Both researchers come at the issue of dominance in male hierarchies with a different set of research subjects. White Watson looks at how white, middle-class teenage boys are prone to excessive violence. She uses the spate of school mass killings as examples of the “boy code” gone wrong. Hinojosa specifically looks at the military and how it creates a “masculine”-type that is recognizable in public (haircut and stance) and is highly competitive between ranks, departments, groups, titles and so forth. White Watson argues, as studies show this, that it is not race, family history, or testosterone that causes this type of violence, as comparable age groups, genders, races, and even social standing do not seem to play a role in the violence. What she suggests is a continued socially unrecognizable undercurrent is responsible for causing these boys to think they have to live up to a code of masculinity that is detrimental to masculine growth. Hinojosa sees male dominance much the same but on a different spectrum. Society sees the military as the ultimate “man-making” machine; creating strong, organized, risk taking, self-disciplined tools that protect humankind (Hinojosa).
How does competitiveness figure in Hinojosa’s depiction of military men?
Competitiveness in the military has “spawned dominance” and created a “hyper-masculine” template to which a male subject seeking a hyper sense of manhood works toward (Hinojonsa). This separates the men from the boys and women from anything male. This competitiveness also creates similar men to be different just by their military status, the military branch they work for, and by the physicality of what they can do. Men do not work as a whole unit, but instead as units of masculine prowess in a constant “war” against each other.
Works Cited
Hinojosa, R. Doing hegemony: military, men, and construction a hegemonic masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 2010, pp. 179-194.
White Watson, S. W. “Boys, masculinity and school violence: reaping what we sow.” Gender and Education, vol. 19, no. 6, November 2007, pp. 729-737.
