Mutated Masculinities: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the New Lad and the New Man in Sons of Anarchy and Ray Donovan

Abstract

There has been a recent influx of popular U.S. television dramas depicting heteronormative but emotionally conflicted male protagonists. This article examines discursive constructions of hegemonic masculinity in two of these dramas, Sons of Anarchy (2008-2014) and Ray Donovan (2013-), in terms of the socio-cultural concepts of the New Lad and the New Man. It questions whether these discursive tools are useful for analyses of contemporary, male-focalized television, or whether they need updating. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, I argue that protagonists from both programs embody mutated, destabilized versions of the New Lad and the New Man that connect to a current U.S. “crisis of masculinity.” Offering timely conceptual updates of the New Lad and the New Man (the “Family-Oriented New Lad” and the “Emotionally Inarticulate New Man”), I show that these terms remain useful, but also need revision to capture the intricate struggle between inexpressiveness and emotionality characterizing present-day U.S. dramas.

Keywords

New Lad New Man crisis of masculinity

In business or the street, don’t matter. If your emotions say now, your head’s gotta say later. Clarity settles all scores. Pays back all debts.

—August Marks, Sons of Anarchy, “Toil and Till” (Season 7, Episode 2)

Sons of Anarchy (SOA) and Ray Donovan are narratively and thematically complex television programs which, somewhat surprisingly, have failed to elicit the same levels of academic scrutiny as many other examples of popular U.S. television focused on heterosexual, immoral, and emotionally conflicted family men, including Breaking Bad (2008-2013), Dexter (2006-2013), and The Sopranos (1999-2007). The above quote, taken from a scene of SOA in which highly respected businessman and drug lord, August, addresses leading character, Jackson “Jax” Teller, captures why both programs are interesting case studies through which to analyze images of different forms of hegemonic masculinity. It highlights how male protagonists in SOA and Ray Donovan strive to fulfill conflicting social roles as part of situations in which other characters attempt to regulate their modes of thought and behavior.

Aired on FX, SOA is set in the fictional town of Charming, California, and spans seven seasons. It centers on Jax (Charlie Hunnam), who tries to balance demands of marriage and fatherhood with duties as vice president, and later president, of outlaw motorcycle club, SAMCRO (Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original). Ray Donovan is set in Los Angeles, California, and follows Ray Donovan (Liev Schreiber) working for a law firm as a “fixer” who helps celebrities avoid criminal punishment through bribes and blackmails. These immoral tasks impact Ray’s relationships with his wife, children, and various female lovers. While in its second season when this study was conducted, Ray Donovan is ongoing, and its fifth season recently aired on Showtime.

This study places SOA and Ray Donovan on parallel tracks to highlight the shared theme of emotional conflict which permeates popular North American television dramas, regardless of differing plotlines and protagonists. Although Ray grew up in an economically disadvantaged Catholic family, his privileged lifestyle as an adult centers on expensive suits, cars, and watches, whereas Jax is a rugged, working-class biker. While seemingly having little in common, Jax and Ray face a mutual difficulty in upholding stable, archetypal forms of masculinity due to what is depicted as an inner-clash between inexpressiveness and emotionality. This clash is presented both through body language, and in interactions and relationships with other characters. A similar conflict, triggered partly by the rise of second-wave feminism, underlies two primary terms through which hegemonic masculinity began to be theorized during the 1980s and 1990s: the New Lad and the New Man. Connell’s (1987) foundational insights into hegemonic masculinity are perhaps the most useful and perceptive in the field of men’s studies.¹ Using Critical Discourse Analysis, this research builds on her work to ask how discursive constructions of hegemonic masculinity in SOA and Ray Donovan fit the socio-cultural notions of the New Lad and the New Man. It explores whether these terms need updating in view of the complex portrayals of emotional struggle that pervade a 21st-century influx of male-focalized U.S. dramas.

Images of the New Lad and the New Man are most commonly associated with the magazine medium. Indeed, these archetypes were introduced and popularized through print media (Gill, 2003), and much research has since been conducted to trace how their depictions have developed in magazines across various countries (e.g., Benwell, 2003b; Ricciardelli, Clow, & White, 2010; Song & Lee, 2012). Yet, television is a sophisticated and evolving platform that scholars must not overlook in seeking to assess the current validity of the New Lad and the New Man as socio-cultural concepts. After all, both terms were developed to describe older, more idealistic masculine images than those seen in U.S. television today, so one can question their contemporary relevance in this regard.

I argue that SOA and Ray Donovan present mutated, destabilized portrayals of the New Lad and the New Man, respectively. Hence, I offer new, timely updates of the concepts, termed the “Family-Oriented New Lad” and the “Emotionally Inarticulate New Man.” More specifically, findings suggest that Jax and Ray embody antithetical discourses of hegemonic, masculine inexpressiveness as criminal leaders and providers, and non-hegemonic, feminine emotionality as family men. These discourses work to undermine Jax and Ray’s respective performances of the New Lad and the New Man, providing insights into a “crisis of masculinity” in present-day U.S. society and culture. Thus, SOA and Ray Donovan rework older frameworks of gendered representation to convey sophisticated commentary on manhood’s current “crisis” state.

To make this argument, I will now discuss hegemonic masculinity in mass media, focusing primarily on the New Lad and the New Man. Subsequently, I will outline how the specific episodes of SOA and Ray Donovan upon which I base my assertions were sampled and analyzed. Finally, representations of body language and speech in SOA and Ray Donovan will be explored. At this point, connections will be made to what I identify as a new North American “crisis of masculinity,” and media images of the New Lad and the New Man.

Cultural Articulations of Hegemonic Masculinity

Gramsci (1971) analyzed how ruling classes maintain power over the masses by employing dominant ideology through hegemony. He was concerned with the “consent given by the . . . masses . . . to the general direction imposed on social life by . . . dominant fundamental group[s]” (p. 12). Applying a Gramscian analysis to gender relations, Connell (1987) explores how subtle ideas permeating areas of society and culture, including religion, employment, and mass media, promote hegemonic ideals of masculinity. These ideals reinforce a general gender order in which women (and men deemed effeminate, such as some homosexuals) are positioned as non-masculine and, therefore, inferior to hegemonic men. Although not incompatible with coercion, hegemonic masculinity does not necessitate physical violence to assert itself, instead relying on domination “through culture, institutions and persuasion” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832).

While not reflecting the lives and personalities of most men in wider society, film characters, such as those played by John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone, are presented as idealized norms, thus exemplifying hegemonic male “fantasy figures” in the media (Connell, 1987, p. 184). Hegemonic features are expressed both corporeally, for example, through physical appearance (e.g., strength and size), emotion (e.g., anger), and behavior (e.g., violence), and via interactions and relationships (with other men, women, and children). Nevertheless, one single character need not incorporate all aspects of hegemonic masculinity to epitomize a fantasy figure. For instance, media depictions of a businessman and a professional athlete may each incorporate differing hegemonic elements (Cheng, 1999).

When identifying evolving representations of manhood, one can highlight the breadwinner as an older form of hegemonic masculinity popular in early to mid-20th-century media. Endorsing principles of honest hard work, altruism, and ambition through manufacturing jobs, the breadwinner is typically depicted as a male whose central role is sole provider for his wife and children. North American actors, including Jimmy Stewart and Michael Landon, played iconic breadwinning husbands and fathers in early to mid-20th-century films and television programs, such as The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Little House on the Prairie (1974-1982; Holt & Thompson, 2004).

Media depictions of the breadwinner reflect wider social patterns in the United States around the mid-19th century, when paid work moved from homes to factories due to the industrial revolution. Men very often assumed dominant roles as factory employees, while women raised children in the home (Cherlin, 2009). However, for some writers, the breadwinner ideal has since lost hegemonic socio-cultural power because second-wave feminism, emerging in the 1960s and 1970s, pushed for more women in employment to erode the sexist division of labor (man as provider and woman as homemaker) through which it operates (e.g., Crompton, 1999; Levant, 1995). Still, this archetype cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to images of hegemonic masculinity in SOA and Ray Donovan. Jax and Ray, for instance, are not pillars of honesty due to engagements in criminality, but occupations are central to their masculine identities, as are motivations to provide for their families. This study explores how male characters in SOA and Ray Donovan may convey persisting, traditionally masculine discourses of provision alongside newer discourses of manhood linked to a current U.S. “crisis of masculinity.” Argued to be triggered partly by feminism, and the onset of consumer culture in the 1980s, this crisis contextualized the rise of two updated forms of hegemonic masculinity in the media during the 1980s and 1990s: the New Lad and the New Man.

Enter the New Lad and the New Man

A “crisis of masculinity” is said to occur during periods of significant socio-cultural change in which old definitions of masculinity are destabilized and new definitions are not yet firmly established (Kimmel, 2017). Beynon (2002) identifies several periods throughout history during which the meaning of manhood was destabilized in the United States and other contexts, some preceding the women’s movement and the industrial revolution. He claims that the current manifestation of masculine crisis in North America began to unfold throughout the 1980s because “the central tenets upon which previous masculinity was based (patriarchy, bread-winning, tasks demanding strength) . . . [were] eroded” (p. 159).

When underlining how a patriarchal division of labor operates through the socio-cultural production and reproduction of hierarchal gender differences, second-wave feminist writers (e.g., Rubin, 1983; Tannen, 1990) critiqued biologically determinist notions of masculine inexpressiveness and feminine emotionality stemming from the modern era.² As breadwinners, North American men have been expected to express love for their families through composed, action-oriented, and stoic provision, rather than open emotion. However, feminists stressed that men are not innately unemotional, but are instead socialized into impassivity through stereotypes, expectations, and ideals. Therefore, women have begun to seek equality with men, especially in romantic relationships and family life. They now demand that men stop defining masculinity through impassive acts such as provision and, alternatively, display unrestrained feeling in an aim to challenge and eliminate hierarchal, gendered notions of inexpressiveness and emotionality (Levant, 1995).

Consumer culture similarly undermined traditional masculinity by publicizing male bodily objectification in a stereotypically feminine way. While long relying on exploitations of patriarchal “tough-guy masculinity” to sell items such as cars and beer (Duerringer, 2015, p.141), marketers began to promote more commodities emphasizing physical appearance, including men’s skincare products and stylish clothing (Beynon, 2002). Beynon (2002) highlights that these changes triggered a socio-cultural paradigm shift centered on both a general sense of physical insecurity concerning the male body, and confusion about what constitutes a hegemonic man. He asserts that this crisis of masculinity provided a setting for media representations of the New Man.

Emerging in men’s fashion-based magazines, such as Esquire and GQ, during the 1980s, the New Man is both a “nurturer” and a “narcissist” (Beynon, 2002, pp. 100-102). This archetype was given its name in a 1982 article in The Washington Post about masculine portrayals in the U.S. comedy film, Tootsie (1982; de Castella, 2014). In Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman plays Michael, a temperamental actor who begins to exhibit nurturing qualities representative of the New Man, including sensitivity and patience, when posing as a woman for an acting role.

As a nurturer, the New Man internalizes feminist ideology, symbolizing the wider socio-cultural shift toward the idealization of masculine emotion. Committing himself to fatherhood and dividing household chores with his wife, he displays attributes which can be deemed positive due to serving the interests and desires of women, thus demonstrating that hegemonic masculinity is not comprised solely of negative qualities (Beynon, 2002). Alan, a male character from the U.S. comedy television program, Two and a Half Men (2003-2015), resembles the New Man in his open emotionality and support of feminist principles (Hatfield, 2010). Moreover, the New Man is an unashamed, narcissistic consumer, who is commonly shown wearing branded suits and watches while driving expensive-looking cars, thereby being employed to advertise products (Beynon, 2002). Accordingly, ideologies of feminism and consumerism, which threaten patriarchy, are incorporated into the cultural ideal of the New Man in an attempt to uphold hegemonic masculinity.

Ray Donovan is a particularly fruitful case study through which to assess whether the socio-cultural concept of the emotional New Man remains valid to analyze media portrayals of hegemonic masculinity. In addressing sensitive, emotive issues, Ray Donovan’s intricate plot shapes the masculinities of its male characters, and vice versa. For instance, Ray and his brother, Brendan “Bunchy” Donovan, were abused by a priest as children while mourning their mother’s death. As an adult, Ray handles these experiences by suppressing feeling when interacting with his wife, children, and lovers, whereas Bunchy is more affectionate with female characters. Therefore, this study explores how Ray Donovan’s complex images of male emotion relate to the archetype of the New Man. Ray, for example, may face difficulty in acknowledging feeling, while also believing that he must present as a compassionate and nurturing New Man for his family. Generally, the study investigates how male characters in both SOA and Ray Donovan may negotiate features of the New Man, and/or the New Lad, in plotlines depicting emotional experiences and interactions involving women and children.

In reaction to the New Man, the New Lad emerged in British men’s magazines founded in the 1990s, including FHM and Loaded. For the co-founder of Loaded, Tim Southwell (1998), magazines endorsing the New Man were, by the 1990s, “laughably out of touch” with what appeals to men (p. 17). Hence, the producer of Arena, Sean O’Hagan, first termed the New Lad to describe a new brand of masculinity that “sought to expose the ‘myth’ of the sensitive, caring and non-sexist new man” (Gill, 2003, p. 49). Put simply, the New Lad was constructed to reassert the patriarchal power of hegemonic masculinity destabilized by feminism, thus endorsing traditionally masculine values involving male friendship, stereotypically masculine commodities, and sexism (Benwell, 2003a). These are analyzed below.

Casual sex with women, physical fights, and binge-drinking are typical behaviors in which the New Lad engages with close male friends (Benwell, 2003a). Through these behaviors, he promotes ideologies of consumerism associated with feminine objectification, but only endorses stereotypically masculine commodities, including cars, motorcycles, and “carefully managed” clothing which cannot be deemed feminine (Bonner, 2002, p. 194). Accordingly, the New Man owns products highlighting a stylish physical appearance, while the New Lad possesses objects communicating a more traditionally masculine image. This image centers on a rejection of marriage and fatherhood, as the New Lad views women as sexual objects and considers emotionally intimate romantic relationships to be “infringement[s] on masculine autonomy” (Milestone & Meyer, 2012, p. 130). From these sexist principles stem a lack of strong visible emotion, particularly love and sadness, which he associates with weakness, dependence, and passivity of women and New Men (Clare, 2000). This illustrates how laddish media images are “ideological battlefields” (Edley & Wetherell, 1996, p. 106) bearing the conflict between traditional, patriarchal ideologies of masculinity and oppositional feminist ideologies calling for gender equality.

While emerging in the United Kingdom, laddish masculinity has spread to North American media, which, in turn, suggests that it is a cross-cultural phenomenon. For example, the U.S. comedy television series, The Man Show (1999-2004), celebrates lad culture. Equally, U.S. editions of British “lad magazines,” such as FHM, Maxim, and Stuff, debuted during the late 1990s and “rapidly established a firm cultural presence” (Taylor, 2005, p. 155). SOA is especially a fruitful case study through which to assess the current validity of the New Lad as a discursive tool for analyzing media representations of hegemonic masculinity, not least because the program’s British lead actor, Charlie Hunnam, has performed laddish parts in U.K. films and television programs, including Byker Grove (1989-2006) and Green Street (2005). Also, some of SAMCRO’s close-knit male members engage in behaviors typical of the New Lad while maintaining connections with wives, girlfriends, and children (e.g., Jax and Robert “Bobby” Munson). Therefore, this study examines how male characters in SOA and Ray Donovan may negotiate laddish qualities, and/or those of the New Man, when balancing male friendships with romantic relationships and paternal duties. Taking a relational approach to gender studies endorsed by Brod (1994), it explores constructions of masculinity in interactions and relationships between male and female characters.

Method

For this study, I utilized Fairclough’s (2013) framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to investigate representations of hegemonic masculinity in SOA and Ray Donovan. The approach to CDA taken in this study was partially modeled on recent uses of Fairclough’s (2013) framework by Nijjar (2015) and Richardson (2007), following three broad steps.

First, textual analysis was deployed to examine how specific images of male characters³ are constructed through form and content. I used content analysis, a type of textual analysis that succinctly summarizes occurrences of manifest themes in certain aspects of a text (Seale & Tonkiss, 2018). As literature on hegemonic masculinity emphasizes its embodiment, corporeal features of Jax from SOA and Ray from Ray Donovan were organized into themes, sub-themes, and codes. For instance, one theme was “Physical Appearance,” a sub-theme was “Clothing” and a code was “Blazer.” When discussing CDA findings below, I highlight other elements when appropriate, including interactions and relationships of Jax and Ray, spaces in which they are depicted, camera angles, and plotlines. The analysis focuses on protagonists, Jax and Ray, because their enactments of masculinity are central to SOA and Ray Donovan.

Content analysis was applied to all scenes in which Jax appeared in Season 7 of SOA (13 episodes), and in which Ray appeared in Season 2 of Ray Donovan (12 episodes). While the most recent season of each program (at the time of conducting this study) was selected to access the most “developed” forms of the two characters, additional seasons are often mentioned in the discussion of CDA results when relevant. Part of the value in investigating full seasons, rather than singular episodes, is that analysis of ongoing plotlines can be included.

Second, discursive analysis was used to interpret latent discourses, conveyed through the materiality of Jax and Ray’s bodies, which communicate specific meanings about hegemonic masculinity. At this stage, textual analysis became discourse analysis, as findings of the former were developed to provide a deeper, interpretive investigation (Richardson, 2007).

Third, I employed socio-cultural analysis to explore how the content and production of SOA and Ray Donovan link to a wider gender order, and general socio-cultural practices of masculinity. Questions asked during socio-cultural analysis include the following: How do textual themes and discourses connect to their broader socio-cultural context? How may the text impact power relations and socio-cultural practices, or vice versa? Does the text perpetuate or destabilize hierarchies and undesirable customs? Here, discourse analysis became critical, as the scope of the investigation was expanded to assess wider processes (Richardson, 2007).

Findings

In the next sections, I examine, in-depth, two very prominent themes identified in the content analysis: body language and mode of speech. When relevant, content analysis findings from other themes are included to discuss more general features of Jax and Ray. Through postures and dialogue, both characters display forms of masculinity centered on three main features: (a) inexpressiveness, (b) leadership, and (c) emotional isolation.

First, facial expressions of Jax and Ray can very often be described as expressionless. Both characters also frequently use calm or seemingly emotionless tones of voice. Put simply, they are represented as largely inexpressive men who control their bodies to suppress visible emotion.

Second, Jax and Ray are regularly shown acting as authoritative criminal leaders, for example, when giving orders and making decisions. Ray instructs his assistants, Avi and Lena, while sitting behind a desk in his office, whereas Jax issues his orders while holding a gavel and sitting at the head of a large table surrounded by fellow SAMCRO members. Tables and gavels are props used to position characters according to roles, thereby serving as symbols of the authority which Jax and Ray hold over their inferiors. Crucially, work is a key setting in which both protagonists are depicted as largely inexpressive.

Finally, Jax and Ray frequently look either downward or around at their surroundings to avoid eye contact when discussing sensitive topics, thereby emotionally isolating themselves from other characters. For Ray, this is enhanced by mise-en-scène where he is commonly depicted alone in a car or an office, and/or talking on the phone, thus avoiding face-to-face interaction. Significantly, Jax and Ray often turn their bodies away from other characters during interaction, and camera angles focus on the backs of both men to highlight their feelings of loneliness. However, as the men are also seen to display more open emotion under some circumstances, it is evident that they experience deep feelings which are often withheld through isolation.

Inexpressiveness Versus Emotionality

In some instances, SOA and Ray Donovan discursively juxtapose the masculine inexpressive leadership of their protagonists with the feminine emotionality and impotence of female characters (and some male characters). A scene from Ray Donovan, “Gem and Loan” (Season 1, Episode 3), highlights how this is achieved through interaction. Ray and his wife, Abby, are discussing how their daughter, Bridget, has been denied admission into a certain private school by a powerful man. Abby is distressed and panicked as she paces back and forth. Ray, however, is inexpressive. He states, “Look, Abs. This [solving problems] is my side of the street. You let me take care of it, alright? Stop worrying so much.” In this scene, Ray’s composed, confident leadership qualities as a fixer of problems contrast with Abby’s emotional helplessness. Similarly, in SOA, Jax’s stolid leadership as SAMCRO’s president is contrasted with the unpredictable, emotional personalities of characters such as Grant and Loutreesha, with whom he frequently interacts in duties for the club. These characters are often bemused, vulnerable, and agitated as Jax calmly provides clear instructions.

In scenes like these, Jax and Ray are discursively constructed as well-equipped to solve problems due to their positions as authoritative leaders, central to which is the suppression of feeling. Although they may reveal subtle signs of emotion, both men are often largely inexpressive. Correspondingly, characters such as Abby, Grant, and Loutreesha are portrayed as unable to take charge in adverse situations precisely because they are too emotional. As feminists highlighted, discourses juxtaposing stolidity with strong feeling form part of widely held “emotion beliefs,” which reinforce the definition of a “real” man as impassive, while marginalizing women and openly emotional men (Shields, 2002, p.11). Thus, through oppositional character representations, SOA and Ray Donovan convey discourses of hegemonic, masculine inexpressiveness and non-hegemonic, feminine emotionality.

Of course, Jax and Ray are not classic exemplars of rationality because they engage in immoral and risky behavior. Still, the above highlights that SOA and Ray Donovan convey the modern, traditionally masculine discourse that inexpressiveness is vital in the somewhat rational thought process needed for both men to be efficient criminal leaders. Crucially, thriving in these roles enables Jax and Ray to provide for their wives and children. SOA and Ray Donovan especially emphasize the importance of provision in Seasons 4 and 3, respectively, which depict Jax and Ray worrying about the financial stability of their families when considering abandoning illegal work. However, under some circumstances, especially those which hurt or endanger family, the emotions of both protagonists materialize more visibly through their bodies and, in turn, negatively affect their abilities to make relatively reasonable decisions as criminal leaders.

Jax, for instance, is shown grieving for his murdered wife, Tara, throughout Season 7 of SOA, frequently isolating himself from other characters in an attempt to stoically handle his loss. Yet, Jax also feels the need to loyally avenge Tara’s death through SAMCRO, thereby often struggling to be phlegmatic. When highly angry and violent, he makes unreasonable, dangerous decisions in leading the club, which sometimes involve shooting and killing innocent people. As SOA’s plot progresses, the grave consequences of these decisions for SAMCRO’s future become increasingly apparent. Significantly, in “Toil and Till” (Season 7, Episode 2), August advises Jax to be composed and patient in pursuing Tara’s killer. Later suffering the impact of Jax’s reckless choices, August and his enforcers methodically torture and kill SAMCRO member, Bobby, to express disapproval and punish the club. Unable to handle his conflicted emotions, and believing he has failed to protect Tara from the dangers of outlaw life, Jax commits suicide.

Ray’s emotions also materialize when Bridget risks being killed by a dangerous client, Cookie, for witnessing a murder. In the beginning of “Snowflake” (Season 2, Episode 9), Ray sits alone, stock-still, staring straight ahead and looking worried for his daughter. Isolating himself from a hysterical Abby, Ray faces difficulties in suppressing anxiety and, therefore, exercising the emotionless initiative needed to efficiently handle the situation. In later scenes, his expression often reveals subtle signs of deep sorrow, torment, and desperation. Believing he must protect Bridget out of love, Ray displays occasional angry outbursts and makes emotionally charged decisions in criminal leadership, which are stigmatized by associates including Avi and Ezra, due to their risky and contentious nature. While eventually managing to calmly and methodically kill Cookie, Ray’s anguish and exhaustion are apparent in Season 2’s finale, “The Captain” (Episode 12). Running throughout Ray Donovan, this theme of emotional struggle is also prominent in Season 5, which depicts Abby’s cancer diagnosis. Ray tries to address this problem in a capable manner as a fixer, arranging for his wife to undergo a surgical clinical trial. However, concern for Abby leads him to make impulsive decisions, such as injecting another trial candidate with meningitis. When Abby ends her own life, a broken Ray, like Jax, feels he has failed to protect his wife, thus seemingly attempting suicide in the season finale, “Time Takes a Cigarette” (Episode 12).

The above situations convey the discourse that inexpressiveness and emotionality cannot be successfully negotiated within the operation of hegemonic masculinity. Plotlines place Jax and Ray in situations which mix work with deeply emotional family matters, prompting the protagonists to attract stigma from other (predominantly male) characters when making reckless, unreasonable, and emotionally charged decisions out of loyalty, love, and a need to protect. This reinforces that a hegemonic man must constantly suppress the feelings which will negatively impact his ability to exercise authoritative criminal leadership and, in turn, fulfill the vital duty of provision. It is noteworthy that Jax and Ray attempt to uphold some principles in their work throughout earlier seasons of SOA and Ray Donovan, in which they are shown avoiding the harm of innocent people. Yet, as seen, even this limited moral sense is subsequently lost when both men, in their deeply emotional states, inflict pain, death, and illness on undeserving individuals. Experiencing a sense of failure in their duties to protect family, the emotionally conflicted Jax and Ray commit and seemingly attempt suicide, respectively. In the next section, I show how these images provide important commentary on wider socio-cultural tensions between masculine inexpressiveness and masculine emotion.

Capturing a Crisis of Masculinity

Discourses communicated through the body language and speech of Jax and Ray can be understood more clearly when linked to their wider socio-cultural context. The emotional struggles faced by both characters can be viewed as microcosms of the crisis of masculinity in contemporary U.S. society and culture.

As noted above, second-wave feminism undermined the traditionally masculine, stolid breadwinner ideal by encouraging women to enter employment, and to demand open emotionality from men in romantic relationships and family life. However, this has not alleviated North American men of pressure to impassively provide for their families. Despite feminist efforts to the contrary, peers, parents, and wider society still impart the message to men, from childhood, that they must conceal feeling to avoid being deemed feminine (Levant, 1995). Relatively recent empirical studies, conducted in U.S. schools, illustrate how boys are regulated and pressured to remain impassive through ideas that visible emotion is “gay” and “girly” (Oransky & Marecek, 2009, p. 235; see also Martino, 2001). For Levant (1995), early socialization into inexpressiveness prepares men to be stoic, composed, and assertive workers. Expectations to provide remain central to masculine identity, as “no mainstream cultural discourse poses an option for men of not being a worker” (Lotz, 2014, pp. 90-91, emphasis in original). The clash between traditional discourses of masculine, stolid leadership in work, and newer feminist discourses of masculine emotionality in romantic relationships and family life has arguably contributed to the current socio-cultural crisis of masculinity in the United States (Clare, 2000; Kimmel, 2017; Levant, 1995).

I argue that portrayals of Jax and Ray are microcosms of this crisis of masculinity. Both men are pressured to display an inexpressive form of masculinity to be deemed hegemonic, efficient criminal leaders and, in turn, provide for their wives and children. Yet, they also feel the strong need to exhibit a protective, openly emotional form of masculinity out of love and loyalty as husbands and fathers. One could suggest that this need stems heavily from guilt, as the situations which harm and endanger Tara and Bridget are linked to the illegal, perilous lifestyles of Jax and Ray. For the protagonists, inner crises in balancing the contradictory demands of their roles are expressed both through manifestations of strong feeling, which trigger reckless decision-making at work, and in emotional isolation from other characters. Uncertain how to handle these conflicting demands, and suffering a sense of failure in their duties to protect family, Jax and Ray commit and seemingly attempt suicide, respectively.

SOA and Ray Donovan epitomize the (aforementioned) recent influx of popular U.S. television dramas which depict morally ambiguous, “flawed protagonists” struggling to construct a socio-culturally acceptable form of masculinity as both lawbreakers and family men (Lotz, 2014, p. 63). Paradoxically, Jax and Ray partake in immoral activity out of loving concern for the financial wellbeing of their families, but can only be efficient criminal leaders by suppressing emotion toward those they love, and separating family matters from work. As the men nobly intend to provide, while initially upholding some principles by avoiding the harm of innocent people, their engagements in illegality are constructed as comprehensible and somewhat relatable. Exploring male-focalized U.S. television, Vaage (2016) describes protagonists of this kind as “antiheroes,” who are positioned as corrupt, yet still deserving of audience sympathy and support. Gradually, these men face tragic outcomes when unable to present as the loyal, loving, and protective husbands and fathers they believe they must be.

In the Season 7 finale of SOA, “Papa’s Goods” (Season 7, Episode 13), Jax voices this sense of failure shortly before committing suicide. He sits near the place where his father, John “JT” Teller, is also thought to have killed himself after unsuccessfully trying to balance SAMCRO with family life. It is believed that JT, like Jax, crashed his bike into an oncoming vehicle. Jax addresses JT, empathizing with his father’s distress:

The one [struggle] that I feel the most is the war of the mind. Happens when you try to get right with both family and patch [SAMCRO] . . . I realized . . . a good father and good outlaw can’t settle inside the same man.

Season 7 of SOA centers on Jax’s realization that he must separate his unlawful activities from the upbringing of his two children to give them a chance at leading a non-criminal lifestyle. When alive, Tara begged Jax to stop engaging in illegal drug-running and gun trade with SAMCRO. However, Jax’s mother, Gemma, was deeply invested in his future as SAMCRO’s president, thereby disapproving of Tara’s requests. This disagreement between Jax’s wife and mother forms a key plotline which reaches its pinnacle in Season 6’s finale, “A Mother’s Work” (Episode 13), when Gemma murders Tara for fleeing Charming with Jax’s children. The clash can be seen to symbolize an irreparable rift inside of Jax, with Gemma representing expectations of inexpressive leadership in outlaw duties and Tara typifying his need to be an openly emotional family man. Hence, Papa’s Goods depicts a crossroads for Jax, as he realizes that he must finally face this inner battle.

In the above quote, Jax succinctly describes the mental conflict and guilt faced when attempting to balance modern discourses of phlegmatic leadership as an outlaw with newer feminist discourses of emotion, namely loyalty, love, and nurturance as a grieving husband and father. Feeling he has failed to guard his family from the dangers of outlaw life, Jax claims it is impossible for a man to successfully meet the incompatible expectations of both roles, thereby citing an inner battle as a key reason for his suicide. In the scene, he looks relaxed and smiles serenely as the wind blows gently through his hair. Significantly, Jax then removes some masculine objects from his body, namely sunglasses and a helmet. Immediately before dying, he closes his eyes, smiles, and holds out his arms. Embracing his fate, Jax acknowledges he will be at peace if he is dead, rather than battling with conflicting expectations while alive.

Although a general crisis of masculinity does not require such extreme outcomes, portrayals of Jax and Ray capture the mental conflict arguably faced by North American men when trying to fulfill contradictory socio-cultural expectations of masculinity. Levant (1995) asserts that men generally lead seemingly successful and fulfilling lives because they have been taught to conceal emotion, but inwardly, they are “more confused [than] . . . they’d ever thought possible about their purpose and value as men” (p. 3). However, it is noteworthy that the operation of masculinity in each context is unique, and can “be complicated by the circumstances of individual lives” (Peel, Caine, & Twomey, 2007, p. 249). The way a man negotiates features of inexpressiveness and emotionality in work and family life depends on the interplay between multiple, shifting cultural discourses, including those related to race, class, and sexuality, which do not operate in isolation from gender (Shugart, 2008). SOA and Ray Donovan are constructed around stories of men who occupy specific positions in a web of interlocking social divisions and hierarchies. Nonetheless, struggles faced by Jax and Ray provide invaluable insights into the demands of hegemonic masculinity.

One must also clarify that this crisis of masculinity in its current North American form is not necessarily relevant to other eras and contexts. Findings of this study form part of a larger picture, focusing on how socio-cultural developments related to the women’s movement, tracing back to around the 1960s, have arguably led up to a point of masculine crisis in 21st-century U.S. society.⁴ This is thought to be evident in a conflict between unstable, incompatible discourses of hegemonic masculinity, which create social roles demanding both inexpressiveness and feeling. Put simply, through readings of SOA and Ray Donovan, I aim to demonstrate that debates around a destabilization of North American masculinity occurring during the latter half of the 20th century have not yet been resolved.

The Family-Oriented New Lad and the Emotionally Inarticulate New Man

Enactments of emotional struggle in SOA and Ray Donovan highlight that constructions of hegemonic masculinity are not always idealistic and straightforward. Drawing on these enactments, I argue that Jax and Ray embody mutated, destabilized versions of the New Lad and the New Man, respectively. Both protagonists face contradictions when attempting to integrate discourses of provision and emotionality into their individual performances of the New Lad and the New Man. I offer the new term of the Family-Oriented New Lad to describe Jax, and that of the Emotionally Inarticulate New Man to describe Ray. This is not to suggest that these terms fully capture the complex facets of Jax and Ray’s characters. For instance, a stereotypically American, aggressive biker masculinity also forms a key part of Jax’s image, while much of Ray’s masculine crisis can be argued to stem from class conflicts between his Catholic upbringing in the socio-economically marginalized area of South Boston, and the wealthy, Los Angeles–based lifestyle he has constructed for himself. These added dimensions indicate a need for future research on wider class structures and identities in SOA and Ray Donovan. However, this section focuses consecutively on those aspects of Jax resembling the New Lad, and those of Ray resembling the New Man, to make important observations about the oppositional discourses underlying these archetypes.

Drawing on attributes of lad culture mentioned above, one can note Jax’s general, laddish qualities. First, the New Lad “negotiate[s] a passage to manhood” by engaging in male bonding (Clare, 2000, p. 87). Likewise, Jax maintains close friendships with fellow male members of SAMCRO by regularly engaging in archetypal laddish bonding activities, such as riding motorcycles, having casual sex with women, engaging in physical fights, and drinking alcohol (Benwell, 2003a). Second, laddish behavior entails treating women as sexual objects (Milestone & Meyer, 2012). Correspondingly, Jax is shown co-managing a prostitution house and pornography business, which have both been criticized by radical feminists for sexually objectifying women (e.g., Dworkin, 1981; Mackinnon, 1989). Finally, images of the New Lad center on advertising stereotypically masculine commodities, including motorcycles and carefully managed clothing which cannot be deemed feminine (Bonner, 2002). Similarly, Jax is commonly depicted on his motorcycle in rugged, masculine clothing, including a leather jacket, worn-out boots, and baggy jeans. This illustrates that Jax’s general traits resemble those of the New Lad.

More specifically, Jax’s laddish masculinity is also apparent when considering that he showcases his emotional detachment from other characters in many casual sexual encounters throughout SOA. Like the frequently inexpressive and isolated Jax, the New Lad conceals discernible signs of love and sadness, using superficial sexual interaction to associate with women while avoiding expressions of romantic feeling (Milestone & Meyer, 2012). Images of this archetype endorse the modern, traditionally masculine discourse, also conveyed in SOA, that emotion is linked to feminine weakness (Clare, 2000). Therefore, Jax evidently indulges in a heavily laddish lifestyle based on gratification, freedom, and a rejection of emotional connections through casual sex.

Jax’s performance of the New Lad is, however, influenced by his wife and children. The New Lad does not usually take on responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood, as they are associated with expressions of feminine emotion. Instead, he believes that meaningful romantic relationships and paternal duties limit masculine freedom (Milestone & Meyer, 2012). Hence, Jax’s engagement in casual sex can be viewed as one of the ways in which he attempts to both reinforce his laddish, impassive masculinity, and reject the emotionality expected of him in marriage and fatherhood. Yet, Jax is also shown struggling to uphold his inexpressiveness, displaying visible emotion out of loyalty and love toward Tara, whose death he feels he must avenge.

Considering the above, I argue that the plotlines of SOA destabilize Jax’s laddish masculinity by portraying him as a Family-Oriented New Lad. While lad culture simplistically encourages men to shun romantic relationships and paternal duties, Jax is a New Lad who is placed in situations which prompt a need to both provide and express emotion for his wife and children. Conflicted in his sense of responsibility as a grieving husband and father, Jax displays outbursts of strong feeling which contradict the laddish, impassive, and carefree masculinity he tries to display. Significantly, this emotional struggle, and an accompanying sense of failure, is cited as the primary reason for Jax’s suicide. Thus, representations of this character work to reinforce that a New Lad cannot maintain a romantic relationship and perform paternal duties, as laddish principles conflict with those of a husband and father. On one hand, men are generally expected to internalize discourses of open emotionality in family life since the emergence of second-wave feminism (Shields, 2002). Jax’s emotional struggle is seen to be triggered by his difficulties in adopting this discourse alongside requirements of provision. On the other hand, lad culture endorses traditionally masculine values, including male bonding, female objectification, and male impassivity, which oppose feminism and work to reassert patriarchal power (Benwell, 2003a).

Ray, in contrast, exhibits general features of the New Man outlined previously. Like this archetype, Ray is a husband and father, and his body is regularly used to showcase products highlighting a stylish physical appearance, including blazers, shirts, and watches (Beynon, 2002). This differs from the laddish, stereotypically masculine commodities of Jax. Accordingly, while Jax and Ray are both portrayed as avid consumers, their consumption patterns resemble those of the New Lad and the New Man, respectively.

It is shown, however, that Ray struggles to express visible feeling. Often emotionally isolating himself from other characters, Ray believes he must fulfill the traditionally masculine responsibility of provision, central to which is stoic, inexpressive leadership. Conversely, the utopian New Man does not face difficulties in displaying feeling due to internalizing feminist ideology, which urges men to express love for their families not by impassively providing, but through open emotion. Thus, Ray’s inability to abandon persisting discourses of provision prevents him from displaying the New Man’s unrestrained affection toward his wife and children. Yet, apart from suppressing manifest feeling, Ray exemplifies the New Man as a husband, father, and avid consumer.

Based on these characteristics, I argue that Ray is constructed as an Emotionally Inarticulate New Man under immense strain. More specifically, Ray is a New Man who attempts to enact this “feminist-friendly” masculinity, which demands emotion in marriage and fatherhood, but simultaneously feels he must impassively provide through criminal leadership. This strain works to influence Ray’s behavior, leaving him conflicted as he both emotionally isolates himself, and displays strong feelings out of an obligation to protect his family.⁵ Crucially, Ray’s uncertainty and sense of failure in handling these pressures lead him to seemingly attempt suicide. Therefore, through specific plotlines, Ray Donovan presents a depiction which destabilizes Ray’s masculinity as a New Man. This is achieved by unsettling the feminist principles of emotionality on which media images of this archetype are heavily based. Storylines centered on Ray highlight the struggles the New Man faces when trying to display sensitive, feminist-friendly behaviors in a socio-cultural context where traditional ideas of inexpressive provision persist as central to masculine identity.

When analyzed collectively, destabilized portrayals of the New Lad and the New Man in SOA and Ray Donovan work to convey the unstable, incompatible discourses of impassivity and emotionality through which both forms of hegemonic masculinity are socio-culturally constructed. Images of the New Lad and the New Man arose from conditions of significant socio-cultural change, conflict, and crisis around the meaning of manhood. Hence, depictions of Jax and Ray underline how unrealistic, fragile versions of hegemonic masculinity, promoted by male fantasy figures through media institutions, are unattainable for most men at the micro level. This is due to expectations faced in conflicting social roles demanding both inexpressiveness and feeling.

The above analysis illustrates that the theoretical concepts of the New Lad and the New Man are partially applicable to 20th-century television dramas, namely SOA and Ray Donovan. This is because Jax and Ray exhibit general features of the New Lad and the New Man, respectively, but struggle to balance impassivity and emotionality when performing as these archetypes. More specifically, their performances are unsettled by contradictions faced in roles as both providers and family men. Accordingly, Jax and Ray do not embody typical versions of the New Lad and the New Man, but are instead represented as destabilized mutations. As depictions of both characters are ridden with immense pressures and conflict, they are much less idealistic than those portrayals of the New Lad and the New Man which emerged in print media, during the 1980s and 1990s, in an attempt to stabilize the meaning of manhood. Thus, I have moderately revised the concepts to offer timely updates in line with new images of masculinity. I have used these updates in my above analysis, calling them the Family-Oriented New Lad and the Emotionally Inarticulate New Man.

One can also speculate why the producers of SOA and Ray Donovan present images of the New Lad and the New Man in crisis. As shown, hegemonic masculinity has been increasingly discussed, researched, and represented, through discourses of the New Lad and the New Man, across newspapers, magazines, and academia since the 1980s. Many U.S. television channels, such as FX and Showtime, have recently begun to capitalize on this surge of interest by airing dramas in which hegemonic masculinity is marketed through different types of (predominantly white) male characters. These may include younger, working-class, and laddish bikers like Jax, or older, more wealthy, and professional-looking New Men like Ray. Accordingly, television channels and producers aim to appeal to the preferences, personalities, and general socio-economic circumstances of various men to gain investments of time and money into their programs.

Despite the economic and cultural factors shaping SOA and Ray Donovan, producers of both programs manage to construct new, creative representations of male protagonists which can be interpreted as commentary on the current state of masculinity. Through Jax and Ray (and their interactions and relationships with other characters), producers attempt to recognize and market the various socio-cultural meanings attributed to hegemonic masculinity across late-20th- and 21st-century images of the New Lad and the New Man, including inexpressiveness and emotion, while also revealing their fragility. A similar creative energy around constructions of masculinity can be observed in the many other 21st-century, popular U.S. dramas centered on emotionally conflicted family men. Consequently, a quote from Smith (1994) holds much relevance:

The effectiveness of new articulations [of gender] depends on two basic factors: the extent to which traditional articulations have become increasingly weakened so that social elements have entered a “crisis” state of unfixity, and the extent to which new articulations borrow from and rework various traditional frameworks so that they already appear to be somewhat familiar. (p. 6)

Readings of SOA and Ray Donovan suggest that Jax and Ray embody new articulations of masculinity, which borrow from, rework, and update older discursive frameworks of the New Lad and the New Man, to provide commentary on hegemonic masculinity’s “‘crisis’ state of unfixity.” This indicates that producers aim to articulate masculinity in a way which appears to be innovative and critical, yet somewhat familiar. Both programs convey a new, sophisticated, and timely critique about a debatable masculine crisis, while also conforming to the “discursive regularities and constraints” (Foucault, 1969/1972, p. 63) through which hegemonic gendered imagery is constructed so that their content simultaneously satisfies the economic and cultural requirements of corporate television networks. Hence, the producers of SOA and Ray Donovan do not attempt to present stable, idealistic masculine portrayals, but instead capitalize on the instability of masculinity. By adapting traditional frameworks of gendered representation to a current socio-cultural context of arguable crisis, images of Jax and Ray cleverly negotiate some of the potentially restrictive economic and cultural factors that shape the content of popular media texts aimed at men.

Conclusion

This article set out to ask how discursive constructions of hegemonic masculinity in SOA and Ray Donovan fit the concepts of the New Lad and the New Man. I argue that Jax from SOA can be understood as a Family-Oriented New Lad, and Ray from Ray Donovan as an Emotionally Inarticulate New Man. Through CDA, I find that the New Lad and the New Man persist in mutated, destabilized forms in SOA and Ray Donovan. Both programs encapsulate socio-cultural changes and conflict that underpin images of the aforementioned archetypes, namely an arguable, current crisis of masculinity triggered partly by the rise of second-wave feminism. Thus, this article furthers the field of men’s studies by offering revised, timely updates of the theoretical terms of the New Lad and the New Man. It shows that these discursive tools remain useful for understanding media images of hegemonic masculinity, and also need revising to capture the complex theme of emotional conflict that permeates 21st-century, popular U.S. television dramas such as SOA and Ray Donovan.

Analyzing the content analysis themes of body language and mode of speech, I find that Jax and Ray struggle to simultaneously embody discourses of hegemonic, masculine inexpressiveness as criminal leaders and providers, and non-hegemonic, feminine emotionality as husbands and fathers. North American men are thought to be experiencing similar inner crises in balancing persisting, traditionally masculine demands of impassivity in work and provision alongside feminist principles of love and nurturance in family life.

This article examines the conflict between inexpressiveness in provision and emotionality in family life as one aspect of a multi-faceted crisis of masculinity. Yet, the significance of this conflict must not be underestimated because it raises the issue of whether North American men should articulate or suppress feeling, as both workers and family men, to be deemed hegemonic. While insightful, findings of this research provide no fixed solution in this respect, as they have established that men are caught in an intricate double-bind when gaining a mixture of both approval and shame for presenting either inexpressiveness or emotionality. Also, as qualities are negotiated in unique, complex ways in individual lives, workings of hegemonic masculinity are further raveled.

Primarily, this study aims to illustrate the usefulness of CDA by highlighting that the content and construction of visual images provides key insights into broader, intersecting socio-cultural divisions. While placing men as a central object of analysis, the study does not intend to overshadow the marginalization of women, or undermine the importance of feminism in struggles for gender equality. Rather, it shows how the gender order oppresses those deemed feminine, while placing unattainable demands on men to express specific forms of masculinity, through discourses of impassive provision and emotionality. Equally, findings intend to demonstrate that contemporary U.S. television conveys a great deal about the current validity of the New Lad and the New Man as socio-cultural notions. Hence, one can hope that this research, while by no means an ideal model, prompts future inquiry into the ways gender and interconnected classificatory systems, such as race and class, function within different aspects of the media.

Researchers could specifically test the concepts of the Family-Oriented New Lad and the Emotionally Inarticulate New Man on other new cultural products to assess their validity. Alternatively, utilizing CDA to explore how SOA and Ray Donovan link to inequalities around race and class would provide much insight. SOA follows motorcycle clubs and gangs organized according to race, while the respective economic statuses of Jax and Ray are evident through corporeal elements, including style of walk and dress. Also, scholars could conduct interviews and/or ethnography to examine the extent to which emotional struggles of Jax and Ray resemble lived experiences of some men.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge Meredith Jones, whose comments on previous versions of this manuscript were invaluable, as well as Jasbinder S. Nijjar and Monica Degen for helpful advice throughout the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Jaspreet K. Nijjar is a PhD student in Sociology and Communications at Brunel University London. Her research interests include the sociology of gender, embodiment and media representation.

References

Benwell

(2003a). Introduction: Masculinity and men’s lifestyle magazines. In Benwell

(Ed.), Masculinity and men’s lifestyle magazines (pp. 6-30). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Benwell

(Ed.). (2003b). Masculinity and men’s lifestyle magazines. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Beynon

(2002). Masculinities and culture. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bonner

(2002). Magazines. In Cunningham

Turner

(Eds.), The media and communications in Australia (pp. 193-208). Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Brod

(Ed.). (1987). The making of masculinities: The new men’s studies. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.

Brod

(1994). Some thoughts on some histories of some masculinities: Jews and other others. In Brod

Kaufman

(Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 82-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cheng

(1999). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 7, 295-315.

Cherlin

A. J.

(2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Clare

(2000). On men: Masculinity in crisis. London, England: Arrow Books.

10.

Connell

R. W.

(1987). Gender and power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

11.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829-859.

12.

Crompton

(1999). The decline of the male Breadwinner: Explanations and interpretations. In Crompton

(Ed.), Restructuring gender relations and employment: The decline of the male Breadwinner (pp. 1-25). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

13.

de Castella

. (2014, January 30). Whatever happened to the term New Man? BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25943326

14.

Duerringer

(2015). Be a man—Buy a car! Articulating masculinity with consumerism in Man’s Last Stand. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 137-152.

15.

Dworkin

(1981). Pornography: Men possessing women. New York, NY: Perigee.

16.

Edley

Wetherell

(1996). Masculinity, power and identity. In Mac an Ghaill

(Ed.), Understanding masculinities: Social relations and cultural arenas (pp. 97-113). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

17.

Fairclough

(2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

18.

Foucault

(1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)

19.

Gill

(2003). Power and the production of subjects: A genealogy of the New Man and the New Lad. In Benwell

(Ed.), Masculinity and men’s lifestyle magazines (pp. 43-45). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

20.

Gramsci

(1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London, England: Lawrence & Wishart.

21.

Hatfield

E. F.

(2010). “What it means to be a man”: Examining hegemonic masculinity in Two and a Half Men. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3, 526-548.

22.

Holt

D. B.

Thompson

C. J.

(2004). Man-of-action heroes: The pursuit of heroic masculinity in everyday consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 425-440.

23.

Kimmel

M. S.

(Ed.). (1987). Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

24.

Kimmel

M. S.

(2017). Manhood in America (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Levant

R. F.

(1995). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing the rules of manhood - at work, in relationships and in family life. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

26.

Lotz

A. D.

(2014). Cable guys: Television and masculinities in the 21st century. New York: New York University Press.

27.

Mackinnon

(1989). Towards a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Martino

(2001). “Powerful people aren’t usually real kind, friendly, open people!” Boys interrogating masculinities at school. In Martino

Meyenn

(Eds.), What about the boys? Issues of masculinity in schools (pp. 82-95). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

29.

Milestone

Meyer

(2012). Gender & popular culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

30.

Nijjar

J. S.

(2015). “Menacing youth” and “broken families”: A critical discourse analysis of the reporting of the 2011 English riots in the Daily Express using moral panic theory. Sociological Research Online, 20(4), 1-12. doi:10.5153/sro.3793

31.

Oransky

Marecek

(2009). “I‘m not going to be a girl”: Masculinity and emotions in boys’ friendships and peer groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 218-241.

32.

Peel

Caine

Twomey

(2007). Masculinity, emotion and subjectivity: Introduction. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 247-250.

33.

Ricciardelli

Clow

K. A.

White

(2010). Investigating hegemonic masculinity: Portrayals of masculinity in men’s lifestyle magazines. Sex Roles, 63, 64-78.

34.

Richardson

J. E.

(2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Rubin

L. B.

(1983). Intimate strangers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

36.

Seale

Tonkiss

(2018). Content and text analysis. In Seale

(Ed.), Researching society and culture (4th ed., pp. 403-428). London, England: SAGE.

37.

Seidler

V. J.

(1989). Rediscovering masculinity: Reason, language and sexuality. London, England: Routledge.

38.

Shields

S. A.

(2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Shugart

(2008). Managing masculinities: The metrosexual moment. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 5, 280-300.

40.

Smith

A. M.

(1994). New Right discourse on race and sexuality: Britain, 1968–1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Song

Lee

T. K.

(2012). “New Man” and “New Lad” with Chinese characteristics? Cosmopolitanism, cultural hybridity and men’s lifestyle magazines in China. Asian Studies Review, 36, 345-367.

42.

Southwell

(1998). Getting away with it: The inside story of Loaded. London, England: Ebury Press.

43.

Tannen

(1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: Morrow.

44.

Taylor

L. D.

(2005). All for him: Articles about sex in American lad magazines. Sex Roles, 52, 153-163.

45.

Vaage

M. B.

(2016). The antihero in American television. New York, NY: Routledge.