Looking back at the outline I did for Eileen (not sure when, don't even try to say), I do think it works, maybe. I claim I am tracing the process of producing masculinity through the lens of anxiety. Then I list the productions that I will draw on-- cultural artifacts that illustrate this production.

I am interested in the production process and the way anxiety always plays a part, how sexual orientation is always relevant and co-produced, and how race plays a role regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned or not.

(I wonder if part of what I am doing is comparing-- white masculinity and black masculinity. Are there some consistently different things based on race? What other factors mediate how race plays in?)

But I am having to study the process through these cultural products, and right now I'm drawing them from across a very very broad range of artifacts. In fact they are in different genres, have different production values, produced for different target audiences, viewed by different audiences, viewed with different tech interfaces, etc.

Is this a problem? Who has done this kind of study?

I am running up against the question of methodology again. How would I describe this methodology? Is it grounded theory? I hate all these "labels". R originally suggested that I go to intersectionality, Kimberle Crenshaw. Maybe I can cobble something together. But maybe I need to just do it first and keep methodology notes [in like square brackets?] as I go along. What if I take five pages on each artifact and place them side by side. Could be worth trying.

These are real questions and I'm really engaged in the process. AND I'm not sobbing or heaving hysterically. Maybe there is hope still.