2. Booknotes

the other side of the coin, many members of society understand religion as an institution that yields a stable masculine identity, that ought, by extension, yield a more stable and ultimately desirable society. Hoover and Coats challenge both understandings. These two authors employ extensive interviews and participant observation with both Evangelical and non-Evangelical men in the United States. This choice is justified by an understanding that White, heterosexual, married Evangelical fathers ought to represent a population where traditional ideas about gender, religion, and media would be most entrenched. Although Christianity played a central role in the identities and life experiences of the men studied, media also played an equally important role in such identity formation. Neither institution produced reactions congruent with the above understanding of media and religion (media did not exclusively produce negative toxic affronts to the men’s masculinity, nor did religion purely prop up positive gendered social qualities in these men). The men studied did not conform to the criticism above in terms of their faith, their media consumption, or their discourses around masculinity. The complex interaction within the public, mediated, and private lives of these men could not be reduced to either “good” or “bad”; it could not be said that either institution produces unilaterally socially desirable, or undesirable, discourse. There was no common source of masculinity articulated by the men studied. Most men, however, agreed that masculinity is about provision, protection, and purpose. However, to what extent American Protestantism played a significant role in this remains ambiguous. Most religious men researched do not seem as anxious about a crisis of masculinity as perhaps the traditionalist critique of modern culture may suggest. Media, in fact, seem to provide men with symbolic resources that give them accessible language and symbols used to discuss their masculinity. The notion that media and religion were opposite forces regarding the construction of masculinity is challenged by the research, as the evidence suggests much of popular media supports a commonplace emphasis on headship (albeit in a secular tone). Ultimately, patriarchy remains the norm in much of American media content, and as such, it does little to upset or rupture certain interpretations of masculinity. Ultimately, interviews with many men indicate that the “crisis” of masculinity is “simply a lament over the loss of a social compact under which male prerogatives of various kinds were given tacit support in the culture” (p. 153).