Perspective HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY Rethinking the Concept R.W.CONNELL University of Sydney,Australia JAMES W.MESSERSCHMIDT University of Southern Maine The concept of hegemonic masculiniry has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism.The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms,the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity,which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist.However,the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound.The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models,although limits to discursive flexibiliry must be recognized.The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction;we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally,the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple mas- culinities,the concept of hegemony,and the emphasis on change)and what needs to be discarded (one- dimensional treatment of hierarchy and trait conceptions of gender).The authors suggest reformulation of the concept in four areas:a more complex model of gender hierarchy,emphasizing the agency of women;explicit recognition of the geography of masculinities,emphasizing the interplay among local, regional,and global levels;a more specific treatment of embodiment in contexts of privilege and power; and a stronger emphasis on the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity,recognizing internal contradictions and the possibilities of movement toward gender democracy. Keywords:masculinity:hegemony:gender:social power:agency:embodiment: globalization The concept of hegemonic masculinity,formulated two decades ago,has consid- erably influenced recent thinking about men,gender,and social hierarchy.It has provided a link between the growing research field of men's studies(also known as AUTHORS'NOTE:The authors are grateful to the journal's reviewers,Pat Martin,Mike Messner.and Kirsten Dellinger.for extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.We also extend our thanks to John Fisher,whose patient and inventive searching of bibliographical databases provided essential support for this article. GENDER SOCIETY.Vol.19 No.6.December 2005 829-859 D0L:10.11770891243205278639 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society 829 o2osS6eoege8rmee3g"3eaR4T0mt6o2ECTElB。crmom28aGC7buton
10.1177/0891243205278639 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY Perspective HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY Rethinking the Concept R. W. CONNELL University of Sydney, Australia JAMES W. MESSERSCHMIDT University of Southern Maine The concept of hegemonic masculinity has influenced gender studies across many academic fields but has also attracted serious criticism. The authors trace the origin of the concept in a convergence of ideas in the early 1980s and map the ways it was applied when research on men and masculinities expanded. Evaluating the principal criticisms, the authors defend the underlying concept of masculinity, which in most research use is neither reified nor essentialist. However, the criticism of trait models of gender and rigid typologies is sound. The treatment of the subject in research on hegemonic masculinity can be improved with the aid of recent psychological models, although limits to discursive flexibility must be recognized. The concept of hegemonic masculinity does not equate to a model of social reproduction; we need to recognize social struggles in which subordinated masculinities influence dominant forms. Finally, the authors review what has been confirmed from early formulations (the idea of multiple masculinities, the concept of hegemony, and the emphasis on change) and what needs to be discarded (onedimensional treatment of hierarchy and trait conceptions of gender). The authors suggest reformulation of the concept in four areas: a more complex model of gender hierarchy, emphasizing the agency of women; explicit recognition of the geography of masculinities, emphasizing the interplay among local, regional, and global levels; a more specific treatment of embodiment in contexts of privilege and power; and a stronger emphasis on the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity, recognizing internal contradictions and the possibilities of movement toward gender democracy. Keywords: masculinity; hegemony; gender; social power; agency; embodiment; globalization The concept of hegemonic masculinity, formulated two decades ago, has considerably influenced recent thinking about men, gender, and social hierarchy. It has provided a link between the growing research field of men’s studies (also known as 829 Y AUTHORS’NOTE: The authors are grateful to the journal’s reviewers, Pat Martin, Mike Messner, and Kirsten Dellinger, for extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. We also extend our thanks to John Fisher, whose patient and inventive searching of bibliographical databases provided essential support for this article. GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 19 No. 6, December 2005 829-859 DOI: 10.1177/0891243205278639 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
830 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 masculinity studies and critical studies of men),popular anxieties about men and boys,feminist accounts of patriarchy,and sociological models of gender.It has found uses in applied fields ranging from education and antiviolence work to health and counseling. Database searches reveal more than 200 papers that use the exact term"hege- monic masculinity"in their titles or abstracts.Papers that use a variant,or refer to "hegemonic masculinity"in the text,run to many hundreds.Continuing interest is shown by conferences.In early May 2005,a conference,"Hegemonic Masculini- ties and International Politics,was held at the University of Manchester,England; in 2004,an interdisciplinary conference in Stuttgart was devoted to the topic "Hegemoniale Mannlichkeiten"(Dinges,Ruindal,and Bauer 2004). The concept has also attracted serious criticism from several directions:socio- logical,psychological,poststructuralist,and materialist (e.g.,Demetriou 2001; Wetherell and Edley 1999).Outside the academic world,it has been attacked as- to quote a recent Internet backlash posting-"an invention of New Age psycholo- gists"determined to prove that men are too macho. This is a contested concept.Yet the issues it names are very much at stake in con- temporary struggles about power and political leadership,public and private vio- lence,and changes in families and sexuality.A comprehensive reexamination of the concept of hegemonic masculinity seems worthwhile.If the concept proves still useful,it must be reformulated in contemporary terms.We attempt both tasks in this article. ORIGIN,FORMULATION,AND APPLICATION Origin The concept of hegemonic masculinity was first proposed in reports from a field study of social inequality in Australian high schools (Kessler et al.1982):in a related conceptual discussion of the making of masculinities and the experience of men's bodies (Connell 1983);and in a debate over the role of men in Australian labor politics(Connell 1982).The high school project provided empirical evidence of multiple hierarchies-in gender as well as in class terms-interwoven with active projects of gender construction (Connell et al.1982). These beginnings were systematized in an article,"Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity"(Carrigan,Connell,and Lee 1985),which extensively critiqued the "male sex role"literature and proposed a model of multiple masculinities and power relations.In turn,this model was integrated into a systematic sociological theory of gender.The resulting six pages in Gender and Power (Connell 1987)on REPRINT REQUESTS:James W.Messerschmidt,Department of Criminology,P.O.Box 9300.Univer- sity of Southern Maine,Portland,ME 04107;e-mail:mschmidt@usm.maine.edu. o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
masculinity studies and critical studies of men), popular anxieties about men and boys, feminist accounts of patriarchy, and sociological models of gender. It has found uses in applied fields ranging from education and antiviolence work to health and counseling. Database searches reveal more than 200 papers that use the exact term “hegemonic masculinity” in their titles or abstracts. Papers that use a variant, or refer to “hegemonic masculinity” in the text, run to many hundreds. Continuing interest is shown by conferences. In early May 2005, a conference, “Hegemonic Masculinities and International Politics,” was held at the University of Manchester, England; in 2004, an interdisciplinary conference in Stuttgart was devoted to the topic “Hegemoniale Männlichkeiten” (Dinges, Ründal, and Bauer 2004). The concept has also attracted serious criticism from several directions: sociological, psychological, poststructuralist, and materialist (e.g., Demetriou 2001; Wetherell and Edley 1999). Outside the academic world, it has been attacked as— to quote a recent Internet backlash posting—“an invention of New Age psychologists” determined to prove that men are too macho. This is a contested concept. Yet the issues it names are very much at stake in contemporary struggles about power and political leadership, public and private violence, and changes in families and sexuality. A comprehensive reexamination of the concept of hegemonic masculinity seems worthwhile. If the concept proves still useful, it must be reformulated in contemporary terms. We attempt both tasks in this article. ORIGIN, FORMULATION, AND APPLICATION Origin The concept of hegemonic masculinity was first proposed in reports from a field study of social inequality in Australian high schools (Kessler et al. 1982); in a related conceptual discussion of the making of masculinities and the experience of men’s bodies (Connell 1983); and in a debate over the role of men in Australian labor politics (Connell 1982). The high school project provided empirical evidence of multiple hierarchies—in gender as well as in class terms—interwoven with active projects of gender construction (Connell et al. 1982). These beginnings were systematized in an article, “Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity” (Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985), which extensively critiqued the “male sex role” literature and proposed a model of multiple masculinities and power relations. In turn, this model was integrated into a systematic sociological theory of gender. The resulting six pages in Gender and Power (Connell 1987) on 830 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 REPRINT REQUESTS: James W. Messerschmidt, Department of Criminology, P.O. Box 9300, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME 04107; e-mail: mschmidt@usm.maine.edu. © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 831 "hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity"became the most cited source for the concept of hegemonic masculinity. The concept articulated by the research groups in Australia represented a syn- thesis of ideas and evidence from apparently disparate sources.But the conver- gence of ideas was not accidental.Closely related issues were being addressed by researchers and activists in other countries too;the time was,in a sense,ripe for a synthesis of this kind. The most basic sources were feminist theories of patriarchy and the related debates over the role of men in transforming patriarchy (Goode 1982;Snodgrass 1977).Some men in the New Left had tried to organize in support of feminism,and the attempt had drawn attention to class differences in the expression of masculinity (Tolson 1977).Moreover,women of color-such as Maxine Baca Zinn (1982), Angela Davis (1983),and bell hooks(1984)-criticized the race bias that occurs when power is solely conceptualized in terms of sex difference,thus laying the groundwork for questioning any universalizing claims about the category of men. The Gramscian term"hegemony"was current at the time in attempts to under- stand the stabilization of class relations (Connell 1977).In the context of dual sys- tems theory(Eisenstein 1979),the idea was easily transferred to the parallel prob- lem about gender relations.This risked a significant misunderstanding.Gramsci's writing focuses on the dynamics of structural change involving the mobilization and demobilization of whole classes.Without a very clear focus on this issue of his- torical change,the idea of hegemony would be reduced to a simple model of cul- tural control.And in a great deal of the debate about gender,large-scale historical change is not in focus.Here is one of the sources of later difficulties with the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Even before the women's liberation movement,a literature in social psychology and sociology about the"male sex role"had recognized the social nature of mascu- linity and the possibilities of change in men's conduct(Hacker 1957).During the 1970s,there was an explosion of writing about"the male role,"sharply criticizing role norms as the source of oppressive behavior by men(Brannon 1976).Critical role theory provided the main conceptual basis for the early antisexist men's move- ment.The weaknesses of sex role theory were,however,increasingly recognized (Kimmel 1987:Pleck 1981).They included the blurring of behavior and norm,the homogenizing effect of the role concept,and its difficulties in accounting for power. Power and difference were,on the other hand,core concepts in the gay liberation movement,which developed a sophisticated analysis of the oppression of men as well as oppression by men(Altman 1972).Some theorists saw gay liberation as bound up with an assault on gender stereotypes(Mieli 1980).The idea of a hierar- chy of masculinities grew directly out of homosexual men's experience with vio- lence and prejudice from straight men.The concept of homophobia originated in the 1970s and was already being attributed to the conventional male role (Morin and Garfinkle 1978).Theorists developed increasingly sophisticated accounts of o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T60N66O2ECTBgartto1827bution
“hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity” became the most cited source for the concept of hegemonic masculinity. The concept articulated by the research groups in Australia represented a synthesis of ideas and evidence from apparently disparate sources. But the convergence of ideas was not accidental. Closely related issues were being addressed by researchers and activists in other countries too; the time was, in a sense, ripe for a synthesis of this kind. The most basic sources were feminist theories of patriarchy and the related debates over the role of men in transforming patriarchy (Goode 1982; Snodgrass 1977). Some men in the New Left had tried to organize in support of feminism, and the attempt had drawn attention to class differences in the expression of masculinity (Tolson 1977). Moreover, women of color—such as Maxine Baca Zinn (1982), Angela Davis (1983), and bell hooks (1984)—criticized the race bias that occurs when power is solely conceptualized in terms of sex difference, thus laying the groundwork for questioning any universalizing claims about the category of men. The Gramscian term “hegemony” was current at the time in attempts to understand the stabilization of class relations (Connell 1977). In the context of dual systems theory (Eisenstein 1979), the idea was easily transferred to the parallel problem about gender relations. This risked a significant misunderstanding. Gramsci’s writing focuses on the dynamics of structural change involving the mobilization and demobilization of whole classes. Without a very clear focus on this issue of historical change, the idea of hegemony would be reduced to a simple model of cultural control. And in a great deal of the debate about gender, large-scale historical change is not in focus. Here is one of the sources of later difficulties with the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Even before the women’s liberation movement, a literature in social psychology and sociology about the “male sex role” had recognized the social nature of masculinity and the possibilities of change in men’s conduct (Hacker 1957). During the 1970s, there was an explosion of writing about “the male role,” sharply criticizing role norms as the source of oppressive behavior by men (Brannon 1976). Critical role theory provided the main conceptual basis for the early antisexist men’s movement. The weaknesses of sex role theory were, however, increasingly recognized (Kimmel 1987; Pleck 1981). They included the blurring of behavior and norm, the homogenizing effect of the role concept, and its difficulties in accounting for power. Power and difference were, on the other hand, core concepts in the gay liberation movement, which developed a sophisticated analysis of the oppression of men as well as oppression by men (Altman 1972). Some theorists saw gay liberation as bound up with an assault on gender stereotypes (Mieli 1980). The idea of a hierarchy of masculinities grew directly out of homosexual men’s experience with violence and prejudice from straight men. The concept of homophobia originated in the 1970s and was already being attributed to the conventional male role (Morin and Garfinkle 1978). Theorists developed increasingly sophisticated accounts of Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 831 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
832 GENDER SOCIETY/December 2005 gay men's ambivalent relationships to patriarchy and conventional masculinity (Broker 1976:Plummer 1981). An equally important source was empirical social research.A growing body of field studies was documenting local gender hierarchies and local cultures of mascu- linity in schools (Willis 1977),in male-dominated workplaces (Cockburn 1983), and in village communities (Herdt 1981;Hunt 1980).These studies added the ethnographic realism that the sex-role literature lacked,confirmed the plurality of masculinities and the complexities of gender construction for men,and gave evi- dence of the active struggle for dominance that is implicit in the Gramscian concept of hegemony. Finally,the concept was influenced by psychoanalysis.Freud himself produced the first analytic biographies of men and,in the"Wolf Man"case history,showed how adult personality was a system under tension,with countercurrents repressed but not obliterated (Freud [1917]1955).The psychoanalyst Stoller(1968)popular- ized the concept of"gender identity"and mapped its variations in boys'develop- ment,most famously those leading to transsexualism.Others influenced by psychoanalysis picked up the themes of men's power,the range of possibilities in gender development,and the tension and contradiction within conventional mascu- linities (Friedman and Lerner 1986:Zaretsky 1975). Formulation What emerged from this matrix in the mid-1980s was an analogue,in gender terms,of power structure research in political sociology-focusing the spotlight on a dominant group.Hegemonic masculinity was understood as the pattern of prac- tice (i.e.,things done,not just a set of role expectations or an identity)that allowed men's dominance over women to continue Hegemonic masculinity was distinguished from other masculinities,especially subordinated masculinities.Hegemonic masculinity was not assumed to be normal in the statistical sense;only a minority of men might enact it.But it was certainly normative.It embodied the currently most honored way of being a man,it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it,and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men Men who received the benefits of patriarchy without enacting a strong version of masculine dominance could be regarded as showing a complicit masculinity.It was in relation to this group,and to compliance among heterosexual women,that the concept of hegemony was most powerful.Hegemony did not mean violence, although it could be supported by force;it meant ascendancy achieved through cul- ture,institutions,and persuasion These concepts were abstract rather than descriptive,defined in terms of the logic of a patriarchal gender system.They assumed that gender relations were his- torical,so gender hierarchies were subject to change.Hegemonic masculinities therefore came into existence in specific circumstances and were open to historical o2oosS6e08a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
gay men’s ambivalent relationships to patriarchy and conventional masculinity (Broker 1976; Plummer 1981). An equally important source was empirical social research. A growing body of field studies was documenting local gender hierarchies and local cultures of masculinity in schools (Willis 1977), in male-dominated workplaces (Cockburn 1983), and in village communities (Herdt 1981; Hunt 1980). These studies added the ethnographic realism that the sex-role literature lacked, confirmed the plurality of masculinities and the complexities of gender construction for men, and gave evidence of the active struggle for dominance that is implicit in the Gramscian concept of hegemony. Finally, the concept was influenced by psychoanalysis. Freud himself produced the first analytic biographies of men and, in the “Wolf Man” case history, showed how adult personality was a system under tension, with countercurrents repressed but not obliterated (Freud [1917] 1955). The psychoanalyst Stoller (1968) popularized the concept of “gender identity” and mapped its variations in boys’ development, most famously those leading to transsexualism. Others influenced by psychoanalysis picked up the themes of men’s power, the range of possibilities in gender development, and the tension and contradiction within conventional masculinities (Friedman and Lerner 1986; Zaretsky 1975). Formulation What emerged from this matrix in the mid-1980s was an analogue, in gender terms, of power structure research in political sociology—focusing the spotlight on a dominant group. Hegemonic masculinity was understood as the pattern of practice (i.e., things done, not just a set of role expectations or an identity) that allowed men’s dominance over women to continue. Hegemonic masculinity was distinguished from other masculinities, especially subordinated masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity was not assumed to be normal in the statistical sense; only a minority of men might enact it. But it was certainly normative. It embodied the currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men. Men who received the benefits of patriarchy without enacting a strong version of masculine dominance could be regarded as showing a complicit masculinity. It was in relation to this group, and to compliance among heterosexual women, that the concept of hegemony was most powerful. Hegemony did not mean violence, although it could be supported by force; it meant ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasion. These concepts were abstract rather than descriptive, defined in terms of the logic of a patriarchal gender system. They assumed that gender relations were historical, so gender hierarchies were subject to change. Hegemonic masculinities therefore came into existence in specific circumstances and were open to historical 832 GENDER & SOCIETY / December 2005 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007
Connell,Messerschmidt/HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 833 change.More precisely,there could be a struggle for hegemony,and older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones.This was the element of optimism in an otherwise rather bleak theory.It was perhaps possible that a more humane,less oppressive,means of being a man might become hegemonic,as part of a process leading toward an abolition of gender hierarchies. Application The concept of hegemonic masculinity,formulated in these terms,found prompt use.In the late 1980s and early 1990s,research on men and masculinity was being consolidated as an academic field,supported by a string of conferences,the publi- cation of textbooks(e.g.,Brod 1987)and several journals,and a rapidly expanding research agenda across the social sciences and humanities. The concept of hegemonic masculinity was used in education studies to under- stand the dynamics of classroom life,including patterns of resistance and bullying among boys.It was used to explore relations to the curriculum and the difficulties in gender-neutral pedagogy(Martino 1995).It was used to understand teacher strate- gies and teacher identities among such groups as physical education instructors (Skelton 1993). The concept also had influence in criminology.All data reflect that men and boys perpetrate more of the conventional crimes-and the more serious of these crimes-than do women and girls.Moreover,men hold a virtual monopoly on the commission of syndicated and white-collar forms of crime.The concept of hege- monic masculinity helped in theorizing the relationship among masculinities and among a variety of crimes(Messerschmidt 1993)and was also used in studies on specific crimes by boys and men,such as rape in Switzerland,murder in Australia, football"hooliganism"and white-collar crime in England,and assaultive violence in the United States (Newburn and Stanko 1994). The concept was also employed in studying media representations of men,for instance,the interplay of sports and war imagery (Jansen and Sabo 1994).Because the concept of hegemony helped to make sense of both the diversity and the selec- tiveness of images in mass media,media researchers began mapping the relations between representations of different masculinities (Hanke 1992).Commercial sports are a focus of media representations of masculinity,and the developing field of sports sociology also found significant use for the concept of hegemonic mascu- linity (Messner 1992).It was deployed in understanding the popularity of body- contact confrontational sports-which function as an endlessly renewed symbol of masculinity-and in understanding the violence and homophobia frequently found in sporting milieus(Messner and Sabo 1990). The social determinants of men's health had been raised earlier,but the sex role concept was too diffuse to be very useful.The concepts of multiple masculinities and hegemonic masculinity were increasingly used to understand men's health practices,such as"playing hurt"and risk-taking sexual behavior(Sabo and Gordon o2oosS6e68a8rmh8Pg532RT4T6066O2ECTBgarto1827bution
change. More precisely, there could be a struggle for hegemony, and older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones. This was the element of optimism in an otherwise rather bleak theory. It was perhaps possible that a more humane, less oppressive, means of being a man might become hegemonic, as part of a process leading toward an abolition of gender hierarchies. Application The concept of hegemonic masculinity, formulated in these terms, found prompt use. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, research on men and masculinity was being consolidated as an academic field, supported by a string of conferences, the publication of textbooks (e.g., Brod 1987) and several journals, and a rapidly expanding research agenda across the social sciences and humanities. The concept of hegemonic masculinity was used in education studies to understand the dynamics of classroom life, including patterns of resistance and bullying among boys. It was used to explore relations to the curriculum and the difficulties in gender-neutral pedagogy (Martino 1995). It was used to understand teacher strategies and teacher identities among such groups as physical education instructors (Skelton 1993). The concept also had influence in criminology. All data reflect that men and boys perpetrate more of the conventional crimes—and the more serious of these crimes—than do women and girls. Moreover, men hold a virtual monopoly on the commission of syndicated and white-collar forms of crime. The concept of hegemonic masculinity helped in theorizing the relationship among masculinities and among a variety of crimes (Messerschmidt 1993) and was also used in studies on specific crimes by boys and men, such as rape in Switzerland, murder in Australia, football “hooliganism” and white-collar crime in England, and assaultive violence in the United States (Newburn and Stanko 1994). The concept was also employed in studying media representations of men, for instance, the interplay of sports and war imagery (Jansen and Sabo 1994). Because the concept of hegemony helped to make sense of both the diversity and the selectiveness of images in mass media, media researchers began mapping the relations between representations of different masculinities (Hanke 1992). Commercial sports are a focus of media representations of masculinity, and the developing field of sports sociology also found significant use for the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Messner 1992). It was deployed in understanding the popularity of bodycontact confrontational sports—which function as an endlessly renewed symbol of masculinity—and in understanding the violence and homophobia frequently found in sporting milieus (Messner and Sabo 1990). The social determinants of men’s health had been raised earlier, but the sex role concept was too diffuse to be very useful. The concepts of multiple masculinities and hegemonic masculinity were increasingly used to understand men’s health practices, such as “playing hurt” and risk-taking sexual behavior (Sabo and Gordon Connell, Messerschmidt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 833 © 2005 Sociologists for Women in Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Downloaded from http://gas.sagepub.com at NATL UNIV SINGAPORE CNTRL LIB on September 10, 2007