Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence

Kimmel, Michael S.; Mahler, Matthew

doi:10.1177/0002764203046010010

Cited by 428 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

288

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, when militarized masculinity is strongly present it is likely that violence is viewed as an acceptable means of imposing and maintaining domination. The more widespread and pervasive militarized masculinity is, the more likely it is that conflict will be dealt with violently ( Pin-Fat and Stern 1992, 2005, Enloe 1993, Gibson 1994, Gill 1997, Kimmel 1997, Fone 2000, Hooper 2000, Caprioli 2000, 2005, Goldstein 2001, Tickner 2001, Micheler 2002, Kimmel and Mahler 2003, Melander 2005a, 2005b ii .…”

Section: Political Gender Equality and Civil Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity

Bjarnegård

Melander

2011

Journal of Gender Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity. This article investigates, both theoretically and empirically, the relationships between democratization, gender equality and peace. We argue that there is a need to scrutinize both the level of democracy as well as the level of masculine hegemony in societies. Journal of Gender StudiesMethodologically, we use a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses to support our argument. We employ regression analysis to show that the relationship between the extent of democracy and the representation of women in politics appears, at first glance, to be nonexistent but turns out to be a curvilinear one. We also show that democracy can facilitate peace, but only in interaction with the level of political gender equality, so that more democratic societies are more peaceful only if there have been moves to gender equality. Our interpretation of these findings is illustrated by the contemporary politics of Thailand. Recent political violence in southern Thailand can be accounted for in the context of it being only partly democratized, where a culture of militarized masculinity persists alongside with, and even within, democratic institutions. Such a culture makes it both difficult for women to enter the political sphere, despite democratic elections, and fosters political violence.

show abstract

Section: Political Gender Equality and Civil Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity

Bjarnegård

Melander

2011

Journal of Gender Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a consensus in the international literature regarding the relationship between the experience of young adults, the hegemonic production of masculinity and violence 2,5,17 . In Brazil, various studies show that concepts of masculinity, based on social gender norms that naturalize and banalize the use of violence, end up legitimizing such practices in different social contexts 5,17,18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Brazil, various studies show that concepts of masculinity, based on social gender norms that naturalize and banalize the use of violence, end up legitimizing such practices in different social contexts 5,17,18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Young men in juvenile detention centers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: gender, sexuality, masculinity and health implications

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents results for young men’s health based on an intervention-study on gender, sexuality, and health of adolescents and young men in conflict with the law, deprived of their freedom, and subject to socio-educational confinement in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The themes addressed included questions on overall health, mental health, and sexual and reproductive health, analyzed from a relational gender perspective and social construction of masculinities. The majority of these young men are black, from low-income communities, with low schooling levels, and ranging in age from 14 to 21 years of age; some of them are fathers. The study showed that these young men have been exposed to police and social violence from a very early age and have been deprived of their freedom due to involvement with the drug traffic, homicides, or episodes of sexual violence. The male and female health professionals that work with them report that the most common health problems are skin conditions, mental disorders, and sexually transmissible infections. Male chauvinism and rigid notions of gender and sexuality are important factors in the views of these young men on health (especially sexual and reproductive). Their discourse takes violence and paternity for granted as important signs in the public demonstration of masculinity. There is an urgent need to include discussions on gender and sexuality in health professionals’ training and activities with these young men. It is also necessary to call attention to the strong influence of gender concepts, social group, and sexual orientation in practices, interpersonal relations, and health promotion.

show abstract

“…Examining sex of target also enables researchers to inquire into the possible culture-and gender-related factors that influence decision-making in the use of aggressive behavior (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003;Lahelma, 2002). Green (1999, 2006) studied sex differences in the amount of and type of aggression (direct and indirect) aimed at same and opposite sex targets by college students.…”

Section: Investigating Sex Differences In Aggressive Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Sex Differences in the Use of Direct and Indirect Aggression

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct and indirect aggressive behaviors were studied using surveys and interviews of students in two public schools. The variables of "sex-of-aggressor" and "sex-of-target were included. Claims in previous research that girls engage in far more indirect aggression than boys are not supported. Further, it was found that girls are more likely to target the opposite sex with direct aggression than boys. This suggests more gender fluidity in the use of aggression by girls and adds to a growing body of research that dispels the notion that direct and indirect aggression can be neatly sorted into male and female categories of behavior.Keywords: aggression, sex differences, direct aggression, indirect aggression, prevalence and preferences for forms of aggression, sex of target 1 This article reports on research that calls into question the notion that the use of aggression and violence can be neatly categorized according to sex and that girls generally employ indirect forms of aggression while boys generally employ direct forms of aggression.Whether the focus of inquiry is physical or verbal observable aggression, as it was for much of the twentieth century (Vaillancourt 2005), or non-observable aggression (a form of aggression that has garnered much interest especially in those focusing on female use of aggression), Gendreau and Archer (2005) Research on non-observable aggression like shunning, deliberate exclusion, gossip or rumor mongering, the silent treatment and the like, has thus far employed three different concepts or terms (see Vaillancourt, 2005 for a thorough discussion). The first of these three concepts is relational aggression, a term coined by Crick (1993) to refer to behaviors used to damage other people's relationships, feelings of acceptance, and social inclusion. Relational aggression has also been applied to behaviors like a) indirectly excluding or socially manipulating a person by using another's relationship with that person as the vehicle for harm (Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005); b) actions such as keeping 2 someone out of a group, saying you will not be friends with someone, ignoring a person, telling rumors or lies about someone you are mad at (Henington, Hughes, Cavell, & Thompson, 1998); and c) threatening to end a friendship or no longer talking to someone, and deliberately excluding someone socially (Werner & Nixon, 2005).The second term, social aggression, used by Galen and Underwood (1997), Cairns, Cairns, Neckarman, Ferguson, and Gariepy (1989), and Xie, Cairns and Cairns (2002) refers to aggressive behavior that is intended to damage another person's selfesteem but does not focus on disrupting that person's social relationships. This kind of aggression is focused more on making targets feel badly about themselves or afraid for their own safety without directly engaging in directly attacking them.The third concept, indirect aggression, coined in the late 1980s by Lagerspetz, Björkqvist and Peltonen (1988), refers to a form of aggression in which "the instigator manipulates o...

show abstract

Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence

Cited by 428 publications

References 18 publications

Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity

Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity

Young men in juvenile detention centers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: gender, sexuality, masculinity and health implications

Examining Sex Differences in the Use of Direct and Indirect Aggression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About