Breadwinners

I recently came across a Yahoo! article regarding a cultural gender shift in the primary breadwinner between spouses.  In Liza Mundy's book, The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love and Family, she uses facts and figures from 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics and leads with the fact that now almost 40% of all working women in the United States out-earn their husband.  Looking on the figures in the past decades, anyone can see that this is a huge leap in income for the average woman in the U.S. In not too long the average income for a working women may not be enough to be called inequality (unless that average were surpass men).  The author suggests that one reason for this outcome is because of the recent recession that has taken away many jobs that men held (more notably, manual labor); whereas women appeared to fair better with their more stable jobs.  
Mundy also suggests that, "[Men] craft a broader definition of masculinity, one that includes domestication but also more time spent on manly pursuits: hunting, fishing, and extreme fitness." Which will be just fine for women because they'll come to "accept the bread woman role." This quote is very relatable to our discussion on male masculinity and how it shapes our gender roles in society.  We talked about how masculinity for men is something that is suppose to come effortlessly, but at the same time seems to change with respect to each generation's popular culture.  With femininity seen as something naturally more resistant to change, it's not outlandish to say that women can pick up some of the men's slack and become primary breadwinners in many households.

Masculinities

This week in lecture we focused on Connell's Masculinities. After reading the book, I was still unclear on all the topics Connell mentioned, however, we were able to extrapolate the essential information from the first part of the book in lecture. We focused a lot of the physical appearance of a man, and what that means to be masculine. As long as the man is not "trying" to be masculine, he therefore is masculine. Many times, the topic of puppies being an accessory for men to pick up women was brought up in class. I found this interesting, because though men need to appeal to their feminine side to pick up a puppy, the fact that they are "picking up women" creates the entire event to be masculine.

We watched Pumping Iron clips in lecture. I found it really interesting how similar the body building comepetitions are to Miss America, or Miss World pagents. In both cases, the contestants are showing off their masculinity or femininity through their physical body. However, one big difference is that the audience for both contests happen to be men. In the Miss America pagents, men are showing their sexual power, rather than in the body building competition, which is more related to admiring hegemonic masculinity.

Michelle Duggar

Last week I read an article about Michelle Duggar who is the star of the TLC reality show 19 Kids and Counting about her extremely large family. Apparently Michelle has been publicly speaking to other women about marriage and what she thinks constitutes a good marriage. She touched on what she believes as the most important I found a few quotes that were rather interesting: 

A Husband Needs A Wife Who Accepts Him As A Leader And Believes In His God-Given Responsibilities: Husbands are commanded to govern their wives; God works through a man’s decisions — good or bad; Bad decisions reveal his needs and allow the wife to appeal and demonstrate Godly character; The more a wife trusts her husband, the more careful he will be in giving her direction; Never ask others for counsel without your husband’s approval; reassure your husband that you understand and believe that he is your God-given leader.

A Husband Needs A Wife Who Will Continue To Develop Inward And Outward Beauty: How can you become more of the wife of your husband’s dreams? Discover and conform to your husband’s real wishes; explain your hairstyle to others on the basis of your submission to your authority; separate your 'rights' from your responsibilities.

Ask Your Husband To Define Your Responsibilities: Ask your husband to tell you when you have a resistant spirit; dispel a backbiting tongue by silence.

In fairness, everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want to. Her marriage does not personally affect me and if that is what makes her happy then by all means go ahead and keep living your life. My problem, however, is that she is figure in the public eye and by broadcasting her views she is setting women back about 100 years.

I am by no means a religious expert, but to me this seems absolutely ridiculous. I know Eve was created from Adam's rib, but in Genesis 1: 26-28, both men and women were given equal ruling over the earth. Gender roles is one of the many ambiguous themes throughout the Bible, but Michelle Duggar doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that women are allowed to have at least some power. By saying that God works through a man and that all women must take commands from men is absolutely ancient and barbaric. I am picturing my male-chauvinistic brother reading this and laughing, and then asking me to go make him a sandwich.

Duggar doesn’t even want to have her own opinions but instead devout her life to submitting and serving her husband. Getting a certain hairstyle so he will be happy? Silence yourself and never speak your mind? Believe your husband is your “God-given leader”? Women have fought so hard for equality and are continuing to fight, but women like Duggar threaten everything they have worked for.

Mean Girls

I was watching the movie Mean Girls which really plays on the stereotypes of the way that girls behave in high school. In the movie the girls deal with their issues of everyday life through back stabbing, playing viscous games and manipulating people. These girls try to destroy each other's lives and relationships for their own self gain. While this movie is exaggerating the stereotypes of girl's typical behaviors, it does bring to audiences attention the differences between ways that men and women deal with their issues. In the movie the boys deal with their problems openly and when one of the girls was playing a game to get one of the boy's attentions, he responded by saying "if you wanted to talk to me, you should have just talked to me". In real life we always hear people say how girls internalize what they feel and instead of openly trying to deal with problems they use tactics to get revenge or respond to the situation. Girls accomplish this by talking behind each other's backs, spreading rumors or manipulating people. It is also said that males instead of dealing with their feelings internally they confront their situations head on. They fight about issues and confront the person they are dealing with face to face.I believe that this is not entirely true. I am constantly hearing boys talk about one another, calling them names and talking about their weaknesses and trying to make themselves seem more masculine. Although I agree that males are different in the way that they deal with unfavorable situations, I do think that they are similar to women in the fact that they attack people by using their weak points. Instead of spreading rumors about each other they will attack other males where they think they are the least masculine. This movie was an extreme version of the way that males and females differ when dealing with certain events, however, it did make audiences think about why these differences occur; and are men and women really that different.

Teen Idols Before and After

   The New York Times Fashion and Style article "Teen Idols, Before and After" talk about the transformations that these teen stars take as they become more influenced with the media. Take for example, Lea Michele, who on Glee portrays a character confident in what she wears, even though it is unlike other girls her age. This actress is later seen posed seductively in an article in GQ magazine. From Miley Cyrus to Britney Spears, these teen icons get swept into trying to appeal to an older audience, when in reality their target audience is much younger. Sex in the media already has a strong presence, but these teen icons only enforce it. 

  What mixed messages are these teen idols sending youth? I believe it will portray that it is okay and socially acceptable for young people to dress seductively, even if it is not appropriate for their age. In addition, these teen icons misrepresent the lyrics or the overall message they want to be pushing. Obviously it is up to the consumer on what should be adopted to their own lives, and what is purely media. 

The Academy Red Carpet

Today is the Oscars, which means tomorrow, and possibly tonight, there will be critiques of women based on their looks. Shows like E!'s 'Fashion Police' have panels of people judging actors and actresses based on their physical appearances, and Oscar night is exceptionally scrutinized. However, it is typical for the actress to be taken apart, or exalted, for what they wear more so than the actor, because actors have less choices (essentially black tuxedos), so judging actresses makes for a more diverse, entertaining program.

This scenario brings about a larger question in regards to fashion (and the advertisements along with it) and how it influences our culture. First, women are given more options because they are seen as needing a more diverse wardrobe. However, they are viewed as fashion-conscious and particular, because women are more valued for their looks than for their brains. Thus, men have less choices, not because they do not care about how they look, but because of how marketers perceive men to think about themselves.

RW Connell ch6-7

As most of you already know, there are many gays and lesbians in this world. People often have a perspective, that gays are attracted to their own sex, because their personality traits, features, and their background are feminine. Because they have feminine characteristics, they are attracted to the opposite. However, Connell's chapter 6 suggests that such widespread claim is not true. In the chapter, Connell interviews 8 gays of different backgrounds, ethnicites, and what not. Surprisingly, all eight interviewed gays had a similar trait: they were not feminine at all. In fact, some played sports, a heavily masculine feature. Some even married opposite sex. Why is it that despite their masculine characteristics, some decide to become gay?

Some people turn gay because they can not only feel affection with other men, but also discover more of themselves. Since they are loving and are involving themselves in sexual activities with others of same gender, they can things about themselves that they did not know of in the past. It takes a gradual progress for people to become gay. For example, a man who visited gay party for the first time does not become gay from that time. This chapter came as a total surprise for me. Like others, I thought that gays had feminine characteristics (probably because most gays I know of have feminine characteristics). However, I now know that there are more to the reasons people become gay.

Male Nurses are more masculine?

Do you view nurses as feminine and less masculine? Not to worry if you do, as that is the universally accepted view. I came across a pretty interesting article about male nurses while researching for another class. It might be really surprising then to find out that male nurses are actually the ones who display more of the typical masculine traits than other occupations. Studies have shown that males who are in the nursing profession actually are the ones who hold masculinity to a very high degree. It is then very unfortunate that society see nurses as a "feminine" occupation due to the amount of care and "soft" things that nurses have to do at their jobs. This has caused many males who are interesting in nursing to shy away from pursuing it as a career due to society's misguided view of the job. Tension and anxiety issues that emerge from it also adds to the discouragement of males who do not want to be seen as "feminine".

The "soft" things I had mentioned before is the apparently affectionate and gentle nature of the occupation which more often than not is associated with a female. Males are seen to be more aggressive and society expects men to be of an aggressive nature in order to feel more "masculine". That should not be the case as people are born very differently from one another, and to expect the same "masculine" side of every male to be aggressive is simply impossible. Masculinity and femininity as just stereotypes of the different genders, it should never be applied to the entire group and we know that stereotypes are never always true.

Ballerino?

Ballet, the graceful, beautiful, technical style of dance that serves as the fundamentals of the way in which we see artists perform, is not just a girl sport. First, let's establish that it is indeed a sport, with sport's definition described as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others." Ballerinas go through excruciating pains in order to perform. They dance against hundreds of other dancers in order to be casted for that one spot: the lead role. This long-standing debate of whether dance is classified as a sport may be the driving force to the misinterpretations of the people who actually take part in this art.

The ideologies that are associated with the "aesthletes" (aesthetic athletes) who do ballet are that they are typically thin, attractive females. Any male ballerina, or ballerino as I like to call it, is assumed to be homosexual, or is simply not as easily accepted in society. Why is that? He is a male, typically built, doing a sport just like society wants him to. It's because he is a part of a sport that is not accepted as a "sport" from the rest of society. The physical contact is a touch or a lift, rather than a tackle or a kick. The delicate part of the art correlates into femininity, and is viewed as only that. Men who take part in this "delicate," but just as difficult (if not more) aspect are considered feminine, and therefore gay by the rest of the people in this culture.

We may not have realized how far gender roles and ideologies have affected our culture, spreading out to our recreational activities. People don't realize that even the toughest football players are required to take ballet classes for strengthening. Apparently football isn't a manly enough sport to do that on its own? Generalizing ballet inhibits one of knowing what exactly ballet does for a dancer.

Thoughts on Nushawn Williams (Neal Reading)

After reading the story of Nushawn Williams, a black man in the 90s who infected 13 young women with HIV in the sheltered town of Jamestown, New York, it reminded me of a Law and Order episode I had seen a few years ago. Neal talked about the media reaction to the case, and hypothesized that if it had been a white man who infected these women, the press would have painted him in slightly more positive light. He quotes Saundra Smokes from USA Today saying: "if Williams, who is African American, were accused of infecting African-American teen age girls from urban America rather than white girls from a small, rural town, the story simply would not have been as prominent...And if Williams were white, he might not be portrayed as a crazed, HIV-positive 'predator' purposely preying on innocent, troubled young girls, as much as a troubled young man himself." I agree with the first part of this statement, as frustrating as it may be, but the last part I am not in as much agreement with. I do not think that if Williams had been white he would have been portrayed as simply a "troubled" young man. He infected 13 girls with HIV, most of them after he had found out that he had the disease. This is a sinister thing, and the media would not portray this in a positive light.

I remember watching an episode of Law and Order in which a man was knowingly infecting people with HIV. He was white, and the entire cast and the press that jumped on the story was disgusted with him. He was portrayed as sinister and cunning, a slippery man who knew his way around the justice system. Yet despite this people still saw him for what he was: a criminal. I do understand that the Williams case was over 15 years ago and this episode of Law and Order was probably made within the last 5 years, but I find it very hard to believe that people would treat a white man infecting people with HIV versus and black man infecting people with HIV extremely differently.

-Elle Callahan

Masculinity and Femininity: What happens when a man dresses like a woman

My friend recently sent me a link to a blog post about masculinity vs. femininity. The post is brief and informal; however, the content is strongly applicable to our class.

This blog post discusses the manner in which our society reacts to men whom dress “like women” and women who dress “like men”. The author makes the brilliant observation that the condemnation that a man receives when he dresses like a woman is strikingly different than when a woman dresses like a man.

“This pattern — women can dress like men, but men don’t dress like women — suggests that there is, in fact, something demeaning, ridiculous, or subordinating about presenting oneself to the male gaze.  Most men feel stupid, gross, or vulnerable when they do it.  This isn’t just about conformity to different gendered expectations.  If it were just about difference women would feel equally weird dressing in men’s clothes.  Instead, when women adopt masculine ways of dressing and moving, they often feel empowered.

So, when men do femininity they feel ridiculous and when women do masculinity they feel awesome. This is what gender inequality looks like.” 

( http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/10/29/sexy-femininity-and-gender-inequality/ )

As we have been discussing in class, masculinity is enforced throughout our culture. Society has created an unrealistic standard of hyper-masculinity to which all men are held to and bound by. When a man fails to conform to this definition, he is viewed as being inferior or somehow less of a man.  And when he has the 'audacity' to not only fail to epitomize manliness but to also display some form of femininity, he is declared ‘abnormal’ or ‘unnatural’. As Simone DeBouvir argues, women are the ‘lesser sex’, the ‘second sex’, and the ‘absence of maleness’.  Thus, if a man dresses a woman, he is placing himself into the category of the lesser sex, and for that he is humiliated, belittled, and attacked. Due to the undesirable status of ‘women’ in our society, a man who decides to dress like a woman is stripped of the social advantages granted to men.

                  Another component of this article that I found fascinating, though somewhat flawed, is the author’s declaration that women who “adopt masculine ways of dressing and moving…often feel empowered”. While I do agree that men are viewed more harshly, I think it’s a bit of a naïve argument to claim that women are not mistreated. Women who appear masculine are looked down on as well. They are often criticized for not being womanly and are often charged with being confused about their gender identity and that they somehow want to be men. Women are held to unrealistic standards of femininity, just as men are held to masculinity ideals.

This is not to say that I disagree entirely with the author. One could argue that society is less harsh on women who dress like men because they are to some degree reflecting male superiority. Society may not look down on them quite as much because they are reflecting that men are dominant. Yet when a man dresses like a woman, he is rejecting male dominance and embracing femininity. This is pretty much a social sin. On a side note, this reminds me of Freud’s theory of “penis envy”. It plays into the idea that women are envious of male genitalia and want to be men.

R.W. Connell's Masculinities- and its Similarities to Gayle Rubin's Gender Hierachy

     While the terms masculinity or femininity are used every day, we hardly question their implications or dynamism. R.W. Connell’s “Masculinities” provides an interesting insight into the concept of ‘masculinity’. Connell suggests that masculinity is not a concept that simply defines what men ought to be, but is rather complex and intertwined with racial, class, and social factors. Hence often, the relation of dominance and subordination exists among men themselves, which Connell describes as ‘hegemonic’. For example, men who are effeminate, or perhaps homosexual, are at the bottom of the men’s hierarchy because they are deemed to be ‘less masculine’.

     Such premise is easily observable in contemporary society. In schools, masculinity is exalted through sports in which those who play sports, (perhaps football), are considered as ‘masculine whereas those who do not are ostracized or mocked as a “nerd, geek or wimp”. Yet, masculinity can take different forms according to the institutional setting. In business, men at the top management claim authority and thus are more masculine than their subordinates.

     What made Connell’s analysis interesting to me was that it is similar to Gayle Rubin’s idea of “Gender Hierarchy”. As Rubin mentions in “Thinking Sex”, the heterosexual couples are at the top of the hierarchy where they benefit from the “respect, social mobility, institutional support and material benefits”. Similarly, Connell argues that men who meet the normative standards of masculinity, in which being heterosexual is a requirement, are superior to those who do not. Thus intriguingly enough, Rubin and Connell seem to share the idea that there exists a hierarchal relationship not only between the opposite but also same sexes.

Masculinity and Femininity: One cannot exist without the other.

After reading Chapter 2 of Connell's Masculinities, I agreed with the assessment made that the differences in the sexes are due to biology. Connell also describes it well by stating, "The account of natural masculinity that has been built up in sociobiology is almost entirely fictional. It presupposes broad differences in the character traits and behaviors of women and men." This statement got me thinking about my own so called masculinity. I am an aggressive person by nature, but now I am wondering if I was socially constructed by those around me to somehow subliminally believe that I should act more aggressive. I don't understand if the increased amount of testosterone in grown men cause them to be increasingly aggressive. If this was true then gay men would exhibit lower levels of testosterone since many people believe gay men are less masculine. However, I still do not understand why society believes men are biologically more aggressive than women. My mother is a very aggressive driver. She cuts people off, flashes her high beams, and speeds. However, when she is not driving she is a very sweet, FEMININE, person. Thus I do not understand the biological argument that explains masculinity.

I also do not understand why masculinity cannot exist without femininity. In history society has always attempted to separate the sexes. There has been the working sphere for the men, and the home sphere for the women. Men were out working, while the women were cooking and cleaning at home. The words feminine and masculine define characteristics that describe women and men. Thus the words themselves cannot exist without the other. Masculinity is the opposite of femininity and femininity is the opposite of masculinity. I find it amazing how society has attempted to separate people based on their race, class, and sex. Even though it seems everyone is in the society as equal beings there are still remnants of discrimination and sexism, which bring society down.

Scared Sexless

Reflecting upon the some of the Rubin concepts and thinking about what Professor Halberstram discussed in lecture I wanted to use this blog to consider the fear and taboo surrounding sex.
What about it makes people so scared?
We go to extremely contradictory measures to sell everything using sex but actively sweep it under the rug in the rest of our lives. It's become the elephant in the room that never leaves. Yet I must contextualize this as a characteristic of the West and America particularly is more squeamish than it's European counterparts. Why?

I am also reading the novel 1984 now and its representation of sex and how it's controlled illustrates Professors point that examining how sex functions within a society says a lot about the quality of life. In the book's totalitarian dystopian future, the citizens have been conditioned to find no pleasure in sex and only commit the act as "duty" to the country so that they can reproduce more workers. The main character Winston describes any form of intimacy with his wife as completely devoid of any form of pleasure. There are also youth groups that promote female chastity and celibacy for life. It's just interesting to think about the lengths taken to control female sexuality in different cultures and eras and then to imagine it to the extreme. Its also intriguing yet scary to think that something as natural as sexual desires being avoided at all costs. It all corresponds to what I see as one of the main underlying theses of the class: what you thought was inevitable and fixed is truly arbitrary and deeply malleable.

From a movie, "I Love You, Man"

I recently watched the movie, “I Love You, Man” for short assignment from my writing course. This movie features two comparable male characters who possess totally different types of masculinity. In fact, it almost seems like the movie does not view Peter, the main character who hangs out better with women, as a man who supposedly needs to have masculinity. Peter does not feel uncomfortable with the fact that he does not really have “guy friends” until he hears what his fiancé’s friends talk about how men without guy friends can really be clingy and not cool. He decides to hang out with guy friends, but it is very challenging for him as he neither does like drinking or playing games nor does like talking about sex life or women. He sort of lacks “mainstream” masculinity which is normatively perceived in a society when people immediately think about what it is defined to be masculine. In contrast, he meets a guy called Sidney who is cool to hang out with, and he is the one who possesses “positive” masculinity from the audience’s point of view.

This movie illustrates different types of masculinity. The main character seems to have no masculine characteristic from the majority of people’s view, but he just loves spending his time with family in a little more romantic or moody way. His fiancé loves him for that, and I think he is masculine in that way; he is a romantic and emotional man to his fiancé. In fact, his female colleagues say that he will be the perfect husband. The reason he encounters conflict is because majority of people have one image or thought about what it is to be masculine. However, it is not very pleasant to see (from a woman’s point of view) married men talking about how sexy other women are or playing poker with friends overnight, yet this is what is described to be masculine or required to have guy friends in the movie. Sydney, on the other hand, pulls other masculine side from Peter, sharing other hobbies (obsessed with band music) or encouraging him for fencing very well. This implies that the definition of masculinity is not just one what is mostly perceived by others but can vary among people, group, and community.

The Oscars

It’s Oscars weekend yay. You might judge me but Oscars are my favorite award show even though I know they are not legitimate and all this stuff happens behind the scene. I am rooting for Hugo, A Separation, Moneyball and I want Harry Potter to finally win something. As you all know I like to start my blog posts with a link to a video so here is the link for todays blog post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GxSDZc8etg

What you just watch is the official trailer for the movie Hurt Locker that won an Oscar for best picture in 2009. I will explain why this movie plays a huge part in my blog post in a minute.

So what movie do you want to win this years Oscars?  Hugo, a story of a little boy? Midnight in Paris, story of Owen Wilson? Money ball, story of Brad Pitt? The Tree of Life, story about Brad Pitt’s son? Or War Horse? Oh wait all these movies are centered around a male’s story.

All good movies seem to be about men because we live in a male centered society and we place our attention to men and men’s stories.

I decided to look at all the movies that have won Oscars for the past 83 years and see who’s story the movies were telling. Starting with A King’s Speech that won last year. Yes, surprise, this movie is about a men. The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, Lord of the Rings, A Beautiful Mind, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic,  English Patient, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Schindler’s List, American Beauty, Dance With the Wolves, Last Emperor, Gandhi, The Deer Hunter, Rockey, Godfather part I and part II, Sting, Midnight Cowboy and Men for All Season are all movies that have won Oscars for the past few years and all central around a man and his story. There are a few exceptions like Chicago or Sound of Music that are women’s stories or movies like Million Dollar Baby and Driving Miss Daisy that central around a man and a woman’s story but for most part they are men’s story.

Like my personal favorite movie of all time Gladiator is about a man fighting other men. One more favorite movie of mine Silence of the Lambs is even a men’s story because even though Jody Foster is the main character you never describe the movie as an FBI agent’s story about finding a criminal. No. you describe it as Hannibal Lector’s story about eating other humans. And lets not forget Lawrence of Arabia that is so male dominated that it does not have a single speaking  female role.

In conclusion from the last 50 movies that have won Oscars only 4 are centered around a women’s story and whenever we watch a “chick flick” they are sexist anyway focusing  on women being obsessed with finding Mr. right or shopping and they are completely stereotyped.

And before I forget Hurt Locker was the only movie that a female director won an Oscar for. Infact for the past 83 years only four female directors have been nominated for this award. And I think you would all like to know only 7% directors in Hollywood are women. So the next you go to the movie theaters to watch a movie you might look at it differently and ask yourself “Who’s story is being told?”

Article about boys and girls

This week, I found a article titled “Boys do better than girls when taught under traditional reading methods” written on March 21^st, 2007. This is the link: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389856-boys-do-better-than-girls-when-taught-under-traditional-reading-methods.do

As the title tells all, this article basically says that boys perform better than girls when they are taught under traditional reading methods. The ‘traditional reading methods’ was basically reading in class. Hence, the article says that the results of an experiment demonstrated that boys were likely to have a better understanding of the readings than the girls.

I found this article a little bit ridiculous because now the male and female genders are being divided critically. It seems like the media/studies are trying to form a game of ‘boys against girls’. I don’t get why people have to do these studies that show which gender is better than the other. Especially when it comes to studying. I thought that this experiment was very off and inaccurate because I personally believe that the reading skills may vary by individuals and not gender. The reading skills may highly vary on the individual’s background, ability to focus, etc, and I don’t think it’s fair to have a limited amount of boys and girls take that test. The experiment therefore, to me, does not seem very trustworthy. As I mentioned before in my other blog post, I think that these sorts of articles make the distinction between male and female. Therefore, as these distinctions grow in our society, gender stereotypes become more powerful and dominant. Hence, it would be encouraging to society when experiments that differentiate male and female be less supported. 

Masculinity in terms of height

http://news.yahoo.com/york-man-grows-six-inches-surgery-184123767--abc-news.html

     The definitions of masculinity vary upon region and time, and therefore, there isn't just one masculinity, but many masculinities. As for in the United States, a "masculine" individual is especially defined by height, in which the taller the man, the more "manly" he is. Although there are plenty of "masculine" man in the country who aren't extraordinarily tall, yet who still obtain the same confidence, respect, and power as any other tall man, societal norms stress the importance of height as a measure of "manliness."ABC News just recently posted an article on their website about a new growing trend- men who undergo surgery to gain height.
    One man, Apotheosis, had the surgery to grow from 4'11" to 5'2", because "people didn't take [him] seriously." Another, unidentified man from New York had the surgery because he believed, "The world looked at me in a certain way...I wanted the way I felt about myself and the way the world felt about me to be similar." From an average 5'6"height (as seen in China, Chile, India, South Africa, and Tailand) to a notably taller 6'2", this New Yorker says his "dating life has improved exponentially." Fairly recently, the United States has witnessed a growing trend in men spending more and more time and money to enhance their personal appearance, similar to women. In this sense, men are becoming more metrosexual, a term used to describe attributes stereotypically described to homosexual, "feminine" men. Conversely, however, men are having these surgeries to further define the line between the genders; men are expected to be taller than women. Whether this New Yorker actually saw an improvement in his dating life because of his height or because the surgery had given him more confidence to pursue more women may stay unknown, but regardless, this surgery isn't something that someone just decides to do. It is a radical, costly, painful decision that one must be extraordinarily unhappy with his percieved sense of self in order to do something so drastic. I don't think it's right.

social norms

Someone's gender was once something that one could judge very easily. An easy assumption that someone could make in a split second. With this judgment came a slew of assumptions about one's personality, likes and dislikes, mannerisms, ideas, morals, etc. It was the easiest assessment to make, and for the information that you would "receive" from this initial split-second judgment, it seemed like a pretty good deal. As we learn more and more about our bodies and minds, gender norms and roles are broken down. The work of millions of people have made it more acceptable for people to explore their gender and sexual identities, and it is no longer as easy to make these snap judgments, and the assumptions acquired from making these judgments are increasingly incorrect, so that making these snap judgments are no longer as effective as they seem to have been in the past.

By making gender norms and identities more fluid, we are breaking down a social structure that we have relied on for a long enough time for our judgments to be innate. I wonder though, whether breaking down this fundamental social organization will encourage us to latch onto another social norm and intensify it. Under the premise that we as a society need social organization and structure, it may be possible that with the breaking down of one social norm, we may augment another. I think it would be hard to argue that society and we as individuals need some structure in our lives. During times of chaos, we have always turned to something stable (e.g. religion, family, etc) to cope with the disorder. It is more interesting to discuss how we as a society will cope with the fluidity of gender norms, and whether other norms will be created or augmented because fundamental gender norms have been disturbed.