Rough Draft #2

Mark Wild

11/25/12

Dear youth residing in the red states,

In the south, specifically the red states there tends to be a way of life most people abide by. One that is simple, even expected and is deeply rooted in the heritage of our families and community. Your mother, father and grandparents have all endorsed the trend and through generations it has been refined into assumed gender roles women and men play in our society.  I am certain that children whom grow up in a community where men and women assume gender roles are more likely to conform to the norms of their community and grow with the characteristics associated with their gender. Thus, I believe gender roles are socially constructed and not biological and that it is dangerous for it causes conformity, which in turn, diminishes one ability to individualize themselves.

Gender is widely accepted as one identifying with masculine or feminine qualities regardless of sex. Sex, in medical terms is strictly biological; it is what genitals we are born with. If one is born in a male’s body though identifies with female characteristics then they might identify as female. Their gender is female while their sex is male. From birth we are already assigned gender roles, just minutes after we are brought into this world we are either wrapped with a pink or baby blue blanket signifying if we are a boy or a girl. From then on without choice, the culture we are born into shapes us with the perceptions of what masculinity and femininity mean, and how it plays in our society. Typically in the south gender roles are straight forward. Men tend to be associated with qualities such as leadership, hard work and maintain an image that is distant in emotion and sensitivity. On the contrary, women are shaped in our society to become domestic, passive, favoring aesthetics rather then intellect, becoming prizes rather then individuals. These qualities act as a framework for the norms that are created in each community and function as a mechanism for social control.  They are reinforced by the conformity of the masses of people assuming their gender roles, and induce fear in the ones that don’t fit the stereotype.

This system of social control,  according to Linda L. Lindsey in Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective is a “Mechanism to ensure that its members act in a normative, generally approved way. In many societies, when a woman asks a man for a date or a married couple decides to reverse occupational and household roles, they become vulnerable to a number of social control mechanisms which may include ridicule, loss of friends and family support, or exclusion from certain social circles. “ It is important to acknowledge and understand that the meta message states that there is no over lapping.  There has to be a clear distinction between a man and a women and the traits associated with the gender.  Interestingly enough there has been emerging research that directly counters the argument of assigned gender.  One of which was a groundbreaking study in the mid 1970’s that supported the idea that men and women are actually more alike then different.  During a study conducted by Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974)  The psychology of sex differences, they reviewed more then 2000 studies of gender difference in a wide variety of subjects, including abilities, personality, cognitive ability, social behavior and memory.  Popular to contrary belief they concluded that men and women are psychologically 98% similar, breaking the long accepted myth that girls are more social then boys and that women have equal higher level cognitive ability in mathematics and science. Maccoby and Jacklin concluded that there were slight gender differences established in only 4 areas: verbal ability, mathematical ability, spatial recognition and aggression.

            Gender roles pertain only to the culture of communities and generations and are not a basis of how man and women should behave.  In the United States there is a well defined image of what a man and a women is. There is an associated interest each gender is supposed to like, and a wide variety of activities they admire.  At a young age boys are giving Tonka Trucks, Plastic Army men and knives, ever instilling these subconscious attributes to masculinity. According to Michael Kimmel’s article Bros before hos: the guy code, he concludes through a series of interviews with men ageing from 16 through 26 that there is a common theme men live by, he dwindled it down into the “real guys top ten list.” Such attributes on the list were Boys don’t cry, size matters and its better to be mad then sad.  This, of course, is only a recent generational  phenomenon and I assure you that it has never been the case.  If we take a look into history, specifically Europe around 1800- 1900 and narrow in on the musical culture that was so prevalent and admired back then we will fall right in what historians call the romantic period of music.  In this age, the musicians were considered a modern equivalent of what we call a  rockstar, they were popular, mimicked and appreciated.  The artist were not symbols of sex nor mischief, there wasn’t even much attention to their image, it was their music that caught on.  It wasn’t hard or was it vulgar, rather high in emotion, delicate with feminine qualities.  A popular artist at that time, Chopin was recorded crying as he played his piano during a concert.  Emotion was encouraged, the influence to embellishing in the natural emotions such as melancholy and suppress the unrestrained urge of anger was approved. It was simply the trend of the time.

If we apply the “size matters” rule to history we must go back a few hundred  more years to Florence Italy, Where Michelangelo completed his masterpiece, David in 1504 A.D. This was made during the renaissance, a time that many historians consider the pinnacle of art as we know it.  Where much thought was given to the proportions of the figure, to accentuate and celebrate the beauty of the anatomy of man. His piece, a 17 foot, pure marble statue of naked Hero, delicately standing with a sling over his shoulder is beautiful in ever right, though I wonder what a modern man who had no prior education in art would think about the size of his penis. One would think in this modern age that if it was a celebration of the anatomy of man, the artist would make sure he was making it rememberable by exaggerating the size of his penis. Though in fact, at that time many artists including Michelangelo considered a large genital to be grotesque and thus kept it small.  Apply that to the modern perception of size and men would be offended.

As I mentioned, conformity is dangerous.  It has the ability to cripple individualism by fear of being isolated from the community.   Homosexuals tend to be the victims, especially in an environment that favors traditional gender roles. Some Forms of homosexuality tend to emphasis feminine characteristics, a sense of flamboyancy. In theory, if one who carries such traits were to grow up in a town that perceived men as the highest regard of masculinity, or if it was in a state were homosexuality isn’t considered an act of love but rather has a hostel take on the matter, then homosexuals will no doubt feel oppressed, disempowered, and alone. They are the ones that are not socially constructed, they simply are born gay.  I ask of you, southern youths, to accept people for who they are.  If you do not understand them, or if they don’t live how you live you should not fret. People are different, every culture on this planet functions different from our own but in the end we are all the same.  Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind. 

Annotated Bibliography and first cover letter

Vogel, D.,  Wester, S. , Heesacker, M. , Madon, S.  “Confirming Gender Sterrotypes: A Social Role Perspective.”  Sex Roles, Vol 48, Nos. 11/12, June 2003

http://madon.public.iastate.edu/confirmingsexstereotypes.pdf

According to this article, social expectation of how genders are supposed to behave is widely believed to be vastly different. Contrary to assumption, Analysis indicates that men and women behave similarly much of the time.  Though when in a relationship, both genders tend to stick with their stereotypical roles. There is an underlying expectation to maintain a typical gender role, because behaving consistently with normative expectations is less risky than behaving in a nonnormitive manner. This can be boiled down to people’s fear of being hurt, rejected, or misunderstood. From an early age we learn the basic normative model of how men and women act, separately and injunction with each other.  We find it much easier to behave in these expected ways in a relationship then not, it also causes less problems when one maintains their roles. These situational factors influence the extent in which women and men confirm the stereotypes. Interesting to note, through a case study in this article it was confirmed that if a partner is emotionally vulnerable they are more likely to maintain their stereotypical gender role.

Lindsey, Linda “Gender Roles, A Sociological Perspective”  Maryville University, St. Louis,  Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005

http://jefferson.library.millersville.edu/reserve/SOWK505_Girvin_GenderRoles.pdf

According to Linda Lindsey, Gender roles are reinforced by Social influences and culture. She states that from a very young age we are influenced by are society, when we are born we are wrapped in ether a blue or pink blanket, signifying what gender we are. These influences carry on throughout our lives, at the age of 5- 10 we are given toys that reflect of gender, boys are more often given toy tanks, constructive materials like legos then barbies. While girls are given toys that reflect a more aesthetic approach like brushes, dolls and mock babies. Throughout our lives our culture is constantly feeding us products that are aimed and synonymous with our gender. Lindsey states that our culture commands expectations according to gender and that if one chooses another course of action that differs from the accepted norm, they are at risk of social disapproval.  According to Lindsey ”Conformity becomes a matter of providing cultural mechanisms for social control.”  Meaning that every society has a basis for what is considered normal that is generally approved. If one does not abide by their expected gender roles they are vulnerable to a number of social control reactions that can include ridicule, loss of friends and family, in turn forcing us to maintain our expected way to live.

Greetings, to my fellow teenagers growing up in the southern United States.

I bring you insight on the control and manipulation your community has bestowed on you. From a young age you have been subtly influenced on the image a man and woman play in this society and I can assure you that those models are merely constructed by your culture and are by no means a way for how you should live your live. Conformity is rampant in the small towns scattered along the southwest and failure to conform could result in the community isolating you, typically out of misunderstanding. For the men, the conception to be mainly weighs great on your conscience, there is a feeing of following the lifestyle, one that is distanced from emotion but in turn is exaggerated in forms of hard work, strong leadership skills and that DIY mentality.  If you identify with that then it’s fine, but to the men that don’t,  I comfort you with the philosophy that you don’t have to live your life  injunction with the “guy code.” You and only you have the power to live your live however you want to, embellish in the arts or music if it draws to you, seek an emotional understanding of yourself, don’t be afraid to cry.  I assure you if you break free from the social constructs of your surroundings you will learn more then ever.  This will help you develop into your own character and not just blend in with everyone else. You can love your community, it is your heritage in a way but understand that if you embrace it to much it narrows your perception of what is normal, for there is an expected way of life.

For the women,  you have been influenced from the day you are born to abide by an expected gender role, possibly  more then men. There is an overwhelming force around you that is constantly depicting women as sexualized and domesticated. From advertisements to movies, women share a common role. From and early age you are given makeup and tank top and told to live a life reserved. I come to encourage you to breach out of the norms, compete with men, aim for a high career position. As I addressed to the men you don’t have to live an expected life.  Don’t be afraid, if you do discouraged or are a target of public outcry in your community you can always reassure yourself with the fact that you are doing what you ant to do.  Most importantly it is you that can determine your fate, you have the power to do so, don’t be held back by how your community response. In the end, you are in control of how you live your life. 

Proposal

Mark Wild

11/11/2012

English 1A

Proposal: The roles of gender in the united states are socially constructed through culture and not biological.

Ethos: After traveling from coast to coast Michael Kimmel interviewed many young men age 16 to twenty six and found similar ideologies of what they considered a role of a man to be.  Common themes emerged and from his research he concluded that men in the United States identify a mans role as one that was strong, emotionally distant, self sufficient and tolerant to suffering.  Through his investigation he was surprised to find that purpose to maintain the eidos of a man isn’t for the women, rather it is monitored and compared by other men to keep each other in line. “The Guy Code’ as Kimmel describes is a governing force run by generations of men that has concreted an expected role men play in this country.  Many men trust and follow their role models, it could be a baseball player to fictional solder, in the media in this culture it is always exaggerated depictions of a man’s man, the gender roles are consist. I claim that the role of gender in the United States is merely socially constructed by influences from advertising and culture and are not biological. There is no model on how we should live our lives; there is the influences around us that shape us for who we are.

Logos: In Michael Kimmel’s article “Bros Before Hoes” he concludes that there is an underlying influence from other men in the United States to maintain a specific role. These influences can come in many forms such as insults, mannerisms; ones own interest, and lifestyle. Interesting enough, all derive of these pressure derive from one incentive, to essentially take someone else’s manhood.  According to Kimmel, “Everything that is perceived as gay goes into what we might call the negative playbook of guyland. Avoid everything in it and you’ll be alright. Just make sure you walk, talk, and act in a different way from the gay stereotype: dress terribly; show no taste in art or music; show no emotions at all.”  In other words, don’t act in a way where people might perceive you as homosexual. It is apparent that this is socially constructed; the pressure from your peers is forcing you to adibe by their lifestyle. In a culture that prizes men to fit into the “eidos “ of a man, it is hard to identify into a lifestyle that is on the other side of the spectrum, like homosexuality. In turn crippling ones ability to stay true to themselves for fear of being rejecting and isolated from the community.

Pathos: This is abstract in its own manner,  as one considers the roles of gender as the norm in the US. It has been that way for generations, our parents and grandparents have abided by these roles without question. The government at times has reinforced these roles through wartime, ever so redefining what is a man, and for good reason. Though now we are living in a different time, a place in history where by the grace of technology and advanced communication we are now getting a glimpse of the age of individualism and through a troubled economy the burden of capitalism has forced both sex’s to be integrated into the working world. Now, in this time, in a world where 29% of household families are run be single parents we must redefine what it is to be female or male, or manly or unmanly. We have seen through countless propositions the pressure to unify homosexuals and recognize them for love, for marriage. I say enough with the pressure of gender roles, we are all born and develop differently. We need a country of people who are confident in themselves, for a better America. We need to break the  social pressures  that define a man or a woman, and instead give them the encouragement and love to develop into the person they have always wanted to be.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1337.pdf

RA#2 Finalized

Mark Wild

Rhetorical Analysis  #2

Jean Kilbourne shows the stark contrast between gender roles in advertising, providing an abundance of examples, she shines light on the depiction of roles men and women play in everyday advertising. Everything from alcoholic beverages, watches, to designer underwear, Kilbourne has forced to reader to look onto and examine the subliminal messages interwoven in advertising. Behind the veil there lies a disconnect to reality, where women are more sexualized, immortalized and men conquer with power and wealth.  The fear is that long term exposure could leak into how we perceive gender in our society, reinforcing a specific role we should abide by, and in turn hindering our true expression of character and inhibiting us from breaching the norms for fear of being misunderstood.

Sex in advertising is more common then ever. Woman and men alike are stripped of any type of emotion and sensitivity only to expose the raw sexual desire in an individual, even if it is completely unrelated to the produced being sold. Something that is as elusive and special as arousalment is now interpreted in an exaggerated form, further diminishing such emotion.  Sadly, it is but an advertising technique, a form of dehumanizing the character, as though they are just an object of desire, with no depth beyond what one sees. Woman models are more often used in a similar manner to pornography, leaking its interpretations in magazines, television ads and billboards. Kilbourne asserts, “Pornography is more dangerously mainstream when its glorification of rape and violence shows up in mass media, in films and television shows, in comedy and music videos, and in advertising. Male violence is subtly encouraged by ads that encourage men to be forceful and dominant, and to value sexual intimacy more than emotional intimacy. “  This is justified by the role men play in advertising.

It is troubling on account that the role of a man in advertising is a direct connection to how the women is perceived. Women are often depicted as weak, helpless, and out of control.  In every single Advertisement that involves a man, Kilbourne sights that there are common underlying themes that the men play.  Specifically, violence and control. It is unsettling to note that this tactic is not entirely derived from a form of fantasy. Rather a reflection of our society in the past century. In the United states and until recently, men have always been the one with the wealth and power. They make up the majority in congress, run our military, our advertising, media.  and occupy high salary positions. Out of the 1210 billionaires in the world, only 11 are women.  No wonder there is so much hate translated through the media towards women, they rarely get to hold a professional position. Why are females oppressed in this society when both genders are of equal intelligence and made up of the same substances? Three words, Lack of empathy.

Wealth and power breeds evil. Men simply don’t want to give up that position because it is on their side. It has been that way for decades now and it has leaked into our media and culture. The stereotypes might not change but I believe the people will. There will be time where the masses are educated on this matter and when that times comes advertising will not have the affect it has had on the individuals, allowing them become an individual. 

Rhetorical Analysis #2

Mark Wild

Rhetorical Analysis #2

Title: “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt”: Advertising and Violence

Author: Jean KilBourne

Topic: How marketing techniques in advertising portrays  common themes and roles in gender, ultimately shaping men and women into set roles. Woman are sexualized, abused and even submissive to the hands of a powerful man,  who is commonly portrayed as powerful,  wealthy  and detached entirely from emotion and instead replaced by ego and physique.

Exigence: The fear is that long term exposure to such advertising could leak into how we perceive gender in our society, reinforcing a specific role we should abide by, and in turn hindering our true expression of character and inhibiting us from breaching the norms for fear of being misunderstood.

Intended audience: Young people, but just about anyone who is influenced by mass media.

Purpose: To eventually redefine how we advertise, make it less sexist and bias toward gender.

Writer’s strategy 1: pathos

Writers strategy 2: claims/ evidence

Writers strategy 3: cause and effect/ redefining gender roles

Response: Jean Kilbourne shows the stark contrast between gender roles in advertising, providing an abundance of examples, she shines light on the depiction of roles men and women play in everyday advertising. Everything from alcoholic beverages,  watches, to designer underwear, Kilbourne has forced to reader to look onto and examine the subliminal messages interwoven in  advertising. Behind the veil there lies a disconnect to reality, where women are more sexualized, immortalized and men conquer with power and wealth.  The fear is that long term exposure could leak into how we perceive gender in our society, reinforcing a specific role we should abide by, and in turn hindering our true expression of character and inhibiting us from breaching the norms for fear of being misunderstood.