Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College.
Am Psychol. 2022 Apr;77(3):341-343. doi: 10.1037/amp0001003.
Our response to the essays from Griffith (2022), Liang (2022), and Rogers (2022) addresses three themes we identified in the articles. First, feminist epistemology continues to play a critical role in the development of the study of men and masculinities. Second, structural change is essential to produce healthy masculinities, but we need to better understand the relationship between creating a critical mass of men and bringing about systemic, cultural, and institutional change. And, finally, even though all men must contend with hegemonic socialization, we must also recognize that men of different social identities stand in different relation to hegemonic masculinity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
我们对格里菲斯（2022 年）、梁（2022 年）和罗杰斯（2022 年）三篇文章的回应涉及到我们在这些文章中发现的三个主题。首先，女性主义认识论在男性和男子气概研究的发展中继续发挥着关键作用。其次，结构变革对于产生健康的男子气概至关重要，但我们需要更好地理解创造足够数量的男性与带来系统的、文化的和制度的变革之间的关系。最后，尽管所有男性都必须应对霸权社会化，但我们也必须认识到，具有不同社会身份的男性与霸权男子气概的关系是不同的。
