Popular Culture Review 29.1 (Spring 2018) - Page 126

exhibits greater social conscience by explicitly portraying such norms as regressive and self-destructive, as evidenced through McNulty’s fall from grace at the conclusion of the series. In contrast to McNulty, Omar wholly rejects macho masculinity and conventional black masculinity, instead embodying a more progressive masculine identity where traditional masculine values can coexist with romanticism and alternative sexuality. Cooper recognizes that “The Wire’s lasting popularity alone means that is has influenced and continues to influence people’s perceptions of … masculinities” (98), specifically by portraying a wide variety of distinct masculine identities. Over the course of five seasons and 60 episodes, The Wire acknowledges that different masculine models can exist simultaneously, including, as demonstrated through Omar’s subversive nature, models reconciled with normalized homosexuality. Works Cited “-30-.” The Wire created by David Simon, season 5, episode 10, HBO, 2008. Albrecht, Michael M. Masculinity in Contemporary Quality Television. Routledge, 2015. Avila-Saavedra, Guillermo. “Nothing Queer about Queer Television: Televised Construction of Gay Masculinities.” Media, Culture & Society, vol. 31, no. 5, 2009, pp. 5 – 21. Barton, Chris. “‘The Wire’: The Dominic West perspective.” The Los Angeles Times, 2008, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ showtracker/2008/02/the-wire-react.html Chambers, Cheryl, and Linda Waldron. “Macho Cops, Corner Boys and Soldiers: The Construction of Race and Masculinity on HBO’s The Wire.” The Harms of Crime Media: Essays on the Perpetuation of Racism, Sexism and Class Stereotypes, edited by Denise L. Bissler and Joan L. Conners, McFarland & Company, Inc., 2012, pp. 171 – 189. “Clarifications.” The Wire created by David Simon, season 5, episode 8, HBO, 2008. Collins, Patricia H. Black Sexual Politics: African-Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge, 2004. Connell, R.W., and James W. Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 6, 2005, pp. 829 – 859. 126