Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although the number of Iranian men living in Canada has grown quickly, research on diasporic Iranian men living in Canada remains scant. We employed collective memory work to explore the ways in which Iranian masculinities are challenged and navigated in a Western context. We analyzed thematically memories written by six Iranian men who immigrated to Canada between 2013 and 2022. Three themes were identified. The first, Masculine Binary Phenomenology, was extracted from observations, such as the girl/boy pair, that orbited around the participants’ binary worldviews. Men and Marriage, the second theme, was derived from observations that revolved around the organizing concept of marital life in the new context. Finally, the third theme, Contextual Masculine Precarity, was inductively extracted from observations that referred to feelings of insecurity and loss of power. We conclude by outlining limitations of the current study and directions for future inquiry.

Keywords

masculinities Iran diaspora social constructionism intersectionality collective memory work reflexive thematic analysis

Introduction

Masculinities refer to social norms and roles that are expected more from men than from women (see Wong & Wang, 2022). Men, for example, are assumed to remain physically and mentally tough in difficult situations (Addis et al., 2016). One consequence of this gender stereotype (see Fowler & Geers, 2017) is the avoidance of help-seeking among men as doing so would portray them as weak and, thus, less masculine (Addis & Mahalik, 2003). According to the theory of hegemonic masculinities (see R. W. Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Jefferson, 2017), these gendered ideals and expectations change temporally and spatially (Braudy, 2010; Hopkins & Giazitzoglu, 2024). As an illustration of spatial change, when men immigrate to another country, the context wherein their masculinities are performed (often) changes, with attendant alterations in sociocultural circumstances (e.g., power relations). These new relations of power between immigrant men and their non-immigrant counterparts challenge diasporic masculinities (R. Connell, 2016). Thus, studying how Iranian masculinities function within a diasporic context was the central objective of this study.

Although the population of Iranian men residing in Western contexts including Canada has been growing quickly (Statistics Canada, 2021), we know little about how these men navigate challenges to their masculinities. Scant extant research on diasporic Iranians (see Farahani, 2012; Green & Latifi, 2021; Khosravi, 2009; Mehdizadeh, 2021; Roodsaz, 2020; Shirpak et al., 2011; Torbati, 2022), shows that migrant Iranian men, in response to masculinity challenges, employ various strategies most of which are reactionary and maladaptive (e.g., Green & Latifi, 2021). Given this literature, another goal of our study was to investigate the ways through which diasporic Iranian men confront challenges to their masculinity.

Based on these goals, two research questions were formulated: How are Iranian masculinities challenged in a diasporic context; namely, the city of Saskatoon, which is in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan? How do diasporic Iranian men navigate tensions resulting from differences between norms/roles¹ hegemonic in their home and host² contexts? To explore these questions, we applied a three-pillar framework of contextuality, relationality, and intersectionality along with a framework of power. However, before explaining these conceptual frameworks, we first provide definitions for masculinities as they pertain to Iran and Canada.

Iranian Masculinities

Traditional masculinities can be defined as characteristics that encompass attributes, appearances, interests, and behaviors traditionally deemed relatively more typical of men (see Kachel et al., 2016) than of women (see Anderson & McCormack, 2014). For example, while men are seen as the primary breadwinners of the family, women are deemed as homemakers (Hunt et al., 2013). Accordingly, traditional Iranian masculinities refer to societal norms and roles considered more appropriate for Iranian men than for Iranian women. Iranian men, for instance, are traditionally expected to perform gheirat which refers to overprotection of female relatives especially in the presence of other men. In “pre-modern” Iran (i.e., Iran before 1804), traditional norms/roles were hegemonic while in “modern” Iran (1804–1979), especially since the early Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979) onwards, traditional norms/roles gradually lost their dominance.

Non-traditional Iranian masculinities are masculine norms/roles introduced to Iranian society in “modern” Iran. These (gendered) values mostly came from Western European cultures (e.g., France). In the current study, we operationalize “modern” Iran as existing between the Russo-Iranian war (1804–1813) and the 1977 to 1979 revolution during which Iranian society was exposed to Western ideas. In this period, select groups of Iranian men were sent to Europe to study modern knowledge and science (Balslev, 2019; DeSouza, 2019). Consequently, Iranians became familiar with Western values including those that embodied hegemonic masculine norms such as heterosexuality (DeSouza, 2019; Najmabadi, 2005). That is, heterosexuality may be regarded as a non-traditional aspect of Iranian masculinities (Balslev, 2019; DeSouza, 2019; Najmabadi, 2005).³

Contemporary Iranian masculinities can be conceptualized as masculine norms/roles formed since the 1979 revolution. One characteristic of this period, especially after the year 2000, is globalization (Gelfer, 2014). Global hegemonic masculinities, mostly Western dominant notions of gender norms/roles, have permeated every culture. This has become possible through the dominance of the West over cultural elements of power such as media (see Kord & Krimmer, 2013). Affected by local, national, and transnational (see Hearn & Harrison, 2013) gender norms/roles, “contemporary” Iranian masculinities are amalgamations of Iranian and globalized masculine norms/roles. One example refers to contemporary Iranian men’s enhanced participation in housework and childrearing (see Garousi et al., 2017; Honarbin-Holliday, 2013).

Hence, diasporic Iranian masculinities refer to masculinities of contemporary Iranian men who live in diasporic spaces. Unfortunately, only two studies published in the English language exclusively recruited Iranian men: Green and Latifi (2021) and Mehdizadeh (2021).

Green and Latifi (2021) conducted a study with 27 Iranian men living in Sydney to explore the experiences of Iranian migrant men in Australia who were refugees and drug users. The participants reported experiencing othering and discrimination in various social contexts, including interactions with the police. The complex terrain of adverse hierarchical racialized and gendered power relations solidifies the participants’ positionality as othered and unwanted. Their experiences of isolation and loneliness made the participants feel unknown and abandoned. These circumstances expose vulnerable groups to multiple expulsions from communities: the labor market, the housing market, the spheres of security, the health care system, and the education system (Green & Latifi, 2021). The participants in this study reported emotional restraint, mistrust of women, and refraining from seeking emotional support. They managed these vulnerabilities through drug abuse (Green & Latifi, 2021).

Mehdizadeh (2021) explored how 19 university-educated diasporic Iranian men in Quebec, Canada, navigate masculinities post-migration. Using personal interviews, four key themes were identified: the provider role, the protector role, conjugality, and masculinity as a disadvantage. The findings highlight how shifts in gender norms/roles, marital dynamics, and Quebec’s legal standards challenge traditional masculine identities. While reduced economic responsibilities initially eased stress, men resisted viewing wives as equal financial contributors, associating breadwinning with male authority. Women’s growing economic autonomy threatened this dynamic, altering marital power structures. Labor market struggles eroded participants’ self-confidence and social status, compounded by expectations to share household chores as wives entered the workforce. Participants felt disadvantaged by their visibility as Middle Eastern men facing alienation in social interactions. Quebec’s legal framework particularly state intervention in family matters was perceived as invasive, undermining their role as protectors and damaging their masculine dignity (Mehdizadeh, 2021). Immigration exposed tensions between inherited norms and new societal expectations, revealing how structural barriers (e.g., legal systems) and evolving gender relations destabilize traditional masculine roles (Mehdizadeh, 2021).

Hence, challenges to diasporic Iranian masculinities in Western contexts can be put into two broad categories: challenges to gendered norms and roles (e.g., childrearing; householding; breadwinning), and challenges to emotional and social security. One example of these challenges that make diasporic Iranian men insecure is their loss of socioeconomic capital (see Mehdizadeh, 2021; Shirpak et al., 2011). A wife’s paid employment may reflect negatively on the husband as it endangers the authority attached to men as the sole or primary breadwinners of the family (see Mehdizadeh, 2021). Also, studies of Iranian migrants to the United States (Maghbouleh, 2017), Sweden (see Darvishpour, 2002), Norway (see Predelli, 2004), and Canada (see Mehdizadeh, 2021; Shirpak et al., 2011), documented tensions in post-migration marital relationships most often ascribed to Iranian women’s new expectations of their husbands.

Iranian versus Canadian Masculinities

Canadian masculinities have been shaped by colonialism, immigration, and Canada’s diverse cultural landscape. They also has been influenced by ideologies such as neoliberal globalization (Greig & Holloway, 2012). Issues pertinent to masculinity in crisis discourse (see Hearn, 2022) such as modern fatherhood, Black male athleticism, indigenous masculinities (Anderson et al., 2012) and body image are part of the ongoing conversation on masculinities in Canada (Greig & Holloway, 2012). The concept of hegemonic masculinity as it applies to Canadian society refers to the dominant form of masculinity that is socioculturally exalted in that country. This form encourages men to conform to certain ideals such as being physically strong, emotionally tough, dominant, aggressive, entitled, White, and heterosexual (Greig & Holloway, 2012). These standards often go unquestioned, maintaining traditional gender norms/roles and power structures (see MacDonald, 2014). In Canada, hegemonic masculinity is linked to broader issues of power and privilege, intersecting with race, class, and sexuality (Jewkes et al., 2015).

Thus, contemporary Canadian and (diasporic) Iranian masculinities share certain similarities including an emphasis on heterosexuality; importance of the provider and protector roles; significance of success; and physical and emotional toughness. However, it seems that, in contrast to diasporic Iranian masculinities, Canadian masculinities are more accepting of modern changes in traditional gendered norms/roles (see Shahidian, 1999; Shirpak et al., 2011) including men’s participation in household labor and childrearing (Donaldson & Howson, 2009). Also, it seems that Canadian men, compared to contemporary Iranian men living in diasporic contexts, are more egalitarian in their behaviors toward women (Shahidian, 1999; Shirpak et al., 2011).

Conceptual Frameworks

To explore this study’s research questions, we employed an intersectional (Christensen & Jensen, 2014), feminist (see Beasley, 2019; Costanza-Chock, 2018), constructionist framework (Addis et al., 2016) that accentuates men’s privileges and the ways that masculinity experiences contribute to the reproduction of gender-based inequalities (Silverstein, 2016). Each of these elements is detailed below.

Contextuality and Social Constructionism

Contextuality refers to the context in which masculinities are performed. It highlights that dominant masculine norms and roles change as the context wherein masculine norms/roles are internalized change. Hegemonic masculinities are enacted in individual and social interactions and conveyed through structural practices (see R. Connell, 2020). Based on social constructionism, aspects of our social realities (e.g., gender) are created and re/created through interactions and negotiations among people—negotiations that take place within a social context (Burr, 2015). Masculinities, thus, are not inherent but are constructed, and re/constructed, through interactions among various players in society (Addis et al., 2016). Hence, following immigration to a new context, diasporic Iranian men must re/negotiate their established masculine norms/roles against the new dominant ones (see Addis et al., 2016; R. Connell, 2016, 2018). Doing so threatens their masculinities (Choi, 2018, 2019) because through these processes of re/negotiation, diasporic Iranian men lose part of their power. For example, in diasporic contexts, Iranian men are unable to practice gheirat whereas Iranian women enjoy new rights protected by governmental institutions such as police who intervene in domestic affairs (Mehdizadeh, 2021; Shirpak et al., 2011; Torbati, 2022).

Moreover, according to the poststructuralist constructionist perspective (Berggren, 2014), masculinities are interplays between the agency of individuals and the structure of society. Thus, based on a poststructuralist critique of hegemonic masculinities theory (see Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018), masculine norms/roles that encourage a group of men’s dominance over others, while difficult to eradicate, are neither natural nor inevitable (see Wong et al., 2020). Although agency is relatively bound to actions possible at a given time and in a specific place, it is open to change and can be influenced by many factors such as education (Hamm, 2021). In other words, individuals including men are responsible for their actions. The crux of this poststructuralist lens concerns the reciprocity between individuals and the structures in which they are embedded (see Hamm, 2021). This reciprocity is viewed as the consequence or result of individuals’ previous struggles and negotiations instilled in sociocultural structures but also in specific constructions of meanings (Onyx, 2021).

Relationality and Feminism

Relationality emphasizes that masculinities are re/formed through interactions that men have with others (Grzanka, 2020). Based on hegemonic masculinities theory (see Connell, 2016, 2020), dominant forms of masculinities are always constructed in relation to femininities and women (Anderson, 2023). In our study, feminism mostly accentuates how (gendered) inequalities are re/produced through interconnections between diasporic Iranian men and others including men (e.g., White, heterosexual, middle-class men) as well as women (e.g., their wives; White women). These relations are re/produced hierarchically as the relations between the elite of hegemonic men in a given context and other groups are hierarchical (see Miller, 2018).

Furthermore, this study’s methodology, collective memory work (CMW; Johnson, 2018), draws from feminist epistemology which challenges traditional notions of objectivity and highlights the importance of subjective experiences. This approach to research seeks to validate the knowledge that emerges from the lived experiences of marginalized groups (see Johnson et al., 2018) as they, for instance, incorporate techniques of exclusion (Khan et al., 2015). Feminist CMW is built on the premise that people often know much more about themselves than they might imagine (Fraser & Michell, 2015). Part of this knowledge can be excavated through analyzing memories of lived experiences (Johnson et al., 2018). CMW contends that recollected memories of past events can provide “a window into, or a bridge between,” the individual and the sociopolitical (Fraser & Michell, 2015, p. 324). It shows how our personal aspects of being have been constructed in complex relations to broader contextual determinations (Fullagar et al., 2018; Haug, 2008, 2015).

Intersectionality

Intersectionality highlights the fact that diasporic Iranian masculinities are intersections of multiple marginalized identities (e.g., Brown, Muslim, migrant; Kimmel & Coston, 2018). It is mainly used to capture the complexities of the re/construction of Iranian masculinities within the new context to investigate how intersections of these marginalized identities influence the experiences of masculinities (Miller, 2018). The participants in our study all belong to several minority groups marginalized in Canada. They are Brown, which means they are at risk of being racially discriminated against (see Krysa et al., 2019). They are Muslim, meaning they have been depicted negatively in the West, including Canada, which places them at a disadvantage (Arjana, 2015; Khosravi, 2009).

Power Framework

Masculinities and power are traditionally associated as, for example, strength and power are considered favorable to men whereas weakness and vulnerability are deemed unfavorable (see Gottzén et al., 2021)—threatening one’s sense of self as a man (see Vandello et al., 2008). Relations between men and others also are hierarchical meaning that they are unequal in terms of power (Connell, 2014, 2016, 2020).

In this study, we applied a power framework which incorporates three concepts of power. First, power over refers to the ability of an individual to exert control over others, often through hierarchical positions or dominance. This form of power refers to hegemony (Pansardi & Bindi, 2021). Moreover, power to is about the capacity of individuals to act independently and realize their own goals, even in the face of opposition. It is a form of power that focuses on agency (see Abizadeh, 2023). Applying power to is congruent with the poststructuralist approach to masculinities as it examines the agency of diasporic Iranians in terms of how they interact with others. Furthermore, power from refers to the ability to resist the power exerted by others (see Abizadeh, 2023). It is a form of empowerment that focuses on resistance. It allows individuals to maintain agency in situations where power over is being applied (Pansardi & Bindi, 2021).

Now, that we have provided a brief overview of the conceptual frameworks used in this study, we would like to describe the research method that we employed to better understand diasporic Iranian men’s sense-making of their masculinities within a Canadian context.

Collective Memory Work

Collective memory work (CMW) is a participatory action research method (see Wilkinson & Wilkinson, 2024) which uses systematic inquiry in direct collaboration with those affected by the issue being studied (see Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020). For the participants in this study, the common interest was their masculinity-related experiences, which took place in the new context. CMW refers to a group methodology in “feminist social research” and involves the “collective analysis” of individual memories (Farrelly et al., 2017, p. 77). The participants along with the senior author are called co-researchers. As an egalitarian approach, in CMW, co-researchers, as a group, control all stages of the research such as data collection and data analysis (Cordonnier et al., 2022; Hamm, 2021).

The focus of collective memory work is on written memories of recent experiences (Johnson et al., 2018). CMW researchers keep their focus on the points that the memories reflect or imply (see Hamm, 2021). In CMW, the co-researchers’ memories are used to explore how individuals are socially and discursively constituted. That is, it involves collectively analyzing the memories to uncover how identities are re/formed through social interactions (see Gonick & Gannon, 2013).

Collective Memory Work Process

Once we received ethics approval from our institution’s ethics board,⁴ the senior author commenced gathering data through the application of collective memory work (see Hamm, 2021; Johnson, 2018). He, as a diasporic Iranian man, recruited four of the co-researchers through personal relationships. Another co-researcher was recruited through snowball sampling (Parker et al., 2019). Thus, a group of six Iranian men, who had immigrated to Canada within 10 years (Pechurina, 2023)⁵ prior to the start of this study (Bryant & Bryant, 2019),⁶ was formed. Once recruitment was completed, the senior author conducted a face-to-face meeting with each co-researcher to familiarize them with the steps of data collection. The senior author also answered any questions the co-researchers had about the study.

Once the group was formed, the first virtual session was conducted via Zoom. At that meeting, the senior author answered the co-researchers’ questions. They orally consented to the terms and conditions of the consent form. They also consented to the audio-recording of the virtual sessions. They further agreed on a trigger word (i.e., masculinity). The co-researchers then agreed to write two-page memory pieces using the trigger word, with consensus that the memory pieces would be written in the third person; in as much detail as possible; and in one attempt (Corcoran et al., 2022; Onyx, 2021). The memories were written in either English or Persian. The senior author translated those memories originally written in Persian. The written memories were submitted 2 days prior to the second virtual meeting. Each of the co-researchers used a pseudonym not to be identified by the other co-researchers (Bryant & Bryant, 2019; Hamm, 2021). The senior author collected all the memories into a Word file and then shared the collection with the co-researchers (see Supplemental Appendix 1).

Once the co-researchers received the collection, they read it and picked one of the memories they found most interesting (Onyx, 2021). In the second virtual session, each of the co-researchers individually discussed the memory they had chosen (Corcoran et al., 2022). They also engaged in collective discussions of more interesting points in other memories. Between the second and third virtual sessions, each co-researcher read and analyzed the written memories as a collection (Bryant & Bryant, 2019). For the third session, the co-researchers discussed points in the collection they found interesting. The goal of this practice was to highlight salient elements shared among the memories. This process further familiarized the co-researchers with topics to be discussed in the fourth virtual session (see Corcoran et al., 2022; Hamm, 2021).

For the fourth meeting, the co-researchers focused on similarities and dissimilarities between the written memories; contradictions in each written memory; and changes that took place in each written memory scene. The purpose of this exercise was to identify and discuss common patterns (i.e., shared experiences or challenges) in the written memories. In the final virtual meeting, after each of the co-researchers orally consented to the terms and conditions of the debriefing form, the senior author answered their questions. They were further asked to send the senior author any notes they might have taken during any of the virtual sessions (see Bryant & Bryant, 2019; Corcoran et al., 2022; Hamm, 2021; Onyx, 2021).

Reflexive Thematic Analysis

The data collection process provided us with several sources of data including written memories; notes taken by the co-researchers; and the audio-recordings of the discussion sessions. The data were further analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA; Braun & Clarke, 2021, 2022). RTA is a suitable tool for systematically identifying patterns of meaning across a data set (Herzog et al., 2019). Moreover, it has been used to investigate masculinities (see D’Souza et al., 2022; Hogan et al., 2024) including diasporic Iranian masculinities (see Green & Latifi, 2021; Mehdizadeh, 2021; Shirpak et al., 2011).

To determine quality in reflexive thematic analysis, methodological congruence is used which refers to the conceptual alignment or fit between different elements of a research project (Braun & Clarke, 2024). Braun and Clarke (2024) accentuate the notion of knowingness referring to the understanding of what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we are doing it. One of the ways to do so is the accurate and detailed documentation of all stages of the research.

Based on the recommendation made by Braun and Clarke (2024), we used the notion of information-power to determine the sample size. This notion suggests that the more information the sample holds, the lower number of participants is needed (Malterud et al., 2016). The size of a sample with sufficient information-power depends on several criteria including the aim of the study; the quality of the dialogue; the use of established theory; sample specificity; and the analysis strategy. For example, a study with a narrow aim requires a small sample. The goal of this study was to investigate how a group of Iranian men living in Saskatoon experience and navigate masculinity challenges. That is, these men lived in a particular social context. In addition, with participants holding “highly specific” features, a “less extensive sample” should be used (see Malterud et al., 2016, p. 1755). The co-researchers in this study shared very specific characteristics as they were Iranian, immigrant men involved in graduate studies at a university (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographics Descriptions of the Participants.

Pseudonyms	Sex and sexual orientation	Gender	Age	Marital status	Educational status	Area of study	Year of migration	Residency status
Alex	Male Heterosexual	Man Cisgender	35	Single	MA degree	Philosophy	2019	Work permit
Javad	Male Heterosexual	Man Cisgender	35	Married	PhD student	Mechanical Engineering	2018	Permanent resident
Saman	Male Heterosexual	Man Cisgender	33	Single	PhD student	Environment and Biogeochemistry	2022	Student permit
Azad	Male Heterosexual	Man Cisgender	30	Single	PhD student	English Literature	2022	Student permit
Doust	Male Heterosexual	Man Cisgender	37	Married	MA student	Philosophy	2021	Student permit
Siyavash	Male Heterosexual	Man Cisgender	40	Divorced	PhD student	Psychology	2018	Student permit

The data were analyzed applying the six stages that are delineated in Byrne (2022). First, the researcher/s immersed themselves in the data, reading and re-reading them to get intimately familiar with their content. Second, they generated the codes which are important features of the data relevant to answering the research questions. Third, they extracted the initial themes based on the coded data. Themes are the outcomes of the co-researchers’ interpretations of data (Braun et al., 2023). Fourth, they reviewed the themes reflecting on their coherence. Fifth, they defined and named the themes. Sixth, they wrote up the process (Byrne, 2022).

The application of reflexive thematic analysis resulted in the identification of three major themes. As mentioned earlier, to remain confidential, in reporting the quotes, pseudonyms were used for the co-researchers (i.e., Alex, Azad, Doust, Javad, Saman, and Siyavash). At the time of collecting the data (May 2023), all co-researchers were residing in Saskatoon (see Table 1).

Masculine Binary Phenomenology

By binary, we are referring to an understanding that a phenomenon (e.g., gender) only has two opposite extremes (e.g., masculine vs. feminine). By phenomenology, we simply refer to the personal ways through which individuals perceive the phenomenon (see W. Smith, 2013). The binary concept is important in the literature on men and masculinities (Thompson & Bennett, 2015; Wong & Wester, 2016) as it is reflected in the notion of heterosexuality which serves as the referent point against which all forms of non-heterosexual masculinities are marginalized (Katz, 2019). A “binary phenomenology,” thus, is an ideology, a cosmology, upon which individuals perceive the world as a system of binary ideas (e.g., male/female). Hence, the organizing concept of this theme is the existence of binaries found in the co-researchers’ written memories. Although their goals of employing binary pairs are manifold, the co-researchers mostly utilized them to highlight differences between themselves and others.

Only Saman and another student are considered foreigners (khãreji) — the others are Canadian. Among the Canadians, only one person is male (pesar) and the other four are female (dokhtar) … Saman asked one of the Canadian girls to help him … The Canadian man … did not do anything to help the Canadian girl … (Saman).

For example, as the excerpt above shows, Saman uses the gender/sexuality binary pair of male/female (i.e., dokhtar vs. pesar) to introduce the challenge he is writing about that seems to stem from differing understandings of gender norms/roles (i.e., regarding feminine/masculine tasks or stereotypes). As discussed earlier, Mehdizadeh (2021) found the same as the participants experienced tensions between their home masculine values and the new context’s expectations in Quebec.⁷ In addition, Shirpak et al. (2011) found that part of post-migration marital issues among Iranian couples residing in Toronto were attributable to differences that exist between Iran and Canada in terms of gender norms/roles as diasporic Iranian women adjust easier and faster than do Iranian men to the new context’s gendered values. Their views of gender norms/roles, consequently, gradually differ and this difference brings about marital strain that can lead to separation and divorce.

Azad further juxtaposes Iranian and Canadian contexts implying that in contrast to Iran, Canada (i.e., Saskatoon) is not a religious country. It seems that Azad prefers this non-religious context to Iran as he thinks that the Canadian context provides individuals with more freedom, for example, in choosing their identities and pronouns.

He starts a new chapter of his life, this time, in a non-religious Canadian city … The professor asked a question that made him [Azad] think deeply about something strange (ta’ajjob-ãvar): “Please introduce yourselves and let us know what your pronouns are.” Azad first told himself, perhaps the professor wanted to know if any of the female students were married [Miss. versus Mrs.] or perhaps someone would like to be addressed by some other titles … In his entire life in Iran, Azad was told that titles were determined by one’s appearance and sex and not by individuals themselves … (Azad).

This excerpt also relates to an important sociocultural issue in Iranian society suggesting that the circumstances that exist in Iran may not be consistent with what young generations of Iranians want. That is, a gap exists between a substantial majority of Iranian people and the state in terms of what constitutes a “favorable” way of life. This issue has remained one of the determining factors behind the immigration of many young Iranians to the West (see Kazemi et al., 2018; Sarfi et al., 2023). This implies that Iranian men and women migrate to the West in search of a “better” life.

Moreover, Alex appears to utilize the pair professor/students to suggest that there exists a “difference” between the two as the professor’s status requires that students respect her. He seems to suggest that the students (i.e., his classmates) do not respect the professor as they do not stand up when she enters the classroom. This phenomenon (i.e., differing values) is contextual as different contexts (i.e., Iran vs. Canada) construct various norms vis-à-vis respect.

The professor (ostãd) enters the classroom, and as usual, no one stands up (to show respect) nor does anyone seem to care … She is around 60 years old (Alex).

The excerpt above shows that the professor must be respected as she is 60 years old. This reflects one of the values in traditional Iranian masculinities in which a “good” man must respect older and aging people especially his parents and grandparents. Alex, through growing up in Iran, thinks that the professor must be respected as she is both a professor (i.e., occupies the social status of an educator) and an aging person. However, his classmates do not think so. Thus, his established norms/roles do not work within a Canadian context. This contextual loss of legitimacy constitutes a masculinity threat (Herrera et al., 2012; Stanaland et al., 2023) as it shows a loss of power, since hegemonic masculinities operate in part through legitimization (Jewkes et al., 2015; Messerschmidt, 2018).

Based on the paradigm of precarious masculinities (see Vandello et al., 2008), threats to masculinities make men insecure (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). In reaction to precarity, men adopt traditional and regressive responses, for instance, the justification of social inequality (Weaver & Vescio, 2015) or more negativity toward effeminate gay men (see Glick et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2016). One of the strategies that diasporic Iranian men employ in dealing with masculinity threat, is to regard their Iranian masculinities as superior to Western masculinities. As mentioned earlier, Saman seems to position himself in contrast to his Canadian male colleague by comparing his masculine value to his colleague’s masculine value vis-à-vis helping others suggesting that Saman’s masculinity is superior.

Saman wanted to install a big monitor … He could not … Saman asked one of the Canadian girls to help him … She agreed to help … The Canadian man was there but he was just like a bystander (nezãreh-gar) and did not do anything to help … He said he did not know how to install the monitor … During the whole time they were trying to do the task, again, the Canadian guy was in the room; he, however, he did not help the [Canadian] girls who were helping Saman. Although he did not know how to install the monitor, he could have asked the girls to let him hold the monitor … (Saman).

Torbati (2022) similarly found that Iranian men residing in the United Kingdom consider their masculinity as superior to British masculinity. In our research, Alex also discredits his male classmate by introducing him as talkative and ignorant. The Catholic priest is ignorant as he does not let others talk making the professor interrupt him. In Iranian culture, both adjectives devalue a man. Alex thinks of his masculinity as superior to the priest’s masculinity as the only classmate deserving of Alex’s attention does not possess favorable characteristics.

What most attracted Alex’s attention … was one of the male student’s reactions. This man talked too much in previous class sessions and the professor frequently interrupted him: He is a Catholic priest and others call him Father … Alex thinks that most of what the priest had said in the previous sessions was irrelevant … (Alex).

Furthermore, Siyavash highlights the monster/hero pair in his written memory perhaps to accentuate the rapid and dramatic changes in his life that occurred in the new context. This pair also could indicate a drastic change in his ex-wife’s view of Siyavash and his masculinity—her view of herself has formed in the new context as well. Thus, what has led to the dissolution of his marriage appears to be a contextual phenomenon.

Siyavash has been thinking how such a profound change is possible in such a short time … Siyavash remembers how, in the eyes of his wife, he changed from a hero to a monster overnight. He remembers he was speechless … (Siyavash).

The excerpt above also implies that Siyavash’s ex-wife evidenced different performances of her femininity/womanhood when residing in Iranian versus Canadian contexts. In the Canadian context and in relation to her husband, she seems more agentic; indeed, this new context provides her with more (e.g., legal; economic; ideological) power to do so. It must be noted that we are approaching this newfound power with an intersectional lens. That is, the contemporaneous enjoyment of several rights (e.g., more equitable⁸ treatment before the law: less patriarchal) and possibilities (e.g., earn money and live without a man) has created an environment in which she can act agentically. The multidimensionality of this phenomenon means that none of these rights and possibilities solely provide such an environment. In Canada, the intersections of structurally guaranteed rights and possibilities seem to make it possible for women to practice their agency. From a feminist perspective, this phenomenon is in line with the goal of gender equality (see Oksala, 2017; Orloff & Shiff, 2016).

Men and Marriage

The core idea of this theme is the significance of marriage and the marital relationship in the life of diasporic Iranian men. This theme addresses a pattern in the co-researchers’ memories: that they can be categorized into married and unmarried. This matters as it suggests that married and unmarried men are experiencing the new context differently which is in line with the existing research on diasporic Iranians (see Green & Latifi, 2021; Mehdizadeh, 2021; Roodsaz, 2020; Shirpak et al., 2011; Torbati, 2022). A group of observations show the role that the existence of Iranian men’s wives plays in how these men experience and re/construct their masculinities in diasporic contexts. The significance is evident throughout Javad’s memory scene:

Javad and his wife are sitting in a bus … Javad and his wife cannot afford … Javad, along with his wife, start to walk … Because Javad’s wife is with him, he does not show any signs of being occupied with such thoughts … Javad, who does not want to show weakness in the presence of his wife, continues to tolerate the situation (moghãvemat mikoneh) … However, while Javad is experiencing those feelings, he tells his wife that everything is ok … Javad is experiencing feelings of shame and chagrin (ehsãs-e khejãlat), because he – along with his wife – is standing at a bus station with a second-hand microwave in his hands … Javad tries to keep his face stoical … in front of his wife showing that they are doing something typical … Javad’s wrists, however, hurt for several days. He does not discuss this matter with his wife (Javad).

Moreover, Siyavash’s written memory piece is all about his divorce from his ex-wife and how he has experienced the aftermath of the divorce. In the memory, Siyavash narrates several experiences related to his ex-wife

It was quite unexpected for him even though they had agreed on getting divorced eight months before. After 10 years of marriage and around 15 years of being together, it was somehow shocking to Siyavash how easily his wife left him and how quickly she forgot about him. He remembers how helpless he felt when she was leaving him: He could not do anything … Siyavash has been thinking how such a profound change is possible in such a short time … Siyavash remembers how, in the eyes of his wife, he changed from a hero to a monster overnight. He remembers he was speechless … (Siyavash).

Siyavash feels powerless as he cannot do anything; he can only watch in a state of speechlessness. This relational powerlessness is contextual as it did not exist when Siyavash was back home in Iran. Furthermore, it seems that the married co-researchers (i.e., Javad; Doust; Siyavash) do not take into consideration the agency of their wives. Siyavash’s written memory, in its entirety, suggests that his ex-wife’s decision to leave him was only a reaction to him, his masculinity (see Supplemental Appendix 1). Doust’s memory also intimates how he does not view his wife as someone who holds an opinion (i.e., it seems that Doust thinks for both parties):

Doust expected her [his wife] to achieve financial independence. So, Doust encouraged his wife to try to find a job or to work on some skill that could lead to her financial/economic independence. It was accepted for Doust, [back home], that he would go to work (i.e., earn money) while his wife was staying home learning a skill because the skill was supposed to help her enter the job market. Similarly, Doust expects his wife to accept if he decides to stay home for a while and does something that does not bring them any money … (Doust).

This memory scene does not suggest that Doust and his wife make decisions together. Instead, it implies that he unilaterally decides how to manage their marital life. In addition, Javad does not include his wife in matters that cause him worry and concern, perhaps, because he does not believe his wife can help him cope with those stressful situations.

Javad tries to keep having a typical conversation (mokãlemey-e ãddi) with his wife … Suddenly, Javad starts wondering what if the owner of the house is upset by them placing a microwave on his yard? What if he yells at them to go away (berin un var) … Throughout the entire journey, with all the thoughts/feelings he is experiencing, Javad tries to keep his face stoical [like he is having a typical day; he is not having any difficulties] in front of his wife showing that they are doing something typical (yeh kãr-e kãmelan ãddi), easy, and routine … At home, they are testing the microwave: It works. Javad breathes with relief that, at least, the microwave works … Javad’s wrists, however, hurt for several days. He does not discuss this matter with his wife … (Javad).

As this excerpt shows, although Javad’s wife occasionally asks him to take a break, Javad does not share his worries with her. The paradigm of masculine gender role stress (see Levant & Richmond, 2016; Rummell & Levant, 2014) can account for this phenomenon. According to this paradigm, to deal with the psychological pressure experienced when individuals fail at fulfilling gendered roles, men resort to traditional masculine values. As the excerpt above illustrates, Javad performs a tough masculinity in reaction to his perceived failure in the role of protector—that he has failed as the one responsible for his wife’s security (see Good et al., 2018). It seems that this failure causes Javad more stress and anxiety (Keohane & Richardson, 2018).

Contextual Masculine Precarity

This theme refers to masculine precarity (Bosson et al., 2013; Vandello et al., 2023) due to contextual change following immigration. Following migration, the hegemonic configuration of masculinity alters. Due to this discursive shift (Ekman & Krzyzanowski, 2021), men’s power relations with other men change. Through this process of re/negotiation, migrant men lose part of their power as within the new context, they are positioned lower in the hierarchy of (masculine) power (Cederberg, 2014; Charsley & Wray, 2015). This masculinity threat (Herrera et al., 2012), based on the precarious manhood paradigm (see Vandello & Bosson, 2013), puts diasporic men in a precarious condition. In response to this precarity, men employ various strategies most of which are maladaptive (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Netchaeva et al., 2015; Vescio et al., 2021).

For example, since Saman and his female colleagues have socialized in different contexts (i.e., Iran vs. Canada) with different dominant gender values, they think differently vis-à-vis acceptable norms/roles. As the excerpt, below, reveals, Saman’s female colleagues frequently reject his offer to help probably because they do not consider the task masculine—a man’s job. These girls in fact reject Saman’s masculinity. Saman, in response to this threat, adopts a compensatory strategy discrediting his male colleague’s masculinity. Not only does Saman’s male colleague not help the girls, but he also has not been criticized by them. In other words, Saman and his Canadian colleagues hold differing ideals regarding favorable gendered norms and roles. Saman’s female colleagues are agentically performing a gender role traditionally deemed masculine. What they are doing does not fit traditional gender values. This makes Saman revise his masculinity and decide not to offer them his help again.

She looked at the stuff and picked up the monitor and put it on the desk. She, then, handed over the leg to Saman and told him to hold it. She then laid down on the ground, went under the desk, to see what the problem was and if she could install the leg. Saman was looking at her surprisingly … She, then, searched and found some tools and wanted to, again, lay down on the ground and go under the desk. Saman told her let me go under the desk this time so that you would not get fatigued. She told Saman, “No, you do not know how to fix it; this is what I’m good at” (man khorãkam in-joor kãrhãst). She continued … Saman was holding the leg … She finally successfully installed the leg … She then picked up and held the monitor and told Saman to hold the leg. Saman did so. This time, though Saman knew that the monitor was heavy, he did not ask her to let him hold the monitor … (Saman).

Moreover, as the text below suggests, Alex seems insecure in relation to his female professor, the feminine other, who has forced (i.e., power over) him to comply with a plan in which Alex cannot participate in the class for 30 min.

She [the professor] adds that she has a plan for today’s class; she wants to know what the students think about her plan. She says that because the female students have participated less than the male students in class discussions, she wants to encourage the female students to participate more. Thus, she suggests, for the first 30 minutes of the class, the men should remain silent … Because no one expresses any disagreement with the professor’s suggestion, she says, “Alright, let’s try the plan.” Alex, however, has conflicting feelings about the professor’s plan … Alex thinks that the professor’s plan is interesting … Alex feels that, as one of the students, he should have the right to talk whenever he wants to … Alex, more than listening to the presentation, is watching the students’ reactions: Some of the students are smiling slightly while others are not showing any specific reaction. Alex, who had heard that the professor was feminist, is now sure she is feminist due to her plan … (Alex).

In response to this contextual loss of power, Alex contemporaneously applies hybrid discourses: He justifies his disregard for social equity (i.e., provision of a positively discriminatory opportunity; Collins, 2003) through resorting to a liberal discourse (i.e., right to speak; Clarke, 2015). The theory of hybrid masculinities (see Bridges & Pascoe, 2014) can account for this finding. Hybrid masculinities are characterized by selective incorporations of elements from femininities and subordinated identities into dominant performances of masculinities. These strategies allow men to symbolically distance themselves from regressive or hegemonic norms (e.g., support for gender inequalities) while still benefiting from systemic injustice (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014).

Furthermore, it seems that following immigration, in the new context, Doust has lost part of his power, that comes from being the sole/primary family breadwinner. This loss has put Doust in an insecure situation as, for instance, he must do most of the housework, which is traditionally considered feminine (Kaplan & Offer, 2022) and, therefore, emasculating (Burns & Paz Martin, 2024; Munsch & Gruys, 2018).

Doust and his wife agreed that, because Doust was doing a master’s degree and his homework was heavy, Doust could stay home and do his homework; in turn, Doust agreed to do most of the housework … Around two weeks ago … his friend asked Doust where his wife was. Doust answered she was working … Doust’s friend said, “Hey! You are way more zerang than I am”… For Doust, who knew about his friend’s situation, his friend’s words were shocking. Doust’s friend works. Doust’s friend’s wife does not work. She is Japanese Iranian (do-rageh) … Doust’s friend’s wife has not accepted the traditional roles of Iranian women — meaning that it is not like she has accepted the responsibility for the housework as she does not work … Whenever Doust’s friend invited them (i.e., Doust and his wife) over, Doust’s friend did all the cooking … The wife of Doust’s friend, however, did not do any cooking at all … Even the role of Doust’s wife in their daughter’s childrearing also was minimum … (Doust).

The Farsi slang zerang refers to someone who is cunning and smart enough to win social competitions. Doust’s friend is implying that they both are using their wives not to work and stay home. However, Doust disagrees as he does not think that this situation shows they are zerang. Instead, Doust seems to think this situation shows they are zan-zalil to various degrees—Doust is less zan-zalil than his friend. Zan is the Farsi word for woman/wife and zalil means submissive. Together, zan-zalil makes an emasculating, belittling adjective that usually is used to describe a man who holds less power in relation to his wife. Doust implies that, although their situations seem the same, they differ considerably. For example, compared to his friend, Doust’s situation is the result of his agreement with his wife while his friend does not have any other choice because his situation is the result of his powerlessness in relation to his wife.

Challenges and Limitations

In this section, we briefly articulate some of the challenges that were encountered as a function of using collective memory work. One challenge, attributable to being engaged with the memories for an extended period, was emotional intensity. The memories included experiences of stress, public anxiety, being othered, racialization, feelings of shame and chagrin, lack of confidence and self-esteem, vulnerabilities, confusion, insecurity and precarity, going through separation and divorce, having financial issues, and other psychologically disturbing emotions/experiences. The senior author’s long engagement with the data, however, was necessary as it is one of the criteria to ensure quality in reflexive thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke, 2021; Braun et al., 2023). Regarding collective memory work as a collaborative method, the long engagement with the written memories also helped the senior author to penetrate the worlds of the other co-researchers and, in so doing, to retrieve the meanings behind their memories. This helps improve accuracy and trustworthiness as two criteria in determining rigor in qualitative research (Braun & Clarke, 2024).⁹

Another challenge that warrants discussion involves the ethical considerations of collective memory work; that is, written memories may contain sensitive information about the life of the co-researchers. One way to deal with this challenge is using pseudonyms as we did in our study. We also submitted the memories through a SurveyMonkey link. The senior author then collected the memories and shared the resultant collection with the co-researchers. In so doing, each co-researcher had access to all the pseudonymized written memories. However, because in collective memory work, the co-researchers usually know each other, they might be able to relate the memories to specific members of the collective. In such cases, to ensure confidentiality, the importance of creating an ethical space when discussing memories must be highlighted. This matter should be considered and discussed among the co-researchers.¹⁰

Another noteworthy challenge concerned translation of the written memories. To faithfully translate the written memories that were in Persian, the senior author had to provide detailed, extensive explanations for the words, terms, and statements that the co-researchers had used in their pieces. These detailed, and sometimes lengthy, explanations helped with the accuracy and transparency of the data and analysis. However, it also made the data analytic process very labor-intensive.

An additional challenge was related to the power differentials among the co-researchers. This could be an issue if other co-researchers feel that the “principal” investigator has more authority, for instance, in terms of methodological knowledge. To overcome this challenge, the senior author arranged personal, face-to-face meetings with each of the co-researchers to explain in detail the collaborative nature of collective memory work and what exactly this entails. The senior author clarified for the co-researchers his role and how it was equal to their roles.

Researchers interested in applying collective memory work must take several points into consideration. One point concerns the limitations of memory. While positivist researchers contend that this issue is a major methodological flaw (Onyx & Small, 2001), we advocate for a more nuanced perspective on memory. The recollection of any event is a complex phenomenon as, within any memory, there tend to be gaps and confusion. Recollections can be reflective of our current states of being and personal predilections at the time of remembering (see Onyx & Small, 2001). Nonetheless, memories recollected, discussed, and analyzed in collective memory work present important information: They reveal the “truth” of our own experiences. The analysis of memories helps delineate how individuals have been constructed and consequently particularizes individuals’ own markers of identity (Kivel & Johnson, 2009).

Generalizability is another issue to consider. Collective memory work does not use large samples, nor is it designed to produce “generalizable” findings. Instead, the objective of collective memory work is to provide a more detailed understanding of how small groups of individuals experience phenomena in a particular context. In collective memory work, the focus is on theoretical generalizability and transferability. Theoretical generalizability refers to the idea that findings contribute to broader social theories. Transferability further refers to the contextual descriptions that allow others to assess applicability to different settings. Thick descriptions enable readers to draw parallels to their own contexts (Carminati, 2018). Treating participants as co-researchers in collective memory work enhances credibility and contextual depth which foster insights that resonate beyond the group (Fraser & Michell, 2015).¹¹

Benefits and Future Directions

The most notable benefit of this study pertains to it revealing the mundane nature of being othered. As our findings show, diasporic Iranian men, even in the most ordinary situations, such as taking a bus, perceive themselves as “other,” and this perception appears to make them hypervigilant when in public. For instance, Javad is worried about how passengers on the bus might evaluate him (i.e., his masculinity). Alex is watching his classmates identifying those who agree with him. This finding also is important from the vantage that being othered and its consequences are associated with mental health indices such as anxiety and depression (Akbulut & Razum, 2022; Barter-Godfrey & Taket, 2009; Mountian, 2024). This finding can be employed to improve programs designed for mental health in diasporic men.

Another strength of this study is the connections that our analysis makes between the data and various discourses of Iranian masculinities. We explain how mental and physical toughness in Javad could be related to the discourse of moghãvemat and how this discourse is rooted in the contemporary war between Iran and Iraq (1980–1988) and can be traced in the Shahnameh (1010). This can help with the localization of Iranian masculinities research through creating pertinent terms from Iranian history. From the viewpoint of postcolonialism, this could contribute to efforts to shift the colonial gaze beyond the dominant narratives of the West, and eventually, reverse that gaze (see Dabashi, 2019).

We believe our study also matters in terms of the methodology (i.e., collective memory work) that we used as the current scholarship on men and masculinities requires novel approaches (see Borkowska, 2020; Reeser, 2023). Although collective memory work was first designed to study gender (Johnson et al., 2018), rarely has it been applied to men and masculinities studies (Blake et al., 2018; Kivel & Johnson, 2009). Also, we simultaneously employed collective memory work and reflexive thematic analysis. Thus, our study could serve as a useful template for those researchers who wish to investigate immigrant/diasporic masculinities through the application of collective memory work and/or reflexive thematic analysis.

Immigrant men in the West, including Canada, constitute minority and marginalized groups. This study, thus, was designed in response to calls for more research on marginalized masculinities (Haywood & Johansson, 2017; Kimmel & Coston, 2018) and provides data on a particular form of transnational masculinities. By analyzing diasporic Iranian masculinities and incorporating various elements that have the potential to influence the experiences of diasporic Iranian men, our study acknowledges the plurality of masculinities, power relations, and hierarchies among immigrant men (Del Aguila, 2013) and others.

As one of the pillars of our theoretical framework, we used intersectionality. Studying masculinities from an intersectional lens helps address elite or marginal positions that men belonging to different ethnic groups may assume (see Wojnicka & Nowicka, 2022; Wojnicka & Pustułka, 2019). This lens can further help researchers view diasporic men as heterogenous. A significant limitation in the literature on migrant men is the tendency to treat them as a homogeneous group ignoring the intersectional matrix of class, ethnicity, gender, and other facets of self which contribute to differing experiences. For example, the portrayal of immigrant men from Islamic countries in Western media lacks nuance and contributes to stereotypes, which can influence public perceptions and policies (Khosravi, 2009). The use of intersectionality requires the inclusion of the complexities of (diasporic) Iranian masculinities into analysis (see Savaş et al., 2021; Wojnicka & Nowicka, 2022; Wojnicka & Pustułka, 2019).

The results of this study, in line with the existing literature on diasporic Iranians (see Farahani, 2012; Green & Latifi, 2021; Maghbouleh, 2017; Mehdizadeh, 2021; Roodsaz, 2020; Torbati, 2022), show that diasporic Iranian men are at risk of mental health issues such as distress, anxiety, drug abuse, and depression. However, few studies (see Amini et al., 2021; Shishehgar et al., 2015) have focused exclusively on the (mental) health of diasporic Iranians. This gap must be addressed. This type of inquiry is important as we know that strict adherence to masculine norms are associated with poorer mental health and reduced help-seeking amongst men. This is because traditional norms often discourage men from expressing vulnerability or seeking help (see Thompson & Bennett, 2015).

Extant research on (diasporic) Iranian men and masculinities is mostly qualitative (Arab Khorasani & Maleki, 2025; Chavoshian & Hosseini Rasht Abadi, 2011; Green & Latifi, 2021; Kousari & Mowlaei, 2012; Mehdizadeh, 2021). This suggests that more quantitative studies on (diasporic) Iranian masculinities should be pursued. Although scales of masculinities constitute an important part of the extant literature on men and masculinities (Thompson & Bennett, 2015), currently, there exists no measure to gauge (diasporic) Iranian masculinities. Devising the first scale is thus one way to further quantitative research on this topic.¹²

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that diasporic Iranian men living in the city of Saskatoon find themselves in a position of insecurity for several reasons, for example, losing part of their financial power to their wives and feeling “lesser” than their Canadian counterparts. To deal with this contextual insecurity, they apply several coping strategies most of which are maladaptive. One co-researcher, for instance, hides his physical and emotional pain and vulnerability through enactment of a tough masculinity (see Hearn et al., 2012; Jewkes et al., 2015). Another co-researcher denigrates a fellow classmate (i.e., a priest), perhaps, as means of making sense of his recent relational loss of power. According to precarious masculinities theory, the strategies that diasporic Iranian men employ are used in reaction to the threats (Choi, 2018; O’Connor et al., 2017) they perceive vis-a-vis their gender identities in social settings—especially in relation to other men (i.e., White Canadian men) who are contextually more powerful than they are.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251356765 – Supplemental material for A Qualitative Examination of Contextually Insecure Diasporic Iranian Masculinities

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251356765 for A Qualitative Examination of Contextually Insecure Diasporic Iranian Masculinities by Yaser Mirzaei, Mehdi Ebrahimpour, Mohammad Giahi, Ahmad Karimi, Hamid Yari and Todd G. Morrison in SAGE Open

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Yaser Mirzaei

Ethical Considerations

This study received ethical approval from the University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Application ID 3921) on April 25, 2023.

Consent to Participate

All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

A Note on Transliteration

The transliteration followed that of the Iranian Studies Journal () which forgoes diacritical marks. In this scheme, words are transliterated to best reflect the pronunciation of the word in Persian.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Abizadeh

(2023). The grammar of social power: Power-to, power-with, power-despite and power-over. Political Studies, 71(1), 3–19.

Addis

M. E.

Mahalik

J. R.

(2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5–14.

Addis

M. E.

Reigeluth

C. S.

Schwab

J. R.

(2016). Social norms, social construction, and the psychology of men and masculinity. In Wong

Y. J.

Wester

S. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 81–104). American Psychological Association.

Akbulut

Razum

(2022). Why othering should be considered in research on health inequalities: Theoretical perspectives and research needs. SSM-Population Health, 20, Article 101286.

Amini

Raheel

Exum

Fazzino

T. L.

(2021). Mental health of Iranian immigrants and their descendants: A review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(2), 192–204.

Anderson

(2023). The impact of feminist approaches on masculinity scholarship. Current Opinion in Psychology, 50, Article 101583.

Anderson

Innes

Swift

(2012). Indigenous masculinities: Carrying the bones of the ancestors. Canadian men and masculinities: In Greig

C.G.

Martina

W.J.

(Eds.), Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 266–284). Canadian Scholars' Press.

Anderson

McCormack

(2014). Theorising masculinities in contemporary Britain. In Roberts

(Ed.), Debating modern masculinities: Change, continuity, crisis? (pp. 125–144). Palgrave.

Arab Khorasani

Maleki

T. S

. (2025). The structure of gender and contradictory masculinity in oral literature. Woman in Culture and Art, 17(1), 39–56.

10.

Arab Khorasani

Maleki

. (2023). Gender structure and paradoxical masculinity in Iranian oral literature. Journal of Woman in Culture and Arts.

11.

Arjana

S. R.

(2015). Returning to the one: Postcolonial Muslim liturgy. In Carvalhaes

(Ed.), Liturgy in postcolonial perspectives: Only one is holy (pp. 23–31). Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

Balslev

(2019). Iranian masculinities: Gender and sexuality in late Qajar and early Pahlavi Iran. Cambridge University Press.

13.

Barter-Godfrey

Taket

(2009). Othering, marginalisation and pathways to exclusion in health. In Taket

Crisp

B. R.

Nevill

Lamaro

Graham

Barter-Godfrey

(Eds.), Theorising social exclusion (pp. 176–182). Routledge.

14.

Beasley

(2019). Feminism and men/masculinities scholarship: Connections, disjunctions and possibilities. In Gottzén

Mellström

Shefer

(Eds.), Routledge international handbook of masculinity studies (pp. 31–40). Routledge.

15.

Berggren

(2014). Sticky masculinity: Post-structuralism, phenomenology and subjectivity in critical studies on men. Men and Masculinities, 17(3), 231–252.

16.

Blake

Hearn

Jackson

Barber

Johnson

Luczynski

(2018). Ageing, gender politics and masculinities: Reflections on collective memory work with older men. Working with Older People, 22(2), 93–100.

17.

Blake

Hearn

Jackson

Barber

Johnson

Luczynski

(2021). Collective memory work with older men: Ageing, gender politics and masculinities. In Hamm

(Ed.), Reader collective memory-work (pp. 327–353). Beltra Books.

18.

Borkowska

(2020). Approaches to studying masculinity: A nonlinear perspective of theoretical paradigms. Men and Masculinities, 23(3–4), 409–424.

19.

Bosson

J. K.

Vandello

J. A.

(2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86.

20.

Bosson

J. K.

Vandello

J. A.

Caswell

T. A.

(2013). Precarious manhood. In Ryan

M. K.

Branscombe

N. R

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 115–130). Sage.

21.

Braudy

(2010). From chivalry to terrorism: War and the changing nature of masculinity. Vintage.

22.

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352.

23.

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26.

24.

Braun

Clarke

(2024). Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the reflexive thematic analysis reporting guidelines. Palliative Medicine, 38(6), 608–616.

25.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Davey

Jenkinson

(2023). Doing reflexive thematic analysis. In Bager-Charleson

McBeath

(Eds.), Supporting research in counselling and psychotherapy: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research (pp. 19–38). Springer International Publishing.

26.

Bridges

Pascoe

C. J.

(2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246–258.

27.

Bryant

(2019). Memory work. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 527–540). Springer.

28.

Burns

M. D.

Paz Martin

(2024). “Fight against the cultural emasculation of men”: The effect of masculine gender nostalgia on men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000504

29.

Burr

(2015). Social constructionism. Routledge.

30.

Byrne

(2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412.

31.

Carminati

(2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2094–2101.

32.

Cederberg

(2014). Public discourses and migrant stories of integration and inequality: Language and power in biographical narratives. Sociology, 48(1), 133–149.

33.

Charsley

Wray

(2015). Introduction: The invisible (migrant) man. Men and Masculinities, 18(4), 403–423.

34.

Chavoshian

Hosseini Rasht Abadi

S. J.

(2011). Stars of the masculinity and masculinity of the stars. Journal of Iranian Cultural Research, 3(4), 59–84.

35.

Choi

S. Y.

(2018). Masculinity and precarity: Male migrant taxi drivers in South China. Work, Employment and Society, 32(3), 493–508.

36.

Choi

S. Y.

(2019). Migration, masculinity, and family. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(1), 78–94.

37.

Christensen

A. D.

Jensen

S. Q.

(2014). Combining hegemonic masculinity and intersectionality. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9(1), 60–75.

38.

Clarke

S. N.

(2015). The right to speak. In Asterhan

Resnick

Clarke

(Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 167–180). American Educational Research Association.

39.

Collins

(2003). Discrimination, equality and social inclusion. The Modern Law Review, 66(1), 16–43.

40.

Connell

(2014). Margin becoming centre: For a world-centred rethinking of masculinities. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9(4), 217–231.

41.

Connell

(2016). Masculinities in global perspective: Hegemony, contestation, and changing structures of power. Theory and Society, 45, 303–318.

42.

Connell

(2018). Conclusion: Reckoning with gender. In Messner

M. A.

Connell

(Eds.), Gender reckonings: New social theory and research (pp. 331–346). NYU Press.

43.

Connell

(2020). The social organization of masculinity. In McCann

Kim

S.-k.

Ergun

(Eds.), Feminist theory reader (pp. 192–200). Routledge.

44.

Connell

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.

45.

Corcoran

M. P.

Hamm

Weiner

(2022). Blurring the distinction between the researcher and the researched: Doing collective memory-work online in Covid times. Irish Journal of Sociology, 30(2), 136–158.

46.

Cordonnier

Rosoux

Gijs

A. S.

Luminet

(2022). Collective memory: An hourglass between the collective and the individual. Memory, Mind & Media, 1, e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.1

47.

Costanza-Chock

(2018). Design justice: Towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. Proceedings of the Design Research Society, 4, 529–540.

48.

Dabashi

(2019). The Shahnameh: The Persian epic as world literature. Columbia University Press.

49.

Darvishpour

(2002). Immigrant women challenge the role of men: How the changing power relationship within Iranian families in Sweden intensifies family conflicts after immigration. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33(2), 271–296.

50.

Del Aguila

E. V

. (2013). Being a man in a transnational world: The masculinity and sexuality of migration. Routledge.

51.

DeSouza

(2019). Unveiling men: Modern masculinities in twentieth-century Iran. Syracuse University Press.

52.

Donaldson

Howson

(2009). Men, migration and hegemonic masculinity. In Donaldson

Hibbins

Howson

Pease

(Eds.), Migrant men (pp.222–230). Routledge.

53.

Đorđević

Antonijević

(2021). Exploring collective memory-work in Serbia: Construction of gender and ethnicity in post-conflict context. In Hamm

(Ed.), Reader collective memory-work (pp. 353–373). Beltra Books.

54.

D’Souza

Fabricius

Amodio

Colquhoun

Lewko

Haag

Quilico

Archambault

Colantonio

Mollayeva

(2022). Men’s gendered experiences of rehabilitation and recovery following traumatic brain injury: A reflexive thematic analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 32(3), 337–358.

55.

Ekman

Krzyzanowski

(2021). A populist turn? News editorials and the recent discursive shift on immigration in Sweden. Nordicom Review, 42(S1), 67–87.

56.

Farahani

(2009). Cultural and racial politics of representation: A study of diasporic masculinities among Iranian men. In Harrison

Hearn

(Eds.), GEXcel work in progress report volume VII (pp. 77–89). Institute of Thematic Gender Studies, Department of Gender Studies, Linköping University.

57.

Farahani

(2012). Diasporic masculinities. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 2(2), 159–166.

58.

Farrelly

Stewart-Withers

McLennan

Gibson

(2017). Collective memory-work as method and resistance. Sites: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies, 14(2), 77–102.

59.

Fowler

S. L.

Geers

A. L.

(2017). Does trait masculinity relate to expressing toughness? The effects of masculinity threat and self-affirmation in college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(2), 176–186.

60.

Fraser

Michell

(2015). Feminist memory work in action: Method and practicalities. Qualitative Social Work, 14(3), 321–337.

61.

Fullagar

Pavlidis

Francombe-Webb

(2018). Feminist theories after the poststructuralist turn. In Parry

D. C.

(Ed.), Feminisms in leisure studies (pp. 34–57). Routledge.

62.

Garousi

Khajeh Dolatabad

Garrusi

(2017). Concerns about body change behaviors, and construction of flexible masculinity among Iranian students. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2831–2846.

63.

Gelfer

(2014). Masculinities in a global era. Springer.

64.

Glick

Gangl

Gibb

Klumpner

Weinberg

(2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 55–59.

65.

Gonick

Gannon

(2013). Collective biography: An introduction. Girlhood Studies, 6(1), 7–12.

66.

Good

J. J.

Sanchez

D. T.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

(2018). A paternalistic duty to protect? Predicting men's decisions to confront sexism. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 14–24.

67.

Gottzén

Bjørnholt

Boonzaier

(Eds.). (2021). Men, masculinities and intimate partner violence (pp. 52–65). Routledge.

68.

Green

B. A.

Latifi

(2021). No one smiles at me: The double displacement of Iranian migrant men as refugees who use drugs in Australia. Social Sciences, 10(3), Article 85.

69.

Greig

C. J.

Holloway

(2012). Canadian manhood(s). In Martino

Greig

C. J.

(Eds.), Canadian men and masculinities: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 119–138). Canadian Scholars' Press.

70.

Grzanka

P. R.

(2020). From buzzword to critical psychology: An invitation to take intersectionality seriously. Women & Therapy, 43(3–4), 244–261.

71.

Hamm

(2021). Reader collective memory-work. Beltra Books.

72.

Haug

(2008). Memory work. Australian Feminist Studies, 23(58), 537–541.

73.

Haug

(2015). The politics of hope: Memory-work as a method to study the conduct of everyday life. In Schraube

Højholt

(Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 226–240). Routledge.

74.

Haywood

Johansson

(2017). Marginalized masculinities. Taylor & Francis.

75.

Hearn

(2022). The place and potential of crisis/crises in critical studies on men and masculinities. Global Discourse, 12(3–4), 563–585.

76.

Hearn

Harrison

(Eds.). (2013). Rethinking transnational men. Routledge.

77.

Hearn

Nordberg

Andersson

Balkmar

Gottzén

Klinth

Pringle

Sandberg

(2012). Hegemonic masculinity and beyond: 40 years of research in Sweden. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 31–55.

78.

Herrera

M. C.

Expósito

Moya

(2012). Negative reactions of men to the loss of power in gender relations: Lilith vs. Eve. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 4(1), 17–42.

79.

Herzog

Handke

Hitters

(2019). Analyzing talk and text II: Thematic analysis (pp. 385–401). Springer International Publishing.

80.

Hogan

K. F.

Clarke

Ward

(2024). The impact of masculine ideologies on heterosexual men’s experiences of intimate partner violence: A qualitative exploration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 33(1), 123–142.

81.

Hopkins

Giazitzoglu

(2024). Hegemonic masculinity: New spaces, practices, and relations. Progress in Human Geography, 49(1), 84–98.

82.

Honarbin-Holliday

(2013). Emerging forms of masculinity in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Cultural revolution in Iran. In Sreberny

Torfeh

(Eds.), Cultural revolution in Iran (pp. 59–77). Tauris.

83.

Hunt

C. J.

Fasoli

Carnaghi

Cadinu

(2016). Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 108–112.

84.

Hunt

C. J.

Gonsalkorale

Murray

S. B.

(2013). Threatened masculinity and muscularity: An experimental examination of multiple aspects of muscularity in men. Body Image, 10(3), 290–299.

85.

Jefferson

(2017). Subordinating hegemonic masculinity. In Tomsen

(Ed.), Crime, criminal justice and masculinities (pp. 31–56). Routledge.

86.

Jewkes

Morrell

Hearn

Lundqvist

Blackbeard

Lindegger

Quayle

Sikweyiya

Gottzén

(2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(Suppl. 2), 112–127.

87.

Johnson

C. W.

(2018). Collective memory work. Routledge.

88.

Johnson

C. W.

Kivel

B. D.

Cousineau

L. S.

(2018). The history and methodological tradition (s) of collective memory work. In Johnson

C. W.

(Ed.), Collective memory work (pp. 3–26). Routledge.

89.

Kachel

Steffens

M. C.

Niedlich

(2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 956.

90.

Kaplan

Offer

(2022). Masculinity ideologies, sensitivity to masculinity threats, and fathers’ involvement in housework and childcare among US employed fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(4), 399–411.

91.

Katz

(2019). The macho paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all men can help. Sourcebooks.

92.

Kazemi

Baghbanian

Maymand

M. M.

Rahmani

(2018). Contributing factors to migration growth among Iranian students: Drivers of migration to Malaysia. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 19, 757–770.

93.

Keohane

Richardson

(2018). Negotiating gender norms to support men in psychological distress. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12(1), 160–171.

94.

Kimmel

M. S.

Coston

B. M.

(2018). Seeing privilege where it isn’t: Marginalized masculinities and the intersectionality of privilege. In Kimmel

M. S.

(Ed.), Privilege (pp. 161–179). Routledge.

95.

Kivel

B. D.

Johnson

C. W.

(2009). Consuming media, making men: Using collective memory work to understand leisure and the construction of masculinity. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), 110–134.

96.

Khan

Combaz

McAslan

F. E.

(2015). Social exclusion. University of Birmingham.

97.

Khosravi

(2009). Displaced masculinity: Gender and ethnicity among Iranian men in Sweden. Iranian Studies, 42(4), 591–609.

98.

Kord

Krimmer

(2013). Contemporary Hollywood masculinities: Gender, genre, and politics. Springer.

99.

Kousari

Mowlaei

M. M.

(2012). Masculinity narratives in Persian rap music and hegemonic masculinity challenge. Journal of Iran Sociology, 13(4), 149–175.

100.

Krysa

Paludi

Mills

A. J.

(2019). The racialization of immigrants in Canada–a historical investigation how race still matters. Journal of Management History, 25(1), 97–113.

101.

Leung

(2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324–327.

102.

Levant

R. F.

(2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psychologist, 66(8), 765–776.

103.

Levant

R. F.

Richmond

(2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity ideologies. In Wong

Y. J.

Wester

S. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 23–49). American Psychological Association.

104.

Maghbouleh

(2017). The limits of Whiteness: Iranian Americans and the everyday politics of race. Stanford University Press.

105.

Malterud

Siersma

V. D.

Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760.

106.

MacDonald

C. A.

(2014). Masculinity and sport revisted: A review of literature on hegemonic masculinity and men's ice hockey in Canada. Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology, 3(1), 95–112.

107.

Martino

Greig

C. J.

(2012). Canadian men and masculinities: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Canadian Scholars’ Press.

108.

Mehdizadeh

(2021). Perceptions and experiences of change in practices of masculinity among university-educated men of Iranian origin in Quebec. European Scientific Journal, 17(19), 22–50.

109.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation, reformulation, and amplification. Rowman & Littlefield.

110.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

Messner

M. A.

(2018). Hegemonic, nonhegemonic, and “new” masculinities. In Messerschmidt

J. W.

Messner

M. A.

Martin

P. Y.

Connell

(Eds.), Gender reckonings: New social theory and research (pp. 35–56). New York University Press.

111.

Miller

R. A.

(2018). Toward intersectional identity perspectives on disability and LGBTQ identities in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 327–346.

112.

Mishra

Onyx

McCormick

(2021). Using collective memory work in development education. Policy & Practice, 32, 79–102.

113.

Mogensen

K. H.

Stigemo

A. B.

(2021). Collective memory work on students’ sense of belonging: Practices of involvement, power, and learning. In Wulf-Andersen

Follesø

Olsen

(Eds.), Involving methods in youth research: Reflections on participation and power (pp. 185–213). Palgrave Macmillan.

114.

Mountian

(2024). Mental health and otherness: Intersections between gender, race, class and age. Taylor & Francis.

115.

Munsch

C. L.

Gruys

(2018). What threatens, defines: Tracing the symbolic boundaries of contemporary masculinity. Sex Roles, 79(7), 375–392.

116.

Najmabadi

(2005). Women with mustaches and men without beards: Gender and sexual anxieties of Iranian modernity. University of California Press.

117.

Nenonene

R. L.

McIntosh

Vasquez

(2021). Faculty of color and collective memory work: An examination of intersectionality, privilege, and marginalization. Understanding and Dismantling Privilege, 11(2), 1–21.

118.

Netchaeva

Kouchaki

Sheppard

L. D.

(2015). A man’s (precarious) place: Men’s experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1247–1259.

119.

O’Connor

E. C.

Ford

T. E.

Banos

N. C.

(2017). Restoring threatened masculinity: The appeal of sexist and anti-gay humor. Sex Roles, 77, 567–580.

120.

Oksala

(2017). Feminism and power. In Garry

Khader

S. J.

Stone

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to feminist philosophy (pp. 678–688). Routledge.

121.

Onyx

(2021). Methods in the third sector: Collective memory-work in a complexity framework. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33(6), 1132–1139.

122.

Onyx

Small

(2001). Memory-work: The method. Qualitative Inquiry7(6), 773–786.

123.

Orloff

A. S.

Shiff

(2016). Feminism/s in power: Rethinking gender equality after the second wave. In Orloff

A. S.

Ray

Savci

(Eds.), Perverse politics? Feminism, anti-imperialism, multiplicity (pp. 109–134). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

124.

Pansardi

Bindi

(2021). The new concepts of power? Power-over, power-to and power-with. In Gallarotti

G. M.

(Ed.), Essays on evolutions in the study of political power (pp. 51–71). Routledge.

125.

Parker

Scott

Geddes

(2019). Snowball sampling. Sage Research Methods Foundations.

126.

Pechurina

(2023). ‘Visiting Home’ as a method and experience: Researching Russian migrants’ homes in the UK. In Boccagni

Bonfanti

(Eds.), Migration and domestic space: Ethnographies of home in the making (pp. 101–116). Springer International Publishing.

127.

A memory work on longings for feminist activism. In Hamm

(Ed.), Reader collective memory-work (pp. 374–395). Sligo.

128.

Predelli

L. N.

(2004). Interpreting gender in Islam: A case study of immigrant Muslim women in Oslo, Norway. Gender & Society 18(4), 473–493.

129.

Reeser

T. W.

(2023). Masculinities in theory: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

130.

Roodsaz

(2020). Who is the sexually progressive subject? Sexual, cultural and ethnic (un)belonging among younger Iranian-Dutch. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(1), 42–59.

131.

Rummell

C. M.

Levant

R. F.

(2014). Masculine gender role discrepancy strain and self-esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 419

132.

Sarfi

Aris

Zohouri

Aeini

(2023). Religion and migration: An Iranian survey. Migration Letters, 20(Suppl. 4), 470–480.

133.

Savaş

Ö.

Greenwood

R. M.

Blankenship

B. T.

Stewart

A. J.

Deaux

. (2021). All immigrants are not alike: Intersectionality matters in views of immigrant groups. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(1), 86–104.

134.

Shahidian

(1999). Gender and sexuality among immigrant Iranians in Canada. Sexualities, 2(2), 189–222.

135.

Shirpak

K. R.

Maticka-Tyndale

Chinichian

(2011). Post migration changes in Iranian immigrants’ couple relationships in Canada. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(6), 751–770.

136.

Shishehgar

Gholizadeh

DiGiacomo

Davidson

P. M.

(2015). The impact of migration on the health status of Iranians: An integrative literature review. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 15, 1–11.

137.

Silverstein

L. B.

(2016). Feminist masculinities: The end of gender as we know it. In Wong

Y. J.

Wester

S. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 145–172). American Psychological Association.

138.

Smith

(2013). The phenomenology of moral normativity. Routledge.

139.

Stanaland

Gaither

Gassman-Pines

(2023). When is masculinity “fragile”? An expectancy-discrepancy-threat model of masculine identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(4), 359–377.

140.

Statistics Canada. (2021). Focus on geography series, 2021 census of population. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fogs-spg/page.cfm?lang=E&topic=9&dguid=2021A000011124

141.

Thompson

E. H.

Jr. Bennett

K. M.

(2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 115–133.

142.

Torbati

(2022). Power, belonging, and respectability: Classed, gendered, and racial selves among Iranian migrants in the United Kingdom. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 18(2), 311–319.

143.

Vandello

J. A.

Bosson

J. K.

(2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113.

144.

Vandello

J. A.

Bosson

J. K.

Cohen

Burnaford

R. M.

Weaver

J. R.

(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339.

145.

Vandello

J. A.

Wilkerson

Bosson

J. K.

Wiernik

B. M.

Kosakowska-Berezecka

(2023). Precarious manhood and men’s physical health around the world. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(1), 1.

146.

Vaughn

L. M.

Jacquez

(2020). Participatory research methods–choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1), 1–14.

147.

Vescio

T. K.

Schermerhorn

N. E.

Gallegos

J. M.

Laubach

M. L.

(2021). The affective consequences of threats to masculinity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, Article 104195.

148.

Weaver

K. S.

Vescio

T. K.

(2015). The justification of social inequality in response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles, 72, 521–535.

149.

Wilkinson

(2024). Principles of participatory research. In Coyne

Carter

(Eds.), Being participatory: Researching with children and young People: Co-constructing knowledge using creative, digital and innovative techniques (pp. 15–37). Springer.

150.

Wojnicka

Nowicka

(2022). Understanding migrant masculinities through a spatially intersectional lens. Men and Masculinities, 25(2), 232–251.

151.

Wojnicka

Pustułka

(2019). Research on men, masculinities and migration: Past, present and future. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 14(2), 91–95.

152.

Wong

Y. J.

Granderson

R. M.

Zounlome

N. O.

McCullough

K. M.

Hyman

J. E.

Schwabe

S. B.

(2020). The assessment of subjective masculine norms in the United States. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 545–557.

153.

Wong

Y. J.

Wang

S. Y.

(2022). Toward an integrative psychology of masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(3), 285–298.

154.

Wong

Y. J.

Wester

S. R.

(2016). APA handbook of men and masculinities. American Psychological Association.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB