Ozbay and George

In both Ozbay’s and George’s articles, a comparative theme seems to translate masculinity as a sort of historical honor that must be maintained through strict regulations, otherwise the purpose as a male in all of his social spheres will become none-existent. The Western influence of hegemonic masculinity grips other cultures, instilling ideas of sustained masculinity. Ozbay and George observe how the hierarchal characteristics of gender apply to various cultures, given the social institutions that they operate within. Exaggerated masculinity or “machismo” is a strong or overemphasis of masculine traits such as physical courage, virility, dominance, lack of emotion and aggressiveness. In this sense, the honor of manhood is to stay within these structured boundaries--having control over any and every given situation that begs the question to every male person: “How much of a man are you?” Both article articulate how the ideology of exaggerated masculinity is important in how we study the breakdown of gender, sex and sexuality. The overarching idea insists that manhood is honorable and if any male falters and steps outside the binary lines then they are sanctioned, reduced to the social standard of dishonorable. So in comparing these two articles, one might assume the big question to be, where does femininity come into to all of this and if it isn’t honorable, what is it?

Ozbay’s article follows the nocturnal rent boys of Istanbul, Varos. These boys, usually between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five have become increasingly visible in the gay social spheres of Istanbul as “nocturnal queers” that engage in different forms of compensated sex. Above all else however, these rent boys are at their core Varos; otherized, segregated ...

... middle of paper ...

...lture of working-class Mumbai families.

The overall idea for men in their environment is to be seen as honorable by their neighborhood and their families, which as George notes can becomes somewhat of a competition--another example of interplay between masculinities that gains dominance and power to the most “honorable” of men. This public surveillance matches up with what Ozbay observes in her article: In these environments, the males police one another in their constricting social constructs of exaggerated masculinity. Through this policing and focus on maintaining a masculine structured society that validates femininity, women are free to explore the power of their own actions and femininity which sees the discovery that females are just as capable in realizing their own strengths and power to take on responsibilities that are usually expected of male persons.