Violence is a way for men who do not fit inside the man box to reclaim their masculinity, however, violence is not always seen as masculine.
Violence in mass shootings and cases of sexual assault are seen as invalid claims on masculinity by greater society but act to validate the individual and make them feel masculine/powerful.
Hegemonic masculinity exists through the subordination of others, but why are some acts of violence validated as masculine and others are not.
When is violence okay and when does it go too far? Who does it have to harm for society to care?
In class, we talked a lot about how ? and other athletes push their bodies to and past the limit, and in most cases end up harming themselves. How do we internalize an individual’s autonomy and tell them that they can’t participate in an activity that they love because of the pain they could endure? What pressures do the principles of ✊ place on ? to show strength and a lack of vulnerability?
?= football players
Hegemonic ? ? the male ? at the height of its physical capacity.
Aging feminizes ? over time as their ? become less physically capable and move from the masculine sphere (the ?) to the feminine sphere (the ?).
Because gay ? are generally not considered hegemonically masculine due to their sexuality, the gay ? further ? the connection between youthfulness and ?.
Gay ?? further ? young, capable ? which perpetuates this phenomenon within the ?. The culture of the dating scene also often excludes older ?.
When gay ? transition from the ? to the ?, they face a greater threat of feminization than straight ? and must make additional efforts to reclaim their ?.
? – masculinity
? – glorifies
? – bodies
? – workplace
? – home
? – community
?? – porn
During the ? dinner I attended I observed three ? at different stages in their lives, but all of whom, unsurprisingly, felt impotent in some way– whether it was regarding marriage, work, or health. Shuttleworth outlines the❓ of ♿ masculinity and three primary strategies men use to exist within its limits: 1. reliance on??, 2. ? of what?? means, or 3. ⛔ of??outright. Do we see any of these strategies employed by the men in the Slevin piece? How might these same tactics (or a combination of them) be used by ? or others experiencing a challenge to their masculinity? Do these strategies change with age? Can anyone ever fully ⛔ the internalized standards of ??? Can they ⛔ ?? while still benefitting from its privileges, or is that just hybrid masculinity?
? = Thanksgiving
? = aging men
♿ = disabled
❓ = dilemma
?? = hegemonic masculinity (it’s a hedge!)
? = reformulation
⛔ = rejection/reject
Our conversation in class left me wondering, can ?? at Bowdoin be ?? Or are they inherently exclusive, and therefore, subordinate some? Off campus housing is an interesting concept at ?. It’s a way for groups to create community and escape a ? culture they may not want to be a part of. Some of these off-campus houses may function as ??, maybe even some as she-sheds? But, as great as these places are for some, they may be exclusionary and even dangerous for others. But is it fair for us to say all ?? are bad and shouldn’t exist? Or maybe we should look to ?, and wonder why people are leaving off campus to create a better community for themselves…
?? = mancaves
? = inclusive
? = Bowdoin
Mancaves come in all ⚫⬛ and ?? yet seem to be an active reflection of what men ???. Some men grow beans, some men ?, and some men play video games. Is this still ? based? How may certain contexts change the way in which men demonstrate mancave construction?
Does society ??? certain behavior within mancaves more than others? Or does “everything go” in a mancave? Are some constructions of mancaves more inclusive of women than others?
⚫⬛ – Shapes
?? – sizes
??? – Value
? – Performance
Both male ? and?? reproduce hegemonic masculinity, however, male ?are a product of the socialization of boys and may act exclusively but are often not purposely so
?? are environments created with the purpose of reinforcing hegemonic masculinity through the exclusion of femininity.
The idea of the?? highlights a difference in the socialization of men and women. Women are taught to be given or welcomed into ? (kitchens) where men are taught to claim ? .
The existence of these?? is not a new concept but rather a new embodiment of men’s control over the home.
Are ? like off-campus houses and sports tables in dining halls, which act as exclusive homosocial ?, representative of?? or are they simply private ? for masculine identities?
?? – mancave(s)
There have been several discussions I have read that argue that ?? is not sexist, strictly because the material itself is explicitly sex. Not only have our discussion in class shown how ?? is sexist in the way ? treat and use ??, but also in the subject manner. Something we did not talk about during class, however, is that during ??, the ?’s face is almost never seen. Instead, only the ?’s body and face are ever seen. ?? is sexist even to it’s format in which ? can watch ? react to the things being done to them in porn – and I’m curious if this is not only sexist, but also homophobic as it may come from the homosocial fears to see a ? during sex?
My expert question fostered discussion around hyper-masculine ? and ??? bonding. Do ? have the autonomy to create hyper-masculine
spaces in any community? Should a specific space be given to the person doing the most work in the house? Maybe stay at home moms should get their
own ?. Should the ?? be deemed a ?? ??? bonding with ? can overlap in a “?’s space” if ? want to occupy it in certain cases (i.e.
pre-games). Perhaps the ? do not have to be physical. Lets take the dinner table, while the dining room is the “?’s ?,” the head of the
table is for the man. So is it safe to say that ? who serve as the ?? are free to claim any ? in the house as their own? I do wonder.
?? – head of the house
It is important to remember that given the “?/?” scene and the ? space, both of these settings involve different expectations and cultural scripts.
The ? population should not be constructed around physical appearance. Rather, it is about an individual’s talents, virtues and experiences that earned them a position.
However, when ?/? for a night, many agreed that we do so with the intent to get noticed. We go to a bar to possibly meet someone based on physical attraction…
Is that objectification? I do not think that only women worry about their physical appearance when ?/? either. There is a pressure for both genders to look “good”
when ?/? and that mutual pressure brings me to a point made: “When ?/?, power isn’t real for the women, it’s a failed?for men.” Always the case?
? = Office
?/? = Going out
? = Masculinity