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.