SSC 200 Universty of Dayton Issue of Misplaced Muscularity Discussion – Description
After watching Tough Guise 2 on Kanopy, answer two of the following questions, then pose a question for the next student to reply to, by11:55 Friday 6/30/23. Then by 11:55pm Monday 7/3/23, reply to the student who answered your question. The student with the initial response, will answer the question posed by the last respondent. So everyone is answering 2 of my questions, and 1 question posted by a classmate. This should all be kept in the same thread – reply directly to the person who responded before you, so we can view the chain of conversation, rather than individual submissions.
At its core, Tough Guise 2 argues that men’s violence is overwhelmingly a gendered phenomenon. And it suggests that any attempt to understand violence therefore requires critically examining our cultural codes and ideals of manhood. The following points are central to the film’s main line of argument:
Masculinity is made, not a given;
Media are the primary narrative and pedagogical forces of our time;
Media images of manhood therefore play a pivotal role in making, shaping and privileging certain cultural and personal attitudes about manhood;
A critical examination of privileged media images of manhood reveals a widespread and disturbing equation of masculinity with pathological control and violence;
Looking critically at constructed ideals of manhood – at how, why and in whose interests these ideals are constructed in different historical, social, and cultural contexts – denaturalizes and diminishes the potential of these imagined ideals to shape perceptions of ourselves, our world, and each other.
Questions to discuss:
Why do you think it is that men and boys commit such an overwhelming percentage of violence in America?
What’s the difference between Katz saying that violence is about violent masculinity rather than about violent males? Explain.
Why do you think people in news media so often use gender-neutral terms to talk about perpetrators? Do you think this is conscious? Do you think it’s simply too obvious to point out that men and boys are responsible for violent acts? If that’s the case, then why does media coverage of violence go on at such length about other variables that might matter, like whether perpetrators play video games or have access to guns?
What is Katz’s concern about the common phrase “boys will be boys”?
Does Katz argue that biology plays no role in men’s violence? What, exactly, is his critique of those who reduce discussions about male violence to biology?
What does Katz say went missing in the debate between the gun industry and the entertainment industry in the wake of Sandy Hook? Why does this matter in his view?
Why does Katz say that the term “learned behavior” is inadequate when it comes to looking at the socialization of young men?
How does homophobia function in all of this? What about sexism? Do you see a common thread between how homophobia and sexism work to keep young men in line with cultural norms of manhood?
Why does Katz say that the pressure to conform to violent ideals of manhood can be even more acute for working class men and men of color?
While Katz is talking about masculinity, race, and ethnicity here, he also seems to be talking about class. What’s he saying about how class and economic status can factor into men’s identity and violence?
What do you make of the fact that the ideal of women’s bodies has gotten smaller and smaller even as the ideal of men’s bodies has grown bigger? Do you see our cultural ideals negotiating men’s anxieties about women and women’s power in the real world?
If men and boys are so often the victims of male violence, why do you think so many people call it male bashing to call attention to men’s violence?
Let’s discuss your thoughts on the article and Kimmel’s TedTalk. What strikes you, resonates with you, confuses you, or prompts you to ask more questions?
The post SSC 200 Universty of Dayton Issue of Misplaced Muscularity Discussion first appeared on .
