The criticism of “traditional,” “toxic,” or “patriarchal” masculinity in both academic and popular venues recognizes that there is some sense in which the character traits and tendencies that are associated with masculinity are structurally connected to oppressive, gendered social practices and patriarchal social structures. One important theme of criticism centers on the gender distribution of emotional labor, generally speaking, but this criticism is also particularly meaningful in the context of heterosexual romantic relationships. I begin with the premise that there is (...) a gendered and asymmetrical distribution in how much emotional labor is performed, but I also consider that there might be meaningful and informative distinctions in what kind of emotional labor is characteristically performed by different genders. Specifically, I argue that the social norms around stoicism and restricted emotional expression are masculine-coded forms of emotional labor, and that they are potentially prosocial. Responding to structural and interpersonal asymmetries of emotional labor could well involve supplementing or better cultivating this aspect of male socialization rather than discarding it. (shrink)

Chater & Loewenstein criticize behavioral scientists' reliance on individual-level (“i-frame”) analysis, observing that this impoverishes policy interventions and stymies scientific progress. We extend their analysis to argue that structural factors bias and perpetuate behavioral science toward the i-frame. Addressing this problem fully will require structural changes to the training, peer review, and granting structures that confront research scientists.

ABSTRACT Serene Khader's recent book Decolonizing Universalism is an important contribution to a number of strands of thought, activism, and scholarship. It is also an ambitious one: the book sets out a tall order for itself. On the one hand, it is an intellectual contribution to the thought and practice of transnational feminism, specifically. This paper aims to draw out lessons from the book by focusing on two of the secondary points Khader makes. The first is her response to gender (...) complementarianism, the second critically responds to her discussion of social progress towards justice. The latter inspires a critical question for Khader and her readers: how can we square the criticism of the lack of attention to cultural context exhibited by ‘missionary feminists’ with critical attention to the context that produced their inattention? The essay concludes with a call for Khader's overarching project of ‘nonideal universalism’. (shrink)