"The culture at large was in the process of redefining white middle-class masculinity from a republican quality of character based on self-control and social responsibility to a corporeal essence identified with the vigor and prowess of the individual male body." Kaplan (97)
I didn't even realize a magazine called "Muscle and Fitness" existed and I've never picked up a copy of "Good Housekeeping". While I could spend hours discussing the problematic nature of these covers and their stories, the imagery is what is relevant. Hugh Jackman is a product of today's pop culture- portrayed as an rough, tough, animalistic body builder on one cover meant to attract the attention and jealousy of men. On the other hand, "Good Housekeeping" wants us (specifically heterosexual women) to believe that Hugh is a romantic man- clean shaven, sophisticated, and approachable.
But how can he be both?
He can't.
In the quote above, Kaplan perfectly describes the change in standards of masculinity occurring in the 19th century. With the expansion of empire came the expectation that men had to be adventurers prone to violent acts signifying strength and with that came the expectation of conquering others. Kaplan writes that with the "conquering" of the West, men grew bored and had nothing to do to prove their masculinity, "Most of these romances begin by announcing the close of the frontier in the temporal form of the hero's lament for the lack of opportunity for heroic adventure." (102) What we see happening today are the echoes of this change in masculinity standards that have grown increasingly complicated. A man is no longer just sophisticated or rough and tumble- he must be both. He must be adventurous and approachable. Brave and sensitive. The standards created through the pressures of empire expansion are still current today, complicated by the fact that they are no longer enough to signify a man as a viable and attractive mate.
I know that in terms of blog comments, we're asked to prompt questions and discussion, but this comment is purely for entertainment purposes.
ReplyDeleteA shirtless Hugh Jackman is never a bad way to picture a man's man...or a woman's man....I forgot where I was going with this ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist lightening the mood with a little sarcasm and fun-snark. After all, we have had some very heavy discussion regarding racism, sexism, oppression, and the role of the U.S. as a nation in all of the above, which can make for some rather morose sentiments in the end. So hopefully the beginning half of this comment will at least bring a laugh and a smile.
P.S.: His accent doesn't hurt his case.
But for the sake of also continuing dialogue within class parameters, I think that the examples provided, when viewed together, create a sort of "grey area" between the masculine and the feminine, between the imperialist virility of manhood and the domestic sphere of woman's work, where one can be deemed a man's man by day and a woman's best friend and protector by night.
ReplyDeleteI think in this case Hugh Jackman, as you've portrayed him, could easily embody the chivalric hero, coming to the rescue of all who may need him.