Group assignment 2:
1) What does TFM show us about how the gender order is dependent upon the construction of masculinity and femininity? (i.e. male sexuality constructed in part around the male ‘gaze’ of the female and the objectification of women’s bodies.) For this question it is useful to reflect on the scene depicting the man comparing shapes, sizes and colours of their bodies and sharing their anxieties about their performance.
Gaz: Tops off….no looking, no laughing…Fat, David, is a feminist issue [The Full Monty]
Dave: The less I eat the fatter I get (Response: So stuff yourself thin then!) [The Full Monty]
The gender order is dependent upon the construction of masculinity and femininity. Dave has insecurities about his weight. It is said that “fat a ‘feminist issue’” [The Full Monty] and not a masculine issue. This is a contradiction because he is a man but constantly looks in the mirror or plays with his stomach in a way that shows that he is uncomfortable with his weight. There is a sense that his weight causes sentiments of emasculation and this in turn affects his sexual drive and his relationship with his wife. He also begins to doubt his wife’s fidelity as a result, although these doubts are rooted in his unemployment. This is shown in the scene when his wife is seen to be laughing with another man and he automatically thinks that she is having an affair with him.
Being fat is seen as a feminist issue since women are said to be the one who always finding mans and ways of understanding their bodies and their functions. This represents the power of regularity in the regimes of addressing the body. [Segal: 1997: 211]
Dave also compares himself to Barrington, a black man whom he believes to be ‘well-endowered’, and he brings back this insecurity to his wife. He expects Barrington to have a larger penis, something believed to denote the ideal masculinity, and this is something that Dave feels that he does not match up to; showing the association of having a larger penis being related to better sexual performance. (“The lunchbox has landed” [The Full Monty]. This stereotype is what allows Barrington to pass the auditon and thus get the job among these men despite the fact that he can neither sing nor dance. He asks her if she were to choose another man, what would this other man be like. As he looks in the mirror saying that black men have better bodies, his wife says to him “I don’t care if you’re bloody black or rainbow coloured, I’m married to you remember?”.
This relationship is further affected by the fact that he has lost his job. Without employment, and without being comfortable with his body, Dave does not represent the stereotype of what a ‘real man’ should be. None of the men do because of their unemployment status. The film shows how he gender criteria is dependent on masculinity traits as the body is seen as an area of surveillance, hence the Chippendales. The show itself represents how masculine and feminine ambiguities exist and this in turn shows the mismatch between gender and sexuality. [Segal: 1997: 191]. The body is given meanings by physical and social relations, not autonomies that are mediated through phallocentric images. The body represents the dependency of the gender order on masculinity and femininity in the sense that it plays a role in the central analysis of an object of manipulation of power.
The movie shows how male domination through the elite allows for the extension of their influence and control over lesser status males. Inter-male dominance produces hierarchies, showing how gender relations are naturalised. The men in the movie are exposed o subjectivity within the framework of universal sexual opposition. [Segal: 1997: 191]
The contrast between the way men identify themselves with one another and the way women do is seen through the men’s conversation. When Dave mentions that people are likely to be critical of their image, Lomper says:“That’s different, we’re blokes”. This goes to show how it almost acceptable for men to be able to ogle at women, but it is disregarded when men are the one being ogled at.
2) What, according to the film, is the dominant masculinity? Dominant femininity?How does the film dislocate, or pull apart these constructions?
The dominant masculinity is defined by the main characters lack there of. These men are representations of the struggles of masculinity and a man’s inability to live up to the social norms put forth by dominant society. The film seeks to pull apart the illusion of male dominance by reveling the realities of male insecurities. Gaz, Dave, Gerald, Horse, Guy and Lomper are each struggling to overcome different social constructions of manhood, yet they come together in sharing the common bond of unemployment and surviving under the pressures of what Jansen describes as “the dream of male mastery.” “ conceptions of themselves as independent agents, acquire masculine values and skills, begin to see themselves as heirs to a male tradition, experience male bonding, and learn to dream the cultural dream of male mastery [Jansen: 2002:185]. In the case of The Full Monty, the male bonding that Jansen is referring to exists in the males perception of failure and his inability to uphold these traditions and their struggle to see themselves as such. The dream has been set into stone within this context however the film focuses on the outcasts of this dream, the men that are seemingly unable to fulfill the cultural dream of male mastery.
Each Character in the film appears to be lacking male dominance in different ways. These men are all insufficient dipictions of a man suffering from socail stratifications along racial, gender, social and economic lines. Economically, they are all unemployed as they come together each day at the Job Center to wallow in there own failures to society and to each other, each one mocking the other as they sit side by side. “social ordering also creates stratifications along racial, gender, social and economic lines and produces specific placements in society, which result in social hierarchies. Anything that goes outside of, or threatens, the existing social order is deemed ‘punishable’” [Artz: 2009: 173]. Gaz cannot afford to pay child support and may loose the legal rights to his son, Gerald can not even bare to tell his wife that has been out of work for over 6 months while Dave is hesitent to take a security job because to him, it would be hypocritical as he is a theif himself. From a racial standpoint, Horse suffers under the social stratification of being a black man. He is “supposed” to have a large penis, yet he does not, therefor he is dying under this pressure as he stands tucked away at a pay phone booth complaining that the penis enlarger he spent his last pennies on is not working: “nothing is getting bigger” [The Full Monty].
The homosexuality complex of dominant masculinity is deconstructed when Guy and Lomper realize that they are attracted to each other as they stumble through a window wearing bright red thongs. The general response to this is not that of homophobia which Jansen descibes as being an essential aspect of the dominant male masculinity. “homophobia and the exclusion of gays and lesbians… continue to be crucial for the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity” [Jansen: 2002: 199]. Dave’s weight causes him severe trauma to the point where he can not get an errection as a result of feeling unsexy, almost like a girl not being able to be turned on because she does not feel sexy. This is a point when the construction is revealed as the reality is that both men and women suffer greatly from being overly critical about them. When put into a sexual context, actual penetration will not work unless both the man and the women are turned on. They both have an equal contribution to making sex work and it is necessary that they both find attraction in both themselves and in the other. “For some boys… these rites are marked by psychic pain and trauma. A boy who is perceived by his peers as running or throwing like a girl is a boy whose entire sense of self and positioning in the world is called into question” [Jansen: 2002: 185). Dave throws like a girl as his body image issues are supposedy, according to Gerald, a “feminist issue.”
This film is a journey in redefining dominant masculinity. The very idea of a striptese among men is something of a taboo in the gender heirarchy however it is necessary for these men to face their fears and go all the way if they are to ever be acknowledged. They were clearly oucasts to an “appropriate social order” yet they were able to re-claim there manhood by literally revieling it. They stood naked before an audience with nothing but there pride at stake. And even that could not be taken away because to get to that point, they had to work through all their insecurities and come to terms with themselves as men and what it means to be a man. The Full Monty is a process of deconstructing the hegemoic masculine heirarchy. In the last moments all hats were off; they were a force of male energy, of male bonding and they were able to not only remake the dream, but inspire others to not be ashamed of the social illusion that is the inability to fulfill the pressures of social heirarchy and dominant masculinity.
3) In the dominant construction of what it means to be male and female, whose interests are being served? What is at stake in these constructions?
The entire gender hierarchy is created by men but maintained by both men and women. According to the film, the dominant male is successful, tall, desirable (well built and fit), strong, dependable and secure in himself. The dominant type of women is an ever changing ideal which exists in opposition to this seemingly stable ideal of masculinity[1]. Jansen explores the relationship of masculinty to femininity by stating that “’Hegemonic masculinity’ is always constructed in relation to various subordinated masculinities as well as in relation to women. The interplay between different forms of masculinity is an important part of how a patriarchal social order works” [Jansen: 2002: 195]. When the women are in the presence of men they are feminine, beautiful, shorter, dependent, and caring. They fulfil the role of the ideal mother and housewife. However, when men are absent or in a vulnerable position, women have the ability to assume a more masculine role. This role reversal cannot be sustained forever because it would upset the gender hierarchy.
The women take their cue about the required type of femininity they are supposed to portray based on the type of masculinity she is acting against and vice versa. For example, when Dave confesses his physical insecurities to his wife and cries (feminine role), she comforts him assuming a more masculine role. In another instance, she tells him to take the security job because they need the money; here she reverts to the typical dependent female who requires a man who can support her financially[2].
The type of society they live in has a great influence over what type of qualities are valued. Jansen clearly lables the effects of the system and how it favors the ‘dominant male’ in saying “the prevailing cultural definitions of masculinity or hegemonic masculinity are essentially ideological constructions that serve the material interests of the dominant, male groups” [Jansen: 2002: 193]. For example, Gaz wants to spend time with his son even though he cannot afford to pay the child support, therefore material security is valued over being a good and involved parent. When Gaz loses his job and therefore his position in the masculine hierarchy, his wife leaves him to find another man who can fulfil her expectations of what a man should be. Her new boyfriend is tall and successful unlike Gaz who is short, thin and unemployed[3]. The whole point of the film is for Gaz to reclaim his position on the hierarchy and to prove that his ability to be a man; reclaiming his manhood through the full monty.
Even though these men do not fit the dominant masculinity, the system is still structured in such a way that their needs (feeling desirable, loved, strong and essential) are still catered to. For example; Lomper returns home, after trying to kill himself, to find his weak mother struggling to climb up the staircase and easily scoops her up in his arms and carries her to her room. This example also displays the ways in which femininity is expected to compliment masculinity[4].
The hierarchy is also structured to support a man’s pride no matter where he is situated and it seems that pride is the most important thing to be gained or lost. Even when the gendered roles are reversed and the man finds himself in a more vulnerable position as a sexual object (when stripping) and the women become almost like sexual predators in response to this, the behaviour of the women affirms the men’s need to feel desired and wanted thus reaffirming his pride and social status. Therefore the interests of the male are always being served.
When their pride and social status is lost, they turn to stripping to make money which in turn will make them relevant again. Lomper trying to kill himself illustrates the importance of pride and feeling like a man. He feels that since he can no longer perform his duties that he is a failure. But he finds himself saved through his new found friendship; it gives him something to live for. The importance of male bonding, the strength and the support that is found here is essential to the construction and maintenance of masculinity. This team ethic affirms ideas that together they can achieve more.[5]
4) What is being challenged? What possibilities are being opened up? What possibilities are being closed down?
What is being challenged?
The Full Monty is chalanging the very nature of social stratification and gender heirarchies with regards to both masculinity and femininity and the social contructions that come with it. Soceity tends to put pressure on the masses of average joes in an attempt to create a general gender order and socail dominance. TFM represents these men as it traces the many struggles of fullfilling these social norms and demonstrating the ability to “be a man”. In ‘The Full Monty’ the challenges being faced are associated with gender, sexuality, class and disability. To begin with, gender stereotypes are challenged. The main charaters decide to put on a stripshow in order to make money and fulfill their role as men. It is ironic that stripping or rather using ones sexuality has mostly been categorised as a female domain (for example, prostitution is mainly identifiable with women in society). However, these men are at a point in their lives where they will do whatever is necessary to regain their socail status as a dominant male in society, of which appears to be lost.
A man’s masculinity is usually linked to his ability to provide. The city of Sheffield is in the middle of industrialisation, a time which is also challenging to men that are unemployed and cannot fulfil their role with regards to providing for their families. Jansen (2002) states that prevailing cultural definitions of masculinity or hegemonic masculinity are essentially ideological constructions that serve the material interest of dominant male groups. What he refers to as hegemonic masculinity allows elite males to extend their influence and control over lesser status males through an inter-male dominance hierarchy. [Jansen: 2002]. This is the challenge faced by Gaz who is located in the ‘under-class’ being unemployed, he is unable to take care of his son, and thus his wife threatens to take full custody of their son because of this inability to fit in to this hegemonic masculinity.
The ‘ideal’ male according to Gieski (2000) is tall, broad-shouldered and strong. The men try to mirror Gieski’s image in creating their own fitness programme that would possibly allow them to better fit in with this image. When Dave asks Gerald about dancing as a way to also fit this image, Gerald’s answer is that:
“Dancers have coordination, skill, timing, fitness and grace. Take a long hard look in the mirror”
The Full Monty is dedicated to these men trying to attain this image and thus become a part of this idealised society. They are each fighting the fact that they all have their flaws, and as Gerald points out to Dave and Gaz,
“He’s fat, you’re thin, and you’re both fucking ugly”.
The dominant challenge is thus accepting their images in an environment where they would need this image in order to make the living they aspire to. They also must face the fact that women (and possibly men) will also look upon them and judge them according to their bodies which is something they do not all realise immeditateley:
Dave: Well, they’re going to be looking at us like that, aren’t they, Eh? I mean, what is next Friday 400 women turn ‘round and say “He’s too fat, he’s too old and he’s a pigeon-chested little tosser.” What happens then, eh?
What possibilities are being opened up?
An opportunity to use male sexuality as a means of making a ‘quick buck’ is an opportunity for the men to once again become providers for their families. The fact that TFM captures a lot of attention in the local community; this further shows an acceptance by the community for men to strip for income. It also shows the breaking of a barrier that once associated this form of making a living with women alone.
What possibilities are being closed down?
Because they are all unemployed during the Industrialisation in Sheffiekd, the men are made are now obsolete, extinct, yesterdays news.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Artz, L. (2009) “The Weather Watchers: Gender, Violence and Social Control” in Steyn, M. and Van Zyl (eds.) The Prize and the Price. p178
Gieske, S: (2000) The Ideal Couple : A question of size. (Chapter 13) pp. 375 – 394. In L. Schiebinger “Feminism & the Body” Oxford Univ. Press.
Jansen, S. C. (2002). Football is more than a game: Masculinity, sport and war. Critical Communication: Power, media, gender & technology. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. (required)
Segal. L (1997) “Sexualities” in K. Woodward (Ed) Identity and Difference: London Sage: p184-224
[1] Gieske, S. (2000) “The Ideal Couple: A Question of Size?” in Schiebinger, L. Feminism and the Body. Oxford University Press. pp 378-381
[2] Artz, L. (2009) “The Weather Watchers: Gender, Violence and Social Control” in Steyn, M. and Van Zyl (eds.) The Prize and the Price. p178
[3] Gieske, S. (2000) “The Ideal Couple” pp387-8
[4] Ibid., p388
[5] Jansen, S. (2002). “Football is more than a game: Masculinity, Sport and War” in Critical Communication Theory: Power, Media, Gender and Technology. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. p185
