contexts in the family, such as some grandfathers being expected to engage in caring practices that was not evident among the young boys. The context of daily interactions between boys and girls at school allowed for more discussions of friendships between boys and girls, which was not illuminated in the grandfathers research, potentially because of the focus on family practices. While there was a tendency to be complicit with the “gender order,” the caring practices of both grandfathers and young boys reflect how masculinities in their localized contexts can disrupt a discourse of hegemonic masculinity.

The Physical Body versus the Intellectual Mind

Participants in both studies also engaged with ideas of physical activities, particularly sport, as different from intellectual pursuits, suggesting there are ways of asserting superiority intellectually rather than physically. While engagement in intellectual pursuits may be viewed as challenging a discourse of hegemonic masculinity, they may actually fit with Redman and Mac an Ghaill’s (1997) concept of “muscular intellectualness,” where superiority is asserted through the mind rather than through the body. Redman and Mac an Ghaill (1997, 169) developed this concept from a high school teacher who was able to “push people around intellectually.” The ability for “muscular intellectualness” to function in practice is reliant on context and is strongly heterosexual and middle class. The way in which age intersects with these issues are discussed throughout the section.

Young Age: “Intelligence” versus Sport?

Participants in the primary school research on occasion emphasized intellectual pursuits rather than physical sporting pursuits. On the whole, sport was a key element of a discourse of hegemonic masculinity constructed by the students, despite the fact that these young boys did not have hard, sporting bodies, and often drew on adults/professional athletes to discuss masculinities (Bartholomaeus 2011, 2012b). However, there were times when presenting oneself as “intelligent” was accepted and even valued (the themes outlined here are further discussed in Bartholomaeus 2013). These findings are similar to those of Renold (2004, 261) who suggests the high-achieving boys in her research may be viewed as engaging in “older” forms of hegemonic masculinity such as “muscular intellectualness,” rather than alternative masculinities.

Sport was not always central to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity at St. Catherine’s Primary, and drawing on “intelligence” appeared to be a different way masculinities could be established for both age-groups. This was well illustrated by Zach who enjoyed reading and writing, and wrote about becoming an author in his “imagined future” story:

- At twenty years old, I became a Fantasy Author. I sold fifty million copies in the first week worldwide.

- As I grew more popular, and movies were made, I was afraid to leave the house for fear of screaming fangirls and reporters.

- By age 40, and being a multibillionaire, I retired having written over 200 titles. (Zach, 12, St Catherine’s Primary, imagined future story)

Zach can be seen as combining what might be called practices relating to an alternative masculinity with what are often viewed as validating aspects of (adult) hegemonic masculinity (money, career success, fame, and girls/women as sexual objects), thus showing complicity with the current “gender order.” Zach was described by the mother of another boy in this class as “very unusual” yet a “really good friend” to her son, whom her son called “eccentric.” The construction of Zach as “eccentric” may have given him a legitimate avenue to construct a masculinity which involved an interest in reading and writing. Zach’s investment in “intelligence” (and a “masculine” form of story writing) worked to establish privilege and may be viewed as “muscular intellectualness.” This alternate discourse of hegemonic masculinity was at least partly supported in this classroom/school.

What might be called “muscular intellectualness” was also demonstrated by one boy in the upper primary class at Socrates Primary, although in this classroom/school it was not necessarily an alternate discourse of hegemonic masculinity. Christos (age 11) used “intelligence” to subvert a discourse of hegemonic masculinity based on physicality. This was clearly demonstrated in an activity where students were asked to draw their own “Furious Five” (a team of Kung Fu experts) after watching a clip from the movie Kung Fu Panda (2008). Most boys and girls drew animals or people, commonly fighting and/or sometimes using weapons, whereas Christos based his characters on language and grammar skills: Luie “Can spell really fast,” Frodo “is an expert in synonyms,” Frankie “loves to work out Anagrams”, Buck “can say a scentence [sic] that lasts for a thousand years,” Jamie “loves to read,” and Crystle “speaks in sounds.”

However, within his classroom/school, Christos’s practices cannot easily be linked with “muscular intellectualness” because they gained little status in a context where a discourse of hegemonic masculinity was strongly linked to sport. In this class, displaying “intelligence” and being studious were often only acceptable when they were teamed with other things such as an interest in sport (see also Gilbert and Gilbert 1998, 136; Renold 2005, 89). Christos’s investment in “intelligence” could be viewed as a challenge to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity based on sport and physicality. Some primary school research has found that “intelligence” and/or being studious can be a part of hegemonic or “dominant” masculinity in middle-class settings but is more likely to be denigrated in working-class or lower-income school settings (Connolly 2004; Hasbrook and Harris 1999; Warren 1997). Both schools in the research were largely middle class, yet there was a stronger case for “muscular intellectualness” as a possible alternate discourse of hegemonic masculinity in St. Catherine’s Primary, which had a lower socioeconomic demographic than Socrates Primary.

Old Age: Failing Bodies, Wise Minds

Several of the men were conscious of the ways in which interactions with grandchildren emphasized their declining bodily abilities. Much like Bill’s comments in the introduction, remarks like “trying to keep her out of mischief. It’s bad for the back” (James, age 62) and “when I see them they’ll run across the room, leap up in the air, arms round my neck and sort of swing on me … now I feel as though my neck’s about to be broken” (Peter, age 65) were common. Davidson, Daly, and Arber (2003) argue, however, that in grandfatherhood, masculinities are represented through qualities of being wise or a “sage,” as rational, rather than embodied which appears to align with Redman and Mac an Ghaill’s (1997) concept of “muscular intellectualness”. When describing their intergenerational practices with their grandchildren, the men discussed tasks such as reading, telling stories, and helping with homework. Seventy-two-year-old Mervyn argued “I’ve always had the feeling that grandparents, one of the useful things is to do reading with their kids, with their grandchildren.” The men often combined discussion of practices with grandchildren with reflection on sporting practices. Many felt that intellectual capacity was a different way of being an old man, but recognized this as a failure to achieve culturally exalted bodily practices:

[Grandson] and I will sit down and we like to do crosswords where possible and code words and maybe discuss reading books … I can’t do physical things, I can’t play football. He doesn’t want to play football anyway. Neither do I but I might take him for a swim … I’ll say ‘do you want to go to the pool?’, he’ll say ‘yeah’, yeah there’s usually something that you can do. (Jim, 72)

Jim combines practices relating to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity (physical activity via swimming) with more intellectual pursuits. Interestingly, while Jim does not emphasize an embodied, sporty masculinity, he explained his role as differently gendered to that of his wife and granddaughter, revealing the generational exchange of gendered practices that continue to reinforce gender inequality. The old men in this study understand the importance of physical bodies in a discourse of hegemonic masculinity. The relationship between bodies, “intelligence,” and privileged masculinities is complex. Waldrop et al. (1999) argue that grandfathers demonstrate care by passing on wisdom and life experience, which actually reflects an alternative discourse of masculinity (Mann 2007) rather than fitting with a discourse of hegemonic masculinity.

What we have shown here is that age—whether young or old—may hinder efforts to construct masculinities in relation to physical pursuits. For the old men, “muscular intellectualness” may be a way of asserting their masculine authority despite their (often) physically ailing bodies. In addition, their gender, age, and class enable them access to the role of wise “sage.” This concept of a wise “sage” links to old age so is not accessible for the young boys. Instead, the context of particular schools/classrooms strongly influenced how engagement in “intelligence” was viewed—with it being an alternate form of hegemonic masculinity (muscular intellectualness) in one classroom and a challenge to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity based on physicality in another. Importantly, “muscular intellectualness” as an alternate form of hegemonic masculinity appears to be no better for girls/women than one based on physicality for either age-group. In other words, the “gender order” is still upheld and “external hegemony” remains unchallenged.

Conclusions: Masculinities and the Intersections of Age

In this article, we have demonstrated how a consideration of masculinities at the margins (both of the middle-adult center and academic interest) can highlight both challenges to and the tenuousness of dominant gender discourses. In particular, we have explored how a focus on age illuminates the messiness and fluidity of boys’ and men’s gender practices. While there are some limitations in comparing two research studies, the comparison has been useful for starting a necessary discussion between the two literatures and the broader literature that emphasizes the relationality of gender.

Despite analyzing research material from boys in Australia and men in the United Kingdom, a similar discourse of hegemonic masculinity was often aspired to by the young (pre-teenage) boys and old men, explicitly or implicitly structuring their practices in certain contexts. This is despite their complex positions to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity as a result of age-based hierarchies. However, young boys and old men illuminate the process of negotiating masculinities in fluid, highly contextual ways. Both theoretically and empirically then, age complicates and engenders further critique of hegemonic masculinity. A close examination of young and old age reveals the complex ways in which men and boys may be complicit with and transgress a discourse of hegemonic masculinity. The strength of a discourse of hegemonic masculinity is demonstrated via the ways in which boys and men are complicit with and uphold particular practices even if they do not have access to them.

From a feminist perspective, we see it as particularly important to look at potential transgressions (in this case through caring practices and the complexities of intellectual and physical pursuits) and the ways in which age can allow for these. While our research has focused on young and old age, some of these transgressions may also be evident in “middle adulthood” but are possibly less clear. The process of upholding hegemonic masculinity, while challenging it, also questions whether all that is going on in the practices of young boys, old men, and other men at the margins can be encapsulated and theorized using this concept. As such, future research and theorizing about masculinities will benefit from a focus on relations between masculinities/gender and age, as well as other intersecting power relations linked to categories such as ethnicity, race, class, (dis)ability, sexuality, and so on. Importantly, age should not be theorized only when referring to young or old age, but is also necessary for studies on “middle adulthood.”

Our findings also have implications for the broader literature that examines the intersectionality of gender and age. Age is part of the social process of gender and has implications for gender relations more broadly, generating specific meanings about masculinities and femininities (for discussions in relation to aging, see Shirani 2013). Our comparative study offers suggestions for a greater focus on the specific age-groups that become subsumed under the umbrella terms “young” and “old” and shows how examining the margins of age reveals tensions and disjunctures in dominant gender discourses. We believe that further considerations of young and old age together can add much to the understandings of gender in terms of fluidity, resistance, and marginalization influenced by age.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jeff Hearn for his helpful suggestions on an early draft of our article, as well as the anonymous reviewers. Special thanks go to our supervisors for supporting us as students and to the participants in our research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Anna Tarrant was funded by Lancaster University to conduct her research.

Notes

References

Arber

Ginn

, eds. 1995. Connecting Gender and Ageing: A Sociological Approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bartholomaeus

2011. “What It Means to Be ‘Manly’: Gender, Sport, and Primary School Students.” Outskirts: Feminisms along the Edge 24.

Bartholomaeus

2012a. “‘‘I’m Not Allowed Wrestling Stuff’: Hegemonic Masculinity and Primary School Boys.” Journal of Sociology 48:227–47.

Bartholomaeus

2012b. “Rethinking Masculinities and Young Age: Primary School Students Constructing Gender.” Unpublished PhD Diss., The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Bartholomaeus

2013. “Colluding with or Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity?: Examining Primary School Boys’ Plural Gender Practices.” Australian Feminist Studies 28:279–98.

Beasley

2008. “Rethinking Hegemonic Masculinity in a Globalizing World.” Men and Masculinities 11:86–103.

Bird

S. R.

1996. “Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity.” Gender and Society 10:120–32.

Brannen

Nilsen

. 2006. “From Fatherhood to Fathering: Transmission and Change among British Fathers in Four-generation Families.” Sociology 40:335–52.

Calasanti

2004. “Feminist Gerontology and Old Men.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 59:S305–14.

10.

Calasanti

Slevin

K. F.

. 2001. Gender, Social Inequalities, and Aging. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

11.

Coles

2009. “Negotiating the Field of Masculinity: The Production and Reproduction of Multiple Dominant Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 12:30–44.

12.

Connell

2008. “Masculinity Construction and Sports in Boys’ Education: A Framework for Thinking about the Issue.” Sport, Education and Society 13:131–45.

13.

Connell

R. W.

2000. The Men and the Boys. St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

14.

Connell

R. W.

2005. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

15.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender and Society 19:829–59.

16.

Connolly

2004. Boys and Schooling in the Early Years. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

17.

Connolly

2006. “The Masculine Habitus as ‘Distributed Cognition’: A Case Study of 5- to 6-year-old Boys in an English Inner-city, Multi-ethnic Primary School.” Children & Society 20:140–52.

18.

Cook

Powell

. 2007. “Ageing Urban Society: Discourse and Policy.” In China’s Emerging Cities: The Making of New Urbanism, edited by Wu

, 126–42. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

19.

Davidson

Daly

Arber

2003. “Exploring the Social Worlds of Older Men.” In Gender and Ageing: Changing Roles and Relationships, edited by Arber

Davidson

Ginn

, 168–85. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

20.

Davies

2003. Shards of Glass: Children Reading and Writing beyond Gendered Identities. Rev. ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

21.

Demetriou

D. Z.

2001. “Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique.” Theory and Society 30:337–61.

22.

Drummond

2007. “The Meaning of Difference. Young Gay Males’ Experiences at School in Australia.” Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 1:95–110.

23.

Elias

Beasley

. 2009. “Hegemonic Masculinity and Globalization: ‘Transnational Business Masculinities’ and beyond.” Globalizations 6:281–96.

24.

Eman

2011. “Constructing Successful Old-age Masculinities amongst Athletes.” Norma: Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies 6:49–72.

25.

Epstein

Kehily

M. J.

Mac an Ghaill

Redman

2001. “Boys and Girls Come Out to Play: Making Masculinities and Femininities in Primary Playgrounds.” Men and Masculinities 4:158–72.

26.

Eriksson

2007. “Childhood Studies.” In International Encyclopaedia of Men and Masculinities, edited by Flood

Gardiner

J. K.

Pease

Pringle

, 60–63. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

27.

Flood

2008. “Men, Sex, and Homosociality: How Bonds between Men Shape Their Sexual Relations with Women.” Men and Masculinities 10:339–59.

28.

Gilbert

. 1998. Masculinity Goes to School. St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

29.

Hanlon

2012. Masculinities, Care and Equality: Identity and Nurture in Men’s Lives. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Hännikäinen

Rasku-Puttonen

. 2010. “Promoting Children’s Participation: The Role of Teachers in Preschool and Primary School Learning Sessions.” Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development 30:147–60.

31.

Hasbrook

C. A.

Harris

. 1999. “Wrestling with Gender: Physicality and Masculinities among Inner-city First and Second Graders.” Men and Masculinities 1:302–18.

32.

Hearn

1995. “Imaging the Aging of Men.” In Images of Aging: Cultural Representations of Later Life, edited by Featherstone

Wenick

, 97–115. London, UK: Routledge.

33.

Hearn

1999. “Ageism, Violence and Abuse—Theoretical and Practical Perspectives on the Links between ‘Child Abuse’ and ‘Elder Abuse.’” In Children, Child Abuse and Child Protection: Placing Children Centrally, edited by The Violence against Children Study Group, 81–96. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

34.

Hearn

2007. “From Older Men to Boys: Masculinity Theory and the Life Course(s).” Norma: Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies 2:79–84.

35.

Hearn

2011. “Neglected Intersectionalities in Studying Men: Age/ing, Virtuality, Transnationality.” In Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-faceted Concept in Gender Studies, edited by Lutz

Vivar

M. T. H.

Supik

, 89–104. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

36.

Hearn

Sandberg

. 2009. “Older Men, Ageing and Power: Masculinities Theory and Alternative Spatialised Theoretical Perspectives.” Sextant: Revue du Groupe Interdisciplinaire D’Etudessur les Femmes et le Genre 27:147–63.

37.

Krekula

2007. “The Intersection of Age and Gender: Reworking Gender Theory and Social Gerontology.” Current Sociology 55:155–71.

38.

Kung Fu Panda . 2008. Directed by J. Stevenson and M. Osborne. Universal City, CA: DreamWorks. DVD.

39.

Laz

1998. “Act Your Age.” Sociological Forum 13:85–113.

40.

Mac an Ghaill

Haywood

. 2007. Gender, Culture and Society: Contemporary Femininities and Masculinities. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Mann

2007. “Out of the Shadows?: Grandfatherhood, Age and Masculinities.” Journal of Aging Studies 21:281–91.

42.

McKie

Gregory

Bowlby

2002. “Shadow Times: The Temporal and Spatial Frameworks and Experiences of Caring and Working.” Sociology 36:897–924.

43.

Moore

V. A.

2001. “‘Doing’ Racialized and Gendered Age to Organize Peer Relations: Observing Kids in Summer Camp.” Gender and Society 15:835–58.

44.

Powell

Cook

I. G.

. 2006. “Unpacking Performativity: A Case Study of Patriarchy and the Elderly in China.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26:277–83.

45.

Redman

Mac an Ghaill

. 1997. “Educating Peter: The Making of a History Man.” In Border Patrols: Policing the Boundaries of Heterosexuality, edited by Steinberg

D. L.

Epstein

Johnson

, 162–82. London, UK: Cassell.

46.

Renold

2004. “‘Other’ Boys: Negotiating Non-hegemonic Masculinities in the Primary School.” Gender and Education 16:247–65.

47.

Renold

2005. Girls, Boys and Junior Sexualities: Exploring Children’s Gender and Sexual Relations in the Primary School. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

48.

Renold

2007. “Primary School ‘Studs’: (De)constructing Young Boys’ Heterosexual Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 9:275–97.

49.

Riggs

D. W.

2008. “All the Boys Are Straight: Heteronormativity in Contemporary Books on Fathering and Raising Boys.” Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 2:186–202.

50.

Scraton

Holland

. 2006. “Grandfatherhood and Leisure.” Leisure Studies 25:233–50.

51.

Shirani

2013. “The Spectre of the Wheezy Dad: Masculinity, Fatherhood and Ageing.” Sociology 47:1104–19.

52.

Slevin

K. F.

Linneman

T. J.

. 2010. “Old Gay Men’s Bodies and Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 12:483–507.

53.

Swain

2006. “Reflections on Patterns of Masculinity in School Settings.” Men and Masculinities 8:331–49.

54.

Tarrant

2011. “Exploring the Influence of Intergenerational Relations on the Construction and Performance of Contemporary Grandfather Identities.” Unpublished PhD diss., Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

55.

Tarrant

2013. “Grandfathering as Spatio-temporal Practice: Conceptualizing Performances of Ageing Masculinities in Contemporary Familial Carescapes.” Social & Cultural Geography 14:192–210.

56.

Thompson

E. H.

2006. “Image of Old Men’s Masculinity: Still a Man?” Sex Roles 55:633–48.

57.

Thorne

1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

58.

Twigg

2004. “The Body, Gender, and Age: Feminist Insights in Social Gerontology.” Journal of Aging Studies 18:59–73.

59.

Utrata

2011. “Youth Privilege: Doing Age and Gender in Russia’s Single-mother Families.” Gender and Society 25:616–41.

60.

Waldrop

D. P.

Weber

J. A.

Herald

S. L.

Pruett

Cooper

Juozapavicius

1999. “Wisdom and Life Experiences: How Grandfathers Mentor Their Grandchildren.” Journal of Aging and Identity 4:33–46.

61.

Warren

1997. “Who Do These Boys Think They Are? An Investigation into the Construction of Masculinities in a Primary Classroom.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 1:207–22.