Reconstructing Masculinity?

Basically, in preparation for my dissertation for next year which is Masculinity and the Male Confessional Novel, my English tutor Ben pointed me in the direction of this Article 'Deconstructing Masculinity' by Sheryl Plant. Here's the link:- http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2006/02/deconstructing_masculinity.

Basically I have a few problems with it as an student of English Literature. Basically in my own view Plant highlights the following:- 'What is it about men that makes them violent?' Critics such as Niva and Goldstein have argued this point for many years and it just seems that Plant has taken this perspective more radically using phrases such as 'Common sensical', Using Jackson Katz's perspective of race, gender and race considerations, femininity etc.

I do tend to agree that Plant does have valid points throughout this piece even if I overall I personally disagree. I agree that Masculinity is rarely deconstructed in the same way as Femininity. (If you need to know more about that I would suggest looking at Kristeva's work). However, I don't think that Plant should have used Domestic Violence in stating this claim. There are other issues such as discrimination, relationships with women, murderers, writers, public sections etc. These issues would been to further suggest why men act the way they do and behave the way they do.

As for Plant claiming that men see their behaviour as the 'norm' seems to imply that men do get away with quite a bit even though nowadays, men seem to be getting the blame for a lot of things such as discrimination, equality etc. However, back to the issues of domestic violence. Plant argues that male victims of domestic violence are often treated with 'ridicule' and 'hilarity' by 'losing their masculinity because they were beaten at the hands of a woman'. I think personally that Plant's argument here has one major flaw, that the domestic violence surrounding a man doesn't take taken very seriously by the public. If the tables were turned, then things would be getting done about it. I think Plant is trying to argue that equality is needed to tackle this issue maybe?

Plant argues that the book 'Stiffed' (very good book) that men are becoming 'hyper-masculine' having been betrayed by society. This statement could be taken back to the end of the First World War and the promise of Lloyd George promising 'A Land fit for heroes' and also the end of the Second World War with the promise of the Welfare state. Plant then goes on to state that the identity crisis within males could be to blame for this. But then argues that the construction of masculinity allows this to happen. And who constructs masculinity? We all do. People tend to have a view surrounding what makes a man such as his lifestyle, the way he constructs himself using fashion, war, politics etc. I do agree with the point that Plant makes about films such as Fight Club and music such as hip hop that construct an identity of masculinity in 'acts of aggression' that needs to make a 'real man' in the 21st century.

To end my argument, I agree with the perspective that Plant believes that masculinity links strength with its aggression. It could be argued to be seen as weak. But however, the way society has constructed Masculinity over the years, I feel that men have no choice but to 'recapture' their own masculinity using the methods that society has constructed for them over the years. By using the perspective of Plant, by trying to act calm in a situation of 'aggression', I think this would then promote the overall idea of Masculinity being in a constant crisis and that men have no way of turning away from the constraints placed upon their own masculinity and never will be able to due to the media's constant and changing developments using films trying to define Masculinity within the 21st century.