Mapping the Field: Past, Present, and Future

Men and Masculinities

2019, Vol. 22(1) 53-63
ª The Author(s) 2018
So What Has Been, Is, Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
and Might Be Going DOI: 10.1177/1097184X18805550
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmm

on in Studying
Men and Masculinities?
Some Continuities
and Discontinuities

Jeff Hearn1,2,3,4

Abstract
Following introductory remarks on how the terms “masculinities” and “men” have
been used differentially in recent critical studies on men and masculinities (CSMM),
the article reviews some key aspects of CSMM - past, present and future. The
diverse influences on CSMM have included various feminisms, gay studies, anti-
imperialism, civil rights, anti-racism, green and environmental movements, as well as
LGBTIQþ movements, Critical Race Studies, Globalization/Transnational Studies,
and Intersectionality Studies. In the present period, the range of theoretical and
political approaches and influences on studies continues to grow, with, for example,
queer, post-, post post-, new materialist, posthumanist, and science and technology
studies, making for some discontinuities with established masculinities theory. In
many regions, there are now more women working explicitly and long-term in the
area, even if that is itself not new. CSMM have also become more geographically
widespread, more dispersed, more comparative, international, transnational, post-
colonial, decolonializing, globally “Southern”, global, globalized and globalizing; this

1
Hanken School of Economics, Finland
2
Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
3
University of Huddersfield, UK
4
University of South Africa, South Africa

Corresponding Author:
Jeff Hearn, FL0, Hanken School of Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, FI 00100, Helsinki, Finland.
Email: [email protected]
54 Men and Masculinities 22(1)

diversifying feature is transforming CSMM. Key areas for future research are iden-
tified, including the relations of men and masculinities to: first, ecology, environment
and climate change; second, ICTs, social media, AI, robotics and big data; third,
transnational/global, transnational institutions and processes; and, fourth, national-
ism, racism, authoritarianism, neo-fascism and political masculinism. Together, these
make for a “lurking doom”. At the same time, there is a whole range of wider
theoretical, methodological, epistemological and ontological questions to be taken
up in CSMM much more fully in the future.

Keywords
men, masculinities, critical studies on men and masculinities, academic histories

In celebrating these twenty years of the journal, I have been asked to write briefly on
some questions around and aspects of studying men and masculinities, as suggested
by the Editor. My first reaction on receiving this request is that it is very difficult
knowing what to choose and what to omit.
My second reaction is to do something easy: that is, to record my very many
congratulations to the journal and all who are and have been involved.
Next, I want to say something about studies on men and masculinities. Here,
I want to emphasize that I do not see studies on men and masculinities as either a
neat, coherent field of studies or a discipline, but rather a rather messy and frag-
mented sets of activities, in short, a subfield of feminist, Gender and Women’s
Studies. Studies on men and masculinities, whether they are called “Masculinity
Studies” or, as I prefer, Critical Studies on Men and Masculinities (CSMM), assum-
ing, of course, that they are critical, are diverse, ontologically, epistemologically,
and politically. A critical focus on masculinity or masculinities (though their
meanings-in-use vary vastly) is fine, but that is not the whole story. For example,
if “masculinities” is used as a decontextualized, free-floating framework of analysis
out of the structural context of gender hegemony and patriarchal, not to mention
capitalist, imperialist and further oppressive, power relations, that can easily take us
back to a glorified role theory, except now with plural, multiple roles, masculinities,
and discourses. In short, in studying men and masculinities, the possible empirical,
theoretical, and political relations of the conceptual categories of (wo)men, (fe)male,
and masculinities remain a key question (Halberstam 1998), probably increasingly so.
There have been growing moves toward sophisticated, often “post-,” analyses of
the fluidity of gender, but at the same time, the pervasiveness, power, and taken-for-
grantedness of the social category of men as part of existing structural features of
most gender systems may be easily, perhaps oddly, forgotten. The category of
“woman/women” has been well deconstructed (e.g., Riley 1988), that of “man/men”
rather less so. Indeed, even critical studies of men and masculinities may take, or
appear to take, the social category of men for granted. To forget that the category of
men is social, and socially and societally constructed, or even to see a focus on the
Hearn 55

category as somehow passé and irrelevant in critical work is, in my view, misguided.
It is doubly unfortunate, as it weakens working critically on the current dominant
material-discursive gender reality from which political action springs and from
which feminist critical realist analysis seeks to unearth.
The critique of men is important not because men are determined as z or y or z; it is
the opposite; it is that men constitute a social category of power. In one sense, although
such a hugely influential, transformative, and leading book, I think it was slightly
unfortunate that Raewyn Connell’s (1995) Masculinities was entitled thus, and with-
out the addition of the category of “men” before or after that one word. If it had been
called Masculinities and Men or even Men and Masculinities (cf. Whitehead 2002),
there might not have been such coyness in directly critiquing men from some Mascu-
linity Studies scholars over the last twenty years or more. The remembering of “men”
is certainly not to resort to anti-feminist or depoliticized visions of Men’s Studies or to
see men as fixed or reified; it is to deconstruct men and the category of men critically.
In the longer historical perspective, this also raises the problematic of working toward
the abolishing of “men,” as a social category of power.
In laying out some of these issues, I think it is very important to always remember
that there are many different motivations and reasons for studying men and mascu-
linities (Messner 1997; Pease 2000; Ashe 2007), some of them quite contradictory
and opposed, some progressive, some not. Studying men and masculinities may be
to reduce or take power from men, to legitimate men working on gender, to create a
space for men to speak authoritatively, to build careers, to do feminism(s), and to
celebrate men or engage in fundamental change (cf. Lorber 2005). Then there is
another recurrent misapprehension that studying men and masculinities somehow
belongs to men and is primarily men’s business.
For the remainder of this piece, I use the simplest of narratives: past, present,
future—noting some continuities and discontinuities, as we go.
Past: so, how did we get here? Well, we got here primarily through a long history
of social movements: feminisms; what was initially called gay liberation but that
actually included a whole range of nonnormative genders and sexualities; and men’s
various responses to feminism, including activist responses. It may come as a sur-
prise, or not, to know that Hanmer (1990) cited fifty-four Second-Wave feminist
texts on women’s lives and their relationships to men published by 1975. The edited
book, On the Problem of Men (Friedman and Sarah 1983), with published papers
from two feminist conferences from the early 1980s, was an important collection.
Among many works of gay scholarship, Mieli’s (1980) Homosexuality and Libera-
tion: Elements of a Gay Critique figured strongly, as have the historical and sym-
bolic interactionist work of Weeks (1977) and Plummer (1981), respectively. An
“early” synthesis of Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, and indeed, technological
studies was Balbus’s (1982) Marxism and Domination.
For myself, I want to go back to the late 1970s, in fact 1978, that was when I got
involved publicly in what was then called “men’s politics,” “men’s anti-sexist
politics,” “men against sexism,” or “profeminism.” It took me a few years to realize
56 Men and Masculinities 22(1)

that my personal–political interests matched very closely to my academic, research,

and writing interests, though slightly different languages were in use in those dif-
ferent arenas. The personal, the political, and the theoretical are intimately inter-
connected (see Hearn 1987, 2015b), bringing real excitement to understanding (and
changing) that men’s (and my) many ways of doing, in work, family, sex, violence,
history, culture, and forms of life, that were typically presented as neutral, normal,
official, objective, and so on, were in fact intensely, intimately gendered—“all the
way down” (cf. Haraway 2004). It was possible to ask such obvious questions as: do
men have a gender? Are men gendered? Do men have gendered cultures, histories,
life courses, and so on? This insight of the gendering of men and masculinities stays,
and, in many senses, is still one of the bedrocks of CSMM, this journal, and similar
publishing outlets.
Yet there were many further influences on the CSMM project from the beginning,
including anti-imperialism, civil rights, anti-racism, the green and environmental
movements, and dissatisfaction with class-only analysis, as well as from what are
now referred to as LGBTIQþ, Critical Race Studies, Globalization/Transnational
Studies, and Intersectionality Studies. Two key books from 1977 illustrate some of
this: the edited collection, A Book of Readings for Men Against Sexism (Snodgrass
1977), brought together a gender/sexual diverse set of political and academic writ-
ings from the United States; and Andrew Tolson’s (1977) The Limits of Masculinity
placed the changing conditions of British men and masculinities firmly in their class
and postimperial context. Race and ethnicity and intersectionality have been crucial
matters throughout. Special issues of the journals, The Black Scholar (1971) and
Ebony Magazine (1972), both entitled “The Black male,” were published in the early
1970s; hooks (1984) wrote, in the context of Black anti-racism and feminism, on
men as possible allies; and a little later I found Madhubuti’s (1990) still highly
topical book, Black Men: Obsolete, Single, Dangerous?, especially inspiring. The
many editions of Men’s Lives (Kimmel and Messner [1989] 2013) show clearly the
centrality of race and ethnicity in CSMM. On a personal note, in my own teaching on
men and masculinities, from around 1984, I tried to raise issues of transgender and
intersex from the first course session, by way of asking the questions “What is a
man?” “What counts as man?” Furthermore, one of the key shifts that took place in
CSMM in the 1980s and 1990s was the placing of men’s violence and men’s relation
to violence, and research thereon, as much more central to theory and practice.
Present: what now? The subfield of CSMM has, in the form of journals, book
series, associations, conferences, and the rest, become more established (see Hearn
and Howson 2019); it has also become more diverse, more professionalized, and
arguably in many parts of the “global North” more separated from activism. The
range of theoretical and political approaches and influences on studies continues to
grow, with, for example, queer, post-, post post-, new materialist, posthumanist, and
science and technology studies, making for some discontinuities with established
masculinities theory. In many regions, there are now more women working expli-
citly and long term in the area, but, as noted above, that is nothing new. Indeed, it is
Hearn 57

wildly inaccurate to see CSMM as separate from feminist scholarship and feminist
theory, in at least some parts of the world, for example, Southern Africa, the Nordic
region, and Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe, where feminist women make up
some of the leading researchers and protagonists (e.g., Aboim 2010; Blagojević
[2000] 2005; Ruspini et al. 2011; Shefer et al. 2018).
What stands out in these developments over the last twenty years or more is the
mass of local, loosely ethnographic and qualitative studies on men and masculi-
nities; these are accompanied by a more limited growth of quantitative and mixed
methods studies. Overall, research and publishing on men and masculinities have
become more geographically widespread, more dispersed, more comparative, inter-
national, transnational, postcolonial, decolonializing, globally “Southern” (Connell
2008), global, globalized, and globalizing. This is what is really transforming
CSMM. The established presence of non-Anglophone and critical intellectual and
political traditions on men and masculinities challenges the Anglophone and global
“Northern” dominance of CSMM, as with most academia. This applies even within
Europe, let alone in other continents. For example, in Sweden, there is a tradition
from the 1960s and 1970s that combined critical sex role theory with patriarchy
theory, such that the critiques of more static Anglophone sex role theory that led onto
Anglophone masculinities theory would not apply (see Dahlström 1962; Liljeström
1968; Hearn et al. 2012). Another major example is the theorizing of men and
masculinities in the Balkan context through the general frame of semiperipherality
and the specific focus on misogyny (Blagojević [2000] 2005, 2009). The distinct
apartheid and postapartheid history of South Africa has led to a very different corpus
of research, especially around the intersections of class, gender, and race as socie-
tally and politically embedded rather than something “discovered” (Morrell 2001;
Shefer et al. 2007, 2018; Ratele 2018). There is a sizable literature on men and
masculinities in China and across the Chinese diaspora, foregrounding quite differ-
ent conceptualizations (e.g., Louie 2015, 2016; Song and Hird 2013; Lin, Haywood,
and Mac an Ghaill 2017). Building on a host of local and broadly progressive policy,
intervention, and development projects and campaigns working on changing men
and boys, there is now a very significant literature deriving from India and other
parts of South Asia (Chowdhury and Baset 2018). Moreover, in an increasing range
of cases, there is a turn toward the investigation of international and transnational
institutions.
Institutionally, CSMM, not just any old studies on men and masculinities, are
now deeply articulated with, and at times integrated into, Women’s and Gender
Studies, Sexuality Studies, Transgender Studies, and Critical Race Theory. As a
recent illustration, the first doctorate in the discipline of Gender Studies was
awarded in 2018 at Uppsala University, the oldest university in Sweden, on the
subject of men’s friendships (Goedecke 2018). However, a significant difference
now compared with the 1970s and 1980s is that Sexuality Studies, Transgender
Studies, and Critical Race Theory have all become much more full developed and
established in their own right forged by and along with the respective social
58 Men and Masculinities 22(1)

movements. Yet there is still always the looming presence and possibility of some
men wanting to go ahead and forge their own “Men’s Studies” or worse what has
come to be called “male studies.”
While much research and publication has been done that is positive, current
obstacles persist, including, on one hand, difficulty of theorizing hegemony (the
water in which the fish swim) and, on the other, a distinct lack of interest and a
simple lack of care, especially among men in the established disciplines, in addres-
sing countergender hegemony.
Future: finally, where is CSMM going? What is the future of the subfield? What
has been missed? What is being left to the next generation of scholars? and Where
should CSMM go next? Such questions bear on both empirical research and wider
politics and theorizing in and about CSMM.
Many areas of scholarship remain not just relatively undeveloped but desperately
urgent. Key empirical areas or issues that are still relatively neglected, even if they are
now being taken up more fully, include the relations of men and masculinities to: first,
ecology, environment, water, energy, food, famine, and climate change (see Anshelm
and Hultman 2014; Enarson and Pease 2016); second, information and communica-
tion technologies, social media, artificial intelligence, robotics, the singularity, and big
data;1 third, transnational/global, transnational institutions, and processes, notably the
scale of global inequality,2 the global corporate and financial system, racialized capit-
alism, organized crime and corruption (Portillo and Molano 2017a, 2017b); and,
fourth, the nation, nationalism, citizenship, migration, racism and racialization,
authoritarianism, neofascism, including some “old questions” about masculinism and
“men’s rights activism,” albeit now with online misogyny, alt right and nativist
movements (Ging 2017), as well as mainstream politics and political masculinities
(Starck and Sauer 2014). Together, these overlap and also make for a “lurking doom.”
In addition, while a lot of research has addressed boys and younger men (e.g., Frosh,
Phoenix, and Pattman 2001; Shefer et al. 2007; Kimmel 2008), especially when they
are problematic in some respect, and increasingly aging and older men (e.g., Calasanti
and King 2005; Sandberg 2011), the theorizing of the intersections of age and gender
with the unmarked adult male/man is less obvious. To address this, more explicit,
critical adult studies on adult men and masculinities are needed; age and aging concern
all, not just something to be added onto analysis for the young(er) and the old(er), just
as disabilities are also relevant for the able-bodied.
Careful, thorough, accurate empirical research on these and other issues is essen-
tial; at the same time, there is a whole range of wider theoretical, methodological,
epistemological, and ontological questions to be taken up in CSMM much more
fully. Some hinge on the intimate connections of the personal, the political, and the
theoretical, while recognizing tensions that can occur between these three domains.
My own personal–political–theoretical agenda includes the elaboration of the con-
cept of gex, that does not prioritize either sex or gender over the other; developing
material-discursive or material discursive analysis that is both more materialist and
more discursive than most studies; problematization of the concept of masculinity;
Hearn 59

critique of the persistence and changing forms of trans(national)patriarchies; and the

continuing importance of the neo-Gramscian hegemony, as in the hegemony of men,
as a more deep-rooted aspect of gender hegemony than hegemonic masculinity
(Hearn 2004, 2015a; Howson and Hearn 2019).
These tendencies suggest the need for a much firmer and deeper deconstruction of
the male/men, whether through the politics of refusal (Stoltenberg [1989] 2000),
embodied writing and critique (Thomas 1998), sexual difference theory (Anemtoia-
cei 2014), new materialism (Garlick 2016), or some other mode of theorization of/
against sovereign male identity/ies. Let us be clear that, even with flux, discourse,
relationality, processuality, and the rest, tensions remain between the emphasis on
social structure and kindred concepts and that on agency and kindred concepts.
There is much that happens and accrues that is over and above individual action,
and there is much that is experienced that is not determined or determinate.
Finally, there are the relations of CSMM to future “itself.” As I get older, I have
become more and more interested in the future and possible gender/sexual scenarios,
both positive and negative (Hearn 2014, 2015a). I think a major contribution of
CSMM would be to spell out much more explicitly what kind of feminist futures
these studies might be assuming, opposing, invoking, and working toward (see Segal
1987; Haraway 1988; Scott 2001; Walby 2011). I look forward to both more future-
orientated studies and more studies of the future within CSMM that bring the personal,
policy, politics and theorizing closer to each other, yet not necessarily integrated.

Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Sam de Boise for helpful comments on an earlier version of
this piece, and for collaborations with many more.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Notes
1. The widely reported (e.g., in the UK newspapers, The Guardian and The Observer) recent
allegations around electoral malpractice, involving Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, SCL,
Aggregate IQ, Global Science Research, and so on, are probably one kind of indication of
things to come.
2. Across the global economy, “(a)lmost half of the world’s wealth is owned by one percent of the
population . . . . The bottom half of the world’s population owns same as richest 85 people in
the world” (Fuentes-Nieva and Galasso 2014, 2–3, citing Credit Suisse 2013; Forbes 2013;
60 Men and Masculinities 22(1)

also see Hardoon et al. 2016). Latest projections from the UK House of Commons suggest that
this figure may reach two-thirds of global wealth by 2030 (Savage 2018).

References
Aboim, Sofia. 2010. Plural Masculinities. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Anshelm, Jonas, and Martin Hultman. 2014. “A Green Fatwā? Climate Change as a Threat to
the Masculinity of Industrial Modernity.” NORMA: The International Journal for Mascu-
linity Studies 9:84–96.
Ashe, Fidelma. 2007. The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance. London,
UK: Routledge.
Anemtoiacei, Ovidiu. 2014. “Masculinities, Male Bodies and Sexual Difference: A Sketch for
an Impossible “Becoming-man.” Doctoral thesis, Gender Studies, Central European Uni-
versity, Budapest.
Balbus, Isaac D. 1982. Marxism and Domination: A Neo-Hegelian, Feminist Psychoanalytic
Theory of Sexual, Political and Technological Liberation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
The Black Scholar. 1971. “The Black Male.” Special issue. 2, Issue 10.
Blagojević, Marina, Ed. (2000) 2005. Mapiranje mizoginije u Srbiji: diskursi i prakse [Map-
ping Misogyny in Serbia: Discourses and Practices], Vols. 1 and 2. Belgrade, Serbia:
AŽIN.
Blagojević, Marina. 2009. Knowledge Production at the Semiperiphery. Belgrade, Serbia:
Institut za Kriminološka i Sociološka Istraživanja.
Calasanti, Toni, and Neal King. 2005. “Firming the Floppy Penis: Age, Class, and Gender
Relations in the Lives of Old Men.” Men and Masculinities 8:3–23.
Chowdhury, Romit and Zaid Ali Baset, Eds. 2018. Men and Feminism in India. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Connell, Raewyn. 2008. Southern Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Credit Suisse. 2013. “Global Wealth Report 2013.” Zürich, Switzerland: Credit Suisse.
Accessed April 16, 2018. https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?
fileID¼BCDB1364-A105-0560-1332EC9100FF5C83.
Dahlström, Edmund. 1962, August. Kvinnors liv och arbete: Svenska Och Norska Studier av
Ett Aktuellt Samhällsproblem [Women’s Life and Work: Swedish and Norwegian Studies
of a Current Social Issue]. Stockholm, Sweden: Studieförbundet Näringsliv och Samhälle.
Ebony Magazine. 1972. The Black Male.” Special issue. 27, August Issue.
Enarson, Elaine and Bob Pease, Eds. 2016. Men, Masculinities and Disaster. London, UK:
Routledge.
Forbes. 2013. “The World’s Billionaires.” Accessed April 16, 2018. http://www.forbes.com/
billionaires/list/.
Friedman, Scarlet and Elizabeth Sarah, Eds. 1983. On the Problem of Men: Two Feminist
Conferences. London, UK: Women’s Press.
Frosh, Stephen, Ann Phoenix, and Rob Pattman. 2001. Young Masculinities: Understanding
Boys in Contemporary Society. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Hearn 61

Fuentes-Nieva, Ricardo, and Nicholas Galasso. 2014. Working for the Few: Political Capture
and Economic Inequality. Oxford, UK: Oxfam International.
Garlick, Steve. 2016. The Nature of Masculinity: Critical Theory, New Materialisms, and
Technologies of Embodiment. Victoria: University of British Columbia Press.
Ging, Debbie. 2017. “Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Mano-
sphere.” Men and Masculinities Online first. doi:10.1177/1097184X17706401.
Goedecke, Klara. 2018. ““Other Guys Don’t Hang Out Like This”: Gendered Friendship
Politics among Swedish, Middle-class Men.” Doctoral thesis, Gender Studies, Uppsala
University, Uppsala.
Halberstam, Jack. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hanmer, Jalna. 1990. “Men, Power and the Exploitation of Women.” In Men, Masculinities
and Social Theory, edited by Jeff Hearn and David Morgan, 21–42. London, UK: Unwin
Hyman/Routledge.
Haraway, Donna J. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14:575–99.
Haraway, Donna J. 2004. The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge.
Hardoon, Deborah, Sophia Ayele, and Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva. 2016. An Economy for the 1%.
Oxford, UK: Oxfam International. Accessed April 16, 2018. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/
www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-
en_0.pdf.
Hearn, Jeff. 1987. The Gender of Oppression: Men, Masculinity and the Critique of Marxism.
New York: St. Martin’s.
Hearn, Jeff. 2004. “From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men.” Feminist Theory
5:49–72.
Hearn, Jeff. 2014. “Sexualities, Organizations and Organization Sexualities: Future Scenarios
and the Impact of Socio-technologies (A Transnational Perspective from the Global ‘North’).”
Organization: The Critical Journal of Organization, Theory and Society 21:400–20.
Hearn, Jeff. 2015a. Men of the World: Genders, Globalizations, Transnational Times. Lon-
don, UK: Sage.
Hearn, Jeff. 2015b. “Uses and Abuses of the Political Category of “Men” in Activism, Policy
and Theorising.” In Engaging with Men in Gender Equality, edited by Michael Flood and
Richard Howson, 34–54. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
Hearn, Jeff, and Richard Howson. 2019. “The Institutionalization of (Critical) Studies on Men and
Masculinities: Geopolitical Perspectives.” In The International Handbook of Masculinity Stud-
ies, edited by Lucas Gottzén, Ulf Mellström, and Tamara Shefer. London, UK: Routledge.
Hearn, Jeff, Marie Nordberg, Kjerstin Andersson, Dag Balkmar, Lucas Gottzén, Roger
Klinth, Keith Pringle, and Linn Sandberg. 2012. “Hegemonic Masculinity and Beyond:
40 Years of Research in Sweden.” Men and Masculinities 15:31–55.
hooks, bell. 1984. From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Howson, Richard, and Jeff Hearn. 2019. “Hegemony, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Beyond.”
In The International Handbook of Masculinity Studies, edited by Lucas Gottzén, Ulf
Mellström, and Tamara Shefer. London, UK: Routledge.
62 Men and Masculinities 22(1)

Kimmel, Michael. 2008. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York:
HarperCollins.
Kimmel, Michael and Mike Messner, Eds. (1989) 2013. Men’s Lives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lin, Xiaodong, Chris Haywood, and Máirtı́n Mac an Ghaill, Eds. 2017. East Asian Men:
Masculinity, Sexuality and Desire. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lorber, Judith, Ed. 2005. Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. Los Angeles,
CA: Roxbury.
Louie, Kam. 2015. Chinese Masculinities in a Globalizing World. London, UK: Routledge.
Louie, Kam, Ed. 2016. Changing Chinese Masculinities: From Imperial Pillars of State to
Global Real Men. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Liljeström, Rita. 1968. Jämställdhetens Villkor: Män och Kvinnor i Dagens Värld [The Condi-
tions of Equality: Men and Women in Today’s World]. Stockholm, Sweden: Sveriges Radio.
Madhubuti, Haki. 1990. Black Men: Obsolete, Single, Dangerous? Chicago, IL: Third World
Press.
Messner, Mike. 1997. Politics of Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mieli, Mario. 1980. Homosexuality and Liberation: Elements of a Gay Critique. London, UK:
Gay Men’s Press.
Morrell, Robert. 2001. Changing Men in South Africa/London, UK. Pietermaritzburg, South
Africa: University of Natal Press/Zed.
Pease, Bob. 2000. Recreating Men: Postmodern Masculinity Politics. London, UK: Sage.
Plummer, Ken, Ed. 1981. The Making of the Modern Homosexual. London, UK: Hutchinson.
Portillo, Hector, and Sebastián Molano. 2017a. “Approaching Corruption through the Lens of
Masculinities.” CDA Perspectives Blog, 4 April. Accessed April 16, 2018. http://cdacolla
borative.org/blog/approaching-corruption-lens-masculinities/.
Portillo, Hector, and Sebastián Molano. 2017b. “Masculinity, Machismo and Corruption.”
Voice Male, June 25. Accessed April 16, 2018. https://voicemalemagazine.org/masculi
nity-machismo-corruption/.
Ratele, Kopano. 2018. “Concerning Tradition in Studies on Men and Masculinities in Ex-
Colonies.” In Gender Reckonings: New Social Theory and Research, edited by James W.
Messerschmidt, Patricia Yancey Martin, Michael A Messner, and Raewyn Connell,
213–32. New York: New York University Press.
Riley, Denise. 1988. “Am I That Name?” Feminism and the Category of “Women” in History.
Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Ruspini, Elisabetta, Jeff Hearn, Bob Pease, and Keith Pringle, Eds. 2011. Men and Mascu-
linities around the World. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sandberg, Linn. 2011. “Getting Intimate: Old Age, Masculinity and Sexuality.” Doctoral
thesis, Gender Studies, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping.
Savage, Michael. 2018. “Richest 1% on Target to Own Two-thirds of All Wealth by 2030.”
The Observer 7 April. Accessed April 16, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/business/
2018/apr/07/global-inequality-tipping-point-2030.
Scott, Joan W. 2001. “Millennial Fantasies: The Future of ‘Gender’ in the 21st Century.” In
Gender—Die Tucken einer Kategorie. Joan W. Scott, Geschichte und Politik—Beiträge
zum Symposion anlässlich der Verleihung des Hans-Sigrist-Preises 1999 der Universität
Hearn 63

Bern an Joan W. Scott [Gender: The insidiousness of a category], edited by Claudia

Honnegger and Caroline Arni, 39–64. Zürich, Switzerland: Chronos.
Segal, Lynne. 1987. Is the Future Female? London, UK: Virago.
Shefer, Tamara, Kopano Ratele, Anna Strebel, N. Shabalala, and Rosemarie Buikema, Eds.
2007. From Boys to Men: Social Constructions of Masculinity in Contemporary Society.
Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press and HSRC (Human Science
Research Council) Press.
Shefer, Tamara, Jeff Hearn, Kopano Ratele, and Floretta Boonzaier, Eds. 2018. Engaging
Youth in Activist Research and Pedagogical Praxis: Transnational Perspectives on Gen-
der, Sex, and Race. New York: Routledge.
Snodgrass, Jon, Ed. 1977. A Book of Readings for Men against Sexism. Albion, CA: Times
Change Press.
Song, Geng, and Derek Hird. 2013. Men and Masculinities in Contemporary China. Leiden,
Holland: Brill.
Starck, Kathleen and Birgit Sauer, Eds. 2014. A Man’s World? Political Masculinities in
Literature and Culture. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Stoltenberg, John (1989) 2000. Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice. London, UK:
Breitenbush and UCL Press.
Thomas, Calvin. 1998. Male Matters: Masculinity, Anxiety, and the Male Body on the Line.
Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Tolson, Andrew. 1977. The Limits of Masculinity. London, UK: Tavistock.
Walby, Sylvia. 2011. The Future of Feminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Weeks, Jeffrey. 1977. Coming Out. London, UK: Quartet.
Whitehead, Stephen. 2002. Men and Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Author Biography
Jeff Hearn is senior professor in Gender Studies at Örebro University, Sweden; Professor
Emeritus, Management and Organisation at Hanken School of Economics, Finland; Professor
of Sociology at the University of Huddersfield, UK; and Professor Extraordinarius in the
Institute for Social and Health Studies at the University of South Africa. He has been the co-
editor of Men and Masculinities and is currently the co-editor of NORMA: The International
Journal for Masculinity Studies, co-managing editor of Routledge Advances in Feminist
Studies and Intersectionality book series, and co-chair, RINGS: The International Research
Association of Institutions of Advanced Gender Studies. His latest books are Men of the
World: Genders, Globalizations, Transnational Times, Sage, 2015; Men’s Stories for a
Change: Ageing Men Remember, co-author, Common Ground, 2016; Revenge Pornography:
Gender, Sexuality and Motivations, with Matthew Hall, Routledge, 2017; Engaging Youth in
Activist Research and Pedagogical Praxis: Transnational and Intersectional Perspectives on
Gender, Sex, and Race, co-editor, Routledge, 2018; and Unsustainable Institutions of Men:
Transnational Dispersed Centres, Gender Power, Contradictions, co-editor, Routledge, 2019.