@misc{10481/107687,
year = {2023},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/10481/107687},
abstract = {With the comparative analysis of D. H. Lawrence’s “The Blind Man” (1922) and Raymond Carver’s “Cathedral” (1983), this chapter aims at exploring the toxicity of masculinity models through patriarchal entitlement to power within the field of hybrid masculinities and to retrieve ‘good’ models beyond the stigma and suspicion recently associated to hybridization (O’Neill, 2015; de Boise, 2015). The current debate on hybrid masculinities deals with men’s new, liberating ways by selectively incorporating performances associated with subordinated masculinities and femininities or with men’s hybridity as just standing for contemporary versions of gender inequality― “more style than substance” in Messner’s words, particularly considering Gill’s warning of the danger of a “post-feminist sensibility” as invisibilizing gender inequality through neoliberalism and camouflage without relinquishing privilege and power. This study explores a space for redemption within inclusive masculinities and contends that the hybrid or inclusive masculinity epitomized by Robert in Carver’s “Cathedral”―in clear contrast with his counterpart’s orthodox masculinity in Lawrence’s story―is in tune with Bob Pease’s proposal of profeminist men as aware of their privilege and socially legitimized oppressive behaviors and their potential in the struggle to transform gender relations and change dominant masculinities in cultures with diminishing homohysteria.},
keywords = {hybrid masculinities},
keywords = {homohysteria},
keywords = {good men},
keywords = {entitlement to power},
keywords = {blindness},
keywords = {inclusive masculinities},
keywords = {toxic masculinities},
keywords = {postfeminism},
title = {Hybrid Masculinities in D. H. Lawrence’s 'The Blind Man' and Raymond Carver’s 'Cathedral'},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-22144-6_5},
author = {Rodríguez Salas, Gerardo},
}