Exploring constructions of masculinity on a men’s body-positivity blog

Abstract

Men's experiences with digital media and social networking sites remain relatively underexplored. Here, we analyse the complex ways that men construct, represent and perform masculinity on a men's body-positivity Tumblr blog called Body Positivity for Guys. Drawing on both hegemonic masculinity theory and inclusive masculinity theory' we contribute to current theoretical discussions within the academic literature on masculinities, while extending these prominent debates to new virtual environments. In particular, we find that the interactions of the men on the blog demonstrate a consistent eschewal of tactics of marginalisation and subordination that have long been the hallmark of research into relations of power within masculine hierarchies. Furthermore, we demonstrate how all of the diverse constructions of masculinities on the blog site held cultural legitimacy and were equally supported.

On the construction of an artificial paradox: A critical commentary on Diefendorf and Bridges’ ‘On the enduring relationship between masculinity and homophobia’

“…Many women and people of colour have written about the intersections of decreasing homophobia, sexuality and gender (e.g. Brodyn and Ghaziani, 2018; Caruso and Roberts, 2018; Dashper, 2012; Elliot, 2016; Frank, 2008; Ghaziani, 2014; Haltom and Worthen, 2014; Morales, 2018; Ralph and Roberts, 2018; Roberts, 2013, 2018; Worthen, 2014), yet not one of them is cited. Given Bridges’ (2019) laudable aim for masculinities studies to become more diverse not least through citation practices, it is inexplicable that the only citations they offer related to what they call ‘work within the “inclusive masculinity” framework’ are from two established, white, cis-gendered gay male academics.…”

What Is “Publicly Available Data”? Exploring Blurred Public–Private Boundaries and Ethical Practices Through a Case Study on Instagram

“…The first is to exclude the visual material (i.e., pictures) completely and either describe it alongside the textual material such as caption, hashtags, and comments (Tiidenberg, 2018a) or to aggregate the textual material into critical themes (Friedman, 2018). The second strategy is to use the visual material but cover identifying features, such as eyes, with a black box/censor bar in an attempt to protect users’ identity (Caruso & Roberts, 2017). We welcome these efforts to not simply assume public availability but also believe that they have certain limitations.…”

Perceptions and Interpretation of Contemporary Masculinities in Western Culture: A Systematic Review

“…This level of emotional vulnerability is in direct contrast to traditional masculinity norms that require men to be stoic and resist sharing feelings and emotions, particularly with another man (Courtenay, 2000). Emotional intimacy was identified in 23 of the studies (Adams, 2011;Anderson, 2008Anderson, , 2011Anderson, , 2012Anderson & McGuire, 2010;Blanchard et al, 2017;Brandth & Kvande, 2018;Caruso & Roberts, 2018;Fine, 2019;Finn & Henwood, 2009;Gottzén & Kremer-Sadlick, 2012;Henwood & Procter, 2003;Jóhannsdóttir & Gíslason, 2018;Johansson, 2011;Lee & Lee, 2018;Magrath & Scoats, 2019;McCormack, 2011;McCormack, 2014;Morales & Caffyn-Parsons, 2017;Morris & Anderson, 2015;Roberts et al, 2017;Robinson et al, 2018;White & Hobson, 2017). Anderson (2011) described participants hugging and comforting each other openly when sad or upset.…”

“…The Global Theme of Inclusivity relates to the participants' acceptance of homosexuality, decreasing levels of homophobia, as well as decreasing levels of misogyny, and a general desire for gender equality. Twenty-four of the 33 studies reported that the participants displayed decreased levels of homophobia (Adams, 2011;Anderson, 2008Anderson, , 2011Anderson, , 2012Anderson et al, 2019;Anderson & McCormack, 2015;Anderson & McGuire, 2010;Blanchard et al, 2017;Caruso & Roberts, 2018;Drummond et al, 2014;Fine, 2019;Hall et al, 2012;Jarvis, 2013;Jóhannsdóttir & Gíslason, 2018;Magrath & Scoats, 2019;McCormack, 2011McCormack, , 2014Morales & Caffyn-Parsons, 2017;Morris & Anderson, 2015;Pfaffendorf, 2017;Roberts et al, 2017;Robinson et al, 2018;Scoats, 2017;White & Hobson, 2017). This ranged from what was described as shifting attitudes toward homosexuality (Jarvis, 2013), to the complete absence of homophobia (Morales & Caffyn-Parsons, 2017).…”

“…Seventeen of the 24 studies examining homophobia also indicated that the participants not only rejected homophobia, they also rejected misogyny and advocated for gender equality (Anderson, 2005(Anderson, , 2008Anderson & McGuire, 2010;Brandth & Kvande, 2018;Caruso & Roberts, 2018;Fine, 2019;Finn & Henwood, 2009;Gottzén & Kremer-Sadlick, 2012;Greenebaum & Dexter, 2018;Hall et al, 2012;Jóhannsdóttir & Gíslason, 2018;Johansson, 2011;Lee & Lee, 2018;Magrath & Scoats, 2019;McCormack, 2011;Morris & Anderson, 2015;Roberts, 2018).…”