11

Mediated Portrayals of Masculinities

Heather L. Hundley

Early feminist media studies research laid the foundation and sparked interest in the study of male characters. In fact, research on “masculinity studies in communication was scarce prior to the late 1980s” (Mazzarella, 2008, p. 69). To understand the development of examining masculinity in the media, one must understand the development of feminist media studies.

On the heels of second-wave feminism, many scholars in the late 1960s and early 1970s began examining the number of female characters in film and television. Initially scholars typically used content analysis to count the number of female characters and compare it to the number of male characters. By the mid- to late 1970s, second-wave feminism was critiqued by scholars such as bell hooks (1981), who discussed racial differences among women. Thus, in the 1980s, media scholarship examining portrayals became even more complex, with many researchers claiming the importance of critically interrogating how characters' gender, race, and class were depicted as well. Today, scholars realize the myriad of traits, demographics, and other features of a person (regardless of being a real person in everyday life or a mediated character) in what is called identity studies.

With more women earning PhDs and becoming professors, many second-wave feminists began women's studies programs in universities. Noting that feminists do not just study women and women's issues, some feminists turned their interests to men and men's issues. Thus emerged gender studies programs, replacing preestablished women's studies programs.

Early gender research dichotomized males and females. Drawing from Derrida's notion of différance, male is what is not female. Hence, what is masculine is not feminine (Brown, 1999; Jeffords, 1994; Kirkham & Thumim, 1993; MacKinnon, 2003). Following this line of thought, masculinity was stereotypically associated with power, strength, hardness, action, and the public sphere, whereas femininity was linked to powerlessness, weakness, softness, passiveness, and the private sphere (Bean & Harper, 2007; Brown, 1999; Kirkham & Thumim, 1993).

It is important to note that these early conceptualizations of masculinity and femininity representing this simplistic dichotomy were established in most of the West. That is, biologically sexed bodies are referred to as boys/men or girls/women and culturally created genders are associated with these sexed bodies. Therefore, in the United States, men are masculine and women are feminine (D'Acci, 2004). Yet, while many cultures use the terms sex and gender interchangeably, others view them as separate traits (Jandt & Hundley, 2007). Thus, irrespective of different sex and gender concepts, a study of men or male characters is often a study of masculinity. Gendered portrayals in the media are salient to examine because they can be varied, which speaks volumes about the culture from which they evolve.

Often, the sex/gender differences are collapsed when critiquing mediated portrayals. For instance, drawing from Bordo's (1999) extensive research on the physical body, Worley (2000) aligned with Butler's (1990) work on the performance of genders and claimed that “although biology may constitute the male body, culture inscribes all bodies, including male bodies, with meaning” (Worley, 2000, p. 120).

The focus of this chapter is specifically on how researchers have studied and written about the portrayal of masculinities in US media. This chapter is written in two sections. The first traces the evolution of examining masculinities in US media beginning with stereotypical representations that led into identifying hegemonic masculinity, hypermasculinity, and metrosexual masculinity. The second discusses how scholars have written about the portrayals of masculinities in particular US media such as film, television, and print. While this literature review is by no means exhaustive, it demonstrates the range of research in the past four decades and illustrates media's increased portrayals of masculinities over time.

From Masculinity to Masculinities: Evolving Portrayals in US Media

Initially the concept of masculinity was singular. The stereotypical, tough guy image in the media was a “known and stable concept” (MacKinnon, 2003, p. 33). “Fundamentally, Hollywood movies show the process by which gender is represented – and masculinism maintained and threatened – in our culture” (Bingham, 1994, p. 19; also see Horrocks, 1995). Craig (1992) wrote that “masculinity is what a culture expects of its men” (p. 3). While the standards were difficult to define, Kirkham and Thumim (1993) noted that while masculinity was not definitive, men must live up to it in our culture. Despite these vague concepts of masculinity, as with portrayals of femininity, several scholars expressed the inherent power media maintain in perpetuating unrealistic portrayals (Bingham, 1994; Kirkham & Thumim, 1993; Mason, 1992; Morrison & Halton, 2009; Vavrus, 2007). In fact, the “media have perpetuated the perspective that individuals who do not conform to their assigned gender are abnormal and unnatural” (Cooper, 2002, p. 53).

By the late 1980s, gender research was “increasingly interdisciplinary, drawing on research from social and behavioral sciences as well as the humanities and even the natural and biological sciences” (Kimmel, 1987, p. 11). By the early 1990s media scholars followed suit, drawing from numerous disciplines, including gender studies, anthropology, and sociology, and came to realize that masculinity varies in culture and history (see, e.g., Connell, 1987; Jandt & Hundley, 2007; Messner, 1996). All bodies, including men's, were considered sites “where differing and evolving versions of masculinity [or femininity] are envisioned and performed” (Worle, 2000, p. 120; also see Bordo, 1999). This was evident in the media as well; “Over the years tough guys [in the movies] changed” (Neibaur, 1989, p. 1).

Based on Connell's (2002) research, Kivel and Johnson (2009) maintained that “while masculinity is grounded in difference, it is not a static characteristic or personal identity trait. Instead, masculinity is a fluid construct that is organized within social relations and ultimately changes those social relations” (p. 110). Furthermore, the concept of masculinity is “fraught, divided, and therefore changeable” (Penley & Willis, 1993, p. xviii). Thus, because of its malleability and as “an ongoing discursive and cultural practice” (Vavrus, 2007, p. 247), the term “masculinities” became widely used and accepted (also see Beynon, 2002; Connell, 1987; Hearn & Morgan, 1990; MacKinnon, 2003; Mazzarella, 2008; Messner, 1996; Woodward, 2004) “to more adequately describe the complexities of male social position, identity, and experience” (Katz, 1995, p.134).

Differing Masculinities in the Media

In the past four decades, with the increased scholarly attention on mediated portrayals of gender, several types of masculinities emerged. For instance, in the 1980s, initially scholars examined masculinity in the media as if it were one unified concept and argued that masculine stereotypes were confining (Farrell, 1986). A decade later there was an attempt to categorize the roles that men play in the media. Scholars at the Sixth Annual Children and the Media Conference, for example, summarized five classic media icons of masculinity: “The Joker,” “The Jock,” “The Strong Silent Type,” “The Big Shot,” and “The Action Hero” (Children Now, 1999a).

Simultaneously, rather than categorizing men's roles in the media, several scholars described masculine characteristics displayed in the media. The characteristics were generally based on stereotypes. For example, in a focus on portrayals of males in mediated sport, a study reported that masculine images traditionally included speed, danger, and aggression and showed that a “real man is strong, tough, aggressive, and above all, a winner” (Children Now, 1999b, p. 11).

Jeffords (1994) noted seven masculine qualities, namely, being competitive, athletic, decisive, unemotional, strong/aggressive, powerful, and never feminine. Other masculine traits included comradeship, loyalty, bravery, endurance of pain and suffering (Newsinger, 1993), the ability to inflict and endure violence, survival skills, adventure, exploration, courage, and ingenuity (Ryall, 1993). Some scholars found that alcohol consumption was also identified with masculinity (see, e.g., Hundley, 1995; Lyons, Dalton, & Hoy, 2006 Strate, 1992; Wedding, 2000; for more masculine characteristics see Beggan & Allison, 2001; Jhally, 2002; Messner, Dunbar, & Hunt, 2000; Williams, 1994).

As an extension of listing stereotypical masculine characteristics, scholars began theorizing and developing terms related to masculinity in the media. These terms were used to describe particular types of men/masculinities. For instance, in his analysis of movies from the 1950s, Cohan (1997) discussed two types of masculinity, “hard” and “soft.” “Hard masculinity,” he claimed, was “the standard when defending the nation's boundaries” (p. xii), whereas “soft masculinity” was the standard “of an orderly, responsible home life” (p. xii). Hard masculinity, then, aligned with John Wayne Westerns and war films, while soft masculinity paralleled Jimmy Stewart movies about domestic life.

Connell (1985) initially coined the term “hegemonic masculinity,” explaining it as a culturally naturalized form of masculinity. This form consisted of stereotyped traits and characteristics of being a “real man” that focused on power. It served to privilege and legitimate patriarchy (also see Fahey, 2007; Hanke, 1998; Mazzarella, 2008; Trujillo, 1991). Furthermore, hegemonic masculinity naturalized the roles men and women play in our culture, but more importantly, the media portrayed it in terms of “how particular groups of men inhabit positions of power and wealth and how they legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance” (Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1987, p. 179).

Hegemonic masculinity incorporated aspects of feminism (MacKinnon, 2003), thus, in addition to displaying manly stereotypes, mediated hegemonic masculine characters were also seen contributing with household responsibilities, sharing in child raising, and supporting their wives' ambitions. Hanke (1992) referred to these characters as feminized men. This type of masculinity was particularly apparent in 1980s television that featured “softer” men in touch with their feelings (McEachern, 1999).

Hegemonic masculinity was accounted for in both US culture and US media. Sociologists referred to this feminization of men as a “crisis in masculinity.” Cohan (1997) concurred that “a culture's representation of masculinity in crisis thus often reflects a perceived ‘feminization of men’” (p. xi). Creeber (2002) explained that this “crisis” was partially a result of the post-Fordist era, which is also recognized as the deindustrialization of US culture. Hence, a “new breed of man” was born, a “sensitive man” (Creeber, 2002, p. 170). Once hegemonic masculinity was identified and denaturalized, the “natural” characteristics of masculinity, including heterosexuality and Whiteness, were exposed.

In reaction to feminized men portrayed in the media, extreme versions of masculinity were identified in the media as well. Scholars theorized hypermasculinity as a form of extreme masculinity void of any feminization. It was defined as characterizing men who were “tough, aggressive, ultra-competitive, strong and dominating” (Iwamoto, 2003, p. 45). Furthermore, hypermasculine men were powerful, hypersexual, and feared. This type of man was “incompetent in personal relationships” (Prusank, 2007, p. 169) and ultimately provided excuses for “bad boy” behavior (Prusank, 2007).

As a defense against feminization of men in the United States (Joyrich, 2000) and as a reaction to this “problem,” Hollywood began producing hypermasculine characters such as “Dirty” Harry Callahan (Dirty Harry, Magnum Force), John Rambo (Rambo), and John McClane (Die Hard series) to combat soft male characters such as television's Frank Furillo (Hill Street Blues), Michael Steadman (thirtysomething), and John Cage (Ally McBeal). More recent examples of hypermasculine men are evidenced with Black men, particularly sports stars, gangsta rappers, and thugs (see Iwamoto, 2003; Means Coleman, 2002; Pompper, 2010; Saddik, 2003; Wolfe, 2003).

Whereas several scholars believed hypermasculinity was a reaction to hegemonic masculinity, Palmer-Mehta (2009) argued the theoretical construct of mediocre masculinity as a morphing form of hegemonic masculinity “to fit the contemporary social situation” (p. 1070). This is a type of masculinity in which men are far from ideal. The Man Show and its first hosts, Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla, served as examples of mediocre masculinity. Despite being mediocre, they still maintain their power as White males.

In the past decade, yet another type of masculinity emerged – metrosexual masculinity. Initially used in 1994 by cultural critic Mark Simpson, media scholars began examining this type of masculinity in the media about a decade later. What MacKinnon (2003) termed the “new man,” Tragos (2009) deemed the “metrosexual” (p. 545). Described as “a gift to advertisers, the metrosexual image-conscious man spends considerable resources on appearance and lifestyle” (Pompper, 2010, p. 684; also see Shuggart, 2008; Simpson, 2002). This included men who were “unashamed about beauty care, shopping, and spa treatments” (Bing, 2003, p. 68). While hegemonic masculinity embodied a feminized version of masculinity, metrosexuals embody a feminine version of masculinity. The metrosexual is a heterosexual, “in touch with his feminine side” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 1733), yet some people may consider him gay or bisexual (Coad, 2008).

Opinions differ on the reasons for the emergence of hegemonic, hyper-, and metrosexual masculinities. The deindustrialization of the United States combined with second-wave feminism certainly provide rationales for masculinity to possess feminist ideals. Whether that occurs hegemonically or not is a matter of perspective. For some, this softer form of masculinity may have been a “crisis in the feminization of men.” Hence, hypermasculinity could be argued as a reactionary device. As an extreme version of masculinity, “hypermasculinity exposes anxiety about masculinity” (MacKinnon, 2003, p. 5). Yet, as an extension of that argument, some scholars may claim that hypermasculinity presented a crisis in the overmasculinization of men. As a reaction, metrosexuals emerged in media and culture. Despite the explanations of why these masculinities emerged, it is evident that the US media depict several types of masculinities.

In reviewing literature regarding the portrayals of masculinities in US media, it is apparent that a hierarchy of masculinities exists. Scholars agree that hegemonic masculinity is the most preferred or encouraged in the media, whereas other forms of masculinities are subordinated. Moreover, homosexual masculinities are “at the bottom of the gender hierarchy among men” (Connell, 1995, p. 78). In fact, hypermasculinity and metrosexual masculinity are said to reify hegemonic masculinity, as the next section of this chapter reveals. In so doing, US media validate White, male, heterosexual privilege in the culture.

Hegemonic Masculinity in the Media

Whether explicitly stated or not, hegemonic masculinity is quite prevalent in the literature describing portrayals of mediated masculinities (see, e.g., Gardiner, 2005; Hanke, 1998; Jansen, 1994; Jeffords, 1994; Katz, 1995; Kirkham & Thumim, 1993; Mason, 1992; Mazzarella, 2008; McEachern, 1999; Messner, 1996; Prusank, 2007; Walsh, 2009). Trujillo (1991), for instance, capitalized on the theory of hegemonic masculinity. In his analysis of baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan, he argued five key characteristics Ryan possessed that expressed hegemonic masculinity. They were physical force, occupational achievement, familial patriarchy, frontiersmanship, and heterosexuality. The literature pertaining to mediated portrayals of hegemonic masculinity contains some commonalties with several stereotyped characteristics of masculinity, such as being strong, heterosexual, powerful, and White.

In reviewing the literature, it is evident that researchers concur that this form of masculinity remains at the top of the masculine hierarchy whereas all other forms are subordinated masculinities and exist to reaffirm hegemonic masculinity. For instance, Mazzarella (2008) examined the three main male characters in the cable television reality program American Chopper. In her analysis, she claimed that the father, Paul, represented hegemonic masculinity whereas his sons, Paulie and Mikey, portrayed subordinated and complicit masculinities respectively. This, she argued, legitimated patriarchy and granted credibility to the traditional male role.

In Gardiner's (2005) examination of the South Park film Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, he found that the male portrayals reaffirmed hegemonic masculinity as “the world is a playground of powerful, male-bonded, American white boys” (p. 61). Thus, for male characters that do not fit these descriptors, they existed to substantiate the preferred version of masculinity.

Similarly, in an analysis of the television situation comedy Home Improvement, McEachern (1999) illustrated how the show juxtaposed two versions of masculinity. The supporting character, Al Borland, portrayed “soft masculinity” whereas the main character, Tim Taylor, represented the “wild man” who generally displayed hegemonic masculinity but occasionally depicted examples of hypermasculinity. Interestingly, rather than giving complete preference to the hegemonic form, McEachern (1999) noted that these two versions “enable the comic mode of the sitcom to constantly interrogate these masculinities and their relationship” (p. 11) to each other. In fact, the “gags question the authenticity of his [Tim's] masculinity” (p. 14). As evidenced in this review of mediated hegemonic masculinity, scholars have critically engaged in examining how media support this form of masculinity and juxtapose it against other forms of masculinities. Ultimately, such analyses allow scholars to question hegemonic social constructions of gender and expose their racist ideology and preferred sexual orientation supporting White heteronormativity.

Hypermasculinity in the Media

One way of questioning masculinity, including hegemonic masculinity, is through portrayals of ubermasculinity or hypermasculinity. This extreme form of masculinity includes “a cool pose ritualizing masculinities of toughness, pride, control” (Pompper, 2010, p. 684; also see Iwamoto, 2003; Majors & Billson, 1992). While hypermasculinity is not necessarily race specific, more often it is connected with Black masculinity. For instance, in a study of Tupac Shakur, Iwamoto (2003) argued that “the gangster or mob image was one of the main cultural-media influences on the formation of Tupac's identity” (p. 46). Moreover, “the gangsta culture or ‘thug’ lifestyle reinforced Tupac's hyper-masculine values” (p. 46). While identifying Tupac's hypermasculine image projected in the media, Iwamoto (2003) claimed that Tupac was well aware of media's racist bias but nevertheless capitalized on it to his own demise.

In an ethnographic account of convicted felon Caryon Johnson, Means Coleman (2002) connected the “thug life” to Black male characters in films like Boyz n the Hood, Friday, and Menace II Society. Such characters displayed excessive power, control, and strength over women, in the streets, and in their neighborhoods. Furthermore, they defied traditional enforcement by engaging in unlawful behaviors.

Earlier research did not necessarily use the term hypermasculinity, but in their descriptions and arguments, the term was implied. For instance, Brod (1987), Jhally (1990, 1992), Katz (1995), and Katz and Jhally (1999) expressed concerns about the pervasive reification of violence and masculinity (a construct of hypermasculinity) as a cultural norm. With examples such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Bruce Willis, predominantly young, male audiences “latch onto big, muscular, violent men as cinematic heroes” (Katz, 1995, p. 135). Parallel to this description, Mosher and Sirkin (1984) explained that a “macho man” possessed callous sexual attitudes and displayed violent tendencies. Furthermore, danger was exciting to macho men (also see Mosher & Tomkins, 1988; Tomkins, 1979).

McEachern (1999) and Prusank (2007) described hypermasculine characteristics and claimed them as “natural” traits in all men. For instance, Prusank (2007) studied teen magazines and compared two forms of masculinity – the “good/new” man (e.g., hegemonic masculinity) and the “natural” man (hypermasculinity). In examining these distinctions, Prusank (2007) stated that “inherent within all males is the potential for the ‘new man’” (p. 170); however, the “natural man” also exists, perhaps just below the surface.

McEachern's (1999) examination of Home Improvement found that despite Tim Taylor's desire to understand women (a characteristic of hegemonic masculinity), as he often discussed interpersonal issues with his neighbor, Tim's base need for “more power,” as he supercharged up anything with a motor, was difficult to escape. According to McEachern, this quest for power (a component of hypermasculinity) was Tim's “natural” trait. Nevertheless, McEachern suggested that hypermasculinity was less desirable than hegemonic masculinity because, more often than not, it resulted in embarrassment and degradation for Tim.

Another study that compared “traditional masculinity” (i.e., hegemonic masculinity) with “uber-hegemonic masculinity” (i.e., hypermasculinity) was Woodward's (2004) study on boxing. Without using the term hypermasculinity, she described its characteristics. Specifically, Woodward wrote that boxing is “a spectacle beset with contradictions and ambiguities enjoyed and reviled in equal proportions” (p. 15) in that it depicts a “display of the perfect body and the grotesque [excessive] body” (p. 15) simultaneously. Hence, the excessive bodies in boxing are spectacles that, in essence, parody the male body. Therefore, Woodward claimed that ultimately boxing's display of excess served as a “mock masculinity,” reaffirming traditional masculinity.

While the aforementioned scholars suggested that hypermasculinity was less encouraged or reviled in US media than hegemonic masculinity, others argued whether hypermasculinity was a result of hegemonic masculinity. For instance, in analyses of men's magazines published in 2001, Gauntlett (2002) took direct issue with Jackson, Stevenson, and Brooks (2001) in terms of their position on the “crisis on masculinity” and how it was played out in the media. Specifically, Jackson and colleagues (2001) found that men's magazines in the 1990s reasserted old-fashioned masculinity and served as a backlash against the feminization of men. Gauntlett (2002) readdressed the “crisis” by stating that “contemporary masculinity is ‘in crisis’ since women are more successful” (p. 250) and that “men's problem is not their new role, it's clinging on to the old one” (p. 251). Hence, he found that men's magazines presented “insecure men finding their place in the world” (p. 180).

Metrosexuals in the Media

As a relatively new construct, metrosexual masculinity in the media has been examined by a handful of scholars (Clarkson, 2005; Draper, 2010; Gamson, 2005; Lewis, 2007; Ramsey & Santiago, 2004; Sender, 2006; Shuggart, 2008; Westerfelhaus & Lacroix, 2006). Interestingly, the majority of literature about mediated metrosexuals examined the popular cable television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Shuggart (2008), for instance, studied 35 episodes of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a book by the same name, and The Metrosexual Guide to Style: A Handbook for the Modern Man. As a result, she claimed that metrosexuality was used to “rationalize commercial masculinity” (p. 280). In fact, most of the literature concluded the same thing. That is, that gay men were used to “solve the ‘problem’ of the male consumer” (Sender, 2006, p. 133), particularly White male heterosexuals.

Diverging from Queer Eye, Draper (2010) examined three editorial transformations of Details magazine. Initially, the magazine was gay-inclusive, depicting hegemonic masculinity. The second incarnation of the magazine was exclusively straight and what Draper called Maxim-ized (after Maxim magazine). This suggested the magazine contained illustrations of hypermasculinity. The third editor decided to recreate Details magazine and present metrosexual masculinity. By doing so, Draper (2010) claimed the magazine “utilized gayness to construct difference between ‘straight’ masculinities” (p. 357). Further, he contended the magazine “constructed new male audiences” and “legitimized them [i.e., metrosexuals] as ‘authentic’ straight identities” (p. 357).

Clearly the research on masculinities in US media has identified various types of masculinities. Generally speaking, they can be categorized as hegemonic masculinity, hypermasculinity, or, more recently, metrosexual masculinity. In addition to acknowledging these types of masculinities, scholars concur that the media present a hierarchical preference. Furthermore, while some scholars provide explanations for the emergence of multiple masculinities, they do not all agree.

Masculinity and Race

Research exists examining mediated portrayals of the intersection of masculinities and race.¹ That is, scholars are asking how masculinities are depicted by characters from a variety of racial backgrounds. Analyses of Whiteness and masculinity are generally synonymous with analyses of hegemonic masculinity. However, other than studies of hegemonic masculinity, most of the research involving masculinity and race examines Black characters (see, e.g., Brown, 1999; Cornwell & Orbe, 2002; Dunbar, 1999; Elise & Umoja, 2009; Gabbard, 2004; Orbe & Lyons, 2009; Persson & Newman, 2008). Nevertheless, there is also research examining masculinity and other ethnicities including Chicanos (Fregoso, 1993), Asians (Parrenas & Siu, 2007), and Native Americans (Parker, 2003) in the US media.

Other than work on hegemonic masculinity, which incorporates Whiteness, other studies explicitly examined the portrayal of White masculinity (see, e.g., Bannister, 2006; Butterworth, 2007; Consalvo, 2003; Oates, 2009; Walsh, 2009). Consalvo (2003), for instance, critically examined news coverage of Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold, the two boys responsible for the Columbine High School shooting spree. She found that the media portrayed them primarily as monsters, having no gender. Secondarily, the media subordinated their masculinity, portraying them as “geeks.” In terms of race, ultimately, Consalvo (2003) claimed that the media portrayed them as “deviant by choice” since these “middle class white boys were denied a privileged position promised to them” (p. 40) by society.

In another article that juxtaposed masculinity and race, Walsh (2009) examined the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC coverage of the Democratic primary from January 2008 to June 2009. She argued that Hillary Clinton portrayed hegemonic masculinity by making race invisible whereas Barack Obama was depicted as an alternative form of masculinity since he was effeminate, not White, not Black, and not manly. The fact that Clinton is a woman highlights the social construction of gender and is further discussed in the next section of this chapter.

While comparing mediated portrayals of White and Black masculinities, Jeffords (1994) stated that it was the White man's burden of masculinity to save countries (Rambo series), artifacts (Indiana Jones series), or corporations (Die Hard series). Discussing Lethal Weapon and Die Hard as examples, she continued that Black men did not have that burden. Rather, Black men enforce the system whereas White men challenge the system. Thus, mediated masculinities by race do vary.

Traditionally, portrayals of Black masculinities have been limited and stereotyped. Orbe and Hopson (2002) confirmed this in their examination of seven African American male cast members from nine seasons of MTV's The Real World. In their semiotic analysis, the Black characters were portrayed as “angry, emotionally unstable or unpredictable or both, a violent threat, and sexually aggressive” (p. 220). As a result, the authors argued that these portrayals “legitimized a general fear of Black men” (p. 220).

In Brown's (1999) study of Black superheroes in comic books, he posited that masculinity in Western culture is equivalent to White masculinity. However, he maintained that Milestone Comics targeted to Black consumers “offers an alternative to hypermasculinity” (p. 26), which all too often prevails in portraying Black masculinity. Pointedly, he argued that typical Black superheroes are “too hard, too physical, too bodily” (p. 27), whereas their White counterparts represent a wimp/warrior duality (e.g., Clark Kent as Superman). Yet, according to Brown (1999), the Black superheroes in Milestone Comics emphasize brains over brawn, which depicts a welcome new type of Black masculinity.

Similar to Brown's (1999) claim that Black men are oftentimes portrayed as hyper-masculine, Persson and Newman (2008) contend that Black characters in the media are shown as overtly sexual and produce a “monstrous masculinity” (p. 632) that contributes to racial tensions. Despite these mediated portrayals, Dunbar (1999) viewed the “marginalized status of black masculinity” as a capitalizing opportunity for NBA player Dennis Rodman. Moreover, she argued that Rodman's diversion of hegemonic masculinity distinguished his eccentricities and visual style, which was packaged and sold to consumers.

Whereas the media portray Spike Lee “in unidimensional and stereotypical ways” (Orbe & Lyons, 2009, p. 371) “as confrontational, controversial, and as audacious” (p. 371), Orbe and Lyons assert that he is also a “family man,” “an indispensable activist,” and “changing and evolving” (pp. 376–377). In his films, “Lee's depictions of black men differ sharply from the images cast by Hollywood” (Elise & Umoja, 2009, p. 298). In an examination of Spike Lee's movies, Elise and Umoja (2009) contend that “he abandons the one-dimensional presentation of the black man as a macho hero, eunuch, sidekick, amoral pimp/hustler/thug, and the buffoon” (p. 299). Instead, Lee reveals Black men as “sexual beings, not brutes: vulnerable to their passions, not victims of them” (p. 297). Furthermore, the Black men in Lee's films are “virile, intelligent, and essential” (p. 299).

Garnered by Brown's (1999) study of Milestone Comics, Elise and Umoja's (2009) analysis of Spike Lee films, and Orbe and Lyons's (2009) examination of Spike Lee, it may be easy to suggest that nonracist, realistic portrayals of a racial masculinity must be created by someone from that race. However, Cornwell and Orbe (2002) revealed that it is not that simple in their study of The Boondocks comic strip. Specifically, Cornwell and Orbe found that readers expected The Boondocks creator, Aaron McGruder, to represent the African American community – a task impossible to achieve. Not only are members from any community broadly diverse, but audiences maintain the power to interpret mediated portrayals in a variety of ways.

In an analysis of the film Zoot Suit, Fregoso (1993) argued that typically a range of masculinities is possible for the dominant culture. Nevertheless, for non-White males, masculinity is depicted as narrow and negative. Chicanos, she claimed, were generally portrayed in the media as violent, unruly conquistadors, blood-thirsty Aztecs, greasers, Latin lovers (e.g., sexually promiscuous), and gang members. However, the film she examined depicted a transformation of the Chicano from being a violent gang member to revealing a positive version of masculine brotherhood.

Just as initial studies on masculinity focused on stereotypes, early research on masculinity and race has done the same. hooks (2004) contended that racist, capitalist patriarchy continually produces limited constructions of Black masculinity. Yet, irrespective of mediated racial stereotypes, “analyses of masculinity and race are striving to avoid any easy reductionism” (Nakayama, 2000, p. 113). Researchers continually interrogate the ways media represent racial masculinities.

Masculinity and Class

Very few studies have examined the intersection of the portrayal of masculinity and class in the media (Consalvo, 2003; Crawley, 1998; Mazzarella, 2008; Reser, 2005). While Consalvo's (2003) article about Harris and Klebold touched upon the boys being from middle-class families, the thrust of her argument was not about the boys' economic status. Reser (2005), however, focused on class as a major factor in how masculinity is portrayed in the film The Full Monty. Reser argued that women in this film maintained the economic power, whereas the out-of-work male protagonists engaged in stripping to earn money and, therefore, reclaimed their masculinity.

Similarly, Mazzarella (2008) examined working-class masculinity in the cable television docusoap American Chopper. She claimed that the program was a celebration of respectable working-class men's work in that every episode highlighted skilled vendors contributing to the custom craftsmanship of motorcycles.

In another article, Crawley (1998) examined coverage of the America's Cup race and maintained that “sailing has been used as a site for demonstrating masculinity among sailing's upper- and middle-class, male participants” (p. 33). Hence, clearly, economic status has implications for how masculinity is portrayed, yet relatively few scholars have engaged in such analyses.

Masculinity and Sexual Orientation

As mentioned, hegemonic masculinity was solely about heterosexual males, among other characteristics. However, in the early twenty-first century, researchers have focused on gay masculinities (see, e.g., Avila-Saavedra, 2009; Fejes, 2000; Goltz, 2007; Linneman, 2008; Morrish & O'Mara, 2004). In his review of research on gay masculinities, Fejes (2000) noted that “in the past, a gay male acted [stereotypically] masculine as a way of hiding the fact that he was gay. Today, a gay male can be both masculine and openly gay” (p. 116).

Linneman (2008) examined the sitcom Will & Grace and found that the show included multiple representations of gay masculinities. These ranged from an effeminate gay man to a “very straight gay” (p. 583). What some scholars call gay masculinity Morrish and O'Mara (2004) deem “alternative” masculinity in their analysis of cable television's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. In their research, the authors conclude that the show confirms gay stereotypes and depicts patriarchal supremacy, but illustrates five versions of gay masculinity with the show's five recurring characters. Avila-Saavedra (2009) conducted a discourse analysis of television shows with leading gay male characters (e.g., Will & Grace, It's All Relative, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy) and determined that while increased numbers of gay characters are evident on television, they do not challenge heteronormativity.

Extending research on gay masculinities, Goltz (2007) examined the magazine Instinct and argued that it depicts hypermasculine queerness, which was defined as oversexed gay men taking pride in having multiple partners. The magazine's portrayal of hypermasculine queerness was “performed through dismissive sarcasm, irony and ‘harmless fun’” (p. 99). While the magazine “delights in offending readers and mocking them” (p. 99), Goltz dismissed the parody since Instinct “does not claim social responsibility” (p. 107).

Similar to early research on portrayals of women in the media, and then later on men in the media, stereotypical representations were highlighted. The discussion of hegemonic masculinity began and, shortly after, analyses of hypermasculinity started appearing in scholarship. This aligns with research on gay masculinities in that early research argued that the media stereotypically portrayed gay men. As with research on hypermasculinity, and as a reaction to feminized hegemonic masculinity, Goltz (2007) found extreme versions of gay masculinities perhaps to combat effeminate gay portrayals.

Masculinity and Gender

The introduction of this chapter noted that sex and gender are distinguished in many cultures. However, many cultures naturalize a connection between a person's biological sex and socially constructed gender. While masculinity is a performed gender associated with men in Western culture, research has just begun to untangle this connection by exploring instances in which women demonstrate versions of masculinity. For instance, Walsh (2009) claimed that Hillary Clinton was portrayed as an example of hegemonic masculinity during the Democratic primary in an analysis of the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC. Mandziuk (2000) characterized masculinity as a “transgressive masquerade” (p. 105) in her discussion of “crossing borders beyond gender difference” (p. 105). Finally, drawing from Halberstam (1998), Cooper (2002) analyzed the film Boys Don't Cry and argued that it destabilizes masculinity and heterosexuality by normalizing female masculinity.

As evident in this review, the study and portrayals of masculinities in the media have evolved. Initially, scholars exposed various masculine stereotypes in the media. Then research on hegemonic masculinity, hypermasculinity, and metrosexual masculinity began appearing in academic journals and books. By denaturalizing hegemonic masculinity, scholars then began questioning how race, class, sexual orientation, and gender influenced the depiction of masculinities in the media. Clearly, “masculinity is constantly being constructed and reconstructed in culture, within and across boundaries of race, class, ethnicity, and age, often in contradictory ways” (Gabbard, 2004, p. 58). This trajectory illustrates the evolution of the portrayal and research on mediated masculinities. It is clear that masculinities are not static and diversity is seemingly considered.

By understanding the myriad versions of masculinities and the diverse characteristics that shape masculinities, the next section of this chapter reviews how scholars have examined masculinities in specific media, namely television, film, and print.

Masculinities “Appropriate” for Specific Media

In reviewing the literature regarding portrayals of masculinities in the media, it was obvious that some scholars focus on specific media. For instance, some scholars examined masculinities in film (see, e.g., Bingham, 1994; Fregoso, 1993; Gabbard, 2004; Jeffords, 1994), while other scholars studied masculinities in television (see, e.g., Feuer, 1986; Fiske, 1987; Joyrich, 2000). Cohan's (1997) research alluded to genre specific masculinities. Moreover, research suggested that a specific portrayal of masculinity was more acceptable in a particular medium, therefore viewers should expect a certain type of masculinity when consuming certain media. The next section reviews the literature in this area and discusses some implications.

Masculinities across Media

Masculinities in Film

Investigations of masculinities in film are primarily published in books about stereotypical, hegemonic, or hypermasculinities (see, e.g., Bingham, 1994; Jeffords, 1994; Kirkham & Thumin, 1993). Some books focus on specific racial masculinities in film (see, e.g., Fregoso, 1993; Gabbard, 2004; Parrenas & Siu, 2007). Despite recognizing a film genre-specific masculinity, MacKinnon (2003) claimed that masculinity was jeopardized and questioned in 1970s films. As a result, hypermasculinity was pre-dominant in 1980s films (also see Bingham, 1994). She found that, in films in the 1990s, a tension was created between individual heroic versus social and family responsibilities. She posited that films today possess an increasing focus on masculinity as a troubled and unsure construct.

Other scholars examined specific film genres. Krutnik (1991), for instance, studied masculinity in film noir and thrillers. Akin to this research, Jeffords (1994) focused on hypermasculine images in action/adventure films. Grevin (2009) coined a new film genre, the double protagonist film, and claimed that such films are “represented by two diverging styles of masculinity, the narcissistic and anachronistic social outsider” (p. 27), also referred to as the masochist. In this genre, Grevin claimed, the masochist was preferred whereas the narcissist was portrayed negatively. These scant examples evince an oversight of research of masculinities in particular film genres. That is, one might assume that the portrayal of masculinity in a “chick flick” is far more divergent than the portrayal of masculinity in a war movie. More research is needed to assess the range of masculinities within various film genres.

Masculinities in Television

Just as film has gendered genres, so does television. As such, some television critics (Feuer, 1986; Fiske, 1987) argued that particular programming is directed to specific gendered audiences. For instance, feminine television contains continuing and multiple storylines, numerous characters, emphasis on dialogue, sensitive male protagonists, stereotypically macho male villains, disruption, and polysemy (Fiske, 1987). Feuer (1986) explained that a feminine narrative was akin to (daytime and night-time) soap operas such as General Hospital and, more recently, Desperate Housewives.

Masculine television, on the other hand, is goal centered and consists of one story-line, an emphasis on action, competition, male bonding, and an absence of both women and traditional obligations (family and work). Feuer (1986) deemed masculine narratives as cop/adventure shows. In the 1980s such programs included Magnum P.I., Miami Vice, and the A-Team. Today, masculine television is evident in sports programming such as that presented by the NFL, NBA, and other professional associations.

Mazzarella (2008) argued that the cable program American Chopper presents a docusoap genre for men. That is, the series is a blend of traditionally feminine programming such as soap operas; however, it simultaneously maintains characteristics of masculine genres such as an absence of women and the presence of competition and male bonding. Similar programs on cable television fit this description, such as Pawn Stars, Deadliest Catch, and Ax Men.

With the increased technology of cable, satellite, and fiber-optic delivery allowing for more narrowcasting and niche programming, the representations of gender on television have changed dramatically since the 1980s (D'Acci, 2004). In fact, since the 1970s and early 1980s, D'Acci claimed that gender binaries have been broken. Gauntlett (2002), however, recognized the differences in genres. For instance, from the 1950s through 1970s, 65 to 80% of characters on television were men (Elasmar, Hasegawa, & Brain, 1999; Gunter, 1995). During the 1995–1996 television season, 65% of characters were men. Nevertheless, in 1970s sitcoms, the male to female ratio was nearly 50:50 (Miles, 1975).

Indeed, televised “representations of gender today are more complex, and less stereotyped, than in the past” (Gauntlett, 2002, p. 90). While television broadcasts “the man channel” and “movies for guys who like movies about guys,” networks like Lifetime, Oxygen, and WE present stereotypical “women's” programming and broadcast networks air content for mix gendered audiences. Since television is an easily accessible mass medium, it makes sense to present a variety of masculinities to appeal to the broadest audience possible. In the sitcom Two and a Half Men, for instance, Alan, one of the two male protagonists, is more nurturing and feminine whereas Charlie, the other male protagonist, is oppositionally chauvinistic and demonstrates hypermasculine tendencies most of the time. Both characters are juxtaposed against each other, both are laughed at, and both have redeeming qualities. This allows audience members to connect with or select the portrayal of masculinity that suits them best. It also suggests that men should not be too feminine or too masculine.

Masculinities in Print

Fewer scholars have published research examining the portrayal of masculinity in print compared to masculinity in film and television. The research on print media includes books (Bean & Harper, 2007; Beynon, 2002; Mandziuk, 2000), comics (Brown, 1999), newspapers (Beynon, 2002), magazines (Gauntlett, 2002; Goltz, 2007; Mooney, 2008; Prusank, 2007), and advertising (Jhally, 2002; Messner & Montez de Oca, 2005; Wenner, 2009).

In terms of books and literature, Bean and Harper (2007) examined three books targeted to young adults. They found that the books presented gendered performance with socially scripted characters, but that they were open to change. In essence, the books they studied presented wider visions of how boys can be masculine. Mandziuk (2000) argued that literature can present masculinity in very transgressive forms. Yet Beynon (2002) examined newspapers and popular books and discovered negative portrayals of fathers, who were depicted as physically or emotionally absent. From this brief review, it appears that portrayals of masculinities in literature can be far more diverse than on television and in film.

In analyses of masculinities in magazines, scholarship is incongruent. Specifically, Jackson, Stevenson, and Brooks (2001) claimed that men's magazines present hegemonic and hypermasculine portrayals of masculinity. Gauntlett (2002), however, argued that men's magazines depict men as complex and contradictory, focusing on stereotypically repressed aspects of masculinity such as health, fashion, and relationships. More akin to Jackson and colleagues (2001), Mooney (2008) found that men's magazines highlight sexuality and naturalize pornography. Like film and television, it appears that the genre has great control over the versions of masculinities portrayed. Hence, Maxim, Playboy, and Penthouse may draw on stereotypical, hegemonic, and hypermasculine depictions of masculinities, whereas magazines such as Men's Health, Men's Journal, and GQ may present alternative versions of masculinities such as metrosexual masculinity. Similar to books, the narrowcast nature and prevalent individual consumption enable a broad variety of masculinities to be portrayed in magazines.

Finally, while advertising is not a medium per se, it does rely on media to promote goods. Hence, studies on masculinities in advertising typically involve print media, yet some also include television. The most consistency was found here in terms of scholarly conclusions about masculinities in advertising. Just as ads with women predominantly feature sexualized femininity, D'Acci (2004) pointed out that masculinities have “long been used by commercial culture to associate heterosexual desirability with consumer products and consumerism” (p. 376) as well. Further, regardless of whether masculinity or femininity is presented in advertisements, “everyone is under pressure to look good” (Gauntlett, 2002, p. 90) and “consumer capitalism makes objects of us all” (MacKinnon, 2003, p. 100).

Future Research

This review was designed to give readers an overview of the development of research on portrayals of masculinities in the US media. It remains clear that as media representations evolved, so did the scholarship. As society changed with World War II, the civil rights movement, second- and third-wave feminism, the end of the Cold War, deindustrialization, and other recognizable events, so too did portrayals of gender in the media.

It should be evident that research in this area is not complete. While it remains important to continually examine hegemonic functions of masculinity, hypermasculinity, and metrosexual masculinity, there are large gaps in research exploring race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. In fact, identity studies should continue to examine how masculine identities are portrayed, reified, resisted, or altered.

Further, genre studies can investigate what types of masculinities are acceptable, unacceptable, prevalent, or absent in particular media or within specific genres in various media. That is, the vast majority of male characters in sitcoms are feminized and far from hypermasculine. Hence, should scholars choose to examine the types of identities (e.g., masculinities, including raced, classed, gendered, skilled, sexually aligned) that are successful in various media or within specific genres, this will tell us more about the culture in which we live.

NOTE

1 The term “race” is used here since that is the term used in the literature. However, Orbe and Drummond (2009) posited that, given the opportunity, people of color were more likely to “question US categories for race and ethnicity” (p. 437). While the terms White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and others are limited and “rigid conceptualizations” (p. 437), they are the terms used in the literature. Analyzing these terms is beyond the scope of this chapter.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, R. (2004). Homosexuality and the city: An historical overview. Urban Studies, 41, 1719–1737.

Avila-Saavedra, G. (2009). Nothing queer about queer television: Televised construction of gay masculinities. Media, Culture and Society, 31, 5–21.

Bannister, M. (2006). “Loaded”: Indie guitar rock, canonism, white masculinities. Popular Music, 25, 77–95.

Bean, T. W., & Harper, H. (2007). Reading men differently: Alternative portrayals of masculinity in contemporary young adult fiction. Reading Psychology, 28, 11–30.

Beggan, J. K., & Allison, S. T. (2001). What do Playboy Playmates want? Implications of expressed preferences in the construction of the “unfinished” masculine identity. Journal of Men's Studies, 10, 1–38.

Beynon, J. (2002). Masculinities and culture. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bing, J. (2003). The metrosexual mogul. Variety, p. 68.

Bingham, D. (1994). Acting male: Masculinities in the films of James Stewart, Jack Nicholson, and Clint Eastwood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bordo, S. (1999). The male body: A new look at man in public and private. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Brod, H. (Ed.). (1987). The making of masculinities: The new men's studies. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.

Brown, J. A. (1999). Comic book masculinity and the new Black superhero. African American Review, 33, 25–42.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Butterworth, M. L. (2007). Race in “the race”: Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and heroic constructions of Whiteness. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 228–244.

Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1987). Hard and heavy: Toward a new sociology of masculinity. In M. Kaufmann (Ed.), Beyond patriarchy: Essays by men on pleasure, power, and change (pp. 139–192). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Children Now. (1999a, September 1). Boys to men: Media messages about masculinity. Conference Report. Sixth Annual Children and Media Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.childrennow.org/uploads/documents/boys_to_men_1999.pdf

Children Now. (1999b, September 1). Boys to men: Sports media messages about masculinity. A national poll of children, focus groups, and content analysis of sports programs and commercials. Retrieved from http://www.childrennow.org/uploads/documents/boys_to_men_sports_1999.pdf

Clarkson, J. (2005). Contesting masculinities' makeover: Queer Eye, consumer masculinity, and the “straight-acting” gays. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29, 235–255.

Coad, D. (2008). The metrosexual: Gender, sexuality, and sport. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cohan, S. (1997). Masked men: Masculinity and the movies in the fifties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Connell, R. W. (1985). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities: Knowledge, power and social change. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Consalvo, M. (2003). The monsters next door: Media constructions of boys and masculinity. Feminist Media Studies, 3, 27–45.

Cooper, B. (2002). Boys Don't Cry and female masculinity: Reclaiming a life and dismantling the politics of normative heterosexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 44–63.

Cornwell, N. C., & Orbe, M. P. (2002). “Keepin' it real” and/or “sellin' out to the man”: African-American responses to Aaron McGruder's The Boondocks. In R. R. Means Coleman (Ed.), Say it loud! African-American audiences, media, and identity (pp. 27–43). New York, NY: Routledge.

Craig, S. (Ed.). (1992). Men, masculinity, and the media. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Crawley, S. L. (1998). Gender, class and the construction of masculinity in professional sailing. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 33, 33–42.

Creeber, G. (2002). Old sleuth or new man? Investigations into rape, murder and masculinity in Cracker (1993–1996). Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 16, 169–183.

D'Acci, J. (2004). Television, representation and gender. In R. C. Allen & A. Hill (Eds.), The television studies reader (pp. 373–388). London, UK: Routledge.

Draper, J. (2010). “Gay or not?!”: Gay men, straight masculinities, and the construction of the Details audience. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27, 357–375.

Dunbar, M. (1999). Dennis Rodman – “Barbie doll gone horribly wrong”: Marginalized masculinity, cross-dressing, and the limitations of commodity culture. Journal of Men's Studies, 7, 317–336.

Elasmar, M., Hasegawa, K., & Brain, M. (1999). The portrayal of women in US prime time television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 20–34.

Elise, S., & Umoja, A. (2009). Spike Lee constructs the new Black man: Mo' better. In J. D. Hamlet & R. R. Means Coleman (Eds.), Fight the power! The Spike Lee reader (pp. 287–301). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Fahey, A. C. (2007). French and feminine: Hegemonic masculinity and the emasculation of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 132–150.

Farrell, W. (1986). Why men are the way they are. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fejes, F. (2000). Making a gay masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 113–116.

Feuer, J. (1986). Narrative form in American network television. In C. MacCabe (Ed.), High theory/low culture (pp. 101–114). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London, UK: Routledge.

Fregoso, R. L. (1993). The bronze screen: Chicana and Chicano film culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Gabbard, K. (2004). Black magic: White Hollywood and African American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gamson, J. (2005). The intersection of gay street and straight street: Shopping, social class, and the new gay visibility. Social Thought and Research, 26, 3–18.

Gardiner, J. K. (2005). Why Saddam is gay: Masculinity politics in South Park – Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 22, 51–62.

Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge.

Goltz, D. B. (2007). Laughing at absence: Instinct magazine and the hyper-masculine gay future? Western Journal of Communication, 71, 93–113.

Grevin, D. (2009). Contemporary Hollywood masculinity and the double-protagonist film. Cinema Journal, 48, 22–43.

Gunter, B. (1995). Television and gender representation. London, UK: John Libbey.

Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hanke, R. (1992). Reading mediated masculinity: Hegemonic masculinity in transition. In S. Craig (Ed.), Men, masculinity and the media (pp. 185–196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hanke, R. (1998). Theorizing masculinity with/in the media. Communication Theory, 8, 183–203.

Hearn, J., & Morgan, D.(Eds.). (1990). Men, masculinities and social theory. London, UK: Unwin Hyman.

hooks, b. (1981). Ain't I a woman? Black women and feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press.

hooks, b. (2004). We real cool: Black men and masculinity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Horrocks, R. (1995). Male myths and icons: Masculinity in popular culture. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Hundley, H. L. (1995). The naturalization of beer in Cheers. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39, 350–359.

Iwamoto, D. (2003). Tupac Shakur: Understanding the identity formation of hyper-masculinity of a popular hip hop artist. The Black Scholar, 33, 44–49.

Jackson, P., Stevenson, N., & Brooks, K. (2001). Making sense of men's lifestyle magazines. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Jandt, F., & Hundley, H. (2007). Intercultural dimensions of communicating masculinities. Journal of Men's Studies, 15, 216–231.

Jansen, S. C. (1994). The sport/war metaphor: Hegemonic masculinity, the Persian Gulf War, and the new world order. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 1–17.

Jeffords, S. (1994). Hard bodies: Hollywood masculinity in the Reagan era. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Jhally, S. (1990, July). Image-based culture: Advertising and popular culture. The World and I, pp. 508–519.

Jhally, S. (Director). (2002). Tough guise: Violence, media and the crisis in masculinity. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

Joyrich, L. (2000). Critical and textual hypermasculinity. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies: A reader (pp. 404–415). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Katz, J. (1995). Advertising and the construction of violent White masculinity. In G. Dines & J. M. Humez (Eds.), Gender, race and class in media: A text-reader (pp. 133–141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Katz, J., & Jhally, S. (1999, May 2). The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark. Boston Globe, p. E1.

Kimmel, M. (Ed.). (1987). Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kirkham, P., & Thumim, J. (Eds.). (1993). You Tarzan: Masculinity, movies and men. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Kivel, B. D., & Johnson, C. W. (2009). Consuming media, making men: Using collective memory work to understand leisure and the construction of masculinity. Journal of Leisure Research, 41, 109–133.

Krutnik, F. (1991). In a lonely street: Film noir, genre, masculinity. London, UK: Routledge.

Lewis, T. (2007). “He needs to face his fears with these five queers!”: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, makeover TV, and the lifestyle expert. Television and New Media, 8, 285–311.

Linneman, T. J. (2008). How do you solve a problem like Will Truman? The feminization of gay masculinities on Will & Grace. Men and Masculinities, 10, 583–603.

Lyons, A. C., Dalton, S. I., & Hoy, A. (2006). “Hardcore drinking”: Portrayals of alcohol consumption in young women's and mens's magazines. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 223–232.

MacKinnon, K. (2003). Representing men: Maleness and masculinity in the media. New York, NY: Arnold.

Majors, R., & Billson, J. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemma of black manhood in America. New York, NY: Lexington.

Mandziuk, R. M. (2000). Necessary vigilance: Feminist critiques of masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 105–109.

Mason, G. (1992). Looking into masculinity: Sport, media and the construction of the male body beautiful. Social Alternatives, 11, 27–32.

Mazzarella, S. (2008). Men, media, and machines: Fabricating masculinities in American Chopper. Popular Communication, 6, 68–84.

McEachern, C. (1999). Comic interventions: Passion and the men's movement in the situation comedy Home Improvement. Journal of Gender Studies, 8, 5–18.

Means Coleman, R. R. (2002). The Menace II Society copycat murder care and thug life: A reception study with a convicted criminal. In Say it loud! African-American audiences, media, and identity (pp. 249–284). New York, NY: Routledge.

Messner, M. (1996). Masculinities and athletic careers. In E. Ngan-Ling Chow, D. Wilkinson, & M. Baca Zinn (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: Common bonds, different voices (pp. 70–86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Messner, M., Dunbar, M., & Hunt, D. (2000). The televised sports manhood formula. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24, 380–395.

Messner, M. A., & Montez de Oca, J. (2005). The male consumer as loser: Beer and liquor ads in mega sports media events. Signs, 30, 1879–1909.

Miles, B. (1975). Channeling children: Sex stereotyping in primetime TV. Princeton, NJ: Women on Words and Images.

Mooney, A. (2008). Boys will be boys: Men's magazines and the normalisation of pornography. Feminist Media Studies, 8, 247–265.

Morrish, L., & O'Mara, K. (2004). Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: Confirming and confounding masculinity. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 350–352.

Morrison, T. G., & Halton, M. (2009). Buff, tough, and rough: Representations of muscularity in action motion pictures. Journal of Men's Studies, 17, 57–74.

Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150–163.

Mosher, D. L., & Tomkins, S. S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 60–84.

Nakayama, T. (2000). The significance of “race” and masculinities. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 111–113.

Neibaur, J. L. (1989). Tough guy: The American movie macho. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Newsinger, J. (1993). “Do you walk the walk?”: Aspects of masculinity in some Vietnam war films. In P. Kirkham & J. Thumim (Eds.), You Tarzan: Masculinity, movies and men (pp. 126–136). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Oates, T. P. (2009). New media and the repackaging of NFL fandom. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26, 31–49.

Orbe, M. P., & Drummond, D. K. (2009). Negotiations of the complicitous nature of US racial/ethnic categorization: Exploring rhetorical strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 437–455.

Orbe, M. P., & Hopson, M. C. (2002). Looking at the front door: Exploring images of the Black male on MTV's The Real World. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 219–226). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Orbe, M. P., & Lyons, A. E. (2009). Father, husband, and social/cultural critic: An Afrosemiotic analysis of children's books by Spike and Tonya Lewis Lee. In J. D. Hamlet & R. R. Means Coleman (Eds.), Fight the power! The Spike Lee reader (pp. 363–382). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Palmer-Mehta, V. (2009). Men behaving badly: Mediocre masculinity and The Man Show. Journal of Popular Culture, 42, 1053–1072.

Parker, R. D. (2003). The invention of Native American literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Parrenas, R. S., & Siu, L. C. D. (Eds.). (2007). Asian diasporas: New formations, new conceptions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Penley, C., & Willis, S. (Eds.). (1993). Male trouble. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Persson, A., & Newman, C. (2008). Making monsters: Heterosexuality, crime and race in recent Western media coverage of HIV. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 632–646.

Pompper, D. (2010). Masculinities, the metrosexual, and media images: Across dimensions of age and ethnicity. Sex Roles, 63, 682–696.

Prusank, D. T. (2007). Masculinities in teen magazines: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Men's Studies, 15, 160–177.

Ramsey, E. M., & Santiago, G. (2004). The conflation of male homosexuality and femininity in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 353–355.

Reser, E. (2005). Strategies of negotiation in mainstream media: Vernacular discourse and masculinity in The Full Monty. Popular Communication, 3, 217–237.

Ryall, T. (1993). One hundred and seventeen steps towards masculinity. In P. Kirkham & J. Thumim (Eds.), You Tarzan: Masculinity, movies and men (pp. 153–166). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Saddik, A. J. (2003). Rap's unruly body: The postmodern performance of Black male identity on the American stage. Drama Review, 47, 110–127.

Sender, K. (2006). Queens for a day: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the neoliberal project. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23, 131–151.

Shuggart, H. (2008). Managing masculinities: The metrosexual moment. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 5, 280–300.

Simpson, M. (2002, July 22). Meet the metrosexual: He's well dressed, narcissistic and obsessed with butts. But don't call him gay. Salon. Retrieved from http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/07/22/metrosexual/

Strate, L. (1992). Beer commercials: A manual on masculinity. In S. Craig (Ed.), Men, masculinity, and the media (pp. 78–92). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tomkins, S. S. (1979). Script theory: Differential magnification of affects. In H. E. Howe, Jr. & R. Dienstbiener (Eds.), 1978 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 201–236). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Tragos, P. (2009). Monster masculinity: Honey, I'll be in the garage reasserting my manhood. Journal of Popular Culture, 42, 541–553.

Trujillo, N. (1991). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan Ryan and American sports culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 290–308.

Vavrus, M. D. (2007). The politics of NASCAR Dads: Branded media paternity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 245–261.

Walsh, E. T. (2009). Representations of race and gender in mainstream media coverage of the 2008 Democratic primary. Journal of African American Studies, 13, 121–130.

Wedding, D. (2000). The portrayal of alcohol and alcoholism in the Western genre. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 46, 3–12.

Wenner, L. A. (2009). Gendered sports dirt: Interrogating sex and the single beer commercial. In H. L. Hundley & A. C. Billings (Eds.), Examining identity in sports media (pp. 87–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Westerfelhaus, R., & Lacroix, C. (2006). Seeing “straight” through Queer Eye: Exposing the strategic rhetoric of heteronormativity in a mediated ritual of gay rebellion. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23, 426–444.

Williams, C. L. (1994). Militarized masculinity. Qualitative Sociology, 17, 415–422.

Wolfe, W. A. (2003). Overlooked role of African-American males' hypermasculinity in the epidemic of unintended pregnancies and HIV/AIDS cases with young African-American women. Journal of the National Medical Association, 95, 846–852.

Woodward, K. (2004). Rumbles in the jungle: Boxing, racialization and the performance of masculinity. Leisure Studies, 23, 5–17.

Worley, D. W. (2000). Masculinity reconsidered: A cultural analysis. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 119–120.