Sabrina Sonner - Core Post 4

            In Jeffords article, she discusses a “new masculinity” that emerged in the 90s that focused on valuing family. The two things that interested me the most in this analysis were 1. where this “new masculinity” places women and 2. the way Jeffords' discussion of masculinity relates to Dyer’s discussion of it in Stars.  In her article, Jeffords writes, “in these films, families provide both the motivation and the resolution of changing masculine heroisms,” and suggests that this is seen in Terminator 2 in the way that the terminator takes on an increasingly parental role as the film goes on (Jeffords 143). In the beginning of the film, he largely embodies this “old” destructive masculinity in his lack of care for the collateral damage of his actions, carelessly destroying cars and killing people in the initial action sequence where he saves John. It is only when he is taught by John- a son figure- that he starts to move towards the newer masculinity of which Jeffords writes. While it is near this point that John and Sarah are reunited, since the terminator has taken over the role of protector, Sarah’s role consequently becomes much more passive in the story. Her largest action after breaking herself out of the mental institution (which itself is assisted by John and the terminator) is to almost (but not) kill a man. The shift in Terminator 2 of the terminator from an old type of masculinity to a “New Man” is a shift that seems to make the women obsolete.

            In Dyer’s section on masculinity, he writes that “writers like Barbara Creed have taken the view that by exaggerating the signs of maleness the built body shows male power as something ‘made up,’ in substantial and unnatural” (Dyer 180). In combining this with Jeffords analysis, I’ve found myself wondering if this unnaturalness of masculinity that Dyer writes of would apply to both of the masculinities Jeffords writes of, or just of the old masculinity. Jeffords analysis of Terminator 2 largely focuses on the cultural context of the films, with only one parenthetical comment that “Schwarzenegger’s chest is smaller” (in the second film rather than the first), while Dyer’s analysis is largely on his star image.

I would suggest that Dyer’s analysis of the unnaturalness of the hyper-masculine image of Schwarzenegger applies largely to the older masculinity Jeffords writes of since while both are embodied in him the old is more directly tied to his body as opposed to his actions, which are what place him in the new “family man” masculinity. Jeffords writes of the way that the film concludes regarding the shift in masculinities, “But in a remarkable inversion, the film manages not only to reveal the “new” masculinity/father but to excuse the “old” one as well. For though the Terminator must sacrifice itself in order to prevent a destructive future, the film’s plot makes it clear that, like the Prince/Beast, it is not his fault. Because the mechanized body from the movie’s past has been shown, largely, through the opposition framework of the script, to be a “good Terminator,” its elimination is tragic” (Jeffords 173). She places the masculine body as part of the old expectations of masculinity. While the newer Reagan-era masculinity is performed through the actions in the film, and could still be seen as unnatural in the way these play out, the older, tough, loner masculinity is connected to Schwarzenegger’s body as it relates to his star image. This isn’t to say the image of this “New Man” masculinity lacks physical expectations of men, but in the case of Schwarzenegger, the old masculinity is tied to his physical image while the new masculinity is tied to his place in the narrative and its cultural context.