The concept of hegemonic masculinity has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism. The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms, the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity, which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist. However, the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound. The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models, although limits to discursive flexibility must be recognized. The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction; we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally, the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple...

/pdf/hegemonic-masculinity-rethinking-the-concept-25fvqghcjy.pdf

Hegemonic Masculinity Rethinking the Concept

General strain theory (GST) is usually tested by examining the effect of strain on crime. Researchers, however, have little guidance when it comes to selecting among the many hundreds of types of strain and have trouble explaining why only some of them are related to crime. This article builds on GST by describing the characteristics of strainful events and conditions that influence their relationship to crime. Strains are said to be most likely to result in crime when they (1) are seen as unjust, (2) are seen as high in magnitude, (3) are associated with low social control, and (4) create some pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping. Drawing on these characteristics, it is predicted that some types of strain will not be related to crime, including types that have dominated the research on strain theory, and that others will be related to crime, including types that have been neglected by empirical researchers.

/pdf/building-on-the-foundation-of-general-strain-theory-2rdfoxk5vl.pdf

Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency:

Against our will: Men, women, and rape

R e-reading Doing Gender has confirmed its status for me both as a landmark publication and as a missed opportunity. Its achievement was to build on, develop, and promote Garfinkel's (1967) focus on the mundane production of gender in interaction. What was missing was a description of a scholarly method for doing so. Doing Gender was published in the same year as my first book, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (Kitzinger 1987). Although my per spective derived from the sociology of knowledge (especially Berger and Luckmann 1967) and West and Zimmerman's from ethnomethodology, there were clear resonances between my interest in understanding how the category "lesbian" was constructed, negotiated, and managed and their concern with "what is involved in doing gender as an ongoing activity embedded in everyday interaction" (West and Zimmerman 1987, 130). What these two pieces also share is that neither had a methodology ade quate to its theoretical aims. According to West and Zimmerman (1987, 127) the aim of their article was primarily theoretical. Although various studies were cited as provid ing evidence of "doing gender," no particular attention was paid to the methodologies used in these studies, which seem-with a few exceptions to be a mix of analysis of ethnographic observation, interviews, and diaries. The implication of this omission is that the practices involved in "doing gender" can be isolated and described by relatively straightforward sociological observation and self-report. Effectively the same position is taken in Doing Difference (West and Fenstermaker 1995), which extends the ethnomethodological theory of gender to cover race and class (rele gating "sexual orientation" to footnote 15), and treats the production of these "differences" as transparently accessible both to the sociological observer and (often) to social participants themselves.

Doing Gender: A Conversation Analytic Perspective

W e're delighted to have "Doing Gender" and its sequelae as the subjects of this symposium. The serious readings of our work by Professors Connell, Jones, Kitzinger, Messerschmidt, Risman, Smith, and Vidal-Ortiz do us honor, and we welcome the chance to address them. We use our response to reflect on, clarify, admit, and expand on what we said originally and what we have said since. As important as the path taken, however, is the theoretical path ahead, and we will comment on that as well.

/pdf/accounting-for-doing-gender-wb3osppnqr.pdf

Accounting for Doing Gender

Chapter 1 Foreword Chapter 2 Acknowledgements Chapter 3 Gender and Criminological Theory Chapter 4 Rethinking Feminist Theory Chapter 5 Structured Action and Gendered Crime Chapter 6 "Boys Will Be Boys" Differently Chapter 7 Varieties of "Real Men" Chapter 8 The State and Gender Politics Chapter 9 Notes Chapter 10 References

Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory

* Introduction * Structured Action Theory * A Theorized Life History Sam, John, and Zack * Sam * John * Zach * Conclusion Hugh, Perry, and Lenny * Hugh * Perry * Lenny * Conclusion From Predisposition to Violent Event * Family, School and Violent Predispositions * Schooling, the Bodyand Motivation for Violence * Violent Events * Conclusion Jerry, Dennis, and Alan * Jerry * Dennis * Alan * Conclusion Nonviolence and Social Change * Violent Versus Nonviolent Boys * Difference with Equality

Nine Lives: Adolescent Masculinities, The Body And Violence

This chapter provides an overview of key features of criminological literature regarding masculinity and crime, as well as some of the significant empirical studies It describes the evident strengths of "masculinities" paradigm in criminology The chapter shows the pitfalls of any gender-centric analysis of criminality that could overlook a skewed criminalization process that frequently targets and punishes men and boys from disadvantaged and marginal social settings Masculinities are linked intricately with struggles for social power that occur between men and women and among different men but they vary and intersect importantly with other dimensions of inequality Research within the new masculinities approach has studied the experience of confrontational violence by tracing the role of victimization in establishing power relations between men and the mixed effects on victims that both undermine and reinforce conventional ideas of masculinity Criminalization is a common strategy in a contemporary era of social movement activism toward crime that may dovetail with punitive law and order politics

Masculinities and crime

Prologue Structured Action Theory Lynchers Hustler Bad Girls Murderous Managers Epilogue Summary Thoughts and Future Directions

James W. Messerschmidt

Papers

Hegemonic Masculinity Rethinking the Concept

Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory

Nine Lives: Adolescent Masculinities, The Body And Violence

Masculinities and crime

Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class, and Crime in the Making