The article study reviewed the concept and effect of hegemonic masculinity as well as its
subsequent off-shoot types of masculinities. In later paragraphs, the question of the study
concentrated on the shift in the gender of authors discussing the psychology of men and
masculinities research articles. Then also a shift through time as well as development in more
diverse participants such as race, demographic regions, and the comparative concern of
psychometric data whereas later on more focus on qualitative data. The main question I’ve
gathered that the article was trying to explain and research is “How does research or practice in
psychology use concepts with the main criteria of gender inequality?” Also “What psychological
research methods are helpful for examining the relationships of masculinities?” This is where the
concept of hegemony ties into the article and assists in framing the theoretical discussions of
masculinity along with its research and application. In my understanding, the conclusion of the
article for the first question is explaining how hegemonic practices of masculine traits push
“men’s privileged position” of power and authority over or in comparison to women. Courtenay
(2000, p. 1397)
My thoughts on the quality of the study are that it is a well-versed and highly intricate
exploration that delved into real-world correlations which I appreciate but tended to go over my
head in execution. One of the strengths throughout the article is how impressively immense the
amount of information and details into many niches regarding the dis/advantages of hegemonic
masculinity. I commend how much they explored minute opinions and determinations of certain
views of hegemony and it was very interesting to see the different perspectives as well as their
recognition of the faults that occur within it. I think for the question ‘What psychological
research methods are helpful for examining the relationships of masculinities?’ They didn’t
provide enough congruent evidence and more often than not went on tangents that felt
meaningless to the overall point of the article. It felt that they didn’t connect the talking points to
the central ideas and instead mentioned things that ambiguously relate only to continue on to the
next point rather than tieing it back to the main idea. I did struggle to understand a lot of their
concepts, I think in their explanation of hegemonic masculinity they go straight into talking
about the topic without actually defining it in any concrete or meaningful way first.