Neo-traditionalist, egalitarian and progressive masculinities in men's heterosexual intimate partner relationships.

Shifts in gender roles, identities and relations since the 1980s are continuing to influence masculinities within intimate partner relationships. Forefront in men's contemporary heterosexual relationships have been calls for gender equality and gender equity as a means to promoting the mental health and well-being of partners and their families. Most previous research has focused on a pathologized role of men in relationships (e.g., intimate partner violence). Little is known about how men perceive intimate partner relationships using a strength-based perspective. The current photovoice study addressed the research question, 'What are the connections between masculinities and men's heterosexual intimate partner relationships?' to highlight young men's (19-43 years-old) experiences of, and perspectives about their intimate partner relationships. Drawing from individual Zoom interviews with 92 heterosexual, cisgender men from 14 countries, we abductively derived three masculine typologies: 1) neo-traditionalist, 2) egalitarian and 3) progressive. Twenty-two (24%) participants embodied neo-traditionalist masculinities characterized by reliance's on traditional masculine norms that assign domesticities as feminine and prize masculine breadwinner and protector roles. Half of the participants (50%, n = 46) purposefully distanced themselves from traditional masculine norms to engage egalitarian masculinities. These men idealized equal (50-50) contributions and reciprocity wherein counts were often used to evaluate each partner's relative efforts and contributions to the relationship. Progressive masculinities were evident in 26% (n = 24) of participants who focused on fairness and social justice, checking their own privilege to justly operate within the relationship, and more broadly in society. The three typologies are grounded in men's heterosexual intimate partner gender relations, and advance masculinity frameworks to guide future health-research, policy and practice. In addition, there are opportunities for men's mental health promotion by prompting readers' reflexivity to thoughtfully consider what they idealize, and where they map in relation to the masculine typologies featured in the current article.