**2. Gender Prosumerism: "Neo-chauvinism" and "Retrosexism" in the Digital era**

Communication media are spaces crucial for initiating and analyzing debates surrounding the form in which masculinity and femininity are shaped in contemporary society. As with any product of culture, gender roles are historic, they change, they

<sup>2</sup> Nancy Fraser [5] proposes using the term parity, as a concept distinct from equity and equality, which encompasses the spheres of the justice system, redistribution of wealth, and recognition, that is to say, the economic sphere as well as the cultural sphere.

are modified, they are negotiated, and they adapt to social, political, economic, and cultural transformations. Based on this, Cultural Studies give an account of the influence the culture industry has over the construction of biases and social meanings, of the central role that technology plays in the creation and propagation of popular culture [6], as with the unbreakable interconnection between human beings and technology [7, 8], the overlap of which spans form the biological to the socio-cultural and political.

In the digital age, the consumer has ceased to be passive, becoming instead a "prosumer" [9], which is to say, one who assumes the dual roles of consumer and producer, one who meddles in the development of new products or services. "Prosumerism" allows us to understand consumption as a static, permanent process wherein beyond being simply passive consumers, we are emotionally and personally involved, and whereby we ourselves become agents who negotiate, reinvent, resist, challenge, and transform existing cultural patterns [10]. Immersed in a "culture of participation" [11], the idea of the passive recipient is substituted for that of the consumer subject who is, in addition, a collaborator and co-creator [12]. As a consequence, the consumer subjects interact and ally themselves with networks of people and virtual communities to produce and distribute content of interest to themselves as well as to the group, seizing whatever the market has to offer.

Based on the previous, with the goal of ascertaining and examining the gender configurations shared and popularized by means of digital media, the concept of "gender prosumers" [13] arises in the academic literature, allowing us to analyze the ways in which men and women actively participate in the modeling and remodeling of masculinity and femininity, as with the role of intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals within this process. Thus, on full display are the contemporary trends of "neochauvinism" and "retrosexism" which function as "disciplinary devices of symbolic violence" ([13], p. 120, my translation) and which, supported by the culture industry and based on prosumerism, contribute to the legitimization of violence against women and the reinforcement of gender inequality.

Along this line, the work of Alissa Quart [14] y Sayak Valencia [13] give an account of the means via which discussion about hegemonic masculinity, tied to the guidelines of the market and habits of consumption, has been costumed with a progressive veil of that tries to conceal sexism and male chauvinism, decorating these with facades of "education" and being in the "avant-garde". Their investigations give an account of the characteristic circulation of discussions, images, and media representations about gender and sexuality that are supported by and reproduced by specific groups that actively participate in reinforcing existing gender dichotomies, producing, reproducing, and consuming the symbolic violence that circulates in the media.

Both authors refer to "hipster sexism"<sup>3</sup> , led by young middleclass university students who, masking themselves with intellectualism, art, culture, and being in style, acquire a material measure of influence within movements and on social medial, as well as within the academic sphere. As Quart [14] explains, these groups hold sway with men of varying ages and social standings by means of their wide publicity and the sale of cultural merchandise: t-shirts, films, magazines, and television programs. Given their university education, hipsters proclaim themselves "men of culture" and laud themselves for being "cultural leaders" capable of being both critical and analytical, by which means their products and statements acquire relevance within

<sup>3</sup> Sayak Valencia [13] refers to arts and humanities students as being among the principal producers/ reproducers of "hipster sexism".

the media and social networks, marking and influencing trends. Among other things, the characteristic manner in which this group utilizes humor and sarcasm to appeal to freedom of expression must be highlighted, for it functions as a way to avoid criticism for expressing markedly misogynistic, homophobic, classist, and racist statements.

In this manner, the cultural and economic capital wielded, together with the "humorous" tone of their assertions, generally serve to soften their violent and cynical messages. For example, in so called "anti-feminist" Facebook groups these pseudo-intellectuals make use of garish phrases and cite prestigious authors to make jokes and to satirize and denigrate women, attempting to make known their cultural capital. The sexist hipster is one who tries to depoliticize and minimize the relevance of feminism, who calls feminists "feminazis"4 , one who makes videos explaining how to patriarchy does not exist, who claims feminism is equivalent to male chauvinism, who claims that violence cannot be gender-specific, one who is certain that feminism inverted the reality of the situation and that it is actually men who suffer discrimination, assertions that go viral among groups of men who identify with this avant-garde sexism or misogyny.

In compliance with the ideals of hegemonic masculinity, by means of misogynistic discussions that pass as "cool", neo-chauvinsim employs feminist rhetoric, manufactures confusing discourse and representations of masculinity that disguise male chauvinism and sexism [15] which perpetuate "the objectification of women, but in a manner that uses mockery, quotation marks, and paradox" ([14]: 1). Upon declaring, for example, that women have achieved the same rights as men, men would now be the victims of feminism, and these groups apparently take it upon themselves to "defend their sons form the dangers of feminism" ([15], p. 10, my translation).

"Hipster sexism" and other contra-feminist trends are based on the idea that gender equality has been achieved and from this assumption, shielding themselves at all times behind their "humorous" and "only joking" character, denigrating women and sexual minorities becomes masked or "hidden" in the joke. As explained by Isabel Menéndez [15], this avant-garde sexism is based on:

*The use of accounts characterized by two elements: a humorous script or outline, and the use of the retro esthetic. The underlying message, however, is based on the same familiar sexism despite incorporating more elevated insults, tolerated today due to their supposedly entertaining character, behind which it is easy to perceive modern misogyny. It demands reflection upon sexism itself - "you-know-I-only-do this-injest" - so the objectification of women is inscribed in the action itself, despite starting from the assumption that sexism is something old-fashioned. Its radical novelty is being at once explicit but banal, violent but ironic ([15], p. 18, my translation).*

Converging with hipster sexism, as contemporary strategies seeking to depoliticize feminism, Menéndez [15] refers to "retrosexism" and "neo-chauvinism" to reflect upon gender paradigms that, promoted by the culture industry, point towards a regression in terms of gender equality. According to the author, retrosexism is a

<sup>4</sup> The term "feminazi" was first used by Rush Limbaugh, an American conservative broadcaster, in his popular talk shows during the nineties. It equates feminism, an academic and political movement, with nazism, a totalitarian political doctrine whose prime representative is Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), as a way to underline the "dangerous" nature of the former and discredit the female liberation movement. For Limbaugh (1992: 194), "feminazis" are "women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion", as he describes in his book *The Way Things Ought to Be*.

#### *New Masculinities, Are They Truly New? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105162*

narrative that cocoons itself within a bygone era in order to attenuate its true sexist cargo, which takes advantage of humor, cheekiness, and jest as stratagems for perpetuating gender injustices and "from there are reinforced classic attitudes of gender distinctions as parody and irony impede the ability to determine whether these distinctions are being supported or subverted" ([15], p. 18, my translation). Viewed in this light, hipster sexism is presented as a variant of retrosexism.

Under this logic, neo-chauvinism – another reactionary line of discourse from the avant-garde – is based on the fear of losing uniquely male privileges, a loss which gender parity could possibly bring about. This trend makes boastful claims of the injustices, abuses, and dangers of feminism, posing men as "victims" and women as "opportunists" seeking to take advantage of current conditions, which take assume "equality", as a means to legitimize their male chauvinist burdens and complaints [15, 16]. Among the principal characteristics of neo-chauvinsim Rubiales [16] cites: 1) perceiving gender equality as a threat, 2) equating feminism with male chauvinism, 3) denial of the existence of gender violence against women and, 4) questioning and satirizing the rights and autonomy of women. This is to say, neo-chauvinism is a veiled form of male chauvinism, but considering themselves oppressed and maligned by feminism within a contest where male chauvinism does not enter into the politically correct discourse as concerns masculinity. As Menéndez explains:

*Neo-chauvinism is not new. It is the same male chauvinism form yesteryear but dressed in new robes: it is fed by a series of practices and rhetoric - post-chauvinism, post-feminism, hipster sexism – each one complex, their principal characteristic being ambiguity, the dynamic between power and control, which does not always reveal itself as such. Insistence upon messages that delegitimize emancipatory philosophies like feminism can be effective if, in addition, they are accompanied by a complete discourse that insists upon the obsolescence of complaints for equality and the prudishness of criticism of the use of sex and women's bodies ([15], p. 25, my translation).*

In this way, in addition to positioning men as victims of feminism, these reactionary groups and movements defend the hyper-sexualization of women, for prostitution and sexual work by women as inevitable necessities; in sum, for the subordination and sexual servility of women before men [17]. Along this same course is aligned the trend of post-feminism, that is to say, associations that strongly criticize and deflect the concerns of "second wave of feminism" [18] which is blamed for being "victim feminism" ([19], p. 136).

Post-feminism, founded upon neoliberal philosophy, is based on individualism and the "ethics of personal choice", defends traditional ideals of femininity, sexist beauty stereotypes and suggests looking at the "empowering" aspects of prostitution and pornography ([15]: 13). That is to say, it is a segregationist and depoliticized feminism that leaves aside the questioning of hegemonic masculinity, criticisms of patriarchal capitalism, while at the same time that is denies the existence of gender injustice. Such points of criticism formed the axis of the grievances of "second wave" feminism of the seventies [5]. Therefore, rooted in the idea that we live in a just society wherein gender equality has been achieved, post-feminism merged easily with hegemonic neoliberalism which contributes to ingraining "a visual and narrative rhetoric that emanates from neoliberal media for the porpoise of discrediting feminism as a gender ideology belonging to the past" ([20]: 4, my translation).

As explained by Raewyn Connell [1], the patriarchy is maintained thanks to structural and institutional complicity and the agreement reached between men and women. Along this same line, Rita Segato [21] emphasizes that the patriarchy is not embodied solely by men but by women as well who, in conjunction with their male counterparts, contribute to maintaining and supporting the patriarchal order. In this sense it is important to point out the participation of those women who partake in anti-feminist trends, who contribute to propagating hate, jokes and their own denigration, as well as that of other women. The above comes about in "a reactionary and patriarchal discourse that is reproduced and magnified in the media and social networks; an ambiguous and confusing discourse that even achieves the support and backing of many women who believe that feminism and its entire agenda is detrimental to them" ([15]: 4, my translation).
