In his aptly titled article “‘Now I Gotta Watch What I Say’: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in Discourse” for the Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Scott Fabius Kiesling provides an articulate analysis of the role speech plays in the creation hegemonic masculine identities. While Kiesling’s 2001 study focused on a unique situation — an American fraternity in a middle to upper class university — its findings can be observed in modern everyday life and can be easily applied to current conversations pertaining to masculinity, such as the discussion surrounding sexual harassment and phenomenons like mansplaining. As a result of Kiesling’s past enrollment in the fraternity, he was “accepted by the members as almost an insider”, and was
…show more content…
However, the audience fails to accept this approach, causing Pete to switch tactics, framing himself as a wise expert. In the next excerpt, Pete recruits gender roles to abet him in claiming authority, comparing another male member to a domestic wife while playing a board game. In doing so, Pete reinforces gender hierarchy, maintaining the image of a subservient wife and a dominant husband. In the final conversation, Pete “takes a paternalistic stance” toward a former girlfriend, giving her unwarranted advice and disclosing little personal information. All of these situations exemplarily suggest that each individual has a “repertoire of stances” that they use to perform gender identity, which is co-constructed in each instance by …show more content…
However, while masculinity’s centralising aspect is authority, the opposite is true of femininity. In my daily life and that of most other women, this is most apparent in the frequent use of apologetic expressions like “sorry” (Octigan & Niederman, 1979). Notably, I almost exclusively use this type of speech at work, a setting where I attempt to create a more feminine, easily acceptable identity. Additionally, in contrast to Pete’s baseless confidence, women tend to use language in a way that understates their authority (Thorne,
However, the audience fails to accept this approach, causing Pete to switch tactics, framing himself as a wise expert. In the next excerpt, Pete recruits gender roles to abet him in claiming authority, comparing another male member to a domestic wife while playing a board game. In doing so, Pete reinforces gender hierarchy, maintaining the image of a subservient wife and a dominant husband. In the final conversation, Pete “takes a paternalistic stance” toward a former girlfriend, giving her unwarranted advice and disclosing little personal information. All of these situations exemplarily suggest that each individual has a “repertoire of stances” that they use to perform gender identity, which is co-constructed in each instance by …show more content…
However, while masculinity’s centralising aspect is authority, the opposite is true of femininity. In my daily life and that of most other women, this is most apparent in the frequent use of apologetic expressions like “sorry” (Octigan & Niederman, 1979). Notably, I almost exclusively use this type of speech at work, a setting where I attempt to create a more feminine, easily acceptable identity. Additionally, in contrast to Pete’s baseless confidence, women tend to use language in a way that understates their authority (Thorne,