The topics that Joe Ehrmann uses as framework for his Building Men for Others program are quite intriguing and make you really question masculinity. The first topic, rejecting false masculinity, can be interpreted a few different ways. In the book, it states: “As young boys, we’re told to be men, or to act like men” soon followed with “we’ve got all these parents say ‘be a man’ to boys that have no concept of what that means. I completely agree with the statement of Joe Ehrmann and often question the definition of ‘being a man’. Many boys and men will reject the idea of a man being anything other than being big and strong or having power. Overall instead of a true definition of a man, kids and even adults interpret it as athletic ability, sexual conquest, and economic success. The second topic Joe speaks about is the relationships that make a real man. In the book it states “the number one complaint I hear from most wives is ‘My husband has no relationships with other men.’ In other words, most …show more content…
Joe says “And if I’m not feeling good about my own masculinity, if I haven’t taken care of my own business, then if you’re my son, I’m gonna need you to be pretty masculine to validate me.” This stood out to me because it pretty much defines of how men are working for a higher cause then their children. If they are not happy with their own masculinity, they will use their children to prove their masculinity. The fathers push their children to level of masculinity they were never able to meet. Another topic listed was accepting responsibility. Accepting responsibility means not blaming others for your faults or mistakes. When you are praised, share it with others – family, friends, teammates. When you fail, accept that it is your responsibility and learn from your mistakes. Joe talks about how it’s the parent’s responsibility to meet the needs of the child, not the child meeting the needs of the
In the essay, “The High Cost of Manliness,” writer Robert Jensen discusses the harmful effects of having male specific characteristics, such as masculinity. Jensen realizes that men’s actions and ways of living are judged based upon the characteristic of being manly. He argues that there is no valid reason to have characteristics associated with being male. Society has created the notion that masculinity is the characteristic that defines males as males.
When someone is thinking of a man, what do they think? Strong? Brave? That’s what most people think; in reality that is a very false image. In “Bros Before Hos: The Guy Code,” Michael Kimmel, talks about what it means to be a man and what it takes to be a man in today’s world. Men are pressured into what they “should” be. If they don’t follow certain unwritten rules, which include: not asking for directions, not giving up, not showing fear, or any signs of emotional weakness, such as tears; they are considered less than a man, a wimp. A real man must be aggressive and brave, he must defend his territory: status, family, possessions. Men blindly follow the Guy Code, they believe in order to fit in, they must comply and be part of the pack.
The concept of masculinity is considered as the qualities and characteristics of a man, typical what is appropriate to a man. In this article, A Community Psychology of Men and Masculinity: Historical and Conceptual Review, The author Eric S. Mankowski and Kenneth I. Maton, analyze four main themes: "Men as gendered beings, the privilege and damage of being a masculine man, men as a privileged group, and men’s power and subjective powerlessness. The second and fourth themes are described as
In Kimmel’s essay “’Bros Before Hos’: The Guy Code” he argues that the influence of society on masculinity is equal to or greater than biological influences on masculinity. In the essay, Kimmel uses various surveys and interviews to validate his argument. He points to peers, coaches, and family members as the people most likely to influence the development of a man’s masculinity. When a man has his manliness questioned, he immediately makes the decision never to say or do whatever caused him to be called a wimp, or unmanly. Kimmel’s argument is somewhat effective because the readers get firsthand accounts from the interviewees but the author does not provide any statistics to support his argument.
Good afternoon, today I will be discussing the perceptions of masculinity and the need to take responsibility for one’s own actions.
There a many definitions of masculinity and those definitions are heavily influenced by culture, environment, media, and the child’s parents. When young men start to reach their sexual maturity, they have to create their own definition of what it is to be a man. The idea of masculinity creates a lot of questions, because there is no resource that will give a young male the answer. Due to this, young males learn what it is to be a man from a grab bag of possibilities. Eventually, the young male will have accumulated traits, appearances, behavior, and so on that defines what it is to be a man. With a new sense of self, the young male transforms into his idea of masculinity. In the Maltase Flacon, masculinity is defined through the actions of Sam Spade whom demonstrates the masculine principals of making his achievement of alpha male status a top priority, aggressive behavior, avoiding being feminine, homophobic, and restriction of his emotions (Meek) through his interaction with several characters throughout the film.
What defines masculinity? Many boys struggle to accept themselves and society does not make acceptance any easy task. The definition of “masculinity” is seemingly set in stone; people see the word as meaning brave or tough. In reality, masculinity is the characteristics that form a man. The book, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding explores the many layers of masculinity in a tribe of British boys. The book shows us that many other characteristics such as intellect, compassion, and savagery (accepted by society or not) make up masculinity.
Dave Barry’s essay “Guys vs. Men” presents that the term “Man” grants more negative qualities in males, unlike the term “Guy”, which, allows guys to be free to indulge in stereotypical characteristics. Barry arouses readers by using amusing comparisons, similarities, and engaging punch lines to support his view on the distinct differences between guys and men. Barry argues the idea that man is a term that comes with responsibility, and has unwritten expectations for guys. Additionally, in correspondence he suggests the possibility that there are other ways to view males as just a “guy,” rather than being characterized as masculine. Therefore, Barry uses gender-based generalizations to capture the purpose of the passage
He maintains an order of writing that is well-organized, as well as constructive. The piece initiates with basic rules of masculinity. Then, he describes where these ideas come from and further describes how it is a solely male-instructed idea. Then, to further defend his “homosocial” definition of manhood, Kimmel explains the homophobic “fear of being misperceived as gay” (Kimmel 543-545). Thus, Kimmel ends his piece with a discussion of boys’ development and how “suppression and repudiation is the origin of the Boy Code” (Kimmel 547). The syntax structure Kimmel utilizes also proves helpful. Throughout his writing, he refers to masculinity as “Guyland” and refers to the rules of manhood as “The Guy Code” (Kimmel 541). Another key component in his writing is the tone he uses. After he allows the seriousness of his thoughts to develop, he adds in a bit of humor, such as comparing the “Guy Code” as fitting “as a straightjacket” (Kimmel 547). He also adds in dialogue of his own interactions to make a point, as well as provide occasional humor. Kimmel’s writing is not only supplies an ease of understanding, but it maintains its intent of unmasking the causes of masculinity. This piece allowed an idea so abstract and complex such as masculinity to be easily understood. Kimmel impressively interprets how the daunting demands of masculinity affect each man and the damages these demands hold to their emotional
“The Other Wes Moore” By Wes Moore, reveals how two men can develop differently in the same social environment, and yet and have different intrapersonal views. The two men grew up in the same impoverished city, yet both have different experiences and views of what it means to be a man. The other Wes Moore, living his whole life in a poverty-stricken society, believes that being a man means to be powerful and unforgiving. The author, Wes Moore, living in two different worlds, views himself as a man when he becomes an exceptional leader and responsible for others lives. These concepts both tie into the constructs of masculinity in the United States where men are supposed to be protectors of society. The two Wes’ notions of manhood derive from
Johnson argues that patriarchy is made up of more than just individuals. Systems are more complex than people (Johnson 92). Within a system there are different parts the come together to form a whole. In terms of patriarchy, these parts are the different standards and ideals that patriarchy upholds. The three facets of patriarchy are male centered, male identified, and male dominated. Also patriarchy is not just driven by men, women can also play a role in its continuation. Believing in the equality of men and women is not enough to challenge the system (Johnson 94). Our culture must break down and question the parts of the patriarchal system in order to lessen its grip on our culture.
He gives little credibility to the "not all men statement, addressing that while informative on an oppositional attitude, it does not do anything to address the sometimes toxic aspect of growing up as a man. The two stories are alike in the sense that people agree men can be, and sometimes are, violent. There are certain expectations placed upon a man as he grows and strives to be masculine. However, the stories diverge on a course of action.
Manhood had not always existed; it was created through culture. Depending on the era, masculinity claimed a different meaning. But in all of its wandering definitions, it consistently contains opposition to a set of “others,” meaning racial and sexual minorities. (pp.45) One of the first definitions was the Marketplace Man, where capitalism revolved around his success in power, wealth, and status. A man devoted himself to his work and family came second. Although this is one of the first standing definitions, it still finds its spot in today’s definition, where masculinity consists of having a high paying job, an attractive young wife, and
Masculinity was not always the competitive situation as we know it today. In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there are two types of men co-existed. They are Heroic Artisans describes as the working class included farmers and craftsmen, and Genteel Patriarchs described as refined included land owners. The heroic Artisans and Genteel Patriarchs could live in society together because their gender roles complimented each other. Kimmel believes that these gender roles became overpowered by Capitalists, what he calls “Marketplace Manhood”. This theory is the belief that capitalism drives gender identity with wealth, power, status and the ability to conquer all that he comes across “proves” a man’s worth and therefore his masculinity.
Hence, “any objective study would find the quest for manliness… it is normal in America for a man to be dismissive or even somewhat apologetic about being a writer.” Masculinity is ambition, without manliness there is no path or dream for men which maintains the role society. This refers to the gender differences because it creates a time which changes every century. Growing up as boys we constantly hear a common statement man up or be a man. Many boys are expected to be a man because their progress shows how much labor is performed. Being the mayor, or the president proves that manliness is developed through