White Masculinity in Contemporary

Australia The Good Ol Aussie Bloke 1st

Edition Andrea Waling
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/white-masculinity-in-contemporary-australia-the-good-
ol-aussie-bloke-1st-edition-andrea-waling/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Exploring the Cultural Phenomenon of the Dick Pic 1st

Edition Andrea Waling

https://ebookmeta.com/product/exploring-the-cultural-phenomenon-
of-the-dick-pic-1st-edition-andrea-waling/

The Many Voices of Contemporary Piedmontese Writers 1st

Edition Andrea Raimondi

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-many-voices-of-contemporary-
piedmontese-writers-1st-edition-andrea-raimondi/

The Loss of Small White Clouds Dementia in Contemporary

Performance 1st Edition Morgan Batch

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-loss-of-small-white-clouds-
dementia-in-contemporary-performance-1st-edition-morgan-batch/

e Research y español LE L2 Investigar en la era digital

Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching 1st
Edition Mar Cruz Piñol (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/e-research-y-espanol-
le-l2-investigar-en-la-era-digital-routledge-advances-in-spanish-
language-teaching-1st-edition-mar-cruz-pinol-editor/
The White Chalk of Days The Contemporary Ukrainian
Literature Series Anthology 1st Edition Mark Andryczyk

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-white-chalk-of-days-the-
contemporary-ukrainian-literature-series-anthology-1st-edition-
mark-andryczyk/

Zombie An Aussie Apocalypse Part 1 Adam Smith

https://ebookmeta.com/product/zombie-an-aussie-apocalypse-
part-1-adam-smith/

A Good Man Inside Diary of a White Collar Prisoner 1st

Edition Will Phillips

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-good-man-inside-diary-of-a-white-
collar-prisoner-1st-edition-will-phillips/

The Legal Protection of Rights in Australia 1st Edition

Matthew Groves

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-legal-protection-of-rights-in-
australia-1st-edition-matthew-groves/

The Europeans in Australia Volume Two Democracy 1st

Edition Alan Atkinson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-europeans-in-australia-volume-
two-democracy-1st-edition-alan-atkinson/
“In this engaging and timely book Waling draws on a range of rich data to examine
historical shifts and continuities in representations of Australian masculinity,
and to investigate how masculinity is currently lived and understood. Through a
nuanced analysis she gives us unique insight into the contradictions and tensions
of contemporary manhood.”
– Barbara Pini, Professor of Sociology,
Griffith University, Australia

“Waling breathes new life into the critical study of men and masculinities with a
lucid style, and, dare I say, some much needed optimism. Empirically ambitious
and theoretically rich and diverse, White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia
is an account that stands out in an increasingly crowded arena.”
– Steve Roberts, Associate Professor of Sociology,
Monash University, Australia
White Masculinity in
Contemporary Australia

Spanning the disciplines of sociology, history, media and cultural studies, and
popular culture, this book offers a historical exploration of Australian masculine
tropes and an examination of contemporary representations of masculinity in
the media. With attention to a range of thematic issues, including race, gender,
sexuality, mythmaking, media representation, class, and nationality, it draws
on new qualitative research and interview material to investigate the ways in
which everyday Australian men take up or reject such ideas. White Masculinity
in Contemporary Australia thus explores the contradictory resistance to and
adoration of ideals of masculinity, forms of Othering used to differentiate the
practice of “good” masculinity from that of “bad” masculinity, the relationship
between heterosexuality, masculinity and Australian sporting culture as central to
ideals of masculinity, and the existence of differing pressures to be masculine. As
such it will appeal to scholars across the social sciences with interests in gender
and sexuality, Australian studies, and contemporary popular culture.

Andrea Waling (PhD) is a research fellow at the Australian Research Centre in

Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Australia. Her research interests
include qualitative research, masculinity studies, sexualisation, LGBTIQ+ health
and well-being, and studies in gender and sexuality. Further details of her research,
projects, and publications can be found at andreawaling.wixsite.com/home.
Routledge Research in Gender and Society

Prostitution, Pornography and Trafficking in Women

Israel’s Blood Money
Esther Hertzog and Erella Shadmi

Mexican American Women, Dress and Gender

Pachucas, Chicanas, Cholas
Amaia Ibarraran-Bigalondo

Trauma, Women’s Mental Health, and Social Justice

Pitfalls and Possibilities
Emma Tseris

Wellness in Whiteness
Biomedicalisation and the Promotion of Whiteness and Youth among Women
Amina Mire

Contemporary Muslim Girlhoods in India

A Study of Social Justice, Identity and Agency in Assam
Saba Hussain

White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia

The Good Ol’ Aussie Bloke
Andrea Waling
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/
sociology/series/SE0271
White Masculinity in
Contemporary Australia
The Good Ol’ Aussie Bloke

Andrea Waling
First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Andrea Waling
The right of Andrea Waling to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Waling, Andrea, author.
Title: White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia : The Good Ol’ Aussie
Bloke/Andrea Waling.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. |
Series: Routledge research in gender and society ; 80 | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019013054 (print) | LCCN 2019015532 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781315207766 (ebk) | ISBN 9781351801638 (web pdf) |
ISBN 9781351801621 (epub) | ISBN 9781351801614 (mobi/kindle) |
ISBN 9781138633285 (hbk)
Subjects: LCSH: Masculinity—Australia. | Men, White—Australia. |
Men—Identity. | National characteristics, Australian.
Classification: LCC HQ1090.7.A8 (ebook) | LCC HQ1090.7.A8 W35
2019 (print) | DDC 155.3/320994—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019013054

ISBN: 978-1-138-63328-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-20776-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Apex CoVantage LLC
For Marjorie, my beloved grandmother, who passed away
at the start of the PhD journey. A patron of the theatrical
arts, she always taught me that life was just a pantomime
on the stage.
For Agnes, who first instilled the love and curiosity of
studying culture and people.
Contents

List of figures and tablesx

Forewordxi
Acknowledgementsxiii

Introduction 1

1 Swagmen, surfers, and ANZACs: uncovering the

“Aussie” male trope 26

2 Consumerism and the revival of the Aussie bloke 52

3 Masculinity in Australian popular television 83

4 Defining “masculinity” 110

5 Fathers, footy, and WAGs 134

6 Devolution of the Australian male trope 158

7 Affirmation and rejection of masculinity 183

Conclusion 208

Index219
Figures and tables

Figures
0.1 Cartoon rendering of an “Aussie bloke” based on Paul Hogan’s
characterisation of Mick Dundee from the Crocodile Dundee
film series. 2
1.1 Two swagmen resting beneath a tree, Australia, c. 1887. 31
1.2 Gallipoli ANZACs at Broadmeadows Camp. 36
1.3 The boys and the boards, c. 1940. 39
1.4 Photograph of New South Wales v. Queensland at the 1933
Australian National Football Council Interstate Carnival,
Sydney Cricket Ground. 44
2.1 Photo of iconic Australian actor Paul Hogan promoting his film
Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (2001), 6 June 2001. 57
2.2 Recurring and overlapping themes in the magazines analysed. 73
3.1 Official Blokesworld logo featuring Ado and Camera 3. 88
5.1 A player from Gold Coast Suns prepares to tackle opponent
(West Coast Eagles) in Australian Rules football match, 15
September 2015. 145
6.1 Devolution of the Australian male trope. 159
6.2 Complex relationships between “good” and “bad” masculinity
ideals, as drawn from the participant interviews. 165
6.3 Conflation of bogan and Australian masculine identities. 177

Tables
2.1 Details about the magazines analysed. 64
3.1 Details about the Australian television shows analysed. 86
4.1 Participant demographic characteristics. 117
4.2 Participant descriptions. 118
Foreword

When Andrea Waling asked if I’d consider writing a foreword to White Masculin-
ity in Contemporary Australia, on the ground was fresh snow, the air was frigid
cold, and she told me about the warmth of Australia. The temperatures were polar
opposites. A polar vortex in North America while Australia battled bushfires dur-
ing a heatwave. At times, it seems like so much is different between our two geog-
raphies, the places in which we write, and yet our concerns are often so similar.
The critical study of masculinity is an important field of study, especially in our
age of so-called toxic masculinity. Waling’s White Masculinity in Contemporary
Australia is an innovative and important contribution to critical studies of men and
masculinities, and it broadens the scope of analysis to include the South, which is
to say, the southern hemisphere, while also providing detailed and nuanced read-
ings of the influence of race in the critical study of men and masculinities.
Waling’s study embarks upon a study of Australian masculinity in hopes of
understanding the historical narratives that underpin contemporary understand-
ings of men and masculinity. Truth be told, when I first read White Masculinity
in Contemporary Australia, I knew little about Australia, outside of Zumbo’s Just
Desserts, Crocodile Dundee (you call that a knife?), and Steve Irwin; my ideas
of Australia, and more particularly, Australian masculinity were limited. Waling’s
study provides an historical overview of Australian masculinity across the twen-
tieth and into the twenty-first century. One learns much about Australian mascu-
linity, from the larrikin to the bogan and bloke in Waling’s masterful study. In a
fashion similar to Michael Kimmel’s Manhood in America, Waling refuses the
presentist approach and argues that we have to understand contemporary mascu-
linity in relation to its history. That is, she refuses the “crisis narrative” and points
out that masculinity’s crises are neither new nor unique.
Australia, she argues, is a good case study because “Australia is thriving as a
site of men and masculinity research and as such provides an intrigues space to
examine how men relate to contemporary representations of masculinity”. Waling
joins a growing and indeed thriving group of scholars in Australia studying men
and masculinities. Her work will sit comfortably alongside that of Raewyn Con-
nell, Michael Flood, Bob Pease, Barbara Pini, Steve Roberts, and Christine Beas-
ley. Like her predecessors, Waling’s work braids together critical theory with “the
sociological imagination” to study men and masculinities in their complexities
xii Foreword
and nuance. For Waling, “masculinity is a project, one that is caught between
theoretical accounts of agency and structure”. This “both/and” approach is impor-
tant, because it imagines that both a system or structure and agency work not in
opposition to one another but are embedded within one another.
Throughout her study, which initially opens with an historical overview of the
Australian male as an icon, Waling draws on a wide range of materials to sustain
her argument. For instance, she weaves together analyses of men’s magazines and
television shows alongside interviews with men about their ideas of masculinity.
This is an impressive study that expands how we might study not only Australian
masculinity but a range of national masculinities, or even subcultural masculini-
ties, especially in light of recent debates about hybrid masculinities. Perhaps the
claim to any study of masculinity might be that it needs to extend beyond one
site of analysis, for instance, interviews, and to include another site, for instance,
magazines. Through an interdisciplinary approach, Waling is able to construct
a history of Australian masculinity that is complex and complicated. Her study
will undoubtedly influence how men and masculinities are studied in the future
because she refuses, in a sense, the coherence of discipline and works towards
a study that imagines that men and masculinities cannot be contained to, say,
sociology.
Even though we find ourselves on opposite ends of the world, I found myself
thinking about how White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia might figure in
a study of, say, Canadian masculinities. Her methods would provide rich material
for considering that study. White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia is a most
welcome contribution to a growing field of critical scholarship on men and mas-
culinities. Waling’s argument for post-structural theory in the study of men and
masculinities is important and will help to shape future arguments and debates.

Professor Jonathan A. Allan

Canada Research Chair in Queer Theory and
Professor in English and Creative Writing
Brandon University, Canada
Acknowledgements

The writing of this book, and the PhD on which it is based, has been one of both
frustration and self-doubt, of fulfilment and self-assurance. This journey could not
have been attempted nor completed without support, encouragement, and guid-
ance from a number of individuals. I would first like to thank the twenty partici-
pants who volunteered their time to take part in this study. Their participation was
instrumental in the success of this project. I would also like to thank friends who
helped in the acquisition of both retired and still in print men’s lifestyle magazines
for the qualitative content analysis component of this book.
My thanks to Andrew Singleton and Kirsten McLean, my doctoral supervisors.
From the initial inquiry into PhD supervision all the way to submission, both
Andrew and Kirsten have been incredible, guiding me through all the pains and
joys of qualitative research. Not only did they give generously of their time and
expertise, they kept me going when times were tough, asking insightful ques-
tions and offering invaluable advice. I could not have asked for better supervi-
sors. Thanks also to my PhD examiners Barbara Pini and Richard Howson who
encouraged the publication of this work. Additional thanks to a number of current
and former Monash University faculty, staff and students, including Amy Dobson,
Sue Stevenson, Jo Lindsay, Michael Janover, Nick Kimberley, JaneMaree Maher,
Catherine Strong, Sharon Pickering, Dharma Arunachalam, Kate Cregan, Jacob
Woods, Masha Davidenko, and Steve Roberts.
Since moving on from postgraduate study I have been incredibly fortunate
to have met, been supported by, or have collaborated with a number of amaz-
ing friends, students, and colleagues, including former and current staff at the
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University as
well as internationally. My thanks to David O’Keeffe, Anthony Lyons, Nicho-
las Marino, Lucy Nicholas, John Mercer, Janette Hughes, Chris Haywood, and
Duane Duncan.
A very special and heartfelt thanks to good friends and collaborators: James
Roffee, Jonathan A. Allan, and Frank G. Karioris, who have kept me sane dur-
ing the difficult times of writing and researching with their support, encourage-
ment, and, of course, the ever-important replenishment of wine; Steven Angelides
and Gary Dowsett, who have generously offered time and valuable insight on
my work (and not to mention salacious gossip!), and from whom I have already
xiv Acknowledgements
learnt so much; and Michael Kehler, Adam Bourne, Christopher Fisher, and Jen
Power, who have been incredibly gracious and supportive of my research.
I would like to thank my friends for their support and encouragement regard-
ing my research, both my new-found Australian adoptees and my long-time
Canucks. So much love goes out to Kathleen Nimigon, Natasha Nathoo, Kirsty
MacMichael, Mike Williams, Alex Williams, Todd Houghton, Emma Harris,
Nick Symes, Timothy Zeven, Damien Carter, Steve Wilson, and Sandra and Leon
Clouvas. A special thank you to Tom Cho for all of his hard work and support in
getting this manuscript together; this could not have happened without his bril-
liant copyediting and review skills.
I am indebted to my family, whose assistance, love, and encouragement are the
reasons I am here today. Words cannot express how grateful I am to my mother and
father, Diane and John Waling, for all of the sacrifices that they have made on my
behalf so I could pursue higher education. I would also like to thank my mother
and father-in-law, Karen and Neville Jolly, and my siblings-in-law, Kelly Drury
and Erin Jolly, who have provided countless instances of support when needed.
A big special thank you and an unlimited amount of love goes to my primary
partner Ryan Jolly who doubled as my IT support. This book would not have been
completed without him reminding me time and again that I could do this when
imposter syndrome struck and fixing yet another broken computer as a result of
my technological ineptitude. And, finally, love goes out to my two big fluffy mon-
sters, my fur babies Zeus and Misha, who have kept me company during the long,
lonely hours of book writing and who aided in the procrastination efforts.

***
Portions of Chapter 2, “Consumerism and the revival of the Aussie bloke” are drawn from
Waling, Andrea. 2014. “Heroes, Retros and Metros: Narratives of Conflicting Mascu-
linities within Contemporary Australian Media.” Outskirts: Feminism Along the Edge 30
(May). www.outskirts.arts.uwa.edu.au/volumes/volume-30/andrea-waling.
Portions of Chapter 7, “Affirmation and rejection of masculinity” are drawn from Waling,
Andrea. 2017. “We Are So Pumped Full of Shit by the Media: Masculinity, Magazines
and the Lack of Self-Identification.” Men and Masculinities 20 (4): 427–52.
Portions of the “Introduction” chapter, Chapter 4, “Defining ‘masculinity’,” and the “Con-
clusion” chapter are drawn from Waling, Andrea. 2019. “Rethinking Masculinity Stud-
ies: Feminism, Masculinity, and Poststructural Accounts of Agency and Emotional
Reflexivity.” Journal of Men’s Studies 20 (1): 89–107.
Introduction

The time has come to tear down irrelevant role models, crash through stereotypes
and set the record straight. To draw a new self-portrait of Aussie masculinity in
the 21st century in the words, perceptions and insights of the nation’s men. Warts
and all.
– Leggett and Hill, The Modern [Aussie] Man White Paper

My first exposure to Australian men, and more broadly Australian culture, came
by the way of stereotyped representations in US media. As a very young child, the
Disney animated film Rescuers Down Under (1990) was perhaps my first glimpse
of Australian masculinity, or, rather, an idea of the Australian man. The young
boy, Cody, the Australian hopping mouse, Jake, assisting the two American mice,
and the villain, Percival C. McLeach, representing an ocker poacher signified a
global imagining of a stereotype that became permeated in my romanticised per-
ception of Australia. It is my earliest memory of a vague conception of a place for
which I had no experience, and one that seemed, as I aged, to be inherently very
masculine, although at the time I had no real understanding as to what masculine
meant. I watched this film over and over again, a story about two American mice
who saved children, tasked to go to Australia to save the young boy from the ocker
poacher. I grew up with images of Australian men that corresponded to these
Disney personifications (see Figure 0.1). Subsequent renditions of Australian men
that made their way to Canada – the Crocodile Dundee film series, the late Steve
Irwin, Nickelodeon’s tongue-in-cheek and subtly raunchy Rocko’s Modern Life,1
and the Simpsons’ 1995 episode of “Bart vs. Australia” – continued this imagin-
ing. The men were cheeky, brave, easy-going, charming, and a little rough around
the edges.
Although I was not aware of any surfing icons, I did know that Australia was
well-known for its surfing beaches and bronzed surfers, and this came through
Australian brands of clothing such as Billabong and Rip Curl seeping into Cana-
dian stores, telling a story of sun and surf that seemed distant to someone residing
in the landlocked and often snow-covered province of Ontario, and, at times, the
wet and green and sometimes industrial landscapes of northern England. Beach
and bush became the locations in which I understood Australia – hot, sunny, and
2 Introduction

Figure 0.1 Cartoon rendering of an “Aussie bloke” based on Paul Hogan’s characterisation

of Mick Dundee from the Crocodile Dundee film series.
Source: Planet Urf/Shutterstock.com.

dry places to which I had little connection. Australia was a place in which there
were kangaroos, men dressed in khaki shirts and shorts, men who wrestled croco-
diles in both fiction and reality, and men with sun-kissed skin who surfed big
waves. The absence of women in these cultural depictions of Australia was appar-
ent and simultaneously unnoticeable by my young self. Other representations
such as Baz Luhrmann’s Australia (2008) confirmed my beliefs that Australia
 Introduction 3
was a particular country, a particular place that was home to a very specific kind
of man, a very specific embodiment of masculinity that I had yet to encounter in
any form, real or imagined, in English and Canadian culture.
I come to this study as an outsider,2 someone who grew up in Canada and spent
a large amount of her childhood travelling to northern England, where her parents
had emigrated. I came to Melbourne, Australia, for the first time in 2009 on a stu-
dent exchange programme for a semester, expecting blond, blue-eyed surfers and
dark-eyed larrikin men, to instead be met with a whole range of Australians and
recently migrated people. I realised that I had not even given a moment’s thought
as to the multicultural3 character of this city, nor had I even considered what
Australian women might be like, or those Australians who identify as transgen-
der or non-binary. I was struck by my own biases and beliefs about what I had
expected Australia to be and curious about my assumptions of Australia as being
a very White and masculine country – assumptions that I had not even thought
to question. And yet, in walking through Australian cities, such tropes of Austral-
ian masculine identity prevailed. “He” still existed, from appearances in post-
ers for tourists to take home to characters on long-running television shows like
Neighbours,4 Blokesworld,5 Bondi Rescue,6 and Home and Away.7 He was there in
celebrated AFL (Australian Football League) footy8 stars and commentators, and
I could garner glimpses of him in my everyday interactions with Australian men.
That mythology of masculinity prevailed in both old and new ways, and I was
intrigued by it. In brief conversations with people, I was assured that such tropes
were myths, not representative of true Australian men, but the images remained
in popular culture, the traits bubbled underneath the men I encountered. He was
there in the language they used, or, for some, a slight twinkle to their eyes that
spoke of larrikin antics. For some, it was the humour, the ability to make you
laugh; for others, sun-weathered faces and the pull of a charming smile to one
side. For some, it was their easy-going mannerisms, their embodiment of a mav-
erick in defying order and authority. For others, it was their no-nonsense attitude,
their ease in managing life. I was curious about where this myth came from, how
this myth was perpetuated, and what everyday Australian men felt about these
ideas in a setting rapidly shifting and changing with the onset of globalisation,
cosmopolitanism, technological revolution, and political waves concerning wom-
en’s rights and gender equality, migrant and asylum-seeking issues, increasing
class divides, and LGBTIQ+ issues.

Men and masculinity in Australia: recent debates

In late November 2013, the Men’s Strategic Roundtable, held at Parliament House
in Canberra on International Men’s Day, tabled a unique, tell-all study about how
Australian men understand their sense of masculinity. Brought about in wake of
the ongoing notion that Australian men are in a perpetual state of “crisis” regard-
ing their masculinity (Singleton 2008), The Modern [Aussie] Man White Paper
was subsequently made available to the public. The paper, by advertising agency
M&C Saatchi, presents the findings of a study of 140 Australian men that aims “to
4 Introduction
draw a line under historic truths and modern-day perceptions [about Australian
men], and help move society to a new place of heightened awareness and mutual
respect” (Leggett and Hill 2013, 25). Unlike previous studies regarding Austral-
ian identity and masculinity, this particular piece purports to be “more accurately”
about men’s lived experiences (25). It claims to outline what modern Australian
men are thinking and feeling regarding their gender roles and how commercial
brands fail to properly represent men – ironic, given that the report is by an adver-
tising agency. In particular, this study creates and assigns categories of masculine
identities based on men’s lived experiences, such as the “Broadband Connector,”
the “Nurturing Knight,” and the “Sensitive Cockatoo.”
I draw our attention to this particular study for a few reasons. It argues that it
will provide a unique insight into men’s raw emotions and a guide regarding how
both consumer companies that target the male demographic and greater society
can begin to shift their perceptions of negative understandings of masculinity. It
states that men feel they cannot engage with their “true masculinity,” and in line
with similar publications on reclaiming manhood, such as the Robert Bly’s Iron
John (1990) and Stephen Biddulph’s Manhood: A Guidebook for Men (2004), it
explains how society is failing men and what can be done to help them. Examples
of what M&C Saatchi believe that can help men regain their masculinity in Aus-
tralian society include “authentic” shopping environments geared to entice the
modern man, so he is able to purchase freely goods that will meet his masculine
needs (Leggett and Hill 2013, 43), and far-reaching generalisations regarding the
common interests of men, such as proclaiming that “sport is the common ground
that connects Modern [Aussie] Man with every male in Australia, regardless of
their degree of closeness” (25). While this report claims to discover “whether
Australian masculinity behind-the-scenes differs from the stereotypes of sporty,
resilient, self-mocking, laid-back, unromantic and outdoorsy” (23), it instead
offers an updated set of labels – new stereotypes – into which men ought to be
pigeonholed. Its main claim is that “men miss being treated like men. Real manly
men” (60), which is meant to be the solution in understanding men in modern
Australia.
This paper is an excellent example of how masculinity is typically analysed
within what some will term “pop masculinity” culture and is deserving of a num-
ber of critiques. This paper is heavily reliant on an understanding of masculinity
that it is innate and biologically situated, as articulated in the following statement:

Australian men acknowledge imperfections, but display evolution. They per-

ceive an abundance of inaccurate, feminised and out-dated narratives used
by brands to engage men and masculinity, which they attribute to a lack of
insight on how to talk to men in the 21st century.
(Leggett and Hill 2013, 60)

The use of the terms “inaccurate” and “feminised” are perhaps the most enlight-
ening about this approach. Instead of exploring the complexities of these narra-
tives and their function as being representative of men, the authors instead claim
 Introduction 5
that the narratives require “updating” to be congruent with the categories that the
report’s authors ascribe to contemporary men. While it provides a set of themes
regarding masculinity (e.g., the Broadband Connector), it is dependent on these
fixed categories that are meant to speak for every man in Australia. It creates new,
fixed definitions of the Australian man, replacing and erasing historical tropes of
Australian identity and masculinity. This paper reinforces a hegemonic ideal of
masculinity with some quick fixes and alterations to its meaning but claims that
an authentic modern Australian man has a set of experiences that speak for all
Australian men and men residing in Australia who may not identify as such. It
attempts to lock men into categories rather than understand how particular catego-
ries may lock men in or not apply to men in the everyday. It fails to uncover how
these men determine the meaning behind their sense of masculinity and lacks an
analysis of whether theoretical examinations of masculinity and representations
correspond with men’s lived experiences. But what is significant about the paper,
despite the criticisms I have raised, is that it is a conspicuous and well-publicised
attempt to examine Australian men’s experiences, thoughts, and feelings about
contemporary ideas of masculinity. While reliant on trite representations and
preconceived stereotypes to inform its findings, the authors’ study suggests that
there is a need to investigate men’s inner ideas and feelings about their sense of
masculinity.
This book takes seriously this challenge by reviewing historical narratives of
Australian identity and masculinity and examining what these mean to the lived
experiences of urban-based Australian men. Instead of relying on representations
of masculinity to categorise Australian men, as other studies have done, it uses
these representations as a way to investigate how men feel about these categorisa-
tions and whether the categorisations are relevant to how they come to understand
their sense of masculinity in contemporary Australia.
Masculinity has been a topic of discussion in both the academic and non-aca-
demic spheres of society for several decades now. From self-help books that offer
to help men reclaim their lost sense of masculinity to public concern over boys’
progress in schools and hegemonic practices of White heterosexual masculine
behaviours within sporting institutions, masculinity has been examined and cri-
tiqued by numerous theorists in their attempt to understand the intersection of
gender and society. Some scholars in varying fields of biological and sociobio-
logical sciences have attempted to theorise masculinity as an inherent, biological
construction that is a natural extension of the sexed body (see Kimmel 2011 for
an overview and critique of these). For others, masculinity is a purely social con-
struct, an edifice that is dependent on its social and environmental surroundings
(e.g., Moynihan 1998; Kimmel 2011). Notions of an ideal masculinity, then, are
entwined within the fabric of society, where they inform and are informed by the
institutions that uphold them. In examining the significance of masculinity, schol-
ars within fields such as sociology, criminology, anthropology, and gender studies
have sought to rationalise how masculinity is constructed and its apparent impact
on men. Sociologists such as Raewyn Connell (1987, 1990, 2001) have argued
that masculinity is constructed and maintained through hierarchical relationships
6 Introduction
in which the pinnacle, “hegemonic” masculine ideal subordinates other identities
and renders them feminised and non-masculine. For Connell (1987, 1990, 2001),
men are emotionally suppressed by the demanding aspects of maintaining an ideal
masculine nature and are conscious of this suppression. Crisis theory has been
used as another explanation, where men’s sense of masculinity is thought to be in
a state of crisis (Edwards 2006; Freeman 2002). By placing blame on the gains of
feminism, crisis theory argues that men are unable to fulfil their masculine roles
and are suffering as a result (Edwards 2006; Freeman 2002).
In considering the ways in which masculinity is produced and subsequently
communicated, various theorists have examined the institutions that men find
themselves in and the rising influence of media. Television shows and lifestyle
magazines depict various narratives of ideal masculinity that men are pressured
to uphold (e.g., MacKay et al. 2009; Mikosza 2003), while institutions like sport
instil particular qualities of competitiveness, aggression, and strength (e.g., Mess-
ner 1990a, 1990b; Miller 1998; Parker 1996). But perhaps this is not the case for
all men, including those who are thought to be positioned below a hierarchical
ideal of masculinity. Some men may not actively think about their identity as
gendered, and theoretical examinations of men and their sense of masculinity are
lacking in this form of analysis. Some scholars are quick to argue that particular
representations of men impact men in particular ways (e.g., Harris 1995), but the
question remains as to what these same men think about these representations, and
whether these ideals actually have bearing on their everyday lives.
So why the focus on Australia? To answer this question, it is first necessary
to provide a brief overview of studies into men and masculinity in Australia.
Raewyn Connell, a leading sociologist and scholar in Australia, is responsible for
the groundbreaking and conceptually rigorous studies into men and masculinity.
While historically the study of men and masculinity can be traced to the 1970s
work of the National Sexism League in America (see Kimmel 1987) as a response
to men’s rights and men’s liberation groups and building on the labour of feminist
scholars, it is Connell’s theory of gender relations and power, hegemonic mascu-
linity, that I argue brought the specific field of critical studies in men and mascu-
linity into existence in Australia. Australia continues to produce high-calibre work
in the field of men and masculinity and is home to a number of men’s movements
and groups, some of which are in support of, and others actively resistant to,
feminist gains and equality. Research pertaining specifically to the study of men
and masculinity in Australia is quite vast, including works that explore migration
and identity, men’s health, men and rurality, men and class, men and domestic
violence, sporting culture, men’s bodies, men and sexuality, and men and educa-
tion, amongst others.
A multitude of studies, both qualitative and quantitative, have focused on Aus-
tralian men’s physical and emotional health, including men’s high rates of suicide
in rural areas (Alston 2012) and men’s difficulty in engaging in help-seeking for
their ailments (O’Brien, Hunt, and Hart 2005). The Men’s Shed movement has
also been a popular area of focus. In Australian culture, a home’s backyard “shed”
has been imagined as a place for a man to spend time relaxing and engaging in
 Introduction 7
masculinised domestic work. As part of the Men’s Shed movement, a Men’s Shed
is a not-for-profit organisation, with an associated “shed” venue, that presents
health and well-being programmes for men. Derived out of a need to address
emotional, mental, and physical health issues with Australia’s ageing male baby
boomer population and the long-standing argument that masculinity creates and
sustains barriers for men of all ages to engage in help-seeking behaviours, this
movement has become a central focal point in attempting to address men’s health
issues (Waling and Fildes 2017). The movement has also expanded its borders
outside of Australia, with similar formats springing up in countries such as the
UK, Canada, Ireland, and the US (Waling and Fildes 2017). In other areas, inti-
mate partner and domestic violence is a large scholarly field. Violence is perhaps,
for many Australian men, an everyday reality in both their experience of and/or
production of violence. Domestic and sexual violence rates of men as perpetrators
are high, with both men and women as targets. Royal commissions into family
violence (established in 2015) and institutional responses to child sexual abuse
(established in 2013) and research centres and programmes devoted to the study
of men’s violence have brought forth policy and legal considerations taking into
account studies of masculinity in Australian culture. With a country highly focused
on sports and active lifestyles, alongside iconic Australian actors in Hollywood
known for their muscular and fit bodies (e.g., Chris and Liam Hemsworth, Hugh
Jackman), the topic of men’s bodies in Australia has also received high attention.
Sporting men are a particular focus, with scholarship ranging from explorations of
men’s and boys’ body image (Duncan 2008), to Australian sports players’ use of
performance-enhancing drugs (Dunn et al. 2011), to Australia’s rising bodybuild-
ing culture (Griffiths et al. 2017). Critical considerations of men’s potential to
engage in feminism are strong with the works of Flood (2015) and Pease (2002),
while scholars such as Beasley (2015b) have reflected on re-theorising how we
come to understand the relationship between masculinity and heterosexuality.
More recently, the Manbox study (The Men’s Project and Flood 2018), developed
from similar studies conducted in the UK and the US, released quantitative find-
ings highlighting that young Australian men continue to believe in problematic
ideals of what we might call global masculinity.
Indeed, Australia is thriving as a site of men and masculinity research, and, as
such, provides an intriguing space to examine how men relate to contemporary
representations of masculinity. More importantly, though, Australia has a unique
take on the ideal Australian man within these considerations. Its imagery of colo-
nial frontiersmen, surf lifesavers, and ANZACs (Australian and New Zealand
Army Corps), along with contemporary sporting larrikins and everyday blokes,
speaks to a major thread that appears to run across these various tropes that seems
uniquely Australian. While attention has been paid to Australian identity and
masculinity, this has been largely done in a fractured manner. Focus on Austral-
ian masculine identity has been closely tied to specific identities and categories,
specific time periods in Australian culture, specific experiences of certain social
institutions (i.e., family, sports, sexuality), or attempts to problematise the expe-
rience of men in negotiating ideals of masculinity. As such, there is a dearth of
8 Introduction
research that ties together how icons of Australian identity and masculinity are
linked to contemporary experiences of Australian men, in particular in the urban
context. Are urban men removed from such mythology? Can Australian identity
and masculinity only be understood within the rural context? How might young,
urban Australian men negotiate the contradicting imagery of old ideas of Austral-
ian identity and masculinity and new, emerging ideas of transnational or global
masculinity? National and international theorisations about masculinity, media,
and men’s lived experiences are limited in their ability to capture the complexities
of exploring how race, class, and gender intersect with mythology, transnation-
alism, and globalised cultures. The emphasis on categorising men’s experience
either into identity descriptors (e.g., the metrosexual) or by using frameworks
such as hegemonic masculinity does not adequately capture the complexities of
relationships between media, myth, and lived experience. This book suggests a
need to challenge and move beyond such understandings.
White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia: The Good Ol’ Aussie Bloke is
concerned with a particular set of ideals that have powerfully framed Anglocen-
tric, or White-dominated identity, masculinity, and culture in Australia. I draw
from various sources to reflect on this ideal, from representation, to space and
place, to everyday experience, but it is important to state that this is a very spe-
cific understanding of Australian identity and culture – what we might call an
Anglo Celtic, heterosexual and cisgender understanding – that is not reflective of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander migrant, or LGBTIQ+ experiences. This is
not to undermine the significance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men,
migrant men, and queer9 men’s experiences in Australia. It is important to articu-
late their importance and value in understanding Australian identity and culture
more broadly, in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures that have
been brutalised by colonial and imperialist power, and, more recently, migrant
men’s experiences in a country with a history of strict immigration laws and a
lack of support and welcome for migrant cultures. At the time of writing this
book, LGBTIQ+ communities continue to fight back against discrimination, and
those who seek to transition their gender or identify as gender-nonconforming
continue to battle prejudice, discrimination, and hatred on both systemic and eve-
ryday levels. However, in this book I work with an Anglo Celtic or White model
of Australian identity and masculinity and, by extension, a White understanding
of Australian culture and identity, as this is the model that continues to permeate
local and global myths and imaginings of the iconic Australian man. I recognise
that such a model is problematic and that it relies heavily on the denigration and
maltreatment of those deemed Other. However, my purpose here is not to high-
light these aspects of denigration and maltreatment, but rather, to explore both the
emergence of this model and how contemporary Australian men relate to its ide-
als. Such a model has been interrogated in fractured ways, generally focusing on
historical representations such as the swagman, the surfer, and the ANZAC, but
there has been no attempt to collate these ideals and determine their relevance in
contemporary White Australian men’s lives.
 Introduction 9
Theorising gender, masculinity, and mythmaking
This book positions masculinity as a contested entity, one that carries multiple
meanings across time and space. I do not seek to find an “Australian masculinity”
in a categorical sense. Rather, I explore how myths and ideals of masculinity, both
local and global, have become embedded or are rejected in contemporary imagin-
ings of being an Australian male. In this sense, masculinity is not something that
I am necessarily defining, but rather, something I am seeking to deconstruct and
reassemble. I refrain from describing masculinity with a categorical signifier, as
well as using the plural “masculinities.” I do this for two reasons. The first is that
there is a tendency within the field of men and masculinity studies to set up cat-
egorical descriptions of masculinity as an attempt to theorise it (Berggren 2014;
Beasley 2012, 2013, 2015a; Waling 2019). This results in a plethora of “types”
of masculinity that continue to fixate it, rather than allow masculinity to have
multiple modes and practices, even within frameworks that promote “multiple”
masculinities (see Bridges and Pascoe 2014; Waling 2019). Multiple masculini-
ties are, in essence, just a set of types. The second is that the continuing man-
ner of attempts to categorise different types of masculinities has led to multiple
theories of masculinity beyond Connell’s account of gender relations and power
(inclusive, sticky, hybrid, mosaic). Such theories are useful, such as Bridges and
Pascoe’s (2014) account of hybrid masculinities and Berggren’s (2014) phenom-
enological theory of sticky masculinity, but in essence seem to be variations on a
theme. In this book, I am not looking to use or discover a “theory” of masculinity,
nor to prove one. Rather, I aim to explore how everyday Australian men relate to
their social world with regard to their own embodiments and ideas of masculinity,
and their subsequent masculinity projects, against the myths and legends of the
“Aussie bloke.”
In (White) Masculinity in Contemporary Australia: The Good Ol’ Aussie Bloke,
I understand masculinity in the same manner that feminists and gender scholars
have understood femininity – not as a fixed type, but rather as a fluid and ever-
changing concept that is dependent on time and place, constituted within gender
relationality, and one that shapes and is shaped by the social world. In this book,
I do something quite different to what has been done in relation to both Australian
identity and masculinity, and the study of masculinity more generally. Drawing
on interviews with Australian men, I do not seek to impose a masculine structure
or construct onto the men interviewed, nor do I measure what kind of masculin-
ity they engage with and its impact on their social lives. In other words, I am not
assuming a pre-defined masculinity for these men as way to explain their behav-
iour and engagement with social phenomena, as other studies have done (Elliot
2018; The Men’s Project and Flood 2018). Rather, I seek to see whether their
conceptual understandings of masculinity in Australia align with iconic imagin-
ings. Masculinity is a project, one that is caught between theoretical accounts
of agency and structure. These men are not “victims” of masculinity per se, but
rather, social agents who engage with, and actively produce, what masculinity
10 Introduction
means to them (McCarry 2007; Waling 2019). In this sense, these men are agen-
tic in their engagements with masculinity, but are not positioned as being solely
defined by it, as much literature might suggest. This is not to say that masculin-
ity does not feature prominently in their lives or may not have a hegemonic and
structuralist presence, as Connell and others might suggest. Rather, it is to break
apart the notion that such men are effectively “trapped” by masculinity without
the capacity to reflect and critically engage with it, or that masculinity is a purely
structural or categorical artifice with no capacity for agentic fluidity or flexibility
(Waling 2019).
I am interested in the lived experiences of everyday Australian men and how
their conceptions of masculinity either correspond to, or differ greatly from, the
myths that permeate the Australian imagination. This involves critical thinking
and research in the areas of gender, sex, and identity to explore masculinity in a
way that incorporates both a critical examination of its nature – how it is practised
and sustained within society – and its intersections with other social factors such
as race, sexuality, and class. My approach, then, is aligned with performativity
theory and processes of mythscapes that demonstrate a way of looking at mas-
culinity that does not problematise it, but, rather, examines how masculinity is
shaped, transformed, and maintained. Further, I consider accounts of interpersonal
subjectivities and feminist poststructural accounts of agency to better understand
men’s engagements with Australian myths of masculinity. I will now discuss each
of these aspects of my approach in the next four sub-sections.

Mythscapes
Reeser (2010) examines masculinity by investigating the use of particular social
methods for creating and maintaining masculine ideologies. He argues that mas-
culinities that appear to be in a state of stability are in constant flux with other
hybrid forms, and are easily circulated through media and other social institu-
tions (Reeser 2010). He maintains that social methods such as images, myths, and
language are interconnected and rely on each other to produce and maintain nor-
malised masculine ideologies. These normalised ideologies require investigation
as they can often function as invisible norms and be difficult to locate in a given
discourse. A mythscape is “the temporally and spatially extended discursive realm
in which the myths of the nation are forged, transmitted, negotiated, and recon-
structed constantly” (Bell 2003, 63). In other words, mythscapes are processes in
which images, language, local myths/narratives, and physical embodiments work
to create and sustain a nationally held belief or ideal. Images and cultural images
not directly about men but related to masculinity communicate on a visual level
what masculinity may look like as a static idea (Reeser 2010). Myths function in a
similar way to “make certain forms of masculinity seem eternal and unchanging,
not open to change or variation, and not ideological in nature” (Reeser 2010, 25).
Images then become myths when they become integral parts of a masculinity nar-
rative, which is done through widespread enculturation and perpetuation based on
a culture’s assumptions about its “mythological” origins (25).
 Introduction 11
Specific examples of this include Whitehead’s (2002, 125) description of the
urban male myth of men (or mythscape), where images of successful men cre-
ate a space in which “the public world of men is sustained through a rich, com-
plex combination of myth, mystery and materiality.” Myths function as “truths”
about “reality” and are taken up as such (144). These myths include the “public
world of men, men’s heroic projects, men’s empires, men as (natural) managers
and leaders, professional man, superman – these are all myths of (heterosexual)
and hyper-masculinity” (144). Intersubjective constructionism, a “shared under-
standing amongst individuals whose interaction is based on common interests and
assumptions that form the ground for their communication” (Rogoff 1990, 34),
examines these “realities” by investigating the manner in which language models
and shapes descriptions of what is “real” and how this in turn defines reality for
different groups, individuals, and between subjects and subjectivities (Edwards
and Potter 1992; Grace 1987; Owen 1995). Language plays a significant role in
the process of mythscapes, since language gives meaning to the realities that we
experience. We understand masculinity through the ways in which it is talked
about, and as a result, the ways in which language functions are important to the
study of masculinity because they influence how we perceive masculinity (Reeser
2010). Through language and images, “myths have the effect of retroactively
reading a given idea of masculinity back onto all masculinity in order to make it
appear universal when in fact it is fabricated” (27). By examining images, myths,
and language, we can begin to unpack what masculinist10 ideologies are currently
being perpetuated for contemporary Australian men, and how Australian men
may or may not embody and perform them.

Performativity
As myths, images, and language continue to structure and shape a multitude
of representational masculinist ideologies, we need to examine how they
are both informing and are informed by notions of identity (Edwards 2006).
Socio-constructionist theory is focused on how identity is informed at the
level of doing, but frequently fails “to problematise identity at the level of
being” (101). Examinations of masculinity are generally focused on what men
do (hard labour and heterosexual relations) or who men are (highly educated
doctors or working tradesmen), but neglect to study what men are (Edwards
2006). Socio-constructionist theory neglects the physical embodiment and the
associated performative nature of gender and masculinity. Gender “is a human
production that depends on everyone constantly ‘doing gender’ ” (West and
Zimmerman 1987, 126) but is also inscribed directly into physical bodies and
becomes embodied (Lorber 1994, 58).
While many theorists attempt to deconstruct gender through a separation of
the “self” and gender, Whitehead (2002, 148) argues that the “I” or the self in
the private sense offers a location within a social order that is bounded by social
status, consistently gendered, and cannot be separated as two distinct ideologies.
He maintains: “I cannot ontologically exist outside my gendered landscape.
12 Introduction
I am a masculine subject, for, like all before me, my gender was stamped on
me at birth. Thus, there is an embodiment to my gender that I cannot dispose of
easily, if at all” (148). He contends that an examination of the intersubjectivity
of men is necessary beyond materiality and illusion; that the “inner” world of
the male including “the emotional labours, of men, their intimacies, sexualities,
relationships – all that is private in the personal, individual sense – require
unpacking and illuminating” (149). He states that the male body is a place in
which masculinity is both a fantasy and a materiality (186). He further argues
that there is a system of possibilities open to the existence of the male body
where being and becoming a male carries political conditions and potentialities
of gender identity (183). Gender is embedded with ideas of identity; it offers
a spatial location of identity. To begin to examine the individual we must also
explore the circumstance and predisposition of their gender. This is where a
combination of socio-constructionism and performativity theory is essential in
order to uncover the many facets of masculine identities.
A performative approach to gender is best understood as the process in which
the gendered self is understood as “a socially negotiated performance,” as opposed
to an innate quality (Brickell 2006). Performative theory rejects the essentialist
notion that gender derives from the biological makeup of our organs, where it
is considered a natural extension of our biological productivities (Rubin 1984).
Judith Butler’s (1988) groundbreaking critique of this idea proposes that gender
is better understood as a performative act of the body. She argues that the “body
becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised and con-
solidated through time” (523). Roles and characteristics of gender are produced,
reproduced, and legitimised through what we do, a succession of unconscious acts
that are repeated, normalised, and naturalised (525). Butler’s (1988) understand-
ing of performativity “suggests that masculinities appear within language and
society as effects of norms and power relations rather than pre-social biological
essences” (Brickell 2005, 27). Individuals “may vary on many of the components
of gender and may shift genders temporarily or permanently, but they must fit into
the limited number of gender statuses their society recognises” (Lorber 1994, 58).
However, as Brickell (2005) suggests, Butler’s (1988) performative approach
is problematic because it neglects notions of identity in terms of subjectivities
and agencies, and does not question which subjective acts are regulated by gov-
erning structural and systemic forces nor the extent to which subjective acts are
voluntary. It does not provide an account of the mediation between subjective
norms and acts, nor does it question the role of agency in the performance of mas-
culinity (Brickell 2005). This is somewhat amended through Butler’s adoption
of Derrida’s (1988) theory on performativity and citations in her works Bodies
That Matter (1993) and Gender as Performance (1996), where heterosexist and
hegemonic cultural citations are crucial to the performance of masculinity and
cannot be reproduced themselves. Rather, they must be cited by individuals in
order to be reproduced and maintained (Butler 1993, 1996; Allen 1998). As Allen
(1998, 463) explains, cultural citations are the process in which “one is paradoxi-
cally both subject to the power of the heterosexist cultural norms that constrain
 Introduction 13
and compel one’s performance of gender and simultaneously enabled to take up
the position of a subject in and through them.” Nevertheless, this amendment is
still problematic as it neglects the manner in which men’s agency and notions of
identity influence and impact these citations.
Brickell (2005) argues that combining an alternative methodology to But-
ler’s is necessary to bridge this gap in theorising masculinity by using Goff-
man’s (1979) approach to performativity theory. In doing so, we can examine
the “reflexive links between subjectivity, agency, and social structures” that con-
tribute to the “subversive performances of masculinities” (Brickell 2005, 29).
Goffman’s (1979) development of performative theory uses a theatre analogy,
where individuals perform both “on-stage” and “off-stage” in society. “On-stage”
or “front-stage,” individuals perform their identities under the scrutiny of others,
while back-stage or off-stage, individuals practice in order to achieve a success-
ful performance (Goffman 1979; Brickell 2005). The success of a performance
hinges on whether the individual has effectively manipulated how others interpret
the situation (Goffman 1979; Brickell 2005). This is accomplished through what
Goffman (1979, 10) describes as frames and schedules, mechanisms that catego-
rise the subjective experience by bestowing meanings that allow for individuals
to interpret social events. Frames and schedules govern the meanings of these acts
and performances in a given social context that are “reinforced by the doing of
gender within social interactions” (Brickell 2005, 26). Schedules and frames are
constantly cited and used within interactive settings (Brickell 2005), and individu-
als are characterised as members of particular gendered and sexed categories by
others when they display a “competence and willingness to sustain an appropriate
schedule of displays” (Goffman 1979, 8).
Notions of self and subjectivity are then understood to be successes resulting
from a publicly sanctioned presentation (Brickell 2005, 32). Frameworks do
not essentially determine these behaviours, but rather govern their inputs and
constraints (Goffman 1974; Brickell 2005). Performances of masculinity then
not only reflect their pre-existence; they simultaneously construct and socially
constitute these masculine selves in the social world (Brickell 2005, 29). As
Brickell (2005) suggests, performativity can help to discuss how masculinity
is formulated and structured in social life, but, on its own, it cannot necessar-
ily help to construct a comprehensive look into the multitude of dimensions of
masculinity. Rather, a combination of performative and socio-constructionist
perspectives allows for a more in-depth analysis of the formulation and mainte-
nance of masculinity.

Interpersonal subjectivity
The location of the interpersonal is significant when understanding how men not
only negotiate their masculinity within themselves, but amongst others as well.
Since masculinity can be understood as an aspect of personhood that requires
some external acknowledgement from and continuous engagement with others
alongside the broader social institutions that work to shape and maintain it, the
14 Introduction
interpersonal relations between men when constructing personal interpretations
of masculinity are of high interest. This is perhaps best understood through Con-
nell’s notion of a hegemonic gender order, where

masculinities are configurations of practice within gender relations, a struc-

ture that includes large-scale institutions and economic relations as well as
face-to-face relationships and sexuality. Masculinity is institutionalised in this
structure as well as being an aspect of individual character and personality.
(Connell 2000, 29)

Connell’s (2000) discussion of the hegemonic gender order maintains that men
have different interpretations of their ability to operate within a hegemonic
structure on both an institutional and a personal level. In accordance with this
approach, the interpersonal/personal does not necessarily determine hegemonic
structure, but rather works to produce difference within that structure. Men may
feel pressured to aspire to an ideal masculine identity as set by larger social insti-
tutions. However, when achieving the same goal, men can nonetheless differ in
how they interpret the path to reconciling these pressures amongst themselves and
with other men. By engaging with the interpersonal/personal, we have a stronger
foundation for examining the role of agency and self-reflexivity, as illustrated by
Goffman’s (1979) theatre analogy for the performance of gender and, more spe-
cifically, masculinity. In doing so, we can determine how Australian men relate to
local myths and representations outlined by Reeser (2010).

Structure and agency

The concept of agency is understood as the capacity for one to act in a particular
environment. One of the major concerns in feminist inquiry is women’s agency
regarding the choices they make to engage in a sexist culture. In feminist think-
ing and inquiry, women’s and girls’ capacity to make agentive choices is often
debated, in particular considering sexual agency, their engagement with practices
of femininity, and their adherence to or rejection of patriarchal ideals. In structur-
alist accounts, agency is generally understood as something individuals possess,
positioned in “opposition to structure, as a quality that is outside the social order
and can be brought to bear on it to resist its authority” (Harris and Dobson 2015,
146). However, poststructural accounts of agency argue that agency is a relational
process,

produced in the course of practices under a whole variety of . . . constraints

and relations of force. Our own “agency” is then resultant of the ontology we
have folded into ourselves in the course of our history and our practice.
(Rose 1996, 189)

Gill (2007a) suggests that agency is largely believed to be an internal quality that
is resistant to social and cultural influence, whereby individuals have complete
 Introduction 15
control over the choices they make in their life. A lack of agency, by contrast, is
where individuals are solely influenced by dominating cultural and social forces.
While early work on women and femininity have positioned women as being
oppressed by the constraints of femininity and its associated practices, thereby
lacking agency (Bartky 2002), later works have sought to explore how women
reconcile and negotiate engagement with particular practices of perceived oppres-
sive femininity, such as fashion (Duits and van Zoonen 2006) and sexualisation
(Gill 2012) in a society in which awareness of the oppressive nature of these
practices is heightened.
While some works attempt to grant women full autonomy and respect, Gill
(2007c, 153) argues that this has led to evacuated notions of cultural influence and
the increasing fetishisation of “choice.” Gill (2007b, 73) maintains that women’s
consumption and engagement with certain practices of femininity and sexual-
ity are framed as “choices” but these framings neglect cultural influence and the
complex ways in which power can operate. Gill offers a personal narrative as an
example:

I am interested in why any compelling understanding of the influence of cul-

ture is omitted in this account, and why the “choices” to be “respected” are
deemed to be arrived at autonomously. I know for myself that many of my
choices (particularly those that relate to bodily appearance) are arrived at any-
thing but autonomously: I see a new style – the cut of a trouser, the shape of a
shoe – and I vow to myself I will never wear it. Sometimes I even ask friends
incredulously if they can understand why, for example, low-waisted dresses
or smocked tops could have become fashionable. Then, slowly, impercep-
tibly, my feelings change and before long I am buying that item, wearing it
and indeed cherishing it as the most beautiful thing in my w ­ ardrobe – until
the reverse process occurs (usually more slowly) and I eventually end up
wondering how I could ever have believed it looked good. None of this is
governed by my unique individual preferences but has everything to do with
my daily exposure to a cultural habitat of images that relentlessly shapes my
tastes, desires and what I find beautiful.
(2007b, 73)

Gill does not assume full agentive choice here, but neither does she articulate
that she is only a product of systemic and cultural forces. Rather, she highlights
the complexity occurring in how she negotiates and understands her choice of
purchasing a particular piece of clothing. What Gill (2007b) offers that is differ-
ent to masculinity theorising is the emphasis on agentive engagement with prac-
tices associated with femininity, rather than simply analysing whether women
subscribe to or reject particular types of femininity. Gill (2007b) does not assume
that women are only products of a cultural system who have no ability to reflect
on the choices they make, nor does she suggest that women are free from systemic
or cultural pressures. For Gill (2007b), agency is a complex relational process
produced under a variety of constraints and relations of force. In other words,
16 Introduction
agency is a conditional possibility for negotiating discourse and subjectivity. It is
produced through encounters with both discourse and subjectivity; it is not pre-
existing, but rather made possible as individuals interact with the social world.
McGladrey (2015) also argues in a similar way for a consideration of agency in
girlhood studies. Drawing on the work of Bae and Ivashkevich (2012), McGladrey
argues that

feminist scholars [need to] give voice to the full range of affect that girls
encounter in their relationships with femininity, including emotions like
desire, fantasy, and pleasure in “playing with” gender scripts that do not
neatly map onto feminists’ impulse to construct girls as rational agents who
can transcend illogical gender roles through cognitive consciousness-raising
activities.
(McGladrey 2015, 182)

Young girls need to be considered beyond a simple assumption that they are
attempting to only subscribe to or reject femininity, and instead consider how
they might play with different gendered scripts in varying ways. In order to better
understand how young girls engage with particular practices of femininity, a con-
sideration of how they negotiate varied and complex performances and respec-
tive audiences needs to be considered. For McGladrey (2015), young girls are
embedded in a complex agentive process, in which they may be aware of their
engagement with particular practices as being socially influenced and potentially
problematic, and yet simultaneously enjoy and find pleasure in engaging with
these same practices.
We can usefully draw from this work to understand how men engage in prac-
tices of masculinity. Instead of determining whether or not men subscribe to or are
oppressed by a particular type of masculinity, considering how men engage across
time and place, and their capacity for agentive investments in practices, provides
a better understanding of the complex relationship between men’s lived experi-
ences, and structural and systematic forces of masculinity.

The study
This research builds on previous works exploring the historical identity of the
Australian male but departs from a representational contextualisation of the rela-
tionship between Australian identity and masculinity. This book instead explores
how everyday Australian men engage with tropes and imagery of masculinity.
While there are a few books that speak to Australian identity and masculinity
(e.g., Ward 1958), very few focus on masculinity as a central component to the
study and instead focus on specific time periods (Crotty 2001; Seal 2004; Hogg
2012; Bellanta 2012) or cultural practices (Donaldson and Tomsen 2003; Evers
2010). For example, Nile, Moore, and Saunders’s (1998) collection of essays
concerning Australian identity and masculinity focuses on specific identities and
historical periods, such as Saunders’ chapter on the surf lifesaver of the 1930s,
 Introduction 17
and Moore’s chapter that explores colonial manhood. Moreover, these identities
are considered as separate entities in such works, with little to connect them or
trace their chronological re-embodiment throughout Australia’s history. Metusela
and Waitt’s (2009) work on tourism and Australian beach culture only devotes
one chapter to the relationship between Australian beach culture and masculinity,
while Seal (2004) explores the creation of the ANZAC as national mythology, but
its relationship to masculinity is assumed, rather than critically questioned.
Further, there are no recent books that explore Australian identity and mascu-
linity in contemporary culture, and nothing that examines how contemporary Aus-
tralian men actually engage with or reject Australian tropes of masculinity that
are presented to them. Books such as those by Crotty (2001) and Hogg (2012) are
situated within a specific Australian historical period, effectively illustrating the
relationship between identity, masculinity, and cultural practices. Both of these
works do well to trace the relationship between re-embodied manifestations of
the iconic Australian male, but do not link these manifestations to contemporary
cultural representations. Donaldson and Tomsen’s (2003) edited collection and
Coad’s (2002) work explore the contemporary context of Australian identity and
masculinity, but while both works engage with lived experiences of masculinity
and Australian identity, they both have a tendency to reframe masculinity as an
issue or a hindrance in men’s lives, and neither pay much attention to historical
ideals of Australian identity. Evers (2010) is the exception, exploring masculinity
and Australian identity by making a link between male surfing culture, geography,
and politics. What is currently missing in academic scholarship is an examination
of how contemporary Australian urban men navigate and understand their own
sense of masculinity, and whether representations found within forms of media
like Australian magazines and television shows actually have or continue to have
an influence on the masculinity projects of these men.
Contemporary narratives of masculinity within Australia have relied on
establishing and maintaining particular tropes of an “ideal” masculine identity,
communicated through various forms of media. Scholars have examined historical
representations of Australian male identity within late nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century art, literature, and media (e.g., Moore 1998; Saunders 1998),
but very little has been done in unpacking the current circulating narratives and
what Australian men have to say about these. This qualitative study examines the
lived experiences of Australian men regarding how they understand and perceive
their sense of masculinity in light of dominant narratives. It examines the process
of mythmaking in the construction of these tropes, their continued currency in
Australian society, and how men respond to these ideologies of masculinity.
Despite the growing abundance of research about masculinity and masculine
identities, there is an absence of qualitative research about masculinity within
Australia that deals directly with aspects of mythmaking and representations of
masculinity. Most qualitative research has centred on subcultures of masculinity
(such as surf or car culture) or focused on particular aspects of masculine identi-
ties (health, education, and violence), but very little research has been done on
contemporary representations of masculinity and how men make sense of these.
18 Introduction
Qualitative analysis – generally “characterised by the simultaneous collection and
analysis of data whereby both mutually shape each other” (Ustick 2007, 2) –
allows for the emergence of new insights into preconceived notions about a social
phenomenon such as masculinity.
Data for this study consisted of two parts. The first part – a qualitative con-
tent analysis of three Australian-produced television shows and four Australian-
produced editions of men’s lifestyle magazines that are by men, about men, and
targeted at men – was conducted to determine what representations of mascu-
linity are available for consumption. The analysed magazines and shows were
purposively sampled. The second part – in-depth qualitative semi-structured
interviews – was conducted with twenty Australian men aged between 18 and
35 years who identified as at least third generation Australian, most of whom iden-
tified as heterosexual. The men in this study are, in many ways, strikingly ordi-
nary. Many of them have grown up in regional or rural areas of Australia and have
come to Melbourne for work or post-secondary study. Most work in white-collar
professions or are studying to have a career in such professions. Some were single
and actively seeking a partner, while others were in long-term relationships. All
seemed to be caught between ideals of traditional Australian identity and mas-
culinity and existing in an increasingly globalised, multicultural, and presumed
post-feminist culture.

Book summary
Organised around central themes of identity, masculinity, and culture, this book
presents an account of the representations, both historical and contemporary, of
Australian identity and masculinity, and the everyday lived experiences of urban-
based Australian men. The book provides insights into the historical development
of iconic Australian male tropes, their contemporary manifestations, and how men
take up or reject such imagery. This book argues that revered traits of masculin-
ity, as found within historical tropes, are now stigmatised within the figure of the
bogan male yet remain idealised when removed from an Australian context. It will
draw attention to men’s paradoxical rejection of and engagement with dominant
notions of masculinity and maleness in Australian culture. Lastly, it will consider
the impacts of such research in understanding gender and identity, in particular for
developing theoretical and conceptual frameworks on masculinity, media effect,
embodiment, and performance.
This book tells a story about Australian men as they are now. C ­ hapter 1,­
“Swagmen, surfers, and ANZACS: Uncovering the ‘Aussie’ male trope,” deals
with masculine tropes across Australian history, in particular exploring British
settlement (1788) until the late 1940s before the post-World War II economic
boom and rise of consumer culture (explored in Chapter 2). I examine the emer-
gence of the legend of the Australian male and its manifestations across various
time periods and places. While I present the material here in a somewhat lin-
ear and chronological fashion, it is important to recognise that the emergence of
these identities is complicated and that identities often overlap. Such identities
 Introduction 19
did not disappear when a new one emerged. I have presented the material in a
linear and chronological fashion in order to map out the emergence of the iconic
Australian male, as identified in local and national storytelling and as continu-
ously relied on in contemporary discussions about Australian men.
Chapter 2, “Consumerism and the revival of the Aussie bloke,” explores the
1980s revival of the bushman as being iconic of an ideal Australian masculine
identity. I argue that this revival was the result of responses to two phenomena:
feminist gains in the 1960s, and the emerging forms of a perceived materialistic
masculinity that contradicted the Australian-adopted values of a non-materialist,
masculine identity unconcerned with wealth, status, and prestige. I articulate this
by discussing the shift to the production of new narratives of masculinity in the
1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century, exploring the effects that
globalisation, consumerism, neoliberalism, and new technology had on the imag-
inings of the iconic Australian male. I then turn to what I call the fracturing of
masculine identity, exploring the production and selling of masculinity in contem-
porary Australian men’s lifestyle magazines.
In Chapter 3, “Masculinity in Australian popular culture,” I continue to explore
contemporary representations of Australian masculine identity in contemporary
television and popular Australian culture, highlighting the shift between appropri-
ate and inappropriate performances of this identity. Here, I illustrate the fracturing
of what constitutes an iconic Australian identity, where imagery of surf lifeguards,
outback men, and contemporary urbanites are in conflict.
Chapter 4, “Defining ‘masculinity’” focuses on what it means to effectively be
a man in Australia. Drawing from interviews with men, I explore how men define,
engage with, experience, and understand masculinity. I ask: what is masculinity or
masculine for these men? Chapter 5, “Fathers, footy, and WAGs” continues this explo-
ration of masculinity, focusing specifically on Australian aspects of masculinity and
how they intersect with notions of fatherhood, heterosexuality, and sporting culture.
Chapter 6, “Devolution of the Australian male trope,” focuses on what I call
the devolution of Australian identity and masculinity. I explore the participants’
relationship to Australian masculine ideals, where once revered traits have slowly
become stigmatised and associated with anti-intellectualism, chauvinism, and
rurality, while simultaneously being idolised. Here, I explore the shift from the
“good Aussie bloke” to the demonised bogan, what I call a mythic figure of bad
masculinity. I argue that these young men utilised this figure to differentiate them-
selves as practising “good” or “acceptable” masculinity and identity in the wake
of what we might call a post-feminist and globalised culture.
In Chapter 7, “Affirmation and rejection of masculinity,” I explore how these
men reject traditional masculinity and Australian identity in their own masculin-
ity projects. I reflect here on what these men allude to the malediction of certain
practices of masculinity and the shifts that have occurred in how masculinity is
understood, enacted, and practised. Finally, the “Conclusion” chapter considers
the role of subjectivity and reflexive agency in the study of men and masculinity
as a way to challenge scholars to move away from categorical descriptions and
theorisations that do not take agency into account.
20 Introduction
White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia: The Good Ol’ Aussie Bloke
challenges the boundaries of how we understand masculinity, media effect,
mythmaking, and identity in Australia. It is the first study to draw together his-
torical and contemporary representations of Australian identity and masculin-
ity from the perspectives of contemporary, urban-based Australian men. The
findings both challenge and extend existing conceptualisations and theoretical
accounts of masculinity and nationality and highlight the importance of empirical
research as a way of testing and furthering existing theories that focus on cultural
representations.

Notes
1 Rocko’s Modern Life (1993–96) was a cartoon about Rocko, an anthropomorphised
Australian rock wallaby (part of the marsupial family, often perceived as a very small
or miniature kangaroo) who immigrated to a fictional American town (O’Town). While
meant to be a “kids’ ” show, the show had numerous innuendos regarding sex and
sexual practices, and political commentary on social issues, such as the corporatisation
of America. Rocko had a distinct Australian accent, and the open credits featured the
unique musical sounds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander didgeridoos.
2 The standpoint of the researcher is a crucial element in undertaking qualitative
research, in which lived experiences contribute to the shaping and interpretation of
data collected. Known as standpoint theory, it is best described as a postmodern theory
that works to analyse inter-subjective discourses and is often used for analysis of gen-
der and other forms of social marginalisation, and is expressed in the works of key
theorists such as Harding (1986, 1991), Smith (1987, 1997), and Hartstock (1983,
1998). My standpoint in this research comes from an “outsider-within” feminist per-
spective; as a female researcher I am acutely aware of the gendered hierarchies that
exist between men and women. As part of a potentially subordinated group (the result
of my gender), I am perhaps well-equipped to interpret and dismantle how masculinity
is constructed for men who are situated as a dominant group. As Harding (1991) and
Allen (1996) maintain, those who exist within an outsider-within framework are able
to locate patterns of social behaviour that those immersed in the dominant group might
be unable to recognise.
3 To say that Australia is multicultural is under continuous debate by a number of schol-
ars (see Hage 2012), so I use this term carefully. This is not to say that Australia can
be inherently understood as multicultural or monocultural. Rather, in the context of
this book, I suggest that the men who were interviewed in this research are viewing
Australia as a multicultural nation.
4 Neighbours is an Australian soap opera (1985 – present) and is currently still running
on Australia’s 10 Peach, a channel operated by Network Ten. The show is based in a
fictional suburb of Melbourne and follows the lives of a number of Australian charac-
ters residing on or around Ramsay Street.
5 Discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
6 Discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
7 Home and Away is an Australian soap opera (1988 – present) currently airing on Aus-
tralia’s Seven Network, and, similar to Neighbours, it focuses on the lives of Australian
characters. This show is situated in Summer Bay, a fictional coastal town in New South
Wales.
8 Footy is an Australian colloquialism that can be used to refer to either Australian Rules
football, rugby league, or the ball that is used in these football codes.
 Introduction 21
9 I use the term queer here as a broad oversweep of the LGBTIQ+ community in Aus-
tralia, although I recognise that it holds a number of meanings that are contentious and/
or in conflict (see Waling and Roffee 2017).
10 Masculinism is an ideology that attempts to justify male domination, assuming that
heterosexuality is normal, whilst sanctioning the political and dominant role of men
in the public and private spheres, and the unequal sexual division of labour (Brittan
1989).

References
Allen, Amy. 1998. “Power Trouble: Performativity as Critical Theory.” Constellations 5
(2): 456–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00108.
Allen, Brenda J. 1996. “Feminist Standpoint Theory: A Black Woman’s Review of Organi-
sational Socialisation.” Communication Studies 47 (4): 257–71.
Alston, Margaret. 2012. “Rural Male Suicide in Australia.” Social Science & Medicine 74
(4): 515–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.036.
Bae, Michelle S., and Olga Ivashkevich. 2012. Girls, Cultural Productions, and Resist-
ance. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing.
Bartky, Sandra L. 2002. “Sympathy and Solidarity” and Other Essays. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Beasley, Chris. 2012. “Problematising Contemporary Men/Masculinities Theorising: The
Contribution of Raewyn Connell and Conceptual-Terminological Tensions Today.” The
British Journal of Sociology 63 (4): 747–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.
01435.x.
Beasley, Chris. 2013. “Mind the Gap? Masculinity Studies and Contemporary Gender/
Sexuality Thinking.” Australian Feminist Studies 28 (75): 108–24. http://doi.org/10.10
80/08164649.2013.761949.
Beasley, Chris. 2015a. “Caution! Hazards Ahead: Considering the Potential Gap between
Feminist Thinking and Men/Masculinities Theory and Practice.” Journal of Sociology
51 (3): 566–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783314553317.
Beasley, Chris. 2015b. “Libidinal Heterodoxy: Heterosexuality, Hetero-masculinity, and
‘Transgression’.” Men and Masculinities 18 (2): 140–58. http://doi.org/10.1177/10971
84X15586180.
Bell, Duncan S. A. 2003. “Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity.” Brit-
ish Journal of Sociology 54 (1): 63–81. http://doi.org/10.1080/0007131032000045905.
Bellanta, Melissa. 2012. Larrikins: A History. Melbourne: Penguin Books.
Biddulp, Stephen. 2004. Manhood: A Guidebook for Men. London: Ebury Press.
Bly, Robert. 1990. Iron John: A Book about Men. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Brickell, Chris. 2005. “Masculinities, Performativity, and Subversion: A Sociologi-
cal Reappraisal.” Men and Masculinities 8 (1): 24–43. http://doi.org/10.1177/10971
84X03257515.
Brickell, Chris. 2006. “The Sociological Construction of Gender and Sexuality.” The Soci-
ological Review 54 (1): 87–113. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00603.x.
Bridges, Tristan, and C. J. Pascoe. 2014. “Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the
Sociology of Men and Masculinities.” Sociology Compass 8 (3): 246–58. http://doi.
org/10.1111/soc4.12134.
Brittan, Arthur. 1989. Masculinity and Power. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Butler, Judith. 1988. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenom-
enology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40 (4): 519–31.
22 Introduction
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York:
Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1996. “Gender as Performance.” In A Critical Sense: Interviews with Intel-
lectuals, edited by Peter Osborne, 109–25. London: Routledge.
Coad, David. 2002. Gender Trouble Down Under: Australian Masculinities. Valencienne:
Presses Universitaires de Valencienne.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Sydney:
Allen & Urwin.
Connell, R. W. 1990. “An Iron Man: The Body and Some Contradictions of Hegemonic
Masculinity.” In Sport, Men and the Gender Order, edited by Michael Messner and
Donald Sabo, 83–95. Sydney: Human Kinetics Books.
Connell, R. W. 2000. The Men and the Boys. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W. 2001. “The Social Organization of Masculinity.” In The Masculinities
Reader, edited by Frank J. Barret and Stephen M. Whitehead, 30–50. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Crotty, Martin. 2001. Making the Australian Male: Middle-Class Masculinity 1870–1920.
Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1988. “Signature Event Context.” In Limited, Inc, translated by Samuel
Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman, 1–25. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Donaldson, Mike, and Stephen Tomsen. 2003. Male Trouble: Looking at Australian Mas-
culinities. Melbourne: Pluto Press.
Duits, Linda, and Liesbet van Zoonen. 2006. “Headscarves and Porno-Chic: Disciplining
Girls’ Bodies in the European Multicultural Society.” European Journal of Women’s
Studies 13 (2): 103–17. http://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806062750.
Duncan, Duane. 2008. “Out of the Closet and into the Gym: Gay Men and Body Image
in Melbourne, Australia.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 15 (3): 331–46. http://doi.
org/10.3149/jms.1503.331.
Dunn, Matthew, Johanna O. Thomas, Wendy Swift, and Lucinda Burns. 2011. “Recrea-
tional Substance Use among Elite Australian Athletes.” Drug and Alcohol Review 30
(1): 63–8. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00200.x.
Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Edwards, Tim. 2006. Cultures of Masculinity. New York: Routledge.
Elliott, Karla. 2018. “Negotiations between Progressive and ‘Traditional’ Expressions of
Masculinity among Young Australian Men.” Journal of Sociology [online first]. http://
doi.org/10.1177/1440783318802996.
Evers, Clifton. 2010. Notes for a Young Surfer. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Flood, Michael. 2015. “Work with Men to End Violence against Women: A Critical Stock-
take.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (2): 159–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.20
15.1070435.
Freeman, J. 2002. “All Men Are Bastards: Misandry in Popular Culture.” In Essays in Mas-
culinities Studies, edited by David Buchbinder, 6–10. Bentley, WA: Black Swan Press.
Gill, Roselind. 2007a. Gender and the Media. Cambridge: Polity.
Gill, Rosalind. 2007b. “Critical Respect: The Dilemmas of ‘Choice’ and Agency for Wom-
en’s Studies.” European Journal of Women’s Studies International Forum 14 (1): 69–80.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1350506807072318.
Gill, Rosalind. 2007c. “Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility.” European
Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2): 147–66. http://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407075898.
Gill, Rosalind. 2012. “Media, Empowerment and the ‘Sexualisation of Culture’ Debates.”
Sex Roles 66 (11–12): 736–45. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0107-1.
 Introduction 23
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender Advertisements. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grace, George W. 1987. The Linguistic Construction of Reality. London: Croom Helm.
Griffiths, Scott, Stuart B. Murray, Matthew Dunn, and Aaron J. Blashill. 2017. “Anabolic
Steroid Use Among Gay and Bisexual Men Living in Australia and New Zealand: Asso-
ciations with Demographics, Body Dissatisfaction, Eating Disorder Psychopathology,
and Quality of Life.” Drug & Alcohol Dependence 181:170–6. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
drugalcdep.2017.10.003.
Hage, Ghassan. 2012. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural
Society. New York: Routledge.
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking From Women’s
Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harris, Anita, and Amy Shields Dobson. 2015. “Theorising Agency in Post-Girlpower
Times.” Continuum 29 (2): 145–56. http://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2015.1022955.
Harris, Ian M. 1995. Messages Men Hear: Constructing Masculinities. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Hartsock, Nancy C. M. 1983. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Spe-
cifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives
on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra
Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, 283–310. Dordrecht: Die Riedal Publishing Company.
Hartsock, Nancy C. M. 1998. The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays. Boul-
der, CO: Westview Press.
Hogg, Robert. 2012. Men and Manliness on the Frontier: Queensland and British Colum-
bia in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalle, Berggren. 2014. “Sticky Masculinity: Post-structuralism, Phenomenology and Sub-
jectivity in Critical Studies on Men.” Men and Masculinities 17 (3): 231–52. http://doi.
org/10.1177/1097184X14539510.
Kimmel, Michael. 1987. Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Mascu-
linities. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kimmel, Michael, and Amy Arson. 2011. The Gendered Society, 4th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Leggett, Jaimes, and Kenny Hill. 2013. The Modern [Aussie] Man White Paper. Canberra,
ACT: Australasia M&C Saatchi.
Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
MacKay, James, Michael Emmison, and Janine Mikosza. 2009. “Lads, Larrikins and
Mates: Hegemonic Masculinities in Australian Beer Advertisements.” In Sport, Beer,
and Gender: Promotional Culture and Contemporary Social Life, edited by Lawrence
A. Wenner and Steven J. Jackson, 163–80. New York: Peter Lang.
McCarry, Melanie. 2007. “Masculinity Studies and Male Violence: Critique or Collu-
sion?” Women’s Studies International Forum 30 (5): 404–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wsif.2007.07.006.
McGladrey, Margaret. 2015. “Lolita is in the Eye of the Beholder: Amplifying Preadoles-
cent Girls’ Voices in Conversations about Sexualisation, Objectification, and Performa-
tivity.” Feminist Formations 27 (2): 165–90.
Messner, Michael A. 1990a. “Boyhood, Organised Sports, and the Construction of Mas-
culinities.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (4): 416–44. http://doi.org/
10.1177/089124190018004003.
24 Introduction
Messner, Michael A. 1990b. “Men Studying Masculinity: Some Epistemological Issues
in Sport Sociology.” Sociology of Sport Journal 7 (2): 136–53. http://doi.org/10.1123/
ssj.7.2.136.
Metusela, Christine, and Gordan Waitt. 2009. Tourism and Australian Beach Cultures:
Revealing Bodies. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Mikosza, Janine. 2003. “In Search of the ‘Mysterious’ Australian Male: Editorial Practices
in Men’s Lifestyle Magazines.” Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture &
Policy 107 (1): 134–44. http://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X0310700113.
Miller, Toby. 1998. “Commodifying the Male Body, Problematising Hegemonic
Masculinity?” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 22 (4): 431–46. http://doi.org/10.1177/
019372398022004007.
Moore, Clive. 1998. “Guest Editorial: Australian Masculinities.” Journal of Australian
Studies 22 (56): 1–16.
Moynihan, Clare. 1998. “Theories in Health Care and Research: Theories of Masculinity.”
British Medical Journal 317 (7165): 1072–5. http://doi.org/PMC1114070.
Nile, Richard, Clive Moore, and Kay Saunders. 1998. Australian Masculinities. Brisbane:
University of Queensland Press.
O’Brien, Roseleen, Kate Hunt, and Graham Hart. 2005. “ ‘It’s Caveman Stuff, But That
Is to a Certain Extent How Guys Still Operate’: Men’s Accounts of Masculinity and
Help Seeking.” Social Science & Medicine 61 (3): 503–16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2004.12.008.
Owen, Ian R. 1995. “El construccionismo social y la teoria, practica e investigacion en
psicoterapia: Un manifiesto psicologia fenomenologica [Social Constructionism and the
Theory, Practice and Research of Psychotherapy: A Phemonological Manifesto.] (Trans
I. Caro).” Boletin de Psicologia 46:161–86.
Parker, Andrew. 1996. “Sporting Masculinities: Gender Relations and the Body.” In
Understanding Masculinities, edited by Mairtin Mac an Ghaill, 126–38. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Pease, Bob. 2002. “(Re)Constructing Men’s Interests.” Men and Masculinities 5 (2): 165–
77. http://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x02005002003.
Reeser, Todd W. 2010. Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Rogoff, Barbara. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Con-
text. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, Nikolas. 1996. Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood.
Rubin, Gayle. 1984. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexual-
ity.” In Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, edited by Carole S. Vance,
267–93. London: Pandora.
Saunders, Kay. 1998. “Specimens of Superb Manhood: The Lifesaver as National Icon.” Jour-
nal of Australian Studies 22 (56): 96–105. http://doi.org/10.1080/14443059809387364.
Seal, Graham. 2004. Inventing ANZAC: The Digger and National Mythology. Brisbane:
University of Queensland Press. http://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1503.361.
Singleton, Andrew. 2008. “Boys in Crisis? Australian Adolescent Males beyond the Rheto-
ric.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 15 (3): 361–73. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1503.361.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Bos-
ton: Northeastern University Press.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1997. “Comment on Hekman’s ‘Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint
Theory Revisited.’ ” Signs 22 (2): 392–8.
The Men’s Project and Michael Flood. 2018. The Man Box: A Study on Being a Young Man
in Australia. Melbourne: Jesuit Social Services.
 Introduction 25
Ustick, Neill R. 2007. “A Postmodern-Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interviewing.”
Department Paper. Canberra: Australian Catholic University.
Waling, Andrea. 2019. “Rethinking Masculinity Studies: Feminism, Masculinity, and Post-
structural Accounts of Agency and Emotional Reflexivity.” The Journal of Men’s Studies
20 (1): 89–107. http://doi.org/10.1177/1060826518782980.
Waling, Andrea, and Dave Fildes. 2017. “ ‘Don’t Fix What Ain’t Broke’: Evaluating The
Effectiveness of a Men’s Shed in Inner-Regional Australia.” Health & Social Care in the
Community 25 (2): 758–68. http://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12365.
Waling, Andrea, and James A. Roffee. 2017. “Knowing, Performing and Holding Queer-
ness: LGBTIQ+ Student Experiences in Australian Tertiary Education.” Sex Education:
Sexuality, Society and Learning 17 (3): 302–08. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.
1294535.
Ward, Russell. 1958. The Australian Legend. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
West, Candance, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society
1 (2): 125–51.
Whitehead, Stephen M. 2002. Men and Masculinities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
1 Swagmen, surfers, and
ANZACs
Uncovering the “Aussie”
male trope

For time means tucker, and tramp you must, where the scrubs and plains are wide,
With seldom a track that a man can trust, or a mountain peak to guide;
All day long in the dust and heat – when summer is on the track –
With stinted stomachs and blistered feet, they carry their swags Out Back.
– Henry Lawson, Out Back (1900 [1893])

It is both a simple and yet a loaded question: “What is an Australian man?” Rife
with conflicts and tensions concerning identity, race, and culture, it is perhaps
difficult to determine what it means to be Australian, and male, in contemporary
Australian culture. However, it is perhaps an easier task to identify what an Aus-
tralian male should be, as idolised in both historical and contemporary culture.
By should be, I mean the representation of a singular national masculine identity
in which men are expected to aspire to, rather than attempt to homogenise, the
multiplicity of masculine tropes within Australian culture.
Historically, Australian (White) masculinity has been characterised by a
particular set of qualities, traits, and behaviours that have become dominant
Australian tropes. In this chapter, I outline the development of the singular
Australian masculine trope: a White, working-class, Australian male who is
typified by his loyalty, his able-bodiedness, his belief in and practice of mate-
ship and egalitarianism (the notion that everyone is equal and should have fair
access to equal rights and resources), his hard-working ethic, and his pride in
being Australian. This will be done by providing a chronological historical
account of the Australian cultural context in which this trope has emerged. Of
course, it is prudent to recognise that there are multiple tropes of masculin-
ity available throughout the history of Australian culture. My purpose here is
to highlight and reflect on the trope that has remained as a singular national
characterisation, re-embodied and manifested into new iconic ideals as time
has worn on. As such, while I recognise the multiplicity of masculinity, and,
indeed, the absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other cul-
tural accounts and experiences, the purpose of this chapter is to explore the
White, Anglo character that has come to be expected to be reflective of the
authentic or “true” Aussie bloke. This is not meant to be an attempt to render
 Swagmen, surfers, and ANZACs 27
insignificant or invisible the diversity in masculinity narratives and experi-
ences within Australia. Rather, it is a way to explore how the White, iconic
ideal has continued to be representative both of Australian men and what it
essentially means to be “Australian.”
Examinations of Australian men have been limited in so far as determining how
iconic ideals have shaped and structured narratives of masculinity that are pre-
sented today, and to what extent broader social forces have influenced these con-
structs. Masculinity on a wider scale has been dissected and discussed by numerous
theorists to varying degrees that generally problematises masculine structures (see
Waling 2019 for a review), but there has yet to be a historical account of past con-
ceptions of Australian identity and masculinity and how these conceptions relate
to the lived experiences of contemporary, urban Australian men. The notion of an
Australian male ideal evokes a powerful connection between identity, nationality,
and masculinity, best summed up by Murrie’s account:

He is practical rather than theoretical, he values physical prowess rather than

intellectual capabilities, and he is good in a crisis but otherwise laid-back. He
is common and earthy, so he is intolerant of affectation and cultural preten-
sions; he is no wowser, uninhibited in the pleasures of drinking, swearing
and gambling; he is independent and egalitarian, and is a hater of authority
and a “knocker” of eminent people. This explicit rejection of individualism is
echoed in his unswerving loyalty to his mates.
(Murrie 1998, 68)

As Murrie (1998, 71) suggests, this male typifies perceptions of the bush and
the outback, where masculinity is structured by physical rather than intellectual
attributes, the dismissal of femininity, and loyalty to one’s mates. Australian iden-
tity and masculinity are structured through the absent “other” (71). This descrip-
tion echoes the ideals of frontier masculinity that are quite prevalent in global
representations of Australian identity and masculinity, but it does not necessarily
speak a particular truth about the Australian male (71). Rather, it demonstrates the
prevalence that this idea of this particular masculinity might have in contempo-
rary life, irrespective of whether such men exist or not.
To comprehend what contemporary Australian identity and masculinity might
entail, we must situate ourselves in past conceptions of Australian identity and
masculinity and recognise what, if any, recurring themes exist to uphold these
expressions and whether these themes still exist today.1 Drawing upon histori-
cal narratives of Australian identity and masculinity, I provide an account of the
stereotypes that have existed since the British settlement of Australia, focusing
on methods of communicating masculine ideologies as they have developed over
the past 100 years. I not only look to scholarship, but also to imagery and literary
representations as a way to contextualise how the Australian male is talked about
and visualised in everyday discourse. It is important again to reiterate that this is
an idealised notion of the Australian male, not necessarily an accurate representa-
tion of Australian men in colonial times. I begin by exploring the development
28 Swagmen, surfers, and ANZACs
and the romanticisation of the Australian bushman in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, followed by an analysis of the emergence of the ANZAC war
hero and the temporary “death” of a strong masculinity after World War I. I then
discuss: the rise of the surf lifesaver as a new icon to replace those of the ANZAC
and the bushman from the late 1920s to the end of the 1930s; the re-establishment
of the ANZAC spirit during World War II; and the link between colonial notions
of manhood and masculine sporting identities.

Larrikins, bushrangers, and the Australian bush

To provide context regarding the emergence of the Australian male trope requires
a brief consideration of Australian settlement. The first prominent stereotype, and
possibly one of the most iconic, is the frontier bushman who emerged within the
era of the settlement and colonisation of Australia before Federation in 1901. The
Australian frontiersman has been idolised in bush mythology and poetry with
many names, including the larrikin, the ocker, the swagman,2 and the bushranger.
Although the exact origins of these stereotypes have been debated amongst vari-
ous theorists and historians, many agree that the stereotype of the Australian male
has strong roots within the initial stages of colonisation by the British Empire
and the transportation of convicts (Murrie 1998, 65; Ward 1958, 25). The initial
landing of the British was by James Cook in 1770, although several attempts
were made in earlier decades by other European explorers. Official colonisation
occurred eighteen years later, in which the deportation and the exploitation of
convicts from Britain facilitated the preliminary settlement of Australia. Part of
this colonisation process included the slaughter of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples of Australia, and many political, economic, and religious rebel-
lions (Macintyre 1999, 40). The transportation of convicts made up the majority
of the earlier White populations of Australia, and these convicts and their chil-
dren provided the hard labour necessary for gold mines when Australia’s gold
rush occurred between 1851 and 1900.
It was during this time that a notion of an “Australian masculinity” first took
hold, where Australia began the development of its independence. This masculin-
ity was significantly different from its European counterparts, a direct result of its
development within a much harsher and unforgiving landscape than that of the
English countryside. The Victorian qualities of dandyism – a political, social, and
cultural movement in the nineteenth century that emphasised fashion and leisure
for middle-class men in an attempt to reclaim a more refined and aristocratic life-
style popular in England (see Moers 1960; Murrie 1998) – was not suitable for the
rough topography of the Australian bush (Ward 1958, 67). The geographic loca-
tion of displaced British men required a new masculinity that could face and over-
come the challenges that early frontier life and bush life presented (Ward 1958,
67). Mythmaking became an essential component to this process of recreating a
masculinity that was fluent with the landscape (Bell 2003; Donoghue and Tranter
2015; Lee 1988). The “Australian legend” as termed by Russell Ward (1958) (i.e.,
the iconic Australian male) was born within this era, a man who worked in the
 Swagmen, surfers, and ANZACs 29
Australian bush and was typified by certain characteristics that were identifiably
“Australian.” Historians like Ward (1958) argue that notions of authentic Austral-
ian manhood arose from convict origins, and this is where the bushman ethos, an
ideology concerning such notions of an “Australian masculinity,” is said to have
been born. Ward (1958, 68) argues that the hardships of convict life gave early
settler men the predisposition needed to cope with the unforgiving conditions of
frontier life, often due to the lack of available resources, the rough topography of
the environment, and the harsh climate. Political and social institutions were in
their early days of establishment while the labour was hard and unforgiving in the
dry heat of Australia (Ward 1958). Unlike the free immigrants who would have
recently made the voyage, convicts were established within the Australian colony
and were characterised by their hard bodies and hard ways of living: “their hands
horny with toil; their faces tanned and tawny; their bodies seemed compounds
of iron and leather. Hard workers they were, and hard drinkers” (Howitt 1845,
quoted in Ward 1958, 68). These descriptions then translated into the physical
construct of the frontier bushman depicted today. For Ward (1958), these men
embodied (and/or represented) idealised notions of the openness of the outback
and the opportunities for freedom it represented, in which only a masculinity
that embodied strength and bravery could overcome the challenges it presented.
Ward draws on Darwin’s theory of evolution to describe the bush as conducting
“a natural selection upon the human material. The qualities favouring successful
assimilation were adaptability, toughness, endurance, activity and loyalty to one’s
fellows” – traits that are also closely associated with notions of mateship,3 White-
ness, and able-bodiedness.
Scholars like Lawson (1980) contest Ward’s conception of the origins of the
Australian male, arguing that the Australian legend is a misrepresented and an
inaccurate portrayal of the development of the bushman ethos. For Lawson
(1980), origins of the Australian legend are found not in the Australian bush in the
1850s (as Ward claims) but in mid-nineteenth-century to early twentieth-century
English literary sources. Moreover, there was no real tradition of mateship
during the convict era, nor amongst the shearers later in the nineteenth century,
but only amongst the miners during the gold rush of Victoria and New South
Wales in 1850s (Lawson 1980, 578). As Lawson (1980, 579) maintains, Ward’s
work should not be tested against the way Australians are but against the way in
which they like to conceive of themselves – a more difficult task. This is because
Ward is concerned with the typical rather than the average male frontiersman,
bush worker, or Australian: the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the “legend” are
admired and viewed as ideal, but were not necessarily practised (Lawson 1980,
579). Although Lawson makes a number of valid points, what Ward’s book
illustrates is the prevalence of a stereotype, and it is this stereotype with which
I am concerned. While Ward (1958) may set up his understanding of the Australian
legend as based in true experiences (convict origins), which for Lawson (1980)
is a romanticisation of a trope occurring much later during the mid-nineteenth up
until the early twentieth century, both pinpoint to this notion of an ideal, singular
“Australian masculinity.”
30 Swagmen, surfers, and ANZACs
Literature and romanticising the bushman ethos
The end of the nineteenth century brought to Australia the greatest technologi-
cal advancements of the Industrial Revolution, and with it came the Victorian
doctrine of behaviour and dress, as well as an abundance of Australian litera-
ture, poetry, and art. At this point, Australia had been colonised for ninety-two
years. There was a need to create, promote, and maintain a national identity that
represented Australia, and this identity would be one of masculine character. An
Australian identity was needed to further separate Australian society from Brit-
ish dandyism after Federation, so urban intellectuals sought to idolise men of the
bush as quintessentially Australian and dismiss women as too fragile and vulner-
able for the harsh conditions of bush life. A hero of Australia was needed, and
this hero was an Australian male. Literature and art were the first methods used to
communicate the ideals of the iconic Australian male.
Literary “representation confirms the existence of a useable past and this
past is a prerequisite for the culture and civilisation of contemporary life” (Lee
1988, 56). The Australian male has been romanticised within writings and art
of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century poets, novelists, and paint-
ers. Themes of Australian identity and an authentic Australian culture become
apparent “through the selection of themes which become associated with the
national identity” (Schaffer 1989, 115). In the early frontier times, the Austral-
ian bush was understood to be a place of hardship, challenges, and survival
(see Figure 1.1). It was not a place to be sought after as romantic and idealistic
(Harper 2000, 288).
However, in the late nineteenth century, the bush transformed from a place
of unknown fear and destitution into an aesthetic paradise that the intellectuals
of urban Australia wrote of in a manner such that it became fantasised and idol-
ised for its connection to leisure, romance, and memories of boyhood (Harper
2000, 288). “Australian masculinity” was written as something to be revered
and achieved, such as in the works of C. E. W. Bean (1879–1968), Australia’s
official historian of World War I, who stated that “the bushman is the hero of
the Australian boy; the arts of bush life are his ambition; his most cherished
holidays are those spent with country relatives or in camping out” (Bean 1937,
46). This was further reinforced by early twentieth-century journalist Donald
Macdonald’s popular The Bush Boy’s Book (1911), which “claimed that the bush
made boys strong and independent. . . [it] promoted the outdoor life, giving
advice on camping, fishing and hunting” (Harper 2000, 290; see also Anderson
1986, 249). The Bulletin, a popular weekly magazine that began in 1880, was
comprised of Australian literature, poetry, and cartoons, and was another source
that led to the mythologising of the Australian male (Pierce 2009). The Bulletin
was first published and established in 1880 and continued until 2008. In the
beginning, it was a magazine for literary creativity that emphasised “Australian-
ness” (Bennett, Strauss, and Wallace-Crabbe 1998). By the early twentieth cen-
tury, it took a more conservative and empire-loyalist approach in its material,
losing its literary influence and instead becoming a politically centred magazine
(Bennett, Strauss, and Wallace-Crabbe 1998; Dutton 1964; Rolfe 1979). By the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Eron tanssin kanssa,
Kaikilt' piioiltansa,
Ringissä olless' ottaa,
Wiimen varsin totta
Taiten tanssinsa lopettaavat.

Sitte alkaa akat,

Niinkuin täydet vakat,
Lattialla itseens väännellä,
Siinä ilman taksaa,
Kuinka kukin jaksaa,
Morsianta kyllä käännellä.
Saavat kanssa huutaa,
Jos on heillä suuta:
Taas on meillen nuori
Tullut uusi muori;
Terve olkoon tulos,
Sisälle ja ulos!
Kaikki Ämmät yhdell’ äänellä.

Nyt se tansi loppuu,

Mutta toinen hoppu
Morsianta vielä noudattaa:
Wuoden päästä meri
Avaupi eri,
Joka häntä kyllä soudattaa.
Wasta käypi keli,
Eikä puutu peli,
Uuden tanssin tuisku,
Hyssytys ja huisku;
Silloin tussa-lulla
Kyllä saadaan kuulla,
Waikka tänä vuonna Falla-laa.

H. Achrenius
WEKKULIN KOTO-PERÄ

Harjun-mäen kalliolla
oli huono tölli,
Jossa raja-suutarilla
oli poika-mölli.

Isä oli Wekka-Heikki,

poika myöskin siksi
Ensimmältä kutsuttiin ja
sitte Wekkuliksi

Äite, niinkun tuuli-mylly,

suuri nuuska-kuono,
Roima-pirjo nimeltänsä,
tavoiltansa huono.

Niin kun naulan lanka-kerät

kieppui silmät päässä,
Huulet niikun tallukan, ja
lesti-nokka räässä.

Poika oli kasvoiltansa

juuri yhtäläinen,
Mutta varsin, niinkuin isä,
tyhjä kommo-päinen.

Koska vihdoin viimmenkin se

häijy poika-kloppi
Seurakunnan kenki-rajat
rypistämään oppi;

Sitte isä mielissänsä

jutteleepi sille
Taitavalle pojallensa,
pikku Wekkulille:

"Hyvä olet hyppysistäs"

eikös olis sulla,
Poikaseni, itse halu
mestariksi tulla?

"Mutta tässä töllissä on

kahden ahdas olla;
Ota perintös ja lähde
pois nyt sovinnolla.

"Tästä vanhan lesti-pussin

ensin annan sulle,
Joka tuli perinnöksi
isältäni mulle.

"Näistä lesti-lusistani
annan sulle kuusi,
Wiisi vanhan aikasta ja
kuudes varsin uusi.
 "Naskaleita muutaman ja
piki-rippuloita,
Hohtimet ja veitsi-kaakki,
pistä pussiis noita.

"Harjaksista kymmenkunta
polvi-hihnan myötä
Annnan, ettäs yösioillas
saisit tehdä työtä.

"Rasiaa ei ole mulla

muuta kun yks' ainoo,
Jota äites nuuskuansa
vasta multa vainoo.

"Muuta myös ei antamista

enää ole mulla;
Nyt on kaikki, poikaseni,
perintös jo sulla.

"Työmme on nyt päätetty ja

eikä puutu muuta
Kun se pieni lähtö-ryyppy,
sitte lyömme suuta.

"Nosta pussi hartioilles,

jää hyvästi sitte,
Kulje miinkä lystis on ja
miinkäs tahdot itte".

Poika parka pussin heitti

olallensa kohta,
Itkun-helmet silmistänsä
poskipäillä hohtaa.

Itse isä Wekka-Heikki

klani-päinen ukko,
Tuli tästä totiseks' kun
aakkos-kirjan kukko.

Mutta äite aivasteli

nuusku-rasiaansa,
Eikä paljo huomannutkaan
koko asiaansa.

Lähtö-ryypyt ryypättiin ja
muiskasteltiin suuta,
Eikä pikku Wekkulikaan
tohdi toivoo muuta.

Sitte meni lerputteli

pois hän kotoansa,
Pitkin tietä lauleskeli
yksin surussansa.

J. F. Granlund

[Ensikerran painettu 1842.]

JUSSIN LAULU KUKOSTA

Nuotti: "Tuoll' on kultani" j.n.e.

Tuo on mun kukkoni, tuo puna-harja,

Tuon hellan-lehdet ne hohtaa kun marja.
Woi, oma lintuni! voi, kulta kukkoni!
Laulappastas jo!

Kyllä on lintuja, on korioita,

Mutt' eivät kukkoni muotoa voita.
Woi, oma lintuni! voi, kulta kukkoni!
Laulappastas jo!

Reipas sen luonto ja muoto on muhkee,

Raikas sen ääni, kun lauluun se puhkee.
Woi, oma lintuni! kulta kukkoni!
Laulappas nyt jo!

Seinät ne soivat, ja kalliot kaikuu,

Kun oman kukkoni ääni se raikuu.
Woi, oma lintuni! voi, kulta kukkoni!
Laulappas nyt jo!
 En minä kurkeenkaan kukkooni antais,
En, vaikka kotkakin väliä pantais.
Woi, oma lintuni! voi, kulta kukkoni!
Etkös laula jo!

Nyt, kulta kukkoni! nyt keno-kaula!

Hiukankin kauniita virsiäs laula!
Woi, oma lintuni! voi kulta kukkoni!
Etkös laula jo!

Hei, jopas, lintuni, laulat nyt mulle;

Mutta jo myös minä lauloinkin sulle.
Woi, oma lintuni! voi, kulta kukkoni!
Jopas laulat jo!

J. F. Granlund

[Ensikerran painettu 1858.]

JUOMA-LAULU

Juoma janon sammuttaa,

Janotakin juoda saa
Kuiva-kaulanen
Poika-joukko laula, juo;
Makea on malja tuo
Wahto-harjanen.

Olut voiman vahvistaa,

Kannu kestin kaunista
Lorutessamme
Riemu rinnat ylentää,
Waivammekin vähentää
Hurratessamme.

Kyllä joskus seura suo,

Että poika-joukko ju
Ämpäristäkin.
Älä näänny nukkumaan,
Saata kannu kulkemaan
Nääntyneenäkin.
J. Juteini
SAKSAN-WIINA JA KALJA

Pojat! pois nyt kalja tieltä,

Koska viinaa koitellaan;
Kaljan kautta miehen mieltä
Moniasti moitellaan

Kuinka siis on kaljan laatu?

Mitä viina vaikuttaa?
Kotoa on kalja saatu,
Saksan-viina saavuttaa.

Janoa jähdyttääpi kalja,

Mutta leikin lyhentää.
Wasta viina, veljein malja,
Ystävyyttä ylentää.

Tosin meitä kalja täällä

Hiljallensa hyödyttää,
Wiina kiehuu kielen päällä,
Sitte päätä pyörryttää.

J. Juteini
OLUT JA WIINA

Löytyypi kultaa kupiksi,

Jos talon-poika tahtoo,
Hopiata housun napiksi,
Ken kaluksi sen katsoo;
Löytyy myös sanoja virsiksi,
Kun edempätä etsii,
Ja laitteleepi lauluiksi,
Runoiksi tehdä viitsii.

Waan aina tulee varoa

Ne monet väärät värsyt.
Ett'ei laki sua sakota,
Ja pane pahat reisut;
Niin saatin laulaa helistää,
Ett' oikein seinät soipi
Olutta juoda välistä,
Kuin kallo kantaa voipi.

Se mielen tanssiin taivuttaa,

Antaa myös vähän voimaa;
Kyll' uni muuten saavuttaa,
Jos välill' ei sa hoivaa.
Ja tekin, neidet naitavat!
Sen mielellänne suotte,
Myös olettekin taitavat,
Jos itse vähän juotte.

Ei miehelle tuo mitään tee,

Jos ryypyn, kaksi ottaa,
Waan kolmas mieltä koittelee,
Ja neljäs älyn voittaa.
Wiinasta ei tule viisaus,
Kun sitä paljon ryyppää,
Waan kevyt mieli, kerkeys
Sen kanssa olla pyytää.

Paavo Korhonen
JUOMA-LAULU

Ruotsinkielisestä: "Toma glas i godt kalas", etc.

Tyhjät maljat pidossa

Isäntää ei kiitä;
Weljet, kaiken ilossa,
Täytetääs nyt niitä!

Täydet maljat pidossa

Wieraita ei kiitä;
Weljet, kaiken ilossa,
Tyhjennetääs niitä!

Tyhjät maljat, j.n.e.

J. F. Granlund

[Ensikerran painettu v. 1837.]

JUOMA-LAULU

Nuotti: "Se, Movitz! hvi står du och gråter".

Ei maljasta maisteta maaten;

Pois torkka, ja aukase suus!
Salutem et prosperitatem! (1)
Juo virkuksi kieles ja luus!
Et riemua rinnassas huomaa,
Jos vaan klasin huulilles tuot,
Ja siitä kuin kärpänen juot
Noin kaunista juomaa.

Jos nyökkäisit, veikkosen, mulle

Ja tietäisit tehtävän työs,
Salutem sitt' sanoisin sulle
Et prosperitatem-kin myös.
Jo käteni noussunna olis
Ja suuhuni klasia tois,
Ja kurkkuni nielis ja jois
Ja soivaksi tulis.
 Noh, tartu nyt klasiis ja käytä
Niin sulasti suutas kuin voit,
Ja kaikille yllyksi näytä
Se juoma, kun juodakses toit;
Ja kirkkaise sitten: Salutem
et prosperitatem! ett' soi,
Ja niin kukin juo, minkä voi,
"Sun muistoas!" huuten.

Salutem! – Se kaikille olkoon,

et prosperitatem! mutt' tuo
Sen osaksi parhaiten tulkoon,
Ken klasinsa tyhjäksi juo.
Noh, suuhun tuo viimmenen tilkka!
Jos hiukkakin jäljelle jää,
Niin semmoinen varpusen pää
On nauru ja pilkka.

J. f. Granlund

[Ensikerran painettu v. 1861.]

(1) Näitä latinalaisia sanoja, jotka merkitseevät (toivotan) terveyttä

ja onnellisuutta, ovat muutaman laulun-tekiän ystävistä ottaneet
tavaksensa matkasta aina toisen muistoa juodessansa, ja sen
tähden on siittä tämä laulu tullut.
PUNSI-PULLON KUOLEMASTA.

(Jos sinulle, ystävä hyvä, osaisi tapaturmassa se suuri ja sydäntä

katkerasti surettava vahinko tapahtua, että punsi-pullos täytenä
särkyisi, niin laula tuskissas, jos tahdot tätä laulua sillä nuotilla kun
Ring'i kuninkaan kuolemaa Fritjofin jutussa: "Gullmanig fåle,
Skinfaxe drager".)

Mull' oli pullo,

Kaunis kuin kulta,
Kirkas kun tähti ja täysi kun kuu.
Surma sen sullo'
Murskaksi multa,
Nyt vesi on silmissä, irvissä suu.

Woi! sydän parka,

Kuinka se tytkii,
Kuinka se paisuu ja rinnassa lyö;
Kuinka se arka
Nääntyen nytkii,
Kun hänen aarteensa kuolema syö.
 Hui! raju surma,
Tunnoton, jolkka,
Surkeesti pulloni sormissas soi.
Ryöväri julma!
Jälkes on kolkka,
Työs surun suurimman rintani toi.

Riemuni kuoli!
Kuolla nyt tahdon,
Pulloni vierehen hautani suon.
Siellä en huoli
Muusta, jos vahdon
Wielä sen pirstoista saan, niin sen juon!

J. F. Granlund

[Ensikerran painettu v. 1861.]

JUOPPO-ÄMMÄN WALITUS

(Iva-mukaus.) Nuotti: "Ny är det höst", etc.

Syksy nyt on,

Wiina jo poltolla kodassa on;
Ah! mutta kelpais' mun siellä
Olla ja niellä.

Nurkassa näin
Pulloni tyhjinä, suut alaspäin.
Kas, kuinka harmiksi vielä
Tippuuvat siellä.

Pulloset, – so'!
Eikö ne pisarta lopukkaan jo'?
Loistappas kynttilä tälle
Pullo-läjälle.

Keväällä noi
Juoppojen kynsissä täytenä soi;
Waan minä niistä en maistaa
Saa, enkä haistaa.
 Siksi jo saan
Kuoleman ryyppyjen puutteesta vaan,
Elikkä janosta kivun,
Jossa ma hivun.

Kannuni noin
Tyhjäksi viinasta tuonan jo join;
Hauska on vieläkin sitä
Rakkaana pitää.

Neulojen saan
Muotonsa liinani syrjähän vaan:
Hopia laidat ja ranteet,
Kultaset vanteet.

Kannunsa toi
Muinanen ämmäkin tyhjäksi joi,
Sitte hän meni taloista
Pyytämään toista.

Minä en vois
Pitkälle lähteä paikalta pois;
Kuolema kohta mun kaataa
Maan ale maata.

Kannuni, – so'!
Kurkistas pihalle kanssani jo'.
Ah! mutta viinaa ei tuoda,
Että sais juoda.

Sitte kun mun

Kuolema ottaa, niin juopot saa sun;