Masculinity As a Public Health Problem?

Harmful-men, women, self
Violence 90% of violence is committed by men.
Mental Illness
Men's bodies
-drink the most
-eat the most
-steroids
-health
-Substance abuse

Some aspects are associated with being positive when they shouldn't be for example violence and substance abuse; a lot of males seem accomplished when they beat someone up or drink the most alcohol, when in reality, they aren't benefiting anyone; they are hurting not only themselves, but also society.  Conversely, they see some aspects as negative when in fact there is nothing wrong with it.  The main example of this would be femininity.   Which then brings us to our second point; femininity  is also a public health issue because it forces women to contort themselves to fit into this intricate box that restricts them to a point that it is physically, mentally, and socially impossible to fit in.

However, the question of the hour is whether or not masculinity is a public health problem.  Certainly a difficult mystery to debunk, because of the fact that both sides of the argument are relatively strong.  Arguing that masculinity is in fact a public health problem highlights the countless times that men are often diagnosed with mental illness, but is it possible that it is due to the fact they are pressured by society?  So the question basically becomes who is to blame for the social pressures put on men to be ultra masculine.  Or is it a chicken -egg situation?

Whether or not masculinity is a public health problem, is there really a way to solve it?  Who exactly can be blamed for it?  Society has created this cyclical pattern of pressuring men to be the most 'manly' but putting them against one another, yet people are still so unwilling to try and stop the cycle for some reason, that it is leading to more and more issues with physical, sexual, and mental violence.

Gender in Sports & Media Coverage

Before today's presentation, I was aware that women in athletics are totally shafted in terms of air time, pay, etc. After today's presentation, I am disgusted by the fact that women in sports and media are hardly given ANY air time, hardly any sponsorship if they are not sexual, and overall, pretty much aren't even considered athletes by the world.

The summer olympics of 2012 was a huge leap for women.  There were women represented in countries that had never had  women from, there were pregnant women shooting guns, and women winning gold medals! HOWEVER, there were still so much criticism over women's outfits, women's hair styles, etc and there were significantly fewer women's events broadcast on television than men's. 

The media coverage(or lack there of) of men and women's sports was not just relevant to the olympics of 2012.  As they discussed in class, women's sports take up something like 10% of time on sports networks.  Along with that, if you look at sports magazines, women show up only if they are overly sexualized and scantily clad, and it probably helps if they have super awesome bodies.   Along with that, those are the women who have the best sponsorship!  To continue that, female athletes are often only paid attention to when they are not even on the court, field, etc.

One of the biggest pieces of information I took from the discussion was that female athletes are often not taken seriously, and if they are taken seriously, they probably do not have incredibly high sponsorship nor a fan base.  In essence, even though it is 2012, and the 40th anniversary of Title IX is coming up, women are not even close to being considered equal when it comes to athletics. 

What is Oppression?

No matter how you define oppression, it is clear that oppression is systematic in a matter that is not accidental.  Not accidental in a matter where society has inherently or purposely created binds and barriers, or as Frye might say, "bars in the cage," which is that you might think you may have avoided one aspect of oppression, only to find a plethora of other barriers that prevent you from taking part in other things. 

An interesting point from class was that oppression is not necessarily relatable.  I can't really tell whether or not I agree, because I feel like as a woman, I might be able to other women who might have been oppressed for simply having opinions that differ from the male dominant society.  But then again, maybe we are just experiencing the systematic oppression, as opposed actually being oppressed?

If there is anything I took out of today's class discussion, it is that oppression is incredibly convoluted and a massive knot of double standards.   First, if you look at who exactly is oppressed?  Personally, I would say that the hetero-sexual, christian, white male would be the main group that is not oppressed.  If anything, I would say they are the group that does the most oppressing and creates the oppressive social stigmas and norms, and in essence, is the driving force between the systemic oppression. 

Overall, it is difficult to clearly understand how oppression is perceived due to the ambiguity that can occur.  The internalization of oppression is something that is a big issue because in some ways, by internalizing it, you choose to be oppressed?  It is so confusing! Which makes me think that most everyone in the whole world is oppressed, yet a significant portion of those who are oppressed are also capable of doing the oppression?  

Rape Culture

Today's class discussion on rape culture was extremely riveting and also a bit horrifying.  Rape is just one of those concepts that is so difficult and uncomfortable to talk about, but at the same time, discussing rape is so necessary if society has any desire of limiting the frequency of the atrocities.
Although most of the discussion revolved around the safety of women, it was interesting to consider the  other side of the gender spectrum.  It would have been nice to have a higher male percentage represented in the class, but it was also comforting(in some demented way or another) to see that women were taking the upper hand in the discussion. In terms of the male representation, though, it was interesting to see how different the perceptions of rape culture, and relatively innocent actions varied between genders. For example, the majority of the class considered walking alone to be dangerous and risky, especially when you walk past someone at night.  Whereas the males were less frightened of being alone, and were not even aware of the implications of their behavior. The parallels that the class was able to draw concerning the gender binary was just so bizarre considering how frequently these things happen.
The gender binary also leads into the next point, which as that society spends so much time trying to teach women how to not get raped, instead of educating society to simply not partake in rape.  Almost everyone's parents warn young women about the dangers of date rape drugs, and don't walk alone at night, yet rarely do you hear about a parent lecturing someone to understand that if someone says 'no', it means 'no', and the importance of consent when it comes to sexual relations.
Along with that, it is interesting to see how often society tries to justify a vast majority of sexual assault by saying that a girl dressed in a certain way, or they were drunk, when in reality society as a whole simply needs to address the fact that rape is rape.  Society needs to develop a sense of compassion for victims instead of siding with the assailant.

Gendered Double Bind

The whole idea of the double bind when it comes to gender, first arose in my mind in Women in the Bible, where one of my peers brought up the idea that "no matter what men do, it's never right."  I don't really agree with it, but I really don't agree with it because if one is going to empathize with the men in the bible, it is sort of horrific for them to not acknowledge the COMPLETE disregard for essentially all women in the first testament.  So when he (how surprising that it was a male who pointed this out), he attempted to have substantial evidence by saying that when a man in the bible tried to "protect" women, he was patronizing women, but if he didn't, he was a horrible human being.  I can sort of understand why he might think this, but I think it is of utmost importance to understand that this masculinity double standard idea, is extremely multi faceted and it also, most certainly, applies to women and femininity as well.  

A gendered double standard essentially is a smaller box, INSIDE of the gender box.  It is almost as though people are not happy until there are the most particular criteria for genders and if people do not acquiesce, they are ostracized.  A really good example is from the films from class; for men, it is better to be masculine and 'manly' but if you do that, you are probably violent and angry.  If males are more sensitive, then there is also something wrong with them.  

For women, there is this awful idea that women are simply inherently feminine until they try and prove themselves otherwise, and even so, women are overly sexualized no matter how they act.  It's an awful cyclical paradox that no one can escape. 

Are Men and Women Different?

Dr. Widman had some very interesting assertions when it came to the idea of biological/psychological differences between gender.  It was clear from the beginning that he felt the sexes were different, regardless of social constructions, there were just certain limits that each sex had, which cause them to be similar and different all that the same time (I may have heard that incorrectly, because as I reread it, it does not make much sense). But in essence, Dr. Widman made the assertion that no matter what, genders have different capabilities solely due to the fact of their sex.  It was difficult to tell whether or not he agreed that this idea is leading to the demise of modern society, but regardless, it's not true.

Defining Conflict: GENDERED EDITION

In class, the discussion if the different types of conflict was quite riveting. Who would have thought that a group of pacs students (okay, I am totally generalizing and stereotyping) could get so heated/conflicted about violence and conflict?!  I had not anticipated that.
In terms of the different types of violence, it took me back to my peace & gender days.  Polly had ingrained in our heads the difference between cultural, structural, and direct.  Little did I know those concepts were so multifaceted, nor had a considered how many other types of violence and conflict exist in the world.
In terms of conflict and violence, they are often considered inherently gendered concepts.  As we discussed in class, it was difficult to adequately discern whether or not conflict is actually gendered or whether it is simply the influences that social constructions have had.
Many rely on the fact that the sexes handle conflict differently solely because of biological differences; i.e. men are stronger, thus they must be more violent (a completely false assertion).  Or women have babies, so they must be more peaceful.  In reality though, the only reason these ideologies exist is because of the perpetuation of misconceptions.  In order to create a tolerant society, people must be intolerant of certain ideologies, like the ideas of gender roles.
So finally, the discussions and readings from class make it clear that conflict is only gendered because of the fact that society has refused to believe anything other than what the dominant culture (males) decide.

Women's Rights ≠ Human Rights?

When I first read the UNIFEM  article, my emotions were like a crazy roller coaster with all of the ups and downs; a relatively uncomfortable feeling.
First, it is SO important to highlight how far society has come in actually addressing the issues that so many women face throughout the entire world.  In many ways, it reminded me of Betty Friedan's Feminist Mystique; everyone is thinking it, yet no one is willing to openly acknowledge how screwed up the system is, and thus people are conditioned to think women are not meant to have any mistreatment addressed nor fixed.
So when the UN actually took action against this travesty, it sort of made me heart flutter!  As UNIFEM said, by making personal struggles public, it allows for a sense of accountability that is rarely found on a global scale.
So with that being said, in a  way it distinguishes some aspects of 'gendered' violence. By exploiting the differences between how society deals with women's problems, versus men's problems.  Shouldn't they be handled equally? Alas, one of life's many mysteries.

Love,
Eliza

The Impact of Sex & Gender/ Sex vs Gender on Today's Society

Gendered objects.  Are objects truly gendered? There are boat loads of children's toys classified solely by the color and nature of the object, but shouldn't the gendered aspect be subjective? It is interesting to see how instead of breaking down the predisposition of 'genderizing', society subconsciously reinforces them.  So, why do we continuously buy into the structural violence?
For instance, while writing this blog, I told my boyfriend that I feel like Carrie Bradshaw.  "Who [insert explative] is that?"With a matter of fact tone, I said "sex and the city...how could you not know that?!"
He then responded by saying, "maybe because I'm not a woman."
And with that, I realized literally everyone does it, which is slightly horrifying to think the cycle could potentially never end, and we will live with socially constructed gender ideologies until the end of time... a bit melodramatic, but none the less, a scary thought.
It seems like society has simply grown to accept the ideology that gender can simply be split into two categories, when in reality, it is so much more than that.

Socially Constructed Gender

Having read 'Gender and Race' by Evelyn Nakano Glenn last year in Peace & Gender, I was intrigued to see a. how increasingly awful my memory has become since the start of college, and b. how I could interpret the conflict aspect of the article.
As anticipated, my memory is not what it used to be(probably because of ALL THE STUDYING I've been doing), but I was able to go back and look through my notes from last year, so it was simple to examine the similarities that way.
The obvious commonality between the two were the frameworks of gender and race, and how the two are continually mutually constituted.  So how is one to differentiate between peace and conflict?  I like to believe I am not the only person who is aware of the obvious positive connotation associated with peace, and the negative connotation that comes with conflict.  So for the sake of this class, I will take on  a relatively negative attitude to discern how the framework of gender and race are influenced/influence conflict.
If anything, this article made it brutally clear that by creating social constructs of gender and of race, it not only has a negative impact on how society perceives one another, but how women of color are continuously left to the wayside.  The extent of cultural and social violence occurring within that section of the population; not only are they experiencing multiple levels of oppression (intentional or not), but they are essentially being phased out of society.
In essence, it is quite obvious to see why conflict is arising within society; I wouldn't want to be tossed aside in two major aspects of my identity either.  Being a woman today is difficult as is, which leads me into the class discussion; how gender constructs affect the way society works, for example: the vocabulary we use, the way we interact with one another, etc. It also influences the way we interpret gender in terms of negatives and positives. Sexuality is a key element because if a woman is promiscuous, the only thing anyone can think to call her is a slut or a ho.  Where as the worst thing you can call a man is player or pimp, both of which have relatively positive connotations.
Finally, it is clear that there needs to be some sort of reformation to the way society constructs the concepts of gender and race.  They need not be mutually exclusive, which may in fact be the root of the problem.

Your friend,
Eliza