What do you think?
Rate this book
Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction
Masculinities in Theory is a clear, concise, and comprehensive introduction to the field of masculinity studies from a humanities perspective.
- GenresTheoryNonfictionFeminism
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 11, 2010
6 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 17, 2011
my advisor always tells me that the purpose of academic publications is to generate new knowledge. if that's true--then i am unsure about how this book got published. it doesn't seem like Reeser says anything new. instead, he uses different poststructuralist and gender theories to talk specifically about masculinity. i don't see why that's necessary.
if you read your Foucault, you know that identities are discursively constructed and the body is the site of contestation. thus, Reeser says that masculine identities are discursively constructed and the male body is the site of contestation. was Reeser's contribution necessary? shouldn't we assume that people who have read Foucault already got that? Reeser does the same thing with Butler's work that he did with Foucault's. Butler says gender is performative and repetition of performance makes it appear natural. Reeser says masculinity is performative and repetition of masculine practices makes masculinity appear natural. what is new about that?
my other issue with this book was the method of citation--or, perhaps more accurately, non-citation. throughout the chapters, he summarizes other theorists work. however, there are almost no quotations or page number citations anywhere. instead, at the end of each chapter he has a "bibliography" that doesn't look anything like a bibliography. instead, it's brief paragraphs saying where each concept he works with comes from. i cannot understand what the purpose of writing this way would be. doesn't he feel the need to supply textual evidence for his claims? wouldn't page numbers be helpful to his readers who want to look at the sources he's commenting on? how are we supposed to be able to check his work? are we just supposed to trust him on this one?
overall, i didn't get this book.
if you read your Foucault, you know that identities are discursively constructed and the body is the site of contestation. thus, Reeser says that masculine identities are discursively constructed and the male body is the site of contestation. was Reeser's contribution necessary? shouldn't we assume that people who have read Foucault already got that? Reeser does the same thing with Butler's work that he did with Foucault's. Butler says gender is performative and repetition of performance makes it appear natural. Reeser says masculinity is performative and repetition of masculine practices makes masculinity appear natural. what is new about that?
my other issue with this book was the method of citation--or, perhaps more accurately, non-citation. throughout the chapters, he summarizes other theorists work. however, there are almost no quotations or page number citations anywhere. instead, at the end of each chapter he has a "bibliography" that doesn't look anything like a bibliography. instead, it's brief paragraphs saying where each concept he works with comes from. i cannot understand what the purpose of writing this way would be. doesn't he feel the need to supply textual evidence for his claims? wouldn't page numbers be helpful to his readers who want to look at the sources he's commenting on? how are we supposed to be able to check his work? are we just supposed to trust him on this one?
overall, i didn't get this book.
July 21, 2012
It's a brief introduction to the main concepts of (critical) masculinity studies. Written in clear and compact language, it's sometimes a bit to brief and compact, especially when discussing trans*masculinities. The focus is on Western white heterosexual cis-male subjectivities. The intersection of race and gender is included, but class as additional category would've been helpful at times. As a starting point of a poststructuralist, non-essentialist study of masculinities it's alright.
November 18, 2023
As someone who is not well-versed in the specifics of masculinity theory, I found this work really helpful as a foundational text.
March 19, 2016
This book was used as a primary text in my post-secondary fourth year History of Masculinity class, and it served as a fantastic example of giving us a good foundation to discuss how BAD this theory is and how it could be improved. The amount of things wrong with this work are as worrying as they are abysmal.
1) This is very much an introduction to theory. Introduction books need to be able to create a base of knowledge that can further be expanded upon. If someone has never been exposed to gender theory, let alone Masculine theory at that, when they go to further their learning they won't be able to make the more difficult theory work with their understanding. And, if they do start to read theory that is, you know, actually theory, they might not agree with it.
2) The order of the chapters makes no sense. This may be my own opinion, but the stuff he says at the end of the book is much more important and crucial to his argument and should be put at the beginning.
3) His digressions are pointless for making his overall argument. He'll reference something four chapters from where you are and continue on his argument and the reader is just left with theory that doesn't have the proper evidence to support it. And he references chapters further on in the text A LOT. Maybe more reason that they should be reordered???
All in all. It's not that great. If you read it, be wary that this is not the end all for masculine theory. He groups men into little sections and then paints them all with a very broad brush. Yes, there are some chapters that are quite good, but there is a lot wrong with this book that doesn't necessarily make up for it. Be warned.
1) This is very much an introduction to theory. Introduction books need to be able to create a base of knowledge that can further be expanded upon. If someone has never been exposed to gender theory, let alone Masculine theory at that, when they go to further their learning they won't be able to make the more difficult theory work with their understanding. And, if they do start to read theory that is, you know, actually theory, they might not agree with it.
2) The order of the chapters makes no sense. This may be my own opinion, but the stuff he says at the end of the book is much more important and crucial to his argument and should be put at the beginning.
3) His digressions are pointless for making his overall argument. He'll reference something four chapters from where you are and continue on his argument and the reader is just left with theory that doesn't have the proper evidence to support it. And he references chapters further on in the text A LOT. Maybe more reason that they should be reordered???
All in all. It's not that great. If you read it, be wary that this is not the end all for masculine theory. He groups men into little sections and then paints them all with a very broad brush. Yes, there are some chapters that are quite good, but there is a lot wrong with this book that doesn't necessarily make up for it. Be warned.
July 6, 2011
Clear writing and some good grounding on other gender theorists. Not as much discourse with other theorists, as I'd like, but great use of examples and application of his theory. He uses questions to move his study along. Refreshing in style and approach, but not groundbreaking. Some chapters are phenomenally under researched with huge assertions.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.