As Kimmel says, the ???↗↗↗ often views college campuses and classes as being dominated by the toxic religion of ???. They specifically focus on how ??? in classes and social settings “further marginalizes” men. With this ??? ↗↗↗ competing with ???, how do these ideas impact ??? today?
Do they force ???to justify it’s existence/validity and distract from it’s goals? Does this ↗↗↗ push ??? to play into the politics of respectability and neglect the major issues at hand?
Or do they make ??? seem more important and obviously necessary to people who might not otherwise feel that way? Also, do ↗↗↗ like the pro-feminist ↗↗↗ push??? to think more about important issues (like the impact of the gender binary on cis-men or trans people)?
Male victim = ???
Feminism = ???
Movement = ↗↗↗
Several weeks ago, we talked about how Cooper thinks about ??? in the ??. She mentions how many of the ?? men interviewed were victimized by ??? earlier in their lives. In my question, I thought about the relationship between their ??? and ???. In class, we talked about the way those ?? ???, like those practiced by Mark Zuckerberg, are different from and similar to ???. We talked about the limited power that these men give to their wives, but the ways in which they are widely praised for their pursuit of ???. In this way, the low standards that women and society at large creates for ??? leads to the creation of a system where men are praised heavily for their pursuit of ???, even if they don’t show a strong commitment to the cause. With this in mind, are these ?? ??? more of a step towards ???, or a threat to it?
Tech industry = ??
Hegemonic masculinity = ???
Gender equality = ???
??? is a term that gets thrown around daily which makes me think, are there different types of ???. Does ??? come in a multitude of pockets? My question challenges the concept of ??? in the trans community. I personally don’t think that the stigmas around ? versus ?? people are identical in any set fashion. Actually, naturally ?? people are more ???. Why? Well, because we live in a heteronormative world. However, just as ? are more privileged than ?, trans ? too hold a greater amount of ??? than trans ?. The concept that I challenge is the notion of trans ? holding more ??? than trans ? in any sense.
? trans people
Something I was left wondering after our discussion about masculinity, vulnerability and ? was how ? culpability versus ???? culpability works to reinforce norms of who (what groups) we traditionally think of as capable of ?. At DeRay McKesson’s talk yesterday he hit the nail on the head when he said something like “not calling ⬜️ people terrorists is saying that that type of evil isn’t ⬜️” and ⬜️ people aren’t capable of being wicked in ways that other ethno-racial groups are. ⬜️ness tries to (and often seemingly succeeds in) monopolize(ing) intellectualism. This claim to higher thinking and logic is part of the reason why we are so reluctant to call ⬜️ terrorists, terrorists. They are perceived to be above that.
So how do our perceptions of ?’s versus ????’s implications in destructive or ? events skew the way we perceive those events? How do we reframe ⬜️ people, and men specifically, as capable of being evil? More importantly, how do we deconstruct notions of wickedness and evilness as only characteristic of some groups (based on stereotypes and entrenched assumptions) and not others? More broadly speaking, how do we denaturalize ? in contexts where it is the norm? And how can we resist stereotyping or generalizing entire populations based on some ?’s behaviors within that population? (I’m thinking specifically about how in some nations domestic ? is somewhat normalized. The issue with that is that we then extrapolate those ideas of “others’” volatility to people of that country’s descent. We need to stop these behaviors that typecast people in certain ways.)
? = individual
???? = group
⬜️ = white
? = violence/violent
Following our discussion on how many ? fail to accept their ? during cases of ??, I really began to wonder more about the ways in which ? is directly harmful to men. We have discussed extensively how ? further ? minorities and is harmful to an ? society, but I was hoping to dig further into the ways that this construct is also harmful to the men specifically subscribing to it. How are ? men “trapped” in their own ?? In a sense, these men are certainly not ? to act any which way, but rather must subscribe to a very specific, “masculine” image. Socialized into ?, it seems that these men must act tough and engage in dangerous acts just because of societies ?.
? = men
? = victimization
?? = domestic abuse
? = hegemonic masculinity
? = egalitarian
? = ideology
? = free
? = violence
? = standards
I still had some questions about how ☠ affects ?? and ?? differently after our discussion. How does society’s view of ?? as ☠ sooner and quicker than ?? further reinforce ?? ✊?? If we could eliminate ☠ somehow, would that change the way we think about ??’s and ??’s vulnerability? To what extent?
Over ? and through puberty, the gendered body is made increasingly legible. So I wonder at what point (aka what ☠) does getting older transform from a symbol of achieving manhood to one of relinquishing masculinity?
When discussing,?? we continued to question why ? are the perpetrators of these crimes rather than women, we debated over between the ? approach or societal influences like ☠ masculinity.
Everyone is influenced by ☠ masculinity- this is something all ? expierence. ? may explain the actual performative act of violence. It becomes about actually seeking vengeance instead of just desiring it.
?? – School shooting
? – Men
? – Mental Illness
☠ – Toxic
Our ? on ? briefly touched on ?? who commit ?? against women (Al Franken, Louis CK, etc), and whether they fit into Kimmel’s concept of cultural marginalization, or in other words, ? enactment of codes of ?.
One would think that these ? who have ✅ the ⬆ of ? are not victims of cultural marginalization, however, their use of ? to ? their ? would indicate otherwise, esp. when many of these ? have ?? ? that may have been ? failed ? earlier in life.
How does this ?our ideas of?, when?? at the ⬆ of ? may be victims of cultural marginalization (or just perceive themselves as such)? If the most ?? cannot successfully enact codes of ?, can anyone?
⬆ upper echelons
? associated with
Our ? brought up the fact that ? monopolizes ?, thus ? are associated with ?. This lead us to reflect on the ways that ? like Kendrick Lamar are not recognized as?. Media like Fox News will report on him as if he were a delinquent because he shows disapproval of the police. How do we combat these unfair portrayals of ? of ?? Men of ? that are physically ? are more easily accepted in society. Would it be productive to take the spotlight away from these ?men? How do we bring a balance to masculinities of ?, so that ? of ? are not associated with ?? How is ? able to monopolize ? if there are HBCUs and minorities are graduating from college at an increasing rate.
?- Class discussion
HBCU- Historically Black Colleges and Universities
I disagreed with some points made in “Can ‘?’ Stop Rape?” Since the campaign is designed to be by ?, for ?, it made sense that ? are the more dominant figures.Had this campaign been aimed at the general public, I would have better understood the author’s claims that the posters support subordination of ?. He criticizes that ? are always made out to be the ones not wanting a sexual encounter, however for the purposes of the campaign this also makes sense. If the posters had displayed phrases like, “When she said yes, we did.” that wouldn’t be addressing the issue of ? pressuring ? into sex. How do people feel these posters should’ve gone about addressing the role of ??