Gender is playing a very important role in this election cycle. In this post (as well as in one later this month), I want to muse about some of the gender dynamics of this election and think about ways that it could be discussed in the classroom. In this post, I’ll focus on what this election says about masculinity – focusing on how Tim Walz presents a model of what some have called “tonic” masculinity. In the post later this month, I’ll discuss how this election has tapped into larger anxieties about gender and fertility.
There has been a lot written about how Tim Walz presents a version of masculinity that is in stark contrast to the negative hypermasculine displays that have been associated with toxic masculinity. This has been called “tonic” masculinity, or “supportive” masculinity, or “positive” masculinity, although some question whether some of his positive qualities (e.g., kindness, empathy, ability to express emotions) should be considered “masculine” at all or rather simply basic human qualities that anyone should be happy to possess. Nevertheless, the fact is that Walz presents a way of being a man that feels new and refreshing, and it’s worth better understanding some of the dynamics behind this.
One reason that Walz is able to express such a wide range of human emotion, but is still seen as masculine is due to something that a sociologist called C.J. Pascoe called “Jock Insurance” or “dude cred” (Bennett, 2024; Pascoe, 2003). This is the idea that men who have traditional trappings of masculinity (they are jocks, they hunt, they have served in the military) are afforded more flexibility about how to express their gender without being accused of being unmasculine (or in the research done by Pascoe, being called a “fag”). A similar dynamic can be seen with Travis Kelce who is happy to hold Taylor Swift’s bag and be a caring and considerate boyfriend without having to worry that people will question his masculinity. In social psychology, this idea is known by the term “idiosyncrasy credit” – an idea developed in 1958 by Edwin Hollander. This refers to a similar idea – credits are earned by conforming to the expectations of the in-group (being a jock, being in the military), which can then be spent on deviating from those expectations (expressing love, crying in front of others, supporting a LGBTQ+ student organization, holding your girlfriend’s purse).
We do not explicitly talk about jock insurance or idiosyncrasy credits in our textbook, but I think this is a really useful way of exploring these ideas of expanding masculinity. There is a lot that can be discussed with students on this topic, but I would be interested in asking them the following questions:
- Did they notice that jocks in their high school had more “leeway” in terms of how they expressed their masculinity? Do they still see that pattern in college?
- Did they notice the opposite where men who didn’t have “dude cred” or “jock insurance” were penalized if they were looser in their gender expression?
- Should qualities of compassion, kindness, and empathy be labeled as part of positive masculinity or is it better to just consider them human qualities?
- What would need to change in society so that people could express a broader range of human emotions and gender flexibility without having to cash in their “idiosyncrasy credits.”