Postfeminism, Men, Masculinities and Work: A Research Agenda for Gender and Organization Studies Scholars

Abstract

Mobilizing the concept of postfeminism as a sensibility, this article invites organization and gender scholars to examine how postfeminist masculinities are discursively constituted and performed by men within contemporary work contexts. Acknowledging that women are interpellated within postfeminist discourses as empowered and autonomous subjects whose lives are shaped by individual choice, this article explores the implications for men, in particular how men variously perform postfeminist masculinities and the implications for addressing gendered inequalities within the workplace. Developing a research agenda, this article outlines three research trajectories: (1) problematizing a gender binary in which women are depicted as empowered at work and men in a state of crisis; (2) interrogating signs of ‘new’ postfeminist masculinities coded as inclusive in the workplace; and (3) examining how different types of men perform postfeminist masculinities at work. This article concludes by providing examples of research questions to generate future organizational scholarship in these areas.

The ‘new industrial man’ as unhero: Doing postfeminist masculinities in an Italian pharmacological research centre

“…The ‘new’ man (Genz & Brabon, , p. 143) is generally portrayed as an inclusive, caring, emotional individual, who may be conflicted and subjugated, but also combines behaviours associated with traditional forms of masculinity (Rumens, ). These behaviours can be produced almost concurrently within the same or different contexts, or can emerge under different conditions at different times.…”

“…In the last decade the postfeminist man has been portrayed as still negotiating the impact of feminism on his own identity, yet there seems to be a (re)turn to traditional masculine pursuits as part of subject positions that contain irreconcilable pro‐ and anti‐feminist stances (Genz & Brabon, ). The postfeminist man seems to be a contradictory and hybrid man, encapsulating positions that include inclusive, caring and emotional behaviours alongside more traditional forms of masculinity (Rumens, ). This reflects contemporary postfeminist discourses, embedding feminist values of freedom of choice, self‐determination and equality of opportunities in patriarchal expectations concerning motherhood, family, female beauty and sexuality (Gill, ; Liu, ).…”

“…(Giovanni)Paradoxically, while constructing himself as a traditional industrial man, Giovanni also remodels his masculinity and depicts himself as a ‘new father’, one who manages his son's care (through dropping off and picking up from the nanny) and sets boundaries on his work schedule to fulfil his fatherly duties. Two contradictory practices of masculinities are evident in the extracts above, re‐presenting a postfeminist regime (Gill, ; McRobbie, , ) and a ‘melting pot’ of masculinities (Rumens, , p. 249). We refer to this contradictory position as the ‘new industrial man’.…”

“…The postfeminist man ‘is fallible, self‐deprecating and liable to fail at any moment’ (Gill, , p. 193). However, as Rumens (, p. 251) asserts, such political discourses ‘disseminate cultural tropes of male injury, loss and underachievement without acknowledging the hegemony of men's practices in the reproduction of gender inequalities’ within many work settings. In critiquing the crisis discourse, Hearn () calls for critical analyses that explore the continuing hegemony of men in organizational settings, even in so‐called postfeminist times.…”

The postfeminist ideology at work: Endorsing gender essentialism and denying feminine devaluation in the case of design work

“…Some have suggested that postfeminist thinking corresponds with a rhetoric that asserts that women are now advantaged as workers (Lewis, ; Rumens, ). For example, Kelan () finds that the new ideal worker in information and communications technology (ICT) work is feminine, since ‘multi‐tasking, tenderness, connectivity, caring and friendliness’ (p. 436) are valorized.…”