Public and worldwide discourse regarding the debate for sex equality targets the oppression of females, since it rightly should. But the impact that conventional male stereotypes have actually on the perpetuation of gender inequality, at a transnational scale, additionally needs to be addressed. This essay asks how do male stereotypes affect the manner in which men build relationships sex equality? By encouraging males to analyse their socially constructed gender pages, you'll be able to educate them on what their social functions may impact gender equality. This will include analysing the entrenchment of traditional male stereotypes in society and their consequent impact on women. Firstly, the essay will establish that male stereotypes run within a more substantial framework associated with gender paradigm. Then, it will define sex equality and its particular various interpretations. This will then lead the essay to talk about the trajectory for the progress towards gender equality and just why men should be regarded as fundamental actors. Specific masculinities preserve and promote the inequalities skilled between gents and ladies, and, in order to achieve gender equality, they have to be dismantled.
When analysing male stereotypes, in context of gender equality, you will need to recognise which they cannot operate in isolation. Male stereotypes, or masculinities, function ‘… as an element of a more substantial structure’. This structure is gender. Gender denotes the social event of identifying men and women based on a set of identification characteristics. The gendering of this sexes produces and sustains socially built differences. women and men are built to behave and interact with techniques that perpetuate their gendered identities. However, there is an essential difference in the office right here, one that will underpin this essay — the essential difference between sex and sex. Although this difference is highly contentious and commonly contested, it will inform the essay’s conversation of gender equality. Intercourse and gender are classifications for differentiating between people. Intercourse, in comparison to gender, relates to the determination made in relation to scientifically accepted biological criteria. The difference of sex are made through the category of ‘… genitalia at delivery or chromosomal typing before birth’.
The terms sex and intercourse in many cases are understood to be the same and utilized interchangeably. However, this just acts to conflate biological physiology with socially constructed identities. The problem with this misconception is the fact that in communities, such as those in western, it is assumed that the reproductive purpose of males and females is a sufficient foundation for prescribing mental and behavioural faculties onto people of society. In reaction for this, Peterson and Runyan assert that:
‘… sex must be recognized as a social, perhaps not physiological, construction: Femininity and masculinity, the terms that denote one’s sex, reference a complex pair of traits and behaviours prescribed for a certain sex by culture and learned through socialisation process’.
This means, society, perhaps not biology, confines women and men to particular masculine and feminine character profiles. This means that sex isn't fixed. Christian states that ‘… its completely simple for gender to improve while biological intercourse continues to be the same’. Gender should be thought about an adjustable and fluid concept, in the place of the greater fixed disposition of biology.
In accordance with Freud, the human being subject has always been sexed, and that despite the biological differences, women and men have grown to be particular social topics. The biological individual can be viewed a blank canvas upon which gendered identities are projected and performed through socialisation. For that reason, the expected differences when considering people are accentuated through the legitimisation of social stereotypes. These stereotypes, presented as inherent, are affected by the social environment that one is exposed. Male and female gender pages are normalised towards degree that they look normal, biological. Freud, who pioneered early psychoanalysis of the unconscious, could examine the ‘… continuity between normal and neurotic mental life, the principles of repression and also the unconscious, additionally the steel process become ‘read’ through aspirations, jokes, slips of tongue and symptoms’.
Their work provided essential understanding of understanding inherent and normative views of sex identities. By definition, psychoanalytic theory aims to deconstruct what's clearly or accidentally communicated to illuminate the latent ‘… dreams, anxieties, and desires of the speaking subject’. In terms of gender, psychoanalysis stresses our biology practical knowledge within culture, maybe not nature, and ‘… your aftereffect of tradition is always to transform and channel biology and instinct particularly ways’. Hence, the emotional differences when considering males and females are mostly, or even completely, socially built.
This view, however, just isn't universally shared. In his paper titled, Feminism Against Science, Goldberg argues that the cognitive and behavioural differences between gents and ladies are founded through their particular physiologies, and that society and sex are a reflection of biological realities. Moir and Jessel additionally advocate for biological determinism, arguing that to proclaim that men and women ‘… are the same in aptitude, skill, or behaviour is always to build a society considering a biological and scientific lie’, and that biological reality reveals a comparative relationship of intimate asymmetry. The argument raised by Goldberg, Moir, and Jessel is allegedly according to solid scientific findings. The ethos offered by ‘science’ is not hard to succumb to. However, these ‘findings’ and email address details are frequently filtered and manipulated to bolster the author’s argument. In her guide, Sex variations in intellectual Abilities, Halpern contends that throughout her study, the most important course she learnt was that ‘… scientists, like the rest people, maintain a specific world view which they use within interpreting research findings’. Then when analysis arguments about gender, nothing is unquestioningly accepts as irrefutable, systematic fact.
Talks about gender tend to be next to conversations that make an effort to figure out the intellectual capacities of either intercourse. Debates of this nature had been created in late nineteenth century, when it was determined, with scientific vindication, that the challenges and complexities of academia were deemed too overwhelming the feminine brain. This try to differentiate intercourse distinction on the basis of physiology is one present evolutionary concept. The theory contends that people ‘… pursue distinctive strategies to achieve reproductive effectiveness, with sometimes significant divergence’. This view reduces human being presence to your reproductive function. It supports the theory your only element of intimate differentiation that should be considered is the reproductive process. The quest for survival is thus contingent upon effective reproduction, which produces a lineage of development for both men and women. Wilson, a Darwinist evolutionary theorist argues in his book, the truly amazing Intercourse Divide, that for those who ‘… perform their intercourse part more effectively, their genes would have superior success value, and so we would expect modern differentiation of real and psychological equipment as parallel evolutionary developments’. Frankly, human development is founded on the tendency of a person to fulfil their biological function. Therefore, sex distinctions are of vital value to survival. Wilson additionally contends that the differences when considering men and women ‘… are observed, fairly universally, aside from types or tradition, time or place’. This sort of argument lies on very centre of sex inequality. Differentiation can inadvertently, and intentionally, develop a culture of discrimination. In categorising the differences between two subjects, one is automatically taking part in a procedure of judgment. This judgment can manifest as a destructive bias or a positive contrast.
Sex huge difference was biologically substantiated, and, in some cases, justified inside development of development. However, some argue that men and women are increasingly comparable than various. As an example, Epstein, in her guide Deceptive Distinctions, maintains that distinctions based on sex identities serve more damage than good, and that tries to divide the sexes considering cleverness present dysfunctional consequences for society. In lots of ways, the argument returns towards age-old concern: Are women mentally inferior compared to men? Some scholars argue within the affirmative, that gents and ladies exhibit asymmetrical cognitive abilities. But scholars such as for example Seligman answer in negative: ‘no, [women] are not. Data are now set available that show that, normally, men and women are equal in psychological ability’. Since the late nineteenth-century, research has studied sex huge difference across a plethora of mental planes, such as for instance mental abilities, attitudes, interest, personality traits, and emotions. Moreover, Connell, like Seligman, states that ‘… sex differences, on almost every psychological trait calculated, are either non-existent or fairly small’.
Across many social and academic spheres, issue of who's the smarter intercourse is deemed unanswerable. Offered the tendency of scientists to favour a sex, most concede then that men and women are ‘even’ Researchers are gendered topics, conditioned by sociocultural sex constructs. They may offer the superiority of a particular intercourse, which, is deliberately or intuitively reflected inside their respective research. This is why psychoanalysis ‘… will not assume the existence of an a priori “self” or “ego”’, but asserts that individual identification is contingent upon social conditioning. Researchers don't operate, nor conduct their research, in isolation of truth. These are typically hence affected by universal social discourses particularly battle, gender, and class. Absolute medical objectivity is a standard hard to uphold. Halpern warns of existence of scientists that allow their bias for either intercourse to direct their study results, particularly Rushton and Jenson whom ‘… steadfastly maintain that ladies are less intelligent than men’. Views like this intensify the gender divide by supporting the notion of male dominance, which further solidifies gender disparities. As Gaitanidis states, the conditions, which create sex identities, aren't quasi-universal; sociocultural and historic forces intrude inside our everyday lives to shape our individual identities. Consequently, favouring particular information can be an indicator of cultural influences, such as for example gendered intercourse functions.
Intercourse distinction has been mostly debunked, or at the very least, considered inconclusive. The general opinion is the fact that neither intercourse is psychologically superior. The emphasis is pretty on socialisation of distinction, where in actuality the male and female gender constructs are affected by worldviews, identified norms as well as the unconscious. The variation of jobs on intercourse distinction suggests just how pervasive the gender paradigm is, and exactly how even purportedly objective regions of study, like technology, are skewed to perpetuate the idea of male intellectual dominance. The revolutionary work of feminists and social constructivists within the last four decades has highlighted the effect and influence of gender constructs on sociocultural life and knowledge. Kimmel summarises the scale and impact of sex as an organising principle of culture by saying, ‘virtually every culture proven to united states is founded upon presumptions of sex huge difference while the politics of gender inequality’. This time becomes foundational whenever responding to the question of exactly how conventional masculinity impacts the manner by which men engage gender equality. Only at that juncture, the essay has to deal with this concern.
Debates about gender equality reference the asymmetrical power stability experienced between people due to differences in their gendered identities. With this, Peterson and Runyan contend that:
‘… the social construction of gender is truly a system of energy that not only divides women and men as masculine and feminine but typically also places males and masculinity above ladies and femininity and runs to appreciate more highly those organizations and techniques which are male dominated and/or representative of masculine traits and styles’.
That is a modern analysis of contemporary gender constructs as well as the relations involving the sexes, yet the concept of gender equality happens to be an important international principle associated with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Regardless of this, Grossman and McClain argue that progress towards achieving sex equality have actually didn't significantly materialise, and that there nevertheless exists ‘… a stark gap between formal commitments towards the equal liberties and responsibilities of men and females and against discrimination and subordination according to intercourse the gendered realities of women’s lives’.
The word ‘gender equality’, when deconstructed in isolation, unveils fundamental issues. Some argue the term is a paradox; sex is something according to huge difference, and therefore could never transform into a state of equivalence. Parvikko structures equality ‘… as a thought which obscures differences’, and states that in modern liberal political thought, equality and difference are incommensurate. Such difficulties within the application of term have triggered some people proclaiming that gender equality should be considered a discourse versus a fixed term. This process is much more constructive, as it recognises sex equality as a fluid concept that reacts towards unique needs of particular contexts. Gender equality has many variations and interpretations, including formal substantive equality. This essay will give consideration to equality as a method that facilitates equal opportunity. As echoed by gents and ladies across all continents, on earth Development Report conducted by The World Bank, gender equality had been seen to encompass three important elements: ‘the accumulation of endowments (education, health, and real assets); using those endowments to occupy financial possibility and produce incomes; plus the application of these endowments to simply take actions, or agency, affecting individual and home well-being’. This is simply not an exhaustive listing of exactly what comprises gender equality, but it provides a solid foundation for what it will involve. With this thought, the essay will now discuss the relationship between masculinity and sex equality.
Gender is an organising principle of social life, and change towards equality will demand exemplary institutional and gender identification reform. Realising sex equality is highly weighted in the share of males, because ‘… the gender inequalities in economic assets, governmental energy, social authority, and method of coercion that sex reform plan to change (ultimately) imply that males control a lot of the resources necessary to implement women’s claims for justice’. In Australia, males make-up the overwhelming most key decision-makers. In 2012, females comprised just 26.5percent of Federal Parliament, as well as in the private sector constituted roughly 10per cent of company board members and 24.7percent of managers. Hence, guys are an important enabler for sex reform. Masculinities and male stereotypes needs to be examined and deconstructed in order to impact change in exactly how men connect with women.
Stereotypes, or gender profiles, play an important role into the conversation of sex equality. They attribute specific faculties to whole segments of society utilizing the intention of presenting perception as truth. In terms of gender, stereotypes form the cornerstone of just how society thinks men and women should work. The scale that sex stereotypes impact society is articulated by Epstein who argues:
‘no part of social life — if the gathering of plants, the ritual of religion, the formal social gathering, or the organisation of federal government — is clear of the dichotomous thinking that casts the planet in types of “male” and “female”‘.
Gender stereotypes are inherently governmental; they can be used as tools for manipulating power relations between people. They are naturalised within culture through an activity of reproduction and upkeep. To the end, gender stereotypes become ‘… self-fulfilling: if we anticipate certain behaviours, we may work with techniques that in reality produce and reinforce such behaviours’.
Masculinities, since is the situation with femininities for females, are socially constructed gender pages under which guys are categorised. However, they're not developed equal. For males, there was ‘… a culturally chosen variation that is held up since the model against which we [men] are determine ourselves’. The dominant model to which males must aspire is exactly what Connell describes as hegemonic masculinity. It is a location in the male gender hierarchy that occupies the hegemonic, or top place. However, hegemonic masculinity is not a set place, and occupying the positioning is contestable. Masculinity may very well be a social purchase that lends analysis and framework from Gramsci’s notion of course relations. Therefore, hegemonic masculinity keeps the dominant position of social life, while other masculinities, such as homosexual masculinity, and women can be subordinated. The present, and historic, occupier of this hegemonic position is old-fashioned masculinity, which:
‘… refers to the stereotypical twentieth-century male-chauvinist outlook and tasks caused by the types of gender socialisation conventionally viewed as appropriate to men in Western communities since at the least the belated Victorian times’.
An example of how gender stereotypes are developed in society, and exactly how hegemonic masculinity is extremely respected, is in brand new Zealand where some schools are forced to hire male instructors. The rationale because of this is to preserve boys’ masculinity through visit of ‘real men’ teachers who exhibit faculties in keeping with hegemonic masculinity.
Guys whom display the faculties of old-fashioned masculinity are considered to possess hegemonic masculinity. To wish to this social classification, there was a particular set of core features that a guy must demonstrate. Included in these are: power/strength, rationality, heterosexuality, risk-taking, dominance, leadership, control, and repression of emotions. Considering the fact that identities, and even gender profiles, needs to be defined, reconstructed, and performed, its argued that the construction of masculine identities by males is a conscious try to maintain their power within the gender hierarchy. This might be real in some cases, however, to apply this universally is problematic. New contends that while ‘men are generally the agents regarding the oppression of women, and in some cases reap the benefits of it, their interests within the gender purchase aren't pre-given but built by and within it’. To produce sex equality, it must be recognised that hegemonic masculinities could be altered, or replaced, through socialisation process that they truly are initially built.
Public and private engagement with sex equality is scarce among men, which often obscures the issue and manifests dismissive attitudes. One of many issues regarding gender equality is that men usually do not comprehensively know how conventional masculinities drawback women. Lots of men are unaware they exist within socially constructed gender structures that disenfranchise subordinated sex pages, therefore usually do not recognise an issue. Hence, participating in conversation about gender equality can be a pointless experience for guys whom find it challenging to understand how entrenched the issue is in culture. Fortunately, attitudes, and also the sex profiles they are associated with, are susceptible to social construction and change. Christian argues that:
‘sexist attitudes and actions are a fundamental element of the dominant masculinity, but if masculinities are socially built by and for each generation of males growing up, in place of genetically inherited, then masculinities can alter and sexism can in theory be eradicated’.
However, social construction and indeed, deconstruction, is contingent upon the involvement of relevant stakeholders. The supportive involvement of most those suffering from sex is required to effect gender equality. Put another way, the worldwide community as a whole.
Global, Plan Global discovered three general categories for men’s attitudes towards sex equality: those that recognise gender inequality and look for to handle it — the smallest group; those who acknowledge sex inequality but are scared that empowering girls can come at the expense of men; and, those that either usually do not perceive an instability, or cannot have confidence in equal liberties — the biggest group. The value of this research highlights the overwhelming percentage of men who do maybe not recognise an issue, or cannot believe in equal opportunity. These attitudes present a considerable hurdle in reaching gender equality, since they are taught to children and carried on through the generations. An investigation program commissioned by Plan of over 4,000 adolescent kids in various countries such as the great britain (UK), Rwanda, and Asia, unearthed that: 83per cent of boys and 87percent of girls in India and 67% of girls and 71per cent of males in Rwanda concur with the declaration ‘changing diapers, offering children a bath and feeding young ones are the mother’s responsibility’. Significantly more than 60percent of individuals agreed that ‘if resources are scarce it is best to educate a boy as opposed to a girl’ and 65% of young ones in Rwanda and India consented that ‘a girl should tolerate physical violence to keep her family together’. While this research had been conducted among a small sample, it highlights the startling reality of sex inequality therefore the continuity of male dominance.
Among the major concepts of traditional masculinity that harms gender equality is that women can be fundamentally inferior compared to guys. This view is traced back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who formulated this claim on principles of explanation. He surmised that ‘masculinity ended up being equated aided by the peoples rationality of men, and ladies had been marked by sexuality, emotion, and their bodies’. The notion that guys are intellectually superior had been disproved; but just what Aristotle articulates about females and their health stays relevant. In line with the French feminist philosopher, Beauvoir, men start thinking about humanity become constructed in their image: ‘it is clear that in dreaming of himself as donor, liberator, redeemer, man nevertheless desires the subjection of women’. This idea of male superiority and feminine inferiority is one that must be maintained by traditional masculinity in case it is to occupy the hegemonic gender identification. Attitudes that stem from old-fashioned masculinity, including ‘… the notion that “real men” are tough and hard which the only real appropriate feeling in order for them to display is anger’, present a significant barrier towards sex equality.
Because old-fashioned masculinity discourages the expression of emotion, guys rarely discuss their emotions. Evidence of this will be presented in positive relationship between conventional masculinity and depression among male college students in britain and usa. It was ‘… unearthed that conformity to Western masculine norms in and of it self is a risk element for developing depression’. Guys compound the issue of despair by aligning with conventional masculinity. Hanninen and Valkonen argue that the maxims of masculinity inhibit the expression of weakness or psychological distress together with seeking of help to remedy it. In addition, analysis to the specific accounts of men’s depression ‘… reveals how despair threatened a man’s masculine identification and exactly how recovery presupposed reconstructing one’s self-image and masculinity’. This identifies a lack of openness to improve in conventional masculinity. In other words, conventional masculinity isn't prepared to respond to challenges that threaten its integrity, such as for instance depression (regarded as emotional weakness) and gender equality.
Changing or changing old-fashioned masculinity ought to be more commonly recognised as an essential action towards realising gender equality. In light with this, some sex equality advocate teams across the world have actually identified the need to promote masculinities which are more conducive of change. MenEngage is an organization for males and guys whoever primary function is always to advocate for equality between women and men. To the end, they will have identified that ‘… questioning men’s and women’s attitudes and expectations about gender functions is a must to attaining gender equality’. People who acknowledge the existence of sex equality, and look for to handle it, agree that equality cannot progress without share of males. It really is increasingly obvious your deconstruction of conventional masculinity gift suggestions a primary concern, as its uncompromising nature helps it be less attentive to revolution.
By encouraging males to be more available and talk about their masculinities, you'll be able to educate them how their social roles and duties effect females. Developing male attitudes towards available acknowledgement for the sex pages they operate within is a significant step in reaching gender equality. The absence of such progress would only serve to keep up the ‘… disempowerment of girls and ladies down the generations — and restriction of boys and teenage boys to traditional “male roles”’. Efforts in this way of gender equality have yielded that: based on the us Population Fund, males that grow up with good male part models are observed become more critical towards negative gender stereotypes and inequalities; guys whom maintain a healthy and balanced engagement making use of their kids are less inclined to be depressed, suicidal or violent; and, males that have more engaging fathers are less likely to want to show high-risk intimate behavior. Latin American NGOs also found similar character traits in teenagers whom supported gender equality. These similarities included: having a peer-group or number of buddies that have been more accepting of gender-equitable attitudes; having myself experienced the negative effects of old-fashioned masculinity particularly domestic violence; and, having an optimistic adult role model that represented an alternate to old-fashioned gender functions. This means that that positive, nurturing, and engaging character faculties exhibited by men are constructive towards gender equality. Also, this suggests that gender equality is achievable through deconstruction of traditional masculinity while the hegemonic masculinity.
Male stereotypes affect the way in which in which men engage with sex equality, and old-fashioned masculinity will act as the dominant masculinity for males. Although different masculinities occur for guys, the thought of conventional masculinity remains the many influential. Realising gender equality is difficult, as the fundamental characteristics exhibited by old-fashioned masculinity reduce the chances of modification. For international gender equality to advance, men must recognise on their own as fundamental actors and actively work to improve the patriarchal structures, which benefit them towards exclusion of others. Without the supportive contribution of men, sex equality is condemned to perpetuate existing energy imbalances that favour conventional masculinity. To succeed towards sex equality, efforts must certanly be designed to deconstruct traditional masculinity.
 R. W. Connell, Masculinities, 2nd ed. (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2005), p. 67.
 M. Hughs and P. Paxton, ladies, Politics, and energy: a worldwide attitude, second ed. (London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2014), pp. 24-25.
 D. Zimmerman and C. western, ‘Doing Gender’, in A. Aronson and M.Kimmel (eds.), The Gendered Society Reader, fifth ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 122.
 V. S. Peterson and A. Runyan, Global Gender Issues (Oxford: Westview Press, 1993), p. 17.
 Zimmerman and western, op. cit. (2014), p. 122.
 Peterson and Runyan, op. cit. (1993), p. 17.
 H. Christian, The Making of Anti-Sexist guys (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 6.
 M. Gatens, Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 102.
 Connell, op. cit. (2005), pp. 8-9.
 D. Britzman, ‘Psychoanalytic Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Curriculum Studies (on the web: Sage Publications, Inc., 2010), p. 693.
 Gatens, op. cit. (1991), p. 103.
S. Goldberg, ‘Feminism Against Science’, National Review, vol. 43, no. 21 (1991), p. 30.
 A. Moir and D. Jessel, mind Sex: the true distinction between women and men (London: Mandarin, 1997), p. 6.
 D. Halpern, Intercourse Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 4th ed. (ny: Psychology Press, 2012), pp. 97-98.
 Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 21.
 J. Ashfield, The Making of a Man: reclaiming masculinity and manhood in the light of reason, 2nd ed. (Australia: Peacock Publications, 2004), p. 154.
 G. Wilson, the truly amazing Sex Divide (Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1992), p. 20.
 Ibid., p. 19.
 G. Sharwell, ‘Review of Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and also the Social Order by Cynthia Fuchs Epstein; A Woman’s Wage: historic definitions and Social Consequences by Alice Kessler-Harris’, Annals associated with United states Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol. 517 (1991), p. 229.
 D. Seligman, ‘Gender Mender’, Forbes (41998), available on the internet: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0406/6107072a.html (accessed 22 October 2013).
 Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 21.
 Halpern, op. cit. (2012), p. 96.
 Gatens, op. cit. (1991), p. 100.
 Halpern, op. cit. (2012), p. 96.
 N. Gaitanidis, ‘Benign Masculinity and Critical Reason’, Psychotherapy and Politics International, vol. 10, # 3 (2012), p. 220.
 M. Kimmel, ‘Introduction’, in A. Aronson and M. Kimmel (eds.), The Gendered Community Reader, fifth ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 1.
 Ibid, p. 2.
 World Bank, World developing Report 2012: Gender Equality and developing (Washington D.C.: the planet Bank, 2012), p. 4.
 Peterson and Runyan, op. cit. (1993), p. 18.
 R. Connell, Confronting equality: gender, knowledge and international modification (UK: Polity Press, 2011), p. 15.
 J. Grossman and L. McClain (eds.), Gender Equality: proportions of Women’s Equal Citizenship (ny: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 1.
 J. Flax, ‘Gender Equality’, in M. Horowitz (ed.), brand new Dictionary for the reputation for some ideas (Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2005), p. 701.
 T. Parvikko, ‘Conceptions of Gender Equality: Similarity and Difference’, in E. Meehan and S. Sevenhuijsen (eds.),Equality Politics and Gender (London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1991), p. 36.
 C. Bacchi, ‘Review of Promblematizing “Gender Equality” by Magnusson, Eva, Malin Ronnblom and Harriet Silius, eds,’ Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender analysis, vol. 17, no. 4 (2009), p. 304.
 Parvikko, op. cit. (1991), p. 48.
 World Bank, op. cit. (2012), p. 4.
 Connell, op. cit. (2011), p. 17.
 Department of Social Services, ‘Background Paper: ‘The part of males and boys in sex equality’ (2013), available online: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/women/programs-services/international-engagement/united-nations-commission-on-the-status-of-women/background-paper-the-role-of-men-and-boys-in-gender-equality (accessed 21 October 2013).
 Peterson and Runyan, op. cit. (1994), p. 21.
 C. Epstein, Deceptive Distinctions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), p. 232.
 Peterson and Yunyan, op. cit. (1994), p. 22.
 Kimmel, op. cit. (2014), p. 4.
 Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 76.
 Homosexual masculinity is recognized as to be a gender profile that's subordinated in relation to the hegemonic masculinity. — R. Connell, ‘A Very directly Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender’, American Sociological Review, vol. 57, no. 6 (1992), p. 735-737.
 Christian, op. cit. (1994), p. 7; and Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 77.
 Christian, op. cit. (1994), p. 7.
 J. Clarke and P. Cushman, ‘Masculinities and Femininities: Student-Teachers Changing Perceptions of Gender pros and cons in brand new Zealand Primary School Environment’, in J. Aston and E. Vasquez (eds.), Masculinity and Femininity: Stereotypes/myths, Psychology and part of heritage (nyc: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2013), p. 2.
 H. Mansfield, Manliness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 23; and Clarke and Cushman, op. cit. (2013), p. 2.
 D. Collison and J. Hearn. 1996. ‘”Men” at “work”: multiple masculinities/multiple workplaces’, in M. Mac an Ghaill (ed.), Understanding Masculinities: personal Relations and Cultural Arenas (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996), p. 65.
 New as quoted in O. G. Holter, ‘Social Theories for Researching Men and Masculinities: Direct Gender Hierarchy and Structural Inequality’, in R.W. Connell, J. Hearn and M. Kimmel (eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2005), p. 15.
 Department of Social Services, op. cit. (2013).
 Christian, op. cit. (1994), pp. 7-8.
 IRIN, ‘Gender Equality: Why involving males is crucial’ (2011), available on the internet: http://www.irinnews.org/report/93870/gender-equality-why-involving-men-is-crucial (accessed 18 October 2013).
 Plan, Because i'm a Girl: hawaii associated with the World’s Girls 2011 – So, what about men? (Plan Overseas, 2011), p. 3.
 J. Gardner, ‘Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory’, in R.W. Connell, J. Hearn and M. Kimmel (eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities (Thousand Oaks, Ca: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2005), p. 36.
 S. de Beauvoir and H. Parshley (trans. ed.), The 2nd Sex (ny: Bantam Books, 1968), p. 172.
 Plan, op. cit. (2011), p. 4.
 J. Oliffe et al., 2010. ‘Masculinities and college men’s depression: Recursive relationships’, wellness Sociology Review, vol. 19, # 4 (2010), p. 466.
 V. Hanninen and J. Valkonen, ‘Narratives of Masculinity and Depression’, guys and Masculinities, vol. 16 (2012), p. 161.
 Ibid, pp. 161-162.
 MenEngage, ‘that which we believe’ (2008), available on the internet: http://www.menengage.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:what-we-believe&catid=4:about-us&Itemid=10 (accessed 20 October 2013).
 Mansfield, op. cit. (2006), pp. 31-32.
 IRIN, op. cit. (2011).
 Arrange, op. cit. (2012), p. 4.
 V. Fonseca et al., ‘Program H and Program M: Engaging teenagers and empowering women to advertise gender equality and health’ (2010), available on the internet: http://www.promundo.org.br/en/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/OPASINGLES_WEB.pdf (accessed 21 October 2013).
Written by: Aydon Edwards
Written at: University of Queensland
Written for: Dr. Samid Suliman
Date written: November 2013