Climbing the Hierarchy of Masculinity: Asian American Men’s Cross-Racial Competition for Intimacy with White Females

Climbing the Hierarchy of Masculinity: Asian American Men’s Cross-Racial Competition for Intimacy with White Females

Studies of masculinity have actually centered on the inequalities among various categories of men, yet they will have neglected to give consideration to women’s roles in men’s engagement in a variety of jobs within hegemonic masculinity. Making use of life-history interviews with five interracial couples composed of Asian US men and white ladies, along with five people who either were or have been tangled up in an Asian american woman that is man/white few, this short article examines the cross-racial competition for which Asian US men employ numerous methods to ascend the masculinity hierarchy by looking for white women’s validation of these manhood. Asian United states men’s competition that is cross-racial four distinct procedures: detesting white masculinities; approximating to white masculinities; eschewing white masculinities; and failing into the try to maneuver white masculinities. By analyzing these four procedures, the writer further addresses the way the rising Asian US masculinities being constructed by Asian US males and white ladies in the context of intimate relationships challenge or reinforce the existing sales of competition, course, and sex.

This is certainly a preview of registration content, log on to check always access.

Access choices

Purchase article that is single

Access immediately to your article PDF that is full.

Price includes VAT for Moldova

Donate to journal

Immediate on the web access to all or any problems from 2019. Subscription will auto renew yearly.

Here is the web cost. Taxes become calculated in checkout.

Demetriou writes that effeminate masculinity is subordinated into the hegemonic style of white masculinity that is heterosexual “while other people, such as for instance working course or black colored masculinities, are merely ‘marginalized’” (2001:341–342). Regarding the huge huge huge difference between “subordinate” and “marginalized, ” Connell and Demetriou usually do not talk about them as two rigidly split categories, which either include homosexual males or males of color. Relating to Demetriou, “… The concept of marginalization describes the relationships between the masculinities in dominant and subordinated classes or ethnic groups, that is, the relations that result from the interplay of gender with other structures, such as class and ethnicity” (2001:342) while subordination refers to relations internal to the gender order.

Demetriou 16, p. 341 writes, “Hegemonic masculinity, comprehended as external hegemony, is attached to the institutionalization of men’s dominance over ladies…. Hegemonic masculinity produces not just external but additionally interior hegemony, that is, hegemony over other masculinities… ”

Among a few, two studies are of specific note: one on class-based masculinities played away as males’s social energy over ladies in marital relationships 44, and another on gay fraternity users’ challenges to masculinity that is hegemonic the reification of male dominance over women 55.

Connell 12 contends that the thought of hegemonic femininity is improper. Characteristics of femininity are globally built in terms of the dominance of masculinities; hence, femininities signify the subordination of females to men by which ladies’s domination of males hardly ever does occur. Nonetheless, Pyke and Johnson 45 declare that the idea of hegemonic femininities critically addresses the hierarchy among females of various classes and races. They compose, “However, this discounts exactly exactly how other axes of domination, such as for instance battle, course, sex, and age, mildew a hegemonic femininity that is venerated and extolled into the principal tradition, and therefore emphasizes the superiority of some females over other people, thus privileging white upper-class women” (35).

I interpreted his reference to “American” women instead of “white” women as his customary conflation common among a few Asian American ethnic groups as I discussed in the method section.


Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love. Ny, NY: Pantheon.

Bernard, J. (1972). The continuing future of wedding. Ny, NY: World Pub.

Bird, S. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality in addition to upkeep of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Community, 10(2), 120–132.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2002). We all have been People in america!: The Latin Americanization of Racial Stratification in the united states. Race& Community, 5, 3–16.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a concept of training. London: Cambridge University Press.

Chancer, L. (1998). Reconcilable distinctions: Confronting beauty, pornography, additionally the future of feminism. Berkeley, CA: University of Ca Press.

Chen, A. (1999). Everyday lives in the center for the periphery, life at the periphery of this center: Chinese US masculinities and bargaining with hegemony. Gender & Community, 13(5), 584–607.

Chow, S. (2000). The value of battle into the personal sphere: Asian Us citizens and spousal preferences. Sociological Inquiry, 70(1), kazakhstan women dating 1–29.

Collins, P. H. (2004). Ebony intimate politics: African Us citizens, sex, as well as the brand new racism. Ny, NY: Routledge.

Coltrane, S. (1994). Theorizing masculinities in modern science that is social. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds. ), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Connell, R. (1992). A tremendously right gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and also the characteristics of sex. United States Sociological Review, 57(6), 735–751.

Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the style. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.

Constable, N. (2003). Romance for a stage that is global Pen pals, digital ethnography, and “mail order” marriages. Berkeley, CA: University of Ca Press.

Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste societies. US Anthropologist, 43(3), 376–395.

Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell’s notion of hegemonic masculinity: a review. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361.

Espiritu, Y. (1992). Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Espiritu, Y. (1996). Asian women that are american males: Labor, rules, and love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Espiritu, Y. (2001). “We don’t sleep around like white girls do”: Family, tradition, and sex in Filipina American everyday lives. Signs: Journal of females in customs and Society, 26(2), 415–440.

Gardiner, J. K. (2005). Guys, masculinities and theory that is feminist. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds. ), Handbook of studies on males and masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *