Broad-Enough Analysis Paper

(With the opportunity to discuss multiple readings, I not only wanted to examine these works on their own merits but put them into conversation with each other. Additionally, I wanted to know if they can be meaningfully applied to current sociopolitical events and social relations. In that regard, I hope these questions reflect that effort and set the stage for additional conversations.)
1. Connell early on argues for the need of a broad-enough analysis that can describe and examine the larger sociopolitical structure that masculinities is a part of. Is this work successful of that? And what are the theoretical/action-based implications of re-visioning masculinities as a particular product of a particularizing gender system (especially one
Connell maps out a hierarchal structure of social relations to organize/define masculinity: hegemonic/subordinate/complicit/marginalized. How accurately do these tiers reflect masculinity as it is made manifest today? In politics? Sexual(ity) relations? Mass media/popular culture? For instance, is “gayness in patriarchal ideology” always to be considered what is “expelled from hegemonic masculinity”
How might Anderson’s charge that, even in the wake of Connell/Messerschmidt’s 2005 revision, HMT describes only structure instead of clarifying a social process (182) contribute to the prior claim?
b. How might have methodologies that employed HMT picked up on Anderson’s claim above?

5. Repeating Anderson’s provocative question for discussion, how do we theorize the opening evidence of his piece?

6. It seems fairly obvious early on that in “Masculinity as Structured Action”, Messerschmidt is responding to Anderson’s critique of both Connell’s and his (original and revised) theories of hegemonic masculinity. Do we find the arguments a convincing defense of hegemonic masculinity? 7. How does (or doesn’t) Messerschmidt’s concept of masculinity as structured action, and Schrock/Schwalbe’s examples of homophobia-signifying-heterosexuality as an example of manhood acts, make sense of the inclusive scenes which open Eric Anderson’s piece?

8. One underlying aspect of Schrock/Schwalbe’s concepts of manhood acts is its capacity for adaptation (also seen in Mike’s behavior from Chu’s “When Boys Become Boys”.) How do these readings – especially Schrock/Schwalbe’s – respond to Hannah Rosin’s contention that men are falling behind in a supposedly brave new female-centric world because, among other aspects, they lack