On the construction of an artificial paradox: A critical commentary on Diefendorf and Bridges’ ‘On the enduring relationship between masculinity and homophobia’

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the construction of an artificial paradox

T2 - A critical commentary on Diefendorf and Bridges’ ‘On the enduring relationship between masculinity and homophobia’

AU - McCormack, Mark

PY - 2020/2/7

Y1 - 2020/2/7

N2 - The social trend of decreasing homophobia and liberalising attitudes toward homosexuality is a contentious sociological issue. In a recent article in this journal, Diefendorf and Bridges contend that differences in findings of quantitative and qualitative research related to masculinities and homophobia demand new theories and methods to chart the enduring relationship between homophobia and masculinity. In this critical commentary, I demonstrate the flaws of the methodological framing and refute the characterization of qualitative literature provided. I argue that the theoretical errors in the original article are a result of inattention to social and historical context. Drawing attention to problematic citation practices, I call for critical approaches that recognize both positive social change and contexts where problematic dynamics persist.© 2020, The Author(s). This is an author produced version of a paper published in SEXUALITIES uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self- archiving policy. The final published version (version of record) is available online at the link. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. We suggest you refer to the final published version should you wish to cite from it.

AB - The social trend of decreasing homophobia and liberalising attitudes toward homosexuality is a contentious sociological issue. In a recent article in this journal, Diefendorf and Bridges contend that differences in findings of quantitative and qualitative research related to masculinities and homophobia demand new theories and methods to chart the enduring relationship between homophobia and masculinity. In this critical commentary, I demonstrate the flaws of the methodological framing and refute the characterization of qualitative literature provided. I argue that the theoretical errors in the original article are a result of inattention to social and historical context. Drawing attention to problematic citation practices, I call for critical approaches that recognize both positive social change and contexts where problematic dynamics persist.© 2020, The Author(s). This is an author produced version of a paper published in SEXUALITIES uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self- archiving policy. The final published version (version of record) is available online at the link. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. We suggest you refer to the final published version should you wish to cite from it.

U2 - 10.1177/1363460720905519

DO - 10.1177/1363460720905519

M3 - Article

SN - 1363-4607

VL - 23

SP - 1285

EP - 1298

JO - Sexualities

JF - Sexualities

IS - 7

ER -