The Case for Retaining a Focus on “Masculinities” in Men’s Health Research

Abstract

Within the health research literature there is increasing attention focussed on how \nthe concept of “masculinities” can be employed to understand health and illness \nand used to inform health care practice and policy. At the same time, valuable \ncritiques of masculinities frameworks have emphasised that there is often, within \nthe published literature, a lack of rigour in defining and using these ideas, a tendency \ntowards rigid and essentialist notions about men and gender but also recognition \nthat some approaches specify masculinities as the “cause” of poor health \noutcomes for men, women and children. We consider and respond to these important \nquestions and, using examples from empirical studies, make the case that \nit is important to advance the use of masculinities in men’s health research both \nas a means to describing the challenges to men’s health and the strengths men \ndraw upon to promote their health and remedy illness. We argue, first, that masculinities \nbe operationalised as “configurations of social practice” and understood \nas part of the dynamic processes involved within the “gender order.” \nSecond, configurations of social practice are diverse, dynamic and hierarchical \nin terms of the material and representational benefits they bring to men. Third, \nconfigurations of social practice are relational and negotiated within institutions \nand other structures wherein the doing of masculinities and health and illness can \nbe co-constructed, contested and/or constrained. Finally, we suggest some practice \nimplications and applications for further conceptualising masculinities to the \nfield of men’s health. \n

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.