Inclusive Masculinity Theory Case Essay
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Inclusive Masculinity Theory Case Essay
In recent years, scholars have noted a rapid decline in the prev- alence of cultural homophobia (Anderson 2014; McCormack 2012; Savin-Williams 2005) and a consequent expansion of social landscapes for not only gay men, but also young men altogether, esteeming more inclusive and emotive masculine identities than previously observed (Anderson 2005; McCormack 2012; Murray and White 2015; Murray et al. 2016; Weeks 2007; White and Hobson 2015; White and Robinson 2016). Anderson (2010, p. 115) says that young men are Brapidly running from the hegemonic type of mascu- linity that has been privileged for the past twenty-five years.^ Recent research has shown support for Anderson’s (2010) sup- position, highlighting that men are engaging in more affection- ate, emotional, and physical relationships with their same-sex friends (Magrath et al. 2015; Peterson and Anderson 2012). Indeed, as well as young men’s relationships, scholars have also found that affection and emotional support is increasingly being esteemed between fathers and their sons, evolving to be much more engaged and involved relationships than in previous de- cades (Morman and Floyd 2006).
Inclusive masculinity is based on the social inclusion of those traditionally marginalized by hegemonic masculinity. Inclusive masculinity can now be observed with prominence
in major social institutions including education (McCormack 2011), sport (Adams 2011; Magrath et al. 2015) and social media (Morris and Anderson 2015). Young men in these fo- rums have progressively aligned themselves away from ortho- dox tropes of masculinity and are less concerned about whether others perceive them to be gay or straight, masculine or femi- nine (Anderson 2014; Savin-Williams 2005). Because of the campaigning of oppressed gay men and lesbians, among others, a dramatic shift in attitudes was stimulated in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century that recognized and accepted homosexuality as a legitimate orientation. Anderson (2009) argues that this has permitted young men to embrace feminine, inclusive, and intimate behaviors because they have far less fear of being labelled as gay.
Building on the growing body of work on decreasing homohysteria and the changing nature of adolescent masculinities in the twenty-first century (Anderson et al. 2012a; McCormack 2012; Murray and White 2015), young men today are now able to have highly intimate homosocial relationships, alongside casual friends. The decline of cultural homophobia has relinquished men’s burden to police their gen- dered behaviors. Like men of the 1980s, they still make friends through sports, drinking, and exercising, but they can now also bond over shopping or dining together. Unlike men of the 1980s, they form deep emotional relationships, based on emotional disclosure with one another. Thus, whereas Bank and Hansford (2000) previously found that male friendships struggle due to emotional restraint, masculine hierarchies and homophobia, many scholars now suggest that the millennial generation espouses a culture that is much more inclusive and cohesive (Adams 2011; McCormack 2012; Thurnell-Read 2012). With the present research, we build on this body of evidence and explore homosociality in the form of a bromance. We seek to know how men conceptualize a bromance, how a bromance differs from a friendship, and the roles that physical and emotional intimacy play in these classifications.
Method
Participants
Over a 3-month period, between August 2014 and November 2014, we conducted semi-structured interviews into the friendship experiences of 30 undergraduate men who identi- fied as heterosexual or mostly heterosexual and who were enrolled in one of four undergraduate sport-degree programs at one university in the United Kingdom. To be part of the research, participants needed to identify as either exclusively heterosexual or mostly heterosexual on Vrangalova and Savin-Williams’s (2012) 5-point scale of sexual identity: ex- clusively heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or exclusively homosexual. Thus, sexuality was
Sex Roles
presented to participants as a continuous variable. This screen- ing was part of the demographic information that participants filled out alongside their ethics form. The sample comprised men aged 18–22 years (18 years, n = 1; 19 years, n = 15; 20 years, n = 9; 21 years, n = 4; 22 years, n = 1), and although not selected for race, the near-exclusively White student body of this British university limited our analysis to that of only White men. Our sample was also populated by participants from self-identified, middle-class backgrounds. Thus our find- ings are limited to a somewhat homogeneous sample of young, largely White, heterosexual men.
In order to assure that the men we interviewed were not strategically presenting positive or overly-exaggerated support for gay men and male homosexuality (a prerequisite for inclu- sive masculinities), 18 months prior to these interviews we dis- tributed Herek’s (1988) Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians scale to a cohort of over 100 incoming first-year university students. This annual survey of all sports students was adminis- tered anonymously upon the students’ first day of arrival at the university; the cohort from which our sample was taken aver- aged extraordinarily high support of male homosexuality. Accordingly, and consistent with other research on undergradu- ates in British sport departments (Bush et al. 2012), our partic- ipants espoused pro-gay attitudes on arrival at university.
We limited participation to second-year students so that we measured men who had time to develop friendships with their university peers. We recruited all 30 of the students from vari- ous majors within a sports department through advertising in lectures and word of mouth, with all of the participants present- ing themselves to the researchers. We stopped interviewing at 30 because we had reached a strong degree of data saturation.
Procedures
We used a guided interview that aimed to determine the char- acteristics of this sample’s bromance relationships. The inter- viewer was selected because he already had a good rapport with the collective student body surveyed on homophobia 18 months earlier. This is evidenced by outstanding, anony- mous, teacher evaluations performed on this 46-year-old White, gay man at the end of the class he taught in the first semester (which all student were compelled to take). The ben- efit of this method was that students had already developed a level of rapport with the interviewer, allowing sensitive topics to be more easily discussed (Hutchinson et al. 2002).
The one-on-one interviews began by verbally briefing par- ticipants about the nature of the study and then furnishing them with a participant information sheet and copy of ethics approval. Participants were then required to sign a consent form, and simultaneously verbally reminded of their rights to withdraw from the study, to refuse to answer questions, and to review transcripts from the interview. All ethical pro- cedures of the British Sociological Association have been
followed. Participants were provided with an information sheet with the investigators’ contact information, aims of the study, consent forms, and indication that there was no penalty for not participating.
Through a variety of questions (available as an on-line supplement), participants were then asked to discuss their un- derstandings and experiences of bromances and the homoso- cial aspects of their same-sex friendships. For the purposes of our research, questions concerned real experiences and not hypothetical situations. The line of questioning broadly intended to tease out what the men understood bromances to be, whether they existed in their lives, and how they were enacted. For example, questions were asked about the differ- ences between a friendship and a bromance; and questions were also asked about the differences and similarities between a heterosexual romance (girlfriend) and a bromance. Questions were asked about how men know they have a bromance, and what sort of behaviors manifest in them. For example, men were specifically asked about their involvement in, and openness to: bed sharing, nudity, kissing, emotional intimacy, and secret sharing within bromances. We then com- pared these answers to friendships that they do not consider to be bromances.
Analytic Methods
Given that our aim was to understand the operational defini- tion of what a bromance is, and how they are embodied within the participants’ lives, we used an inductive approach con- cerned with extracting thematic categories based on consis- tent, repetitive, and recurring experiences of related data (Braun and Clarke 2006). We intended to draw out the key patterns in data that express a level of consensus and unanim- ity in the views expressed (Joffe 2012). This approach was also valued for its theoretical flexibility and roundedness in data (Braun and Clarke 2006).
After transcribing the digitally recorded interviews, data analysis occurred in a three-step processes. First, participants’ narratives were coded by the first and third authors for themes relating to their views about bromances and same-sex friend- ships, as well as their perception of the boundaries of such friendships. This step utilized broad codes of Bemotional disclosure,^ Bbody comfort,^ and Bsimilarities.^ The second round of coding added more detail, producing more complex codes, including: BExpressions of Physical Tactility,^ BLove,^ and BEmotional Vulnerability.^ At this point, the codes iden- tified were collated in order to develop the themes that emerge in the data presented here: (a) bromantic intimacy as unique compared to friendships and romances, (b) the embodiment of a bromance (coded into three sections on kissing, cuddling, and nudity), and (c) the bromance as being inclusive of poly- amorous (albeit non-sexual) affection. An external academic was independently consulted because of his expertise in the
Sex Roles
area. Codes were discussed between these two authors until interpretations were agreed (Goetz and LeCompte 1984). For that reason, the process permitted a level of mutual consisten- cy, principally generating more valid data (Denscombe 2002).
As is consistent with the intentional design of our study, we prompted for and selected accounts of the personal over the general. In cases where participants provided both an example of how others do, view, or enact a bromance, as well as how they themselves do, view and enact a bromance, we always took the personal account (Kerrick and Henry 2017). We should acknowledged that participants deployed the bromance term in a grammatically unconventional way. Participants var- iably used the word Bbromance(s)^ as both a way of identifying their close friend(s) and their relationship with that person, in- voking the word awkwardly at times as a pronoun. The authors have left these inconsistencies as stated by the participants so as not to skew the accuracy of the data. For clarity, the authors invoke the term Bbromance^ to describe a relationship type and Bbromantic friend^ to describe the people in those relationships.
Results
During interviews, it was revealed that each of the 30 men had at least one bromantic friend, either in the past or at the present time. This was true regardless of whether one defined as ex- clusively or mostly heterosexual (see Table 1 for information about individual men, listed by assigned pseudonym, who are quoted here). There was high level of consistency and confir- mation between the men on what bromances were and how they impacted on their lives. The principal characteristics of a bromance concerned having shared interests as well as main- taining emotional and physical intimacy.
Defining the Bromance
Before trying to unpack the bromance for its detailed constit- uent parts and characteristics, and with respect to the fluid and holistic nature of relationships, it is worthwhile briefly setting out the overarching insights that the men had in defining the bromance. In presenting his definition of a bromance, Patrick, for example, said:
A bromances is someone who is literally there for you all the time. Someone you can relate to on an emotional level. Someone you can share secrets and pain with, and love, but there is no sort of sexual attraction. It can be intimate though. (Patrick)
Similarly, Mark said:
I’ve got really good friends that are guys and we call it a bromance. You can fully discuss your fears and
problems with them, all of that. We are completely com- fortable with each other and kiss and hug every now and then. You know they will always be there to back you up if you need it. (Mark)
And Henry said:
I have one [bromance] with my best friend. Like, he will do something for me and I’ll feel really sentimental, like you really shouldn’t have done that, but you did. He does more for me than a normal friend would. It creates a love feeling for me, not sexual though. (Henry)
These extracts provide rich examples of how our partici- pants experience and define their bromances. When asked about the difference between a friendship and a bromance, participants were clear to differentiate between the two,
Table 1 Participants’ characteristics
Pseudonym Age Sexual Orientation Ethnicity
Aaron 19 Heterosexual White
Alan 21 Mostly Heterosexual White
Beck 20 Heterosexual White
Ben 20 Heterosexual White
Bruce 20 Heterosexual White
Chris 19 Heterosexual White
Dan 21 Mostly Heterosexual White
Derek 19 Heterosexual White
Gavin 19 Mostly Heterosexual White
George 19 Heterosexual White
Hamish 19 Mostly Heterosexual White
Harvey 20 Heterosexual White
Henry 19 Heterosexual White
Ivan 20 Heterosexual Eastern European
Jay 22 Heterosexual White
Jack 19 Mostly Heterosexual White
Jason 20 Mostly Heterosexual White
Jim 19 Heterosexual White
Liam 20 Heterosexual White
Luke 19 Mostly Heterosexual White
Mark 21 Heterosexual White
Martin 19 Heterosexual White
Max 19 Mostly Heterosexual White
Patrick 19 Heterosexual White
Reese 21 Heterosexual White
Regi 19 Mostly Heterosexual White
Robbie 20 Heterosexual White
Samuel 20 Mostly Heterosexual White
Theo 18 Heterosexual White
Tony 19 Heterosexual White
Sex Roles
arguing that bromances were more important. Luke said: BYou have people that you are really close to, and get on with really well, but a bromance is closer.^ He added: BWith a bromance you can talk about anything, with friends you can’t.^ Aaron said: BThey are a lot more than just a mate.^ Bruce compared his experience of a bromance to a romance: BWe are basically like a couple…we get called like husband and wife all the time.^ Martin agreed: BIt’s like having a girlfriend, but then not a girlfriend.^
Just as a bromance was compared by some to having a romantic relationship with a girlfriend, many said it was like having a brother. Mark said: BYou always hear guys say they are brothers-from-another-mother. It shows that they are close, like family.^ Many of the other participants were familiar with this term. Chris added: BYou look out for each other, like brothers.^ This comparison to family members and romances conveys the profound connection that is definitional to bromances. Illustrating this connectedness, Robbie said: BWe pretty much know each other’s minds inside-out.^ Jason added: BWith the guy it’s like you can relate straight to each other, and know what each other is thinking. You are always on the same wavelength.^ Thus, we highlight that the participants situate bromances somewhere within the dimen- sions of romance, friendship, and family relationships.
Unlike a heterosexual romance, a bromance need not be predicated in monogamy. Participants unanimously suggested that men are permitted to have more than one bromance. Some of our participants have several. Ivan said: BIt’s so easy to have bromances.^ Dan said: BI’m in probably seven or eight bromances which I will cuddle with.^
George said: BI have about four,^ and Chris said: BI’ve got lots.^ These men show us not only that they are permitted to have multiple bromantic friendships, but that there is accep- tance among peers for whom having another bromance is not a betrayal to other bromantic relationships.
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!