What are the textures and materials of masculinity? Panelists will offer brief provocations and performances to consider how menswear, adornment, and accessorizing shape religious masculinities. Opening up conversations about gender, embodiment, and material culture, panelists explore how fashion and dress are part and parcel of how men play with and resist femininity, strive toward straightness, fashion alternative masculinities, and perform and project romantic prowess.
Papers
Michael Voris, the ex-gay founder of alt-right Catholic media outlet Church Militant, is a sword connoisseur. “We’ve got swords all over the place here at St. Michael’s Media and ChurchMilitant.tv. They’re all in my room,” he said in an interview with Catholic website, The New Emangelization. Swords are also prominent in Voris’ rhetoric. At various times, he has claimed that Catholics must put their sinful desires to the sword, that Christ came into the world bearing a sword, and that the kingdom of God is to be established on earth by the sword. Often, distinctions between symbolic, spiritual, and physical swords are impossible to parse out. Like many alt-right leaders, Voris employs violent language and images to stir up his followers. Swords, whether material, imaged, or rhetorical, help accomplish this task.
Many religious leaders across time and place have worried that their processes of fashioning a religious masculinity—through dress, grooming, and other bodily performances—made them look gay (or some other style of queer). From monks to pastors to social media celebrities, from Italy to Egypt to the United States, this presentation will explore these worries and propose a few reasons why so many religious men have long struggled, and will have to keep struggling, to look straight.
Robert Covolo’s book, Fashion Theology, illuminates the idea that what may start as a conversation about clothing eventually morphs into more critical questions about social order, aesthetics, and the public performance of identity (Robert Covolo, 2020). Much like we adorn our bodies with shirts, pants, jackets, hats, and scarves to present ways of being in this world, we daily choose whether or not to clothe ourselves with constructs of masculinity. I will sew a convertible clothing garment that can be worn in multiple ways to symbolize various expressions of masculinities. A video presentation will showcase the garment being worn by people of multiple identities to answer the questions: 1) How can these bodies help inform us about understandings of masculinities; 2) What happens when we decenter hegemonic masculinity and recenter alternative masculinities; and 3) How can fashion theory influence how we make meaning of presentations of religious masculinities?
“There are no hard rules in fashion,” advises Andrew Tate in a 2022 TikTok video, but every man does need some “loud pieces.” Tate, a notoriously misogynist masculinity influencer, is hardly original in this advice. Since the first masculinity influencers – at that time, "pick-up artists" – began to make waves online, “peacocking” has been a skill men must master. I offer a collage of peacocking and present religion as a “loud piece” in both interpersonal and digital economies of attention.
What works on women, then, works on digital audiences more broadly. But online, magical shimmer is not always enough to hold the attention needed for success. Tate converted to Islam shortly after TikTok banned his account. Awaiting trial for human trafficking, he walks into the courtroom with a Qu’ran. He has grown out his beard. Is he peacocking? Was he retaining his audience’s gaze with the loudest piece he could?
Douglas Wilson’s blog post “Surplices are for Sissies” illustrates the social “fashioning” of masculinity in real time. Amidst remarkably unfunny (and for that reason, hilarious) commentary about masculinity, Wilson defines the surplice as “a fetching little ecclesiastical number, with lacey-like accents.” “Showing off is always diabolical,” writes Wilson, “but showing off your piety is diabolical and gay” (emphasis original).“Tall decorated hats,” “elegantly styled flowing robes,” and “embroidered stoles” all come in for criticism. However, Wilson is not alone in criticizing religious leaders for effeminate dress: Jesus of Nazareth does the same (Matthew 11:8; Luke 20:46). Crossly and Myles, authors of Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict (2023), interrogate what they call the “butch millenarianism” of the early Jesus Movement. By isolating Jesus’s critique of soft clothing from the political and material factors that drove his movement, Wilson can write this incredibly campy rant to fashion his own idealized masculinity.
This object narrative examines wedding rings generally, and Groove Life’s silicone wedding band specifically, as religious garments that shape masculinity. Rich Froning, the 7x CrossFit Games champion and outspoken evangelical Christian is the spokesperson for Groove Life's silicone wedding bands. As spokesperson, Froning’s presence underscores the rings’ dual purpose to, first, replace metal rings that will show wear-and-tear when routinely rubbed against a metal barbell during training, and second, to announce and uphold one’s vows to a heterosexual monogamous marriage while in the co-ed gym.In the example of the Groove Life ring, we see the priorities of normative masculinity, muscular Christianity, Christian marriage, and men’s fashion combine.
This paper examines social media-based male evangelical Christian comedians’ fraught relationship with femininity as a performance, a sign of the Other, and a tantalizing possibility. At the same time as they reject femininity as an inferior way of being and an undesirable set of qualities for a society to embrace, these men often rely on the performance of femininity as the basis of their own comedy careers.