2025/02/27 by Lucas Gottzén · 2 voices · 1 citation
Psychology · Social Sciences · #LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy #Migration, Refugees, and Integration
paper · doi:10.1332/30333660y2024d000000003
openalex publication_date 2025/02/27 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Critical masculinity scholars have recently suggested that men recognizing their own vulnerability, as well as the vulnerability of others, could be a tool for feminist masculinity politics. These arguments are inspired by feminist debates, particularly the work of Judith Butler, who stresses the importance of recognizing a universally shared vulnerability to counter masculinist discourses of sovereignty. Butler’s argument has been criticized for making vulnerability an ethical issue, rather than highlighting the social and material processes that render some bodies more vulnerable than others. While these feminist debates provide valuable insights, they often overlook men’s social vulnerabilities or see them as mere claims of unwarranted victimhood. This article aims to nuance discussions on vulnerability, by arguing that men’s recognition of vulnerability does not necessarily foster ethical responsiveness. To this end, the article analyzes books authored by activists from the manosphere group Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), demonstrating that while these authors embrace their own vulnerability, they simultaneously foster resentment, male identity politics and ideals of sovereign masculinity. Based on these findings, it is argued that feminist scholarship should seriously consider men’s experiences of social vulnerability and develop models that help men critique neoliberal politics and late capitalism, rather than merely encouraging men to recognize a shared ontological vulnerability.