Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3694-8624

Document Type

Article

Rights

Available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 4.0 International Licence

Disciplines

Health policy and services, Sociology, Women's and gender studies, Social issues, Family studies, Social work.

Publication Details

Hanlon, N. (2022). “Masculinities and Affective Equality; the Case of Professional Caring.” Gender, Work & Organization, 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12937.

Abstract

Critical studies of men and masculinities [CSMM] aim to advance gender equality by critiquing and deconstructing male hegemony and hegemonic masculinities. Although the implicit value of gender equality is clear in CSMM generally, the conceptualization of equality is frequently vague, implied, and lacks conceptual definition. The problem is compounded in caring masculinities studies which additionally often lack engagement with critical feminist and other socio-political perspectives on caring. These shortcomings hide the complex interrelation of different dimensions to inequality as they intersect with multiple relational identities. Caring practices are also complex having distinct phases that engage different forms of labour within separate relational contexts. In response, this article proposes the model of affective equality (Lynch et al. 2009) and the concept of care as relational social practice (Tronto 1993), as normative perspectives that explicitly link care with equality. The case of professional caring, where the impact of CSMM has been especially limited, is used to illustrate the micro-politics of how men manage their identities within the context of feminized caring. Here men face the precarious task of managing their masculine status whilst navigating emotional expectations. Caring masculinities studies can be advanced with greater theoretical and empirical attention to (i) the intersection of multiple inequalities; (ii) the affective circles of caring; (iii) the specificity of caring work; (iv) the inequalities of caring; and (v) the ethics of caring practices.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12937


Share

COinS