Crip Theory and Country Boys: Masculinity, Dis/Ability, and Place in Rural Southeast Kansas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the discursive and material practices of rural masculinity in Southeast Kansas by foregrounding ability and place as essential in understanding gender. It draws on empirical data gathered from autoethnographic participant-observer research conducted in the region. I begin with a synopsis of critical studies on masculinity in the field of human geography and proceed by offering a summary of research specifically addressing rural masculinities. I then illustrate contrasting perspectives surrounding dis/ability as a concept and also provide an in-depth overview of crip theory. I next describe the research context and methods utilized during the project, as well as how men use their bodies as conduits through which cultural norms pertaining to “manhood” are expressed, affirmed, and reproduced. My results demonstrate how situated assertions of masculinity are inextricably linked to ability, (hetero)sexuality, and sociospatial context, as well as how the pervasive yet veiled pressures of heteronormativity and compulsory able-bodiedness and able-mindedness impose banal and strictly policed social boundaries in regard to belonging and inclusion. The piece is thus a “cripping” of hegemonic notions of manhood in rural Southeast Kansas suggesting that both ability and place are necessary constituent elements for any critical analysis of masculinity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".