"Constructed Masculinity: How Much Do Media Representations Dictate Male Identity?" by Euan Robertson

             "Constructed Masculinity: How Much Do Media Representations Dictate Male Identity?" by Euan Robertson examines the role media portrayal, specifically American sitcoms, plays in the construction of one's male identity. Instead of men learning their expected masculine roles through work , men now learn how to present themselves with the help of television and media. Robertson starts of his paper by discussing the mid 1980s and on and its media portrayal of hyper-masculinity through TV shows such as the A Team and Thirty Something. Over time, these hyper-masculine TV shows were diluted and deconstructed to form shows such as Miami Vice and Home Improvement. The one thing about these deconstructed TV shows is that while they aren't super hyper-masculine anymore, they still revolve around the idea of hegemonic masculinity and male power.

                Robertson spends a bit of time discussing the role of both hard and soft masculinity in Home Improvement, specifically focusing on Tim Taylor. Robertson says that Tim Taylor's desire to make everything bigger, better, faster, and stronger truly represent hard masculinity and what it means to be a man, but Tim Taylor also represents the idea of soft masculinity through expressing his feelings and caring for his wife and family. This TV show showing that men are allowed to do  their traditionally masculine things and be a person with feelings and emotions. It taught men that balance between soft and hard masculinity is necessary. The problem with this sitcom, and many others, is that it has a tendency to portray men as buffoons (Home Improvement), idiots (The Simpsons), and liars (Two and a half Men). Men were supposedly portrayed as goofy characters as a way for the viewer to rethink masculine representations and what it means to be a man, but instead, audiences did not think that much and instead laughed at the jokes or silly acts the men did; they often didn't think that there was  a bigger meaning to the man's actions. It's also believed that these goofy male characters exist not as a way to show men how to act, but instead are there to cater to the biggest sitcom demographic, women. In fact, catering to the needs of women, the role of "metrosexual" appeared.  

                Robertson then goes on to discuss the role of  media and its effect on New Zealand. New Zealand was originally was originally colonized by men and the acts of these men helped to create the ideal man who exemplified their masculine ideals. These masculine ideals were then exemplified for years to come. For years, young men were brought up as almost little soldiers ready to affirm their masculinity and honor. When war times came, it was expected that able bodied men would enlist for war and if you didn't the media portrayed them as "shirkers, wasters, antimilitarists” and they believed that “the man who was not prepared to fight suffered mercilessly at the hands of society,” both those statements undermining their masculinity. Currently in New Zealand, male bashing is a current growing trend of New Zealand media, one example being that the programming head of a major New Zealand TV network said that Wednesday nights are “slightly idiotic male Wednesdays.

                In current sitcoms all over the world, women are portrayed and smart and in control while men are constantly undermined and incompetent, often relying on his female friend/spouse to help them and give them guidance. These negative images of men as incompetent can have damaging effects on the self worth of young men growing up and watching these shows. These effects can be especially damaging if the young men watching them believe that this is the only way to act and are not shown the otherwise positive aspects of being a man. An important question that Robertson ends on is: if men are still in dominant social positions, why are they allowing themselves to be portrayed in this negative manner?