{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03336541546358678, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007058068655758742, 'mean_word_length': 4.939047619047619, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Remaking the male body: masculinities and the uses of physical culture in interwar and Vichy France

both taxing and ‘nurturing labour’, suggesting that ‘men’s constructions of care as especially emotionally skilled was a way of distancing themselves from feminine aspects of care’ (p. 95). However, as Chapter 6 ‘Breadwinner masculinities’ notes, definitions of ‘caring’ are wider and Hanlon asserts that ‘men understood that their principal role in caring was as breadwinner’ (p. 109) and he notes a breadwinning ‘imperative’ that creates a ‘one­ dimensional’ role for fathers within families (p. 109). Hanlon moves from breadwinning masculinities to nurturing masculinities (Chapter 7) in which he considers in more detail the binaries of gendered emotional displays, linking this to caring and the ways in which the participants spoke about their own involvement in caring in gendered ways. He notes, as others have previously, how, due to masculine norms, this resulting restrictive emotionality can be damaging for men, in particular in forming intimate and emotional closeness with their children and partners. In Chapter 8, he recounts how the men discussed their experiences of being cared for in their childhood and notes how family dynamics may have had some, but not total, influence on the men’s views of caring that they now hold. In Chapter 9, ‘Care-free masculinities’, Hanlon notes how, for some men at least, gender equality and caring do not equate, with women being constructed as more natural carers. In Chapter 10, Hanlon discusses ‘caring masculinity’ noting the tensions between ‘public imperatives of paid work and productivity’ and involved caring on the other. In the final chapter ‘Towards affective equality’ (Chapter 11), Hanlon sets out the main points of his thesis, that only through some kind of ‘affective equality’, can the other issues of equality be addressed. He claims that men need to take on more of the unpaid caring responsibilities within families. This would assist in greater workplace equality for women if home issues were more equally shared. But he has a second dimension to this that has been building through previous chapters, namely that men need to be able to demonstrate their emotionality and their need for emotionally fulfilling relationships. As he says ‘[m]en need to be understood as needing care too!’ (p. 216). Hanlon is careful in his suggestions to balance this aspect on ‘men in need’ and vulnerable in these settings, against the reality of male privilege, power and lack of equality in wider society. This is a tough line to walk but he does so well and, in his telling, makes important points on practice, such as ‘[m]en must be afforded opportunities to alter their practices and not just have their attitudes criticised, and key to this is to consider the wider condition of resource allocation between men and women’ (p. 218). Hanlon has produced a comprehensive text on masculinity and caring and one that I would recommend to scholars across the social sciences. It was an engaging piece to read, one that was well thought out and presented.