On Patriarchs and Losers: Rethinking Men's Interests Author(s): Michael A. Messner Source: Berkeley Journal of , Vol. 48, rethinking (2004), pp. 74-88 Published by: Regents of the University of California Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035593 . Accessed: 23/04/2014 18:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Regents of the University of California is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Berkeley Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 74 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

On Patriarchsand Losers: RethinkingMen9s Interests

MichaelA. Messner*

Morethan two decades ago, WilliamGoode (1982) observedthat whenmembers of a superordinategroup are even partlynudged from theirpositions of social centrality,they often experience this as a major displacement,and responddefensively. This, Goode concluded,is why menhave so oftenresisted the movement for women's equality. Goode's analysisrested on an assumptionfundamental to a feministsociology: collectively,men have sharedinterests, opposed to thoseof women.In recentdecades, social scientistshave observed,measured, and described these opposing gendered interestswith hundreds of studies of occupationalsegregation, glass ceilings,wage gaps,domestic labor, sex work,emotional labor, interpersonal violence, and media imagery.

The upshotof muchof thisresearch has been this: it is in men's collectiveinterests to maintainthe current relations in thegender order; it is in women'scollective interests to changethem. Casual observation will bearout the truth of this: overwhelmingly,it has been womenwho have put gender issues on the social agenda. While a few men throughouthistory have actively supportedfeminism (Kimmel & Mosmiller1992), pro-feministorganizing by men never got much beyond the level of a loosely connectednational and international networkof men, most of them academics and therapists (Messner 1997).

Twentyyears ago, as I drove one of those therapistsback to Berkeleyfrom my "men and " class at Cal StateHayward, to whichhe had delivereda guestlecture, he pointedat a youngwhite guy speedingby in a pick-uptruck with a gunrack. "I wantthat guy in the men's movement,"he toldme emphatically,"and to get himinvolved, we haveto be able to convincehim that the masculinity he has learnedis self-destructiveand toxic,and thatfeminist change is in his interests." I'm prettysure that the guy in thepick-up never joined up. And I still wonder: is thatbecause he didn'treally see his "true"interests - he sufferedfrom some kind of false consciousness? Or, is it perhaps because he did understandthat his interestslie not in changing,but

*This article was presentedas a talk at the 2004 BerkeleyJournal of Sociology "RethinkingGender" Conference. I thankLaurel Westbrookand the rest of the BJS collective for theirinvitation to speak, and for theirthoughtful comments on my presentation.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 75 rather,in sustaininga genderstatus quo? Or,did perhapshis conception of his interestsas a - but also as a whiteman, as a worker,as an American,as a veteran,and, (as I imaginedhim) as a heterosexual- just getmore and morecomplicated and contradictoryas theyears went by, leavinghim with no clear sense of havinginterests that go beyondhis individualself? Maybe he just needed,he found,a differentcar, a satellitedish, an iPod, betterclothes, some purchasedsex, and a men's colognethat made a statementabout his rebellious individuality?

In this essay, I will share some reflectionson the conceptof "men's interests."First, using broad brush strokes, I will discuss the developmentof thescholarly focus on "menand ."Then, I will drawexamples from two of myrecent projects as windowsin to the ways that"mens' interests"in theU.S. are currentlybeing articulated, respectivelyin commercialculture and in politicaldiscourse.

MultipleMasculinities and Men's Interests

By the late 1980s, the firstscholarly collections of work on men- edited by HarryBrod (1987), (1987) and MichaelKimmel (1987) - grappledwith a puzzle: how to takeseriously and centrallythe feministcritique of men's global powerover women, whilerecognizing both the "costs of masculinity"that many men pay, as well as the existenceof vast inequalitiesamong men- inequalities grounded in social class, race/ethnicity,sexual orientation,and internationalrelations. The answerthat most scholars settled on was to thinkof masculinitiesas multiple. - the form of masculinitythat, for the moment, codifies the collective project of men's dominationof women- is definedin relationto emphasizedfemininity, but also in relationto marginalizedand subordinatedmasculinities (Carrigan,Connell & Lee 1985; Connell1987).

In practice,the idea of multiplemasculinities was sometimes severedfrom its broadhistorical and structuralmoorings, and takenup by researchersinvestigating specific social contexts,resulting ultimately in a dizzyingarray of "types" of masculinities.Like 19thcentury biologistsintent on buildinga taxonomyof theliving world, scholars of the 80s and 90s seemedto findnew formsof masculinityunder every empiricalstone, and seemedalso intenton labelingthem: The discovery of gay,Black, Chicano, working class andmiddle class masculinitywere followedby thedetection of Asian masculinity,gay Black masculinity, gay Chicano masculinity,white working class masculinity,militarized masculinity,transnational business masculinity, New Man masculinity, negotiatedmasculinity, versatile masculinity, healthy masculinity, toxic masculinity,counter masculinity, cool masculinity,and the one thatI confesshaving deployed on occasion,complicit masculinity. Like all

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 76 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY such deconstructiveprojects, the danger inherentin the multiple masculinitiesdiscourse is that,ultimately, we riskdeconstructing down to each and everyman having his own distinctform of masculinity:My masculinity;your masculinity.But why stop with men? As Judith Halberstam(1998) has argued,some womenembody and displaythe culturalmarkers of masculinity.With "masculinities"multiplying seeminglyby the hour,and with the conceptnow severedfrom its connectionwith "men," we now face thepossibility of each and every individualon theplanet expressing his or herown uniquemasculinity: Let six billionmasculinities bloom!

Whathas keptthe best social scientificstudies of masculinities fromdevolving into a meaninglessradical individualism is a mooringin theconcept of social structure.In particular,the structured inequalities of race, class, sexual orientationand genderare - and shouldremain - at the centerof our intersectionaltheories of powerand inequality(Baca Zinn & Dill 1996; Connell2004). Keepingthese categories of analysis centralreminds us thattheories of "multiplemasculinities" aim not simplyto describedifferent masculine "styles," but rather,to describe and understandcomplex group-based relations of power,and different- sometimescontradictory - relations to materialinterests (Hondagneu- Sotelo & Messner1994). Hence,my focus on interestshere is partlya resultof my sense thatwe have reachedthe limitsof the "multiple masculinities"language; it representsan attemptto re-focuson how genderplays out in group-basedrelations of power.

Thinkingabout Interests

The two examplesfrom my recentresearch that I am goingto sharewith you relateto sport. Sportis not patriarchalin a simple, seamlesslybinary fashion (all men on top; all womenon the bottom). Sportis "male dominated,"but it is also constructedthrough what Don Sabo (1994) has called an "intermaledominance hierarchy," that is characterizedby a veryunequal distribution of resourcesand privilege among boys and men: star athletesover bench-warmers;athletic directorsand head coaches over assistantcoaches and players;athletes and coachesin centralsports (especially football) over those in marginal "minor"sports (like cross country,swimming, gymnastics, wrestling, andgolf). But some male athletes'experiences of marginalitydoes not automaticallytranslate into their seeing their interests as alignedwith those of girls and women againstthe gluttonyof footballprograms. Structurallocation does notalways predict a group'sperceptions of their interests.In a thoughtfulessay, Bob Pease (2002: 170) arguesthat an analysisof "men's interests"cannot simply be reducedto a rational analysis of men's materialinterests in maintainingtheir patriarchal

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 77 privilege.He arguesthat "people do not have objectiveinterests as a resultof theirlocation; rather, they formulate... their interests, and they do so withinthe context of the available discourses in situationsin which theyare locatedand that they coproduce."

I offertwo empirical windows into this situational formulation of men's interests.These two sites are not necessarilythe best places to look at theissue of men's interests,but I drawfrom them because they are tworesearch projects that I have been exploringover the past two or threeyears; they are thetwo windows that I have been lookingthrough. The firstis a studythat I have been conductingwith Jeffrey Montez de Oca, of beerand liquoradvertisements in twomega sportsmedia events aimedat male audiences.The secondis a projectI havebeen conducting withNancy Solomonof the CaliforniaWomen's Law Center: Nancy and I spoke at one of the U.S. Secretaryof Education's2002 public hearingson TitleIX, and togetherwe have conductedan analysisof talk by thecritics of TitleIX. Thougheach ofthese two projects is broad,for mypurposes here, I wantto focusnarrowly on how beerand liquorads, and public argumentsagainst Title IX offerus two windowsinto the situationalarticulation of "men's interests."I will suggest,across both of theseempirical sites, that "men's interests" are notusually articulated overtlyas men's interests;rather, stories about particular groups of men who are viewed as vulnerable,as actual or potentialvictims, serve as proxyfor a largerarticulation of men's apparentlythreatened interests. I will suggestthat the male "losers"that we see in beeradvertising texts, and themale "victims"who are thecenterpiece in thediscourse of Title IX critics,are symbolicarticulations of the supposedlythreatened interestsof white males.

Beer and Liquor Ads: The WhiteGuy as Loser1

The televisedSuper Bowl ads thatwe examinedconstruct a white male "loser"whose life is apparentlyseparate from paid labor.He hangs out withhis male buddies,is self-mockingand ironicabout his loser status,is alwaysat theready to engagein voyeurismwith sexy fantasy women,but holds committedrelationships and emotionalhonesty with real womenin disdain.I will offeryou threebrief examples here from SuperBowl commercials.

Two youngsomewhat nerdy-looking white guys are at a yoga class, sittingbehind a class fullof sexy youngwomen. The two men

1 This sectionof thepresentation is drawnfrom a largerstudy, Michael A. Messner& JeffreyMontez de Oca (forthcoming)"The Male Consumeras Loser: Beer and Liquor Ads in Mega SportsMedia Events." : Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 78 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY have attachedprosthetic legs to theirbodies, so thatthey can fakethe yoga moves. With two bottlesof Bud Lite, these voyeurswatch in delightas the femaleyoga teacheruses her handsto push down on a woman'supright spread-eagled legs, and says"focus, focus, focus." The cameracuts back-and-forth from close-ups of thewomen's breasts and bottoms,while the two guys' gleefullyenjoy their beer and theirsexual voyeurism.In thefinal scene, the two guys are standingoutside the front door of theyoga class, beerbottles in hand,and someonethrows their fakelegs out thedoor at them.As theyduck to avoid beinghit by the legs,one ofthem comments, "She 's notvery relaxed."

This ad contains,in variousdegrees, the dominant gender tropes thatwe foundin themega sports media events ads: First,men are often - portrayedas chumps,losers. Masculinity - especiallyfor the lone man is precarious.Individual men are alwayson the cusp of beingpublicly humiliated,either by theirown stupidity,by othermen, or worse: by a beautifulwoman. The precariousnessof individualmen's masculine - statusis offsetby thesafety of themale group.The solidity,primacy and emotionalsafety - of male friendshipsare the emotionalcenter of manyof theseads. Whenwomen appear in theseads, it is usuallyas highlysexualized fantasyobjects. These beautifulwomen serve as potentialprizes for men's victoriesand properconsumption choices. They sometimesserve to validate men's masculinity,but their masculinityvalidating power also holdsthe potential to humiliatemale losers.Wives, girlfriends or otherwomen to whommen are emotionally committedare mostlyabsent from these ads. However,when they do appear,it is primarilyas emotionalor sexualblackmailers who threaten to undermineindividual men's freedomto enjoythe eroticpleasure at thecenter of the male group.

To a greatextent, these genderthemes are intertwinedin the SuperBowl "yogavoyeurs" ad. First,the two guys are clearlynot good- looking,high status, muscular icons of masculinity. More likely, they are intendedto representthe "everyman," with whom many boys and men can identify.Their masqueradeas sensitivemen allowed them to transgressthe femalespace of theyoga class, but theycouldn't pull it off,and were eventually"outed" as losers,and rejectedby the sexy women. But even if theyrealize that they are losers,they don't have to care,because they are so happyand securein theirbond with each other. Theirfriendship is cementedin frat-boy-stylehijinks that allow themto shareclose-up voyeurism with sexy women who, we can safelyassume, areway outof these men's league. In theend, the women reject the guys as patheticlosers. But the guysdon't seem too upsetby it. Theyhave each other,and of course, they have their beers.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 79

Consistentlyin these ads, white guy losers risk punishmentor humiliationfrom beautiful women, but the level of punishmentfaced by thevery occasional black men who appearin theseads is moresevere. In "Pick-upLines," a Bud Lite ad thatran during the 2002 SuperBowl, two blackmales are sittingat a bar nextto an attractiveblack female.Paul, theman in themiddle, is obviouslya loser.He soundsa bitwhiny as he confidesin his male friend,"I'm just notgood withthe ladies like you, Cedric." Cedricstarts to whisperopening pick-up lines to him.The loser turnsto the woman and passes on the lines. But just then,the bartenderbrings another bottle of beer to Cedric,who asksthe bartender, "So, howmuch?" Paul,thinking that this is his nextpick-up line, says to thewoman, "So, how much?" Her smileturns to an angryfrown, and she deliversa vicious kick to Paul's face, knockinghim to the floor. Afterwe see theBudweiser logo and hearthe voice-over telling us that Bud Lite' s greattaste "will never let you down,"we see a stunnedPaul risingto his knees,beginning to pull himselfup to his bar stool,but the womanknocks him down again witha powerfulbackhand fist to the face.

"Cedric"returns in anotherBud Lite ad thatran during the 2004 Super Bowl. In this ad, the strutting,know-it-all pick-up artist falls victimto his ownhypermasculine posturing. Thinking he's goingto geta messagefrom a beautifulAfrican American woman, he has mistakenly stumbledin to thebikini waxing room. From behind a closed door,we hear him screamin agony,and thensee him in the finalscene witha towel wrappedaround him like a skirt- feminized,punished and humiliated.

These Bud Lite ads- two of the very few ads that depicted relationsbetween black males and black females- werethe only ads in whichwe saw a manbeing physically beaten or physically humiliated by a woman.In bothcases, theAfrican American female-as-object turns to subject,inflicting direct physical punishment on the AfricanAmerican male. The existenceof these veryfew "black" ads bringsinto relief somethingthat might otherwise remain hidden: Most of theseads are about constructinga youthfulwhite masculinity that is playfullyself- mocking,always a bit tenuous,but ultimatelylovable. The screw-ups thatwhite guy losers make are forgivable,and we nearlyalways see them,in theend, with at leasta cold beer in hand.By contrast,as Ann Ferguson(2000) has pointedout, the intersectionof race, genderand class createscontexts of suspicionand punishment for African American boys and men. In the beer ads, thistranslates into the messagethat a blackman's transgressions are apparentlydeserving of a kickto theface.

These themesmay findresonance with young men of today because theyspeak to basic insecuritiesthat are groundedin historic

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 80 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY shifts:deindustrialization, the decliningreal value of wages, cultural shiftsbrought about by overthree decades of struggleby feministsand sexualminorities, and challengesto whitemale supremacyby people of color and by immigrants.This clusterof social changesdefines the contextof genderrelations in whichtoday's youngmen have grown towardadulthood. Examining beer and liquorads givesus a windowinto the ways that commercialforces have seized on these destabilizing tendencies,constructing pedagogical fantasynarratives that aim to appealto a verylarge group - 18-34year old men.

The sexualand gender themes of beer and liquorads do notstand alone; ratherthey reflect, and in turncontribute to broadertrends in popularculture and marketingto youngwhite males. Televisionshows like"The Man Show,"new soft-coreporn magazines like "Maxim," and "FHM," and radiotalk shows like the syndicated"Tom LeykusShow" share similarthemes, and are targetedto similaraudiences of young males. These magazines,television and radio shows constructyoung male lifestylessaturated with sexy imagesof nearlynaked, surgically enhancedwomen; unabashed and unapologeticsexual voyeurism shared by groupsof laughingmen; and explicittalk of sexual exploitswith "hotties"or "juggies." The eroticbonding among men is stitched togetherby a rangeof consumerproducts that include - oftencentrally, as in "The Man Show"- consumptionof beeras partof theyoung male lifestyle.Meanwhile, real women are eitherabsent from these media, or theyare disparagedas gold diggers(yes, this term has beenresuscitated) who use sex to get men to spendmoney on them,and trickthem into marriage.The domesticatedman is viewedas a wimpyvictim, who has subordinatedhis own pleasures(and surrenderedhis paychecks)to a woman. Withinthis framework, a young man shouldhave sex withas manywomen as he can whileavoiding (or at least delaying)emotional commitmentsto any one woman.

At firstglance, these new media seem to resuscitatea 1950s "Playboyphilosophy" of men's consumption,sexuality and gender relations(Ehrenreich 1983). Indeed,these new media stronglyreiterate thedichotomous bitch-whore view of women that was sucha lynchpinof HughHefner's "philosophy." But today'stropes of masculinitydo not simplyreiterate the past; rather,they give a post-feministtwist to the Playboyphilosophy. A half-centuryago, Hefner'spitch to men to re- capturethe indoors by creating(purchasing) one's own erotic"bachelor pad" in whichto have sex withwomen (and thensend them home) read as a straightforwardlymasculine project. By contrast,today's sexual and genderpitch to youngmen is deliveredwith an ironic,self-mocking winkthat operates on two levels. First,it appearsto acknowledgethat mostyoung men are neitherthe heroes of theindoors (as Hefnerwould have it), nor of the outdoors(as the 1970s and 1980s beer ads

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 8 1 suggested).Instead, the ads seem to recognizethat young white men's unstablestatus leaves themalways on the verge of being revealedas losers.The ironyworks on a secondlevel as well: thethrowback sexual and genderimagery - especiallythe bitch-whoredichotomization of women- is clearlya defensivebacklash against and women's increasingautonomy and socialpower. The winkand self-mockingirony allowmen to haveit both ways: they can engagein humorousmisogynist banter,and claim simultaneouslythat it's all in play. The humorous ironyworks, then, to deflectcharges of sexismaway fromwhite males, allowingthem to definethemselves as victims,as an endangeredspecies. We suspecttoo thatthis is a keypart of theprocess that constructs the whitenessin these ads. Humorous"boys-will-be-boys" misogyny is unlikelyto be takenironically and lightlywhen deliveredby men of color. Instead, the few "black" ads tend to project culturally delegitimizedaspects of "traditionalmasculinity" on to black men,and thenpunish them for expressing it.

Anti-TitleIX PoliticalDiscourse: The WhiteGuy as Victim2

The 2002 publichearings about Title IX offeran opportunityto examinethe ways that the spokespeople for men's sportsarticulate their interestsin a highlypoliticized forum. Nancy Solomonand I analyzed talkat the2002 San Diego hearingsthat we attended,and at whichwe bothspoke. We focuson the variouslinguistic strategies employed by thecritics of TitleIX, mostof whomspoke for groups and organizations thatrepresented men in "marginal"sports that claimed to have beenhurt or threatenedby the enforcementof Title IX. I will beginto introduce these themeswith an excerptfrom the statementby JonVegosen, a Chicagoattorney representing the U.S. TennisAssociation:

We supportthe tremendousstrides that women have made through TitleIX, and we wantto preservethose gains. We are also concerned about its unintendedconsequences for both men and women... [includingits] adverse impact on walk-ons. I was a walk-on at Northwesternand became captainmy junior and senioryear, and I was thefirst player to be selectedat Northwesternto theAll Big Ten Team. I experiencedvaluable life lessons, includinggoal-setting, time management,teamwork and travel. Today that wouldn't happen...I would be told, "Thanksfor your interest,but there'sno room foryou," and that'swhat thousandsof male athletesin tennis and othersports are told everyyear. They are turnedaway, while women'stennis teams struggleto fill theirrosters... It is criticalto appreciatethe long-termimpact of the unintendedconsequences of

2 This sectionof thepresentation is drawnfrom a largerpaper, Michael A. Messner& NancyM. Solomon(in progress)"Social Justiceand Men's Interests:The Case of Title IX."

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 82 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Title IX fortennis. If these trendscontinue, men's collegiatetennis will be jeopardized.

Vegosen's statementcontained the major themes that we heardrepeated in variousforms by theTitle IX critics.For mypurposes here, I wantto focuson the"walk-on" theme.

The "walkon " as victim

A numberof the criticsinvoked the image of the male student "walk-on"as a victimof Title IX's illogical and bureaucratic"quota system."(A "walk-on"is a college studentwho is neitherrecruited to playsports, nor given an athleticscholarship, but who showsup andtries out forthe team.) Sam Bell, Presidentof theNational Track and Field CoachesAssociation told several stories of past"walk-on" athletes who had becomesuccessful in variousways. He thendelivered a passionate defenseof the walk-on,as threatenedby Title-IXroster management, and concluded,"We will lose a lot of thistype of studentathlete if we staywith quotas, with a quotamentality. . ."

The walk-onis a powerfulimage, we suggest,because it invokes theromantic ideal of thestudent-athlete as an untarnishedamateur who loves thepurity of sports.The invocationof thisromantic ideal obscures theincreasingly negative public image of thescholarship athlete in big- timecollege sports: He is viewedas spoiledby privilege,he is oftenin legal or academictrouble, he is notfully deserving as a student,and - crucially- in thepublic image, he is AfricanAmerican. The walk-on,by contrast,is firstand foremosta student,who just happensto love sports. He does notseek fame and fortune;he just wants to be on theteam. He is also, in the public imagination- like the characterin the popularfilm Rudy- an admirablyhard-working (albeit athletically limited) white guy. The critics' foregroundingthe image of the walk-on is an accomplishmentof politicalrhetoric: without mentioning race, white males are positionedas "regularkids," victimizedby liberalpolicies goneamuck. The critics'image of thewalk-on reveals the "unintended" victimizationof whitemales as irrational,unfair, and un-American.The invocationof the walk-on,then, taps in to and reiteratesfamiliar and highlycharged sexist and racistanti-affirmative action narratives.

The imageof the broken-hearted male wrestler or gymnastwhose programhas been eliminatedis a powerfulone, especially given the fact thatsome men's teamshave been eliminatedin recentyears. Over the pasttwenty years, men's gymnasticsand wrestlingteams have declined in number.However, the critics of TitleIX consistentlyfail to notethat duringthis same period of time,the number of women's gymnasticsand fieldhockey teams has also declined.And whilemany college women's sportshave grownin number,men's participationin college sportshas

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 83 increased in football,baseball, crew, lacrosse, squash, track and volleyball.

Despite these facts,the periodic high-profilecuts of men's programstend to fuelperceptions that gender equity works against the overallinterests of men.In fact,it is onlypossible to hold thisview if one acceptsthe logic of thefootball lobby, and arguesagainst including footballin calculationsof sex equity.Football's enormous financial drain on resources- a lion's shareof scholarships,skyrocketing salaries for coaches,huge equipment, travel and recruiting budgets - are oftensafely hiddenbehind the nickel-and-diming debates over which "non-revenue" men's sportsshould be eliminatedto ensurecompliance with Title IX proportionalitymeasures (Zimbalist 1999). The footballlobby shields its own interestsby backingthe claims that marginal men's sportsand male "walk-ons"are beingvictimized by Title IX. And manyadvocates for marginalmen's sportsparticipate in thisdebate by aligningthemselves with the footballand basketballlobby, despite the fact that such allegiancemay seem to runcounter to theirinterests. Given their control of resourcesand theirmassive budgets, football programs can hardly claimhardship with a straightface. Rather, they have soughtsupport for the anti-equitycause fromthe morevulnerable "minor" men's sports. But evidencesuggests that the vulnerability of men's marginalsports is notdue so muchto the"unintended consequences" of TitleIX. Rather, the vulnerabilityof marginalmen's sportsis a routineinstitutional consequenceof the invisible and mostlyunquestioned policy of affording footballand men's basketballprograms a privilegedand untouchable status.

An entiresocial problemscourse could be taughtusing football as the empiricalpoint of departure.Football is oftenat the centerof problemsrelated to sexual assault,campus bullying, and otherforms of off-fieldviolence by athletes(Messner 2002). The recentcontroversies about sexual assaultsby footballplayers, and the use of alcohol and womenstrippers to recruithigh school football players at theUniversity of Coloradoare onlythe latest glimpses of whatso oftenlies below the tip of the icebergof college football(Sperber 2000). High school and collegefootball programs gulp down huge resources, while occupying a mythicstatus that protects them as almostuntouchable. So why do so manymarginal boys and men- and theirmostly male coaches- seemto identifywith the interests of thefootball lobby? Whydon't more of the menin marginalized"non-revenue sports" - thewrestlers, tennis players, swimmers,gymnasts, cross countryathletes - identifytheir interests as consistentwith those of women? Nina Eliasoph(1998: 251) arguesthat people "discovertheir interests" in every day life, but the process throughwhich theymake this discovery"...is never a pure rational calculation." This echoes Pease's argument,introduced earlier, that

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 84 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY men's understandingof theirinterests cannot be explainedsimply by describingtheir social location.Instead, we need to considerhow men formulatetheir interests through interaction, in institutionalcontexts. In the case of the Title IX hearings,the spokesmenfor men's marginal sportsmost likely formulated their interests within athletic department contexts,and these contexts are characterizedby professional hierarchies headedby men from the central sports of football and basketball.

Footballhas playeda keysymbolic role in theU.S. genderorder over the past half-century.In thisfeminist era, footballstands in as a symbolicreference point for a generalarticulation of "men's interests." Andhere, I think,is a place wherethe concept of hegemonic masculinity is applicableand usefiil,precisely because it is directlytethered to an analysisof the interests of men. Connell (1987) arguesthat very few men fullyconform to whatwe thinkof as hegemonicmasculinity. The fact thatit is nearlyimpossible for an individualman consistently to achieve and displaythe dominant conception of masculinityis an importantpart of thepsychological instability at thecenter of individualmen's senseof theirown masculinity.Instead, a few men (real or imagined)are positionedas symbolicexemplars for a hegemonicmasculinity that servesas a collectivepractice that continues the global subordinationof women,and ensuresmen's access to a patriarchaldividend. What makes thismasculinity "hegemonic" is not simplypowerful men's displaysof power,but also, crucially,less powerfulmen's consentand complicity withthe institutions, social practices, and symbolsthat privilege men. To adapt a termthat is now popular in market-drivenbureaucracies, hegemonic masculinityrequires a "buy-in" by subordinatedand marginalizedmen, if it is to succeedas a strategyof domination.

So, thougha rationalassessment of the situation of, say, boys and men who run cross country,who wrestle,swim, play tennis or gymnasticsmight suggest that their interests run counter to thoseof big time footballprograms, more oftenthan not, these men in marginal sportstend to identifywith, and act in complicitywith, the dominant discourseof the footballlobby. This discoursetends to invoke a languageof male victimizationby the state,which is seen as unfairly representingwomen's interests. The language of bureaucratic victimizationof individualmen - especially as symbolizedby the threatened"walk-on" - mayfind especially fertile ground among today's youngwhite males, who face a world thathas been destabilizedby feminism,gay and lesbian liberation,the civil rightsmovement, and majorshifts in theeconomy.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 85

Victims,Losers, and Men's Interests

Beer and liquorads, and publicnarratives of TitleIX criticsare obviouslytwo differentthings, both in formand content.But theyare also similar,in thatthey involve a strategicaddress to an audience: the former,in a commercialelectronic media context; the latter, in a public political context.In neithercase are the interestsof dominantmen articulatedovertly as "backlash." In fact,the interests of dominantmen are not foregroundedagainst those of women. Instead, unfairor unintendedvictimization of heterosexualwhite males, and/orironic humorserve as a façade,or as proxyfor "men's" supposedlythreatened interests.Arlene Stein (2001), in herstudy of a gay rightsstruggle in a small Oregontown, illustrates how dominantgroups' appropriation of victimstatus allows themto sidesteptheir own shame,while stripping actual victimsof moral authority.So too, I think,the culturaland politicalinvocation of the white guy as victim/losermay offer white men a symbolicavenue of escape fromthe "hidden injuries" of a destabilized or insecure masculinity,while simultaneouslydelegitimizing the collectiveclaims of women, sexual and racial-ethnic minorities.

Thoughthey differ, the image of the walk-onin anti-TitleIX narrativesarticulates neatly with the image of the"regular guy" in liquor commercials.We are encouragedto admirethe walk-on, and to laughat the loser.But embeddedin bothstories is an invitationto identifyand sympathizewith each, because bothare potentialvictims: of the liberal state, of women's collectively-articulatedinterests; of individual women's put-downs.And both,we are led to believe,can rise above theirvictimization: the walk-onthrough heroic individual effort; the loserthrough consumption of beer with buddies.

So, in someobjective sense that we can pointto, are there "mens' interests"?Perhaps this is notthe best framing of the question. When we look at specificempirical sites, "men's interests"seem both to be united and divided,albeit differently, by context.So perhapsit's betterto ask: What factorstend to unite men in gender projects that re-assert patriarchalpower, and men's social centrality? What culturalor institutionalcontexts tend to makesalient an articulationof a seemingly unified"mens' interests"? What unites men (as men),across class, race, and age? Militarythreat and anti-terroristimagery tends to unite privilegedgroups of men with many white workingclass men, as evidencedby thehuge amount of supportthat President George W. Bush holdswith white men (Hochschild 2003). Automobiles,in variousways, tend to unite men across these variousgroups (Connell 1987: 110). Commercialsport tends to unitemany men, across generations,and acrossclass and race lines.So, apparently,does thecombination of beer withsexist sexual voyeurism.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 86 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Thisraises a corollaryquestion: What factors tend to dividemen, perhapsin waysthat encourage some men to identifywith, and actively supportfeminist (and other) movementsfor equality and justice? Clearly,not simplyhaving differentialaccess to materialresources. Unequal outcomesmay, to many men, seem a "fair" outcome of individualcompetition with a meritocraticsystem. In fact,lower status boysand mentend often to look "up" to privilegedmen with admiration and identification(we see thiswith the slavishtoeing of the football lobby'sline by men from marginal sports).

But thereare also othersigns thatwarn us of the need to be carefulwith categoricalthinking about men's unifiedinterests. For instance,many of us are awareof storiesof individualmen who become overnightsex equity activists,when they find suddenlythat their daughtershave been denied access to sport,or have been offered substandardplaying fields or unqualifiedcoaches. In these cases, individualmen clearlysee theirown interestsas intertwinedwith the interestsof their family members. But can thisshift in thearticulation of men's interestsoccur at the grouplevel? At the San Diego Title IX conference,attendees were moved by thepresentation of JoeKelly, the executivedirector of a nationaladvocacy organization called Dads and Daughters.Kelly spokestrongly of theneed forfathers to supporttheir daughtersto play sports,and to takean activerole in publicissues that effectgirls' access to athleticopportunities. Kelly told the Commission - thatgender equity in sportsis notonly good forgirls it is good forboys andmen, too:

TitleIX opens doorsfor boys, and one of themost important ways it does is when our sons growup to be fathers... Don't forcefathers into the limited world where sons and daughtersare valued differentlyjust because of their gender. Fathersneed a strongly enforcedTitle IX. - Kelly's speech- and theexistence of his organization suggestthat it is possible for men to understandand articulatetheir own interestsas consistentwith those of girlsand women,and opposedto thenarrowly definedmaterial interests of dominantmen. How does this happen? - Men's experiencesin families- especiallyas fullyinvolved fathers encouragesome men to identifytheir own interestsas consistentwith thoseof theirdaughters, and to fightfor their daughters' rights within patriarchalcontexts like sport.This examplesuggests that men do not alwaysautomatically see theirinterests as men,based on some rational calculationof men's globalrelations of powerwith women. As we have seen, interestsare formulatedand articulatedsituationally, and this meansthat the construction of genderis potentiallyfluid and changeable. But thisis notto say thatcontexts do notmatter. People creategender withininstitutional contexts that are characterized by structureddivisions

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MESSNER: PATRIARCHS AND LOSERS 87 of labor and power,and thatare saturatedwith the play of cultural symbols(Messner 2002). And to furthercomplicate this picture, men (and women) move daily in and out of variousinstitutional contexts (e.g., families,workplaces, schools, sport, and thestreet) - contextsthat are characterizedby very different,sometimes contradictory gender regimes.For instance,the relationship between the university (which has been dramaticallycontested by feminismand othersocial movements), and university-basedsport (which still often operates as a semi- autonomousmen's fiefdom),offers an empiricalexample of thetensions and contradictionsat the intersectionof verydifferent gender regimes. Men's movementacross these different gender regimes pushes them to experiencetheir own interestsin morecomplicated ways. The confusion or instabilitythat results from moving across these differentgender regimesundoubtedly makes some men moreopen to the appeal of the kindof white-male-as-victimdiscourse that I have discussed,or to the ironiccultural sensibility of thewhite guy as loser.And thisvictim/loser sensibility,I have suggested,smuggles in a covertbacklash against feminism,and againstother movements for social justice.

But confusionamong young men about gender does not automaticallyresult in a backlash againstwomen's equality;it also createsopportunities for less privilegedgroups of boys and men to re- articulatetheir interests. Today's shiftinggender regimes of social institutions- especially those that encourage boys and men to interact withgirls and women in ways thatfoster respect and empathy- can providean emotionalfoundation for a dis-identificationwith the narrow interestsof dominantmen, and a commitmentto takeaction with girls, women,and othermen who are interestedin buildinga moreequitable andjust world.

References

Baca Zinn,Maxine and Bonnie Thornton Dill. 1996. "Theorizing Differencefrom Multiracial Feminism," Feminist Studies 22: 321-331. Brod,Harry, ed. 1987. Themaking of masculinities: The new men's studies.Boston: Allen& Unwin. Carrigan,T., Connell,R., & Lee, J. 1987. "Towarda New Sociologyof Masculinity,"Theory & Society14: 551-604. Connell,R. W. 2004. Encounterswith Structure. International journal of QualitativeStudies in Education 17: 11-27. . 1987. Genderand power. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 88 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Ehrenreich,Barbara. 1983. TheHearts of Men: AmericanDreams and theFlight from Commitment. : AnchorDoubleday. Eliasoph,Nina. 1998.Avoiding Politics: How AmericansProduce Apathyin Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson,Ann Arnett. 2000. Bad Boys: PublicSchools in theMaking of BlackMasculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Goode,William J. 1982.Why men resist. Pp. 131-150in B. Thorne& M. Yalom,eds. Rethinkingthe family: Some feminist questions. New York& London: Longman. Halberstam,Judith. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham and London: Duke UniversityPress. Hochschild,Arlie. 2003. "Let ThemEat War." AlterNet.org,October 2, 2003. Hondagneu-Sotelo,Pierrette & M. A. Messner1994. "GenderDisplays andMen's Power: The 'New Man' andthe Mexican Immigrant Man,"in HarryBrod and Michael Kaufman, eds. Theorizing masculinities.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kaufman,Michael, Ed. 1987.Beyond patriarchy: Essays bymen on pleasure,power, and change.Toronto: . Kimmel,Michael S., ed. 1987. Changingmen: Newdirections in researchon menand masculinity^Newbury Park: Sage. Kimmel,M. S. & Mosmiller,T. E. 1992.Against the tide: Pro-feminist menin theUnited States, A documentaryhistory. Boston: Beacon Press. Messner,Michael A. 2002. Takingthe Field: Women,Men, and Sports. Universityof Minnesota Press. . 1997.Politics of Masculinities: Men inMovements. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage. Pease,Bob. 2002. (Re)ConstructingMen's Interests.Men and Masculinities5: 165-177. Sabo, DonaldF. 1994."Different Stakes: Men's Pursuitof Gender Equityin Sports,"pp. 202-213in M. A. Messner& D. F. Sabo, Sex, Violenceand PowerIn Sports:Rethinking Masculinity. Freedom,CA: CrossingPress. Sperber,Murray. 2000. Beer and Circus: How Big-TimeSports is CripplingUndergraduate Education. New York: HenryHolt and Co. Stein,Arlene. 2001. TheStranger Next Door. Boston: Beacon Press. Zimbalist,Andrew. 1999. Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflictin Big-TimeCollege Sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

This content downloaded from 128.125.52.125 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions