“I Never Liked Him”: Ryan Adams and the Toxification of Masculinity in the Post-MeToo Digital Era

IF 1.4 Q2 COMMUNICATION Womens Studies in Communication Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/07491409.2023.2188622
Brenton J. Malin
{"title":"“I Never Liked Him”: Ryan Adams and the Toxification of Masculinity in the Post-MeToo Digital Era","authors":"Brenton J. Malin","doi":"10.1080/07491409.2023.2188622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the Twitter response to reports of abusive behavior by U.S.-based singer-songwriter Ryan Adams. Using a combination of quantitative data analysis techniques and close textual and contextual analysis, I analyze an archive of more than 130,000 tweets taken from the week prior to the initial reporting of Adams’s behavior in February 2019 and continuing until March 2021. On one hand, this archive of tweets illustrates the general value of Twitter as a component of “networked feminism,” in the sense that these tweets generally call attention to and criticize Adams’s inappropriate behavior. However, the overall response to Adams’s allegations also demonstrates both the limitations of Twitter for addressing MeToo-related stories and the problems of the frame of “toxic masculinity” in approaching these issues. Stressing the “toxicity” of these behaviors can serve to reinforce a normative, hegemonic understanding of “healthy” masculinity that masks the institutional forms of oppression that allow hegemonic masculinity to function.","PeriodicalId":46136,"journal":{"name":"Womens Studies in Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Studies in Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2023.2188622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article explores the Twitter response to reports of abusive behavior by U.S.-based singer-songwriter Ryan Adams. Using a combination of quantitative data analysis techniques and close textual and contextual analysis, I analyze an archive of more than 130,000 tweets taken from the week prior to the initial reporting of Adams’s behavior in February 2019 and continuing until March 2021. On one hand, this archive of tweets illustrates the general value of Twitter as a component of “networked feminism,” in the sense that these tweets generally call attention to and criticize Adams’s inappropriate behavior. However, the overall response to Adams’s allegations also demonstrates both the limitations of Twitter for addressing MeToo-related stories and the problems of the frame of “toxic masculinity” in approaching these issues. Stressing the “toxicity” of these behaviors can serve to reinforce a normative, hegemonic understanding of “healthy” masculinity that masks the institutional forms of oppression that allow hegemonic masculinity to function.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《我从未喜欢过他》:瑞安·亚当斯和后我也是数字时代男性气质的毒化
摘要本文探讨了推特对美国创作型歌手瑞安·亚当斯虐待行为报道的回应。我结合定量数据分析技术和密切的文本和上下文分析,分析了2019年2月首次报道亚当斯行为前一周的130000多条推文档案,这些推文一直持续到2021年3月。一方面,这些推文档案说明了推特作为“网络女权主义”组成部分的普遍价值,因为这些推文通常会引起人们对亚当斯不当行为的关注和批评。然而,对亚当斯指控的总体回应也表明了推特在处理MeToo相关故事方面的局限性,以及在处理这些问题时“有毒的男性气质”框架的问题。强调这些行为的“毒性”可以加强对“健康”男性气概的规范、霸权理解,掩盖允许霸权男性气概发挥作用的制度压迫形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Palestine on the Air Feminist Mentoring in Academia Grassroots Activisms: Public Rhetorics in Localized Contexts Mean Girl Feminism Mommy Needs Her Chardonnay in a Sippy Cup: How Mothers Make Sense of “Wine Mom” Messages and Their Effects on Mothering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1