​My maternal grandmother was Annie Carroll.  Originally from Sallynoggin, Co. Dublin, her father was Patrick Doyle and her mother was Martha (nee Byrne).  For as long as I can remember, my grandmother’s family shared an unusually tragic set of coincidences.  Separated by the Atlantic Ocean and almost three decades apart, two members of my grandmother’s family were accidentally and fatally shot, while at a sporting event (or so we thought).  
 
The first of these tragic accidents involved my grandmother’s uncle, William Byrne, the sister of Martha.  In 1922, at the age of 13, William was caddying on a South County Dublin golf course when he was killed by an accidental gunshot.  The details surrounding the accident are unclear but the civil record states the cause of death as ‘internal haemorrhage from accidental gun shot wound’[1].

​The second tragic event took place on the 4th July 1950.  A man called Bernard L. Doyle went to see a baseball game between the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers.  He had brought along his neighbour’s son Otto Flaig.  Otto’s view of the game was obstructed by a man sitting in front of him; Bernard (Barney) swapped seats with Otto.  Moments later on a nearby rooftop, another boy, Robert Peebles, fired a pistol into the sky for fun.  Out of a crowd of 49,000 spectators, the bullet from that pistol struck Barney Doyle in the left temple, killing him instantly.  
​

​For years, our family has believed that the Bernard Doyle shot in New York was related to us.  My maternal great-grandfather Patrick Doyle (the son of Christopher) had both a brother and a cousin called Bernard Doyle.  Patrick’s cousin Bernard was the son of Andrew Doyle from Co. Meath, who had emigrated to the U.S.A. sometime around the turn of the 20th Century. A letter had been sent many years ago informing the family that it was Andrew’s son Bernard who had been shot at that baseball game.
 
However, some recent genealogical research suggests there may have been a mix up. Bernard L. Doyle (who was tragically killed at the baseball game in 1950) was the son of Andrew Doyle and Ellen (Helen) C. Meade[2].  Andrew and Ellen were married on the 11thSeptember 1895 in Lowell, Massachusetts, U.S.A. On Andrew and Ellen’s marriage record, Andrew’s father is named Patrick Doyle[3].  
​

This means that Bernard’s father Andrew is not a relation of ours.  Our ancestor Andrew Doyle, the brother of Christopher, was the son of Michael Doyle from Co. Meath.  I know that Andrew and Christopher’s father was Michael, as it is stated on the marriage record of Christopher Doyle and Kate Meara[4].  

​The two Doyle family trees share a number of similarities that allowed this mix up to occur.  Each family has an Andrew Doyle[5], born around the same time, each hailing from the Kells area in Co. Meath, Ireland, who emigrated to the U.S.A.  Each Andrew Doyle had a son called Bernard around the mid 1890’s.  However, based on the marriage records of Andrew Doyle and Ellen C. Meade, and of Christopher Doyle and Kate Meara, it is clear that these two Doyle’s are not related. 
 
What remains a mystery is what happened to our Bernard Doyle?  Our family obviously lost touch with him.  When our relatives heard the news about Bernard L. Doyle (and the similarities in lineage) did they assume it was our Bernard Doyle?  Despite my genealogical research I have been unable to find our Bernard Doyle.  This mystery remains buried with him, wherever he is. 
​

[1] Civil Death Record of William Byrne, 13yrs, 7 Longford Villas Sallynoggin, on 10thApril 1922, District of Dun Laoghaire in the Union of Rathdown in the County of Dublin, 04391923.  
[2] See 1900 Census, Lowell, Middlesex, Massachusetts, Nara Series #1240659.
[3] See Pg. 89 Marriages Solemnized in the City of Lowell in the Year 1895.  Familysearch film #001651224 – Record Set: United States Marriages. 
[4] See Civil Marriage Record of Christopher Doyle and Kate Meara on 05.07.1891, Record #05891329 (219). 
[5] However, I have yet to find a record of an Andrew Doyle, son of Michael Doyle, from the Kells area of Co. Meath. 
[6] I examined the following U.S. Census records in order to compile Bernard L. Doyle Family Tree: 1900 Census Lowell, Middlesex Massachusetts, Nara Series #1240659; 1920 Census Hudson, New Jersey, Supervisor District #9, Enumerator District #299, Sheet 8(A); 1920 Census Hudson, new Jersey, Supervisor District #9, Enumerator District #333; 1930 Census, New Jersey, Nara 

This special edition newsletter was prepared on behalf of the Bray Drugs Awareness Forum and examines four significant studies on cannabis related harms.  The aim of this newsletter is to provide in lay terms what each of these pieces of research found, and how this might be of use when working with or talking to young people around/about cannabis use.  The newsletter can be downloaded below. 

This poster will be presented at the symposium 'Masculinities, roles and transitions' at University of Leeds on May 10th, 2016.  

I recently presented at the 5th Dublin PubhD event in the Stag's Head pub.  PubhD is a speaking event set in the friendly environment of the pub.  It's essentially gigging for PhDs!  It began in Nottingham in January 2014, and since then spread to other cities, arriving in Dublin in April 2015.  The format is simple you have to present your PhD in 10 minutes or under, in lay language.

My PubhD talk - 

“Irish Masculinities and Illegal Recreational Drugs”
Clay Darcy, PhD Candidate, School of Sociology, UCD

Dublin PubhD
Stag’s Head, Dame Court, Dublin 2.
02.09.2015

Hi everyone, I’m Clay.  I’m a PhD candidate in the School of Sociology, UCD.

My research explores two topics, or areas of interest – Irish masculinities and illegal recreational drugs. 

To help explain my research, I want to tell you how I began my PhD, and why I am really interested in these two topics.  I have been working as a specialist youth worker for a number of years now.  I deliver drug education and prevention programmes to young people, sometimes in schools and sometimes in youth groups or youth clubs.  A number of years ago, a young male in one of these youth groups attempted to take his life.  I had worked with him and his group of friends for over a year and a half, and I felt I had developed a good relationship with them.  However, I never saw his suicide attempt coming, nor did his friends or family.  Thankfully his attempt was unsuccessful, and he is now ok.  However, at the time it had a real impact on me, especially because of the way it affected his group of friends.  They really struggled to come to terms with his action and they felt huge guilt.  They were upset they hadn’t recognised their friend was in difficulty, and they wished they had been able to prevent his suicide attempt.  This really got me thinking about why men often seem to find it difficult to express emotion, and why some men don’t disclose when they are in distress or difficulty.  This is what sparked my interest in masculinities and men’s studies, and it became the topic of my master’s thesis.

At the same time, while I was delivering drug programmes, I noticed more young males seemed to be using drugs than females, and that males and females seemed to use drugs differently and for different reasons.  This got me thinking about why exactly males tended to use drugs more than females, and I was curious about what motivated the males to use drugs in particular ways or in particular contexts.   I became curious whether some men’s drug use may have contributed to them feeling more like a man, and whether this might explain why more men were using drugs.  And so, I began my PhD studies to explore these types of questions. 

I started by formulating research questions and carrying out a review of the literature.  What I found in the literature was men are much more likely to use illegal drugs than women, and in Ireland, men are more than twice as likely than women to use cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy.  These three drugs are generally regarded as recreational drugs, in other words, drugs that people tend to use socially and during leisure time.  The literature revealed men are much more likely to develop drug problems, and be in treatment for drug use.  However, my interest lies in recreational drug use and not problematic or addicted drug use, but the literature didn’t reveal what factors influence men to recreationally use drugs. In Ireland, we have a good idea of how many people are using illegal drugs but no one has explored what men’s recreational drug use means to them, as men.  There is a real absence of research on the gendered meanings men and women attach to drug use.  However, there is lots of research exploring how for some men, alcohol contributes to their notion of what it means to be a man, but there nothing to suggest whether men’s recreational use of illegal drugs might be similar or different to alcohol.

Once I had a grasp of the literature, I refined my research questions and research design; I sought ethical approval from my college to begin fieldwork.  I decided I wanted to talk to different groups of Irish men, to gather their views on drugs, and find out why they think men recreationally use illegal drugs.  I also wanted to talk to men who have used or do use illegal drugs, to try find out what their drug use means to them as men, and find out if their drug use in any way related with their notion of what it is to be a man.  I decided I needed to gather data in two different ways, firstly through focus groups with a diverse sample of men, and secondly through in-depth interviews with a focused sample of men who have or do use illegal drugs socially or during leisure time.

I have just completed the first part of the fieldwork and data analysis.  I have completed 9 focus groups (the first a pilot) with 44 men in total, ranging in age from 18 – 85 years.  There was a diverse mix of life experience, social class and occupation types among the men, however, all were white Irish and to best of my knowledge heterosexual.

This is what the focus group data reveals:

The men’s notions about masculinity and what is it to be a man was quite complex and varied.  There seems to be a shift for some men away from traditional notions of masculinity, however, for many participants their notion of what it is to be man was rooted in traditional ideas.  Many of the research participants subscribed to the idea that a man should be a provider, a protector, that he should be tough and capable.  Many believed men shouldn’t publically express emotion, and that men had to maintain a front, especially among other men. 

The men expressed very mixed views about the recreational use of illegal drugs.  Unsurprisingly, some men were very anti-drugs whilst other’s were much more liberal, but this depended on whether the men had exposure to drug use through social circles or personal use.  In general, there was a perception that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug in comparison to others, and to use cannabis is relatively normal.  But this again depended on the men’s level of exposure to drug use.  Some men did disclose information about their own drug use; this mostly consisted of smoking weed or hash. 

One participant, an older man from a rural area, shared a funny story about a young man who was nervous about a date he had planned with a woman.  The young man had approached the older man and asked him whether he might be able to source some ‘blue fellas’ or Viagra.  The young man wanted to be ‘in order’ for his date.  The older man obliged and managed to procure two Viagra for him.  Sure enough the young man went on his date, but not long after he rang the older man shouting and screaming, saying ‘what did you give me?’ his date was ‘ready for it’ but his head was pounding and nothing down there would work.  The focus group found this quite funny and had a good laugh about it.  But for me this revealed another aspect of how men using drugs contributes to their notion of what it is to be a man.  It seems this young man felt strong self-expectation he must perform, and perform well.  He was using drugs to try boost his sexual performance.

Interestingly, many participants tried to understand men’s recreational use of illegal drugs by comparing it to alcohol.  Some participants were of the opinion that one man’s recreational use of illegal drugs is similar to another man’s recreational use of alcohol.  This is important because there is a really strong link between alcohol and masculinities, so if men view certain illegal drugs as being similar to alcohol, then for some men, these illegal drugs may contribute to masculinities in a similar way that alcohol does.

Participants spoke of different groupings of men who use drugs.  Based on participant’s accounts, I have identified five patterns of masculinity.  By a pattern of masculinity, I mean the ways in which different groups of men try to be men.  Masculinity is something that has to be done or achieved, and there are many ways someone might try to do masculinity.  The five patterns that emerged through the focus group data, describe how different groupings of men accomplish masculinities through different means, and how groups of men relate to other groups of men.  Significantly, in the eyes of some participants, men’s recreational use of illegal drugs may contribute to or retract from these five patterns of masculinity. 

In other words, many focus group participants were of the view that men’s recreational use of illegal drugs may contribute to or retract from some men being men.  Some participants observed or knew of men who engaged in competitive drug taking.  These men would compete with other men to see how much drugs they could take in one session, or who was best able to maintain control while intoxicated.  Participants were aware of some cannabis using men, who would try to out smoke other men.  These men would try to smoke their competitor under the table.  Again, this is another example of how some men’s recreational use of illegal drugs contributes to their notion of what it is to be a man.  In the eyes of others, competitive drug taking men who are able to consume large quantities of drugs and maintain control, are viewed similarly to men who are able to drink heavily and maintain control.

However, this is still only one part of the story, I have for the most part gathered the views of non-drug using men.  What I need to do next is begin to interview men who were or are recreational users of illegal drugs, and find out what their drug use means to them as men.  Trying to recruit men to take part in this part of the research is going to be challenging.  Maybe if anyone here tonight knows of a man who occasionally uses an illegal drug during their leisure time, they might talk to them about my research, and see if they would be willing to take part.  It would of course be in the strictest confidence. 

Thanks for listening and being a fantastic audience!


© Clay Darcy, September 2015.  

Some might describe this conversation as a ‘competitive argument’ (Campbell, 2000: 572).  I believe this conversational excerpt offers huge insight into these two men’s constructs of masculinity, and reveals something about the men who stare at beer.   Both of these men are Irish and both are professionals, however, the First Man (FM) is older than the Second Man (SM) by about ten years.  The FM appears to have a very clear and distinct idea of what a ‘real’ man is – his idea is traditional and one that conforms to normative hegemonic ideals.  Such a man is strong, independent and confident, he can go anywhere he pleases by himself – he doesn’t need handholding or the support of others. 

According to the FM, a real man is really a lone wolf; he is autonomous and can do difficult things on his own … like drinking beer or reading a paper!  The FM’s comments serve to question and undermine the legitimacy of the SM’s masculinity; the FM implies that the SM is not a real man.  The SM does not challenge the FM’s views, and takes a subordinate stance.  The SM although being a confident and outgoing person, for whatever reason, would not enter a pub by himself.  Without being able to ask the SM, it’s difficult to speculate why this is.  He may be a ‘sociable drinker’ as we refer to it in Ireland, preferring the company of others when drinking or he may ascribe to a different masculine construct.  The SM appears to have a very clear distinct view that pubs are not places for lone individuals, especially when you are not a regular of the pub.  The pub domain can be an intimidating place; anyone who has ever walked into an Irish pub (especially a rural one) and had the entire pub turn on their bar stools and stare at you will understand completely! 

The above conversation reveals much about the everyday gendered interplay between men, and demonstrates the hierarchical nature of masculinity and how hegemony asserts its power.  This conversation is an example of what Hugh Campbell (2000: 565) refers to as ‘conversational cockfighting’, where men try and assert dominance over each other using verbal exchanges, wit and specialized local knowledge.  The FM’s comments illustrate the culturally embedded association between masculinity and the pub, and offer some understanding of the men who stare at beer. 

The men who stare at beer, are possibly not just staring at beer, they are publically displaying a specific type of masculinity.  They are pub performers in a sense.  This masculine construct historically distilled in Irish pubs is often referred to as ‘traditional masculinity’.   This masculinity is hardened, solitary and free from the influence of women.  In compiling an oral history of Irish pubs, Kevin Kearns interviewed many Irish men with this type of masculine construct.  Kearns (1996: 40) states that Irish pubs were the ‘last bastion of male supremacy’, and that many [older] Irish men (crusty old regulars as Kearns calls them) regarded the pub as a ‘holy ground’.  One man described the social rules of the pub to Kearns in the following way ‘it was a sort of religion among the men that a woman wouldn’t be seen in a bar’  (John Greenhalgh, age 82, In: Kearns, 1996: 40).

The men who stare at beer are remnants of a bye-gone era, where pubs were strictly masculine in domain.   The pub was mythologized as a sacred space and this ‘holy ground’ served to exclude women and legitimize men’s hegemony.  The SM from the conversation above is not a beer gazer, and his comments serve to demonstrate a noticeable cultural shift among younger Irish men.   Younger Irish men are less likely to be beer gazers than older men.  This shift may be subtle but does indicate a move away from traditional masculine constructs toward a more contemporary inclusive masculinity.  Some might say that young Irish men are less like to be beer gazers and rather beer guzzlers, but that’s a separate blog altogether!

References:

Campbell, H. (2000) ‘The Glass Phallus: Pub(lic) Masculinity and Drinking in Rural New Zealand’, Rural Sociology, 65(4), pp. 562-581.
Kearns, K.C. (1996) Dublin Pub Life and Lore – An Oral History, Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

Notes:

This blog featured was published in Lógr Magazin (June 2015) - 
Darcy, C. (2015) „Muži, kteří zírají do piva” (Trans. Stašová, E.), Lógr, Vol. 16, 20-23. 

It also feature on www.masculinities101.com in October 2014 - http://masculinities101.com/2014/10/01/the-men-who-stare-at-beer/

Recently my wife and I went for a stroll along a near by harbour and marina.  We were enjoying each other’s company, happily taking in the fresh air, views of the yachts and fishing boats, the surrounding hills and mountains, and the deep dark sea.  There was a strong breeze but the air was warm.  We reached the end of the north pier and were looking down into the mouth of the harbour and over toward the south pier.  There across the water on the opposite pier were three topless men.  The men were jumping up and down, laughing and shouting; they were shadow boxing and shoving each other around.   My wife and I watched them for a moment, not quite sure what they were up to. 

The men began jumping up onto the pier wall, looking over the pier edge to the water in the harbour below and then jumping back down off the wall.  They then resumed their messing around, jumping up and down, and beating their chests like hairless apes.  It was clearer now they were psyching themselves up to jump off the pier into the harbour, some thirty to forty feet below.  Never wanting to miss a photo opportunity and curious of the scene that was unfolding, I turned to my wife and said - “let’s watch for a minute!”  

The men continued their sequence of actions; messing around, boxing the air and each other, climbing up onto the pier wall, looking over and down into the water below, then back down off the pier wall and goofing around again.  I began to think this was all bluff and the men were not really going to jump.  With my masculinity lens these men appeared to be putting on a performance for each other, and incidentally for the handful of people in their view within the harbor and marina.  The tide was out, and to me, it didn’t look like there was sufficient depth of water below to allow for a jump from that height.  I guessed the men might be considering this.  If there was insufficient depth of water in the harbor, the men risked serious injury from the fall.  Then before I had a minute to capture the moment, one of the men climbed up onto the pier wall.  Shouting loudly, he jumped off the pier wall dropping down into the water below.  The time between the man hitting the water and resurfacing seemed incredibly long.

Sure enough, he resurfaced and began swimming to shore.  I thought his friends would fallow in sequence jumping next, but they did not.  They waited until the jumper made it back up onto the pier wall having completing his very long self-indulgent glory run, cheering and whooping along the way.  I wondered whether this was an individual test or group challenge that had been set.  The men whooped and shouted, congratulatory slapping the jumper on the back at his return.  The three men laughed loudly and the jumper expressively re-enacted his jump through mime.  Then it was clear another man intended to jump.  He began the earlier sequence of actions carried out by the first man; he jumped up onto the pier wall looked over the edge, back down off the wall, shadow boxing, chest beating, shouting, shoving … then he ran, climbed up onto the pier wall and jumped off into harbour below.  This time my camera was ready.

Happily I turned to my wife - “I got it!”  Knowing I had captured a perfect illustration of men partaking in a perceived test of masculinity.  These men were taking a significant risk.  There are many signs positioned around the harbor and marina explicitly stating diving is neither safe nor permitted.  Engaging in rule breaking, carrying out a physically challenging task and taking a substantial risk all culminate in what Michael Kimmel (1997: 309) would describe as the “vigorous ways” men “demonstrate their hardy manhood”.  

Kimmel (1997: 310) states, often “men’s bodies” are used as a “masculine testing ground”.  These men were indeed publically testing their bodies, and the limits of their resolve.  There was a certain ritualistic sequence to their pier jumping; the psyching up, surveying the field, the taunting / rallying from peers, more psyching up, the jump itself, the glory run to and congratulation from peers, and then the repeat of this sequence by the next man.  However, it was the very public nature of this risky activity that fascinated me so.  It reminded me of something Matthew Desmond (2007: 7) wrote: “the drama of manhood must be performed ardently, publicly, and without end, and one way this is accomplished is through activity that threatens male bodies”. 

I am ever fascinated by social constructions of gender, and in particular men’s constructs of masculinity.  The fact that many men have to engage in such risky behaviours and actions to accomplish a perceived state of manhood or manliness is bizarre to me.  The scene my wife and I witnessed, demonstrates the very real and dangerous ways gender constructs are enacted by some men.  As my wife and I walked away from this scene, I chatted on about masculinities, tests of manhood, and so on.  Luckily I don’t need to test my masculinity like the men at the harbour because my wife reassured me by saying “you’d never need to jump off a harbour to prove your manhood like those doofuses … because I’ll happily push you off if you don’t stopping talking about masculinities and just enjoy the bloody walk!”

© Clay Darcy, July 2015.
 
This blog was originally posted on Masculinities101.com - http://masculinities101.com/2015/07/03/the-harbor-jump-men-testing-their-masculinity/ (03.07.2015). 

References:
Desmond, M. (2007) On the Fireline – Living and Dying with Wildland Fires.  Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 
Kimmel, M. (1997) Manhood in America - A Cultural History.  New York, London & Toronto: The Free Press. 

For me this is an easy decision.  I believe in equality, fairness and inclusivity.  Marriage is something that should be available to everyone; it is not an exclusive commodity to be owned only by those who are heterosexual.  However, marriage is currently owned.  Owned by the Irish State, and yet not available to all its citizens.  To me, it is the most bizarre notion; that marriage can only be availed by those who fit the traditional binary of male and female unity.  Who am I to say that someone else’s love is invalid, or inferior, or illegitimate?  For those who are currently married or in a loving relationship and who might be considering voting NO, imagine for a second, someone told you, your love was of a lesser kind; not real, and not worthy of the legal recognition of marriage.  How would you feel?

Many no campaigners are declaring that the Civil Partnership Act (2010) affords the LGBT community similar rights as marriage.  However, the advocacy organisation Marriage Equality has identified 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage.  Namely, civil partnership does not permit children with same sex parents to have the same rights as children with opposite sex parents who are married.  Under the Civil Partnership Act (2010) a same sex couple cannot share legal responsibility for a child, this means that same sex couples cannot adopt as a couple.  This means that only 'one partner can be the legal parent at any one time' (ICCL & Glen, 2012: 38). Moreover civil partnership does not afford same sex couples many social supports available to those married, and the Civil Partnership Act (2010) defines the home of civil partners as a shared home and not a family home (marriagequality.ie).

I think it is awful that in today’s society, so many people seem to want marriage to remain exclusive.  Nobody should own marriage, marriage should be free.  Free to all.  Yet those that advocate NO are afraid of the ‘redefinition’ of marriage, as if the foundations of Irish society might crumble at the very notion of it.  But the redefinition of marriage is not the only fear held by the NO campaigners.  They also seem to be afraid of any family unit that is not the traditional nuclear.  However, the reality of our social milieu is that many families don’t fit this traditional nuclear model.  The blunt truth is, there is no singular type of family there are only families.  And yet there is a hierarchy of families, traditional nuclear at the top and anything else subordinate – this to me is fundamentally wrong.  Families should not be ranked, nor judged lesser because they are not the type of family you may have experienced.  Another concern of the No campaigners is if the referendum is passed that school teachers will have to discuss families with same sex parents as part of the curriculum.  Many children in Ireland have same sex parents, are we not to recognise these children's families because it doesn't fit with the 'fairytale idilic' held by many No campaigners?   

A family is not just a mother and father; a family is so much more.  It includes grandparents and great grandparents, siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, in-laws and so on.  Moreover, a family is not just parent(s) and child(ren).  There are many heterosexual married couples without children, whether by choice or misfortune, are they not a family?  Are they positioned subordinately on the hierarchy of families, below families with children?  That certainly seems to be the message by many of those advocating a NO. 

What this referendum has highlighted to me is the level of entrenchment of traditional sex role attitudes and narrow notions of gender normativity held by so many in Ireland.  It also demonstrates the deep-rooted prejudice held by many toward any family outside of the ‘normative’ nuclear unit.  I find this level of entrenchment and blinkeredness sad and disappointing.

I have friends and family who are gay.  I know many others who are bi-sexual and transgendered.  I would like them to be able to enjoy civil marriage as I do.  To have their love legitimately and legally recognized through marriage in the eyes of the State.  To be afforded the same legal rights as anyone else who is married.  To have the opportunity to celebrate their love through a civil marriage ceremony in the company of their family and friends.  I hope that May 22nd brings a wave of positive change to the shores of Ireland, a change towards a more inclusive, fairer and just society; where we are more opening in our thinking toward families and love.  I am voting YES, and I hope you do too.

© Clay Darcy, May 2015.
All views expressed are my own.

References:

Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) and Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (Glen) (2012) 'Know Your Rights - The Rights and Obligations of Civil Partners and other Same Sex Couples'.  Url: http://www.glen.ie/attachments/Know_Your_Rights_-_Civil_Partnership.pdf [accessed 12.05.2015]. 

Marriage Referendum, Referendum Commission.  Url: http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/ [accessed 12.05.2015]

Marriage V Civil Partnership FAQs, Marriagequality.ie.  Url: http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html [accessed 12.05.2015]