Resisting Hegemonic Masculinity: Gender, Power, and Agency in the Narratives of Qaisra Shahraz and Soniah Kamal

Little geographical work has explored the role of hegemonic gay masculinity in constructing queer spaces and its impacts on multiply marginalized lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, Two-Spirit, and additional (LGBTQ2+) people. Building on interviews with LGBTQ2+ youth experiencing homelessness, and photographs taken by them, this article investigates how hegemonic gay masculinity materializes in visual representations of gendered bodies throughout Toronto’s gay village, and how this is reflected in feminine and trans or gender non-conforming (TGNC) youth’s social experiences of the neighborhood. Through a framework of hegemonic masculinity, gender and race are understood as co-constitutive and read simultaneously in the queer geographical productions of gendered inclusions and exclusions among LGBTQ2+ youth experiencing homelessness. This article analyzes how hegemonic gay masculinity links queer spaces to various structures of power through visual cultures, including whiteness, cisnormativity, nationalism, and able-bodiedness, and the implications of this in the everyday social relations of feminine and TGNC youth experiencing homelessness. Through this exploration, this article presents how visual representations of gendered bodies communicate hegemonic masculinity in built queer environments, instruct varying forms of gendered and racialized inclusions and exclusions, and (re)produce a sense of unbelonging for some of the most marginalized members of the LGBTQ2+ community. Key Words: gay village, hegemonic masculinity, queer geographies, race, trans geographies.

The contradictory pressures that Mormon belief and practice create for men’s gender identity and sexuality give reason to reconsider the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’. Starting from Connell’s conceptualisation, this article analyses narratives by 25 Mexican Mormon men of establishing ‘romantic’ relationships. Participants were recruited through three different Mormon organisations in Mexico City. I explore emotional/affective notions constitutive of masculinity at play in their narratives and how they influenced the experiences and trajectories of their romantic relationships. I argue that relationships framed by hegemonic Mormon masculinity incorporate ‘traditional’ elements associated with long-lasting Judaeo-Christian normativity, such as (self-) control over physical attraction and marriage as the only context for it, simultaneously emphasising modern/post-modern forms of masculinity through ideas of love, companionship and emotional connection. The incorporation of these affective notions in the analysis can expand the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’, illuminating ways in which men adopt, negotiate or contest hegemonic patterns of masculinity.

Studies of masculinity are fraught by inconsistent and unclear definitions. A comparison of literature which uses either hegemonic or toxic masculinity as a framework reveals that toxic masculinity can be virtually indistinguishable from hegemonic masculinity. I posit that toxic masculinity is and should be distinct from hegemonic masculinity. Failure to distinguish toxic masculinity from hegemonic masculinity makes toxicity difficult, if not impossible, to operationalize. I designed a vignette survey to clarify the conceptualization and operationalization of toxic masculinity. My vignette survey, which asks participants to respond to prompts regarding both toxic masculinity and masculinity, uses quasi-photovoice methodology to allow participants to select, contextualize, and codify data. This research can contribute to the quantitative operationalization of toxic masculinity through the development of a scale.

Research about masculinities in schools often focuses on hegemonic masculinity. This can have the effect of reinforcing the privilege associated with hegemonic masculinity, as well as overlooking differences amongst boys and the plural practices individual boys engage in. Drawing on empirical research in two South Australian primary schools with students aged 6–7 and 11–13, this article examines the complex ways in which boys engaged in plural gender practices. Practices differing from a discourse of (local) hegemonic masculinity related to three key themes: displaying ‘intelligence’ and being studious; involvement in traditionally ‘feminine’ activities; and being caring, loving family and friends, and engaging in cross-gender friendships. This article utilises these themes to argue that practices could work alongside or present challenges to practices relating to a discourse of hegemonic masculinity. An examination of how age and masculinities interweave suggests that a divide between hegemonic and other masculinities and practices is not as distinct as has often been theorised.

This study explores the experiences of vegetarian men in the context of a meat-based food culture strongly associated with hegemonic masculinity. The aim is to uncover how vegetarian men navigate the dominant configurations of masculinity in food choices and how they resist these practices. Using a qualitative method with a phenomenological approach, the study provides an in-depth explanation of the experiences of vegetarian men in Bandung, chosen due to the presence of a vegetarian lifestyle community in the city. The study is grounded in the theories of hegemonic masculinity and masculine bloc. The findings reveal that vegetarian men challenge hegemonic masculinity through the practice of masculinity hybridization, an innovative form of power that still supports male authority. The study also finds that this hybridization practice reproduces patriarchal masculine culture, highlighting the perpetuation of this culture even amidst resistance to hegemonic masculinity.Keywords : hegemonic masculinity, vegetarian men, masculinity hybridization, food consumption, patriarchal culture

This article examines recent claims by Jeffrey Smith that: (1) ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is an expression of working class counter‐school culture; (2) some teachers are ‘cultural accomplices’ in constructing ‘hegemonic masculinities’ of anti‐school working class boys, thereby contributing to their underachievement; and (3) these ‘cultural accomplices’ are an emerging response to recent moral panics and neo‐liberal managerialism concerned with ‘failing boys’ at school. It is suggested that ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is not necessarily associated with anti‐school values in working class culture. Many working class boys might subscribe to ‘hegemonic masculinity’ without rejecting learning. Contrary to Smith’s emphasis on how working class culture generates anti‐school ‘hegemonic masculinity’, there is the possibility that ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is fused with anti‐school values produced by organisational differentiation. The continuing commonalities between working class anti‐school boys and the ‘gender regime’ of some secondary schools for over 20 years implies something more enduring at work than recent moral panics.

Hegemonic masculinity is a fluid concept that varies according to historical period and social and cultural location. While much has been written about hegemonic masculinity as experienced by adult men, research is lacking on hegemonic masculinity in boyhood from an historical perspective. Using a quantitative content analysis of images on the covers of Boy’s Life magazine, this study finds three distinct historically specific images of hegemonic American boyhood masculinity: boys who serve their country as patriotic scouts in uniform; boys who admire celebrities, particularly professional athletes; and a branded boyhood in which boys wear brand name products while engaging in sports activities.

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to create an understanding of the gender structure in the real-estate industry in Sweden. Interviews were made with younger female and male graduates. The purpose is to distinguish how these younger graduates working in the industry react to the gender structure. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 graduate younger women and men working in the real-estate industry in Sweden. As an input to the interviews a mapping of the gender structure was conducted, using annual reports of commercial real-estate companies and public housing companies in Sweden. Findings – The paper provides empirical insights that there were not any greater differences in the gender structure in Sweden, between 2001 and 2008 and none of the respondents were surprised. The symbols of men and the hegemonic masculinity – men more often holding leading and technical positions while women more often hold supporting positions in the industry – are important to understand the gender structure. In the industry the hegemonic engineering masculinity is also apparent. Research limitations/implications – The limitation of the paper might be the time period of the mapping; a longer time period might have shown a change in the structure and the amount of young female and male graduates interviewed. Practical implications – The paper includes implication for the development of the gender structure – awareness is the first step, in order to retain talented women and men. Originality/value – The paper fulfils an identified need to study the gender structure of the real-estate industry.

In this article, I address hegemonic masculinities and their geographical contingencies. I focus on when and how space matters and how hegemonic upper-caste masculinities are socio-spatially produced, constituted, and contested. I draw on relational theories in the geographies of masculinities and feminist political ecology. Current theorizing in these fields highlights the role of space/place/environment in the production of subjectivities such that ideas of gender and space arise as co-constitutive. Drawing from these literatures, in this article, I explore the role of construction of and power over land and space; and how land is gendered and caste-laden in the performance of hegemonic masculinities. I also focus on the ways hegemonic masculinities respond to vulnerabilities and challenges within said space. Through this conceptualization, I advance the inter-disciplinary discourse in sociology and geography on the intersectional and spatial emergence of the masculine. Using empirical evidence from Punjab (India) I explore the construction of masculinized spaces and their control by dominant-caste men and highlight the mutually constitutive relationships between space, masculinities, and the caste axis of identity.

In this chapter, I examine the necessary and important role that male teachers can play in boys’ lives in school, particularly with regards to interrupting hegemonic masculinity and in their capacity to function as ‘role models’. This analysis is set against a critique of dominant discourses about the call for male teachers as role models for boys as a response to the need to counter the detrimental effects of the increasing feminization of schooling. Such debates about male teachers often cite recuperative and idealized notions of hegemonic masculinity which rely on a narrowing rather than a broadening of what it means to be a man or a boy in changing social and economic times. I also undertake a review of significant literature in the field which draws attention to the tendency for male teachers to be complicit in perpetuating hegemonic heterosexual masculinity in their pedagogical relationships with boys in school. The costs of such complicity are highlighted in terms of the capacity of such pedagogical relationships to hamper boys’ commitment and or willingness to embrace a boarder repertoire of masculinities. Queer, feminist and critical sociological theoretical perspectives are drawn on as basis for elaborating a perspective on male teachers and schooling as embodied and pedagogical sites, respectively, for interrogating the limits of hegemonic heterosexual masculinities in boys’ and men’s lives.

Masculinities research has started to explore the possibility of alternative manhood among migrant men. This paper aims to contribute to this emerging work by touching upon a less-explored subject in relation to hegemonic masculinity and migration and the perceptions towards sexual violence in the UK. Thirty participants were interviewed, and the data were analysed using framework analysis. The discourses such as ‘ gheirat’ and ‘real man’ and ‘complete Iranian man’ showed that Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity is useful, but does not provide an adequate theoretical framework for analysing other forms of masculinities in the migration studies. Hence a new concept, ‘hegemonic Islamic masculinities’, is introduced as the subsection of hegemonic masculinity to contextualise the lived experience of Iranian men to sexual violence in the UK.

Increasing attention is being paid to gender in outdoor education, with scholars and practitioners sharing experiences of sexism and heterosexism and explicitly calling for an examination of hegemonic masculinity in the field. The purpose of this paper is to respond to that call by: summarizing scholarship on hegemonic and alternative masculinities; reviewing research on masculinities in education that is particularly relevant to outdoor education; pointing to existing work in outdoor education that lays a foundation for examining masculinity, including promising recent research; and offering suggestions for disrupting hegemonic masculinity and creating conditions for more diverse gender performances. Since there has been so little research on masculinities in outdoor education thus far, there remain significant unanswered questions. It is past time for focused examination of hegemonic masculinity in the field as one strategy for addressing gender inequity.

This paper, based on the perspectives of young men, explores the relationship between dominant constructions of masculinities and the sexual harassment of young women in Australian secondary schools, within a feminist poststructuralist theoretical framework. Of particular importance in this process are the ways in which sexual harassment is integral to the construction of hegemonic heterosexual masculine identities; the importance of popularity, acceptance and young men's fears within male peer group cultures; and the utilization of sexual harassment as a means through which to maintain and regulate hierarchical power relationships, not just in relation to gender, but how it intersects with other sites of power such as ‘race’ and class. It is highlighted that sexual harassment is considered a legitimate and expected means through which to express and reconfirm the public and private positions of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ within a heterosexualized, racialized and classed gender order.

It has been argued that gay men who live in Western societies must negotiate masculine identities against a cultural backdrop where the most desirable and locally hegemonic masculinity is heterosexual. However, contemporary masculinity theories conceptualize masculinities as increasingly inclusive of gay men. The purpose of this study was to use a discourse-dynamic approach to studying masculine subjectivity to identify how gay men in England and Wales negotiated masculinity discourses to construct their masculine identities. One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with six younger gay men aged 20 to 24, and 11 older gay men aged 30 to 42. Participants were asked to describe their subjective experiences of masculinity. The results of an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis indicated that discourses of hegemonic and alternative masculinities had implications for lived experiences of masculinity. Older participants in particular emphasized their attributes they associated with masculine dominance, including anti-effeminacy attitudes. The majority of younger participants did not feel masculine. Irrespective of age, many participants resisted hegemonic masculinity by highlighting the value of “gayness” at times. The findings suggested that hegemonic masculinity was the most readily available discourse for conceptualizing masculinity, but that lived experiences of masculinity were not necessarily located within this discourse.

The relationship between masculinity and femicide has been virtually ignored in the literature on both masculinities and femicide. The aim of this paper then is to concentrate on the relationship between masculinities and femicide by first briefly summarizing feminist theorizing in the 1970s and 1980s and its relation to the emergence of Raewyn Connell’s concept of “hegemonic masculinity.” Following that, new directions in scholarly work on hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities are discussed, with particular attention directed to the recent work of the author on the relationship among hegemonic, dominant, dominating, and positive masculinities. Finally, the paper concludes by briefly illustrating how this new conception of masculinities can be applied to two types of femicide: intimate partner femicide and so-called “honor” femicides.