Inclusive Masculinity Theory: overview, reflection and refinement

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Inclusive Masculinity Theory: Overview, Reflection and RefinementIn 2010, this journal published an early exposition of inclusive masculinity theory (Anderson and McGuire, 2010). Since then, the theory has been widely adopted within both the sport and masculinities literature. Furthermore, a large number of other scholars not using the theory have also documented and labelled new masculinity types. There has also been refinement of Inclusive Masculinity Theory, alongside theoretical critiques. In this article we provide an overview of the genesis of the theory and its refinement, before considering and responding to published and unpublished critiques of the theory. We then suggest future directions for research.

Privileging the Bromance: A Critical Appraisal of Romantic and Bromantic Relationships

“…Subsequently, men are culturally compelled to perform certain overtly heterosexual behaviors and avoid engaging in those that would feminize them. Thus, one way of looking at homohysteria is to suggest that whereas homophobia limits the lives of homosexual men, homohysteria limits the lives of heterosexual men, too (Anderson and McCormack 2016).…”

EXPOsing Men's Gender Role Attitudes as Porn Superfans

“…() who found that pornography consumers had more egalitarian attitudes than did nonconsumers, and Joseph and Black (:503) who concluded that “the commodification of sex is not inextricably linked to negative views of women.” They also support Garos et al. 's (:90) results suggesting that “pornography use may be motivated by other than misogynistic attitudes about women.” Indeed, using a “leisure framework” to study the effects of pornography helps researchers escape the “negative effects paradigm” and accounts for the centrality of leisure in late‐capitalist societies, including sexualized leisure (Anderson and McCormack ; Attwood and Smith ; Brents ; McCormack and Wignall ; McKee ; Smith et al. ).…”

Generational masculinities

“…Accordingly, I theorized that men whom feared being perceived as gay, aligned their behaviours with anything socially coded as the 'opposite' in order to cast off suspicion from others that they might be gay. This, I argued, promoted both a binary of gender and sexuality, erasing bisexuality in the processes (Anderson & McCormack, 2016;Magrath, Cleland, & Anderson, 2017).…”

“…The theory, further developed in conjunction with Mark McCormack (McCormack & Anderson, 2014a, 2014b and again two years later (Anderson & McCormack, 2016) is grounded in ample empirical evidence of young, mostly undergraduate men in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Here, we showed that the driving mechanism of inclusive masculinities was that straight male youth were inclusive of what used to be so taboo -homosexuality.…”