Defining Crosby and Problems Therein

I am struggling with the theoretical foundation to the paper I'm currently working on. Y'see, Jay and I are writing a paper on Crosby and shifting masculine tendencies, which is based (in part) on a paper I wrote last year trying to conceptualize how Crosby is utilized as a masculine icon.

Essentially, in my undergrad thesis, I argued that Crosby upheld hegemonic masculine tendencies. I now no longer really believe this. Further, I think that the manner in which he is mediated demonstrates that appropriate masculine presentation within professional hockey (and subsequently, at the regional level - being Canada) is changing, and that there isn't necessarily one ideal.

This is the part that I'm struggling with the most. With hegemonic masculinity, it's argued that, while there are multiple masculinities, and while no person may actually be an exemplar of all the tendencies of hegemonic masculinity, there remains one ideal, to which all others are secondary. They may be complicit, they may challenge it, but they are all lower than it.

I would argue that Crosby is a masculine icon. I would also argue that his talent gives him a certain degree of currency to not be a "traditional" hockey player - like Gretz and others before him, his talent is more important than his ability to stand up for himself (ie. people do his fighting for him, and Laraque is in Pittsburgh, essentially, to protect him). At the same time, I don't think that it's his talent that allows him to be a pretty boy, to have his own fashion line, etc. I also don't think that this represents some kind of shift in terms of what is acceptable hegemonically, because there are certain people (*cough* Cherry), who go off on Crosby for this kind of stuff.

What I would argue is that hegemonic masculinity has pretty much been thrown on its ass recently. There is no consensus with Crosby - depending on who you ask, he's God, he's a pussy, he's a fag, he's masculine, he's tough, he's charitable, he's sensitive...he's a real man, he's a boy, he's a girly boy...and the list goes on. I would argue that we don't really know where to place Crosby, because there is no consensus as to what is appropriately masculine. Hegemonic masculinity adopts traits from other masculinities, yes, but I don't think there's one type of man that we could all agree everyone is trying to be. For many, the "Iron Man" is antiquated, and for others, the "Sensitive Man" is still a fag. There are certain qualities that I think cross over in a lot of masculinities, but I don't think that we can typify a single idealized male icon anymore.

Of course, this is making it challenging for me to decide how to outline the paper. I'm about to email Jay inquiring if I can, essentially, argue that while there are certain traits that I would argue remain hegemonic, there is no complete, consensus ideal.

Brain hurt.