Book Review of "Dangerous Children": Chapter 4

In chapter 4 Charis states that she has spent long years interviewing people about their experiences of gender, and her research has uncovered (contrary to the findings of Men's Studies scholars) some consistent patterns beneath them all.

Of course, one may counter that no amount of anecdotes constitutes scientific research - but maybe she'll still have some good points to make, so why not listen?

Eight things, she says, consistently constitute the masculine:

1. Maleness (a masculine person must be male)
2. Biological reductionism (that is, that not only is the masculine male, but males are by definition masculine)
3. Not-feminine (a masculine person can't be also be feminine)
4. Better-than-feminine
5. "Hard" (socially and emotionally withdrawn or inexpressive)
6. Hierarchy (a masculine person places themselves in positions of better- or lesser-then others)
7. Other Males (masculinity is promoted and maintained by social groups of men)
8. Unchangeable (masculinity is considered to be fixed and not influenced by social factors)


First, a few nits to pick: #1 seems like a tautology to me, since masculinity is the stereotyped role that men are supposed to play; #2 and #8 seem to mean the same thing; #6 and #7 would, I think, be true of any social group; and #3 would seem to be a natural product of the binary nature of gender, not necessarily something exclusive to masculinity - I don't think women today are still derided as "tomboys" for wanting to engage in traditionally masculine behaviors - but not long ago, it was considered to be very unseemly for women, same as feminine behavior in men is usually still seen today. (I assume that the difference here is thanks to the feminist movement, which greatly expanded women's role in society.)

#4 and #5 seem to be the most helpful in the list, but unfortunately she never suggests that her research has been put to peer review, and never states where she got her interviews from; being from England, we might suppose that most of her interviewees are English, but we'll never know. So, we're left to ask - would an Italian feel the same way? A Chinese? Someone from an isolated culture? In short, the evidence she provides, while interesting, doesn't seem to promote her central claim that there's a consistent rule behind masculine roles - maybe there is, but we'll never know based off the information she provides.