Gender Studies

Lambert expresses the way to “join” a boys club. At first, one would have to befriend other women. This is so competition can spark in order to show which woman is the “girl that is cool enough to hang out with the guys”. It is a privilege of sorts that allows women to get rid of their one true enemy; “exclusionism”. The goal that women have is to not be excluded by men, and they seem to do this by acting like men. Competing with one another, trying to show both men and women that they are better than others, etc. Another way to enter the “club” is to call men (and women) out on their bulls**t. Men especially are afraid of not being masculine enough because they fear they will be judged by everyone around them. Although we have all these invisible norms and “codes” to follow, we should just ignore them. People are able to hang out with whoever they please, and those who exclude others because of what you are don’t deserve your presence. 

Although I don’t like reading, this was a nice and interesting book to read. Who knew a simple comic like book could do so much?

This book is very interesting, something I actually enjoy, I can’t wait to read more.

Sexuality, gender, and the use of the words ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ has been a part of our history for only a couple hundred years. The first time being used in a private letter in 1868, and publicly in 1892. Even in this short amount of time, humanity has stuck to these words as if they were super glued to them. They have gone through various changes and are defined differently now than they were back then. Yet, we are still expected to follow invisible “rules” in order to meet a standard to an always changing ideal. 

Han presents how racism exists within gay communities. At first it may seem not likely, but the discrimination among men of color and other ethnicities are present. It has become a stereotype that be a gay man means to be a white man. Even within the gay community, African Americans, Latino’s, and others are being told things such as “you can’t be in this bar” or “I only prefer certain people”. To see racism towards people who could already be discriminated against because of sexuality, it’s just horrible. Along with the fact that this paper was written recently (in 2007). For there to be so much discrimination within one part of society is very concerning because it doesn’t show progress towards any type of equality. No matter what your race is, or what your sexuality or sex is, you should be able to do as you please (obviously as long as it’s within the law).

This text presented an area in the Lower East Side on Manhattan during the 1880s and 1890s. Chauncey presented the “resorts” that occupied the area, which were really just saloons and dance halls. “Male degenerates” (who were just men dressing as a woman) and “male prostitutes” would go there to socialize. The place was named the Bowery and was the “center of the city’s best known sites of homosexual rendezvous”. It was a sort of hang out area where people were free to “explore” and “socialize”. Actions such as slumming occurred in order for people to be able to do the exploring and socializing that was stated. This area was normal during the time, it was a place for homosexuals to feel safe in a sense, and what strikes me is that places like that don’t seem to be more openly out there. Personally I have only heard of LGBTQA centers within schools (and sometimes outside) that people can go to, but nowhere as open as the Bowery. Places like this should “make a return” so to say due to the continuous discrimination that occurs in the city, and the world in general. Everyone should have the right to be comfortable and happy wherever they go.

Preciado presents the “technologies of gender” that influence our society today. Starting off with “gender”, which produces and governs out understanding of sexuality. It is a base of our understanding into many other subtopics of this category. Such as our basic understanding of “females” and “males”. Being a male or female is based on the chromosomes of someone, along with the “size of the genitals” of a person. However, that basic understanding of gender, and many understandings prior to modern day, have changed constantly over time. Now, males and females are no longer guaranteed to create babies, mainly because of pills that the female takes. The understanding, or technologies, of gender that we have, has been tossed aside. The technologies of gender are produced “within the techno-organic circuits that are codified in terms of gender, sex, race, and sexuality.” This means that there is no one factor that determines the gender of someone. There is always something new to help determine gender, therefore “gender” is a constantly changing thing. So why should people discriminate against those who don’t follow the “original” gender norms? Our perception of gender is no longer what it used to be. We should respect those who choose to follow the new and changing perception of gender.

These redings portrayed the life of the word “transgender”. It has gone through various religions, cultures, races, and just societies in general. Modern day, the ‘natural attitude’ towards gender is the stereotype that there are only 2 genders. Transgender came along and challenged these beliefs. However, transgender can date back to B.C. years. In “Transgender Liberation”, Feinberg presents how transgender used to be a very normal thing throughout society, However, “a bloody campaign” that occurred due to the ruling class made transgender become ‘unnatural’. Feinberg presented how kings, queens, and even gods (mainly the Greek gods) were transgender and/or cross dressed. However, this normality of femininity and dressing was downgraded due to higher ups such as Catholic churches. This began the oppression and the discrimination against transgender people, which sounds horrible to me. If it was something normal, why change it? People should be allowed to be whatever/whoever they please, as long as it isn’t harming themselves or others. 

Baynton presents the history of inequality when it comes to people with disabilities. However, our modern definition of disability differs greatly from the definition of disability in the past. The past definition of disability seemed to be, in my understanding, anyone that didn’t fit the stereotype of a man. Anybody with mental and/or physical disabilities were discriminated against. Simple things such as trying to get a job or some type of living was denied even to simple things like asthma. Not only was this inequality towards mentally and physically disabled people, but it was also towards women and other minority groups at that time. Although this situation has improved when it comes to inequality, there are still some instances where this happens, but it shouldn’t be happening. We should all try our best to treat everyone equally.

Anna Gavanas presents numerous arguments towards the fathers of families. She presents how families have become feminized because of the head female/mother of the family tends to do most of the family work. This mainly includes care for the child or children. She shows how there are structural roles when it comes to family, along with how flexible roles are coming about. The mother tends to take care of the child while the father works and provides for the family is the structural view. The flexible view is to have an almost even amount of work when it comes to the family, mainly child care. From my understanding of this passage, men/fathers are trying to maintain there masculinity while also trying to family care. They do this by teaching their child (most likely the son) how to ‘fit roles’ using heterosexuality, sports, and religion/religious figures. Fathers should just care for their child in which ever way benefits the child. Both parents should do this. There shouldn’t be one single parent doing all or most of the family work, the work should be split evenly so it can maximize the healthiness of the family.

Coltrane presents an analysis containing numerous couples who have children. The research focused primarily on the participation of child care between the husband and wife. Although many of the couples try their best to equally divide the care for the child, the mother tends to fall within the stereotype of “naturally” taking care of the child, especially during the infant years of the child. However, all the couples did all their activities with the child as the center of attention. Such as work hours, child care hours, etc. The father’s have done a lot of work, sometimes equal to the work of the mothers. However, the equal amount of work should be the “natural” thing to do. As best as they can, parents should perform the child care equally. That way the child will grow up better and view the love and support of both parents as equal.

Pascoe presents her research on the definition of the word “fag”. She found it to be more of an insult to white males, rather than it being an identity. A faggot is masculinity without power. It is tossed around like and insult and used as a “disciplinary mechanism”. This is because homophobic teasing is presented as a characteristic of being masculine. Not doing “activities appropriate for one’s sex category” can be called/named a fag or faggot. Such as doing feminine actions, or not doing masculine actions. However this only happens when it comes to white boys. For example, if a white boy dances, he is in risk of being called a fag or faggot. Whereas if an African American boy dances, he is in no risk because he is part of a “cultural community”. Sometimes the word “fag” and “faggot” are used as jokes alongside being used as insults. Although the word’s dominance doesn’t seem present, it should be clear that the use of the words “fag” and “faggot” should be decreased, even if they’re used as insults.

Hurtado and Sinha present the definition of masculinity within the Spanish culture. Although there are similarities between being a man in American society and Hispanic society, there are more differences. I did not expect there to be such major differences between the two and find it interesting that wherever someone goes, the definition of manhood changes. For the Hispanic culture, as described by Hurtado and Sinha, since they (Hispanic people) have been in a very different situation than American’s, they had defined being a man as the bread winner of the household. Furthermore, they define manhood through relational engagements, positive ethical positionings, and rejection of hegemonic masculinity. The rejection of hegemonic masculinity caught me slightly off guard because numerous other articles I read had revolved masculinity around this topic. Although some aspects of it are implemented, it is almost entirely rejected. Being a man is being the bread winner, and you don’t necessarily have to be a man to be that. Doing the most work within a household, and/or for a household proves your manhood. This is interesting because it seems like an easy and logical way to determine masculinity, instead of using the hegemonic masculinity “guidelines”. However, each system does have questionable ‘requirements’ for being a man/masculine.

This text portrays the views on masculinity through the eyes of African American men. Their views are different from the “normal” view on masculinity. They have to implement the idea of barriers and inequality because they are African American, along with their own themes. Those themes were leadership, structural oppression, African American values, traditional masculinity, familial relationships, and self-definition. Each of these themes contributed to their meaning of masculinity, there was no single definition for masculinity. However, all their meanings revolved around the stereotypical “white male” masculinity. It’s interesting to see that although there are various barriers and inequality, African American men try to fit the masculinity norm. Although it is something unseen, the norm should be slowly “taken down” in a sense. People should be able to represent themselves as they see fit, instead of trying to fit a stereotype.

Sharon Bird expresses the stereotype of men. She shows how men are “forced” into the way they act. She presents the idea of homosociality, which is the non-sexual interaction between people of the same sex. To put it more simple, a “normal” talk between men. The reason for putting normal in quotations is because it (the talking) can’t be identified as normal. Men are constantly trying to prove to each other that they are men, even when they don’t need to. Me included, we all feel the need to show everyone are masculinity, although it isn’t needed. However, the stereotype put on men have forced this act of proving one self. Men know that if they don’t act like men, they could be excluded from may things. Men shouldn’t feel the need to prove themselves as masculine, being a man is enough to show it. 

From a young age, boys are taught to be masculine and only masculine. We (men) are all put into a confined space called the “Act-Like-a-Man” box. We are forced to fit a stereotype starting at a young age. We were told to meet certain expectations, and if we didn’t, we’d be punished in one way or another. Whether it be physically, mentally, etc. Men had been taught to fear stepping outside the box due to these punishments, and most of us (men) unfortunately were tricked into entering the box. This “box” shouldn’t exist anymore, even if it takes years to get rid of it, it shouldn’t be implemented and forced upon males. Men (and all other people, but for the sake of this passage I’ll say men) shouldn’t be put into stereotypes, and should be able to do as they please, as long as it’s within the law.

Donaldson presents how in society, there’s a decline in male jobs, and an increase in female jobs. It presents the constant change in gender roles and relations. However, there are some people who don’t accept the change. Men who fall under hegemonic masculinity think of themselves as better than women, and in some cases, also better than other men. They try to fit the stereotype of a man, although now the stereotype of a man isn’t “active”. Over many years men have been put into many different roles and categories that don’t comply with the stereotype. Hegemonic masculine men try to show dominance and attempt to sustain their “power” over others because it somehow benefits them. However, as stated previously, the stereotype for men isn’t in play within society. Men (along with all other people, but for the sake of this passage) are allowed to do whatever they please without needing to feel obligated to fit a stereotype. Men are free to do what they please (as long as it’s within the law).