Hereafter: Nonchalance and Gender

As the credits scrolled across the screen and the lights grew slightly brighter in the theater, my friend Becky turned to me in her seat and sternly said, “I don’t want to hear a single word.” I guess that she heard over the movie’s score my constant sighs and saw through theater’s darkness my incessant eye-rolling and knew that I thought very little of the movie we went to see, Hereafter. I tend to be critical of movies, especially of ones that are overly hyped and widely popular, and I have a tendency to openly voice my dissatisfaction. Becky has been on the receiving end of many of these rants, most of which were about movies she enjoys, so I understood her decision to preemptively stop me from critically railing the movie we had just finished seeing.

But the truth is that aesthetically speaking, Hereafter is severely lacking in terms of plot development, acting ability, and overall general cinematic quality, and this dearth of good material prevents the film from adequately and convincingly developing any of the statements it makes about masculinity. Gender is not one of Hereafter’s primary topics—a factor that might seem strange considering that its director is Clint Eastwood, a man known for having a very distinct relationship with masculinity—but the film does make modest, implicit statements, primarily about how many men struggle with their masculine identities and about how masculinity tied to objective, scientific knowledge excludes certain topics from seriously entering intelligent conversations. Although the film addresses these issues, it unfortunately does not effectively develop them to profound levels.

Matt Damon’s character, George Lonegan, plays an ex-psychic trying to get his life on track despite having to deal with his abilities to communicate with the dead, something he refers to multiple times as not “a gift, but a curse.” The film avoids mentioning masculinity explicitly and successfully resists falling into typical gender exaggerations we frequently see within films, suggesting that Eastwood’s desire is to approach masculinity from a complicated standpoint. Lonegan, for example, is not a traditional Eastwood character; he’s a sensitive and moody man who attends cooking classes at nights to expand his interests and lets active women interested in him pursue him romantically in roles that assert their agency. But he also embodies masculine virtues as well; his new profession is within a blue collar industry, and after he’s fired, he’s shown commiserating with his brother in a stereotypically masculine bar. Furthermore, his ambivalence towards his psychic abilities works to present him as a mysterious character who is working hard to achieve “normalcy”. This desire to attain what he considers a normal identity is not surprising, and it explicitly relates to Lonegan’s “curse”. But considering the dueling masculine nature that Damon’s character embodies by being at times traditionally masculine and at other times not, it can be assumed that his longing for a normal lifestyle extends to a desire to live simply as a masculine man among the complex and competing understandings of what that entails. The “curse” that everyone mistakes as a “gift” is, therefore, not only his ability to channel the deceased, but also the gender roles society grants/forces upon him.

In the case of Cecile de France’s character, Marie Lelay, the issue of gender correlates to knowledge. After undergoing a near-death experience, De France’s character gains the ability to see the afterlife, and this forces her to change her worldview. Before the experience, Lelay was a successful news anchor known for asking her guests hard questions; here it’s acknowledged that her success is incumbent upon assuredly knowing that what she thinks is morally correct. After the event, however, her understanding of reality is called into question, and the information that she previously felt sure about now suddenly appears uncertain. As a result, she loses her career and although she procures a job as a writer, she cannot do much to convince her publishers to accept her draft of a book she’s written about the afterlife. What is worth noting about these situations is that the actors of resistance are all men who feel that knowledge should be tied to objectivity and empiricism. Lelay’s efforts, however, undermine this assumption because they rely upon her subjective experiences and refuse to take clear positions. The information that she presents offers many questions and answers nothing. In taking spiritual and personal information and suggesting that it deserves equal acknowledgement as scientific empiricism, Lelay’s struggles accentuate the difficulties that non-masculine voices must overcome. She refuses to pursue more masculine topics—her publishers want her to write a book that critically examines the history of a former French politician—and eventually her book about the afterlife does get published, but the struggle she faces underscores how gendered rhetoric and discourse is and how information is often filtered through a masculine sieve as it reaches audiences.

Unfortunately, however, these aspects of the film do not receive much attention in its plot, nor are they emphasized heavily in the acting. Lonegan’s masculine qualities operate only on the periphery of the film, and Lelay’s struggles with masculine discourse communities are deemphasized. In part, this is because the production qualities are low; the script is divided into three separate stories that hardly feel connected, preventing the movie from achieving any sense of profundity. Considering that the film’s main concern—spiritual ways of knowing, the “really real”, and the afterlife—this lack of awe inspiring cinematography acts as an extreme detriment to the movie’s sense of importance. It could be that Eastwood wanted to present these themes in ways that suggest that they are so relevant to our way of life that we should consider them mundane, but, unfortunately, the execution presents the material in a manner that counter-intuitively appears blasé about everything.

Sadly, this nonchalant positioning extends beyond the spiritual layers and into the film’s themes regarding gender. The reason that Hereafter makes little headway in arguing that masculinity is a complicated phenomenon for many men and that discourse favors a masculine objectivity that hinders alternative forms of knowledge is because the movie does not adequately appear to be making any form of strong argument. The film addresses its main concerns in a neutral manner, and unfortunately this prevents its secondary concerns from feeling meaningful and lasting.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall Film Review

For my film review I chose to do a romantic comedy called “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”. The movie to me reflects a lot on how society expects a man to act in relationships and in public. The movie is basically about a break-up that Peter, the main character, was not expecting from him his very domineering girlfriend. Like a real person he is depressed and acts out his depression in a few ways, some ways being socially unacceptable for a man and some that are not socially acceptable as a man. There is a power struggle in the relationship that creates many thoughts (at least for me) on what roles people are expected to uphold in a relationship as well as what roles a man is suppose to have while not in a relationship.

I think the movie shows a lot of how society places men in the “Act-Like-a-Man Box”. Peter is expected, and even encouraged by friends, to have casual sex in order to help him get over the loss of his girlfriend. Yet when he lets his real feeling of sadness show, and cries publicly and speaks of the loss to show how he feels even his best friend in the movie chastises him and expects him to “be more manly” and move on with his life. And even though his friend is a married man, he acts to me in a way that describes somewhat of a “bro-mance” and helps his friend to meet random girls while out of the town. In rises a question of what exactly makes a good male friend in a male friendship role. Shouldn’t a true friend allow someone close to them to express their true emotions in order to feel better, rather than be closed off about how they really feel?

Other parts throughout this movie also show a power struggle in the man vs. woman role in the relationship. Peter, in the relationship, is for a lack of better words not manly at all and his girlfriend controls most of what they do. Others around him see this as an issue and Peter even shows himself to be somewhat de-masculinized by the way his relationship portrays as the “wimpy” one who is not in control of what goes on. His career as a musician is also brought up as not being what his girlfriend thinks it should be, she sees his passion as not worthy enough to be shown to others and discourages him to go forward with it. There is also a big difference in who is the main finance provider in the household before the break up, and that was also the woman. She sees herself as having more worth and value in the relationship because she is more successful then Peter.

Although this movie is very funny and I laugh through-out most of it, the movie does insult the idea of having a sensitive, emotional man as someone who should not be respected as much as someone who may be more in your face and less in touch with their feelings. By the end of the movie it does actually have a happy ending by bringing in another woman who does accept Peter for who he really is. But how often does this really happen in everyday life? Why does Peter constantly have people around him trying to persuade him to be more “like a man” and less in touch with his feelings and the way he expresses them? Even though the movie is a great comedy it shows how society expects certain things of men and how they act.

Word Count: 604

My favorite blogs

Mark Anthony Neal's blog
http://newblackman.blogspot.com/

The blog of a married, heterosexual guy who happens to be transgender
http://www.thegirlinside.com/

http://blogs.alternet.org/antbern/
http://www.blackagendareport.com/
http://edgarallenangelou.blogspot.com/
http://spittingsugar.wordpress.com

Tongues Untied (1989)

Tongues Untied is about difference and diversity. The documentary was created in 1989 by Marlon Riggs to capture the voices of African American gay men. Its title is illustrative of a path of least resistance that the poets, artists, and activists in this film take to resist homophobia. For example, this quote is chanted to call attention to oppression: “Anger unvented becomes pain unspoken becomes rage released becomes violence.” This film addresses the theories of masculinity we have discussed in class by disrupting stereotypes for black masculinity.

Tongues Untied illustrates a more in-depth view on sexuality, violence, hypermasculinity, religion, homophobia and class within African American gender constructs. Despite the stereotypes and stigmas that oppress African American gay men, this film provides a message for empowerment. According to Kivel, “Even though they have all the normal human feelings of love, excitement, sadness, confusion, anger, curiosity, pain, frustration, humiliation, shame, grief, resentment, loneliness, low self worth, and self-doubt, they are taught to hide the feelings and appear to be tough and in control (Kivel 83).” Tongues Untied is an intimate portrayal of black gay men’s experiences. By resisting the implications of silence this film breaks the “Act Like a Man box."

The oppression of Black gay men is discussed through poetry, a memoir of a drag queen, erotica, and an expose’ of homophobia in the black church. Tongues untied, black gay activists speak of their pain with passion, purpose, and sensitivity. I really want to connect this theme from the documentary to Audre Lorde’s “Uses of the Erotic.” “The erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest feelings.” Essentially, the erotic is power. It is the poetry, and activism expressed in this documentary.

Tongues Untied is almost a historical film- just because of its age, and not because it is infamous. James Baldwin once said that “People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them.” Marlon Riggs and Essex Hemphill are leaders in the black gay liberation movement promoted by Tongues Untied. Like many other black gay activists from that generation, they died battling HIV way too soon. Now, while persons are living longer with the virus and our social politics are less racist and the groundwork for black queer liberation is already laid in this film, what does our generation’s activism look like? Racism and homophobia are still impacting the experiences of black gay men; and silence is still not the solution. I wonder if these changes in America mark a shift or a resurgence of radical activism in the human rights movement?

Essentially, Tongues Untied is empowering because Riggs provides a platform for queering and expanding discussions about masculine constructs. In other words, grown black men who love grown black men are allowed to negotiate identity with creativity and power. By promoting a message of self-love, Tongues Untied is a pro-feminist approach to the silence about homophobia. Scenes from the Civil Rights movement, side by side, to black gay activism artistically conclude the documentary’s call to activism. To take a quote from the footage, “Black men loving black men is a revolutionary act.” In other words, the personal is political and the act of love changes the interaction of African American gay men and their internalized oppressions.

Works Cited
Kivel, Paul. “The Act Like a Man Box.” Kimmel, Michael S. and Michael A. Messner Men's Lives. Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2010
Lorde, Audre. "The Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power." (1984). Print.
Tongues Untied. Perf. Marlon Riggs and Essex Hemphil. 1989. Videocassette

"Boys Don't Cry" Movie Review

For my movie review, I chose the 1999 film, Boys Don’t Cry, a dramatized account of the rape and murder of Brandon Teena, played by Hilary Swank. Brandon is a pre-op trans man (birth name: Teena Renae Brandon) and his rape and murder after his small friend group in the isolated Nebraska town of Falls City caused an uproar in the queer community in the early nineties, long before hate crimes legislation had been extended to include gender and sexual orientation. Quite a few interesting aspects of masculinity are presented in this film, among them violent dispositions and their roots, women policing deviant gender behaviors, and the often problematic nature of queer space and embodiment.

Throughout the movie, there are hints that ex-convict John Lotter, the ringleader of the operation, has an extremely volatile personality, though Peter Sarsgaard has been quoted saying that he intended him to be a charismatic, likable character, even a bit sympathetic. When he gets upset with Brandon for getting pulled over by the police, only because John himself encouraged him to race another car, he kicks everyone out but Lana, Brandon’s eventual girlfriend, for whom John has had feelings for years, and her friend, who need to get to work, and forces everyone else to walk back home. The picture of the lower-income, isolated Midwest and the attitudes it engenders fits perfectly with the article, “Culture, Gender, and Violence: ‘We Are Not Women,’” by James Gilligan. There is no great wealth disparity, but rather, a general poorness and lack of opportunity. John and his friend and eventual accomplice, Tom, have been to prison before, and from what John has mentioned about his personal history, he has had a very rough life and considers Lana and her mother family, as his own mother did not write him in prison and sounds generally neglectful.

One of the most troubling instances of the movie, for me, besides the actual scenes of violence, was when Lana’s mother asked John and Tom if they had raped Brandon, and John’s response was that “if [he] wanted to rape someone, [he] [had] Mallory,” Mallory being the unseen mother of his child. He says this laughingly to deflect from the possibility that he could have raped a self-identified man, as if his gender identity was the truly disgusting part, not the act itself. John’s particular brand of masculinity is predicated on very convoluted ideas of retribution and respectability, wherein his actions were justified because Brandon had been corrupting one of the few people for whom he deeply cared, Lana, but it is also obvious that he had a response to what he deemed culturally abhorrent behavior, as gender roles and the reinforcement of normativity is one of the few ways one can find any stability in such destitute circumstances.

Another interesting dimension to the events of the end of the film is the way in which most of the female characters are complicit in Brandon’s torture, though I don’t believe any of them wanted him dead. Lana’s mother seems to want him at least to be run out of town, if not punished for what appears to her to be some betrayal of not only their social group, but perhaps also their gender, and even their friend Candace, who is generally very kind and mild-mannered and had even allowed Brandon to live with her the entire time he was in Falls City, seems disgusted with the entire ordeal. To quote from Gilligan’s aforementioned text, “gender codes reinforce the socialization of girls and women, socializing them to acquiesce in, support, and cling to the traditional set of social roles, and to enforce conformity in other females as well” (553). Though Brandon does not identify as female, when they discover his biological gender, they begin addressing him as “Teena” and the girls make a contrived effort to police his behaviors, under the guise that he has betrayed them through his lies. However, Lana’s mother’s xenophobic comments about Brandon being an “it” display a much more deeply rooted problem about the perception of gender betrayal and transgression.

Brandon himself represents a particular problem of queering space and the body. Because of how poor he is, he does not see having a sex-change or even doing hormonal therapy as a viable option for his circumstances, but instead, cross-dresses and in the vein of his previous lies,  claims to be a hermaphrodite when caught to make his case sound more medically necessary, rather than a very personal, if at the time, half-baked decision. He is also choosing to do this while understanding how others perceive it when they find out his secret, as he has had death threats and run-ins with violent personalities before. He completely understands where he lives, the attitudes others possess, and the risk he runs in staying there to enact his lifestyle choices, yet with very little thought or care, he stays anyway, and moves to an even more isolated area, far away from the possible protection of his family. Even with such sensitive issues, one must acknowledge the aspects that become problematic, as until the move to Falls City, he seemed to regard the spectacle of being caught as humorous, not taking into account the real risk for bodily harm. While embodiment of manhood and masculinity is in no way contingent on possessing a penis, as pointed out numerous times in Jamison Green’s article, “Part of the Package,” and it is incredible that Brandon was able to understand how to embody a young male so effectively and without any sort of mentoring or exposure to queer space, this created a complete lack of attention to the boundaries that gender possesses, and how its policing can imply dire consequences.

In recognizing all of these aforementioned factors in the film, we see that the policing, regulation, and “doing” of gender is a multifaceted issue that is encapsulated in many forms of masculinity, the violent and the transcendent, and the ways in which women also construct maleness as well, becoming complicit in the consequences of its most militant defense. There is so much I couldn’t even begin to touch on, given the word limit, but suffice it to say, I would certainly recommend this film, if not for the performances than for a narrative that is rare in that it delves deeply into gender and still manages to be well-acted.

Works Cited

Kimmel, Michael S., and James Gilligan. "Culture, Gender, and Violence: "We Are Not Women"" Men's Lives. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2010. 551-58. Print.

Greene, Jamison. "Part of the Package: Ideas of Masculinity among Male-Identified Transpeople." Trans-Academics.org. 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2010 <http://www.trans-academics.org/part_package_ideas_mascul>.

The (Real) Ugly Truth: Analyzing The Film "The Ugly Truth" And How It Reinforces The Idea Of Masculinity

I chose this movie because it is one of my favorite movies and also one of the only “chick-flicks” that my male friends will watch. I have always wondered why this movie was a hit for both males and females besides the fact that two attractive people play in the starring roles. After analyzing masculinity in this class, I can truly examine and try to understand what makes this movie so gender diverse, and specifically what makes it so appealing to men.

This movie is about a female producer of a news show and a male host of a show called “The Ugly Truth” in which he talks about men, women and sex. His show is very much like “The Man Show” with women dressed in skimpy clothing and talking about what men like. The host is hired by the news station to do a segment in the news show to get better ratings and more viewers. The movie continues to portray the work relationship and personal relationship between the male host and the female producer.

There are a lot of actions that happen within the movie that relate to the class discussion involving men and the work place. One scene that related was the scene that producer, her boss and the host went to a dinner with their corporate owners. Even though the female producer has been there much longer and has a higher position in the network, the host gets much more attention from the network boss and the corporate owners. In fact, when they first arrive the network boss makes the comment “You remember Abby (the producer), and you all know Mike (the host).” The men in power, because both the network boss and the corporate owners are male, give more attention and praise to the new male talent than the devoted female producer. We discussed this aspect of men in the workplace in class and how men feel that other men should be in higher positions with better pay than women. The male superiors like to associate with other men and put them on the “glass escalator,” pushing them to be successful. They do this in the movie by trying to get the host to sign a contract and putting him on the fast track to getting more airtime on the news show.

During the discussion of men in the workplace, we also spoke about the social expectations of men and their coworkers. At the end of the dinner, the producer went home with her new boyfriend. As soon as she left the host and the network boss were discussing how the meeting with corporate went. After they agreed that the meeting went well, the host said “Let’s grab a drink.” The men are expected to socialize with each other through “male-bonding” types of activities such as golf or grabbing drinks. The female producer was not invited to the outing, only the “guys.”

There were also a few scenes in the movie which paralleled the sexual harassment in the “Women in Iraq” article. In the article it talked about how women in the service that were stationed in Iraq were sexually harassed verbally, regardless of their rank. Throughout the movie the host says very sexist things to his superior, the producer, that are much like what the service men said to their female commander. Some examples of this is when the host meets the producer and finds out she is his boss he claims “I like a woman on top.” Then, when she tells him that he has to do what she says when she gives him the earpiece before the show he says “promise me you’ll talk dirty.” Even though he is her subordinate, she allows him to talk to her in that way because he is the man and it is his way of showing he has power. She gets disgusted with him in the movie over it but never suspends him or gives him any type of repercussion for his sexual harassment actions.

The main focus of the movie is about men and their sexuality and relationships with women. There are many examples highlighted throughout the film that we have discussed in class such as biology, the male box, the male gaze and the role of men and women in marriage and other relationships. The movie reinforces the idea of men acting the way they do because of biology during the scene of the news show segment on gorillas. In this scene the host dresses up as a gorilla and shows clips of gorillas mating saying that it is biological the way men act towards women and seeing them as sex objects. It relates even to our discussion on the “Cave Man Theory” that women are for mating, reproducing, and to be controlled by the men because that is how we are biologically programmed.

The movie also talks a lot about the male gaze and seeing women as objects and not subjects. On the host’s show in the beginning of the movie he is giving advice to women on how to get men. He says that you don’t need the steps the self help books give you, “you only need one, and it’s called a StairMaster!” He goes on to tell the women that men don’t fall in love at first sight, they fall in lust. On top of that, they don’t fall for personality at first, they “fall in love with your tits and your ass.” Throughout the film, when he is helping the producer get a date with the man she likes, he tries to mold the producer into a sex object wearing revealing, tight clothing, getting hair extensions, and buying sexy lingerie. These things all reinforce the idea that the idea of masculinity is seeing women as play things and sexual objects, not equals. The producer dressed professionally and wore her hair back but that made her look more powerful and the men, according to the host, did not like controlling and powerful looking women.

The movie also touched on the idea of the role of men and women in a marriage, especially referring to the power structure within marriage. During the host’s first segment on the news show, he talks about the two anchors who are a married couple. He says that the wife has emasculated her husband by becoming more popular, being the breadwinner, and being generally more successful than her husband. The host said that these reasons explain why her husband would no longer have sex with her because she wouldn’t “let him be a man.” This idea that in order for a man to be “masculine” he must fit into this box where he is the breadwinner and the one with the power while the woman must make less money and be less successful so that she depends on the man.

While I still enjoy this movie because it is a good romantic comedy and has a lot of funny parts, I do view it differently after analyzing it. The only problem is that other viewers will not analyze it as I have and it will still engrain the idea of masculinity into our society and continue to help perpetuate the notion of the role men and women are supposed to play within our society.

Constructing and Deconstructing Masculinity in HBO's The Wire

Some background info: The Wire is a series which ran on HBO from 2002-2008. It has been hailed as “the best show ever” by many media outlets, is being taught at colleges all over the United States, and is President Obama’s favorite TV show. The series represents what happens in the city of Baltimore, MD, and while it primarily revolves around drugs and crime, other elements include but are not limited to: government, the public school system and media (specifically, newspapers and journalistic "ethics"). David Simon, the creator, producer and writer, has stated that the show is "really about the American city, and about how we live together. It's about how institutions have an affect on individuals. Whether one is a cop, a longshoreman, a drug dealer, a politician, a judge or a lawyer. All are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution they are committed to." I think that quote speaks volumes about upholding social constructions of masculinity, and the privilege (and problems) that come along with it.

I didn't realize the problem with doing a television show -- especially one that is as layered and intricate as The Wire -- would be to determine whether I would discuss the series as a whole, select an episode and analyze from there, or specifically discuss a few characters. After realizing that folks have written dissertations on the show and this was to be a 500-1,000 word review, I’ve chosen to focus on two specific characters and how they each ‘perform’ masculinity. While The Wire is an amazing look at masculinities -- specifically, black masculinity (and possibly female masculinity as two of the most prominent females on the show are involved in male-dominated fields and don’t express a high level of femininity) -- I don’t know if I could adequately cover everything I’d like to in such a short amount of space, so bear with me.

--

Whenever I attempt to convince someone to start watching The Wire, I always start by talking about Omar Little and the myriad of reasons I love him. Omar, played by Michael K. Williams, is one of the “bad guys” that you’re probably not supposed to love, but he’s one of the ‘good’ bad guys, really. He’s a stick-up man who only steals from dealers, and he is feared among the streets as he parlays wearing a trench coat with shotgun in hand. Everything about Omar’s appearance is reminiscent of some kind of warrior (and made me think back to our readings about “warrior narratives” from Men’s Lives). By outwardly expressing such a masculine presence, Omar upholds the idea that men -- especially black men -- must do everything they can to fit into the “Act Like A Man” box by appearing tough and powerful. He uses his macho exterior as a scare tactic by asserting his power on the streets and makes it known that he is feared, and with good reason. While all of these things add up to represent a brand of masculinity that is sometimes right, Omar also defies stereotypes by being openly gay. I can think of multiple scenes where he’s affectionate with one of his partners (as he has a few throughout the series -- always monogamous), and he doesn’t seem to care who knows it. There are also moments where we see what Susan Bordo refers to as the “double bind of masculinity” -- tough but sensitive -- as he escorts his grandmother to church. Though I think that double bind represents a heteronormative view, I still think it’s applicable because so often media representations seem to put men into a category of being tough and aggressive or sensitive and caring, but never allowing the two to intersect. By going against the grain of being a ‘chivalrous’ kind of guy who is also feared in his community, Omar represents an incredibly layered view of masculinity.

To take another look at a hyper masculine representation on the show, I’ll point to Jimmy McNulty, played by Dominic West. He’s a detective for the Baltimore Police Department. As someone in a position of power, McNulty also exerts his stereotypical masculine qualities by proving to everyone how arrogant and, well, sleazy he is. He’s a womanizer, has issues with his ex, and would probably rather spend his money at the local watering hole than to pay child support. While he tries to reconcile these issues by proving that he’s a good detective and a good father, he struggles. This could be another look at “the double bind of masculinity” as well, but it’d be a stretch. McNulty exhibits many of the characteristics tied into the “Act Like a Man” box -- confusion, resentment, anger, isolation, and externalizes the emotions he fights to show through drinking and casual sex.

The interesting thing to me about McNulty's character is that, as one of the few white characters on the show, he isn't held upon a pedestal solely because of his race. Sure, he's in a position of power as both a white man and as someone in law enforcement, but he's a drunk and a loser, and is sometimes painted in a worse light than the criminals he's busy tracking down. I’m sure we’re all aware of how popular media likes to perpetuate stereotypes not only about gender, but also about race and class, as well, so I appreciate the fact that David Simon doesn’t attempt to prove that the (white) cops are all “good guys” that we should trust and/or respect. The audience isn’t supposed to like McNulty, or even feel sorry for him, and while his behavior isn’t a stretch from a normative “alpha male” figure, it also isn’t sold as part of his appeal.

While I find the representations of Omar (and McNulty, to be fair, but like I stated: you aren’t supposed to like him) to be incredibly realistic and believable, I’m bothered by the fact that it’d be highly unlikely to see a character like Omar on primetime television. I believe I stated in class one evening that the only openly black men I can think of on TV have all been featured on HBO shows -- Six Feet Under, The Wire, and True Blood -- and these shows are typically observed by more “progressive” audiences (I’d wager they’re maybe a little less homophobic than the rest of America? Although that might be a stretch, and I have no data to back that up.) All in all, the two characters examined are a nice contrast of fitting into a stereotype of constructed masculinity, and another that both adheres and defies it.

Pagent Boys???

I was watching Good Morning America this morning and caught this segment. I thought it was pretty intresting and had to share! I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

click the link below to check out the segment!

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/boys-competing-pageant-crowns-12150193?&clipId=12150193&playlistId=-1&cid=siteplayer

Film Resources on Masculinity in Spanish

I am looking for film resources in Spanish along the lines of the super films that the Media Education Foundation produces. Most of the films we have watched in class have been their work.

You can check out their entire collection on gender here:
http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?search=action&keywords=gender&template=PDGCommTemplates/HTN/SearchResult_Gender.html

Sadly, they do not seem to have any films in Spanish, and of the films in the Gender section, only 4 out of 45 have Spanish subtitles--I checked.
In fact, they don't even seem to have films focusing on Latinos, even in the Race section (come, on people!).
The four with Spanish subtitles are:
Class Dismissed
Playing Unfair: The Media Image of the Female Athlete
Spin the Bottle: Sex, Lies, and Alcohol
Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying and Battering

Obviously, Spanish subtitles are nice, but a films that are made in Spanish would be so much more helpful...they would be accessible to people who don't read well, and it is just a lot easier to connect with what someone is saying when they are speaking your language. Imagine watching Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, but not being able to understand what everyone is saying except through subtitles.

I sent MEF an email to see if there are any resources that I missed, and to find out if they are working on developing Spanish language materials...I'll let you know what they say!

In the meantime, here is a link to the handout on Jackson Katz's website "10 Things Men Can Do to Prevent Gender Violence" in Spanish:
http://www.jacksonkatz.com/wmcde.html

So I think this would be a great service learning and/or research project for someone...tracking down the film-makers and Gender Studies scholars in Latin America and the U.S. who are producing resources on masculinity in Spanish, and compiling a list with contact info. And of course lists for resources in other languages would be helpful, too.

Venus Boyz

Venus Boyz was an interesting movie and gave insight into the world of FTM’s and Transmen. In society and culture, being a man or a woman is brought into our lives at a very early age and our roles are chosen for us, either willingly or unwillingly. People willingly choose it in order to assimilate themselves into mainstream culture, to avoid being ostracized or condemned for deviating from the norm. As a part of this, adapting to a script and playing a certain role convincingly is the goal. People also unwillingly choose it based on the opinions other people have chosen for them, because of their physical markers or the actions they most closely resemble. One deemed more “butch” may as well be a man and another deemed more “femme” should be a woman. In either case, it’s an idea of trying to be natural despite feeling “unnatural”, even though who nature has already made it’s choice and society is the filter to which it’s translated as.

In the middle of the movie, a statement that stuck out to me was when Ze says “you have to pick your default”, as if coming into this world was either being a PC or a MAC. These cultural binaries are a challenge that these individuals faced all their lives, and over the course of several years they have come together in celebration of their differences rather than trying to hide it. The idea of being who you are despite what the cultural norms of society pressure you into being is the main idea that came across from the interviews with all these characters. It is bittersweet because it’s this difference in society that has made them strong individuals and the inequalities have turned from negative concepts into empowering ideals.

In relation to masculinity I was intrigued that the characters these people play revolve around a hierarchy, whether it be the tough Dad who scratches his balls and bosses women around to the misogynistic hip-hop star who objectifies women as sexual creatures. I did notice the constant preoccupation with power and hierarchy that is also related to one of our readings called “Part of the Package”, and these characters exude a very tough exterior that is not related to being male at all. It’s a power and respect that they demand from people, and unfortunately society’s acceptable version of it comes in the form of a white-middle-class male. The drag kings in this movie are all individuals who cross all the lines and blend all the definitions of being male or female in one big homogenous stew of humanity, and shows how you don’t have to be a man to have masculinity.

Punch for Punch

I'd been in the midst of thinking and reading about the issues we'd discussed in class: masculine aggression, competition, and violence in the context of sports, socialization, shame, and alcohol consumption. Fitting that the conversation that I'm about to relate took place in a bar, with the Florida State game on the TV's. FSU scored, so several men in the bar erupted in exaggerated yells of triumph, before hatcheting their arms in the "tomahawk" (along with many women). I brought up my masculinities class (the women I was with were also women's studies students) and mentioned that I should write about the night on the blog, seeing as it so nicely fit in with the themes we've been discussing. At this point, one of my friends (let's call her A) says "speaking of violence, you'll never guess what her boyfriend did the other night," and indicates our mutual friend, K. K tells us that her boyfriend and one of his friends got drunk and decided to try to punch each other in the arms for as long as possible. Literally, the two men proceeded to take turns punching each other in the arm for forty five minutes, competing to see who would stop first. The picture above is what K's boyfriend's friend's arm looked like after this.

I thought the incident pretty well encapsulated the ideas we've been discussing in class; masculine "toughness" conflated with violence, and further reinforced by the presence of alcohol ( furthermore, the night of this conversation about K's boyfriend, like most spent in social situations, was also an opportunity to observe street harassment and the male gaze in action). The themes at work in the "punch for punch" incident are similar to the social forces at work in the culture described in "Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off the Ice."

Transamerica Film Review

Transamerica is a movie about Bree Osbourne who was formally Stanley Chupak, a very prim and proper pre-op male-to-female transsexual who holds down two jobs and saves every last penny so she can pay for her gender reassignment surgery. A week before her operation she receives a phone call from a young man named Toby who is in prison, and who makes his living by stealing and prostitution and who is claiming to be Stanley’s son. Now this kind of threw Bree for a loop but she still wanted to go ahead with her surgery. Unfortunately her therapist thought otherwise, she wanted Bree to go to New York and meet her son and come to terms with it. So Bree flies to New York and goes to bail out Toby who mistakes her for a church social worker. Bree offers Toby a ride to Los Angeles, where he has dreams of becoming an adult film star; however she does not disclose that she is his father.  They end up going on a cross-country road trip together and get to know one another. Along the way they get into some trouble when someone steals their car and end up being helped by a transgender support group, a Native American and even Bree’s own family which ends with Bree finally telling Toby she is his father.

Now I have wanted to see this movie since it came out and just never got around to it so I was excited to see it on our film list. In my opinion this was a great movie, and what I liked most about it was it showed all the things Bree had to go through just to be herself, which is something most of us take for granted.  She had to take hormones, take voice lessons, wear certain undergarments and undergo therapy and get two doctors signatures just to be able to schedule her surgery. It also showed how difficult it was for her when she finally visited her parents as a woman and how appalled they were at her life choices. In this movie though, which so rarely happens in real life, Bree’s parents were able to kind of come terms with their only son becoming a woman, I think they just missed her being in their lives.

This movie made me think of the two articles in class we read about transgendered individuals, “Just One of the Guys? How Transmen Make Gender Visible at Work” and “The Enemy Within: On Becoming a Straight White Guy”, the only difference being was that those articles were about female-to-male transsexuals and Bree was male-to-female. In Jacob Anderson-Minshell’s article he states that “when he became a man it was like he was suddenly a member of a special club where straight men swapped inside jokes with him and slapped him heartily on the back, they treat him with respect and are willing to see him as an authority”, so it makes you wonder how Bree must’ve felt by becoming a woman and losing all the “privileges” of being a man.

Works Cited:

Kimmel, Michael S. and Michael A. Messner Men's Lives. Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2010

Tarrant, Shira Men Speak Out New York, New York: Routledge, 2008

Word Count:544

Call of Duty-Women in the Game

Last night I was watching my boyfriend play the new XBox game "Call of Duty-Black Ops." He was playing the campaign mode which is basically the story mode of the game. In this story mode there are cut scenes to tell you the story behind why you are killing certain people but when this goes on you can still control the view of your character by moving your head up and down or right and left. However, there was this one scene where you are walking through the headquarters and the only woman, who was a secretary, is supposedly checking you out. Even though you have control over where you look the entire rest of the cut scenes, when you pass by the woman that is the only time you cannot control your view and it basically forces you to "check her out." My boyfriend and his male friends just thought it was funny and called it a "James Bond moment." I did not think it was funny that you are forced to check out the only woman I saw in the game as if that is what a man has to do. It just reinforces the idea of masculinity and the male gaze seeing women as objects and not subjects, as she is smiling at him and does not say a word, and also having a woman at the more "feminine" occupation. Just watching showed how advertisers and designers use this idea of masculinity in their games to reinforce the idea in the video gamers is just scary to me.

When even our earplugs are gendered, you know there's a problem.

(Click image for full size.)

It's funny, but before my recent trip to Target, I always thought people all used earplugs for the same purpose and needed to know generally the same things about the product they were buying. Silly me for thinking men might need to be anything but super-ultra-strong even while asleep, or that women might sleep for purposes of staying healthy, and not to make sure they look as beautiful as possible while awake. The more you know, I guess.

Male-Pattern Violence

Check out this link. This basically is a continuation from our last class discussion, however the author is not in our class. The most interesting thing in my opinion is her discussion of the way we word news headlines when acts of violence occur to point out the victim and not the perpetrator. http://www.offourbacks.org/malepat.htm

Women and Business Research.

I intended to post this last week, but got sidetracked and forgot. My research is in women and business, and it's much more difficult to theorize about than one would think. However, my research questions confront a myriad of issues, and the thesis they yielded is as follows:

Stereotyping gendered behaviors in all realms of society creates a climate that is detrimental to the development of the female entrepreneur. In an effort to conform to society's expectations for what a successful entrepreneur looks like, women are discouraged from exhibiting any socially constructed "feminine" behaviors, and must integrate themselves into the business world by denying strength in difference. Operating under the assumption that the risk-averseness of women is a negative aspect of character, not only does patriarchy in economic institutions inhibit the economic agency of female entrepreneurs, but also, a complex matrix of oppression has been created by her peers and those closest to her in discouraging her from applying for the resources necessary to gain that agency, independent of a cosigner.

What this implies where masculinity is concerned is a form of patriarchal favoritism on a systemic level. That is, that men are viewed as more competent, just because they're men. This is problematic in many ways, not just for women, because it reinforces it reinforces a binary of gendered behaviors, male and female. Connecting it more directly to the masculinities we've studied, it is not a stretch to think that if men do not fit into the "be a man box," they may still reap gender privilege, but at a very large cost in the more "fratriarchal" culture of corporate America. If public perception and the accruement of social respectability is all, then both genders suffer from such a rigidly constructed system of ascribed roles.

Revision of gender identity and gender expression discrimination

Revision of UCF Non- Discrimination Affirmative Action Program

The Revision of UCF Regulation 3.001, Non- Discrimination; Affirmative Action Program was approved with a revision stating that “gender identity and gender expression as categories that are protected from discrimination.” Maribeth Ehasz, Vice-President for Student Development and Enrollment Services, submitted this revision.

The additions to Affirmative Action Program, approved today, included that, “The University shall not discriminate in offering access to its educational programs and activities or with respect to employment terms and conditions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran status.”

The documents regarding the new revisions further state, “Gender identity is defined as an individual’s self-perception of being a male, female, or both. Gender expression is defined as the manifestation of an individual’s self perception of being male, female, or both.”

Encouraging a Critical Perspective Towards Gender Portrayals in Media

I left tonight’s discussion thinking very heavily about the issues we talked about, and I felt a little disturbed that although we agreed that there needs to be greater active consumption across our cultural landscape, I don’t think we adequately provided tangible methods to encourage this form of critical interpretation. Obviously we cannot argue that consumers each have their own personal ways of consuming media products (otherwise concepts like reproduction, cultural trends, and social constructs wouldn’t work) but we should also remember that everyone is capable of reaching personalized interpretations of what they consume. The main question, then, is how do we actively encourage our peers to reach this capability, to consume texts in ways that challenge conventional norms, that unpack assumptions they might otherwise take for granted, and, most importantly, that provide paths of escape from the terrible cycle of mindless media reproduction?

As it relates to masculinity, making headway in this area is critical because it’s apparent that conventions of masculinity are affirmed by culture. As I mentioned in class, I have faith that active consumption will work toward developing solutions to the problems that confront masculinity, if anything, because it will help dispel (or at least question) broad generalizations about gender and prevent them from being replicated in reality.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this, and I want to provide some practical ideas that we can employ that might encourage a more critical approach to media consumption. Mostly I think that one very simple place where we can find practical solutions lies in the ways that we discuss media with our friends and family, and while we ourselves might approach texts from a critical perspective, I want to offer a few topics we can use to reframe discussions about cultural products towards more critical positions. Since this class and blog are both about masculinity, the suggestions I’ll pose will relate accordingly, but they can obviously be applied for other specific purposes:

1. Discuss texts beyond what you like and dislike. It’s cool to talk with your friends about why something was really awesome, but it’s better to discuss why it was awesome. For example, It’s great to say that you like a certain film because the actors are really great, but wouldn’t it be more critical to say that you like them due to the way they portray their genders, a statement that invites deeper discussion about the nature of gender, its portrayal, and its reproduction?

2. Explore the producers. Ask questions about who is producing cultural products and what effect they have on consumption. Does, for example, the fact that most video game producers are men have an effect on how gendered video games are?

3. Talk about the context. What does the overwhelmingly male gender in a movie like Full Metal Jacket say about the society it was produced in? What does this film say about the nature of the Vietnam War and the various social movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s? Do we interpret this movie in the same way that audiences did at the time it was released?

4. Look at the stereotypes. Most people are familiar enough with the concept of stereotypes to be able to discuss them in meaningful ways, but often they are not given the opportunity to take part in these discussions because they do not occur as frequently as they should. Start relatively small with more obvious stereotypes, but gradually move to ones that are more subtle.

5. Encourage locating personal, textual relationships. When people find links between how gender plays out in their own lives and how it’s portrayed in the products they consume, they begin to realize that television isn’t just television or that video games aren’t just video games. These products are statements about the nature of gender (and of reality, at large) and, just like all statements, we are not obligated to accept them.

Obviously this is semi-weighty stuff, but that doesn’t mean that people want to avoid these discussion points. Just because audiences do not leave movie theaters or turn off their television sets immediately beginning to discuss the greater implications of what they’ve just consumed does not mean that they are unwilling to engage in criticism. In fact, I’ve found that the vast majority of people essentially want to offer criticism except that they frequently do not know where to begin. Since we, however, are familiar with critical consumption, we need to be the ones to invite discussion with our peers, challenge the assumptions of their hermeneutic practices, but validate their personal interpretations (especially if they are in stark contrast to our own).

When it comes to gender, we need to move beyond judging whether or not a text is legitimate because that is an alienating topic to many people. Instead we have to start small, introducing peers to the value of a critical outlook, thereby allowing them to gradually come to their own conclusions about how culture portrays and influences gender.

In summary, we need to empower the people we know by making them aware of how much agency they have when it comes to interpretation. We need to discuss with them topics like the ones I posed that are engaging and lead to a critical mindset, and then we need to actively listen to and respond to what they have to say about these topics. Basically, we’re obligated to give people the tools they need to critically evaluate gender on their own terms, and I think that by introducing critical discussions about media we can help begin the process that will eventually culminate in that development.

This American Life and Masculinity at Summer Camp?

Since we were talking about men in the military the other day, I thought I would share this episode of This American Life (109: Notes on Camp). The episode's theme is summer camp, and, to be completely honest, the majority of the content is pretty boring. But one segment is pretty interesting because it deals with masculinity and homosocial bonds as they relate to a summer camp set in Israel meant to replicate the experience of being a member of the Israeli Defense Force. In the story, Adam Davidson relates how he went to this camp and found that it was very difficult to fit in since he was not as adept as the other members in performing various military exercises. He was able to remain popular, however, by humorously performing homosexual tendencies.

Anyway, it's an interesting story, and if you have eight minutes or so you should definitely give it a listen; it does, after all, make certain implication about how heternormativity is reinforced in masculine social situations via temporary homosexual performances (also discussed in the C. J. Pascoe article, "'Dude, You're a Fag': Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse").

The story worth listening to begins at 29:30 and ends at 37:45.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/109/notes-on-camp

male survivors get to meet oprah

Tell your story, shatter the shame!
I am proud of Oprah for opening her stage and audience to discuss men who have suffered sexual violence. I wish I could ay more, but I learned the hard way that I was not alone. http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Male-Sexual-Abuse-Survivors-Stand-Together

Reporting on Diva Invasion

Click this link to watch Diva Invasion

“Diva Invasion: The event that brings you over the top,” was the slogan of last nights Diva Invasion fundraiser at UCF’s Venue.

This was a female and male impersonation review performance led by 12 Drag Queens and one Drag King. These were professional performers from all over Florida who compete in pageants.

The circus was the theme, which surrounded the night, with performers and entertainment from the UCF Juggling Club, Orlando’s AntiGravity acrobatic group, Twisted Trystan, a man who swallows swards, and male and female body balancers.

Since 1996, the club “Equal”; the gay, lesbian, bisexual student union, organized the fundraiser. It, of course, welcomed people of all sexual orientations and was intended to celebrate the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. This year, over 1,000 people attended the event.

Gabrielle Shulruff, Vice President of external affairs for Equal, said the goal of Diva Invasion is to bring awareness to the UCF student body while enjoying a fantastic production.

A portion of the proceeds will be going to “The Zebra Coalition,” a foundation that helps youth in need of shelter, and Equal will receive the remaining profits. Equal plans on using some of the proceeds towards lobby days, where the clubs takes its members to Tallahassee to fight for their rights.

La Mission Film Review

La Mission

Directed by Peter Bratt

Sad, Riveting, Emotional, Funny. All the emotions I experienced while watching this movie. La Mission is a movie about Che Rivera (Benjamin Bratt) who is a recovering alcoholic, ex con who lost his wife and now raising his only son Jessi. His character is a very macho well respected man in the community who demonstrates his masculinity through his rough tough exterior of a Chicano man who’s’ into low riding as his hobby. He feels his world has come crushing down when he finds pictures of his son kissing another man. This movie demonstrates on a personal account his own internalized homophobia and even homophobia on a community level; while fighting to overcome who is his son. His own son Jessi is coming to conclusions of who he is and even attacked (shot at) for who he is. The community and neighbors find out Jessi’s true sexual orientation through the violent attacks his father takes out on him when kicking him out because he will not accept a gay son.

His neighbor Lena (Erika Alexander) tries to help him process his internalized homophobia in order to realize it’s his only son. Tries to show him that through his anger and domination that won’t even change what his son is A gay man.
I loved this film on so many levels, not only because Benjamin Bratt is one of my favorite actors(he use to be a detective on Law & Order) but because he’s a representation of a constructed ideal of what the Hispanic or Latino culture has men depicted as. The portrayal of their masculinity is very tough , heterosexual breadwinner type. So as it may come to shock homosexuality is definitely an aspect in this culture where it seems to be hard to accept. This movie reminds me of the article“The Act like a Man Box” the characteristics that society has men socialized to think that relates to their own masculinity or the idea of what masculinity is tough, heterosexual, sports, women, violence, aggressiveness sexual domination and when they don’t fit into these ideals the negativity that is inflicted by being called pussy, sissy, fag, not man enough.

In the recent weeks I and half the nation has been very vividly aware of the kind of harassment and bullying that is occurring to young gay and lesbian teens. In the past week weeks there has been over 7 deaths related to this type of harassment and those are only reported incidents. Although this movie is showing homophobia and hatred towards homosexuals in the eyes of a parent, it’s still quite relevant that the issue is very much real. Che Rivera struggles to not only accept who his son but also who he is within a culture and upbringing that has shown his otherwise. What I especially like about this film is how it brings to light the issue of homosexuality and our children. What should we do? What shouldn’t we do? How to react or accept this? I think these are only questions anyone can answer on an individual level, but movies such as La Mission are making a great impact on depicting the realness of the situation and the effects of addressing them or not. I recommend this great Indie film in a heart beat.

Word Count- 553

Sexual Harassment at Work (a personal account)

Out of all the articles we read for this week the one of sexual harassment and masculinity really got to me on a personal level. I myself work in a hotel in the Food and Beverage department to be specific. The past few months have been somewhat of a stressful time for me because of some unfortunate things that have happened. So this is kind of an outlet for me so I can get some feelings of my chest without having to deal with my supervisors or anyone else from work. Anyone who reads this thanks for taking the time to do so. So here goes...

This article really hit home for me for a few reasons. I have been working at my job now for 2 and 1/2 years. When I first started I was known as the outspoken one that didn't always get along with management because I was so quick to express my opinions, which I would like to add were damn good opinions. They pretty much just pertained to fairness with shifts, treatment, and discipline towards co-workers. After about a year and 1/2 I began taking a step back from my opinionated self because in all honesty its hard arguing with supervisors on a weekly basis, and to be quite frank I have bills to pay and need my job. I quickly noticed the more positive response from my supervisors (who are male might I add), and now I am much more "liked" probably because I am now less of a threat. But I just thought, "whatever, at least my bills are paid and I have decent shifts". Even though deep down I knew (and still know) I am treated this way because I am more submissive than before, but it really did just get to hard to be the "black sheep" of the staff. Even my co-workers who are my friends noticed the change. But unfortunately this has become even more of a problem. Recently a position opened up for head chef...and a new employee in the kitchen (who is male) wanted it. But considering he has flat out hit on all the female servers, including myself, I thought no way he would get it. WRONG!! He got the position, then on top of that I caught him making fun of myself and another female employee stating to the rest of the kitchen staff (who are also male, and who I thought were my friends) that he quote "can't believe we made it through the night with 2 women working the bar". I about flipped! I said to myself "screw this, I'm going to my manager". And I did, the next day, first to a female supervisor, who is fairly new, but she's a woman, so I thought automatic support. Then her and I went to my F & B director ( a male) and he was ohh so concerned. He said he would take care of it and if anything further happened this would be going straight to human resources. That was about 3 weeks ago. But guess what, that head chef just got supervisor of the quarter, nominated by the GM of our hotel (a male) and my F & B director. I can't believe it... I feel so betrayed by the supervisors and management who are suppose to be protecting us is a sense. And I should also add he is an obvious "ogler" and everyone knows it..and jokes about it like its no big deal!! I don't understand how pointing out who the "cuter" staff members are is anything laughable. And its apparent that the kitchen staff is beginning to take part in the joking as well, even though before he came along they never said those types of things. On page 217 in our article at the bottom of the page there is an example from another workplace where it describes how after taking a sexual harassment seminar it seemed liked the males bonded with one another and the females bonded with one another. I feel like that is a mirror image of what has occurred in my work place. All my female co-workers who know I spoke up for us are thankful and can't believe I actually said something, but WTF (don't want to use bad language here), my freaking manager who knows what happened nominates the guy for his sexist and disgusting displays of masculinity. I've been pretty upset about it all and really don't even know what to do. Unfortunately I guess I'm just suppose to be some submissive employee again or else..I don't know. But I do know that this article was hard to read just because I can unfortunately relate more than I would like to be able to. And it's hard to be upset about something you really feel you can't do anything about, especially when I am stuck there 5 days a week :(

I just thought I would share a basic summary of the workshop I went to last week, which mainly centered around a presentation from writer Malina Saval, author of The Secret Lives of Boys: Inside the Raw Emotional World of Male Teens. Saval's presentation began with an explanation of how she wrote her book and compiled her research. Instead of approaching the masculinity of male teenagers via broad and extensive surveys, Saval engaged in ongoing communication with ten boys and their families with the intention of gaining an intimate outlook on the livelihood of these specific boys. Through the chapters of her book (more or less anecdotal accounts of each of the researched subjects), Saval concluded that male teenagers are more complicated individuals than what society portrays, that they are emotional, anxious, sensitive, and intelligent.

After her presentation, Saval asked us to list some stereotypes associated with masculinity, and some discussion surfaced around issues of sexual desire, immaturity, and aggression. We briefly discussed some of the possible origins for these stereotypes and questioned their legitimacy (both as accurate reflections of male teenagers and as capable means for domination). Conversation steadily drifted, however, toward peripheral topics, such as college life, cliques-culture, and bullying of gay teenagers.

Overall, the workshop worked well at introducing issues surrounding masculinity as well as some relative topics.

The Peter Meter

The Peter Meter: gives new meaning to the old "let's get out a ruler and measure it" phrase. Relevant to this class, and some discussions we've had in the past.

So, my great-grandmother passed away, and my parents had the task of cleaning out her house, deciding which items were considered heirlooms and which were considered trash. Among the "collectibles" (I come from a line of self-proclaimed "pack rats" with some of them breaching into hoarder tendencies), my mother found this and my uncle laid claim to it. I tried to scan it but gave up and instead found an image via Google. I don't think you can read all of them, so this is what they say:

GUARANTEED TO BE PERFECT / PETER METER / LAY IT DOWN BOYS

<1IN: SHOULD HAVE BEEN A GIRL
1IN: JUST A WATER SPOT!
2IN: 95 PERCENT IMAGINATION
3IN: SEEN BETTER DAYS BUT NOT MUCH
4IN: JUST A TEASER!
5IN: WOMAN'S HOME COMPANION
6IN: A SECRETARY'S DELIGHT
7IN: FOR LARGE GIRLS & SMALL CATTLE
8IN: HOME WRECKER SIZE
9IN: FOR BAR ROOM BETTING ONLY


So, yeah, I'm not surprised this exists (or rather, existed, since it's quite old) but still shocking (and hilarious?) nonetheless.

The military is the best example for how violence is built into masculinity

trigger warning for discussion of rape and sexual assault.

daddy & papa (New Trailer)

I mentioned in class this documentary. I found it very worth watching

The War Between the Sexes

Since I watched Venus Boys a few weeks ago, the words of one of the interviewees has been fermenting in my mind: "There really is a war between the sexes." Ze (not sure how the interviewee identifies gender-wise) was talking about the priveleges ze was noticing since being able to pass as a man, I think including being privy to anti-woman comments that ze wouldn't have heard in earlier days when being viewed as a woman.

I have started taking to heart the anti-woman comments I've heard lately...I guess I have always thought of "misogyny" as a mistrust of women, a condescion to women, or simple but often humor-ridden discrimination. I don't think I wanted to believe that I was up against an actual "hatred" of women.

One example of these comments was a joke that a guy friend of mine made. We were at dinner with friends and a woman who was there, whom we had both just met, made a comment that pissed him off--a joke about his paisanos being bigheaded and irritated. He got onto her about it, and later he told me..."You know what I was thinking...I didn't say it, but I was thinking 'You know what's wrong with her? She must not be getting f*&%^d right," and explained, "Her boyfriend must not be doing her right...now if she were with a [insert his nationality]...maybe she wouldn't be so bitchy"
Wow.
I was pretty sure he didn't see anything wrong with getting even by making a joke about her sexuality. Not her nationality, or her sense of humor, but her sexuality...which had absolutely nothing to do with any of our conversation at dinner that night. I was also pretty sure he was just softening the joke for me by adding on humor about the sexual prowess of his countrymen. What his joke showed me was that slights to a woman based on her sexuality were fair game, and that it was natural that he should go there because after all, women are mostly sex objects who might happen to have other interests and roles in life like student, mother, etc.

Maybe I'm leaping to assumptions there, but the joke reeked of hatred for women. Because it implied that since she wasn't "getting -- right," the only thing that would straighten her out was a good --. The joke was repulsive because it carried the threat of rape to put her back in her place, to show her she better not make a joke that offended him like that again.

What is most frustrating about the incident, is that I'm not sure I could even begin to have this conversation with my friend, or whether it would be worth it. If he has been socialized to view women this way, over years and years and years, how many conversations will I have to have to make a dent on his brain? And will he even be able to let down his guard long enough to actually look introspectively on his views of women and how they might be harmful...especially if all the men he comes into contact with hold the same views.

It has opened my eyes to the threat and real hatred that actually lies behind many rape jokes and other male-entitlement behaviors...It is disturbing to think that so many men can function in a world where they commodify women as sex objects and view them with a truly destructive level of disrespect. It was also a wakeup call to me to the fact that women, myself included, internalize this commodification and don't do much to fight the way we are treated on the individual level...sometimes it seems like way too much effort to speak up when I am so clearly in enemy territory.

So what is my level of responsibility to other women, and men, who may very well fall victim to my woman-hating friends some day? After all, acquaintance rape and other forms of physical and emotional abuse are pretty common occurences, and our friends and loved ones are perpetrators. Should we as feminists be holding each to a higher standard...quit letting each other slide on the "it's not your fault--it's internalized oppression" card. I let myself slide with this card a lot and let it explain my not-so-heroic behavior while on dates, while walking down the street, or going about any random daily business where I interact with men...while out at the club, and in the bedroom. It's a hard question for me when I feel like speaking up and fighting back comes with high social costs, and I don't have a lot of contact with fellow feminists who don't make me feel judged by simply dismissing my asshole friends or partners by saying "He's an asshole...why do you have anything to do with him?"

So I guess that's why Theories of Masculinity is awesome, since it provides literature and a space to seriously examine the hows and whys of misogeny...also a shout out and thank you to Men Against Rape for taking on this sort of work!

How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days

My favorite types of movies are romantic comedies. As I was thinking about romantic comedies that relate to this class the movie, “How to Lose a guy in 10 days,” popped into my head; the film starring Kate Hudson and Mathew McConaughey. Since I will be discussing a different film related to masculinity for the film review, I figured that I would post a short review about this movie and its relation to masculinity.

How to Lose a Guy in 10 days is about a woman who works for a magazine called Composure. She is sick and tired about writing the same stuff, so she assigned herself the “How to” beat. Her story is How to Lose a guy in 10 days. In the movie, she dates a guy doing all of the “wrong” things in order to complete her “How to” article. McConaughey is a successful businessman who thinks he can make any woman fall in love with him in just 10 days; however, the two individuals are not aware of each other’s motives.

This film relates to our “Theories of Masculinity” class in several ways. Masculinity has many different meanings and you can define masculinity in several ways. When I think of a masculine guy I think of someone who is tough, smart, confident, and a guy who is able to get what he wants. I realize that my opinions of masculinity are very narrow-minded, but by taking this class I’ve learned that masculinity is much more that just a macho guy. I also think this movie portrays guys in a very narrow-minded mindset. This movie portrays to viewers that guys are in fact able to get what they want, even when it comes to women. I think that Hudson gives McConaughey a real run for his money by doing exactly the opposite of what a guy wants. This movie proves that women have the same amount of power in a relationship as men.

Early Comic Books and their Subjection of Women

Anybody who gets to know me knows one thing about me: I'm a geek. I read comics, watch anime, and play video games. Since I have identified as a feminist though I have enjoyed my geek media with a feminist eye. I came across this article this morning through a link that one of my friends on Facebook posted. While comic books are a new form of media that I've been getting myself into, there are some things about them I know to steer away from. There is no denying that during the 70s and 80s comic books depicted women as the weaker gender who always needs to be saved (while wearing some garment that was unnecessarily revealing). Comics during this time frame also depicted men as the heroes needing way too many muscles and the other men in the comics as being chauvinistic and woman-crazy. The comic book featured in this article speaks loudly to these horrible "credentials". While I know nothing about the comic book series Lois Lane I can get an idea what it might be about. Lois Lane gets herself into compromising situations (sometimes with other busty, curvy women dressed in as little fabric as possible) and needs to be saved by her boyfriend, Superman. Now I love my comics and my anime. I just try to do my best and ignore the pieces that give a bad name to these franchises.

Jackson Katz on Linda McMahon

So, Linda McMahon co-managed WWE with her husband Vince McMahon, and she is now currently running for CT state Senate. Jackson Katz wrote about the problematic nature of her involvement with WWE for the Huffington Post titled "
Linda McMahon Smacks Down Women" where he states:

Make no mistake about it: until Linda McMahon decided to run as a Republican for the United States Senate, she was one-half of one of the most culturally destructive, and blatantly misogynistic, business partnerships in the history of popular entertainment. Under Linda and her husband Vince McMahon's leadership, the WWE has featured some of the most brutal, violent and hateful depictions of women in all of media culture over the past twenty years.

I'm sure we'll hear more from Katz in reference to wrestling and how it celebrates and glamorizes violence when we watch Wrestling for Manhood, but I'm mostly interested in comparing his criticisms of McMahon to Mick Foley's heavily involvement in anti-violence work, and if Katz has written about such? I did a quick Google search earlier and came up empty, so I'll keep an eye out.

Yale Frat Pledges Chant “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal”

The Society Pages blog has recently been publishing quite a few stories on the overlap between frat culture, rape culture, the clearly unhealthy conditioning of masculinities, and the cultural insensitivity that has been evident in the practices of some of the institutions that are indubitably conditioning our future leaders. Reading these articles fills me with concern regarding how these behaviors could ever, ever be deemed acceptable, even just as an effort to fit into a very exclusive "boys' club," and I do hope these incidents are more isolated than I believe they are.

Black Masculinity

Throughout all the different ideas that have been discussed on Masculinity, I have made the mistake of lumping all men into the same "masculine category". After watching the movie on Black Masculinity in class last week I see that I should not have done this. One of the main concepts I am understanding is that men are automatically able to be seen as leaders in society, but it never occurred to me that this is not always so for the African American man (and that definitely means its harder for the African woman also). This movie had many responses towards black masculinity and they were things such as, "Black masculinity isn't a privilege, it is earned", and "the black man has to work twice as hard to receive the same status as a white man". I realize now I should never assume that all groups of people (men) should be lumped into a single category. There are obviously numerous types of categories for different groups, even men.

Interestingly enough in another class I am taking, (Sex, Gender, and Philosophy)we are reading Black Sexual Politics. Today actually we discussed the oppression of African Americans and the stereotypes they must endure today that can date all the way back to slavery. One stereotype of black men is "the Buck". Which is another way (dating back to slavery) of saying that the African American man is "big, strong, and stupid". It is a way that made it justified to treat black men as subordinates to the white man. Now I have begun to wonder, and I honestly think I already know the answer, but does society still hold this viewpoint towards the black man and really the black community as a whole?? I think YES! It is no wonder the African American men (and women to, not to leave them out just because they are women) must work so hard to overcome these ideologies in order to achieve the same "masculine status" as a white man. And it is also not surprising that some of theses men turn to a life of violence and crime, because all they are really trying to do is achieve a status for themselves, and unfortunately our society is not treating these men (at least not consistently) as equals. It gives me even more of a reason to question what real masculinity is... From my viewpoint no man or woman should ever have to work twice as hard to achieve the same things as another man or woman. I hope the rest of society will soon discover that as well.

“You must be gay.” (On the bullying of pro-feminist men.)

The other day I was involved in a conversation about what men can do to stop rape. One of the participants was a young university student who is articulate, energetic, funny, and charismatic. He is also gay, and he doesn’t care who knows it. And that’s a real strength when it comes to doing men’s anti-violence work. Because when we men do this work, other people – mostly men – often either make the assumption that we are gay, or they try to level “gay” at us as an accusation.

I speak out against rape. I speak out against all forms of violence against women. And I often encounter “You must be gay.” It is almost never said in a positive way.

When I was in university these attacks were quite visible. I lived in a student residence. One morning I awoke to find the words BILL PATRICK SUCKS COCK! spray-painted on the wall outside my room. (This was in retaliation for my pro-feminist activism on campus.) Two close male friends of mine came over to support me. These friends, who happened to be gay themselves, humorously declared: “Well, if theyreally wanted it to be an insult, they needed to write: ‘Bill Patrick sucks cock... badly!’”

I am certainly not the first pro-feminist man to be called “gay” as a form of attack, and I unfortunately won’t be the last. But I would like to take a moment to address the phenomenon of why those of us who speak out against men’s violence are so often called “gay” – and to talk a little bit about how we can respond to this supposed slur.

The two most damning insults that we level at men in North American society are that they are either woman-like or that they are gay. (Actually, this is only true for white men. There are plenty of other vicious names that we sometimes call men who don’t happen to be white.) But the most hurtful way to attack a white guy is to go after his masculinity. We call him a woman, a girl, effeminate. And – with the profound ignorance that always accompanies bigotry – we confuse the issue of sexual orientation with the issue of gender identity, and, in a further attempt to bring this man’s masculinity into question, we call him “gay.”

(The presumption gay men are never masculine is of course absurd, and it quickly vaporizes when one learns even the most basic truths about our gay communities.)

But why do we try to attack the masculinity of a man who speaks out against violence against women? Because he is calling into question some of the basic tenets of what comprises traditional masculinity – the very notion of what it means to be a man. He is taking on the antiquated ideas that “boys will be boys” regardless of the consequences, that men are innately violent, that men are naturally sexually aggressive, and that men should be able to dominate women. To speak about respect, about mutuality, about collaboration, and about consent is to speak about a new way of being for men that honours the humanity of women. To many unenlightened men, this is a huge threat, and they will lash out however they can. And the most common way that they do so is to call the speaker “gay.” This can be a very effective way of silencing some men who would like to speak out against men’s violence – but who feel hindered from doing so for fear of being thought of as gay.

So just how can we respond to “You must be gay!” and ensure that it does not silence the voices of those men and boys who would like to speak up for gender justice? Here are a few possibilities:

Don’t deny it. Unless you think that to do so would put you in immediate physical danger, do not deny the suggestion that you are gay. When you respond to the allegation that you are gay with a denial, you collude with the accuser in his implication that there is something wrong with being gay. You abandon your gay brothers, and you endorse the notion that gay men should not be listened to on these issues. The reality is that what you have been saying has made this person nervous. Consider letting him continue to sit in the ambiguity of not knowing whether you are gay or not.

Ask him why it matters. Whether a man who is speaking about new roles for men is gay or not is irrelevant. If the questioner/attacker’s supposition is that gay men have nothing useful to say about relations between men and women, refute this. And add that just as with heterosexual situations, people in same-sex contexts must also negotiate issues of power, mutuality, respect, and consent.

Examine and heal your own pain. If the attacker's implication that you are not “manly” enough hurts you, this is a wound that needs to be healed. The truth is that anyone who identifies as a man is de factomanly enough, and anyone who has brought you shame around these issues was wrong to do so. Whether we are masculine, feminine, neither, or somewhere in between, we who identify as men are all manly enough!

Cleanse yourself of homophobia. If being called “gay” causes uncomfortable feelings to emerge within you, this is another wound that needs to be healed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. And there is nothing wrong with other people thinking that you might be gay. If being called “gay” makes you feel bad, then you probably have more work to do on this issue.

Address what is going unsaid. When a man who speaks out against rape gets called “gay,” something really, really horrible has just been implied about straight men – that all straight men endorse rape. When you get called “gay” for criticizing men who get women drunk in order to assault them, the person who called you “gay” just called all straight guys rapists. And that’s not o.k. Point out this implication.

Resist being bullied. Understand that someone calling you “gay” for speaking out is quite possibly an attempt to bully you into conforming to regressive gender norms about men and women. Resist the bully! Don’t let him control you!

And, finally, one possible response is simply to be gracious:

Just say: “Thank you.”