The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport 1St Ed 2020 Edition Rory Magrath Full Chapter

The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity
and Sport 1st ed. 2020 Edition Rory

Magrath
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-masculinity-and-sport-1st-
ed-2020-edition-rory-magrath/
The Palgrave Handbook
of Masculinity and Sport
Edited by
Rory Magrath · Jamie Cleland · Eric Anderson
The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport
Rory Magrath • Jamie Cleland • Eric Anderson
Editors
The Palgrave Handbook of

Masculinity and Sport
Editors
Rory Magrath Jamie Cleland
Solent University University of South Australia
Southampton, UK Adelaide, SA, Australia
Eric Anderson
University of Winchester
Winchester, UK
ISBN 978-3-030-19798-8 ISBN 978-3-030-19799-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to everyone who has assisted us with this project in some way.
First, we express our thanks to Amelia Derkatsch, Palgrave’s Commissioning
Editor for Gender Studies, for initially approaching us to work on a project of this
nature. She has also been an invaluable contact for us, particularly in the latter
stages of finalising the Handbook.
Second, we are grateful to various colleagues who have supported us from the
early stages of the project, right through to its completion.
Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to the 41 scholars who contributed to this
Handbook. Ever since the project first began, their willingness, enthusiasm and
punctuality have made our job as editors so much easier, and it has been a pleasure
for us to work with them on this project.
v
Contents
1 Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport �� 1

Rory Magrath, Jamie Cleland, and Eric Anderson
Part I The Foundations of Masculinity and Sport 17

2 Theories of Men and Masculinity, and Their Ability to Account
for Positive Change�� 19
Brittany Ralph and Steven Roberts
3 Arousing Cheer: Exhibitionism in Men’s Sports from Weimar to
the Present�� 39
Erik N. Jensen
4 ‘Land of My Fathers’: Reflections on the Evolution of a Modern
Sports Club �� 57
Campbell Williams
5 Sexual Abuse and Masculine Cultures: Reflections on the British
Football Scandal of 2016�� 73
Kevin Dixon
Part II Sport’s Use in Making and Stratifying Men 95

6 ‘It used to be brutal, now it’s an art’: Changing Negotiations of
Violence and Masculinity in British Karate�� 97
Chloe MacLean
7 Figurational Sociology and Masculine Embodiment in Male Physical
Education�� 117
Mark Mierzwinski and Philippa Velija
8 From Powerhouses to Pixies and Back: Boys, Men, and Troubled
Masculinity in Artistic Gymnastics�� 135
Aaron W. Gurlly
vii
viii Contents
9 “I probably shouldn’t say this, should I…but…”: Mischievous

Masculinities As a Way for Men to Convey Reflexivity and Make
Choices in Sporting Sites �� 151
Kitty Nichols
10 The Positive Impact of Trans Inclusion in Team Sports: Men’s Roller
Derby�� 171
Dawn Fletcher
11 I Have No Idea What My Body Is Now Capable of, or Should I Say
‘Not Capable of’: The Ageing Male Body in Sport: To Midlife and
Beyond�� 189
Murray Drummond
Part III Sport, Masculinity, and the Media 205

12 “Man’s Game”: Media, Masculinity, and Early Canadian Hockey�� 207
Taylor McKee and Brittany Reid
13 Commodification and Heroic Masculinity: Interrogating Race and
the NFL Quarterback in Super Bowl Commercials �� 225
Lawrence A. Wenner
14 “I Hate Christian Laettner” and the Persistence of Hegemonic
Masculinity and Heteronormativity in Sporting Cultures �� 241
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
15 Dance Diversity on YouTube: How Participatory Culture Encourages
Inclusive Masculinities�� 261
Craig Owen and Sarah Riley
16 Making American White Men Great Again: Tom Brady, Donald
Trump, and the Allure of White Male Omnipotence in Post-Obama
America�� 283
Kyle W. Kusz
Part IV The Relationship Between Masculinity and Sexuality 305

17 The Man on the Horse: Masculinity and Sexuality in British
Horseracing�� 307
David Letts
18 Masculinity and Inclusive Rugby in the United Kingdom �� 323
Ken Muir, Keith D. Parry, and Eric Anderson
19 Association Football, Masculinity, and Sexuality: An Evolving
Relationship�� 341
Jamie Cleland and Rory Magrath
Contents ix
20 ‘They were constantly harassing us and a lot of it was to do with our

sexuality’: Masculinities, Heteronormativity and Homophobia in
University-Based Sport�� 359
Catherine Phipps
21 From Stoicism to Bromance: Millennial Men’s Friendships �� 379
Ryan Scoats and Stefan Robinson
22 Inclusive Masculinities in American High School Athletics: An
Ethnography�� 393
Luis Emilio Morales
Part V International Sporting Masculinities 413

23 Developing Sport in a Developing Nation: Gendered Challenges and
Considerations�� 417
Kerry Wardell
24 Boys in Rhythmic Gymnastics: Gymnasts’, Parents’ and Coaches’
Perspectives from Southern Spain�� 433
Joaquín Piedra, Daniel Gallardo, and George Jennings
25 Exploring the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality of a Semi-Professional
Swedish Football Team with an Openly Gay Teammate�� 449
Connor Humphries, Lindsey Gaston, Rory Magrath, and Adam J.
White
26 Sport and Masculinities in Sweden: Performance and the Notion of
Gender Equality �� 465
Håkan Larsson and Jesper Andreasson
27 Sports, Masculinities and Disabilities in Zimbabwe�� 483
Tafadzwa Rugoho
28 Turkish Oil Wrestling and the Western Gaze: Hegemonic
Heteronormativity, Islamic Body Culture, and Folk Wrestling
Masculinities�� 497
Tom Fabian
29 The Reproduction of Hegemonic Masculinity in Football Fandom:
An Analysis of the Performance of Polish Ultras�� 517
Radosław Kossakowski, Dominik Antonowicz, and Honorata
Jakubowska
30 Is Soccer Just for Machos?: The Construction of Masculinity in
Contemporary Peruvian “Kick-Lit” Stories and “Kick-Flicks” �� 537
Jesús Hidalgo Campos
Index�� 557
Notes on Contributors
Eric Anderson is Professor of Sport, Masculinities and Sexualities at the University

of Winchester, UK. He holds four degrees, and has written 14 books and over 60
peer-reviewed journal articles. His research is regularly featured in international
television, print and digital media.
Jesper Andreasson is Associate Professor of Sport Science at Linnaeus University

in Sweden and has a PhD in Sociology. He has written mainly in the field of gender
studies, body studies and the sociology of sport. He oversees a 120-credit graduate
master’s programme in sport science and teaches mainly in the areas of research
methods, sport science and social theory. He has written Extreme Sports, Extreme
Bodies: Gender, Identities & Bodies in Motion (2019) and The Global Gym. Gender,
Health and Pedagogies (2014) together with Thomas Johansson, both are published
with Palgrave Macmillan.
Dominik Antonowicz is a sociologist at Nicolas Copernicus University in Toruń.

His research interest focuses on sport fandom, in particular the way fans manifest
their sense of togetherness. Dominik is co-author of several papers including Polish
ultras in the post-socialist transformation in Sport and Society or Missing the goal:
Policy evolution towards football-related violence in Poland (1989–2012) and
Marginalised, patronised and instrumentalised: Polish female fans in the ultras’ nar-
ratives both in International Review for the Sociology of Sport.
Jamie Cleland is Senior Lecturer in Sport and Management at the University of

South Australia. He is the co-author of Screen Society (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018),
co-author of Collective Action and Football Fandom: A Relational Sociological
Approach (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), sole author of A Sociology of Football in a
Global Context (2015) and co-author of Football’s Dark Side: Corruption,
Homophobia, Violence and Racism in the Beautiful Game (Palgrave Macmillan,
2014). Outside of these four books he has also written over 40 articles and chapters
on contemporary football fandom and identity, particularly focusing on
xi
xii Notes on Contributors
communication, sexuality/homophobia, race and active supporter mobilisations in a

range of international journals and books.
Kevin Dixon is author of Consuming Football in Late Modern Life (2013) and
Screen Society (2018). He is co-editor of The Impact of the London 2012 Olympic
and Paralympic Games: Diminishing Contrasts, Increasing Varieties (2015) and
Studying Football (2016). He is Senior Lecturer of Sports Studies at Teesside
University, UK, and tweets @KevinDixon20.
Murray Drummond is a research professor in sport, health and physical activity.

He is the Director of the SHAPE Research Centre. His research interests are based
around qualitative sport and health research with a particular interest in gender and
sports, and masculinities and body image. Murray has published widely on issues
relating to masculinities and health, gay men’s bodies and prostate cancer among
gay men and CALD men. He is regularly invited to present his work nationally and
internationally. Murray is on the editorial boards of five international peer-reviewed
journals including Men and Masculinities, Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, International Journal of Men’s Social and Community Health, The Journal
of Men’s Studies and The Journal of Boyhood Studies.
Tom Fabian is a PhD candidate in the Sociocultural Study of Sport at the University
of Western Ontario. His research focuses on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural
Heritage Convention’s safeguarding effects on folk sports. Turkish oil wrestling was
the first sport to be included in the convention’s international register of cultural
icons.
Dawn Fletcher is a sociologist based in the UK and Australia. She was awarded a
PhD in 2018 from the University of Sheffield, which focused on identity, commu-
nity and belonging in men’s roller derby. Her sociological interests include gender
integration and inclusivity in sport. She is working on a number of projects relating
to those topics.
Daniel Gallardo has a university degree in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences
and a master’s degree in Education. He is passionate about gymnastics. He is work-
ing in the Andalusian Federation of Gymnastics as sport schools’ head. He is also
participating in research related to the physical preparation, training and didactics
of artistic gymnastics with teachers from the Universidad de Sevilla and gymnastics
coaches.
Lindsey Gaston is a senior lecturer in the School of Education, Leisure and Sports
Studies at Liverpool John Moores University. He holds a PhD from Durham
University in Social Science and Health. Lindsey also holds two bachelor’s degrees
in Sociology and Religion from the University of Kansas and a combined master’s
degree in Sociology and American History from Baker University.
Notes on Contributors xiii
Aaron W. Gurlly is an assistant professor in the Communication Arts Department

at Salisbury University. His research focuses on gender, race, sexuality and repre-
sentation. He is also co-director of the Media Literacy Institute at Salisbury
University. His courses focus on media production and media studies, and his cre-
ative work focuses on the role of the body in expression and performance of
identity.
Jesús Hidalgo Campos is a Peruvian PhD candidate at the University of

Washington (Seattle). His research interests focus on the relationship between soc-
cer and social issues (gender, race, class) in Peru specifically and in Latin America
in general. While working on his PhD dissertation, he has also created The Soccer
Library Podcast, a podcast that examines soccer texts (novels, movies and academic
publications) from a scholarly perspective.
Connor Humphries is a PhD candidate at Oxford Brookes University, UK. His

research seeks to investigate the relationship between gender, sexuality and mascu-
linity in men’s sports. He has a particular interest in rugby, hockey and football.
Honorata Jakubowska is a professor at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.

She is author of three books, including Skill Transmission, Sport and Tacit
Knowledge: A Sociological Perspective (2017), and numerous articles and book
chapters related to her main research interests: sociology of sport, gender studies
and sociology of the body. She is the coordinator of European Sociological
Association Research Network ‘Society and Sports’ (2017–2019) and vice-president
of Polish Sociological Association Section ‘Sociology of Sport’. She is also the
principal investigator of the research project focused on female football fans
financed by the National Science Center.
George Jennings is a qualitative sociologist of sport and physical culture at Cardiff

Metropolitan University. He has researched martial arts cultures, pedagogies and
philosophies using a variety of theoretical and methodological traditions over the
last decade, with a central feature being individual and collective cultivation through
these disciplines. Recent projects include a case study of the development of a
Mexican martial art and a linguistic ethnography of Tai Chi and historical European
martial arts (HEMA). Also interested in health and well-being, George is collabo-
rating with a psychotherapist to examine the relationships between martial arts and
therapy. Through various collaborations, gender and sexuality remain key elements
of his analysis, which has resulted in publications on mixed-sex training and mas-
culinities. Committed to public engagement, George is academic consultant for
DojoTV and is co-founder of the Documents Research Network (DRN).
Erik N. Jensen is Associate Professor of History at Miami University, where he

teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on world history, modern European
history and German history. He is the author of Body by Weimar: Athletes, Gender,
and German Modernity (2010), as well as articles on the history of the body, the
xiv Notes on Contributors
history of sexuality and the history of the persecution of homosexuals under the
Nazi regime. He is working on a biography of the tennis player, prolific writer and
socialite Paula von Reznicek, who assisted her husband on a morale-building tour
of the German front lines during World War II, while knowledge of her half-Jewish
background circulated within Nazi circles.
Nathan Kalman-Lamb is a lecturing fellow at Duke University where he teaches

seminars on social inequality and sports. He is author of Game Misconduct: Injury,
Fandom, and the Business of Sport (2018) and co-author of Out of Left Field: Social
Inequality and Sports (2011). His writing also appears in popular sources like
Jacobin, Los Angeles Review of Books, The Baffler and others.
Radosław Kossakowski is an assistant professor at University of Gdańsk. His

main academic interests include sociology of sport, social identity, football studies
and qualitative research methods. He was one of the prize-winners of the UEFA
Research Grant Programme, 2015/16 edition. His articles have been published in
many journals, including Sport in Society, Sociology of Sport Journal, International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, East European Politics and Societies and Revista
de Psicología del Deporte.
Kyle W. Kusz’s work critically examines the cultural politics of white masculini-
ties in American popular culture with a specific focus on sport media. His book,
Revolt of the White Athlete (2007), examined the role that sporting narratives played
in the culture wars of the mid-1990s to the early 2000s. His c work illuminates the
centrality of the masculinist language and logics of sport and leisure in Trump’s
white nationalist project and the alt-right racial imaginary.
Håkan Larsson is Professor of Sports Science, Specialization Education, at The

Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, in Stockholm, Sweden. His
research is mainly within two areas: sport, gender and sexualities in leisure time
sports and teaching and learning in school Physical Education. Larsson is pro-vice
chancellor at GIH. Together with Richard Pringle and Göran Gerdin, he recently
authored the edited book Critical Research in Sport, Health and Physical Education.
David Letts has held several positions within the horseracing industry and is
employed as operations manager of the European Breeders’ Fund. He recently com-
pleted an MBA at the University of Liverpool, focusing on sexuality in the sport of
horseracing. His research interests in the sport include the interaction between sexu-
ality and masculinity, as well as the role of sexual orientation on career
progression.
Chloe MacLean is Lecturer in Sociology of Sport within the division of Sport and
Exercise Sciences at Abertay University. She completed her PhD at the University
of Edinburgh in 2018. Her research focuses upon the making and transgression of
Notes on Contributors xv
gendered embodiment within mixed-sex sports practice. She is also the Director of
Women and Girls’ Interests for the Scottish Karate Governing Body.
Rory Magrath is Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Football in the School of

Sport, Health and Social Sciences at Solent University, Southampton, and a visiting
early career research fellow at the University of Winchester. He is the author of
Inclusive Masculinities in Contemporary Football (2017) and co-author of Out in
Sport: The Experiences of Openly Gay and Lesbian Athletes in Competitive Sport
(2016) and Men and Masculinities (2019). His research examines for declining
homophobia in English professional football, and how this has impacted on the
changing nature of contemporary masculinities among heterosexual male youth.
Taylor McKee is a PhD candidate and instructor at Western University researching

the interplay between violence, masculinity, media and Canadian sport. Prior to
beginning his PhD studies at Western, Taylor studied history at the University of
Calgary and the University of Victoria. Previously, Taylor studied media reception
to violence in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries on Canada’s west
coast. Previously, Taylor has peer-reviewed publications in the fields of Olympic
history, Canadian hockey history and violence in sport.
Mark Mierzwinski is Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Sport at York St John

University. His research interests include gender relations in sport and Physical
Education and adopts figurational sociology. His previous research concerned elite
female Mixed Martial Art athletes and their gendered motivations, experiences and
embodiment. He is researching connections between power relations and gender
identities in male Physical Education. This research focuses on the significance of
teacher-pupil relations, emotions and behaviours, such as banter and bullying, on
boys’ gendered embodiment.
Luis Emilio Morales is a PhD candidate at the University of Winchester. Working

primarily within the discipline of sociology, his research focuses on shifting mascu-
linities in American and Latin-American contexts, most notably among ethnically
and religiously diverse youth in the United States. Of particular concern is the man-
ner in which gendered identities and practices are navigated and negotiated in secu-
larising, globalising and multi-cultural conditions. Relatedly, much of his current
output is focused around the implications of liberalising attitudes towards homo-
sexuality, particularly in the west. Further areas of academic interest and engage-
ment include sexualities, the sociology of sport, pedagogy (particularly within
higher education) and social theory.
Ken Muir is Professor of Sport Sociology at Appalachian State University in

Boone, North Carolina, and a visiting professor/research scholar at the University of
Winchester, UK. He holds a PhD in Sociology from Virginia Tech and master’s
degrees in Journalism and Mass Communication from the University of Florida.
xvi Notes on Contributors
Muir’s research interests include sexual orientation/gender identity in sport, devi-

ance and sport and media culture.
Kitty Nichols is a University Teacher at the University of Sheffield, working in the

Sociological Studies Department and Sheffield Methods Institute. Her main fields
of interest are gender, identity, age, emotion, sport and humour. In 2018, Kitty com-
pleted her PhD titled ‘Banter, masculinities and Rugby Union: exploring the rela-
tionship between masculinity and humour in men’s lived realities of gender.’ The
thesis was concerned with how men experience and negotiate the gendered struc-
tures which underpin sporting sites. She has since been developing and extending
these ideas.
Craig Owen is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Anglia Ruskin University. His

PhD research focused on the performance of masculine identities in capoeira and
Latin and ballroom dance classes. He is collaborating on new research projects that
explore the performance of gender identities on advertising billboards, martial arts
television shows, university campuses and lifestyle magazines.
Keith D. Parry is a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and an associate

fellow of Western Sydney University. His interests are based on the sociology of
sport and sports fandom/the spectator experience. His research examines issues
around identity, masculinity and the conflicts between country and culture in
Australia and the UK, providing him with a deep insight into both the sociology of
sport (and sports fans) and national identity. He is an award-winning writer, receiv-
ing a UN Day Media Award for a co-authored media piece: Pushing casual sport to
the margins threatens cities’ social cohesion.
Catherine Phipps is Lecturer in Sport Education and Development at Solent

University in Southampton as well as an adjunct professor at Syracuse University
London, where she teaches in the areas of sports coaching, development and the
sociology of sport. She is in the process of completing her PhD at the University of
Greenwich in London, with her thesis exploring LGBT+ inclusion in university-
based sport. She has previously competed in both boxing and Muay Thai, with her
wider research focussing on gender issues in combat sports.
Joaquín Piedra is Senior Lecturer in Physical Education and Sports Sciences at

the Universidad de Sevilla in Spain. His research interests include gender, sexual
diversity, sociology of sport, men’s studies, Physical Education and social networks
in sport. His recent projects include gender stereotypes in Physical Education and a
research on LGBT sport participation. He is a member of International Association
in Physical Education and Sport for Girls and Women (IAPESGW) taking part in
different congress around the world. Through various collaborations, gender and
sexuality remain key elements of his analysis, which has resulted in publications on
LGBT people in sport, masculinities and Physical Education.
Notes on Contributors xvii
Brittany Ralph is a PhD candidate in the Social and Political Sciences Program,
Monash University, Australia. Her research focuses on male friendship and the
transformation of masculinity among young Australian men.
Brittany Reid is a lecturer at Thompson Rivers University. Her research special-

ises in theatre history, romanticism and sport literature. She recently completed her
doctoral dissertation ‘Staging the Shelleys: A Case Study in Romantic Biodrama’, a
performance-as-research project that explored contemporary theatrical adaptations
of the Shelleys lives and writing.
Sarah Riley is Professor of Critical Health Psychology at Massey University, New

Zealand, and a founding member of critical psychology research groups at both Bath
and Aberystwyth Universities in the UK. Her research uses qualitative methods to
explore the psychological impact of neoliberalism, addressing questions of gender,
embodiment, health, youth culture and citizenship. Her co-authored books include
Critical Bodies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), Doing Your Qualitative Research
Project (2012), Technologies of Sexiness: Sex, Identity and Consumer Culture
(2014), Postfeminism and Health (2018) and Postfeminism and Body Image (forth-
coming). She has chaired the British Psychology Section ‘Qualitative Methods in
Psychology’, is an international member for the Association of European Qualitative
researchers in Psychology (EQuiP) and sits on the editorial boards of Feminism &
Psychology, Psychology & Health and Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology.
Steven Roberts is Associate Professor of Sociology in the School of Social

Sciences, Monash University, Australia. His research also examines change in mas-
culinities, as well as contemporary transitions from youth to young adulthood and
the impact of class and social inequality, and his recent book, Young Working-Class
Men in Transition, has been published with Routledge.
Stefan Robinson’s research has continued to focus on understandings of mascu-

linity and friendships and their operation within the team sport context. He works
in local government as a researcher and advisor on a range of policy issues.
Tafadzwa Rugoho is doing two PhD degrees at University of KwaZulu-Natal and

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He taught at Great Zimbabwe University. Tafadzwa
holds an MSc Development, MSc Strategic Management and a BSc Sociology. He
has authored numerous chapters and journal papers on disability issues. These have
been published by Routledge, Palgrave, Oxford University Press and many other
leading publishers. He has presented a number of papers at research conferences.
Tafadzwa is disabled and has worked for a number of disability organisations for
more than ten years. He is a disability activist.
Ryan Scoats is a researcher at Birmingham City University in the Faculty of

Health, Education and Life Sciences and has previously been Lecturer in Sports
Sociology at both Wolverhampton and Winchester Universities. Much of his work
xviii Notes on Contributors
focuses on people’s experiences of multi-sex threesomes, sexualities, masculinities

and men’s friendships. Further details of his research and publications can be found
at ryanscoatsphd.com.
Philippa Velija is Head of Education and Sociology and Senior Lecturer in the
Sociology of Sport at Solent University, Southampton, UK. She is author of Women’s
Cricket and Global Processes and co-author of Figurational Research in Sport,
Leisure and Health. Her research, published in Sociology of Sport Journal,
International Review for the Sociology of Sport and Leisure Studies, focuses on a
sociological analysis of women’s experiences of flat and jump jockeys and women
in martial arts, and she has co-authored papers on gender and sport policy and
women and leadership in sports governance.
Kerry Wardell is a PhD candidate at the University of Winchester researching

physical activity policies and inclusive strategic development. Working full time in
sport development alongside her academic studies, she has a keen interest in inclu-
sive sport and reducing barriers to participation.
Lawrence A. Wenner is the Von der Ahe Professor of Communication and Ethics
in the College of Communication and Fine Arts and the School of Film and
Television at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. His research includes
over 140 scholarly journal articles and chapters and nine books, including the most
recent Media, Sport, and Mega-Events (with Andrew Billings). He serves as found-
ing Editor-in-Chief of the scholarly bi-monthly journal Communication and Sport.
His research interests focus on mediated sport, commodity culture and representa-
tions of gender in sporting narratives.
Adam J. White is an interdisciplinary researcher in sport, education and health.

Adam has authored a number of peer-reviewed journal papers and co-authored the
second edition of Sport, Theory and Social Problems (2018). Adam completed his
doctoral thesis at the University of Winchester in 2018 where he investigated the
role of contact sport within school Physical Education and the issues associated
with injury. He is Lecturer in Sport and Coaching Sciences at Oxford Brookes
University.
Campbell Williams In an entirely voluntary capacity Campbell Williams is chair

of the Board of Directors of the Trojans Club, a large amateur multi-sports club in
Hampshire England. This is his second stint as Chair, having realised during his first
four-year stint that there were significant issues caused by hyper masculinity in a
world which is rapidly demasculinising. ‘He is now leading a multi-million-pound
investment and improvement programme in new facilities and organisational struc-
ture and, for his PhD at the University of Winchester, is researching and measuring
the impact of this change on the behaviour of people using the facility’.
List of Figures
Chart 17.1 Sexuality openness survey comparison—Jockey vs Racing 313

Chart 17.2 Barriers to being open about sexuality in the
workplace—jockey survey 314
Chart 17.3 Factors which have helped to be open about sexuality in the
workplace—jockey survey 314
Fig. 25.1 Attitudes toward gay men 456
Fig. 25.2 Players’ experience with a gay teammate 457
Fig. 25.3 Homophobia players have experienced 458
xix
List of Tables
Table 17.1 Sexual orientation distribution of survey respondents 312

Table 17.2 Opinion impact response—racing and jockey surveys 315
Table 17.3 Comfort response—racing and jockey surveys 316
Table 17.4 Cross tabulation on hearing homophobic language—racing and
jockey surveys 316
Table 17.5 Cross tabulation for using homophobic language—racing and
jockey surveys 317
xxi
Chapter 1
Introducing the Palgrave Handbook
of Masculinity and Sport
Rory Magrath, Jamie Cleland, and Eric Anderson
Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport
Back in 2017, Palgrave’s Gender Studies Commissioning Editor, Amelia Derkatsch,

approached us with a view to editing this Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and
Sport. When presented with this, we grasped at the opportunity to produce a unique
resource. As we discuss in greater detail later in this chapter, a substantial body of
academic work investigating the relationship between sport, gender, and sexuality
already exists. Seminal work, such as the Handbook of Sport, Gender and Sexuality
(Hargreaves & Anderson, 2014), the Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities
(Kimmel, Hearn, & Connell, 2005), and the Men and Masculinities journal (estab-
lished in 1998), illustrates just how prominent the study of contemporary masculini-
ties has become. In the midst of domineering socio-political movements—#MeToo
and #EverydaySexism, for example—the emergence of a so-called ‘toxic’ mascu-
linity also demonstrates the cultural significance of studies of masculinity (Anderson
& Magrath, 2019).
Despite the effect of this highly influential work, there have been major theoreti-
cal, conceptual, and paradigmatic shifts in masculinity studies in recent years
(Borkowska, 2018), meaning that much of this work must now be described as
outdated. Indeed, the field of masculinity studies tends to change fast. Accordingly,
the result of this Handbook is, we hope, an accurate reflection of many of these
R. Magrath (*)
Solent University, Southampton, UK
e-mail: rory.magrath@solent.ac.uk
J. Cleland
University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
e-mail: jamie.cleland@unisa.edu.au
E. Anderson
Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Winchester, Winchester, UK
e-mail: Eric.Anderson@winchester.ac.uk
© The Author(s) 2020 1

R. Magrath et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5_1
2 R. Magrath et al.
changes, providing a unique, informative resource which can be used by academics

across various disciplines, students, and a wide range of sports practitioners.
The Handbook is, deliberately, wide-ranging across different sports (from soccer
to roller derby) and different local and global contexts (from Sweden to Zimbabwe)
and, perhaps most importantly, tackles how masculinity intersects with a range of
other key issues, including race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, sexuality, and
social class—as well as cutting across numerous disciplines, including sociology,
psychology, media, literature, policy, and deviance. Finally, the Handbook also
incorporates personal, ideological, and political narratives and is also inclusive of
varied conceptual, methodological, and theoretical approaches.
To accomplish this task, we include chapters from a range of established schol-
ars, whose work has already informed masculinity studies, as well as numerous
emerging scholars seeking to contribute further to this field. Moreover, while the
Handbook is primarily made up of Western-centric scholars and foci, we also dedi-
cate an entire part to countries from across the world. Each of the 30 chapters is
original, written specifically for inclusion in this Handbook. Thus, we believe that
the outcome is a Handbook which offers an eclectic and exciting range of contribu-
tions related to further understanding the evolving relationship between masculinity
and sport.
Studying Masculinity and Sport in the Twentieth Century
The systematic study of masculinity can be traced back to the early twentieth cen-
tury; a time characterized by heightened cultural concerns around the apparent
feminization of the US school system (O’Shea, 1909; see also Tyack & Hansot,
1988). Despite this, however, it took another 50 years for the rapid growth of social
scientific inquiry into masculinity. When this research emerged, it focused almost
entirely on what was missing from men’s lives (compared to women’s lives) or the
social problems associated with masculinity (Pleck, 1975). For example, in The
Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role, David and Brannon (1976) out-
lined four central tenets of masculinity: “no sissy stuff; (men must be) a big wheel;
(men must be) as sturdy as an oak; and give ‘em hell’.” Thus, in order to convey an
aura of masculinity, boys and men were required to show no fear or weakness—and
hide any trace of femininity. It was later established that the biggest driving force in
policing masculinity in the West was that of homophobia (Morin & Garfinkle,
1978).
The broadening of the field of sports sociology in the 1980s and, in particular, the
1990s saw an evolution of critical studies of men and masculinities; most notably
from feminist concerns related to the role men played in the reproduction of gender
inequality (e.g. Messner & Sabo, 1990; Pronger, 1990). Raewyn Connell1 was the
most influential scholar of this time; in her book, Gender and Power (1987), she
1
Having undergone gender transition, Connell now goes by the name Raewyn Connell.
1 Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport 3
suggested that there were multiple types of masculinities, each existing in a social
web—or hierarchy—where one maintained a hegemonic dominant effect over all
the others. This was further systemized in her 1995 book, Masculinities. As Roberts
shows in his chapter on theorizing masculinities (see Chap. 3), it was this social
process of hegemonic masculinity that necessitated men’s emotional stoicism
(Williams, 1985) and willingness to accept and inflict injury on other men (Nixon,
1993).
Exploring the process of hegemonic masculinity, Connell famously defined it as,
“the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer
to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy” (p. 77). While the empirical data to
support the process of patriarchy has been heavily critiqued (e.g. Moller, 2007), the
concept of hegemonic masculinity was used by numerous scholars to argue that
boys and men construct their ideologies and sculpt their bodies to align with hege-
monic perspectives. Indeed, research in the 1990s documented the hierarchical con-
struction of masculinities in various institutional settings. This was evident, for
example, in numerous studies in British school settings, which highlighted high
levels of homophobia (Epstein & Johnson, 1998; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Nayak &
Kehily, 1996; Plummer, 1999; Salisbury & Jackson, 1996). Here, masculinity was
policed largely by the utility of homophobic language (see Rivers, 2011), but also
by heterosexist curricula (Atkinson & DePalma, 2008) and symbolically through
the enactment of Section 28 of the Local Government Act (Nixon & Givens, 2007),
which prohibited saying anything positive about homosexuality in British schools.
But while education was proven a major institution where the strict policing of
masculinity was evident, we believe that it is sport—perhaps the most dominant of
Western culture’s major institutions—where this policing was most prominent
(Anderson & White, 2018). Of course, sport has traditionally and historically served
as a ‘male preserve’ (Dunning, 1986, p. 79). The motivation behind the establish-
ment and emergence of many dominant sports toward the end of the nineteenth
century lay primarily in the reaffirmation of an idealized form of masculinity; one
distanced from femininity and homosexuality. Much like other dominant cultural
institutions, this was accomplished through multiple mechanisms, including social-
izing boys into physical violence, sexism, aggression, excessive competitiveness, a
willingness to sacrifice, obedience to authority, compulsory heterosexuality, and—
essential to the study of masculinity—men’s homophobia (Kimmel, 1994).
Evidencing this perhaps most succinctly, the resurgence of the Olympic Games
in 1896 was “conceived as a tool to promote and spread European aristocratic and
masculine values” (Carpentier & Lefèvre, 2006, p. 1113)—a far more sinister real-
ity than the oft-purported ‘international friendship’ myth. Almost a century later, the
value of competitive team sports was again bolstered, largely because, during this
time, male homosexuality was associated with softness and femininity—as we dis-
cuss later in this chapter. Thus, sport once again became the primary mechanism
through which boys and men were able to “align their gendered behaviors with
idealized and narrow definitions of masculinity” (McCormack & Anderson, 2014a,
p. 114)—thus attempting to avoid any suspicion of ‘deviant’ sexualities (McCreary,
1994). This avoidance was conceptualized by Anderson (2009) as homohysteria, the
4 R. Magrath et al.
fear of being socially perceived as gay. Anderson argued that, in order for a culture
of homohysteria to exist, three social factors must coincide with one another: (1)
mass cultural awareness of homosexuality; (2) a cultural zeitgeist of disapproval
toward homosexuality; and (3) disapproval of men’s femininity, as it becomes inti-
mately associated with homosexuality.
Throughout the 1980s, social attitudes toward homosexuality declined. In the
1970s, when social attitude surveys in the UK and US first began asking questions
pertaining to homosexuality, hostility was high, but slowly improving. But once the
AIDS crisis took its hold in the 1980s, killing scores of gay men, cultural attitudes
began to wane. By examining all available measures of social attitudes, including
data from the British Social Attitude Survey (BSAS), General Social Survey (GSS),
Gallup, and Pew, we determine that 1987–1988 is, statistically, the apex of homo-
phobic attitudes in Anglo-American cultures (see Clements & Field, 2014; Keleher
& Smith, 2012; Loftus, 2001; Twenge, Sherman, & Wells, 2016); approximately
three-quarters of the general population believed homosexuality to be ‘always
wrong’ or ‘mostly wrong.’
Anderson (2009) theorized that men whom feared being socially perceived as gay
aligned their behaviors with anything deemed the ‘opposite,’ thus promoting a binary
of gender and sexuality. Indeed, boys and men were shown to have restrictive emo-
tional relationships with each other, largely because disclosure of personal informa-
tion was perceived to be a feminine trait (Curry, 1991; Parker, 1996). Similarly,
same-sex physical touch was almost completely off-limits (Floyd, 2000). And per-
haps most significantly, these damaging expressions of masculinity meant that a
significant body of research around this time documents high levels of homophobia
toward gay male and lesbian athletes (Clarke, 1998; Curry, 1991; Griffin, 1998;
Hekma, 1998; Pronger, 1990; Woog, 1998). In elite sport, openly gay male profes-
sional athletes—such as Dave Kopay and Justin Fashanu—were taunted, shunned,
and, ultimately, rejected (Gaston, Magrath, & Anderson, 2018; Stott, 2019).
Studying Masculinity and Sport in the Twenty-First Century
As we demonstrate above, the relationship between masculinity and sport in the

previous century was one characterized by orthodox masculinity. Given the marked
changes of masculinity over the past 30 years, Hearn et al. (2012) frame this as the
“third phase” of significant masculinities research; one characterized by “diversity
and critique, which includes work by a new generation of scholars not embedded in
the frameworks of the 1980s” (p. 37). Indeed, research in the twenty-first century
has shown that homophobia has transitioned from a necessary part of youth mascu-
linities (especially in sport), to a stigmatized social attitude (McCormack, 2012;
Magrath, 2017a). This is, in part, due to a plethora of social and legal changes which
have occurred for sexual minorities over the past two decades (see Weeks, 2007),
but it is also related to the fact that young people are far less concerned about
whether others perceive them as heterosexual (Anderson, Adams, & Rivers, 2012).
Although not a gender utopia, a significant body of research shows that young
men are now able to express themselves through a diverse spectrum of behaviors
and emotions that are, traditionally, socially coded as feminine. While the expres-
sion of masculinity in the previous century was inflexible and rigid, this century has
seen an expansion of gendered behaviors once branded as gay. Specifically, this
includes the ability for young heterosexual men to kiss and cuddle with one another
(Anderson, 2014; Anderson et al. 2012; Anderson & McCormack, 2015); enjoy
emotional intimacy, or bromances, with one another (Morales, 2018; Robinson,
Anderson, & White, 2018; Robinson, White, & Anderson, 2017); an expansion of
gender-acceptable fashions, such as tight trousers and pink clothes (Hall, 2014); a
removal of homophobic intent from homosexually themed language (Magrath, 2018;
McCormack, 2011; McCormack, Wignall, & Morris, 2016); a reduction of the ‘one-
time rule of homosexuality,’ permitting same-sex sexual experiences without evok-
ing homophobia (Scoats & Anderson, 2018; Scoats, Joseph, & Anderson, 2018);
and an expansion of men’s notions of heterosexuality (McCormack, 2012; Scoats,
2017).
This work has typically been situated within Eric Anderson’s (2009) theoretical
lens—inclusive masculinities. This has been the most prolific theory in framing
improved cultural attitudes toward homosexuality, but also in the consequential
expression of gender, too. Having initially observed the emergence of a more inclu-
sive form of masculinity in his cheerleading research (Anderson, 2005), Anderson
systemized Inclusive Masculinity Theory in his seminal text, Inclusive Masculinity:
The Changing Nature of Masculinities (2009). It was then further developed in con-
junction with Mark McCormack (see McCormack & Anderson, 2014a, 2014b), and,
in response to critiques, again two years later (see Anderson & McCormack, 2018).
As Steve Roberts outlines in Chap. 3, Inclusive Masculinity Theory is grounded
in empiricism. Moving away from Connell’s (1995) hierarchical explanation of
multiple masculinities, Inclusive Masculinity Theory argues that male youth are
becoming increasingly inclusive of what used to be so taboo—homosexuality. It
also argues that this decline has provided the cultural conditions in which hetero-
sexual men can relinquish the burden of policing their gendered behaviors. Put sim-
ply, homohysteria has declined, and younger generations of men (and indeed,
younger people in general) are less concerned of being thought of as gay.
Perhaps most interestingly, this has been especially evident in research on men’s
competitive team sport. Anderson’s (2002) pioneering research on openly gay ath-
letes in the US revealed a generally positive environment, and what he described as
the “increased acceptance of subjugated masculinities, such as gay identities”
(p. 873). Since this initial research, multiple research projects adopting primarily
qualitative, but also quantitative methodologies (see Bush, Anderson, & Carr, 2012;
Southall, Nagel, Anderson, Polite, & Southall, 2009; Zipp, 2011), have documented
this inclusivity in a variety of other sports, both team and individual, across the UK
and the US.
It is, perhaps, in soccer where this change is most profound, with almost a dozen
empirical projects indicating near-unanimous acceptance of openly gay team-
mates—irrespective of whether there were openly gay players on the team (e.g.
6 R. Magrath et al.
Adams, 2011; Adams & Kavanagh, 2018; Adams & Anderson, 2012; Magrath,
2017a, 2017b; Magrath, Anderson, & Roberts, 2015; Roberts, Anderson, & Magrath,
2017). Comparable findings have also been in other dominant sports, such as rugby
(e.g. Anderson & McGuire, 2010; McCormack & Anderson, 2010), as well as less-
mainstream sports, such as equine (e.g. Dashper, 2012). This has also extended to
heterosexual men’s inclusion in gay sports leagues (e.g. Jarvis, 2015), and increase
in acceptance of gay sports teams in general (e.g. Willis, 2015). Irrespective of the
sport, though, the data reveals a consistent pattern; a complete renegotiation of the
old masculine script so evident in research on masculinity and sport in the twentieth
century.
Inevitably, there have been critiques leveled at this body of work. Those who
have been especially vocal in their critique have pointed out that these findings are
primarily restricted to young, white, middle-class men. Given that the vast majority
of athletes are young, this does not, to us, seem to be a particularly harsh critique.
The overall whiteness of the field of inclusive masculinity research is a problem. It
is exacerbated by the fact that most scholars adopting the inclusive masculinity
framework live in England, which, according to the most recent Office for National
Statistics (ONS) data, is 86% White-British. While critiques centered on race and
class may initially appear to be accurate, more recent findings beyond these demo-
graphics have shown comparable levels of inclusivity. Blanchard, McCormack, and
Peterson (2017), for example, show that young, working-class boys in a sixth-form
college in North East England espouse positive attitudes toward homosexuality, as
well as engaging in physical tactility and emotional intimacy with one another.
Magrath’s (2017b) research with elite black footballers also shows high levels of
inclusivity. Other research has also examined the class dynamics in this process (see
Magrath, 2017a; Roberts, 2013, 2018a, 2018b).
In addition to the impact of class, this social trend of declining homophobia, as
well as broader patterns of inclusivity, is also evident among older patterns of men
(Dashper, 2012; Keleher & Smith, 2012; Magrath & Scoats, 2019; Twenge et al.,
2016). Other research has indicated that there is both a generational and a cohort
effect, simultaneously. For example, Cashmore and Cleland’s (2011, 2012) research
on sports fandom illustrates a significant decline in homophobia, with 93% of 3500
fans accepting of the presence of gay footballers in professional football (see also
Magrath, 2019). Football fans have also shown this on football fan forums in
England (Cleland, 2015; Cleland, Magrath, & Kian, 2018), though Kian, Clavio,
Vincent, and Shaw (2011) indicate that this is not the case in US sport.
But, despite evidence of attitudinal change across age cohorts, there remains an
absence of contemporary research that examines the performance and construction
of masculinity among men whose adolescence occurred in the 1960s, 1970s, and
1980s—or those who are in their 40s and older. Only Anderson and Fidler’s (2018)
research, with men over the age of 65, provides any insight as they show that these
men are resistant to broader social trends, with conservative attitudes toward
homosexuality and physical and emotional intimacy. However, more substantial
research into these age cohorts remains lacking, and is thus required to develop the
field of study further.
Finally, as the above sections have evidenced, research on changing patterns of

masculinity is predominantly restricted to studies in the UK, the US, and, to a lesser
degree, Australia (c.f. Drummond, Filiault, Anderson, & Jeffries, 2015). While
social attitude survey data continues to show that attitudes across the West continue
to soften (Pew, 2014), and numerous legal changes—such as the introduction of
same-sex marriage into almost 30 countries across the world over the past two
decades—we still know little of the construction of masculinities (and the relation-
ship with sport) in these countries. Some recent research, however, has sought to
address this gap in knowledge.
Evidencing this, Hasan, Aggleton, and Persson (2018) show that work, religion,
and sexuality are hugely influential in complicating the construction of masculini-
ties among Bangladeshi men. Elsewhere, Philip (2018) shows that young Indian
men express new practices of romantic and sexual expression, fashion, and consum-
erism, but largely try to hide these practices in light of how they are negatively
viewed by older gendered expectations and responsibilities on young men. And in
China, Hu’s (2018) analysis of Chinese movie posters shows that Chinese men are
becoming increasingly represented in more diverse ways, moving away from more
traditional images such as manual workers or soldiers. Other research has also
examined the relationship between masculinity and sport in Islamic countries
(Hamdi, Lachheb, & Anderson, 2016, 2018).
Thus, this ‘third phase’ of masculinities research—dubbed by Borkowska (2018)
as “Andersonian” given Eric Anderson’s dominance in facilitating a significant par-
adigm shift (e.g. Anderson & McCormack, 2018)—has seen significant evolution.
It has, for instance, added breadth and depth to the sometimes subtle, but oftentimes
explicit, changes in masculinity across the Western world, and, in some cases, fur-
ther afield. The Andersonian phase has, for example, moved away from the “hierar-
chical order of social relations where men attempt to distance themselves from
femininity or position themselves within the orthodox ideologies of manhood”
(Borkowska, 2018, p. 3). To ignore or overlook the shifts which have occurred dur-
ing this time is both short-sighted and dangerous.
But while we must acknowledge and accept the positive change which has
occurred during this time, we must also remain cautious; there remain areas of
which we know little, such as how masculinity might intersect with disability; there
are also areas which require further exploration in order to achieve data saturation,
such as the construction of masculinity among older generations of men, or how
other cultural, economic, and political factors influence matters. The Palgrave
Handbook of Masculinity and Sport is a small step toward achieving this goal.
Using the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport
As we acknowledged in the opening section to this chapter, the Palgrave Handbook

of Masculinity and Sport contains a range of chapters adopting a range of theoreti-
cal, conceptual, and methodological approaches. We draw upon work from
8 R. Magrath et al.
established scholars, whose work has already shaped the field of masculinity and
sport, as well as numerous emerging scholars, whose work seeks to make its mark
on the field. In order to establish some form of logical order to these chapters, the
Handbook is divided into five themed parts—each with a short introduction.
Because the field of research covered in this Handbook is so big, there are, inevita-
bly, overlaps between different parts and chapters. Thus, while it is near-impossible
for us to cover the topic comprehensively, this Handbook provides at least some
overview of both dominant and peripheral thinking shaping this area at the time of
writing. It also provides the basis for the complexities and possibilities for future
research in this area.
We must concede here that the Handbook is Western-centric. While we dedicate
a part to the international sporting masculinity—covering countries including
Poland, Peru, Turkey, Zimbabwe, and Sweden (and broader Scandinavia)—we also
recognize that this is relatively limited in explaining the complex relationship
between masculinity and sport across the world. But it does, at least, provide some
context of the ways in which the Western model or organized sport is practiced in
various countries throughout the world, as well as how this may intersect with
broader issues such as religion and/or gender.
In constructing this Handbook, we have also tried to be as inclusive of as many
sports as possible. Naturally, it is difficult to move away from the world’s most
dominant team sports—football (soccer), American football, and rugby—but we
also have evidence of how masculinity influences sports such as roller derby, wres-
tling, ice hockey, gymnastics, dance, rowing, horse racing, and karate. It must,
therefore, be recognized that while popular team sports largely shape our under-
standings of sport and masculinity, these are complex and varied in such peripheral
sports.
The relationship between sport, gender, and sexuality has been well-documented
since its emergence as a field around four decades ago. Of course, this Handbook
focuses one specific field—masculinity and sport. We are thus confident that this
Handbook offers a strong, inclusive, contemporary, and interdisciplinary contribu-
tion. We are hopeful that it will be of particular use to scholars already vested in the
field—whatever their status—as well as undergraduate or graduate students engag-
ing with this field for the first time. We thus anticipate that, irrespective of one’s
route into the field or where they are at with their journey, this Handbook will stand
as a valuable learning, teaching, and research resource.
About the Editors
The editors of the Handbook are three disparate and devoted researchers whose
combined expertise is both extensive and complementary. Each of us traveled a dif-
ferent route into the study of masculinity and sport. Rory Magrath is a British aca-
demic working at a British institution, Jamie Cleland is a British academic working
at an Australian institution, and Eric Anderson is an American academic based at a
British institution. We broadly represent three different age cohorts (at the time of
writing 29, 43, and 51, respectively).
Rory Magrath
Rory came to study sport, gender, and sexuality not because he was directly affected
by homophobia—he is heterosexual—but because he is an avid British football fan
who was deeply affected by witnessing a now-infamous incident in the world of
British sport and homophobia. The incident centered on the heterosexual Premier
League footballer, Graeme Le Saux, an athlete who, because of his perceived intel-
lectualism, was ridiculed for failing to align with that of traditional football culture.
This culminated in an impassioned exchange with Liverpool striker Robbie Fowler
in February 1999, who, during a match in front of 35,000 people at Stamford Bridge,
bent over in front of him—provocatively insinuating anal sex. As a nine-year-old,
Rory was in the stadium that day and, although too young to fully comprehend what
had happened, he still remembers the exchange between the two players; the dis-
comfort of the nearby assistant referee, the tasteless response from the referee, and
the angry response of the Chelsea supporters sat nearby.
Just over a decade later, this moment would continue to weigh heavily on his
conscience, eventually leading him to the academic study of sport, gender, and sex-
uality. Rory remained an avid football fan, but a football fan who wanted to make a
difference in the social acceptability of sexual variance in sport. Thus, in 2010,
when he was studying for a master’s degree at Loughborough University, he became
aware that, although football had long been viewed as a masculine domain (Cleland,
2015), very little empirical research at that time had been conducted on the extent
of homophobia in the British game. Instead, football was simply assumed as repre-
senting an exclusively homophobic environment, but with little evidence to support
this way of thinking.
The following year, he embarked on a PhD (supervised by Eric Anderson) to test
this homophobia hypothesis (see Magrath & Anderson, 2017) among young profes-
sional footballers. Here, he found that almost all the athletes he interviewed as part
of his research espoused positive attitudes toward homosexuality, gay rights, and the
hypothetical notion of playing with an openly gay teammate (see Magrath, 2017a,
2017b; Magrath et al., 2015). Moreover, he also found that these men expressed
their masculinity in a vastly different way than older research from this level of play
(e.g. Parker, 1996); these men engaged in emotional intimacy, physical tactility, and
even inclusive forms of football ‘banter’ (Roberts et al., 2017).
Since then, he has gone on to investigate the construction and expression of mas-
culinities among university graduates (Magrath & Scoats, 2019), football fans
(Magrath, 2018), college students, and staff (White, Magrath, & Thomas, 2018), as
well as how this has been influenced by the media (Gaston et al., 2018; Magrath,
2019). Further, he has also conducted research on bisexuality (Magrath, Cleland, &
Anderson, 2017), and the influence of sports policy (Magrath & Stott, 2018). He
continues to conduct empirical research into the relationship between sport, gender,
10 R. Magrath et al.
and sexuality—with a specific focus on masculinity—and is dedicated to making

sport a more inclusive space.
Jamie Cleland
Jamie initially came to the area of sport, gender, and sexuality in February 2010
when the English Football Association dropped a national campaign to tackle
homophobia in football as it was claimed that the game was not yet ready for one to
be implemented. The main assumption was that fans remained highly homophobic,
yet no evidence was provided to support such a claim. Hence, in collaboration with
Ellis Cashmore, they devised an online survey and captured the views of 3500 fans
and players from 35 countries across the world on the presence of a gay player. The
main finding being that 93% of fans and players who participated in the research
outlined their support for any player who came out as gay (Cashmore & Cleland,
2011, 2012, 2014).
Since then, he has analyzed the online response by fans engaging in internet mes-
sage boards toward the presence of gay footballers (Cleland, 2015; Cleland et al.,
2018) as well as analyzing the media’s coverage of gay Swedish footballer, Anton
Hysén (Cleland, 2014), gay British football referee, Ryan Atkin (Cleland, 2018),
and the bisexual British diver, Tom Daley (Magrath et al., 2017). His profile in this
field of research also led to him being called as an expert witness to present evi-
dence to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee as part of
their inquiry into homophobia in sport in May 2016.
Eric Anderson
Eric came out of the closet as America’s first openly gay high school coach in 1993
(Anderson, 2000). After he and his runners experienced a great deal of social hostil-
ity and physical violence, he embarked upon a PhD studying the intersection of
sport, masculinities, and sexualities. He worked with renowned gender scholar,
Francesca Cancian, and sport and masculinity scholar, Michael Messner. In 2002,
he published the first-ever examination of the experiences of openly gay men in
high school and collegiate sports (Anderson, 2002) which he built upon with the
first empirical examination of closeted gay men in sport for his 2005 book, In the
Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity (Anderson, 2005).
Anderson’s research showed that neither team sport nor individual sport athletes
suffered the same type of overt hostility that they had the decade earlier. He found a
great deal of intellectual acceptance of homosexuality, even if a don’t ask, don’t tell
culture persisted. He recognized that if gay men were having better experiences in
sport it must also mean that heterosexual men were changing their gendered dispo-
sitions. If, as Kimmel (1994) suggested, masculinity was all about homophobia, the
decline in homophobia that large-scale studies showed and his own research on
athletes found, meant that straight men’s masculinity must also be changing.
This influenced Anderson to study the experiences of straight men in sport. Here,
Anderson showed that the overt acceptance of gay men leads to highly positive
changes in the gendered behaviors of straight men. It is in this very large body of
research (Anderson, 2011a, 2012, 2013; Hargreaves & Anderson, 2014; Drummond
et al., 2015; Peterson & Anderson, 2012; Southall et al., 2009) that Anderson high-
lighted the ways in which young straight men related to each other romantically
(Robinson et al., 2018), semi-sexually (Anderson, Ripley, & McCormack, 2019),
and how it reduced prejudiced against sexual identities (Anderson & Adams, 2011)
activities, including being anally penetrated (Scoats et al., 2018).
The vastly different data that these—and many more—studies found, inclusive
of most of the research in this handbook, cannot be theorized by Connell’s notions
of hegemonic masculinity. Thus, in 2009, Anderson conceptualized Inclusive
Masculinity Theory to make sense of why men were so homophobic in the 1980s,
how this influenced their gendered behaviors, and what happens when it is homopho-
bia that becomes stigmatized, not homosexually. His theory, Inclusive Masculinity
Theory (2009, 2011b, 2013), was refined in 2014, basically maintains that because
it is impossible for heterosexual men to socially prove to their peers that they are not
gay, in a cultural zeitgeist which looks upon homosexuality with disgust and dis-
dain, straight men are influenced to attempt to prove that they are not gay by acting
in gendered ways associated opposite of femininity and by overly homophobia.
This masculine performance, the type which existed when Connell carved out the
field, no longer exists in the west today. No study since 2005 has actively shown that
a culture of orthodox masculinity dominates, anywhere in the Global West. It is for
this reason that Anderson (2014) declared that to assume that jocks have higher
rates of antipathy toward gay men, without evidence, was prejudice.
Anderson’s Inclusive Masculinity Theory has been widely adopted by scholars
who value evidence in their theorizing. It has led to the examination of how chang-
ing masculinities impact men in sport, education, prisons, medicine, entertainment,
religion, and other institutions. There is still work to be done in the field, and
Anderson highlights that this handbook substantially promotes our understanding
of the relationship between masculinity and sport.
References
Adams, A. (2011). “Josh wears pink cleats”: Inclusive masculinity on the soccer field. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58(5), 579–596.
Adams, A., & Anderson, E. (2012). Exploring the relationship between homosexuality and sport
among the teammates of a small, Midwestern Catholic college soccer team. Sport, Education
and Society, 17(3), 347–363.
Adams, A., & Kavanagh, E. (2018). Inclusive ideologies and passive performances: Exploring
masculinities and attitudes toward gay peers among boys in an elite youth football academy.
Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 313–322.
Anderson, E. (2000). Trailblazing: The true story of America’s first openly gay track coach. Los
Angeles: Allyson Press.
Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic

environment. Gender and Society, 16(6), 860–877.
Anderson, E. (2005). In the game: Gay athletes and the cult of masculinity. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. New York:
Routledge.
Anderson, E. (2011a). Inclusive masculinities of university soccer players in the American
Midwest. Gender and Education, 23(6), 729–744.
Anderson, E. (2011b). The rise and fall of western homohysteria. Journal of Feminist Scholarship,
1(1), 80–94.
Anderson, E. (2012). Shifting masculinities in Anglo-American countries. Masculinities & Social
Change, 1(1), 40–60.
Anderson, E. (2013). Masculinity and homophobia in high school and college sports: A personal
journey from coach to researcher. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying (pp. 132–143).
London: Routledge.
Anderson, E. (2014). 21st century jocks: Sporting men and contemporary heterosexuality.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderson, E., & Adams, A. (2011). “Aren’t we all a little bisexual?”: The recognition of bisexual-
ity in an unlikely place. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(1), 3–22.
Anderson, E., Adams, A., & Rivers, I. (2012). “I kiss them because I love them”: The emergence
of heterosexual men kissing in British institutes of education. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
41(2), 421–430.
Anderson, E., & Fidler, C. O. (2018). Elderly British men: Homohysteria and orthodox masculini-
ties. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 248–259.
Anderson, E., & Magrath, R. (2019). Men and masculinities. London: Routledge.
Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2015). Cuddling and spooning: Heteromasculinity and homoso-
cial tactility among student-athletes. Men and Masculinities, 18(2), 214–230.
Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2018). Inclusive masculinity theory: Overview, reflection and
refinement. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(5), 547–561.
Anderson, E., & McGuire, R. (2010). Inclusive masculinity theory and the gendered politics of
men’s rugby. Journal of Gender Studies, 19(3), 249–261.
Anderson, E., Ripley, M., & McCormack, M. (2019). A mixed-method study of same-sex kissing
among college-attending heterosexual men in the US. Sexuality & Culture, 23(1), 26–44.
Anderson, E., & White, A. (2018). Sport, theory and social problems: A critical introduction (2nd
ed.). London: Routledge.
Atkinson, E., & DePalma, R. (2008). Invisible boundaries: Addressing sexualities equality in chil-
dren’s worlds. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Blanchard, C., McCormack, M., & Peterson, G. (2017). Inclusive masculinities in a working-class
sixth form in northeast England. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 46(3), 310–333.
Borkowska, K. (2018). Approaches to studying masculinity: A nonlinear perspective of theoretical
paradigms. Men and Masculinities (OnlineFirst). https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18768376
Bush, A., Anderson, E., & Carr, S. (2012). The declining existence of men’s homophobia in British
sport. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 6(1), 107–120.
Carpentier, F., & Lefèvre, J. P. (2006). The modern Olympic Movement, women’s sport and the
social order during the inter-war period. International Journal of the History of Sport, 23(7),
1112–1127.
Cashmore, E., & Cleland, J. (2011). Glasswing butterflies: Gay professional football players and
their culture. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(4), 420–436.
Cashmore, E., & Cleland, J. (2012). Fans, homophobia and masculinities in association football:
Evidence of a more inclusive environment. British Journal of Sociology, 63(2), 370–387.
Cashmore, E., & Cleland, J. (2014). Football’s dark side: Corruption, homophobia, violence and
racism in the beautiful game. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clarke, G. (1998). Queering the pitch and coming out to play: Lesbians in physical education and
sport. Sport, Education and Society, 3(2), 145–160.
Cleland, J. (2014). Association football and the representation of homosexuality by the print
media: A case study of Anton Hysén. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9), 1269–1287.
Cleland, J. (2015). Discussing homosexuality on association football fan message boards: A
changing cultural context. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(2), 125–140.
Cleland, J. (2018). Britain’s first openly gay football referee: The story of Ryan Atkin. In
R. Magrath (Ed.), LGBT athletes in the sport media (pp. 125–146). London: Routledge.
Cleland, J., Magrath, R., & Kian, E. (2018). The internet as a site of decreasing cultural homophobia
in association football: An online response by fans to the coming out of Thomas Hitzlsperger.
Men and Masculinities, 21(1), 91–111.
Clements, B., & Field, C. D. (2014). Public opinion toward homosexuality and gay rights in Great
Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(2), 523–547.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Curry, T. J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about
competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(2), 119–135.
Dashper, K. (2012). ‘Dressage is full of queens!’ Masculinity, sexuality and equestrian sport.
Sociology, 46(6), 1109–1124.
David, D., & Brannon, R. (1976). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Drummond, M. J., Filiault, S. M., Anderson, E., & Jeffries, D. (2015). Homosocial intimacy
among Australian undergraduate men. Journal of Sociology, 51(3), 643–656.
Dunning, E. (1986). Sport as a male preserve: Notes on the social sources of masculine identity
and its transformations. Theory, Culture & Society, 3(1), 79–90.
Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Floyd, K. (2000). Affectionate same-sex touch: The influence of homophobia on observers’ per-
ceptions. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(6), 774–788.
Gaston, L., Magrath, R., & Anderson, E. (2018). From hegemonic to inclusive masculinities in
English professional football: Marking a cultural shift. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3),
301–312.
Griffin, P. (1998). Strong women, deep closets: Lesbians and homophobia in sport. Leeds: Human
Kinetics Publishers.
Hall, M. (2014). Metrosexual masculinities. New York: Springer.
Hamdi, N., Lachheb, M., & Anderson, E. (2016). Queen of fights: Lesbians in Tunisian sports.
Journal of Homosexuality, 63(8), 1127–1145.
Hamdi, N., Lachheb, M., & Anderson, E. (2018). Muslim gay men: Identity conflict and politics in
a Muslim majority nation. British Journal of Sociology, 69(4), 1293–1312.
Hargreaves, J., & Anderson, E. (Eds.). (2014). Routledge handbook of sport, gender and sexuality.
London: Routledge.
Hasan, M. K., Aggleton, P., & Persson, A. (2018). The makings of a man: Social generational
masculinities in Bangladesh. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 347–361.
Hearn, J., Nordberg, M., Andersson, K., Balkmar, D., Gottzén, L., Klinth, R., et al. (2012).
Hegemonic masculinity and beyond: 40 years of research in Sweden. Men and Masculinities,
15(1), 31–55.
Hekma, G. (1998). “As long as they don’t make an issue of it…” Gay men and lesbians in orga-
nized sports in the Netherlands. Journal of Homosexuality, 35(1), 1–23.
Hu, L. (2018). Is masculinity ‘deteriorating ‘in China? Changes of masculinity representation in
Chinese film posters from 1951 to 2016. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 335–346.
Jarvis, N. (2015). The inclusive masculinities of heterosexual men within UK gay sport clubs.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(3), 283–300.
Keleher, A., & Smith, E. R. (2012). Growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990.
Journal of Homosexuality, 59(9), 1307–1326.
Kian, E. M., Clavio, G., Vincent, J., & Shaw, S. D. (2011). Homophobic and sexist yet uncon-
tested: Examining football fan postings on Internet message boards. Journal of Homosexuality,
58(5), 680–699.
Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction
of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorising masculinities (pp. 119–141).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kimmel, M. S., Hearn, J., & Connell, R. W. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of studies on men and mas-
culinities. London: Sage.
Loftus, J. (2001). America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.
American Sociological Review, 66, 762–782.
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling.
Buckinghamshire: Open University Press.
Magrath, R. (2017a). Inclusive masculinities in contemporary football: Men in the beautiful game.
London: Routledge.
Magrath, R. (2017b). The intersection of race, religion and homophobia in British football.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52(4), 411–429.
Magrath, R. (2018). ‘To try and gain an advantage for my team’: Homophobic and homosexually
themed chanting among English football fans. Sociology, 52(4), 709–726.
Magrath, R. (Ed.). (2019). LGBT athletes in the sports media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Magrath, R., & Anderson, E. (2017). Football, homosexuality and the English Premier League.
In R. Elliott (Ed.), The English Premier League: A socio-cultural analysis (pp. 150–164).
London: Routledge.
Magrath, R., Anderson, E., & Roberts, S. (2015). On the door-step of equality: Attitudes toward
gay athletes among academy-level footballers. International Review for the Sociology of Sport,
50(7), 804–821.
Magrath, R., Cleland, J., & Anderson, E. (2017). Bisexual erasure in the British print media:
Representation of Tom Daley’s coming out. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(3), 300–317.
Magrath, R., & Scoats, R. (2019). Young men’s friendships: Inclusive masculinities in a post-
university setting. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), 45–56.
Magrath, R., & Stott, P. (2018). ‘Impossible to implement?’: The effectiveness of anti-homophobia
policy in English professional football. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics
(Online First). https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1479284.
McCormack, M. (2011). Mapping the terrain of homosexually-themed language. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58(5), 664–679.
McCormack, M. (2012). The declining significance of homophobia: How teenage boys are redefin-
ing masculinity and heterosexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2010). The re-production of homosexually-themed discourse in
educationally-based organised sport. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12(8), 913–927.
McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2014a). The influence of declining homophobia on men’s gender
in the United States: An argument for the study of homohysteria. Sex Roles, 71(3–4), 109–120.
McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2014b). Homohysteria: Definitions, context and intersectional-
ity. Sex Roles, 71(3–4), 152–158.
McCormack, M., Wignall, L., & Morris, M. (2016). Gay guys using gay language: Friendship,
shared values and the intent-context-effect matrix. British Journal of Sociology, 67(4), 747–767.
McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male sex role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31(9–10), 517–531.
Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. (1990). Toward a critical feminist reappraisal of sport, men, and the
gender order. In M. A. Messner & D. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical
feminist perspectives (pp. 1–29). Windsor, ON: Human Kinetics.
Moller, M. (2007). Exploiting patterns: A critique of hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Gender
Studies, 16(3), 263–276.
Morales, L. E. (2018). The impact of gay friendly cultures on religious expression: A study of
inclusive attitudes and behaviours among religious adolescent American male athletes. Journal
of Gender Studies, 27(3), 323–334.
Morin, S. F., & Garfinkle, E. M. (1978). Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 29–47.
Nayak, A., & Kehily, M. J. (1996). Playing it straight: Masculinities, homophobias and schooling.
Journal of Gender Studies, 5(2), 211–230.
Nixon, D., & Givens, D. (2007). An epitaph to Section 28? Telling tales out of school about
changes and challenges to discourses of sexuality. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 20(4), 449–471.
Nixon, H. L. (1993). Accepting the risks of pain and injury in sport: Mediated cultural influences
on playing hurt. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(2), 183–196.
O’Shea, M. (1909). Masculinity in the schools. Wisconsin Journal of Education, 40(1), 81.
Parker, A. (1996). Chasing the ‘big-time’: Football apprenticeships in the 1990s (Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Warwick).
Peterson, G. T., & Anderson, E. (2012). The performance of softer masculinities on the university
dance floor. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 20(1), 3–15.
Pew. (2014). The global divide on homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.
org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/revised-report-images-6/
Philip, S. (2018). Caught in-between: Social developments and young men in urban India. Journal
of Gender Studies, 27(3), 362–370.
Pleck, J. (1975). Issues for the men’s movement: Summer, 1975. Changing Men: A newsletter for
men against sexism, pp. 21–23.
Plummer, D. (1999). One of the boys: Masculinity, homophobia and modern manhood. New York:
Harrington Park Press.
Pronger, B. (1990). The arena of masculinity: Sports, homosexuality, and the meaning of sex.
New York: St Martin’s Press.
Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspectives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Roberts, S. (2013). Boys will be boys… won’t they? Change and continuities in contemporary
young working-class masculinities. Sociology, 47(4), 671–686.
Roberts, S. (2018a). Young working-class men in transition. London: Routledge.
Roberts, S. (2018b). Domestic labour, masculinity and social change: Insights from working-class
young men’s transitions to adulthood. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), 274–287.
Roberts, S., Anderson, E., & Magrath, R. (2017). Continuity, change and complexity in the perfor-
mance of masculinity among elite young footballers in England. British Journal of Sociology,
68(2), 336–357.
Robinson, S., Anderson, E., & White, A. (2018). The bromance: Undergraduate male friendships
and the expansion of contemporary homosocial boundaries. Sex Roles, 78(1–2), 94–106.
Robinson, S., White, A., & Anderson, E. (2017). Privileging the bromance: A critical appraisal of
romantic and bromantic relationships. Men and Masculinities (Online First). https://doi.org/1
0.1177/1097184X17730386.
Salisbury, J., & Jackson, D. (1996). Challenging macho values: Practical ways of working with
adolescent boys. London: Falmer Press.
Scoats, R. (2017). Inclusive masculinity and Facebook photographs among early emerging adults
at a British university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(3), 323–345.
Scoats, R., & Anderson, E. (2018). ‘My partner was just all over her’: Jealousy, communication
and rules in mixed-sex threesomes. Culture, Health & Sexuality (Online First). https://doi.org/
10.1080/13691058.2018.1453088.
Scoats, R., Joseph, L. J., & Anderson, E. (2018). ‘I don’t mind watching him cum’: Heterosexual
men, threesomes, and the erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sexualities, 21(1–2),
30–48.
Southall, R. M., Nagel, M. S., Anderson, E., Polite, F. G., & Southall, C. (2009). An investigation
of male college athletes’ attitudes toward sexual-orientation. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics, 2(1), 62–77.
Stott, P. (2019). Traditional and contemporary methods of coming out in sport. In R. Magrath
(Ed.), LGBT athletes in the sports media (pp. 75–98). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Changes in American adults’ reported
same-sex sexual experiences and attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7),
1713–1730.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1988). Silence and policy talk: Historical puzzles about gender and edu-
cation. Educational Researcher, 17(3), 33–41.
Weeks, J. (2007). The world we have won: The remaking of erotic and intimate life. London:
Routledge.
White, A. J., Magrath, R., & Thomas, B. (2018). The experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual
students and staff at a Further Education college in South East England. British Educational
Research Journal, 44(3), 480–495.
Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in same-sex
friendship. Sex Roles, 12(5–6), 587–600.
Willis, T. (2015). Kicking down barriers: Gay footballers, challenging stereotypes and changing
attitudes in amateur league play. Soccer and Society, 16(2–3), 377–392.
Woog, D. (1998). Jocks: True stories of America’s gay male athletes. New York: Alyson.
Zipp, J. F. (2011). Sport and sexuality: Athletic participation by sexual minority and sexual major-
ity adolescents in the US. Sex Roles, 64(1–2), 19–31.
Part I
The Foundations of Masculinity and Sport
Part I Introduction
The opening part of The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport examines the
foundations of masculinity and sport. As we examined at length in the opening
chapter, the historical relationship between masculinity and sport has changed sig-
nificantly over the past century. Indeed, as the process of deindustrialization takes
its hold over the West, sport’s cultural significance has shifted quite considerably.
Accordingly, the chapters in this part of the book reflect this long and varied history,
focusing on a range of historical factors and theoretical perspectives.
In Chap. 2, Brittany Ralph and Steven Roberts provide an outline of the most
dominant theorizing of masculinity over the past few decades. They discuss early
theoretical contributions by various feminist scholars and Sex Role Theorists, as
well as the relevant sociological critiques which laid the foundations for contempo-
rary masculinity theories. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its dominant position in
masculinity studies, Raewyn Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is out-
lined, applied, and critiqued. Eric Anderson’s Inclusive Masculinity Theory is then
discussed as a more contemporary and effective means of theorizing masculinity in
the twenty-first century—especially in men’s teamsports.
In Chap. 3, Erik N. Jensen discusses the historic presentation, development, and
celebration of male athleticism in Germany’s Weimar Republic. Examined through
a range of mediums—including commentaries, reports, photographs, films, and fan-
dom—his research shows that early celebrations of athletic beauty in the 1920s
encouraged athletes to objectify themselves in a manner which consciously mocked
female models’ self-presentations. Jensen also argues that these objectifications of
athletic beauty established a precedent for the erotic presentation and self-
presentation of athletes which, in certain cases, still remain today.
Next, in Chap. 4, Campbell Williams provides a fascinating autobiographical
account of his family’s sporting prowess and involvement in one of the largest sports
clubs in his local area—Trojans. Discussing specific members of his family, and
their participation in professional and amateur sport, Williams examines the change
18 Part I The Foundations of Masculinity and Sport
in the moral zeitgeist over the past century and outlines the significance of particular
sporting moments. These include the first ‘Golden Era’ of Welsh rugby union and
the All Blacks’ tour of the UK in the early-twentieth century. Williams examines
how these apparently mundane events have had a significant impact on the relation-
ship between masculinity and sport. He also reflects on his role as Chairman of
Trojans, and how this has created certain challenges in respect of ensuring increased
gender equity at the club—both on and off the field. Finally, he concludes by recom-
mending further research to understand the impact of sport and sports clubs’ influ-
ence on wider community behavior.
Concluding this opening part, in Chap. 5, Kevin Dixon focuses on British foot-
ball’s sexual abuse scandal, unearthed in 2016. By drawing on the perspectives of a
range of current and former British footballers, Dixon outlines two polarizing views
in his findings. First, he illustrates how football’s apparent hypermasculine culture
can encourage the reproduction of the ‘archetypical’ strong, silent male—a situa-
tion which is thought to discourage public disclosure of sexual abuse. In contrast,
however, he also provides further evidence that football is undergoing a process of
cultural change—and is becoming increasingly acceptant and inclusive of multiple
masculinities that is encouraging players to share any personal issues they are
facing.
Chapter 2
Theories of Men and Masculinity,
and Their Ability to Account for Positive
Change
Brittany Ralph and Steven Roberts
Introduction
Towards the turn of the twentieth century, Britain was in the grip of a moral panic
over the supposed ‘softening’ of boys’ masculinity, the collective response to which
was a cultural obsession with and institutionalization of competitive team sport,
particularly football, as means of reversing this emasculation (Magrath, Anderson,
& Roberts, 2015). Since then, the view that traditional masculine norms (epito-
mized in and celebrated by professional contact sports) support a violent, dysfunc-
tional, and oppressive version of manhood has become a mainstream critique in
many Western countries. This version of manhood has, until very recently, been
considered to be intimately tied to organized sport, with a long prevailing view that
‘sport directly supports male dominance’ and ‘associate[s] males and maleness with
valued skills and the sanctioned use of aggression/force/violence’ (Bryson, 1987,
p. 349). The latter sentiment is captured by Messner’s (1990, p. 203) assessment
that ‘in many of our most popular sports, the achievement of goals (scoring and
winning) is predicated on the successful utilization of violence’. This dominance
and associated violence has also long been held to operate alongside a virulent
homophobia, meaning that ‘gay men who are seen as queer and effeminate are
granted no space whatsoever in what is generally considered to be a masculine pre-
serve and a macho enterprise’ (Hekma, 1998, p. 2; see also Wolf Wendel, Toma, &
Morphew, 2001). Sport is thus seen in this formulation to define, produce, celebrate,
and perpetuate the dominant, negative, and dangerous form of masculinity, and to
have exclusionary and other pernicious effects on women and some men.
This position, however, did not emerge overnight; rather, it was established
through decades of critical masculinity scholarship seeking to dismantle and desta-
bilize ‘the presumed naturalness of gender that had dominated academic thought for
B. Ralph (*) • S. Roberts

Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: brittany.ralph1@monash.edu; steven.d.roberts@monash.edu
© The Author(s) 2020 19

R. Magrath et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19799-5_2
20 B. Ralph and S. Roberts
centuries’ (Roberts, 2018, p. 41). Prior to this, men’s issues, in relation to sport or
otherwise, were considered human issues (Hacker, 1957) and, although men were
the default subject of most human research, it was not until the emergence of the
critical study of men and masculinities (CSMM) that maleness (and its attendant
privileges) became an object of examination. Since then, the field has developed a
considerable theoretical apparatus that highlights the existence of a plurality of
masculinities, the diversity of existence, and the ways men are stratified within this
plurality. Notably, Inclusive Masculinity scholars have documented a widespread
rejection of the homophobia that was once considered central to masculinity, along-
side an increasing physical and emotional closeness between male friends and,
importantly, teammates in high school, collegiate, and professional-level sporting
teams (e.g. Anderson, 2002, 2005, 2008b, 2010; Roberts, Anderson, & Magrath,
2016; Magrath, 2017; Channon & Matthews, 2015; Adams, 2011; Murray & White,
2017). However, some men find this multiplicity profoundly threatening, so the
cultural shift towards softer masculinities is by no means proceeding unchallenged.
As appears to have happened periodically over the last 100 years or so, a ‘crisis of
masculinity’ rhetoric is again circulating across western political and media spheres,
with calls for a return to traditional values of toughness, stoicism, and a boys will be
boys attitude resonating in some public discourse. The challenge for masculinity
theorists has been, and continues to be, to account for this seemingly binary forma-
tion of contemporary masculinities, to characterize the nature of changes occurring
in masculinities, and to identify how and upon whom they impact.
This chapter outlines developments in masculinity theory to date and the concep-
tual debates that currently occupy the field. We begin by discussing the early contri-
butions to gender studies by feminist scholars and Sex Role Theorists, and the
sociological critiques of this work that laid the foundation for contemporary mascu-
linity theory. The field’s prevailing theoretical apparatus, such as Connell’s
(1987) concept of hegemonic masculinity and Anderson’s (2009) Inclusive
Masculinity Theory (IMT), are then outlined. While we make occasional reference
to how these ideas have been developed in the study of men and sport, our main
purpose here is to sketch out the theory and the associated debates more broadly, in
a way that enables readers to engage with and better understand how the theory and
empirical evidence are used in the volume’s coming chapters.
rom the Science of Male Society to the Critical Study of Men

F
and Masculinities
The women’s movement of the 1970s, alongside a burgeoning field of Sex Role
Theory, laid the groundwork for the CSMM. Prior to this, very few studies exam-
ined the experience of being a man (e.g. Hartley, 1959; Sexton, 1969; Hacker,
1957). This research reproduced traditional gender stereotypes and, to an extent,
attributed men’s socially problematic behaviour to the influence of women. Feminist
2 Theories of Men and Masculinity, and Their Ability to Account for Positive Change 21
theory, however, drew attention to the inequality inherent in gender relations—that

as heads of family and state, men were afforded a disproportionate amount of power
and privilege within patriarchal societies (Gurfinkel, 2012). Through their critique
of male power, feminists produced a theoretical framework and lexis that became
the bedrock of gender studies. Simultaneously, Sex Role Theory questioned the
nature of gender itself, arguing that the division of labour required women and men
to specialize in ‘complementary’, ‘instrumental’, and ‘expressive’ roles (Parsons &
Bales, 1953). This theorizing ‘highlighted the arbitrariness and constructed nature
of gender, as opposed to seeing gender as innate and inevitable’; gender was framed
as learned rather than biologically determined (Berggren, 2014, p. 234). Importantly,
this framework suggested that masculinity may not represent the true nature of men
(Thompson & Pleck, 1986).
The most influential perspective relating to the male sex role of its time was
Brannon and David’s (1976) four-pronged proposition of socially mandated gender
norms for boys: ‘No Sissy Stuff’—prohibiting femininity; ‘Be a Big Wheel’—
endorsing masculinity as measured by success and the admiration of others; ‘Be a
Sturdy Oak’—requiring stoicism over emotions and strength over weakness; and
‘Give ’em Hell’—valorizing risk taking, aggression, and agency through resistance.
In Sex Role Theory, this process of masculinization ‘requires an ongoing regime of
positive and negative reinforcements’ (Edley, 2017, p. 41). Alongside the conceptu-
alization of male power offered by feminist scholars, this decoupling of gender from
biological sex disrupted the previously accepted belief that the traditional gender
dichotomy was natural and necessary for healthy societies (Thompson & Pleck,
1986). However, the critique of these frameworks offered by sociologists formed
the theoretical basis for contemporary masculinity theory.
The categorical thinking that feminism set out to reject crept back into its own
analyses. Phrases like ‘male power’, ‘male violence’, and ‘malestream thought’,
CSMM scholars argued, once again aligned, and implicitly attributed the social to
the biological; ‘the biological fact of maleness [was] attached to the social fact of
power’, while ‘the biological fact of femaleness [became] the central way of defin-
ing the experience of women’ (Connell, 1985, p. 265). This logic collapsed men
into a homogeneous group, rendering other social divisions such as race, ability,
sexuality, and class less visible (Connell, 1985). It also allowed ‘the hard-line
male chauvinist’ to attribute men’s socially disruptive and sexist behaviours to
maleness, rather than the man himself (Connell, 1985, p. 265). Connell (1985,
p. 267) contended that achieving gender equality requires more than repurposed
categoricalism:
We need ways of grasping the interweaving of personal lives and social structure without
collapsing towards voluntarism and shapeless pluralism on one side, or categoricalism and
biological determinism on the other.
Turning her attention to Sex Role Theory, Connell felt it relied on a drastically inad-
equate account of gender, and was unable ‘to conceptualize power (and resistance
to power) as an essential feature of relationships between genders and within gen-
ders’ (Demetriou, 2001, p. 338).
CSMM scholars critiqued Sex Role Theory for its confusing and inadequate
definitions (Edwards, 1983), the distinct lack of historical or structural analysis and
its inability to account for the economic and political power men exercise over
women (Pease, 2002). Connell, in particular, lamented Sex Role Theory for failing
to theorize structural relations of dominance and power between femininities and
masculinities, and for failing to explain the continued global dominance of men
over women. Further, she argued that by representing any deviation from one’s sex
role (as it applies to the sexed body) as a kind of ‘failure’ in socialization, these roles
were conceptualized as both prescribing what men ought to be, but also apparently
describing what men are commonly thought to be. However, what is normative and
what is common are very different things, and distinguishing them is a central com-
ponent in recognizing that ‘normative’ might be ‘a definition of what the holders of
social power wish to have accepted’ (Connell, 1987). Relatedly, following Edwards
(1983), Connell (1987) illustrated that this focus on the normative necessitated a
simplified binary model of gender, one that assumes that all men and women
(besides the allegedly deviant failures) can be neatly captured as one group on either
side of the binary. Lastly, and importantly, Connell argued that Sex Role Theory had
‘no way of grasping change as a dialectic arising within gender relations them-
selves’ (Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1985, p. 578).
Responding to the inadequate account of male power produced by Sex Role
Theorists and the ‘repurposed categoricalism’ offered by feminist scholars, Connell
offered a novel synthesis and theoretical expansion that paid greater attention to
social institutions, social structure, and gender plurality. Blending concepts of hege-
mony from Gramscian class analyses, oppressive power dynamics from the gay
liberation movement, and male gender identity from psychoanalysis, Connell pro-
duced the first and, to date, most prominent social constructionist concept to the
CSMM literature—hegemonic masculinity (see below) (Connell & Messerschmidt,
2005). Simultaneously, various other sociologists began to examine the social
implications of masculinity and male power from a social constructionist perspec-
tive, questioning both the unity and social utility of traditional masculine norms.
Key contributions include the conceptualization of masculinity as a homosocial
enactment (i.e. men seek approval from and compete against other men to establish
their manhood), and of homophobia (in the traditional sense but more as a form of
anti-femininity) as central to the production and reproduction of traditional mascu-
linities within these homosocial interactions (Kimmel, 1994). The significant and
lurking threat of homophobic taunts functions as a powerful mechanism of control
between men, ensuring they avoid behaviours that may be read as effeminate and
constantly uphold the traditional gender order (Martino, Kehler, & Weaver-
Hightower, 2009). Consequently, men avoid the forms of physical and emotional
nurturance and support that are common between women (Rubin, 1985), for fear of
being ‘unmasked’ as ‘not a real man’ (Kimmel, 1994). Why, then, do men engage
in such relentless gendered boundary work? Connell (1987) notes that to assume
that men enforce social sanctions of masculinity on their male peers simply because
they too are acting in accordance with social expectations would lead to infinite
regress. Addressing this dilemma, Connell (1987) argues for an understanding of
masculinities as multiple and hierarchical; that in any given culture, there exists one
form of hegemonic masculinity, and men’s ability to access the patriarchal dividend
depends on the extent to which they support and abide by this ideal.
ultiple Masculinities: Connell’s Theorizing of Masculinity,

M
Hierarchy, and Power
By conceptualizing masculinities as multiple and hierarchical, Connell’s (1987)

concept of hegemonic masculinity reconciles the lived reality of these asymmetries
between men with the fact of men’s dominance over women. Using this logic, atten-
tion could be paid to the ‘different ways of enacting manhood, different ways of
being a man’ (Connell, 2000, p. 10), and, crucially, to how relations of power and
hierarchy were produced, maintained, and contested between different masculini-
ties. The foundation of Connell’s contribution was the incorporation into gender
theorizing of Gramsci’s (1971) well-known concept of hegemony, which has been
used to illustrate how ruling classes consensually maintained control and authority.
Applying this to her theorization of the gender order, Connell explained how
hegemonic masculinity operates as a configuration of gender practice that ideologi-
cally legitimates, ‘through discursive cultural influence and discursive persuasion’
(Messerschmidt, 2016, p. 20), the dominant position of men and the subordination
of women, and simultaneously facilitates men’s access to institutional and eco-
nomic privilege. These ideas are crucial in understanding Connell’s (1987, p. 13)
preference for the notion of ‘gender order’, over and above (but not totally disre-
garding) the more static concept of patriarchy, as it draws attention to the fact that
‘although men are the major perpetrators of violence, and one overall effect of this
violence is the continued subordination of women, a large proportion of men’s vio-
lence is directed at other men’ (Messner, 1990, p. 206).
Specifically, Connell posits that, in any given culture, multiple masculinities can
exist but only one will constitute ‘the currently most honoured way of being a man’
and generate hegemony externally over women, and internally over other forms of
masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). While not associated with a
particular set of traits per se (Messerschmidt, 2016), hegemonic masculinity is often
‘characterized by numerous attributes such as domination, aggressiveness, competi-
tiveness, athletic prowess, stoicism and control’ (Cheng, 1999, p. 298). As the
archetype of hegemonic masculinity is historically contingent, however, the specific
characteristics that form the culturally ascendant archetype are always those that are
most honoured or desired in a particular context (Connell, 2005).
For most of the latter twentieth century, this archetype has accorded with adher-
ence to male breadwinner ideals, homophobia, misogyny, and suspiciousness of
anything connoting femininity. Much of this is particularly evident in western sport-
ing cultures, within which the negative evaluation of women’s capacities inferior-
izes women and promotes male solidarity (Bryson, 1987) and co-exists with
thoughts that toughness and physicality are requisite to be successful in a variety of

sports contexts (Anderson, 2009; Hirose & Pih, 2010). Accordingly, sport is said to
be a ‘powerful institution through which male hegemony is constructed and recon-
structed’, as it ‘links maleness with highly valued and visible skills and… with the
positively sanctioned use of aggression/force/violence’ (Bryson, 1987, p. 350), and
that sport itself has traditionally served as a test for masculinity (Anderson, 2002).
Correspondingly, commentary about association football, for example, postulates
that footballers are required to perform a certain type of maleness and that the sport
is a ‘major signifier of successful masculinity’ (Epstein, 1998, p. 7).
Connell (1987, p. 185) suggests that the focus for masculinity scholars be ‘not
necessarily what powerful men are, but what sustains their power and what large
numbers of men are motivated to support’. Accordingly, hegemonic masculinity is
defined as a historically mobile pattern of practice, characterized by men’s collec-
tive interest in maintaining a dominant social position, such that the hegemonic
archetype will assume whichever form necessary for the reproduction of these rela-
tions (Connell, 2005). Change is therefore central to the maintenance of this hierar-
chy. However, even if a ‘more humane, less oppressive, means of being a man’
becomes hegemonic, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005, p. 833) state that the hege-
mony of any archetype always serves to ‘stabilize patriarchal power or reconstitute
it in new conditions’. In this way, hegemonic masculinity is not simply concerned
with relations between men and masculinities, ‘but encompasses gender identities,
relations, and conflicts—the gender order more widely’ (Gough, 2018, p. 4).
A crucial feature of hegemonic masculinity is that ‘only a minority of men
express and perform its pattern’ (Whitehead, 2002, p. 93). Indeed, it is an ideal that
most men cannot attain (Edley, 2017). Accordingly, another issue integral to the
legitimization of hegemonic masculinity is the subordination and marginalization—
but not elimination—of other masculinities through hegemonic processes (Connell,
2005). For Donaldson (1993, p. 644), ‘heterosexuality and homophobia are the bed-
rock of hegemonic masculinity’, thus it is unsurprising that the most commonly
cited example of subordinated masculinities is gay masculinity. There is thus a
strong symbolic blurring of male same-sex attraction with femininity (Connell,
2005); and gay masculinities represent the repository of all that has been expelled
from hegemonic masculinity (Howson, 2006). Outside of these subordinated mas-
culinities are what Connell (2005, p. 80) labels marginalized masculinities—those
that emerge from the interplay between gender and other structures such as class
and race, with white, middle-class, able-bodied men benefiting most from this hier-
archical arrangement.
How, then, is hegemony achieved if it requires consent? Connell’s answer to this
question is twofold. First, some level of ‘authorisation’ occurs (Howson, 2006,
p. 64), because some marginalized or subordinated men can escape (especially eco-
nomic) powerlessness through avenues such as the media, music, or sports. However,
such exceptions do not unsettle the gender order or lead to a trickle-down effect that
empowers marginalized or subordinated masculinity more broadly. Second, sand-
wiched between hegemonic and subordinated masculinities are complicit mascu-
linities. Most men fit within this form, and while they do not necessarily achieve the
normative standards of hegemonic masculinity, they are seen to be ‘the central allies
of those holding power … [and] a strong pillar of patriarchal gender order’ (Aboim,
2010, p. 42). Men who follow this pattern of masculinity are not actively advocating
for or realizing the needs for political change, and certainly benefit from the ‘patri-
archal dividend’ resulting from women’s economic oppression (Connell, 2005).
While being respectful, non-violent husbands, partners, fathers—and simply col-
leagues and friends to women—men performing complicit masculinity are argued
to sanction and validate hegemonic forms.
Like all good social theory, Connell’s theorizing has been subjected to extensive
critical engagement, with various scholars offering critiques of hegemonic mascu-
linity and/or proposing adaptations or reformulations. These include: the vagueness
and convenience of catch-all terms like hegemony and complicity (McCormack,
2012); the inconsistent use of hegemonic masculinity as both an archetype and a
process (see Messerschmidt, 2016); questions over how to delineate various mascu-
linities, given that what is subordinated in one context might be hegemonic in another
(Aboim, 2010); and that complicity and resistance to hegemonic norms can co-exist
or be combined (Wetherell & Edley, 1999). Further, arguing the virtues of postmod-
ernist perspectives, Beasley (2012, p. 759) posits that Connell’s work encourages
development of unhelpfully homogenizing typologies, leaving ‘the political logic of
hegemonic positioning to be characterized in terms of a specific homogenized group
of actual dominant men, transnational businessmen’. Meanwhile, Hearn (2010) has
made clear that hegemonic masculinity can feel too abstract and inadvertently render
absent any discussion of the hegemony—and violence, control, and so on—of ‘real’
(i.e. breathing and living) men. Of more relevance to this chapter, however, are those
engagements with hegemonic masculinity that pertain to the issue of social change,
specifically that of Demetriou (2001) and Howson (2006).
Though broadly aligned with the majority of Connell’s theorizing, Demetriou
(2001) is critical of the claim that non-hegemonic masculinities and behaviours are
entirely subordinated. Demetriou (2001) instead argues that, when necessary for the
maintenance of male dominance, the hegemonic archetype incorporates elements of
non-hegemonic masculinities. Citing the appropriation of gay male culture by het-
erosexual men, and strongly resonating with earlier work by Messner (1993), he
argues that the softening of men’s behaviour may represent a ‘contemporary expres-
sion of—rather than challenge to—existing forms of gender and sexual inequality’
(Bridges & Pascoe, 2014, p. 219). Demetriou (2001) further contends that Connell’s
theorising overlooks any potential for hegemonic masculinity to become reconfig-
ured into a more positive form of masculinity, highlighting the barriers to disman-
tling gender hierarchies in practice. Indeed, some scholars argue that such hybridity
works to extend rather than dismantle the concept of hegemonic masculinity (see de
Boise, 2015; O’Neill, 2015). However, as in Connell’s writing, using the lens of
masculinity hybridity (e.g. Bridges & Pascoe, 2014), social change can be viewed
only as top-down reconfiguration and fortification of existing power relations.
Hegemonic masculinity, then, becomes a shorthand for male power, with the entire
gender order reduced to only ‘the systematic pursuit of power by heterosexual men’
(Whitehead, 2002, p. 95).
The prospects for an alternative, potentially positive type of hegemony are absent
from Connell’s theorizing and also from much research that deploys her theory
(Howson, 2006). On this point, Moller (2007, p. 65) critiques hegemonic masculin-
ity’s tendency to inhibit empirical nuance by reducing gendered power ‘solely to a
logic of domination’. Thus, while Christensen and Jensen (2014, p. 64) caution
against assuming ‘that the most normative and legitimate form of masculinity in any
society and at any historical point in time is also one that legitimates patriarchy’,
much masculinities research seems to do just that, suffering from a narrow approach
that invites researchers to ‘look out there’ for ‘particularly nefarious instances of
masculinist abuses of power’ (Moller, 2007, p. 275). As aptly summarized by
Duncanson (2015, p. 240), ‘[i]t is as if any shift in gender relations is inevitably
hegemony at work; and there is little point in asking whether such shifts might be
signs of progressive change, and, more importantly, how they could be furthered’.
Circling back to the tools offered by Gramsci, Howson (2006, pp. 26–32)
addresses this shortcoming by conceptualizing three types of hegemony: detached,
dominative, and aspirational. The first two are characterized as regressive, as both
have an exclusionary nature, and emerge from and end with various forms of crisis,
which ‘ensures that the hegemonic group, in the final analysis, dominates all other
groups’ (Howson, 2006, p. 60). However, in its aspirational form—better under-
stood as premised on a benevolent motivation—the dominant social group ‘align[s]
itself ideologically to the broader community of interests and identities’ (Howson,
2006, p. 60). This leadership can of course become dominative, yet only this form
of hegemony offers the prospect for socio-positive change; it is not simply an alter-
native form of domination. In short, Howson troubles the implied relationship
between the elimination of hegemony and achievement of social justice, highlight-
ing that this is at odds with Gramsci’s ideas of hegemony as potentially productive.
Connell’s concepts retain strong utility when theorizing the presence and function
of, and relations to, dominance, but as a wholesale theory of gender relations they
lack the capacity to theorize productive change, and work to situate change as
always reconfiguring male dominance.
heorizing Positive Change: Anderson’s Inclusive Masculinity

T
Theory
In recent decades, significant volumes of research concerned with men’s perfor-

mances, expressions, and understandings of gender have identified changing mas-
culinities (Anderson, 2014). This empirical evidence increasingly suggests that
heterosexual (especially young) men appear to be exhibiting social behaviours char-
acterized by a softened version of masculinity (Anderson, 2009; McCormack,
2012), contrasting with similar research from decades ago (e.g. Messner, 1993).
This research highlights how these trends take place within and often despite sport-
ing institutions, with young pro and amateur athlete men leading the way (Anderson,
2009; Roberts et al., 2016; Magrath, 2017; Channon & Matthews, 2015; Adams,
2011; Murray & White, 2017). Given sport is often considered a bastion of mascu-
linity, or even hyper masculinity, sports players may have been considered unlikely
candidates to lead progressive change. Nonetheless, these shifts include changed
attitudes towards same-sex attraction, comprising a move from acceptance to overt
support for gay peers and friends, and an expansion of acceptable and even esteemed
behaviours relating to physical and emotional intimacy between straight men with
such findings having been documented also in studies on masculinity in leisure
activities, education, and employment (e.g. McCormack, 2012; Roberts, 2018;
Maloney, Roberts, & Caruso, 2018).
Although entering the CSMM field as a proponent of hegemonic masculinity,
Anderson’s early empirical work revealed dynamics that could not be explained by
Connell’s framework. For example, in his study of 26 openly gay male US high
school and collegiate athletes, Anderson’s (2002) work found surprisingly positive
experiences of coming out, and expressions of regret about not coming out sooner.
This is significant because, within Connell’s theorizing, homophobia is described
as a weapon used to stratify men in deference to a hegemonic mode of heteromas-
culine dominance. Indeed, in the years preceding Anderson’s study, Wolf Wendel
et al. (2001, p. 47) had shown that heterosexual male athletes in the United States
were ‘unwilling to confront and accept homosexuality’, and Hekma (1998, p. 2)
wrote that in Holland, gay men were ‘granted no space whatsoever in what is gener-
ally considered to be a masculine preserve and a macho enterprise’. Nevertheless,
as above, a growing body of research began to document a wide uptake of more
positive, inclusive attitudes towards homosexuality among adolescent males, espe-
cially in sports settings, alongside the enactment of softer masculinities and an
apparent decline in hierarchical power struggles between these men. Accordingly,
Anderson (2009) expanded on the theorizing of Kimmel and Connell by advancing
Inclusive Masculinity Theory, which rests heavily on his conceptualization of
‘homohysteria’.
When a society collectively acknowledges that homosexuality is a legitimate
sexuality (rather than a deviance or disorder), anyone could plausibly be gay; simul-
taneously, permanently proving that one is not gay is impossible (Anderson, 2009).
In periods of high cultural homophobia that usually accompanies this collective
realization, a ‘witch hunt’ to expose gay men ensues and, given the conflation of
male homosexuality with feminine traits, men are forced to adhere to orthodox
expectations and behaviours coded as masculine in order to avoid homosexual sus-
picion (Anderson, 2009). Anderson (2009) refers to this fear of being homosexual-
ized as ‘homohysteria’ and, in line with Connell’s theorizing, argues that in periods
of high cultural homophobia this compulsion to avoid homosexualization is funda-
mental to the formulation and maintenance of masculine norms.
Though a seemingly minor distinction from homophobia, defined as a prejudice
against homosexual people, this theoretical development contextualizes and gives
explanatory power to homophobia’s historical contingency. For instance, Anderson
(2009) highlights that the period from the 1980s to the late 1990s was an apex of
cultural homophobia, epitomized by the stigmatization of AIDS affected men and
the UK’s Thatcher government Section 28 legislation (Roberts, 2018). This perfect
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Whithorne’s American Impressions
Emerson Whithorne (1884) was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and

studied there and in Europe. After writing some forty songs and
compositions in Oriental and European fashion, he has given us in
his New York Days and Nights, a group of piano pieces in which are
cleverly pictured Times Square, Hudson River ferry boats, Trinity
Church chimes, etc. His latest work is a ballet, Sooner and Later,
written with Miss Irene Lewisohn for the Neighborhood Playhouse,
in which they have combined the primitive and the very modern in
an original and pictureful manner.
Albert Spalding—America’s Violinist-Composer
When Walter Damrosch took the New York Symphony Orchestra

on tour in Europe, Albert Spalding (1888, Chicago) went along as
joint soloist with John Powell, playing his violin concerto. Besides
this, Spalding has written many small pieces for violin, other
orchestral and piano works, and a string quartet played (1924) by the
Flonzaley Quartet. Spalding ranks with the great violinists of the
world.
Three other violinists showing talent as composers are Edwin
Grasse (1884), who in spite of the handicap of blindness, has
composed some charming violin pieces, violin sonatas and string
quartets; Samuel Gardner, who has written orchestral works,
chamber music and short violin pieces; and Cecil Burleigh, short
poetic pieces for violin and for piano and a violin concerto.
American Music Guild
To encourage the composing and appreciation of high class

American composition, ten American composers formed an
association, the American Music Guild. The members are Marion
Bauer, Chalmers Clifton, Louis Gruenberg, Sandor Harmati, Charles
Haubiel, Frederick Jacobi, A. Walter Kramer, Harold Morris, Albert
Stoessel and Deems Taylor.
Albert Stoessel (1894, St. Louis) is professor of music at New York
University, conductor of the New York Oratorio Society, of the New
York Symphony concerts at Chautauqua, N. Y., of the Worcester
Festival and composer of chamber music and orchestral works.
Deems Taylor (1885, New York) is musical critic of the New York
World, and the composer of songs and orchestral works (Through
the Looking Glass Suite) and he has written much choral and
incidental music for plays and motion pictures. One of his most
graceful works is the ballet in The Beggar on Horseback. His opera
The King’s Henchman was given at the Metropolitan Opera House in
1927. The book is by Edna St. Vincent Millay.
A. Walter Kramer (1890, New York) is a critic and writer on
musical subjects, composer of many songs that have made his name
familiar, orchestral works, a Rhapsody for violin and orchestra,
pieces for violin, organ and piano, and a symphonic tone poem on
Masefield’s Tragedy of Nan.
Harold Morris (1889, Texas) has never written little pieces, but has
jumped into classical forms which he treats in a most modern way, in
piano sonatas, a violin sonata, a trio, quartet, a concerto for piano
and orchestra, and a tone poem on a Tagore text. He has studied only
in America.
Frederick Jacobi (1891, San Francisco), had his latest work, a
symphony, performed in 1924; he has also written a string quartet on
Indian themes, songs with orchestra, short pieces and orchestral
tone poems in all of which his gift of poetic expression is uppermost.
Chalmers Clifton (1889, Jackson, Miss.), is conductor of an
orchestra which has as object the training of young orchestra players,
a much needed addition to American musical education. He has
written some chamber music and music for a pageant.
Sandor Harmati (1894), Hungarian by birth, founded the Lenox
String Quartet and has composed several string quartets and
orchestral works. He has taken numerous prizes for his compositions
and is now conductor of the Omaha Symphony Orchestra.
Charles Haubiel (1894, Delta, Ohio), has composed works in the
classical form and is teacher of piano and theory.
Marion Bauer (1887) was born in Walla Walla, Washington. She
has written 30 songs, 20 piano pieces, two violin sonatas, a string
quartet, and a work for chamber music orchestra, and choruses. She
writes and lectures on music, and is Asst. Professor at New York
University.
American Academy in Rome
A few years ago Edward MacDowell was one of the founders of an

Academy in Rome for American students on the principle of the
Roman prize of the Paris Conservatory. Several of the young prize-
winners have profited by their visit to the ancient city of culture
where they are living and working with funds provided by the
Academy. Unfortunately the music fellowship does not admit
women! Among those to enjoy this advantage are Leo Sowerby
(1895, Grand Rapids, Michigan) who has written a piano concerto
and a double piano concerto, also a work called Synconata in
syncopated rhythms which has been played by Paul Whiteman and
many other compositions in large and small forms; Howard Hanson
(1896, Wahoo, Nebraska) who is now director of the Eastman School
of Music at Rochester, New York, and has written a number of
orchestral and chamber music works; and Wintter Watts, the
composer of many beautiful art songs and an orchestral tone poem,
Young Blood.
Leo Ornstein—The Independent
“What are discords?” was asked of Leo Ornstein (1895, Russia). “I

can not tell,” he answered. “Somewhere there is a law of harmony....
What it is I can not tell. Only I know that under certain conditions ...
I hear it, I get color impressions.... If some of the tones are gray,
somber, violent is that my fault?... In a word, I am not concerned
with form or with standards of any nature.” This is the young
composer’s declaration of independence, and in his early
compositions he has lived up to it! One of his piano works,
Wildmen’s Dance, goes back to primitive man for his inspiration and
wild rhythms. He is original and daring as few Americans have ever
been. His last work was a piano concerto played by him with the
Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra. He has written sonatas for piano,
for ’cello and violin, besides many piano pieces, which he plays well,
as he is an exceptional pianist.
Although he has been in America since childhood, his early life in
Russia, in which he suffered the terrors of the pogroms (the
massacres of the Jews), is reflected in his work. His training was
under the direction of Bertha Tapper and Percy Goetschius.
A gifted young modernist whose orchestral and chamber works are
often played by important organizations, is Aaron Copland (1898),
pupil of Rubin Goldmark and Nadia Boulanger, of Paris. He received
(1925) the first Guggenheim Fellowship in Music.
Experimentalists
Henry Eichheim, of Boston, has had many performances of his

colorful Chinese and Japanese impressions. Carl Ruggles is an
independent thinker and composer, experimenting in many
combinations of harmonies and instruments. Two extremists, who
have not yet proven the value of their ideas and whose works must be
regarded as experiments are Henry Cowell of California and George
Antheil who lives in Paris. Sometimes, however, out of the wildest
experiment comes something that may make music grow.
Song Writers
There are many composers who are well known not for
symphonies and chamber music but for songs. There are so many
that we can list but a few: Alexander Russell, R. Huntington
Woodman, Carl Deis, William Arms Fischer, Charles Fonteyn
Manney, Clayton Johns, Sidney Homer, Charles Gilbert Spross, Oley
Speaks, Louis Campbell-Tipton, Philip James, William C. Hammond,
G. Bainbridge Crist, Marshall Kernochan, Eastwood Lane, Richard
Hammond, Harry Osgood, Charles B. Hawley, Adolph Martin
Foerster, Richard Hageman, Edward Ballantine, Clough Leighter,
Victor Harris, Isidore Luckstone, Percy Lee Atherton, John Beach,
Paolo Gallico, Arthur Bergh, Morris Class, Walter Morse Rummel,
Blair Fairchild, Rudolph Ganz (Swiss-American), Eugen Haile
(German-American), Frank La Forge, Harold Vincent Milligan,
Timothy Spelman, Edward Horsman, Tom Dobson, Oscar G.
Sonneck. Mr. Sonneck (1873–1928) was less known as a musicianly
composer, than as a musicologist whose vast knowledge made him
invaluable as the first librarian of the music division of the Library of
Congress in Washington (1902–1915). His books form an important
addition to musical Americana. He was editor of the Musical
Quarterly, and secretary of the Beethoven Association.
Foreigners Writing in America
Many who are making music grow in America were born in Europe
and while they may not be American composers, they are composers
in America, and most of them have become American citizens.
Ernest Bloch, born in Geneva, Switzerland (1880), has been here
since 1916, when the Flonzaley Quartet played his String Quartet.
Owing to his Jewish descent his work shows an Oriental strain rather
than Swiss national feeling. Among his important orchestral works
are Jewish Poems, Psalms, a symphony, Israel, Schelomo, for ’cello
and orchestra, a prize symphonic rhapsody, America, and a Concerto
Grosso for strings. He took the Coolidge prize with his Viola Suite,
and has also a violin sonata and a piano quintet. He has taught in
New York, Cleveland and San Francisco. A pupil, Ethel Leginska, the
English pianist and orchestral conductor, has composed an
interesting string quartet, piano pieces and works for orchestra.
Percy Aldridge Grainger, born in Melbourne, Australia (1882),
appeared as a pianist at the age of ten and has never stopped since!
His mother was his first teacher and later he was a pupil of Busoni
and intimate friend of Grieg, whose concerto he played upon his first
American appearance (1915). During the World War he became
naturalized and served in the American army. As composer he is
unique, being self-taught, and although knowing the compositions of
all the great masters, he goes to folk music for his themes and ideas,
and has become an authority on British and Scandinavian folk music,
and is collecting music of the American Indian and the Negro.
Among Grainger’s best known pieces are: Molly on the Shore,
Colonial Song, Shepherd’s Hey, Irish Tune from County Derry,
Country Gardens and Turkey in the Straw, all folk-melodies around
which he has woven most fascinating harmonies, and has brought
back the old songs in modern dress. In the spring of 1925 he gave two
concerts which he called, with true Grainger originality, “Room
Music” instead of chamber music.
Carl Engel, although born in Paris (1883), and educated in France
is an American citizen and the director of the Music Division of the
Library of Congress in Washington, D. C. Engel has written in
addition to essays in delightful style, a Tryptich (a violin sonata in
three movements), and enchanting songs, marking him a lover of
modern harmony.
Two Frenchmen in New York, Carlos Salzedo, one of the world’s
leading harpists, and Edgar Varese are foremost among the
innovators, bringing to the public through their own compositions
and the work of the International Composers’ Guild, the latest styles
in music. They hand the public the new works of the most extreme
composers before the ink is dry on the manuscript. Most of these are
composed in dissonance or so-called cacophony (from two Greek
words kakos,—bad; phono,—sounds). Through the efforts of these
men, the League of Composers, and the Pro Musica Society (E.
Robert Schmitz, founder and president), many present day
compositions are heard in America.
Lazare Saminsky, a Russian, choirmaster at Temple Emanu-El,
New York, has written several symphonies and a chamber opera,
Gagliarda of a Merry Plague. He has made a deep study of Hebrew
music.
Kurt Schindler, (Berlin, 1882), first conductor of the New York
Schola Cantorum, a chorus, is an authority on Russian, Spanish and
Finnish folk music, of which he has made many collections. He has
also written art songs and choruses.
Leopold Godowsky, born in Russia (1870), one of the greatest
living pianists, has written much for piano and made many
arrangements.
Among the world famous violinists, several living in America, Fritz
Kreisler (1875), Mischa Elman (1892) and Efrem Zimbalist (1889),
have added to violin literature, arrangements of piano pieces and
songs, as well as a few original compositions. Kreisler, with Victor
Jacobi, wrote the music for the light opera Apple Blossoms.
Some Patrons of Music in America
America has been fortunate in its patrons of music who like the
Esterhazys and Lobkowitzs of old have advanced music by founding
and maintaining orchestras, music schools, chamber music, festivals
and prize competitions. Among these are Henry Lee Higginson
(1834–1919), Boston Symphony; Harry Harkness Flagler, New York
Symphony; W. A. Clark, Los Angeles Philharmonic; George Eastman,
Rochester Symphony and Eastman School of Music; Juilliard
Musical Foundation, Mrs. Edward Bok, Curtis Institute of Music in
Philadelphia; the Edward J. de Coppet (1855–1916), the Flonzaley
Quartet; Carl Stoeckel, festivals at Norfolk, Connecticut; Mr. and
Mrs. Daniel Guggenheim and Mr. and Mrs. Murry Guggenheim,
summer concerts by Edwin Franko Goldman’s Concert Band; Mrs.
Elizabeth Shurtleff Coolidge, Berkshire Chamber Music Festivals.
Also the American Society for the Publication of Chamber Music, the
National Music League, the Walter Naumberg prize, the National
Federation of Music Clubs, the League of Composers, the National
Bureau for the advancement of Music, and many music schools and
settlements have helped to make music grow.
It is not out of place to include here Arthur P. Schmidt (1846–
1921) of Boston as a patron of music, for by his devotion to American
composers and the faith with which he published their works as early
as 1876 has made music grow. Under this head we must also include
Gustav Schirmer (1829–1893) and Oliver Ditson (1811–1888).
Symphony Orchestras
Besides the orchestras in Boston, New York and Chicago, of which

we have already told you, many new ones have been formed to the
advancement of music in America: Philadelphia, (Leopold
Stokowski, conductor); Detroit, (Ossip Gabrilowitsch); San
Francisco, (Alfred Hertz); Cincinnati, (Fritz Reiner); Los Angeles,
(Arthur Rodzinsky); St. Louis, (Guest Conductors); Cleveland,
(Nikolai Sokoloff and Rudolph Ringwall); Rochester, (Eugene
Goossens); Syracuse, (Vladimir Shavitch); Omaha, (Sandor
Harmati); Portland, Oregon, (Willem van Hoogstraten);
Minneapolis, (Henri Verbrugghen); State Symphony Orchestra, New
York City, founded by Josef Stransky, (Emo von Dohnanyi and
Alfredo Casella, in the season of 1925–26); and the American
Symphony Orchestra composed entirely of Americans under Howard
Barlow, founder and conductor; the Young Men’s Symphony
Orchestra (Paul Henneberg), founded by the late Alfred Lincoln
Seligman with Arnold Volpe, conductor; American Orchestral
Society, (Chalmers Clifton). (See page 514.)
Besides the orchestras mentioned, the symphony orchestras of the
motion picture houses all over the country are doing a very great
service by the excellent music and the fine performances given to
millions of people every day.
Among orchestras which helped to build love of music in this
country were the Russian Symphony Orchestra (Modest Altschuler),
the Volpe Symphony Orchestra (Arnold Volpe), and the People’s
Symphony Concerts (F. X. Arens), all of which are out of existence.
Within the last few years the desire for music in the summer time
has led to many open air concerts and operas. Of these the concerts
of the Philharmonic Orchestra in the Lewisohn Stadium, those in the
Hollywood Bowl (Los Angeles, California), Willow Grove, Pa., the
Goldman Concert Band, playing on the Campus of New York
University and in Central Park are the most widely known.
Ravinia Park which provides one of the most magnificent opera
companies possible to assemble makes a delightful summer night
playground for Chicago people.
We regret that opera has not kept pace with the symphony
orchestras in America. The Metropolitan Opera Company (New York
City), the Chicago Opera Company (Chicago, Illinois), the San
Francisco Opera Company (G. Merola’s new venture), the
Philadelphia Civic and the American Opera Company are in
operation (1929). There are many cities holding summer opera.
There is every reason to be proud of the growth of music in
America, and New York City today is the great musical center of the
world.
Since writing this chapter, New York has lost the State Symphony,
The American Symphony Orchestra, and the New York Symphony
Society. Walter Damrosch has turned his orchestral interests to the
radio in order to enlarge the sphere of music education. Due to the
merger of the Philharmonic Symphony, Ernest Schelling conducts
the concerts for children.
CHAPTER XXXII
Twentieth Century Music
There was once an old man who said: “I have lived to see the post-
chaise give way to the locomotive but I cannot and will not accept
the automobile!” What would he have said to the aeroplane? But this
old man was not different from the people today, who seem unable to
accept the new music and take it as a personal affront when they
must listen to it. Like the automobile and the aeroplane, however, it
is here, and is a part of the 20th century!
Nothing that lives stands still; there must be constant change and
growth, or decay sets in. This is as true of music as it is of ourselves
and the things around us. We have watched this process of change in
music from prehistoric man to the 20th century; we have seen
certain periods bursting with new ideas, works and forms; we have
seen individuals tower above their fellows, marking epochs to which
their names have become attached, like the Palestrinian era, the
Bach era, and the Wagner period; and we are living in a moment of
new ideas, works and forms, on which we cannot pass final
judgment. Time alone must be the judge!
There is no point at which a period ends and a new one begins, for
they overlap. We saw harmony grow out of polyphony; we saw the
romantic Beethoven rise out of the classic Beethoven; in the
romantic Chopin, we found the germs of impressionism (for
definition, see page 483), and in Debussy’s impressionism, we see
the breaking away from traditions into a new world of sound.
Polyform Music
When we begin our music lessons, we are taught the musical

alphabet,—the major scale, and then, the minor and the chromatic.
So accustomed are we to these scales that we forget there was a time
when they did not exist, and that new ones may be added, for they
are not fixed for all time. There have been, as you know, the no-scale
time, the pentatonic scale, the Greek modes, the Ecclesiastical or
Church modes, the diatonic (major and minor) scale, the chromatic
scale and the so-called whole-tone scale of Debussy. Beethoven and
all the writers of the classic period used the diatonic scales which
gave their works a definite tonality, that is, a home tone to which all
the tones try to return. If, for example, you sing Yankee Doodle and
stop before the last note, you feel very uncomfortable, because you
have not sounded the home tone towards which all the tones are
reaching. To the diatonic modes, Chopin and Wagner added a
frequent use of the chromatic scale, which enriched music. In
addition to diatonic and chromatic harmony, along came Debussy
with his melodies in whole steps, and he also went back to the old
Greek modes, using them in new and unexpected ways. Today we
have all the past to draw upon and the composers are quick to take
advantage of their rich inheritance and to add innovations.
In the 20th century the influences have come from Paris and
Vienna,—Debussy and Schoenberg,—and later Stravinsky, the
Russian. From the French has come a style of writing called
polytonality, and from Vienna has come atonality. Don’t be afraid of
these names for they are easily explained!
Courtesy of
“Musical America.”
Arnold Schoenberg (Austrian).

Igor Stravinsky (Russian).
Composers of Music in Extremely Modern Style.

Claude Achille Debussy.
Courtesy of Roland
Manuel.
Maurice Ravel.
Leaders of the French Impressionistic School.

Having said that tonality is a system in which all tones gravitate to
a central tone (they all come home to roost!) it is not difficult to
understand through the formation of the word poly—many, tonal—
tones, that it means the use of several keys or tonalities at the same
time, a counterpoint of key against key, or scale against scale, instead
of note against note as it was in the Golden Age of Polyphony. Think
of a cantus firmus in C major, and a counter melody in F ♯ minor!
(Between ourselves if skilfully handled, it has possibilities!) Ravel,
Milhaud and Honegger know how to do it. Of course in the old
system we change from key to key by means of a musical bridge
called modulation, but in polytonality, the bridge is discarded, and
the unrelated keys are heard piled on top of each other in layers.
Atonality, the system which Schoenberg and his followers use, is
based on the chromatic scale of twelve half steps, on each one of
which, chords (major and minor) may be built. This gives a more
varied tonal paint-box than the old diatonic modes and the
chromatic scale of former days, for it has now become an
independent scale, and is not a part of the diatonic family.

The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport 1St Ed 2020 Edition Rory Magrath Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport 1St Ed 2020 Edition Rory Magrath Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity

and Sport 1st ed. 2020 Edition Rory

The Palgrave Handbook of

ISBN 978-3-030-19798-8 ISBN 978-3-030-19799-5 (eBook)

Cover illustration: © Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo

1 Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport ������������ 1

Part I The Foundations of Masculinity and Sport 17

Part II Sport’s Use in Making and Stratifying Men 95

9 “I probably shouldn’t say this, should I…but…”: Mischievous

Part III Sport, Masculinity, and the Media 205

Part IV The Relationship Between Masculinity and Sexuality 305

20 ‘They were constantly harassing us and a lot of it was to do with our

Part V International Sporting Masculinities 413

Eric Anderson is Professor of Sport, Masculinities and Sexualities at the University

Jesper Andreasson is Associate Professor of Sport Science at Linnaeus University

Dominik Antonowicz is a sociologist at Nicolas Copernicus University in Toruń.

Jamie Cleland is Senior Lecturer in Sport and Management at the University of

communication, sexuality/homophobia, race and active supporter mobilisations in a

Murray Drummond is a research professor in sport, health and physical activity.

Aaron W. Gurlly is an assistant professor in the Communication Arts Department

Jesús Hidalgo Campos is a Peruvian PhD candidate at the University of

Connor Humphries is a PhD candidate at Oxford Brookes University, UK. His

Honorata Jakubowska is a professor at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.

George Jennings is a qualitative sociologist of sport and physical culture at Cardiff

Erik N. Jensen is Associate Professor of History at Miami University, where he

Nathan Kalman-Lamb is a lecturing fellow at Duke University where he teaches

Radosław Kossakowski is an assistant professor at University of Gdańsk. His

Håkan Larsson is Professor of Sports Science, Specialization Education, at The

Rory Magrath is Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Football in the School of

Taylor McKee is a PhD candidate and instructor at Western University researching

Mark Mierzwinski is Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Sport at York St John

Luis Emilio Morales is a PhD candidate at the University of Winchester. Working

Ken Muir is Professor of Sport Sociology at Appalachian State University in

Muir’s research interests include sexual orientation/gender identity in sport, devi-

Kitty Nichols is a University Teacher at the University of Sheffield, working in the

Craig Owen is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Anglia Ruskin University. His

Keith D. Parry is a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and an associate

Catherine Phipps is Lecturer in Sport Education and Development at Solent

Joaquín Piedra is Senior Lecturer in Physical Education and Sports Sciences at

Brittany Reid is a lecturer at Thompson Rivers University. Her research special-

Sarah Riley is Professor of Critical Health Psychology at Massey University, New

Steven Roberts is Associate Professor of Sociology in the School of Social

Stefan Robinson’s research has continued to focus on understandings of mascu-

Tafadzwa Rugoho is doing two PhD degrees at University of KwaZulu-Natal and

Ryan Scoats is a researcher at Birmingham City University in the Faculty of

focuses on people’s experiences of multi-sex threesomes, sexualities, masculinities

Kerry Wardell is a PhD candidate at the University of Winchester researching

Adam J. White is an interdisciplinary researcher in sport, education and health.

Campbell Williams In an entirely voluntary capacity Campbell Williams is chair

Chart 17.1 Sexuality openness survey comparison—Jockey vs Racing 313

Table 17.1 Sexual orientation distribution of survey respondents 312

Rory Magrath, Jamie Cleland, and Eric Anderson

Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport

Back in 2017, Palgrave’s Gender Studies Commissioning Editor, Amelia Derkatsch,

© The Author(s) 2020 1

changes, providing a unique, informative resource which can be used by academics

Studying Masculinity and Sport in the Twentieth Century

Studying Masculinity and Sport in the Twenty-First Century

As we demonstrate above, the relationship between masculinity and sport in the

Finally, as the above sections have evidenced, research on changing patterns of

Using the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport

As we acknowledged in the opening section to this chapter, the Palgrave Handbook

About the Editors

1 Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport �� 1

Part I The Foundations of Masculinity and Sport 17

Part II Sport’s Use in Making and Stratifying Men 95

9 “I probably shouldn’t say this, should I…but…”: Mischievous

Part III Sport, Masculinity, and the Media 205

Part IV The Relationship Between Masculinity and Sexuality 305

20 ‘They were constantly harassing us and a lot of it was to do with our

Part V International Sporting Masculinities 413

Chart 17.1 Sexuality openness survey comparison—Jockey vs Racing 313

Table 17.1 Sexual orientation distribution of survey respondents 312

Introducing the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport

Studying Masculinity and Sport in the Twentieth Century

Studying Masculinity and Sport in the Twenty-First Century

Using the Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport

About the Editors

rom the Science of Male Society to the Critical Study of Men

ultiple Masculinities: Connell’s Theorizing of Masculinity,

heorizing Positive Change: Anderson’s Inclusive Masculinity