Young men’s friendships: inclusive masculinities in a post-university setting

Abstract

When Eric Anderson published inclusive masculinity theory (IMT), it was largely situated in relationships he observed with first-year undergraduate students. Here, he noticed a striking difference in behaviors and attitudes between the adolescent heterosexual men in the United States, compared to those in the UK. Since IMT's inception, there has been a great deal of further inquiry into the social lives of young heterosexual men in both of these nations. What is undertheorized, however, is whether the intense emotional and physical tactility of homosocial relationships described in this literature will occur with current and future generations. Nor do we know if men described as exhibiting inclusive masculinities at university continue to do so-and to what degree-as they enter the workplace and develop family ties. This research utilizes 10 semi-structured interviews with the same participants from Anderson's initial studies, showing that they continue to strive for the same emotional intimacy with male friends that they achieved during their time at university. Half also carried this behavior into the friendships developed with other men since graduating from university. Thus, this research contributes to IMT as it offers preliminary analysis into the friendships of inclusive men, after their time at university.

Navigating the Tensions of Normative Masculinity: Homosocial Dynamics in Australian Young Men’s Discussions of Sexting Practices

“…A voluminous research literature has followed, highlighting the increased openness and affection among friends and greater acceptance of sexual difference among schoolboys (e.g. McCormack, 2012), undergraduate young men (Robinson et al, 2017), YouTube gamers (Maloney et al, 2018) men who have long left educational settings (Magrath and Scoats, 2019), and even elderly men (Anderson and Fidler, 2018).…”

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).…”

Physical Disability and Masculinity: Hegemony and Exclusion

“…A relatively new concept in masculinity studies is what is termed "inclusive masculinity theory" (Anderson, 2010a(Anderson, , 2010bAnderson & McGuire, 2010). The most recent article we could find stating the key outlines of the theory does not mention disability at all (Anderson & McCormack, 2018), nor does disability tend to be mentioned in debates on this supposedly "inclusive" theory (see, for example, De Boise, 2015; Magrath & Scoats, 2019;O'Neill, 2015;Scoats, 2017). For people who work in the field of disability studies, the word "inclusive" almost always implies including everybody, with people with disabilities being a key part of that inclusion (as in the term "inclusive education").…”