Consalvo discussed the importance of viewing nonfiction pieces to further understand the portrayal of masculinity. Why haven’t we viewed any nonfiction pieces about masculinity?
Or is Consalvo trying to point out that like the entertainment media, nonfiction media also distorts information like in their the portrayal of the two high school students in the Columbine shooting?
Michael Kimmel argues that due to these divisions, “manhood is only possible for a distinct minority, and the definition has been constructed to prevent the others from achieving it”, If a boy’s masculinity becomes too threatened or subordinated by those who hold the dominant form, masculinity may become self-destructing. So, if masculinity is self-destructive and femininity outdated, why are they still used as methods of categorization?
Consalvo discusses the blame placed on the media for violent acts such as those committed at Columbine, noting that there has been no direct link discovered between interaction with violent media and acts of violence. She does not address, however, the idea that violent video games and websites could lead to an inability to precisely distinguish between real life and the media. Could this have played a role in this situation? Does this explanation hold up to Consalvo’s theories?
Though horror movies provide a space where adolescent boys can safely experience pleasure viewing gender-bending monsters and final girls, is there any risk that the violence depicted may affect them in a dangerous way (desensitizing them)? Though Conslavo mostly talks about the media’s reaction to the boys’ video game usage, I wonder if there are any lasting consequences of young men being horror movies’ biggest audience?
“The positioning of Klebold and Harris alternated between monster and geek.” In the aftermath of this event, the geek becomes the misunderstood monster not only in the eyes of their fellow students, but in the eyes of the institution. Has geek become a synonym with monster? Don’t the reactions of kids towards these outcasts influence how the media perceived the Columbine event? At the same time for feminism, do the geeky, willow-esque girls become the monster do to media representations of beauty? She is portrayed as a witch and a lesbian in the show after all.
Consalvo states that “Judith Butler (1993) goes further in claiming that gender is a daily enactment that individuals must engage in, which is ultimately judged by others. Each day, with each act, our gender comes to “matter more and more.” If gender is a daily enactment and it is determined by the actions we take but is ultimately judged by society around us, who determines and defines our gender? What matters more, the actions we take or they way others perceive these actions? Do we have control over how others perceive our gender? Who gives the increasing importance to our gender, ourselves or others?
“men have privileges that women do not, gay men are not as privileged as heterosexual men, and black men have less social power than white men.” How can we define power and privilege? Black men are in many ways more privileged in today’s society than white men. They can get into college with lower SAT scores and GPA. They can make racist jokes and get away with it. Women are the basis of chivalry. They get the seat on the bus, the door opened for them, the dinner paid for on a date. Power is simply a representation of all the privileges that we take advantage of. Does the image of privilege and power differences ever cross over from the media to reality? At the same time, how do we know what’s real when all of our information comes from the media?
“The popularity of graphic, unremitting destruction, especially among boys and men, does raise the question of why these images are so appealing, and whether this suggests men use these games to enhance or reinforce feelings of powerfulness, rather than marginalization.”
What about girls and women? They can certainly feel powerless to the male hierarchy, so why don’t they pick up a game controller to feel more powerful? If femininity is repressed masculinity (as some articles have suggested) then wouldn’t more women play video games in order to experience this traditionally masculinized power? Or, is women’s physical violence prohibited in society to the extent that for women to experience virtual masculinized physical strength and violence is “taboo”?
If our main source of news comes from the media, then we are commonly left in a vulnerable position- media can basically portray a story any way it wants and we, as viewers, will follow in the same line of thought that the story is presented. Media can suggest to us that something is ‘bad’ or ‘good’ by presenting only certain information or omitting information. If, however, further developments are made in a certain story, how much does the effect that the original story had on a viewer impact how the viewer deals with the new information? Is it at all possible to fully retract our original biases that were set up by the media? And can we ever fully reject what we originally hear from the media and form our own opinions.
Jackson Katz believes the linkage of white masculinity with violence is done by making violence appear to be a “genetically programmed” male behavior, by associating muscularity with masculinity, and by equating “heroic masculinity with violent masculinity”, yet In casting Klebold and Harris as “deviant,” or as “monsters,” journalists set them apart from “normal” boys in society. So is masculinity a construct as hollow as the “lad”, is masculinity a construct meant to be silly? So why do we affirm it in so many ways, yet liberate it when crisis strikes? Surely this means that constructs of masculinity surely need to be changed.
In America, systemic contradictions exist that place certain people in situations where they are likely to deviate from the norm. For example, in the media, through video games and advertisements, violence is seen as a trait that represents normative masculinity. At the same time, society expects that males will not reenact what they see in the media in real life, as violence is not considered an approprate characteristic for an upstanding citizen. Yet, the boys were bullied at school for not conforming to hegemonic masculinity, and used violent video-games as an outlet to feel like the dominate male, which was a feeling denied them at school by the jocks. It is clear that the behavior of individuals is affected by culture, and therefore is it really fair to blame the young men for their acts of violence that they likely learned from media and enacted in a response to the torment they receieved at school? Would it not make sense to see their actions as being caused by structural contraditions within society and the constraint of gender norms?
The article mentions that schools shootings were seen by some people as « the refuge of privileged white boys who don’t feel privileged ». I find it interesting how race, gender and class overlap in this analysis. Because the hegemonic masculinity in society is usually defined as white, heterosexual and middle/higher class, it is interesting to see the actual consequences of this assumption. Doesn’t this highlight the damage caused by any sort of « predominant » gender identity, whether it is masculinity over feminity or dominant masculinity over subordinate masculinity? Isn’t a dominant gender identity — considered as the norm and thereby excluding others as deviant – always harmful since it creates different categories and assumes gender identity as being fixed, definite, whereas, on the contrary, it is always an ongoing process for individuals who constantly negotiate multiple identities?
The article mentions that schools shootings were seen by some people as « the refuge of privileged white boys who don’t feel privileged ». I find it interesting how race and gender overlap in this analysis. Because the hegemonic masculinity in society is usually defined as white, heterosexual and middle/higher class, it is interesting to see the actual consequences of this assumption. Doesn’t this highlight the damage caused by any sort of « predominant » gender identity, whether it is masculinity over feminity or dominant masculinity over subordinate masculinity? Isn’t a dominant gender identity — considered as the norm and thereby excluding others as deviant – always harmful since it creates different categories and assumes gender identity as being fixed, definite, whereas, on the contrary, it is always an ongoing process for individuals who constantly negotiate multiple identities?
Cansalvo quotes a statement that “The big story out of Littleton isn’t about violence or the Internet, or whether or not video games are turning our kids into killers. It’s about the fact that for some of the best, brightest and most interesting kids, high school is a nightmare of exclusion, cruelty, warped values and anger.” But isn’t this implying that Klebol and Harris are just regular kids, the “best, brightest and most interesting”? While I agree that there were probably some terrible bullying that went on, and that Klebol and Harris might not have done this if that bullying hadn’t taken place, isn’t it completely unreasonable to assume that they have no personal responsibility, and that they were probably already unhinged if this pushed them to the edge? They were not the “best, brightest and most interesting.” Similarly, if two people shoot up a school, why is their association with a “monster”, a degendered creature, such a horrible thing? Isn’t it not masculine or feminine to murder people?
Consalvo discussed the importance of viewing nonfiction pieces to further understand the portrayal of masculinity. Why haven’t we viewed any nonfiction pieces about masculinity?
Or is Consalvo trying to point out that like the entertainment media, nonfiction media also distorts information like in their the portrayal of the two high school students in the Columbine shooting?
Michael Kimmel argues that due to these divisions, “manhood is only possible for a distinct minority, and the definition has been constructed to prevent the others from achieving it”, If a boy’s masculinity becomes too threatened or subordinated by those who hold the dominant form, masculinity may become self-destructing. So, if masculinity is self-destructive and femininity outdated, why are they still used as methods of categorization?
Consalvo discusses the blame placed on the media for violent acts such as those committed at Columbine, noting that there has been no direct link discovered between interaction with violent media and acts of violence. She does not address, however, the idea that violent video games and websites could lead to an inability to precisely distinguish between real life and the media. Could this have played a role in this situation? Does this explanation hold up to Consalvo’s theories?
Though horror movies provide a space where adolescent boys can safely experience pleasure viewing gender-bending monsters and final girls, is there any risk that the violence depicted may affect them in a dangerous way (desensitizing them)? Though Conslavo mostly talks about the media’s reaction to the boys’ video game usage, I wonder if there are any lasting consequences of young men being horror movies’ biggest audience?
Oh and…
Why don’t females commit school shootings?
“The positioning of Klebold and Harris alternated between monster and geek.” In the aftermath of this event, the geek becomes the misunderstood monster not only in the eyes of their fellow students, but in the eyes of the institution. Has geek become a synonym with monster? Don’t the reactions of kids towards these outcasts influence how the media perceived the Columbine event? At the same time for feminism, do the geeky, willow-esque girls become the monster do to media representations of beauty? She is portrayed as a witch and a lesbian in the show after all.
Consalvo states that “Judith Butler (1993) goes further in claiming that gender is a daily enactment that individuals must engage in, which is ultimately judged by others. Each day, with each act, our gender comes to “matter more and more.” If gender is a daily enactment and it is determined by the actions we take but is ultimately judged by society around us, who determines and defines our gender? What matters more, the actions we take or they way others perceive these actions? Do we have control over how others perceive our gender? Who gives the increasing importance to our gender, ourselves or others?
“men have privileges that women do not, gay men are not as privileged as heterosexual men, and black men have less social power than white men.” How can we define power and privilege? Black men are in many ways more privileged in today’s society than white men. They can get into college with lower SAT scores and GPA. They can make racist jokes and get away with it. Women are the basis of chivalry. They get the seat on the bus, the door opened for them, the dinner paid for on a date. Power is simply a representation of all the privileges that we take advantage of. Does the image of privilege and power differences ever cross over from the media to reality? At the same time, how do we know what’s real when all of our information comes from the media?
“The popularity of graphic, unremitting destruction, especially among boys and men, does raise the question of why these images are so appealing, and whether this suggests men use these games to enhance or reinforce feelings of powerfulness, rather than marginalization.”
What about girls and women? They can certainly feel powerless to the male hierarchy, so why don’t they pick up a game controller to feel more powerful? If femininity is repressed masculinity (as some articles have suggested) then wouldn’t more women play video games in order to experience this traditionally masculinized power? Or, is women’s physical violence prohibited in society to the extent that for women to experience virtual masculinized physical strength and violence is “taboo”?
If our main source of news comes from the media, then we are commonly left in a vulnerable position- media can basically portray a story any way it wants and we, as viewers, will follow in the same line of thought that the story is presented. Media can suggest to us that something is ‘bad’ or ‘good’ by presenting only certain information or omitting information. If, however, further developments are made in a certain story, how much does the effect that the original story had on a viewer impact how the viewer deals with the new information? Is it at all possible to fully retract our original biases that were set up by the media? And can we ever fully reject what we originally hear from the media and form our own opinions.
Jackson Katz believes the linkage of white masculinity with violence is done by making violence appear to be a “genetically programmed” male behavior, by associating muscularity with masculinity, and by equating “heroic masculinity with violent masculinity”, yet In casting Klebold and Harris as “deviant,” or as “monsters,” journalists set them apart from “normal” boys in society. So is masculinity a construct as hollow as the “lad”, is masculinity a construct meant to be silly? So why do we affirm it in so many ways, yet liberate it when crisis strikes? Surely this means that constructs of masculinity surely need to be changed.
In America, systemic contradictions exist that place certain people in situations where they are likely to deviate from the norm. For example, in the media, through video games and advertisements, violence is seen as a trait that represents normative masculinity. At the same time, society expects that males will not reenact what they see in the media in real life, as violence is not considered an approprate characteristic for an upstanding citizen. Yet, the boys were bullied at school for not conforming to hegemonic masculinity, and used violent video-games as an outlet to feel like the dominate male, which was a feeling denied them at school by the jocks. It is clear that the behavior of individuals is affected by culture, and therefore is it really fair to blame the young men for their acts of violence that they likely learned from media and enacted in a response to the torment they receieved at school? Would it not make sense to see their actions as being caused by structural contraditions within society and the constraint of gender norms?
** I made a little mistake in the last question.
The article mentions that schools shootings were seen by some people as « the refuge of privileged white boys who don’t feel privileged ». I find it interesting how race, gender and class overlap in this analysis. Because the hegemonic masculinity in society is usually defined as white, heterosexual and middle/higher class, it is interesting to see the actual consequences of this assumption. Doesn’t this highlight the damage caused by any sort of « predominant » gender identity, whether it is masculinity over feminity or dominant masculinity over subordinate masculinity? Isn’t a dominant gender identity — considered as the norm and thereby excluding others as deviant – always harmful since it creates different categories and assumes gender identity as being fixed, definite, whereas, on the contrary, it is always an ongoing process for individuals who constantly negotiate multiple identities?
The article mentions that schools shootings were seen by some people as « the refuge of privileged white boys who don’t feel privileged ». I find it interesting how race and gender overlap in this analysis. Because the hegemonic masculinity in society is usually defined as white, heterosexual and middle/higher class, it is interesting to see the actual consequences of this assumption. Doesn’t this highlight the damage caused by any sort of « predominant » gender identity, whether it is masculinity over feminity or dominant masculinity over subordinate masculinity? Isn’t a dominant gender identity — considered as the norm and thereby excluding others as deviant – always harmful since it creates different categories and assumes gender identity as being fixed, definite, whereas, on the contrary, it is always an ongoing process for individuals who constantly negotiate multiple identities?
Cansalvo quotes a statement that “The big story out of Littleton isn’t about violence or the Internet, or whether or not video games are turning our kids into killers. It’s about the fact that for some of the best, brightest and most interesting kids, high school is a nightmare of exclusion, cruelty, warped values and anger.” But isn’t this implying that Klebol and Harris are just regular kids, the “best, brightest and most interesting”? While I agree that there were probably some terrible bullying that went on, and that Klebol and Harris might not have done this if that bullying hadn’t taken place, isn’t it completely unreasonable to assume that they have no personal responsibility, and that they were probably already unhinged if this pushed them to the edge? They were not the “best, brightest and most interesting.” Similarly, if two people shoot up a school, why is their association with a “monster”, a degendered creature, such a horrible thing? Isn’t it not masculine or feminine to murder people?