Notes on 'The Limits of Masculinity': a serendipitous, reflective reading experience from a historical perspective.

I came across this book ‘The Limits of Masculinity’ entirely by accident, in a tiny vintage bookshop in Chipping Camden. At first, I bought it as a joke; thinking it would amuse my male colleagues, as part of our ongoing “bantification” of creative design and social theories and occasional role-playing of gender stereotypes. 

The book turned out to be unexpectedly interesting and in some ways quietly profound. 

Reading the book answered some questions I had, particularly around what masculinity is and how traits and behaviours are formed. Although written in 1977, it offers perspectives that still feel relevant, as he describes it; he attempts to offer a feminist analysis of masculinity that men themselves can relate to. 

The first thing to note is the date. This book was written in 1977 by a man discussing masculinity; two years before I was born. This immediately made me curious about his perspective. Although I try to remain open to different viewpoints, I have never read about masculinity from this time period. I was interested in comparing his ideas with more familiar contemporary views and in developing a counter-argument to my other research, much of which draws on feminist perspectives. It also felt like a natural continuation of my work on fashion’s role in the cultural construction of gender.

The 3 Ps (presence, power & performance)

One of the first notable quotations appears at the start of the book and is from my old mate John Berger (remember this book?)

“according to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome. The social presence of a woman is different in kind from that of a man, a man’s presence is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies… A man’s presence suggests what he is capable of doing to you or for you… the pretence is always towards a power which he exercises on others.” 

Let that sink in for a bit… 

I had never previously thought about masculinity in terms of the power a man is perceived to embody. The quote suggests that masculinity is tied to projecting authority and capability, shaping how men present themselves to others. This naturally connects to fashion, as clothing can be one of the ways this sense of power or presence is visually communicated.

The 3 Cs (Class, Capitalism & Consumerism)

The book examines the effect of class on masculinity, arguing that although it takes on different guises it is still re-enforced. 

“in every society the discovery of sexuality is part of a general process of social identification… the formation of the masculine gender identity takes place within three primary social contexts: family, school and peer group, as it develops, this identity is differentiated according to class cultures and different levels of social hierarchy but the complexity and variation of this experience does not destroy the underlying continuity of gender.”

There are also fascinating observations about aggression and performance in working-class masculinity in comparison to middle class.

“he must learn to drink and smoke and hint at sexual conquest. He does not actually need to prove himself so long as he can return the banter or hint at some skill or knowledgeability for masculinity is more impressive played cool in choice, gestures and side remarks rather than an open boasting or violence.”

Compared with what he calls  ‘elite education’:

“a public school education illustrates one significant traditional form in which masculinity is institutionalised… competitiveness, personal ambition, social responsibility and emotional restraint… remain dominant masculine values in our society which all boys are encouraged to adopt.”

Class appears again in his discussion of industrial capitalism and proletarianisation*, which he argues intensified certain tendencies within masculine culture. 

“when Work is unpalatable, it is often only his masculinity (his identification with the wage providing for the wife and kids) that keeps a man at work day after day.”

Writing in 1977, this reflects a period in which domestic and professional roles were far more rigidly divided along gender lines. “in consumer culture ideas of affluence, leisure and the split between Work and Home are masculine ideas; there is no such split for the housewife.” 

While this has shifted significantly, with many women today sharing the same work/home division, the historical legacy of this structure still resonates. 

Women do not necessarily enter relationships from the same cultural ‘default’ and domestic responsibilities can still fall unevenly. 

Although this is not the focus of my research, it highlights how ideas about masculinity, work and status were historically embedded in broader social structures.

This also connects to wider arguments about consumerism, which suggest that increasing affluence and rising expectations created new tensions, particularly for middle-class men whose lived reality did not always match the idealised images of success, power and sexuality promoted within consumer culture. 

In this context, masculinity in fashion can sometimes be framed around competition, financial achievement and authority, with marketing occasionally playing on feelings of inadequacy in order to encourage consumption. 

However, viewing fashion only through this lens risks oversimplifying its role. Fashion can also respond to practical, social and emotional needs, offering ways for individuals to express identity or navigate cultural expectations. It is also important to acknowledge that men have not only been targets of these pressures but have also contributed to shaping fashion creatively. This complexity is what defines fashion as both a commercial system and a cultural practice.

A side note on Chauvinism: 

During mens talking groups - which formed the foundation of his research, he talks about chauvinist tendencies getting in the way of insightful discussions and this prompted me to ask a basic question: what is a chauvinist? Is it a masculine trait?

The dictionary states;

“a person displaying excessive or prejudiced support for their own cause or group, in particular a man prejudiced against women.” (Cambridge Dictionary)

Although commonly associated with men, is interesting to remember that chauvinism is not exclusively male; women can also be chauvinistic. The term has broader meaning than it is often used in everyday speech which says a lot about how easily these ideas are misunderstood and misinterpreted. 

What the book ultimately gave me was a way of seeing masculine behaviour through a different lens, from the male perspective and experience. It also explores how men see feminism, and how they see themselves through patriarchal ideologies that have historically dominated society. One of the author’s key points is that there are just as limiting images of masculinity as there are of femininity.

He explains that his aim is to unravel the structure of masculinity by looking for typical patterns and their social foundations, examining both the outward performance of masculinity and its inner psychological ‘drama’. He also notes that women often understand the limits of men’s liberation through their lived experience:

“for what a sexist society makes of the male role is an image of maleness; of masculinity which is frequently as limiting to the man as the image of femininity is to the woman. The possibility of men’s liberation then, rests upon an awareness by men of the limitations imposed upon them by a sexist society.”

I was also interested in his method. He writes:

“I do not want to make great claim for this… the basis of this book is a particular experience incomplete perhaps one-sided but a start… I’ve tried to… analyse the way masculinity colours everyday life and trace through some aspects of men’s consciousness…”

His approach is grounded in men’s groups and lived experience, which I find compelling—the idea of simply asking men about their lives.

The theoretical starting point is also familiar from feminist writing: the distinction between biology and culture. He draws on arguments similar to those of writers such as Sherry Ortner and Judith Butler and cites Ann Oakley’s formulation:

“sex is a biological term gender a psychological and cultural one… to be a man or a woman… is as much a function of dress, gesture, occupation, social network and personality as it is of possessing a particular set of genitals.”

This leads into a discussion of gender identity that feels surprisingly contemporary:

“we can begin to acknowledge that masculinity is not simply the opposite of femininity but that there are many types of gender identity… The characteristics we define as masculine are culture specific… every aspect of our masculine presence is contradicted in other cultures and societies.” 

So gender is not fixed. 

What fascinates me is that this was written in 1977, and yet I feel I am only fully encountering these ideas now, reading as an adult in 2026. Although I came across much feminist writing about women at university (while researching gender stereotyping of designed product) I don’t remember reading about masculinity. 

How long have we known these perspectives, and why do older, more rigid ideas still prevail? Perhaps because it is difficult for people to accept histories and ideologies different from those they were raised with.

Another important point Tolson makes is that masculinity is historically variable:

“masculinity is a culturally specific and socially functional gender identity with peculiar often negative consequences for men themselves… sexuality is not the same for different generations. There is no universal masculinity but rather varying masculine experience of each succeeding social epoch.”

He also acknowledges the uneven nature of oppression:

“It is apparent that in so far as our society remains patriarchal it works for the benefit of men… straight men are not oppressed by patriarchy in the same ways as women or gay men.”

This distinction feels important; it does not deny men’s difficulties, but situates them differently.

The big F (Feminism and its part in consciousness raising)

This is one of the most compelling sections, because it frames feminism not as an attack on men but as an invitation to 'transformation'.

“as a first step towards the transformation of gender identity the women’s liberation movement has pioneered the activity of consciousness raising.”

'Consciousness raising', he argues, challenges traditional masculine definitions of politics and invites men themselves to change:

“men are often unable to talk about themselves… men are usually dogmatic and aggressively conservative… But the experience of gender fragmentation and the uncertainties of proletarianization* are forcing more and more men into positions of psychological stress.”

He goes on to quote Sheila Rowbotham:

“men… are ashamed of their own sensitivity to suffering and love because they have been taught to regard these as feminine… They are afraid of being rejected and despised as we are… We are moving towards a new world together but development is an uneven and painful process. We must be honest and help one another until they find a new way to express themselves and organise themselves… the generalisation of our consciousness of our own subordination enables them to discover a new manner of being men.”

One of the solutions, he advocates and documents, is the formation of small informal mens groups, to overcome silence and support attempts to break daily routines, quoting Ingrid Bengis:

“ultimately it is precisely our willingness to experiment with our own lives that has made us a marked generation.”

So what’s next 

Reading it now, nearly fifty years later, it still feels like an unfinished conversation, which is part of what makes it compelling, despite its unconventional title.

Looking into how the book has been received within the wider context of social sciences, it is described as a foundational text in pro-feminist studies, particularly for its attempt to link masculinity with class and capitalist social relations. At the same time, it has been widely criticised for being too narrow and overly theoretical.

Early responses suggested the book focused too heavily on class and was quite rigid in its approach (Kirkus Reviews, 1978) and later critics have argued that it centres mainly on white, working-class British masculinity, overlooking other experiences of gender.

More recent work on masculinity has expanded this discussion, examining how masculinity is performed and mediated through culture, media, and technology.

R. W. Connell challenged Tolson’s relatively fixed view by introducing hegemonic masculinity, showing that there are multiple masculinities organised in a hierarchy rather than a single dominant form (Connell, 1987; 1994). Similarly, Jeff Hearn argued that approaches like Tolson’s rely too much on Marxism and don’t fully explain how gender power works beyond class (Hearn, 1987). Critics have also described Tolson’s understanding of patriarchy as too simplistic, especially in its strong focus on the family and its assumption that working-class men are more patriarchal than others.

Building on this shift away from fixed models, Andrea Cornwall and Nancy Lindisfarne argue that masculinity is not stable but changes depending on social and cultural context (Cornwall and Lindisfarne, 1994).

Other work pushes this further by focusing on how masculinity is performed and represented. Judith Butler (1990) understands gender as performative, which is useful for thinking about fashion as a space where masculinity is constantly enacted and reshaped. Connell’s later work (1995) also helps explain how dominant masculine ideals are reproduced visually, while Jack Halberstam (1998) challenges the idea that masculinity belongs only to male bodies, opening up more fluid and nonconforming possibilities.

Overall, Tolson’s work feels like a key starting point for thinking about masculinity in relation to class and labour but it feels limited when applied to areas like fashion, where masculinity is less about production and more about performance, image and circulation. In this sense, the book is both influential and incomplete; an important foundation that later theories continue to question and build on.

These broader perspectives have much in common with my ongoing research into the male dominance of fashion. The book provides a foundational framework for understanding masculinity as shaped by class relations, labour and capitalist structures; however, its relevance to contemporary fashion and what I have begun to term karmic masculinity is limited. Tolson’s emphasis on production and social structure does not fully account for how masculinity is visually constructed, performed, and circulated through fashion systems. 

...so thankyou, Tolson, for your profound contribution to my research and thought spiral.

Definitely more on this later... 

Glossary

*Prolaterianisation - ‘Proletarianization refers to the process in which individuals who perform direct labour become separated from the means of production, leading them to become property-less and economically compelled to work for capitalists for a wage - AI generated definition based on: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition), 2009 cited from Science Direct; https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/proletarianization

References/ further reading:

• Tolson, Andrew. The Limits of Masculinity. London: Tavistock, 1977.

• John Berger, Ways of seeing, 1972, London, Penguin

• Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge, New York, 1990

• Ann Oakley, Sex, Gender and Society, Melbourne Temple Smith, 1972

• Sherry B. Ortner, Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture? Feminist Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Autumn, 1972), pp. 5-31. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0046-3663%28197223%291%3A2%3C5%3AIFTMAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

• Ingrid Bengis, Combat in the Erogenous Zone, London: Wildwood House, 1973

• Rowbotham, Sheila 1973, Hidden from History, 1974, Women's Consciousness, Man's World, Hamondsworth, Penquin

Critics of Tolson:

• Connell, R. W. Gender and Power. 1987; Masculinities. 1994.

• Hearn, Jeff. The Gender of Oppression. 1987.

• Cornwall, Andrea & Lindisfarne, Nancy. Dislocating Masculinity. 1994 (contextual critique).

• Halberstam, J. 1998. Female masculinity. Duke University Press.

AI gathered reviews

• PARKHOUSE, Christopher. “Personalising the public…” 1996 Personalising the public A review of four books about masculinity. Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/20189/

• Kirkus Reviews, 1978 review of Tolson.

• Glenn E. Good, Tiffany S. Borst, David L. Wallace, Masculinity research: A review and critique, 1994. Applied and Preventive Psychology, Volume 3, Issue 1,

  1994, Pages 3-14, ISSN 0962-1849, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80104-0.

  (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184905801040)

• Melanie McCarry, Masculinity studies and male violence: Critique or collusion?,

  Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 30, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 404-415,

  ISSN 0277-5395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2007.07.006.

  (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539507000623)