Blogs I would like to be graded

Blog 4, Blog 5, Blog 7, Blog 9

Course reflections

1- I don't think that it was a class assignment, but i really liked the debate in class.That's something we should do more often because (when it's well done) it teaches you how to construct a well founded argument based on proofs and not on your opinions (whether you are for or against what you are defending). It is even more efficient when you are defending something you don't believe in because you are literally forced to search for evidence instead of merely stating what you have believed to be true for years and years.
2-

Blog Post #12

Grazian's article and The Hangover truly display what Grazian has called "the power of collective rituals of homosociallity to perform heterosexual competence and masculine identity" (333). What Grazian means by that is that men engage in ritual activities restricted to men only in order to first prove their masculinity, and second to (paradoxically) get involved with more women (in this context the involvement with women is not to seek sexual encounters but much more to "show off" a set of skills in front of other men that can eventually lead to sexual encounters. In Grazian's article that phenomenon is translated by men going to bars, nightclubs (or other places related to the urban night life) in order to girl hunt. In The Hangover, it is translated by men enjoying the urban nightlife through the mean of a bachelor party organized for one of their friends. The similarities between both medium doesn't end here. In his article Grazian talks about how men align themselves with similarly oriented accomplices to convince themselves of the importance and efficacity of their [acts] (322). We see that happening as well in The Hangover. They are all accomplices in a sense that first they cover up for Stu who clearly lies to his wife about the whole trip to Vegas, then Alan (Tracy's brother) try to make the others do the wolf pact in order to seal their fraternity and overall they help each other out throughout the whole movie. While doing that we can see that they are all convinced of the importance and efficacity of their acts (ie. It was important to do the bachelor party at Vegas, they are convinced that everything is to be fine and fantastic at Vegas).

The Hangover. Dir. Todd Phillips. Perf. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zack Galifianakis. Warner Bros, 2009. DVD.

Grazian, David. “The Hunt Girl: Urban Nightlife and The Performance of Masculinity as Collective Activity”. Men’s Lives. 8th ed. Michael S. Kimmel and Michael Messner, Ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. 320-337. Print.

Research paper #2: Part 4: Final Draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3tQOk5xQ-C1ZEuL3FlxoD2CZOTfUD4WlAg4WRURoqs/edit?hl=en_US#https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3tQOk5xQ-C1ZEuL3FlxoD2CZOTfUD4WlAg4WRURoqs/edit?hl=en_US#

Research paper #2: Part 3: First Draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3tQOk5xQ-C1ZEuL3FlxoD2CZOTfUD4WlAg4WRURoqs/edit?hl=en_US#

Research Paper #2: Revised thesis & Annotated bibliography

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3tQOk5xQ-C1ZEuL3FlxoD2CZOTfUD4WlAg4WRURoqs/edit?hl=en_US#

Blog Post #11

Maira: So, that's what happened... I really think that's the good one!
Butovens: you know what maira, based on what you just told me, I think you should be careful not to jump on conclusion to fast...
M: what do you mean?? he was wonderful!! At first he was a little bit shy. So shy that that's a friend of him who came to me at first, and introduced me to him! Isn't that cute??
B: huum.... I don't want to break your dream but that's just a technique that guys use to approach a girl. And apparently it worked....
M: Don't be stupid Buto!! Well... I have to admit that prior to that I kind of laid my eyes on him, and he was drinking and laughing out loud with his friend while straing at me. But I guess when he comes to girls he must be intimidated. That's why he sent somedody else to talk to me first.
B: Maira..... Maira... Maira...... Pleeaase... don't fall for that, and don't make the mistake that many girls are making in that kind of circumstances! Do you want to hear what really happened from a man point of view?? Even though I wasn't there I can tell you all the processus. So open your ears... First I bet they met at one of the guy's place, getting ready to enjoy the night. They started drinking.... just to be in condition to hook up with a girl. They even bet who will score, even your so-called gentlemen...
M: shut up....!!
B: Did he...?? I mean did you...
M: Of course not!! Not the first night...
B: Yeah right... watch out, because I'm telling you that's what he was aiming for in the long run... And you gave him the confidence he needed to follow on on his "I'm going inside her panties" quest!!

Blog Post #10

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jgHfMXUGqMnR2lnCmQLlizsal-epMue-bO44ctnNdww/edit?hl=en

Research Paper #2: Preliminary thesis

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3tQOk5xQ-C1ZEuL3FlxoD2CZOTfUD4WlAg4WRURoqs/edit?ndplr=1#

Research Papers #1: Final

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JAT0UaxTu3a8LTA_mq6Rz0v9w-S7D48tDK6PnpqrE8o/edit?hl=en&authkey=CK-ss_sJ&pli=1#

Research Paper #1 Video

Blog Post #9:

From Coltran’s article “Fathering: Paradoxes, Contradictions, and Dilemmas” we can infer that in most of the different aspects of life such as social, economical, and political the society doesn’t play in favor of fatherhood.

As Coltarn reminds us, most divorcing men are not awarded child custody following a divorce (442). This shows us how society privileges motherhood over fatherhood. Does that mean that a child can totally grow up without a father figure? No. But this shows that if a child is to be raised by a single person, that person has to be the mother by (unfair) convention. For society to accept a father to have custody of his children over the mother, that father has to be “Superdad” or the mother has to be in a real trouble. In other words, (to make a metaphor staying in the juridical context) when it comes to the custody of a child, a mother is always innocent till proven guilty, but the father is guilty till proven innocent which explains Coltran’s statement, “Although single-father households have increased in recent years, single mother households continue to outpace them five to one” (442).  Besides, not only the juridical aspect is not in favor of fatherhood, but it seems like women in a family are not too. When after giving us some good benefits of fathering, Coltran tells us,  “We cannot simply assume that more father involvement is better for all families” (440), he simply questions those benefits compared to the ones given by a mother. What is catching my attention here is that nobody would questions the benefits (to a child) of parenting, and yet fathering is being questioned (unlike mothering). Too much fathering can be harmful, according to Coltran, but not too much mothering. The last aspect that shows that preference for mothering is, according to our society, a father is considered as actively involved in parenting when he is doing the mothering aspect of it, such as taking care of the kids, doing housework etc…  and he is working. So fathering would resume to doing mothering, with just being a provider as a variant. On the other side, when a woman is mothering and is the provider for family at the same time, she’s seen as that supermom who doesn’t need any man to raise a kid. As Coltran states “Ironically, women’s enhanced economic position also makes them able to form families and raise children without the fathers being present” (444).

Revised Annotated Bibliography+ Outline

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rngRPz276ftQWvE-N7MZcjzfQuIQ22ZfKlYtXJOtzIY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CNenl6QP

Blog Post #8

In today's society despite the fact that most of people are trying to breask free of stereotypes, I can affirm that there is an "escalator effect" and a social pressure undergone by males working in the "Female" professions.

Williams, Christine L. "The glass Escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the "Female" Professions". Men's lives, 5th ed. S Kimmel and Michael A. Messner, Ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon,  2001, 211-224, Print

This article shows us the contrast existing between females entering male-considered jobs and vice versa. Williams demonstrates that while women are facing a "Glass ceiling" keeping them from pretending to higher positions within their jobs, men are undergoing a "Glass escalator" that pushes them towards more valuable, and higher positions within their jobs even though they're not longing for them.

The author of this article is Dr. Christine L. Williams, the Department Chair Professor of the Department of Sociology of College Liberal Arts. Besides, she is using credible sources which are documented in her works cited page. So we can infer that this article is a valid and reliable source.

Williams says, "Often despite their intentions, [men] face invisible pressures to move up in their professions" (214). That quote shows us that men are being pushed towards higher positions, so it will help me support the idea that there is an "escalator effects" undergone by men in the "Female" professions. Moreover, Williams underlines the fact that men are victims of a social pressure that is keeping them from doing what they really like by saying, "Men who enter these professions are considered "failures" or deviants..... these stereotypes do not seem to deter women to the same degree that they deter men from pursuing nontraditional professions" (221). Thus, that quote will corroborates with my thesis of men undergoing a social pressure.
 

Research paper #1: First Draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JAT0UaxTu3a8LTA_mq6Rz0v9w-S7D48tDK6PnpqrE8o/edit?hl=en&authkey=CK-ss_sJ

Research paper #1: Annotated Bibliography

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NPS0v3vAPUOnpRoJGEX84rqsAxf7F6wJJpJgWFreYJA/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJS02MIL

Blog Post #7

In "Chicano Men and Masculinity" Zinn states:

          We must understand that while maleness is highly valued in our society, it interacts with other categorical distinctions in both manifestation and meaning. As Stoll (1974:124) presents this idea our society is structured to reward some categories in preference to others (e.g., men over women) but the system is not perfectly rational. First, the rewards are scarce; second, other categories such as race, ethnicity, and other statuses are included in the formula. Furthermore, the interaction of different categories with masculinity contributes to multiple societal meanings of masculinity, so that "one can never be sure this aspect of one's self will not be called into dispute". (29)

To perfectly comprehend that statement we have to break it down.  First Zinn says, “We must understand that while maleness is highly valued in our society, it interacts with other categorical distinctions in both manifestation and meaning.”(29) In other words, masculinity, or “maleness” as she calls it, is something that is praised in our society, and nobody would deny that. Paradoxically, despite the fact that everybody agrees that “maleness” is praised in our society, it is nearly impossible to find a common agreement on what it means to be masculine, and what the characteristics are. (The raw type of Black male masculinity of Marable doesn’t seem to match the cowardly barbarian type of white masculinity of Theroux, which itself doesn’t seem to match the feminized type of Asian masculinity of Espiritu. But we all agree that every one of them is talking about masculinity.) Besides, Zinn adds that “maleness” has to interact, in our society, with other concepts, or “categorical distinctions” (gender for instance), that face the same dilemma. She then follows by “As Stoll … presents this idea our society is structured to reward some categories in preference to others… but the system is not perfectly rational” (29). This is no news. There are privileged people, and less privileged people in our society. It all depends on which social category you fit into. This concept goes back to that social stratification Judith Lorber’s “Night to His Day” was referring to. Next she explains her statement “First, rewards are scarce; second, other categories such as race, ethnicity, and other statuses are included in the formula” (29). That’s a constant that we see in Marable’s, Theroux’s, and Espiritu’s readings as well. It’s not enough to be masculine to be highly valued. You also have to belong to a certain race, belong to a certain ethnicity (at least), to be able to pretend to those scarce rewards. Espiritu underlined that aspect of our society as well in his “All Men Are Not Created Equal: Asian Men in U.S History” by saying “Ideologies of manhood… have as much to do with class and race as they have to do with sex” (37). Finally, Zinn concludes “Furthermore, the interaction of different categories with masculinity contributes to multiple societal meanings of masculinity, so that "one can never be sure this aspect of one's self will not be called into dispute"” (29). So, according to Zinn, our cosmopolitan society gave birth to multiple facets of the term masculinity, which are all legitimate, but questionable depending on which category we’re into.

Venn Diagram: Blog Post #6

https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1XlxVtaubpIWPA3irwgw-BEd9G_YRiMh72LtXSu0ghAs&hl=en&authkey=CKjk3-4N

Marable Vs Espiritu: Blog Post #5

There is a saying that says: "Behind every great man there's a great woman". As far as I'm concerned behind every man there's a woman, and I think Marable and Espiritu understood that concept too. That might be the reason why their notion of masculinity was inseparable from women. I think, according to both of them, the construction of masculinity can't be achieved without the presence of a woman. But that's not all, not only is the presence of a woman required, but also she has to maintain her expected "lower status" in the couple, in order for the man to fully consider himself as a man. In both Marable's and Espiritu's reading that 'social equilibrium', where women are at disadvantage, is not maintained. That's a common point between the two reading, but the difference is, the way that unbalanced 'social equilibrium' shifted. In Marable's reading, that's the ascension of the Black women to the position of "Matriarch" that "stripped the Negro man of his masculinity" (Marable 20), whereas in Espiritu's reading that's the descent of the Asian men (or their "feminization"), that caused them "to be stripped of male privilege" (Espiritu 35).  But no matter how that social equilibrium shifted, the result is still the same in both cases: depression, anxiety, and domestic violence from the man deprived of his masculinity, which stress out the importance of women in the construction of male masculinity. Women have the power to construct, or inversely ruin the masculinity of a man. It's really not a surprise that both authors conclude their texts by mentioning women, (in Marable's case "The strongest ally Black men have in their battle.... is the Black woman"(23)), because men can be tall, strong , powerful, CEO of a big company and whatnot, but at the end when it comes to establish their masculinity, it always comes down to women.  

Research Paper #1 link: Proposal and Preliminary Thesis

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19zBBUrG79dms-WfjtduazYyRxpKhkQe4407FNY56uDg/edit?hl=en&authkey=CKiOq4AN

Final Draft of Photo Analysis

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ruITEZvGGUU_8ri_kN3ZZtk4UvAma6sk9qKh_Iaqzm4/edit?hl=en&authkey=COm1qJ8O

Who's the man

The common idea between Theroux's reading and Marable's one is that masculinity is dependent on validation from other men. While the first one put the accent on how men enjoy being among themselves when they have been acknowledged by their peer, the other one put the accent on how devastating it can be for men who haven't been acknowlegded by their peer.


WORK CITED

Marable, Manning. "The Black Male: Searching Beyond Stereotypes". Men's lives, 5th ed. S Kimmel and Michael A. Messner, Ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon,  2001. 17-23. Print.

Theroux, Paul. "The Male Myth". Across Cultures: A reader for Writers. 7th ed. Sheena Gillepsie and Robert Becker, Ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. 101-105. Print.

Quest to the top, Blog post #4

When we think about the history of black people, it usually resumes to black men fighting white men to win their freedom. Few people actually know the role that the women played in that fight, and what the true meaning of it was. But fortunately Manning Marable's "The black Male: Searching Beyond Stereotypes" enlightens us. What seemed to be a mere fight for freedom had in fact a much more symbolic meaning than that, (for black people and white women alike). It was a fight against the white male supremacy. And the inner goal of that fight was to climb to the top of that social stratification (that Judith Lorber's "Night to His Day" was alluding to) where white men are first, followed by white women, then black men, and finally black women. (That quest for the top position has been with us since. The last famous one I can think of: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton for the post of US President. The Black guy and the white chick competing for the top position being held, until then, by exclusively white males).  Manning Marable lets us understand that most of the white women at that time were satisfied with their submissive situation, never questioning the judgement of the man in the family: "... the majority of white females viewed Black men through the eyes of their fathers and husbands" (18), which of course implies that they treated Black men like cattle. But the other part of white women wasn't so resigned and were ready to question the white male authority, which led to an alliance between white women and black men "in the battle against sexual and racial discrimination" (18-19) (which was in fact a battle against the white male supremacy. Removing "the king" from his throne was the main goal). That idea is supported, in Marable's reading, by the fact that as soon as the Fifteenth Amendment passed white women turned against Black men. They saw in that ascension of the Black men the potential danger of being outrun in that quest for the top position. As Marable says "it symbolized the political advancement of the Black male over white middle-class women" (19).  The Black men would have been better off doing an alliance with Black women, but as Manning Marable shows us, black women didn't win the favors of their husbands and sons. By sleeping (willingly or not) with white males or by being the "Matriachs" (20) of their families, Black women "psychologically castrated" (20) Black men. And yet, if it wasn't for the bravoure of some of them, such as Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks (or others that History has unfortunately forgotten) who inspired some influential balck men, the Black community wouldn't have accomplished what they've accomplished. As Manning Marable says: "Together..... they can achieve far more than they can ever accomplish alone" (23)

WORK CITED

Marable, Manning. "The Black Male: Searching Beyond Stereotypes". Men's lives, 5th ed. S Kimmel and Michael A. Messner, Ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon,  2001, 17-23, Print.

1st Draft photo analysis

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vu43gBoGED0u43D7MEUXDcJ_ruZ_R_fquvP8ik05gDs/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJfLgpMP

"The Male Myth"

One of the ideas introduced by Theroux in "The Male Myth" is that the essence of masculinity resides in the fact that men enjoy being among themselves. There is clearly no room for women in that picture. For this reason, "maliness" goes against nature. According to his own word "... that is also why there is no maliness without inadequacy- because it denies men the natural friendship of women." He supports his idea by taking the example of athletes, and more specifically team-athletes such as basket ball players. This is a good example of what "maliness" can be because basket ball players (like any other player in a team sport) do stay between themselves and enjoy it. When, for instance, they win the play-offs and cry, do you think they will give a call to their spouses, mothers, daughters or whatever women they might have in their entourage? No, they "celebrate" between themselves. Eventually, way down the road, when the emotions have passed, they will think to the opposite sex to celebrate in a totally different way. In that way women are taken as sexual objects used to satisfy a sexual need rather than sharing an emotion, which corroborates with Theroux's idea when he says "It is very hard to imagine any concept of maliness that does not belittle women..".  Another example that he takes to support his idea is the "Boy Scouts", saying that society is trying to put you in that quest for "maliness" from a very young age, either by sending you to the "Boy Scouts" or to "boy's camp". Of course as the name suggests there is no diversity involved. No questions about the opposite gender must be ask. These environments are meant so as to make you think 'boy', eat 'boy', sleep 'boy' and enjoy it! According to Theroux that is the anteroom of "the marines", another group of manly men. The only hitch I might find to that example is that now we have women in the marines corps , since WWII, so it doesn't perfectly fit Theroux's idea of masculinity ("celebrating the exclusive company of men, while denying the natural friendship of women"). Basically, Theroux gives us an image of masculinity that goes against what the majority of people thinks. Where everyone would see strength in masculinity, he simply sees weakness.

Construction of Gender.... it might find its root way before any social interactions...

Once again, I'm going to have to open the debate between what's biologically acquired and what's socially acquired. I'm pretty sure that after reading Judith Lorber's "Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender",  everybody is convinced that the construction of gender is rather social than inborn. So am I. It appears to me that genderism is a giant role playing that everyone is trained to do since age 3. Of course if the training goes well we should be playing the same role for the rest of our lives. Now you might be asking yourself why the training wouldn't go well? Well...., that's where your biological features come into action. Let's say that from birth, you are meant to be a specific gender and your body or brain knows it? It might seem a silly idea, but what brought me to think about that is the case of that (as it is said in Judith Lorber's reading) "... baby boy whose penis was destroyed in the course of a botched circumcision...". That case appears in Judith Lorber's AND Fausto-Sterling's readings. In Judith Lorber's, it clearly says that the construction of gender was "achieved". The use of that word implies it was successful, and I think it might have been. He succeeded to pull out a good "acting performance" throughout his female life. However in Fausto-Sterling's we learn that that same boy, changed into a girl, (in his thirties at the time of the interview) "... never accepted his female identity, and as a teenager demanded to learn his whole medical history and decided to continue life as a male...". So what's perturbing me here is, without knowing anything about his medical history and his brief life as a male, without his parents telling him anything or treating him differently, what was it in his biological man body that gave his "true gender" away? What was it in his subconscious that said: "Hey, wake up! You were born a male, you're not supposed to act, dress or talk like that! " Gender is for sure an ongoing process constructed through your social life, but there might be somewhere deep inside your body something that tells you which way you should be leaning to as a possessor of that type of sex marker.

Analysis of a picture

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YGE9NjaZ6GwVPCMbPtFpJGn-XyQX1ESvagDdOduEQYE/edit?hl=en&authkey=COyotdoM

Homosexual body hosting heterosexual mind or Heterosexual body hosting homosexual mind?

While I was reading Fausto-Sterling's excerpt "How to build a man?", one statement she made caught my attention and raised my curiosity. She said: ".... a child raised as a female (even if biologically male) who prefers male lovers is psychologically heterosexual, although genetically she is not." For me that statement implies two really different and major concepts depending on the way you think about it. The first one is that you can be born gay or lesbian, and thus, this is something natural, which might have its answer in the human genome. (So we should probably review our definition of masculinity). This concept is not new, and has been a polemical subject for the past decades, so I'm not going to spend too much time on it. However, I just would like to highlight one opinion that we can have from Fausto-Sterling's statement: the way a child is raised, (or his/her socialization) does not play any role in his/her sexual orientation. The other opinion that we can have is, it is because he is raised as a female that he prefers male lovers (as John Money implies it). In that case there is no such thing as being born homosexual. Depending on the way you choose to raise a child you can affect or even totally change his/her sexual orientation. That is a big concept. What does that say about all the homosexuals out there? That their parents didn't raise them in a proper way? That, as it is something that was probably force onto them as they were raised, they can "straighten" their sexual orientation by having a proper socialization and become "normal"? Or even more, as parents, not only will you have the choice of the education you want to give to your child, but you will also have the choice of his/her sexual orientation? The only thing I'm positive about after reading that text is no matter what concept you choose to support the notion of normality, as well as the notion of what it means to be masculine will evolve as Science evolves.